Zero Rss

Study Finds Self-Driving Cars Crash More Often, But Cause Far Fewer Injuries

Self-driving cars may be involved in more crashes than human drivers on a per-mile basis, but the evidence suggests those accidents are generally far less likely to result in serious injuries or fatalities, according to Aulsbrook Car & Truck Lawyers.

A review of autonomous vehicle safety data found self-driving vehicles are involved in about 9.1 crashes per million miles traveled, compared with roughly 4.1 for human-driven vehicles. However, the report found autonomous vehicle crashes are typically much less severe, with significantly fewer injuries and no recorded fatalities in several major datasets.

The contrast is especially clear in Austin, Texas, where about 12,000 traffic crashes occurred in 2025. Just 85 involved autonomous vehicles, resulting in eight injuries and no deaths. By comparison, crashes involving human drivers caused roughly 8,000 injuries and 99 fatalities.

Several studies cited in the report reached similar conclusions. One analysis covering more than 7 million autonomous miles found self-driving systems reduced injury-related crashes by 85% compared with human drivers. Waymo separately reported major reductions in injury crashes, airbag deployments, and collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists when compared with human-operated vehicles traveling the same roads.

The study says that autonomous vehicles are rarely blamed for the crashes they are involved in. According to NHTSA data, automated driving systems were considered at fault in only about 4% of reported incidents, with fewer than 8% of those cases attributed to software or hardware failures. Most crashes instead involved human-driven vehicles striking robotaxis.

Still, the technology is far from perfect. Tesla's driver-assistance systems have been linked to thousands of reported crashes and dozens of fatalities, while Waymo has faced regulatory scrutiny over incidents involving school buses, flooding, and other edge-case scenarios. The report also notes concerns about cybersecurity, battery fires, and the gap in safety performance between fully autonomous vehicles and partially automated driver-assistance systems.

Texas has become one of the nation's largest testing grounds for autonomous vehicles, ranking among the states with the highest number of reported AV crashes because of its rapid robotaxi expansion and permissive regulatory environment. As autonomous fleets continue to grow, regulators will face increasing pressure to refine liability rules, improve emergency response procedures, and ensure the technology can safely coexist with human drivers.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/09/2026 - 04:15

Trump To Delist Syria From Terror Designation, Boasts Of Putting 'Fantastic' Sharaa In Power

Via Middle East Eye

US President Donald Trump lavished rare praise on Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on Wednesday, calling him "fantastic" and "highly respected", as the two leaders met on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey. 

The meeting itself is a win for Sharaa, who was first introduced to Trump a little over a year ago in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, before finding himself in the Oval Office exchanging gifts with the US president by November. No Syrian leader - and certainly not one with Sharaa's past as a US-designated terrorist - had been in the White House in decades. 

via Reuters

Wednesday's opportunity arose because the Turks have been at the helm of Sharaa's rise to power since December 2024, as they are keen on a neighboring Syria that falls within their sphere of influence. 

Trump's swift embrace of Sharaa has been one of the standout foreign policy moves of the past year. "He's done a really fantastic job as president. He's unified the country in a very short period of time. I'd say like a year and a half, about a year and a half, and right from the beginning it was a real mess, very disjointed place, and he's brought it together," Trump told reporters as he sat next to Sharaa.

"He's a strong person. He's a great leader. He's respected by everybody, including me, and we're proud to have him," he added.

The sentiments are in stark contrast to how Trump has spoken about Washington's traditional allies, most of whom form the very defensive alliance that this summit is about. He has repeatedly berated the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, and Spain as being weak on defence and immigration, attacked Denmark for asserting its sovereignty over Greenland, and is currently in an open feud with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. 

Since March, Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against those countries not joining his war on Iran.

Removing terror designation

Fourteen months ago, Sharaa, who previously had a $10m bounty on his head in the US, saw Trump announce the historic lifting of economic sanctions on Syria. The move was largely orchestrated by the Saudis, with much of the funding to rebuild Syria in a new image coming from Gulf nations. 

What remains now is to get Syria off the US State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) list and allow for investment in the country, which is the key agenda item for Sharaa.

"Any problems with that?" Trump said, as he turned to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. "I think we should. Yeah," the president added. "We're proud of the job he's doing. Syria has become very stable."

Trump Again Says Syria Could Help Israel Fight Hezbollah In Lebanon

This time he repeats the line in front of the new Syrian regime’s leader Ahmed al-Shara’a, who Trump brags about putting in power. pic.twitter.com/eckoW1KorA

— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) July 8, 2026

Trump was asked by a reporter about his highly contentious suggestion last month of having Syria take on the role of disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon. "They could help. We'll find out. I think we're making a lot of progress," he said.

Sharaa had previously indicated this was not a feasible option, but his foreign minister, Asaad al-Shaibani, visited Lebanon last week and met with parliament speaker Nabih Berri, the leader of the Amal Movement and Hezbollah's closest political ally.

A senior Lebanese official who met Shaibani during the visit told Middle East Eye that the trip was coordinated with the Lebanese side to send a clear message about Syria's intentions.

Not if you were paying attention. pic.twitter.com/3z3q62Rr7s

— mark F (@mark_F3141) July 8, 2026

"The visit was very much needed to reassure Lebanon and ease concerns about the possibility of a military intervention pushed by the United States," the official said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/09/2026 - 03:30

Tourist Nightmare: Toxic "Bone-Cutting" Fish Invades Mediterranean Beaches

Tourists heading to the Mediterranean are being urged to watch out for an invasive species of toxic pufferfish that has spread across popular beach destinations in Greece and other coastal countries, according to the Daily Mail.

The silver-cheeked toadfish, originally native to the Indian Ocean, is believed to have entered the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal as rising sea temperatures expanded its range. Officials say the fish is now common in parts of Greece, including Rhodes, and has spread as far as Italy and Spain.

The species poses multiple hazards. It carries the potent neurotoxin tetrodotoxin, making its flesh and organs potentially fatal if consumed, and its powerful, beak-like teeth are capable of inflicting deep wounds. Greek authorities recently warned beachgoers to seek immediate medical attention after any bite, following reports of several encounters, including an elderly woman near Athens who required stitches after being attacked.

The Daily Mail writes that local fishermen say the fish have also become a costly nuisance, tearing through fishing nets and destroying catches. One fisherman described the species as devastating to marine life, warning that a bite could easily sever a finger.

In response, Greece has begun installing floating protective barriers at several beaches. About 2.5 kilometers of netting has already been deployed off the island of Evia, with another seven kilometers planned. The barriers were originally introduced to block jellyfish but are now also being used to keep the invasive fish away from swimmers.

Authorities are also trying to reduce the growing population through financial incentives. Cyprus launched a bounty program in 2024 that has removed more than 100 tons of the fish, while Greece recently introduced payments of about €5.33 ($6.25) per kilogram turned in by fishermen. Some regions are also receiving fuel subsidies to support the EU-backed removal effort.

Not everyone agrees with the eradication campaign, however. Some conservation advocates argue the fish should be managed rather than destroyed, while marine biologists have cautioned that reports of attacks may be overstated, saying the species generally bites only when threatened or handled.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/09/2026 - 02:45

EU Mandates Dystopian In-Car Cameras To Monitor Every Driver's Face

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

The European Union has made it official. Every brand-new passenger car, van, truck, and bus sold or first registered across the bloc must now carry interior-facing cameras that track the driver's gaze, head movements, and attention levels.

The system, called Advanced Driver Distraction Warning or ADDW, forms part of the final phase of the updated 'General Safety Regulation' for all vehicles.

The compulsory hardware activates at low speeds and tightens requirements as velocity increases, issuing escalating visual, acoustic, or haptic warnings when the driver looks away for too long.

BREAKING:

The EU today introduced the new requirement for all new cars registered in Europe to have installed cameras filming the driver's face.

The system is called Advanced Driver Distraction Warning, ADDW, and is part of the EU's General Safety Regulation.

The camera tracks... pic.twitter.com/oqnWXuz0ir

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 7, 2026

Proponents frame it as life-saving technology that keeps eyes on the road. Skeptics see installed cameras and sensors as the foundation for far broader monitoring once the infrastructure exists in every vehicle on the continent.

The European Commission promoted the rollout this week.

?Advanced emergency brake detecting pedestrians and cyclists
?Advanced driver distraction warning system
?Better forward vision
?New tests for worn tyres
?Expanded safety glass area designed to protect pedestrians during accidents pic.twitter.com/fv4YUekxG6

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) July 5, 2026

A detailed thread from an observer on the ground captured the full scope and the quiet expansion of capabilities already underway.

It is getting worse by the day.
As of 7 July 2026, the final phase of the EU's updated General Safety Regulation (GSR 2) has taken effect. The transitional rollout period has ended, meaning Advanced Driver Distraction Warning (ADDW) systems are now mandatory in every brand-new... pic.twitter.com/kG1Fvjbbgg

— Keira Connolly (@keira_con) July 7, 2026

ADDW relies on camera-based monitoring of eye position, head orientation, and gaze direction. It divides the driver's field of view into defined zones and flags prolonged focus on non-forward areas.

At speeds of 50 km/h or above, a continuous gaze into the "distraction" zone for more than 3.5 seconds triggers a warning. At 20 km/h or higher, the threshold stretches to 6 seconds before intervention begins. Warnings intensify until the driver returns attention to the road.

The regulation also mandates an Event Data Recorder - essentially a vehicle black box - that captures speed, braking, steering inputs, and other telemetry in the event of a collision.

Current rules state the distraction cameras must operate without biometric identification or facial recognition of occupants and must function as a closed-loop system that retains only data necessary for immediate operation. No video is supposed to leave the vehicle for authorities under the present framework.

Even industry voices celebrating the mandate acknowledge its wider significance. Martin Krantz, CEO and Founder of Smart Eye, a company specializing in driver-monitoring technology, called July 7 "a landmark day for road safety in Europe" and stated that "driver monitoring is now a required part of vehicle safety across Europe." He added that the regulation "will set a precedent for other parts of the world."

This European passenger-car mandate extends monitoring logic already advancing in commercial vehicles on both sides of the Atlantic.

Earlier this year, reports detailed Ford patents for in-cab systems that deploy AI to scan faces, read lips via interior cameras and machine-learning datasets, detect emotional states, and query police databases in real time before permitting the truck to shift out of park.

The technology can block movement if sensors interpret panic, enlarged eyes, or other flagged conditions as rendering the driver unfit - even in an emergency scenario where quick action might otherwise be required.

Lip-reading capabilities extend to noisy environments using additional inaudible sound-wave analysis, while existing Ford Pro Telematics already streams live cabin video to fleet managers.

These features sit alongside broader federal pushes for impaired-driving prevention technology and state-level efforts to ration vehicle miles traveled.

Federal infrastructure rules have also embedded timelines for impaired-driving prevention technology that can include kill-switch capabilities.

The pattern connects directly to proposals that would limit how far citizens can drive their own cars under climate or congestion pretexts.

In both the truck patents and the EU rules now live, the justification remains identical: safety. The hardware - cameras, sensors, data recorders - creates the permanent capacity for escalation.

Software updates, regulatory expansions, or integration with digital identity systems could transform today's "warning only" cameras into tomorrow's behavior scorers, usage trackers, or remote intervention tools.

Regulators insist the systems avoid biometric processing and external data transmission. Manufacturers must design for minimal false positives across lighting and weather conditions, and drivers may retain some ability to deactivate warnings or the full system depending on the vehicle maker's implementation.

Yet real-world feedback from early adopters already in vehicles with similar driver-monitoring features describes repeated false alerts, difficulty disabling the systems permanently, and the unsettling sensation of constant observation inside what was once private space.

Critics note that once cameras and processors sit inside millions of vehicles, the temptation to expand their role grows. Detecting phone use, enforcing seat-belt compliance, flagging speeding, or feeding data into insurance algorithms requires only software changes or new regulatory layers.

The Event Data Recorder already creates a forensic record of driving behavior. Combined with facial and gaze tracking, the foundation for individualized mobility scoring sits ready.

Each measure arrives wrapped in safety or environmental language. Each installs or enables hardware and data pathways that reduce the automobile from personal property to a conditionally licensed device subject to external oversight.

The through-line is unmistakable. Governments and aligned corporations are systematically converting the act of driving into a monitored, recorded, and potentially rationed activity.

Older vehicles without these systems become the last refuges of untracked mobility - precisely why enthusiasts already recommend acquiring pre-mandate models while they remain available and repairable.

Automobiles once represented escape, independence, and the open road. The new normal replaces that with cabin cameras that never blink, black boxes that never forget, and regulatory frameworks that can tighten without new legislation simply by updating software or "safety" standards.

The EU's ADDW mandate, the Ford truck patents, and the Massachusetts driving-limit proposals all serve the same underlying project: conditioning personal movement on algorithmic approval and constant data surrender.

The cameras are watching now. The question is whether free people will continue to look away.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/09/2026 - 02:00

How The Global Economy Became The World's Most Dangerous Battlefield

Authored by Madge Waggy,

The twenty-first century has introduced a form of confrontation that rarely appears on television screens, is seldom announced through diplomatic declarations, and almost never begins with the spectacle traditionally associated with war. Its progression is quieter, considerably more sophisticated, and arguably more consequential than many conventional conflicts because its primary objective is not the occupation of territory but the gradual acquisition of economic leverage capable of influencing political decisions, technological innovation, industrial production, and ultimately the everyday lives of billions of people. What follows is neither a dystopian prediction nor an exercise in geopolitical pessimism. It is an examination of structural transformations that are already unfolding across global markets and whose cumulative implications deserve substantially greater attention than they currently receive.

THE DAY THE WORLD FAILED TO NOTICE

Nobody remembers the exact day it began because, unlike conventional wars, there was no universally recognized starting point. No emergency broadcasts interrupted television programming, no fighter aircraft appeared over national capitals, and no governments announced the commencement of hostilities before the international community. Financial markets opened precisely on schedule, cargo vessels continued crossing strategic maritime corridors, supermarkets replenished their shelves overnight, and millions of people began another ordinary working day convinced that the machinery of globalization remained fundamentally unchanged. The remarkable normality of daily life concealed a far less reassuring reality: the international economy had quietly entered a period in which commercial interdependence was no longer regarded as an unquestionable guarantee of stability but increasingly as a potential source of strategic vulnerability.

This transformation did not emerge from a single geopolitical crisis nor from one spectacular economic collapse. Rather, it materialized through hundreds of seemingly isolated decisions that, when observed individually, appeared rational and almost insignificant. Governments introduced export controls on advanced semiconductor technologies. Central banks intensified discussions concerning monetary resilience. Multinational corporations reconsidered production networks that had remained virtually untouched for decades. Strategic investments migrated toward politically aligned economies, while industrial policies once dismissed as protectionist returned to the centre of national economic planning with unprecedented financial support. None of these developments resembled the opening stages of a traditional conflict. Collectively, however, they represented something far more profound: the gradual replacement of globalization’s defining principle—maximum efficiency—with an entirely different doctrine centred upon resilience, strategic autonomy, and geopolitical reliability.

The unsettling characteristic of this emerging reality lies precisely in its invisibility. Modern economic confrontation rarely demands public attention because it advances through mechanisms that remain largely incomprehensible outside specialist circles. Semiconductor export restrictions seldom provoke the emotional response generated by military mobilization, despite their capacity to influence industrial competitiveness for decades. Currency volatility receives only temporary media attention even though prolonged depreciation may erode national purchasing power more effectively than many conventional sanctions. Likewise, the interruption of critical mineral supply chains rarely dominates international headlines despite the fact that contemporary defence industries, renewable energy infrastructure, artificial intelligence hardware, telecommunications systems, and advanced manufacturing increasingly depend upon resources extracted and processed within a remarkably limited number of geographical regions.

“The defining battles of this century may never be fought for territory alone. They will increasingly determine who controls computation, energy, strategic minerals, financial confidence, industrial capacity, and the technological foundations upon which every modern economy ultimately depends.”

THE NEW MAP OF GLOBAL POWER

For much of the late twentieth century, economic strength was frequently interpreted through familiar indicators such as Gross Domestic Product, export performance, manufacturing output, or foreign direct investment. While these measurements remain indispensable, they no longer provide a sufficiently comprehensive understanding of contemporary geopolitical influence. Economic power has acquired additional dimensions that are considerably more complex, encompassing technological sovereignty, artificial intelligence infrastructure, access to critical minerals, cyber resilience, control over advanced semiconductor production, logistical redundancy, and the institutional capacity to withstand prolonged external pressure without compromising domestic stability.

The redistribution of influence is therefore occurring less through territorial expansion than through strategic concentration. Taiwan has become indispensable because of its extraordinary semiconductor fabrication capabilities. China commands exceptional influence across numerous critical mineral supply chains. The United States continues to dominate global financial architecture while simultaneously investing hundreds of billions of dollars in advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and strategic industrial renewal. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, and India are similarly accelerating efforts to reduce dependence upon vulnerable supply networks whose uninterrupted operation was once regarded as virtually guaranteed. This convergence of industrial policy across diverse political systems illustrates an increasingly shared conclusion: economic security can no longer be separated from national security.

 

WHEN EFFICIENCY BECAME A STRATEGIC LIABILITY

 

For almost four decades, economic efficiency occupied an almost unquestionable position within international policymaking. Governments encouraged multinational corporations to relocate production wherever labour costs, taxation, logistics, and regulatory conditions offered the greatest commercial advantage, while investors rewarded increasingly complex supply chains capable of reducing production costs to levels previously considered unattainable. The extraordinary success of this model generated an equally dangerous assumption: that globalization itself had become sufficiently mature to guarantee uninterrupted commercial cooperation regardless of political tensions. It was an assumption that appeared entirely rational until successive crises exposed how remarkably fragile a highly optimized world could become.

The first significant warning did not originate from financial markets but from the disruption of production itself. Temporary shortages of relatively inexpensive industrial components forced manufacturers worth billions of dollars to suspend operations, while the interruption of semiconductor deliveries delayed automobile production across continents and revealed how an apparently insignificant microchip had quietly become one of the most valuable strategic assets within the global economy. Similar vulnerabilities emerged throughout pharmaceutical manufacturing, energy infrastructure, agricultural commodities, and maritime logistics, demonstrating that the relentless pursuit of efficiency had gradually eliminated the redundancy upon which resilience ultimately depends.

Perhaps no lesson proved more consequential than the realization that dependence rarely becomes visible during periods of stability. Vulnerability reveals itself only when access is interrupted. A nation importing nearly all its advanced semiconductors experiences little concern while commercial routes remain open; however, once diplomatic tensions escalate or export restrictions emerge, decades of industrial policy may suddenly appear insufficient. The same principle applies to strategic minerals, pharmaceutical ingredients, energy resources, cyber infrastructure, and increasingly to artificial intelligence, whose computational requirements depend upon supply chains extending across multiple jurisdictions, each exposed to different political priorities and security considerations.

Rather than abandoning globalization altogether, governments have therefore begun redesigning it according to an entirely different philosophy. The objective is no longer to construct the cheapest supply chain imaginable but the most resilient one, even if resilience demands higher production costs, duplicated infrastructure, strategic stockpiles, or geographically diversified manufacturing. Commercial logic has consequently become inseparable from national security, transforming boardroom decisions into matters of geopolitical significance and redefining investment itself as an instrument capable of shaping international influence for decades to come.

THE PRICE OF DEPENDENCE

For decades, economic dependence was widely interpreted as an inevitable consequence of globalization rather than a strategic concern requiring immediate political attention. International trade expanded with remarkable speed, production migrated toward regions capable of manufacturing at lower costs, and governments enthusiastically embraced the assumption that deep commercial integration would gradually discourage geopolitical confrontation. Interdependence was celebrated as a stabilizing force capable of reducing the likelihood of conflict by making prosperity mutually beneficial. Few policymakers questioned whether an economic system optimized almost exclusively for efficiency could remain equally resilient when confronted by political rivalry, technological restrictions, or prolonged geopolitical uncertainty.

That confidence has gradually begun to erode. The question confronting governments today is no longer whether globalization generated extraordinary wealth—it unquestionably did—but whether the extraordinary concentration of critical industries has unintentionally transferred unprecedented leverage into remarkably few hands. A modern economy can continue functioning despite fluctuations in consumer demand, temporary currency depreciation, or cyclical recessions. It becomes considerably more vulnerable, however, when access to indispensable technologies, strategic minerals, or essential manufacturing components depends almost entirely upon decisions made beyond its own political jurisdiction. At that moment, commercial dependence quietly evolves into strategic exposure, and market efficiency becomes inseparable from national security.

The transformation is particularly evident in industries that remained virtually invisible to public attention until recent years. Advanced semiconductors represent one of the most striking examples. Although physically smaller than a postage stamp, they constitute the computational foundation of contemporary civilization, enabling everything from civilian telecommunications and cloud computing to medical diagnostics, aerospace engineering, autonomous systems, advanced defence platforms, and artificial intelligence. Their significance extends far beyond commercial profitability because every technological breakthrough increasingly depends upon computational performance that only a limited number of highly specialized manufacturing facilities currently possess.

This concentration has fundamentally altered international economic calculations. Rather than competing exclusively for market share, nations are now competing for continuity itself. The objective is no longer simply to manufacture more efficiently than competitors but to ensure uninterrupted access to technologies without which future industrial development becomes increasingly constrained. Such priorities explain why semiconductor fabrication plants are now receiving levels of governmental support that only a generation ago would have been associated with military infrastructure or national energy systems. The competition surrounding microelectronics has therefore become less about commercial rivalry than about preserving long-term technological autonomy within an increasingly uncertain international environment.

THE RISE OF STRATEGIC RESOURCES

History has repeatedly demonstrated that every era of economic development elevates particular resources to extraordinary strategic importance. Coal fueled the Industrial Revolution, oil reshaped twentieth-century geopolitics, and natural gas emerged as a decisive component of modern energy security. The contemporary economy, however, increasingly revolves around an entirely different category of materials whose names rarely appear outside scientific journals or specialized industrial reports. Lithium, cobalt, graphite, gallium, germanium, neodymium, dysprosium, and dozens of additional critical minerals have quietly become indispensable foundations of the digital economy, renewable energy technologies, precision manufacturing, satellite communications, electric mobility, and advanced military systems.

What distinguishes these resources is not merely their industrial utility but the extraordinary concentration of their extraction, refinement, and processing. While many countries possess geological reserves, considerably fewer have developed the sophisticated industrial ecosystems necessary to transform raw materials into components suitable for high-performance manufacturing. Consequently, geopolitical influence increasingly derives not only from resource ownership but from technological expertise, refining capacity, logistical infrastructure, environmental regulation, and long-term investment strategies that collectively determine who ultimately controls access to these indispensable materials.

This evolution has dramatically expanded the definition of national resilience. Economic security can no longer be evaluated solely through conventional indicators such as fiscal stability or export performance. It must also encompass access to strategic commodities whose absence could compromise entire industrial sectors within remarkably short periods. The implications extend beyond manufacturing itself. Renewable energy deployment depends upon them. Artificial intelligence hardware requires them. Aerospace engineering incorporates them. Defence industries cannot operate without them. Even the smartphones carried by billions of individuals represent extraordinarily complex assemblies whose production depends upon intricate international supply networks extending across multiple continents.

Such realities have encouraged governments to reconsider assumptions that remained largely unquestioned throughout the previous era of globalization. Long-term resource agreements are becoming increasingly significant. Domestic mining projects once considered economically unattractive are being reassessed through the lens of strategic resilience. Recycling technologies are attracting unprecedented investment, while international partnerships increasingly prioritize secure access to critical materials alongside more traditional diplomatic objectives. These developments collectively illustrate a broader transition in which industrial policy, environmental considerations, technological innovation, and geopolitical strategy have become inseparably interconnected.

THE NEW CURRENCY OF INFLUENCE

Power within the international economy has always extended beyond monetary wealth alone. Confidence, credibility, institutional stability, and financial predictability have historically proved equally decisive in determining which nations attract investment, influence capital allocation, and shape international markets. Nevertheless, recent years have introduced an additional dimension that is redefining monetary influence itself. Financial infrastructure has gradually evolved from a neutral facilitator of commerce into a strategic asset capable of amplifying geopolitical leverage without requiring conventional military superiority.

International payment systems, reserve currencies, sovereign bond markets, and cross-border capital flows collectively constitute an architecture whose stability depends as much upon confidence as upon regulation. Once confidence begins to weaken, adjustments that initially appear modest can generate cascading consequences across investment behaviour, exchange rates, borrowing costs, insurance markets, and international trade. For this reason, contemporary financial competition increasingly focuses not merely upon attracting capital but upon preserving institutional credibility during periods characterized by geopolitical uncertainty and accelerating technological transformation.

The emergence of digital financial technologies has further intensified this competition. Central bank digital currencies, algorithmic trading systems, artificial intelligence applied to financial modelling, and increasingly sophisticated cybersecurity capabilities are reshaping the operational landscape of international finance at extraordinary speed. What once required weeks of diplomatic negotiation or prolonged commercial restructuring can now unfold through automated transactions executed within milliseconds across interconnected global markets. Financial influence has consequently become faster, more adaptive, and considerably more complex than at any previous moment in economic history.

Perhaps the most profound consequence of this transformation is psychological rather than technological. Markets rarely react exclusively to measurable economic variables; they respond equally to expectations, confidence, institutional transparency, and perceived resilience. Economic confrontation therefore unfolds simultaneously within factories, laboratories, shipping corridors, central banks, government ministries, investment funds, and the collective expectations of millions of economic actors whose decisions continuously reshape the global distribution of capital. In that respect, the modern battlefield extends far beyond physical infrastructure. It exists wherever confidence itself becomes a strategic resource capable of determining who prospers, who adapts, and who ultimately defines the economic architecture of the decades ahead.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NEXT GLOBAL ORDER

The accelerating redistribution of economic influence suggests that the international system is no longer moving toward a simple transition of power from one dominant nation to another. Instead, it is evolving into something considerably more intricate—a fragmented landscape where influence is dispersed across technology, finance, industrial capacity, strategic resources, scientific innovation, demographic resilience, and institutional credibility. Such an environment rewards adaptability rather than absolute dominance, encouraging governments to reconsider assumptions that remained largely uncontested throughout the first decades of globalization.

Perhaps the most profound misconception surrounding contemporary international competition is the belief that the defining struggle of this century will ultimately be decided through military superiority alone. Military capability undoubtedly remains an indispensable component of national security, yet modern prosperity depends upon an ecosystem far broader than conventional defence. Nations increasingly compete to attract scientific talent, dominate artificial intelligence, secure uninterrupted energy supplies, establish leadership in quantum computing, expand advanced manufacturing, protect digital infrastructure, and preserve the confidence of international investors whose decisions can redirect trillions of dollars with remarkable speed. In many respects, the decisive contest has already shifted from the battlefield to the laboratory, from naval fleets to semiconductor fabrication facilities, and from territorial occupation to technological leadership.

This transition is quietly redefining the very meaning of sovereignty. Throughout much of modern history, independence implied the ability to defend territorial borders and maintain political authority within them. Today, sovereignty has acquired additional dimensions that extend far beyond geography. A nation incapable of producing advanced technologies, securing strategic resources, protecting digital infrastructure, or maintaining resilient supply chains may possess complete political independence while remaining economically vulnerable to decisions taken thousands of kilometres beyond its borders. The paradox is striking: globalization connected the world more comprehensively than at any previous moment in history, yet that same interconnectedness has simultaneously exposed how fragile excessive dependence can become once political priorities begin to diverge.

Artificial intelligence represents perhaps the clearest illustration of this transformation. Although frequently discussed through the lens of automation or consumer technology, its strategic significance extends considerably further. Advanced computational systems are rapidly becoming indispensable across pharmaceutical research, financial modelling, aerospace engineering, precision agriculture, logistics optimization, cybersecurity, energy management, and national defence. Consequently, the competition surrounding AI is not merely about creating more sophisticated algorithms; it concerns the ability to shape the productive capacity of entire economies for decades to come. Access to computational infrastructure, specialized semiconductors, high-quality datasets, and scientific expertise is gradually emerging as a defining determinant of long-term competitiveness, placing innovation at the centre of international influence in ways unimaginable only a generation ago.

Equally significant is the growing realization that resilience can no longer be measured exclusively through economic expansion. A rapidly growing economy that depends excessively upon vulnerable supply networks may prove considerably less secure than a slower-growing economy capable of maintaining industrial continuity during periods of external disruption. This subtle but fundamental shift has encouraged policymakers to evaluate prosperity through a broader framework incorporating redundancy, diversification, technological autonomy, institutional stability, environmental sustainability, and the capacity to absorb unforeseen shocks without compromising long-term development. Efficiency remains valuable, yet resilience has become indispensable.

The implications extend beyond governments and multinational corporations. Households, entrepreneurs, universities, financial institutions, and local industries increasingly operate within an international environment where decisions taken in distant capitals reverberate across employment markets, investment strategies, inflation dynamics, educational priorities, and technological development. Economic confrontation therefore ceases to be an abstract discussion confined to diplomatic summits or academic journals. It gradually becomes embedded within everyday life, influencing opportunities, expectations, purchasing power, business confidence, and even the aspirations of younger generations entering labour markets shaped by technological acceleration and geopolitical uncertainty.

A FUTURE WRITTEN IN BALANCE RATHER THAN DOMINANCE

The decades ahead are unlikely to be defined by the complete triumph of any single economic model or geopolitical coalition. Rather, they will be characterized by a continuous process of adaptation in which cooperation and competition coexist within an increasingly interconnected yet politically fragmented international system. Some supply chains will continue diversifying. New technological alliances will emerge while others gradually dissolve. Strategic industries will relocate closer to trusted partners, financial institutions will evolve alongside digital innovation, and governments will continue searching for equilibrium between economic openness and national resilience. Change, rather than stability, has become the defining constant of the global economy.

Whether this transformation ultimately strengthens or weakens international prosperity will depend less upon the intensity of competition than upon the wisdom with which that competition is managed. History demonstrates that rivalry has often stimulated extraordinary innovation, scientific progress, and economic development. It also demonstrates, however, that excessive fragmentation, prolonged mistrust, and uncontrolled protectionism possess the capacity to undermine the very prosperity they seek to defend. The challenge confronting policymakers therefore extends beyond securing competitive advantage; it requires preserving sufficient international cooperation to ensure that strategic resilience does not gradually evolve into systemic isolation.

Perhaps that is the defining lesson emerging from the silent transformation currently reshaping the global economy. The most consequential conflicts of the twenty-first century may never be remembered for decisive military victories or dramatic territorial conquests. They may instead be remembered for quieter decisions taken inside research laboratories, central banks, industrial ministries, corporate boardrooms, data centres, and manufacturing facilities—places where the future balance of economic influence is already being negotiated every single day.

The world often associates conflict with explosions, collapsing buildings, and the unmistakable imagery of conventional warfare. Yet history may ultimately conclude that one of the greatest redistributions of power occurred without those familiar symbols. It unfolded through algorithms rather than artillery, through investment rather than invasion, through innovation rather than occupation, and through the relentless pursuit of technological and economic advantage in a world where influence increasingly belongs not to those who possess the largest territories, but to those capable of shaping the systems upon which everyone else depends.

In that sense, the shadow conflict redefining the world order has never truly been hidden. It has simply been unfolding in places where few people thought to look.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 23:25

US Military Races To Harden Strategic Nuclear Bases With Counter-Drone AI Shield

Defense company AeroVironment has won an $80.5 million order from the Joint Interagency Task Force 401 for its Titan MS counter-drone system, expanding the Department of War's efforts to secure critical defense infrastructure and other homeland sites from AI drone swarm attacks.

The award falls under a previously announced $500 million sole-source IDIQ contract and will support the Air Force Global Strike Command's layered defenses against suicide drones attempting to breach airspace over strategic nuclear bases.

"This investment provides operators with the tools to detect, track, and defend against illicit drones," said Col. Jason Idleman, chief of the multi-domain operations division at JIATF-401.

The purchase follows an earlier JIATF-401 order for the Titan system, described as an AI-powered, multi-sensor fusion solution that detects, identifies, tracks, and defeats small drones.

The US-Iran conflict, which exposed U.S. bases in the Gulf to inexpensive drones targeting high-value aircraft, communications systems, and early-warning radar systems, served as a major wake-up call for the military.

Last month, we published a note to help readers understand the investment landscape and how to profit from the asymmetric warfare boom. Read it here.

Via Piper Sandler analyst Clarke Jeffries: 

The race to protect military bases from drone swarms is only one part of the effort. There will also be a massive push to secure critical infrastructure - from power substations and generation plants to data centers, and more. This will create a multi-year boom for companies operating in the counter-UAS space.

Just this week, DZYNE Technologies, a maker of drones, loitering munition-type systems, and counter-drone technology, was sold by its investors to Nasdaq-listed defense and industrial technology firm Ondas Holdings for a handsome profit.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 23:00

US Navy Backs 3,800 MPH-Speeding Blackbeard Hypersonic Missile With First Contract

Authored by Sujita Sinha via Interesting Engineering,

The U.S. Navy has awarded defense technology startup Castelion its first production contract for the Blackbeard hypersonic missile. This $23.4 million deal includes 50 pre-production missiles and shows the Navy is ready to move the program past development and testing.

The U.S. Navy awarded Castellion a contract to deliver Blackbeard hypersonic missiles. Castelion

This contract comes as the Pentagon looks for faster, more affordable hypersonic weapons for long-range strikes. For Castelion, it is the first step toward making Blackbeard at a scale that could support future military missions.

Navy Moves Blackbeard Toward Operational Service

The contract helps further develop the Blackbeard weapon system and expands manufacturing at Castelion's Project Ranger site in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.

Blackbeard is designed to be a low-cost, easy-to-produce hypersonic missile capable of exceeding Mach 5, or over 3,800 mph (6,100 km/h). At these speeds, it can cover long distances quickly and is much harder to intercept than traditional weapons.

Most of the work for this contract will happen in Rio Rancho, with some activities in Torrance, California. Castelion expects to finish the work in 2027.

This new contract shows increasing confidence in the program as it moves from flight testing to limited production and future deployment.

"Blackbeard was designed from the beginning to support our nation's conventional deterrence," Castelion Co-Founder and CEO Bryon Hargis said in a press statement.

"This award reflects the Navy's continued commitment to rapidly advancing affordable, manufacturable long-range strike capability and moving Blackbeard toward early operational use."

Series Of Major Contracts Accelerates Program

This production contract comes after several major government deals Castelion has won this year.

In February, the company received a contract worth almost $50 million to accelerate development and produce prototypes of the Blackbeard system. This funding was intended to support testing and prepare the program for future needs.

Two months later, in April, Castelion landed another big contract worth $107 million. This deal aims to integrate Blackbeard with the Navy's F/A-18 fighter jets, giving the missile more ways to be used.

These back-to-back contracts show the program is gaining momentum as the Navy looks for new ways to use hypersonic weapons on different platforms.

Expanding Launch Options Beyond Aircraft

The company is also working on new ways to launch Blackbeard, which could make it more flexible in operations.

The company has teamed up with defense tech firm Saronic to put the missile on the Marauder unmanned surface vessel. They plan a demonstration in 2027, which could be the first time a hypersonic weapon is launched from an unmanned surface ship.

If the test works, it will show a new way to use hypersonic weapons from unmanned naval platforms, without needing a crew.

Project Ranger Becomes Production Hub

To support its long-term manufacturing plans, the defense firm has put over $250 million into Project Ranger, its large production campus in New Mexico.

The facility covers about 1,000 acres (405 hectares) and is the main site for Castelion's push to make hypersonic weapons more cheaply and in bigger numbers than traditional methods. The new Navy contract will help grow production at the site and support the delivery of the first 50 pre-production missiles.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 22:35

Leaked Memo Shows 'Pro-Cuba' NGO Network Preparing To Target ICE, US Bases, Federal Buildings

Independent Cuban news outlet ADN Cuba has revealed that a US-based Cuba solidarity coalition circulated a memo instructing far-left activists to prepare rapid-response protests at US federal buildings, military bases, recruitment centers, and ICE facilities in the event of a military confrontation between the US military and the communist regime in Havana.

🚨 PRIMERO EN ADN | Documentos revisados por ADN Cuba revelan un plan nacional de “respuesta rápida” distribuido por la Red Nacional sobre Cuba (NNOC), una coalición con vínculos documentados con el ICAP, para coordinar protestas contra oficinas de ICE, bases militares y…

— ADNCuba - Noticias de Cuba (@CubaAdn) July 8, 2026

The National Network on Cuba (NNOC), a deliberately loose coalition that links 77 left-wing activist organizations, nonprofits, and campaigns while minimizing legal exposure and clear command structures, has recently begun distributing a document for far-left protesters described as a "National Rapid Response Plan."

The memo lays out a target list for NNOC's socialist- and communist aligned NGOs, directing organizers to mobilize against ICE facilities, US military bases, recruitment centers, and federal buildings within 24 hours of any US military escalation involving Cuba.

The document reads less like a typical protest statement and more like a pre-planned foreign subversion operation, with defined targets, response timelines, and coalition infrastructure designed to sow chaos deep within America.

Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sanctioned the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, or ICAP, a Castro-era organization used to spread Marxist ideology abroad.

As we've pointed out before (see the report), ICAP sits at the center, functioning as a partner to NNOC. Think of NNOC as a pathway for foreign subversion operations to infiltrate US NGOs.

Take a look at NNOC's member organizations, and you might notice several socialist and communist-linked NGOs, including the Democratic Socialists of America, whose members have actively promoted "destroying America from within."

Frank, Aaron, Hank and Sam are Communist insurgents, radicalized marxist revolutionaries hiding behind personal ideologies to justfy their 1A expressions of the right to promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America pic.twitter.com/XLzzjisOqd

— AnimalFarm1945 (Moshe) (@Farm1945A) July 6, 2026

Here's more from ADN Cuba's report, which may help readers understand that some protests and riots on American streets are not always organic.

In some cases, they appear to be highly organized, built through NGO networks, pre-planned mobilization frameworks, activist coalitions, and potentially foreign-linked influence operations designed for unrest, chaos, and the ultimate destruction of the US:

The document not only identifies ICE offices as one of the main protest targets but also explicitly explains why. According to the plan, demonstrations at these facilities would allow to "connect Cuba solidarity to anti-ICE/immigrant defense work happening nationwide."

This would not be the first time that organizations from the so-called "solidarity with Cuba" movement participate in such mobilizations. The No Kings protests, for example, is listed in the 2026 activity calendar of the Seattle Cuba Friendship Committee, one of the organizations linked to this network.

The National Network on Cuba (NNOC), a coalition based in the United States that groups more than 70 organizations, has documented ties with the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP), a Cuban state body sanctioned by the United States in June 2026.

On July 1, Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized that organization as the main "influence and intelligence front" of the Cuban regime and warned that those who maintain ties or conduct transactions with it could face sanctions, legal proceedings, or deportation.

The document also recommends that organizers use a military facility locator developed by Black Alliance for Peace to identify bases and other military infrastructure targets in their respective communities.

It also includes a "power mapping" guide, a methodology for organizing aimed at identifying unions, community organizations, and potential allies in each locality to enhance the campaign's mobilization capacity.  As an additional objective, the NNOC plan recommends organizing actions in sports stadiums during high-visibility events, in order to maximize the public impact of the protests.

The strategy was publicly promoted by Onyesonwu Chatoyer, co-chair of the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Venceremos Brigade and a member of the Central Committee of the All-African People's Revolutionary Party (A-APRP).

In a video broadcast by the organization on June 12, Chatoyer stated that the network had approved the "national rapid response plan" during its spring meeting held in late May. "Across the United States, NNOC organizations are organizing rapid responses in the event of a military attack by the United States on Cuba," she noted.

Beyond defining the places of protest, the plan establishes a uniform timeline for the entire country. If a military action occurs before 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time), demonstrations would begin that same day at 6:00 p.m. local time in each city. If the triggering incident occurs after that time, protests would be held the following day.

The objective, according to the document, is to facilitate simultaneous mobilization across multiple time zones.

The rapid response plan does not appear in isolation. It is part of the No War on Cuba Campaign Toolkit, a package of materials designed to coordinate communication, political training, and mobilization among organizations affiliated with the National Network on Cuba (NNOC).

The toolkit includes template resolutions for city councils and unions, signature gathering campaigns, graphics materials, "power mapping" guides to identify local allies, social media resources, and political training content.

It also promotes international days of action and support campaigns for Cuba. The materials present a narrative aligned with the official position of the Cuban government.

They include references to the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP), videos from Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, and campaigns to promote the lifting of U.S. sanctions and the exclusion of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The call coincides with the anniversary of the 11J protests

While human rights organizations commemorate the fifth anniversary of the protests on July 11, 2021—the largest anti-government demonstrations recorded in Cuba since 1959 and after which more than a thousand people remain imprisoned for political reasons, according to human rights organizations—several groups affiliated with the National Network on Cuba (NNOC) are promoting activities in favor of the Cuban regime for the same date.

These include the event "No War on Cuba," organized by the Bay Area Cuba Solidarity Network in Berkeley, California, with the announced participation of Cuba's deputy ambassador to the United States, Tanieris Diéguez, and the embassy's second secretary, Gabriela González. The call is also promoted by the anti-imperialism committee of the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) chapter.

Actions promoted by the National Network on Cuba (NNOC) occur in a context marked by the ongoing repression on the island. According to the Cuban Observatory of Human Rights (OCDH), the Cuban regime committed 1,949 repressive actions against citizens during the first half of 2026, while over 1,000 political prisoners remain incarcerated, according to human rights organizations.

. . . 

Together, the "Rapid Response" plan and the No War on Cuba Campaign Toolkit offer a rare glimpse into the organizational structure that the NNOC aims to activate to support the Cuban regime's position in the event of a potential U.S. military intervention in Cuba. The documents illustrate how the network seeks to coordinate protests, communication campaigns, coalition building, and synchronized actions in various U.S. cities.

Related:

• Feds Nab Alleged Member Of "Sprawling" Cuban Communist Subversion Network Linked To Hasan Piker's Havana Trip

With DSA connected to NNOC and ICAP, it only now makes sense why Mark Penn, the former chief White House pollster and strategic advisor to President Bill Clinton for six years, used a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "The Socialist Threat Is Real" to warn that far-left radicals are hijacking the Democratic Party on Tuesday.

Penn called for "Lawmakers, law-enforcement agencies and journalists should investigate the DSA to see if it is being funded by foreign governments and interests."

In the DSA's own words, it is a "partner" of ICAP, a US-sanctioned Cuban state entity. 

That should help explain why the DSA's rhetoric so often veers from anti-Trump to outright anti-American.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 22:10

James Talarico Says He Supports The Second Amendment - His Record Says Otherwise

Authored by Leigh Gibson, Texas State Director - Gun Owners of America,

The Second Amendment protects more than the right to own a firearm. It protects the natural right of every law-abiding American to defend themselves and their family. But it also serves a broader purpose: preserving the liberty of a free people by ensuring that ultimate power remains with the citizens rather than the government.

The Founders understood that self-defense and liberty are inseparable. Having just fought a war for independence against a government that abused its power, they recognized that a free people must never become entirely dependent on government for either their safety or the preservation of their liberty. That understanding is woven into the Second Amendment.

That raises an uncomfortable question: Do the people entrusted with government power truly believe in the Second Amendment as it was written? Or do they believe in it only until it conflicts with the policies they want to impose?

Texas Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico provides a timely example.

The Second Amendment is only 27 words long, so I'd venture to say most lawmakers have read it.

The problem is many lawmakers read limitations into the Second Amendment that simply aren't there.

I've spent the past several years at the Texas Capitol as the Texas State Director for Gun Owners of America. My job is to read firearm legislation, testify before committees, work with lawmakers, and hold elected officials accountable for their votes. Before that, my family left California for Texas because we wanted to raise our children in a state that respected constitutional rights.

Those experiences have taught me something important. Almost every politician seeking statewide office in Texas says they support the Second Amendment. The important question isn't whether they say they support it. The question is what they believe it protects.

Their answer isn't found in campaign rhetoric. It's found in the legislation they support and the votes they cast.

James Talarico says he supports the Second Amendment. But listen carefully to how he describes that right.

In a 2020 podcast, Talarico argued that the words "well regulated" justify what he calls "commonsense restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms.

Like many politicians, Talarico frequently points to the phrase "well regulated" as though it authorizes modern government regulation of a constitutional right.

It doesn't.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, "well regulated" commonly meant properly functioning, well-trained, and in good working order - not regulated by the government.

Talarico is correct that constitutional rights are not unlimited. The real question is who decides where those limits are. Our constitutional system doesn't allow elected officials to invent new restrictions simply because they believe they're "common sense."

Any restriction must be consistent with the Constitution's text, history, and tradition.

Even historical analogs - of which there are few - used by anti-gun politicians to justify modern gun control laws, were focused entirely on violent crime during the founding-era and purposefully did not restrict law-abiding citizens.

The Second Amendment deserves the same respect afforded by every other constitutional guarantee.

That same philosophy appears in Talarico's legislative record.

In 2021, he voted against HB 1927, Texas' Constitutional Carry law. There is no clearer vote demonstrating whether a lawmaker believes law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights without first obtaining government permission.

Then in 2023, he voted against HB 2837, legislation prohibiting firearm-specific merchant category codes that could be used to track gun purchases.

The government has no legitimate business tracking the lawful purchases of peaceable Americans, and financial institutions should never become a backdoor registry for firearm ownership.

During the 2025 legislative session, he also voted against SB 706, legislation requiring Texas to recognize valid handgun licenses issued by every other state. That wasn't simply a vote affecting Texans. It was a vote against recognizing the rights of law-abiding Americans traveling through Texas.

None of those votes were about violent criminals. They were votes affecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

This debate isn't about James Talarico alone. It is about a governing philosophy that says constitutional rights exist, but only to the extent government approves of how citizens exercise them.

I've heard politicians tell me they support the Second Amendment countless times at the Texas Capitol. Then, they turn around and vote for greater government control over how law-abiding Texans exercise that right. Nearly every proposal is offered in the name of safety.

The problem is that constitutional rights were never intended to depend upon whether government believes restricting them serves a worthy purpose.

The Second Amendment was written precisely because the Founders distrusted concentrated government power - not because they expected future politicians to exercise it perfectly.

Reasonable people can disagree about public policy. They can debate crime prevention, criminal penalties, and law enforcement. But they should also be honest about what they believe.

If someone believes government should determine who may fully exercise the right to keep and bear arms, under what circumstances, and only after satisfying additional government requirements, then they don't believe in the Second Amendment as it was originally understood.

They believe in a government-managed privilege.

For voters who genuinely value the Constitution, the next time a politician says, "I support the Second Amendment, but...," don't focus on the words that come before the comma. Listen carefully to what comes after it. That's where you'll usually discover what they truly believe - and how they'll govern.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 21:45

Current State Of Physical AI: Everything You Need To Know

Citi's Robotics & Physical AI Leadership Conference wrapped up on Tuesday. The annual Citi Research event brings together robotics founders, investors, operators, and industry executives to assess the state of "physical AI."

Analyst Heath Terry summarized the key takeaways Wednesday morning, painting a picture of the robotics industry moving from proof of concept to commercial deployment, while warning that scaling robots remains challenging.

"Labor shortages, reshoring, and favorable regulatory tailwinds are accelerating enterprise demand, while data scarcity, talent constraints, battery limitations, and high deployment costs remain key friction points," Terry explained to clients. 

Citi said the winners in physical AI will likely be firms that own proprietary real-world data, solve specific labor bottlenecks and use Robotics-as-a-Service models to reduce upfront costs for customers.

Terry highlighted automation-exposed industrial names including Rockwell Automation, Emerson Electric, Honeywell, Symbotic, Ralliant and Belden as potential beneficiaries.

Humanoids are attracting significant investor interest. Last month, we detailed how readers can invest ahead of a major ramp in humanoid production expected in the coming quarters. Read the report. 

Via Deutsche Bank: 

Over the last two years, about $20 billion has been invested in physical AI, with applications spanning warehouses, logistics, trucking, construction, aviation, and defense.

Last week, carmaker BMW revealed that a new upgraded humanoid is walking its factory floors at the Spartanburg plant in South Carolina. 

Here are Citi's top takeaways from the physical AI conference: 

Key AI Takeaways

Physical AI is transitioning from proof-of-concept to commercial deployment, but the path to scale is more operationally intensive than the digital AI analogy suggests. Unlike large language models, where a base model carries a lot of the value, physical AI places the premium on proprietary, task-specific data collected in real-world environments, purpose-built hardware, and safety certification.

Across sessions, participants consistently identified data scarcity as the binding constraint, with Instawork noting that even tens of millions of hours of data being collected in 2026 likely represents only basis points, not percentage points, of what is ultimately needed to achieve high-level robotic performance. Power, battery longevity, and chip architecture are also emerging as critical bottlenecks, with panelists noting that existing semiconductor platforms were designed for datacenter workloads, not real-time edge inference on mobile platforms.

The most commercially advanced companies, whether in humanoids, warehouse AMRs, autonomous trucking, or construction, shared a common profile: they started with a specific, high-pain labor problem, adopted a Robotics-as-a-Service model to lower customer adoption barriers, and prioritized safety and reliability above model sophistication.g significant investment enthusiasm, but near-term ROI is being driven by purpose-built AMRs and specialized systems from companies like Locus Robotics and Dexterity. The conference reinforced our view that physical AI is a decade- long buildout, with durable value accruing to companies that own the data flywheel, solve real deployment problems, and meet the highest safety standards.

Key Industrials Takeaways

After attending Citi's Robotics & Physical AI Leadership Conference, we came away convinced that automation, robotics, and physical AI continue to make gradual progress toward broader commercialization, creating what we view as a durable long-term growth tailwind for our automation-exposed industrial companies. Our preferred ways to gain exposure to industrial automation are through Buy-rated ROK, EMR, and HON (pure-play automation providers), SYM (warehouse automation), RAL (sensors and T&M), and BDC (industrial networking), as we view these companies as well positioned to benefit from increasing investments in automation (including equipment, software, and AI). Key drivers of automation adoption remain a constrained labor market as well as accelerating domestic manufacturing activity and capacity expansions, with automation supportive of higher throughput, increased uptime, and improved operational efficiency/accuracy that appears supportive of healthy ROIs.

While logistics, warehousing, and autos appear to be important end markets driving automation adoption (higher volume, repetitive tasks), several panelists highlighted AI's potential to unlock new skills/capabilities for robotics and automation, which could, over time, expand addressable markets for automation solutions (new end markets and new use cases), which we view as a broad positive. Advances in AI/LLMs along with growing availability of data (real-world as well as simulated) are leading to more refined technology through, for instance more integrated hardware and software and more active usage driving increasingly capable deployments (as AI-enabled systems grow "smarter"), which we think could further support accelerating automation adoption over time. In some instances, access to high-quality data remains a bottleneck (where companies are combining simulations with limited real-world data), but we also view this as an opportunity and competitive moat for our companies, given their large installed base and ability to leverage/mine data to further drive autonomy and operational efficiency.

Select companies also highlighted robotics-as-a-service (RaaS) business models that potentially lower the barriers to adoption for small and medium sized enterprises given lower or minimal upfront capital costs, which we view as supportive of our constructive view on SYM's warehouse-as-a-service offering (GreenBox/Exol), which we think could help drive increasing adoption of SYM' warehouse automation solutions amongst a broader range of customers.

The most important takeaway is that Physical AI is emerging and deployments will be ramped up as Robotics-as-a-Service models reduce upfront customer costs. Physical AI may eventually benefit from scaling laws, but the path will be much slower and more operationally intensive than the chatbot boom.

Professional subscribers can read a whole lot more on physical AI at our Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 21:20

Canada Considered Suing Citizens Over "False And Misleading" Social Media Posts

Authored by Cindy Harper via ReclaimTheNet.org,

The Canadian government drew up a plan to take individual citizens to court over what they post online. That plan sat inside a 35-page internal memo from the Department of Industry, most of it blacked out before the public could see it.

Blacklock's Reporter pried the document loose through an Access to Information request. Dated March 31 and titled "Misinformation And Disinformation Strategy," it belongs to the department run by Minister Melanie Joly, known as ISED. The memo weighs "legal action" against people who post what the government calls "false and misleading information" on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

What kind of legal action? The redactions hide that. What survives the black ink is the logic. "This strategy seeks to uphold the integrity of and public trust in government information," the memo says. The department is appointing itself guardian of its own reputation, with lawsuits as one available tool.

Here is who would decide. ISED itself would judge whether a post is "factually incorrect, misleading or out of context." The same department that dislikes a post gets to rule on whether the post is true. No court makes that call first and no independent reviewer checks the work. The government writes the definition of misinformation and then enforces it against the people it defines.

The department @ISED_CA itself would determine whether social media posts were “factually incorrect, misleading or out of context.” Any punitive measures against individuals would be “proportionate and subject to senior level approval.” https://t.co/lIFVBUVxvJ pic.twitter.com/6tRaRqNNRI

— Blacklock's Reporter (@mindingottawa) July 4, 2026

The memo describes any punishment as "proportionate and subject to senior level approval." That language reassures no one. Proportion gets measured by the same officials pushing the complaint, and senior approval means a manager signs off, not a judge.

Officials already watch. Managers "already monitor the department's official social media channels and media outlets on a daily basis for comments and recurring inaccuracies," the memo says. The strategy would push that surveillance from reaction toward "prevention and early detection," catching disfavored speech earlier in its life.

The plan has drawn sharp opposition reaction. Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis, in a post on X, asked who defines misinformation in the first place: "Will government become the arbiter of truth? That is a dangerous path for a free society." Conservative MP Roman Baber argued the direction of fear runs the wrong way, writing that government "should fear citizens at the free press and the ballot box," and that "the reverse, citizens fearing government, gives rise to authoritarianism."

The chilling effect writes itself. A citizen who knows a federal department is reading posts, grading them for accuracy, and holding a lawsuit in reserve thinks twice before typing. The threat does the work a courtroom never has to.

The government's own files admit the problem. Its research found Canadians feel capable of spotting fake news and do not want Ottawa "declaring what is true or not." The memo concedes that answering misinformation can amplify it, and that going after individuals risks "further backlash." The department understood the public would object and mapped the plan anyway.

Compare the tune from four years back. This same Liberal government declared that "the rights and freedoms that individuals have offline must also be protected online." That promise reads differently next to a memo about suing people for their posts. It also sits oddly against the government's own recent history: Canada repealed Section 181 of the Criminal Code, the "false news" offence, in 2019, after the Supreme Court found the provision violated freedom of expression.

The non-profit Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has since begun asking publicly whether any Canadians have already received notices from the federal government demanding they take down online posts.

Ottawa has not explained how the monitoring runs, how often lawsuits were floated, or what a post must do to land on the department's radar. The memo sets no threshold. It names no outside check. It leaves a federal department free to decide which citizens spoke falsely and what the price should be.

A government sure of its facts answers speech with more speech. This one drafted a plan to answer speech with lawyers.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 20:55

Nuclear Power Capacity To Jump 44% By 2036 As China Surpasses US

Global nuclear capacity is set to surge by 44% over the next decade as China topples the United States as the biggest nuclear power capacity holder and India will hike its capacity to boost energy security. These are the estimates in a new report by BloombergNEF, which sees total global nuclear capacity at 535 gigawatts (GW) by 2036, up from the 372 GW of installed capacity as of the end of 2025.

The world is projected to have as much as 535 gigawatts of installed nuclear power by 2036, up from 372 last year, according to the report released Wednesday.

Echoing our frequent observations showing how aggressively Chinese nuclear output is growing compared to the stagnant US nuclear industry...

Four months later, China has added 9 more reactors and is now building a total of 39 nuclear power plants. Meanwhile the US has added 0 and is still building 0 https://t.co/TJ6BoMghNk pic.twitter.com/O4idOANNUr

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 15, 2026

... China is set to nearly double its current nuclear capacity to 102 GW from 59 GW, a figure that would propel it past the US to become the world’s biggest nuclear nation.

Energy security, soaring electricity demand from AI centers, and decarbonization targets will all combine to contribute to the surge in nuclear power capacity additions in the coming decade.

“Nuclear power has essentially been ‘running in place’ since the Fukushima disaster in 2011,” according to the report. “This status quo is set to change.”

Nuclear power is making a global comeback as governments and tech companies seek reliable, low-carbon energy sources. At the same time, electricity demand is surging, driven by industrial users, increasingly electrified homes, and power-hungry data centers. Meanwhile, rising social acceptance of nuclear power is pushing utilities and governments around the world to reconsider policies that have hindered development. 

At the same time, the report predicts that capacity growth will likely be tempered by slow regulatory processes that have historically dragged on new nuclear projects. Echoing our frequent lament, in the US, where the technology is getting strong support from the Trump administration, there’s only one commercial plant under construction, though BNEF expects the pace to accelerate in the coming decade.

Meanwhile, iIn the biggest emerging markets in Asia, China and India, nuclear power will be key to meeting rising electricity demand from electrification and AI centers.

China is building solar, wind, coal, and nuclear with equal enthusiasm to include “all of the above” energy sources, OilPrice reports. Beijing plans to put into operation seven new nuclear reactors this year, boosting its already substantial fleet, which is already the largest in the world.

Meanwhile, a panel set up by India’s power ministry has said in a report that India’s goal to boost its installed nuclear power capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2047, up from just 8.8 GW now, would require as much as 19.28 trillion Indian rupees, or $204 billion at current exchange rates, of cumulative capital.

The Indian government has said that its Nuclear Energy Mission targets 100 GW capacity by 2047 “through deployment of existing and emerging advanced nuclear technologies, both indigenous & with foreign cooperation.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 20:30

DOJ Warns State Election Officials Can Be Charged Over Noncitizen Voting

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has sent letters to election officials across the country, warning them that they could be charged if they let noncitizens receive ballots or vote in elections.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington on Sept. 29, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

"Any election officer, including the chief election officer of the state, who knowingly retains noncitizens on the state's [voter list] or facilitates noncitizens in receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability," Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in the letters, which were sent on July 7.

It is also a crime to prevent people who try to vote from voting, the officials were also told.

Dhillon also outlined various laws that set forth requirements for state and local election officials regarding voter lists.

"We encourage you to contact us to discuss what steps your state should take to maintain clean voter lists as required by law," Dhillon wrote.

A DOJ spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email, "The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections."

The letters came after the DOJ requested data on registered voters from all states. Several dozen, including Utah, have declined to comply with the request, sparking legal action from the department. Judges have so far ruled against the agency, including a judge who in June said the request sought data that falls outside of records the federal government may require states to produce.

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said in a post on Threads that she received one of the letters from Dhillon.

"I'm sure I'm not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ's demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts," Henderson said. "This is truly bizarre behavior by the federal agency that is supposed to be protecting civil rights."

Dhillon also said Tuesday that the DOJ will send election monitors to six states - Arizona, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia - during primary elections this year.

The monitors will be focused on issues such as access to polls for disabled voters and whether voting locations are open for the amount of time that is required under federal law.

"It's also important to make sure that our voting is accurate so that every citizen who votes has their vote counted equally without being canceled out by somebody who shouldn't be voting," Dhillon said in a video statement.

Jesus Osete, the DOJ's principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a post on X that federal election monitors "are a routine part of every election."

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 20:05

Watch: Fireworks At UN As Cuba Disrupts US Ambassador's Speech: "You're A Liar, Mr Waltz!"

A UN General Assembly this week devolved into a high-charged shouting match amid procedural disruptions and chaos, after US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz told the global forum on Tuesday that there is no American blockade on Cuba.

Havana didn't take the bait quietly, given Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez immediately shot back at Waltz - who is a former Army Green Beret: "This is the United Nations General Assembly, not a Green Beret camp. You're a liar, Mr. Waltz."

Tensions FLARE on UN floor as Cuba accuses the US of imposing an ENERGY SIEGE, 'an act of war'

'YOU ARE A LIAR, MR WALTZ' pic.twitter.com/HYlChmahC4

— RT (@RT_com) July 8, 2026

The fireworks erupted during an extraordinary session called by the Cuban government to discuss the embargo, which was approved on Tuesday with 136 votes in favor, nine against, and 30 abstentions. 

Rodríguez further relayed a message from Raúl Castro, Cuba’s former president, brother to late leader Fidel Castro, stating that the army general is "ready to defend our homeland" - alluding to Waltz's references to the aged leader during his speech.

Rodríguez further labeled Waltz as an "insignificant official" and warned him, "Mr. Waltz, no one will remember you soon," while invoking Che Guevara, among others.

He concluded with the warning: "Anyone who attempts to seize Cuba will only gather the dust of its blood-soaked soil if they do not perish in the fight." 

Waltz's position had been to turn things around on the Cubans, saying that the island-nation's communist leaders had in effect embargoed themselves. "There is no ring of Navy warships, US Navy warships sitting around this island blocking trade or humanitarian aid going into Cuba," Waltz said. "It’s fake. It’s false. It’s a lie. Period."

"There’s a lot of talk today of an embargo. And indeed there is one," he said. "It’s the embargo the Cuban regime mercilessly imposes on its own people decade after decade after decade."

Waltz called on Havana to "change your ways" and "turn the lights back on for your people," while accusing Cuba's leaders of living comfortably while the rest of the population starves and struggles with basic daily necessities. 

Fuller exchange:

In face of a member of the Cuban delegation pounding on the table, interrupting the American ambassador's speech, Walz said he will not be silenced.

"This is not Havana. This is the United States of America. This is the United Nations," Waltz said. "And we will speak, we will be heard, and we will not be silenced like your own people. So, pound away."

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 19:40

"It's Some Bullsh*t": Green River, Wyoming Considered License Plate Readers To "Protect Against Terrorist Attacks"

Green River officials are weighing whether to accept a $111,956 federal grant to install automatic license plate readers at key entrances to the city, a proposal that has sparked backlash from some residents over privacy and government surveillance, according to Cowboy State Daily.

The grant, funded through the United States Department of Homeland Security, is intended to help communities prevent and respond to terrorism. Police Chief Shawn Sturlaugson said the cameras would also help officers quickly identify vehicles tied to criminal investigations, Amber Alerts, missing persons cases, or other law enforcement concerns.

He stressed the system is not intended to enforce expired registrations or serve as a broad crime-fighting dragnet, adding that the department is considering a policy to automatically delete data after 30 days.

The report says that not everyone is convinced. Former Wyoming lawmaker Marshall Burt dismissed the proposal outright, calling it "some bullshit" and questioning the city's reliance on anti-terrorism funding. "If we have that big a case of terrorism in Green River, I imagine we would have heard about it by now," he said.

Burt argued the real issue is the long-term expansion of government surveillance. While he acknowledged drivers have little expectation of privacy on public roads, he warned that modern camera systems can compile years of location data, creating opportunities for tracking and profiling that extend far beyond their original purpose. He also said any privacy safeguards adopted today could easily be removed by future city leaders.

Mayor Pete Rust defended the proposal, saying Green River is already one of the nation's safest cities and that license plate readers are simply another tool for police. Although he said he is unaware of any specific terrorism threats, he noted the city's location along an interstate, railroad, river, and near major infrastructure makes it strategically important.

If approved, Green River would join several other Wyoming communities, including Cheyenne, Jackson, Glenrock, and the Wind River Indian Reservation, which already use license plate reader technology.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 18:50

Berkeley Gives Back Corn, Peas, & Seeds To Tribes As Protected Items Of "Cultural Patronage"

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The University of California (Berkeley) has ordered the return of new displays to native American tribes under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act  (NAGPRA). That is hardly news except that the items were not human remains or relics, but corn, corn cobs, peas, beans, and other seeds. The university has decided that even such scientific samples are prohibited items of “cultural patronage.”

The Act requires the return of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. “Cultural patrimony” is defined as “an object having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself.”

However, according to a federal notice, these were old corn, corn cobs and seeds, beans, and other items used for research and display by the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology.

They will now be returned to the Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico, a Native American tribe.

Old corn cobs linked to a Native American tribe are being removed from an anthropology museum at UC Berkeley in accordance with a federal “repatriation” law.

According to a June 4 federal notice, 24 items, including corn, corn cobs, peas, beans, and other seeds, are being removed. They were part of the collection at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. They will be returned to the Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico, a Native American tribe, to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The notice from the school states that “Between 1940 to 1941, George F. Carter collected 24 lots of seeds via `field research with Native American agriculturalists’ across the Southwestern United States, including Pueblo of Isleta in New Mexico.”

I understand how one can read the federal law broadly, but this seems wildly out of sync with the purpose of the law. These are plants and seeds used for field research to better understand the food chain of the early periods of life in the Americas. The use of the federal law so broadly undermines the study of these tribes.

National Park Service

Obviously, corn and other crop staples were key to the culture of these tribes, but so was water, wood, and other sustaining resources. I do not understand why the tribes themselves do not want to encourage such research on their heritage and history.

The university could clearly decide that it no longer needs the items or that the items hold more value to the tribes. However, to say that they are compelled under federal law is a dubious reading of the federal statute.

The College Fix quotes Elizabeth Weiss, professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University, as objecting to the interpretation:

“Objects of cultural patrimony are defined as objects that cannot be owned by a single person, and, thus, cannot be sold or given from one person to another. It is hard for me to understand how plants and seeds could fall into this category.”

This is something that the Department of the Interior, Justice Department, and Bureau of Indian Affairs should clarify in the interest of continued research and historical work in this area.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 18:25

Modular Reactors To Solve Data Center Hysteria?

For the nuclear energy nerds, last night Erik Townsend joined ZH to host a panel with the founders of modular nuclear reactor startup Aalo Atomics, Matt Loszak and Yasir Arafat. 

Townsend is a committed nuclear energy bull and has invested in many nuclear energy startups, his largest allocation being Aalo, a company that hopes to pump out small modular reactors on a mass scale to solve the rising energy costs that AI is rapidly ushering in.

Here were some highlights from the panel for those short on time:

The Data Center Dilemma

AI data centers have become the boogeyman recently, facing opposition on the populist right and left as nobody wants one in their backyard goosing up local energy prices. Loszak said the solution to this dilemma is stand-alone modular reactors that power data centers independent of the grid.

"Our whole thesis is we are really building the ideal product market fit for AI data centers… If you look at how we're powering data centers today, it is not with gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. It is actually with 15 to 60 megawatt gas turbines... We're essentially making the nuclear version of that."

He argued that standardized, factory-built reactors could ultimately outcompete traditional nuclear projects on speed and scale.

"You could build a fleet of smaller reactors and get to many gigawatts per year... way more reliably and predictably with this model than the gigawatt-scale AP1000 model… This is a contrarian view. Not everyone in nuclear believes this... but the reality is the past does not always look like the future."

pic.twitter.com/CwXJCPkbRB

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) July 8, 2026 Reactor “Assembly Line”

CTO Arafat said Aalo's long-term goal is to manufacture reactors the way other industries mass-produce complex products, to scale towards creating the industry's first nuclear reactor “assembly line”.

"We want to actually build the first nuclear assembly line where you have jigs and equipment and processes where material flows through, and then you can make the same modules over and over and over again."

This is not something that is currently in development, Aalo said, but perhaps on the horizon as they look to raise $500 million in a series C. The fundraise would then, in theory, go to finance a massive factory to mass produce modular reactors… which could one day power private homes.

pic.twitter.com/MqsxgRvpj6

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) July 8, 2026

Watch the full debate below or on our YouTube channel.

https://t.co/OBqH6G98dN

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 7, 2026 Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 18:00

Dear Trump: Time To Flood America's Weigh Stations With ICE And CBP Agents

Submitted by American Truckers United,

We, the truckers who keep America moving, have had enough. 

An analysis of crash data and English proficiency violations reveals that drivers from just a handful of states are largely responsible for the epidemic of illegal alien truck and bus drivers terrorizing our highways. These preventable tragedies must end now.

We are formally calling on President Donald J. Trump to immediately deploy ICE and CBP officers to commercial weigh stations across the entire country. No more half-measures. No more looking the other way. American families deserve safe roads.

The Deadly Data Doesn't Lie

Our review of crash statistics shows that alleged illegal alien truck drivers operating under USDOT numbers domiciled out of California, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York are responsible for over 29 fatalities nationwide.

Trooper Michael Pahira's death was 100% preventable.

A Pennsylvania State Trooper — a 20-year veteran — was struck and killed on I-81 while conducting a routine commercial vehicle inspection. The driver? Michael Bon, a Haitian illegal alien who entered under Biden parole, had… pic.twitter.com/XFHWnRl5c1

— American Truckers United (@atutruckers) July 7, 2026

• 11 people killed by truck drivers operating out of the state of California
• 6 people killed by truck drivers operating out of the state of Illinois
• 6 people killed by bus drivers operating out of the state of New York
• 3 people killed by truck drivers operating out of the state of Ohio

Four people lost their lives at the hands of foreign truck drivers in just the past two weeks.

The loss of these four lives was entirely preventable.

If you are in our country illegally or can’t speak and understand English, you have no business operating an 80K-pound… https://t.co/VaK7dI03TD

— Congressman Troy E. Nehls (@RepTroyNehls) July 8, 2026

These numbers represent real Americans — mothers, fathers, children, and law enforcement officers — whose lives were cut short or forever altered.

We think of little Dalilah Coleman, critically injured as a 5-year-old when an illegal alien driving an 18-wheeler slammed into her family’s vehicle in California. We think of Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Pahira Jr., killed in the line of duty on I-81 by another illegal alien truck driver with a Massachusetts-issued CDL. These are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a broken system.

English Proficiency Violations Expose the Scale of the Problem

Since President Trump’s executive order on immigration enforcement went into effect, 22,910 out-of-service orders have been issued for English proficiency violations and related issues. The distribution tells the story:

• 29% issued to motor carriers operating from Texas
• 13% from California
• 10% from Florida
• 7% from Illinois

These same states repeatedly appear in both crash data and safety violation reports. Sanctuary policies and lax licensing practices are endangering every driver and family sharing the road with these rigs.

Weigh Stations Are the Front Line — And Many Are Wide Open

Our recent investigation into Arkansas weigh stations revealed a disturbing truth: no immigration enforcement is currently taking place. States known for issuing non-domicile CDLs to illegal aliens are allowed to bypass the scales without inspection. This must stop immediately.

🚨Why aren’t we stopping "potential" illegal alien truckers at every weigh station?

American Truckers United was in Arkansas last week filming operations at a West Memphis Weigh Station — and exposed zero enforcement.

None targeted. None intercepted.

We must demand… pic.twitter.com/iPJaH84DpP

— American Truckers United (@atutruckers) July 7, 2026

Truckers who cannot read road signs in English, who lack proper training, or who have no legal right to be operating commercial vehicles in the first place are a clear and present danger. The current patchwork approach is failing.

Our Ask to President Trump

Deploy ICE and CBP officers to weigh stations nationwide. Make immigration status and CDL legitimacy checks part of every routine inspection. Close the loopholes that allow non-domicile CDL holders from problem states to operate unchecked.

We have a duty — as truckers, as Americans, and as patriots — to ensure no more preventable tragedies occur like those that befell Dalilah Coleman and Officer Pahira. These deaths did not have to happen. With decisive action at the scales, they will not happen again.

President Trump, the time for action is now. Put federal officers at the weigh stations. Secure our highways. Protect American lives.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 17:40

Waymo Robotaxi "Snitches" On Two 15-Year-Olds Drinking & Shooting Orbeez Guns In Bay Area

Two 15-year-old boys were detained in San Mateo Monday afternoon after the Waymo robotaxi they were riding in reported them to police - for drinking alcohol and firing a gel-bead blaster out of the moving car - then pulled itself over so officers could collect them.

Waymo's remote monitors spotted the behavior on the vehicle's interior cameras and called the San Mateo Police Department around 2:10 p.m. with the car's exact location. The company then disabled the vehicle near 20th Avenue and El Camino Real, telling the pair the car was having trouble - a ruse that bought officers time to get into position.

Because the initial report described what looked like a real firearm, police conducted a high-risk stop, approaching with guns drawn and a police dog deployed. No one was hurt. Inside, officers found an Orbeez-style gel blaster - painted over to pass for the real thing - and open alcohol.

The teens cooperated, were detained, and were released to their parents. The case has been forwarded to the San Mateo County District Attorney's office for review of possible charges, including underage drinking, and police say they plan to pull the Waymo's interior video.

"Parents do you know where your teens are? @waymo does!" The department wrote on Facebook: "After calling us and stopping the car, we were able to safely remove both subjects and determined they were shooting Orbeez from the car as they sipped on afternoon libations while being chauffeured around town in the driverless vehicle."

"While there was some ingenuity to this scheme, toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye... Shooting projectiles at speed can cause real damage. And lest not forget the underage drinking. All bad ideas today for these two. Well, the Waymo might have been the smartest idea yet, because driving impaired would've made this so much worse."

Waymo bars alcohol in its vehicles and doesn't allow unaccompanied minors in its California markets - so the ride was violating the rules before the first bead flew - and company policy notes that support staff "may access live video during a trip" in urgent circumstances.

"Safety is our highest priority at Waymo," a company spokesperson said in a statement after the story broke. "This behavior violates our user agreement, and while these sorts of events are rare, we take them extremely seriously and remain committed to improving road safety and mobility in the cities where we operate."

Online, the reaction split between "snitching" complaints, designated-driver jokes, and the question underneath them: the robotaxi that gets you home safely is also a camera platform that can pull itself over and hand you to the police. For two 15-year-olds, the lesson arrived early - no driver doesn't mean nobody's watching.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 17:20

Some College Students Are Testing At The Level Of 10-Year-Olds

Via Futurism,

Are you smarter than a 4th grader?

Gone are the days of university freshmen reading classical philosophers like Plato or contemporary pedagogues like Ta-Nehisi Coates. These days, incoming college students are lucky if they can get through Judy Blume’s “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing.”

According to a new “Survey of Adult Skills” conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - a forum for 38 high-income, predominantly Western countries - a not insignificant number of adult students enrolled in higher education are now reading and doing math at a level which, in a more functional society, would be alarming for a middle schooler.

The survey, first spotted by the Economist, tested around 160,000 people of all ages, across all 38 member states. It found that across all OECD member countries, a full 8 percent of college students are reading at the level of a ten-year-old, if not worse. While countries like Germany and France rang in at under 5 percent, countries like Poland, Israel, and the United States blew the curve at 21, 20, and 14 percent, respectively.

The numbers aren’t much better when it comes to math.

Across OECD countries, 9 percent of college students do math at or below a ten-year-old level. In Italy, the US, and Slovakia, that figure jumps to over 15 percent — only outdone by Israel, where roughly 21 percent of college students were underachieving at the same low benchmark.

It seems there are numerous compounding explanations for these test results: pandemic-era learning gaps leading to lower levels of preparation, declining college enrollment forcing schools to lower admissions standards, and lower levels of public funding for education, to name a few.

The results also coincide with the explosion of large language models like ChatGPT, which by many accounts have carved out a new floor for academic failure in both K-12 and college-level education.

While there’s no denying how complicated the issue is, there is evidence that removing technology from classrooms altogether could offer an immediate boost.

In one classroom in Minneapolis, for example, a literature and English teacher banned phones and laptops, requiring all coursework to be done on pencil and paper.

As the school-year started in September, just 46 percent of the students involved said they felt confident about their reading skills. A few months later in February, that number stood at 95 percent.

Though it’s just one classroom, something is clearly off the rails in the education systems of the richest countries of the world — and the longer it goes unaddressed, the more students will be pushed into the world with the reading skills of 4th graders.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 17:00