The first lady has been praised for ‘singlehandedly’ brokering a ceasefire in a Ukrainian city – though she might have had some help Haters be damned: Donald Trump just keeps on winning. He won the inaugural Fifa peace prize last year and was presented with the completely real, totally not made-up “Man of the Century” award at a recent rally . The president has also spent the greater part of a decade claiming he was once crowned Michigan’s Man of the Year: a fantastic achievement considering there is no such award and Trump has never lived in Michigan. But despite his many trophies , there is one honour that has proved elusive: the Nobel peace prize. Trump holds a bit of a grudge about that, recently terming Norway a “shithouse country” for passing him over for the award. In response, the country’s tourism board highlighted some of its nicest public lavatories with the tagline: “Norway makes shit houses great again!” Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist Continue reading...
Results for “real madrid”
October is when the real holiday shopping starts, and this month we tried new barrel jeans, Jellycat plushies, hairstyling appliances, kitchen accessories and more.
Anthropic, the creator of Claude, filed to go public on the US stock market on 26 October. The company's filing statement contains a 92-page risk factor document in which it acknowledges the dangers that AI poses to society and human beings, and factors that could negatively affect Anthropic's business. Johana Bhuiyan, senior tech reporter for the Guardian, breaks down the document and explains why Anthropic's IPO could be a real test to the AI boom Anthropic files for potentially record-breaking stock market valuation in key test for AI industry Continue reading...
Follow NBC News Chief Data Analyst Steve Kornacki on camera and behind-the-scenes as he breaks down real-time vote tallies for the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump and Senator Dan Sullivan have put my home state on the chopping block. But Peltola understands Alaskans Donald Trump’s trip to Alaska earlier this month was a real doozy. Should I be surprised? The previous time he visited my home state, in August 2025, he ordered the US military to roll out a red carpet for Russia’s Vladimir Putin . The two billionaire oligarchs chummed it up and posed for cameras, then talked about the war in Ukraine and achieved no formal ceasefire and no peace agreement. Continue reading...
The people at the frontlines of the ongoing barrage of AI-enabled cyberattacks are being pummeled with attacks, vulnerabilities and false alarms. Why it matters: Humans are still at the frontlines of a fight enabled largely by AI — and they're struggling to wade through mountains of threat data to determine who's been hit and which attacks pose a real danger to companies. What they're saying: "The last month has been the longest year of my life," Justin Timothy, threat intelligence consultant at GuidePoint Security, told Axios. Even before "Black October," Timothy was already swamped and dealing with hacker gangs that returned from a seasonal summer lull. These groups specialize in ransomware, essentially attacking the networks of an institution and holding it hostage. While AI is playing a role in many new cyberattacks, the ransomware scourge has already been shutting down pipeline systems, hospitals, education software and other essential services for years. It's only expected to get worse this year as powerful new AI systems are amplifying the capabilities of attackers faster than defenders can insulate vast corners of the unprotected internet. The big picture: The people companies call when they're hacked are being swamped, piling onto the persistent burnout that has plagued the industry. Troy Bettencourt, who leads Palo Alto Networks' global digital forensics and incident response practice, told Axios that demand for his team's services has climbed by double digits over the last six weeks. Unlike past surges tied to historically harmful attacks like SolarWinds , this year's workload has been relentless. "It's just a continuous grind that increases," Bettencourt said. The same heavy workload is happening across the industry, and even Palo Alto Networks' incident response subcontractors are at max capacity, he said. Investigations that could once be handled by a single consultant now require teams of five to 20 people, he said. The company is also pulling employe
Democrats' main Senate super PAC is privately telling top donors that Texas offers their best shot at flipping a deep-red Senate seat, followed by Ohio, where the race remains close. Senate Majority PAC also sees victories in Iowa and Alaska as within reach, though the outcomes could take longer to become clear. Why it matters: Democrats are increasingly confident about Election Day on Tuesday — and sharing their qualified optimism with their biggest donors. To retake the Senate, Democrats need to win two of those four states — all of which Trump won by double digits in 2024 — flip North Carolina and Maine, and avoid an upset in Michigan. JB Poersch, president of Senate Majority PAC, projected confidence that Democrats will wrest control of the Senate from Republicans during a private donor briefing this week as he walked through the races state by state. He also reminded donors that Kansas, where even Republicans are deeply worried, is a state Trump won by roughly 16 points in 2024. But it's in play . What they're saying: "This matches what we've been saying publicly and privately for weeks. There are signs of optimism in Texas, but it remains a toss-up, as do Iowa, Ohio and Alaska," said Lauren French, a spokesperson for SMP. "There is positive movement for Democrats, but it is critical to remember that every seat on the battleground map voted for Donald Trump by double digits," she said. "These are deep red states and we're focused on bringing them over the finish line so the Senate can work to provide real relief to families who are being crushed by the cost-of-living crisis." The big picture: Texas hasn't elected a Democratic senator since Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. Democrats thought they'd end the drought in 2018 and let themselves fall for then-Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who lost to Sen. Ted Cruz by 2.6 percentage points. Four years later, O'Rourke tried again to prove a Democrat could win statewide in Texas. He lost the governor's race by nearly 11 percentage points. T
The 2026 midterms already face a messy pileup of lawsuits and ballot battles, raising fears about election confidence before voters even finish casting ballots . Why it matters: Election challenges aren't unusual, but as the Trump administration continues to make false claims about widespread voter fraud, officials are juggling fights over voter lists, mail-ballot rules and election certification challenges. What they're saying: "The types of challenges that we are seeing pre-election, this close to election day, are very unusual, and mostly because they are coming from the federal government," Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign Legal Center told Axios. "These lawsuits are frivolous," Diaz said, adding they could "create doubt in the minds of the public about the legitimacy of the election process." The other side: The White House referred Axios to comments President Trump made to the media. The Department of Justice did not respond to Axios' request for comment. Here's some of the ways chaos and uncertainty have shaped the 2026 midterms: California In the Golden State, the Trump administration asked state election officials to set aside ballots from roughly 20,000 registered voters whom the DOJ suspects are noncitizens. A federal judge rejected that push Wednesday night, warning that the administration lacked sufficient evidence to justify potentially disenfranchising eligible voters. The judge noted that the DOJ had made similar claims in neighboring Nevada, where election officials determined that 185 voters the DOJ had flagged as noncitizens were actually U.S. citizens. Diaz told Axios that, from his perspective as a voting-rights advocate, the California battle is "not a real lawsuit. It's a political press release that they just happened to submit to the court." The other side: The White House directed questions about the ruling to remarks Trump made Thursday, in which he said "California is very corrupt," and the state's elections are "extremely corrupt." He did n
Some of the biggest vulnerabilities in election security are lying in plain sight. Why it matters: There's no credible evidence that voting-system vulnerabilities have been exploited to change election results. But researchers have found isolated flaws that threaten ballot secrecy, accurate vote recording and independent verification of results. The big picture: Voter-marked paper ballots and rigorous audits are the gold standard for trustworthy elections, election-security researchers and activists tell Axios. Researchers have challenged unfounded claims that elections were stolen through hacking while also warning against dismissing real vulnerabilities in voting systems. "A vulnerability is not an exploit," Philip Stark, a retired UC Berkeley statistics professor who developed an audit protocol for checking paper ballots, said at a recent conference. "You can leave a key under your doormat, and that doesn't mean someone takes the key and opens your door." Zoom in: Election security experts interviewed by Axios found these vulnerabilities in parts of the U.S.: 1. Paperless voting: Louisiana is the last remaining state to use paperless voting machines statewide on Election Day. Voters press buttons to select their candidates, and the machines record their votes electronically without producing a paper ballot. That leaves no independent record to check whether votes were counted correctly. Most other states retired the machines after researchers exposed their vulnerabilities to hacking and the inability to independently audit their results. Election security expert and computer scientist J. Alex Halderman, of the University of Michigan, called Louisiana "the dinosaur of American elections." Louisiana's secretary of state's office declined an interview request, but in a press release said the state is expected to award a new election equipment contract at the end of the year. 2. Ballot-marking devices (BMDs) let voters select candidates on a touchscreen before printi
Senate Republicans see Iowa moving their way and Ohio slipping, with pessimism growing over Alaska and Kansas. Why it matters: Even when they squint, top Republicans struggle to see a majority beyond 51 seats, according to half a dozen senior operatives. ✈️ A combination of paid media and Air Force One visits has bolstered GOP confidence that they'll hold South Carolina and Mississippi . But across the map, the outlook looks bleak, with only a few bright spots. Zoom out: Republicans are fighting a two-front war: unprecedented Democratic enthusiasm and undeniable Republican apathy. 🏈 President Trump's strategy is to whip up the MAGA faithful with rallies in the reddest parts of red states. 😱 "The Red Scream is my biggest concern , not the blue wave," said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican consultant who has worked to help Trump get elected. ‼️ "Republicans and independents are going to be screaming for attention, and many of them, including those who voted for Trump, may show their frustration by not showing up." Zoom in: Texas is starting to look like a late-season football showdown against an SEC rival: The GOP is still in the game, but defeat seems like a real possibility. 🌾 In Kansas, Sen. Roger Marshall (R) has stopped the bleeding, but it's unclear whether there's enough time left to save his seat. 🛥️ Republicans are quietly bullish on Michigan, but they recognize that the demographics have to break heavily in their favor, especially among Black voters. By the numbers: The math hasn't changed, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sees multiple paths to 51 seats. No one disputes that North Carolina is going to have a Democratic senator. It seems like another lifetime ago that Republicans were talking seriously about flipping Georgia. If just two of the next tier of Ohio, Kansas and Alaska flip, the Senate would be split 50-50 before factoring in other competitive races, like Michigan, Iowa and Maine. 🦞 In Maine, Republicans and Democrats a
Anthropic filed yesterday for what could be the biggest IPO ever, capping a massive day of AI dealmaking that nearly equals 1% of U.S. GDP. Why it matters: Few industries have ever become so central to the American economy so quickly — and we're watching Wall Street finance the buildout in real time. Driving the news: Anthropic's long-awaited IPO may seek to raise a record $100 billion. Also yesterday, SpaceX secured $40 billion in debt financing to lease GPUs — the chips that power modern AI — and Meta said it would seek up to $95 billion in financing for its AI buildout. Together, that's roughly $235 billion in a single day — more than the entire U.S. airline industry adds to the economy in a year. The big picture: AI's appetite for capital has outgrown what any one single part of the financial system can supply. Anthropic alone has committed roughly $750 billion to computing power in the coming years — about seven times what its record-setting IPO may raise. Even private investors are struggling to keep up: OpenAI's record $120 billion funding round took months to close. Zoom in: Most Americans will be financially exposed to these deals, even if they never buy a share. SpaceX and Meta are already major holdings in the top stock indices that fill pensions, 401(k)s and other retirement plans. Anthropic will soon join them. Between the lines: Anthropic's filing spells out how big the stakes are, devoting more than a quarter of the document to risks. The company warns that AI could pose "catastrophic or existential risks to humanity" and that models may try to manipulate the people using them. Zoom out: Each of these three deals is a bet that AI use keeps compounding fast enough to justify the industry's trillions in spending. The flip side, however, is that declining use could crack the foundation of America's entire economy. The bottom line: Everyone is on the AI train, whether we want to be or not.
Harvard economist Jason Furman told Axios that if he were to return to his old job as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers today, he would rely on AI tools over staff economists for much of the council's day-to-day analytical work. The big picture: Unsurprisingly, this made some waves in the online discourse, particularly the loose-knit community formerly known as Econ Twitter. Many veterans of the economic policy trenches see real risks in future policymakers becoming overly reliant on AI — or at a minimum think that Furman is underestimating the importance of human economists in advising the nation's leaders. What they're saying: "CEA work, at least in my experience, is highly bespoke as you're explaining the data flow (and much else) to very busy people who don't want only market-shop analysis," Jared Bernstein, the CEA chair under President Biden, wrote on Substack . "Yes, they want and need that — what will the markets make of this CPI, jobs, GDP, etc. report — but more so they want to know how this report fits into our narrative, our agenda, the president's trip today to Iowa." He adds that within a White House, "the human skill of reading-the-room is paramount. I'm far from an AI expert, but my sense is it sucks at that and probably always will, a conclusion that derives in no small part from listening to its creators!" Zoom in: Claudia Sahm, a former Federal Reserve economist, raised an issue that we've often heard from senior people in fields like consulting and investment banking: If you get rid of junior positions, where will future senior leaders come from? Furman's staff "went on to found the Yale Budget Lab, run Treasury economic policy and a Fed institute, serve in later [administrations], and publish research on trade, environment, and taxes. That's what '20 staff' become," she wrote on X . "No model does that." Bloomberg chief U.S. economist Anna Wong argues that the "ability to now not depend on anyone, as a senior person, is ve
Data: Company filings; Chart: Erin Davis/Axios Anthropic's IPO filing includes an extensive list of extreme warnings — including the chance its own technology could put humanity at risk. Why it matters: These are the wildest IPO risk factors in history, a jarring collision of Wall Street legalese and what some see as Silicon Valley sci-fi, including catastrophic threats to humanity, blackmailing AI models, and $750 billion in computing commitments. Driving the news: Anthropic's prospectus includes over 90 pages of risk factors, which make up about a third of the paperwork overall. Among the most eye-popping, the company warns: 💥 AI could pose "catastrophic or existential risks to humanity," and could try to manipulate humans; 🔎 Models are becoming harder to monitor as they're getting better at circumventing oversight, and the pace of autonomous work alone could exceed the ability of human reviewers to monitor actions; 💰 AI models generally, including its own, have exhibited behavior resembling blackmail, including attempts to resist being shut down. Zoom in: Anthropic also disclosed that four of its models gained unauthorized access to real third-party systems during cybersecurity evaluations. In one incident, a model used a discovered password to gain administrator access, collected additional credentials, changed system settings and accessed an individual's personal information. Anthropic said it found no evidence that the models pursued goals beyond their assigned tasks or attempted to evade oversight. The big picture: Every company has to lay out risks for their investors to consider when they go public. But Anthropic is the first in modern history to go to such existential extremes. Friction point: The company also acknowledged that its success depends in large part on its ability to develop the best frontier intelligence. It admits that could butt up against safety practices, adding that model capabilities may then "advance more rapidly than our ability to
Eye-opening revelations this past week have solidified my personal fears about the year ahead: As a nation and as a globe, we're facing a record number of wild risks that are way outside our control. My growing hunch about this scenario has been bolstered by daily conversations with CEOs, government insiders and top investors. Why it matters: It feels likely — not certain — that between now and 2028, we'll face society-level disruptions, possibly including cyberattacks and fast-twitch economic shocks. What we're facing: We've navigated single-shot crises like the financial meltdown of 2008 and the pandemic of 2020. This next year will be different. The real risk is a chain reaction: One shock sets off others — faster than we can process, and caused by AI dynamics we don't fully understand. Call it chain-reaction chaos . And that's against the backdrop of this age of post-processable velocity : The speed of change exceeds the ability of any individual, company, market or government to fully absorb, understand and respond. The reason this scenario looks so likely is that so many obvious risks, all with relatively high probabilities, keep piling up. Any one of them will rock already highly volatile markets and politics: Cyber chaos. This past week was a big flashing siren. AI-detected flaws in PHP, the code behind millions of websites, knocked government sites offline worldwide and prompted the National Security Agency to warn organizations to patch immediately or go dark. Major banks found unauthorized AI agents inside customer accounts, some trying to take actions customers never asked for. And Anthropic's deputy chief information security officer, Jason Clinton , warned that as bad as the past several days had been, cyber threats will get "a lot worse before they get better." Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff quickly agreed , writing on X: "Code red." As Madison Mills reported for Axios , the AI companies and the banks are scrambling for "day after" planning, fully antici
Progressive House members and candidates are taking a stark turn away from what they describe as "performative" efforts to impeach President Trump . Why it matters: This is a drastic shift in tone from Trump's first term, when progressives were some of the loudest voices in favor of impeachment. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) famously said of Trump in 2019, " We're gonna impeach the motherfucker ," a line Republicans have routinely dredged up to dismiss impeachment efforts against the president as premeditated. On Thursday, she told Axios in a statement: "No matter what happens in November, we'll still have a Trump administration for the next two years to hold accountable." Driving the news: Likely incoming Democratic House members Darializa Avila Chevalier of New York and Melat Kiros of Colorado struck a similar tone in a recent podcast interview when asked about impeaching Trump. "I support accountability, but ... that is something that Trump himself seems to want," Avila Chevalier said. "My question is: Is that actually going to be meaningful accountability for the Trump administration?" Said Kiros: "The accountability has to actually lead to some material changes." What we're hearing: Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who has advocated a day-one impeachment, told Axios in an interview, "Impeachment can't just be a political messaging strategy." "I think what Melat and Darializa are getting to is that people want to see justice and real accountability. ... We can't just tell people things that some would feel like is fluff," Ramirez said. "I think the American people are tired of theater," said Adam Hamawy, another likely Democratic House member from New Jersey. He told Axios any impeachment proceedings need to be "a real process with substance, rather than just getting up there and just making a show of it." Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-N.J.) said Democrats "should investigate the heads of these departments and bad actors across the board," but she is "less inclined to the p