The survey, conducted by Jeff Hoopes, a professor at the University of North Carolina and research director of the UNC Tax Center, targeted members of the National Tax Association, a professional group comprising mostly academic economists, accountants, and lawyers. The respondents included 105 tax scholars who were asked about their stance on Proposition 40.

Among the survey participants, 73 (69.5%) expressed opposition to the proposed billionaire tax, while 32 (30.5%) supported it. Interestingly, a significant number of experts from specific fields showed strong disapproval for the measure. For instance, accountants were overwhelmingly against the tax, with an impressive 85% opposing it.

Economists also demonstrated considerable skepticism towards Proposition 40, with 71% opposing the tax. In contrast, lawyers seemed more supportive, with 60% favoring the measure. This disparity in opinions is noteworthy, especially considering that law professors played a significant role in drafting the proposal.

It's worth noting that these tax scholars are not necessarily opposed to the idea behind the proposed billionaire tax but rather have concerns about its implementation and potential consequences.

The survey's findings suggest that there are two distinct camps among those opposing California's billionaire tax proposal.

Some respondents who would generally favor wealth taxes expressed reservations about Prop 40 due to concerns over its implementation and potential consequences. They argued that a single state may struggle to enforce a wealth tax, particularly when billionaires can easily relocate their assets and residences. This sentiment was echoed in written comments submitted by some survey participants.

Others opposing the proposal went further, questioning the feasibility of implementing a one-time tax on private companies without sparking costly disputes over valuations. They also expressed concerns that such a tax could ultimately become a recurring feature, rather than a one-off measure.

According to Hoopes, another major concern is the potential for billionaires to relocate from California in response to the proposed tax. He noted that Norway's experience with its wealth tax serves as a cautionary tale: when the very richest individuals moved out of the country in response to the tax, it significantly impacted the government's revenue projections.

The proposed billionaire tax in California has raised concerns among experts about its potential impact on the state's economy and revenue. One of the key issues highlighted is that high-net-worth individuals may be incentivized to leave the state, citing taxes as a major reason.

This scenario is not far-fetched, given examples like Elon Musk, who relocated from California to Texas partly due to tax concerns. This could potentially lead to other wealthy individuals following suit, further exacerbating the state's revenue woes.

In light of these concerns, some experts suggest that rather than imposing an additional wealth tax, the state should focus on reducing its spending and living within its means. They argue that California already has one of the highest top income tax rates in the country.

The potential revenue generated by the billionaire tax is also being scrutinized, with estimates suggesting it could raise as much as a 5% income tax on all Californian taxpayers or even fund federal Medicaid cuts to the tune of $100 billion.

A recent survey has revealed that about 70% of tax scholars would vote against California's proposed billionaire tax. The poll was conducted by Greg Hoopes, who ran it after six Nobel Prize-winning economists endorsed the measure in September. These economists included Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, known for their left-leaning views.

However, the survey results suggest that even liberal-minded economists may not support the billionaire tax. Hoopes noted that his personal contacts among economists were more aligned with the 105 respondents to his survey than the six Nobel Prize winners who endorsed the measure. The poll's credibility is also subject to scrutiny, as it was based on a 2024 membership directory and did not receive approval from the National Tax Association (NTA).

The NTA has no affiliation with Hoopes, who sits on the advisory council of the right-leaning Tax Foundation. In contrast, voters are more evenly divided on the issue, with 52% supporting Prop. 40 in a September poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Fortune: https://fortune.com/2026/10/27/california-billionaire-tax-scholars-voting-prop-40/

The proposal is aimed at resolving long-standing disagreements over the exact location of their frontier and preventing accidental clashes between troops stationed on either side. This comes after recent landmine blasts left three South Korean soldiers injured, sparking concerns about the escalating situation.

North Korea has been fortifying its border with mines, barbed wire fences, tactical roads, anti-tank walls, and other defensive structures in a move that has heightened tensions. The country's authoritarian leader, Kim Jong Un, has taken a tough stance towards Seoul in recent years, suspending almost all dialogue and cooperation with the South.

South Korea's military has reported numerous instances of North Korean soldiers crossing into its territory during these fortification works, prompting warning shots and broadcasts from South Korean troops. In November, the South made a similar proposal for talks that was met with silence from Pyongyang.

The recent mine blasts at the border have added to the urgency of finding a solution to prevent further incidents. The South's military has concluded that the mines were planted by North Korean forces south of their shared military demarcation line.

South Korea's Deputy Minister for Defense Policy, Kim Hong-Cheol, formally presented the proposal in a televised statement on Friday, calling for talks to confirm the location of the ground military demarcation line and discuss measures to prevent accidental clashes.

The proposal, made by South Korea's Deputy Minister for Defense Policy, seeks to ease rising tensions along the border between the two countries. This comes after a visit from Kim Jong Un's powerful sister, who warned of retaliation against any provocation aimed at North Korean fortification work.

During her visit, Kim Yo Jong announced plans to reactivate loudspeaker broadcasts targeting South Korea with anti-propaganda messages and placed "new counter means" on alert along the border. She blamed South Korea for firing warning shots and broadcasting warnings towards North Korean soldiers who were reinforcing the border under a pretext she deemed false.

The dispute centers around the location of the military demarcation line, drawn up in 1953 to end the Korean War. However, some decades-old boundary markers have been lost over time, leading to disagreements between the two countries about where exactly the line lies.

South Korea has maintained that North Korea's recent border activities highlight these long-standing differences. The country's Defense Minister, Kang Shin-chul, recently stated that last month's mine blasts did not occur in a disputed area, contradicting North Korea's claims of responsibility for the incident.

North Korea has denied any involvement in the mine blasts and dismissed South Korea's demand to apologize and remove its remaining mines along the border.

The risk of accidental clashes along the military demarcation line is increasing due to the unresolved dispute over its location. According to a South Korean military official, troops from both sides are acting on their own understanding of the line, which could lead to unintended consequences.

North Korea's Army Marshal Pak Jong Chon has denied that his soldiers were breaching the border during fortification work, claiming that they knew exactly where the borderline was. He accused South Korea of making baseless claims to shift blame for rising tensions and threatened a strong response to any provocation from the South.

South Korea's warning broadcasts and warning shots have contributed to the heightened tensions along the military demarcation line, which is now at risk of escalating into a more serious conflict unless a solution can be found.

ABC News International: https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/south-korea-proposes-military-talks-north-korea-calm-137500902

Nusseibeh, currently a minister of state in the UAE's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, previously served as the country's first female ambassador to the UN. She joins six other candidates vying for the top diplomatic position at the world body. Her nomination has been months in the making, with speculation surrounding her potential candidacy.

The UAE government announced Nusseibeh's nomination through its state-owned news agency, citing President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan as submitting the proposal to the UN. According to the report, he highlighted Nusseibeh's extensive experience within the UN system and her track record of addressing international challenges.

The confirmation of Nusseibeh's candidacy comes via an email from a New York-based public relations company representing the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The email, which was sent to media outlets, included a statement outlining Nusseibeh's vision for the role of UN Secretary General.

Details of Nusseibeh's vision statement were provided in the email, but it is unclear whether this document has been officially submitted as part of her nomination process. The office of the President of the General Assembly has not confirmed receipt of the required documentation for Nusseibeh's candidacy.

The nomination process for UN Secretary General remains ongoing, with several candidates vying for the position. Human rights defenders have expressed concerns about the implications of electing a diplomat from a country with a questionable human rights record to lead the world body.

Nusseibeh's statement emphasizes her commitment to independence and impartiality as UN Secretary-General. She affirms that her role would not involve wielding a military force or exercising voting power, but rather leveraging her diplomatic influence to bring nations together in agreement. To achieve this, she believes her independence is crucial, allowing her to build trust with other leaders.

Nusseibeh's decision to run for the top UN position comes after taking a leave of absence from her government role. This move signals her dedication to securing the Secretary-General post and ensuring a smooth transition by December 31, 2026, when current Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' term expires.

The UAE's strong ties with the United States, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, undoubtedly contribute to Nusseibeh's credibility as a candidate. Her experience serving as the UAE's UN ambassador from 2013 to 2024 has also helped establish her reputation in international circles.

However, Nusseibeh faces significant challenges in securing support from other key players. She will need to win over the four remaining veto-wielding permanent members, Britain, China, France, and Russia, and address concerns related to Abu Dhabi's human rights record and involvement in the Sudan conflict.

A candidate requires at least nine votes from the 15-member Security Council to succeed, without being blocked by a permanent member. A former diplomat from the global South suggests that Nusseibeh's late entry into the race indicates she has secured the backing of the key veto powers.

UN insiders believe Nusseibeh has effectively managed her campaign rollout, implying that she may have already secured the necessary support from the P5 members. Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group comments on this development, stating that it feels like a "coronation rather than a genuine competition for the position.

Nusseibeh's ability to navigate complex diplomatic relationships and build alliances is likely crucial in her bid for the UN Secretary-General post. Her experience as the UAE's ambassador has equipped her with valuable skills in this area, which she will need to leverage if she hopes to succeed in securing the top spot at the world body.

The UAE's ambassador to the UK has been touted as a potential candidate to lead the United Nations, but her country's human rights record is likely to come under scrutiny if she runs for the top spot.

Critics point out that the UAE severely restricts freedom of expression, association, and assembly, among other concerns. Human Rights Watch's 2026 report on the UAE details these issues, highlighting the need for improvement in this area.

Nusseibeh's diplomatic background is marked by her country's growing relationship with Israel, which has led to increased cooperation between the two nations. In fact, the UAE was one of the first Middle Eastern powers to join the Abraham Accords, a peace agreement aimed at normalizing relations between Arab states and Israel.

During her tenure as ambassador to the Security Council from 2022-2023, Nusseibeh demonstrated her commitment to humanitarian aid in Gaza. Her efforts were seen as crucial in securing essential supplies for Palestinian civilians during times of blockade.

Some have praised Nusseibeh's diplomatic skills, with Johnnie Moore, a US evangelical preacher and former head of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, hailing her as one of the only diplomats in the world who could get through the Security Council under present circumstances.

Brett McGurk, a former top national security adviser to President Biden, also expressed his support for Nusseibeh's potential candidacy. He noted that the UAE has become one of the largest providers of humanitarian aid to Gaza, thanks in part to her efforts.

However, not everyone is convinced that Nusseibeh would be an effective leader at the UN. Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale School of Public Health, warned that her appointment could have disastrous consequences for UN operations in Sudan, Yemen, and other regions.

The appointment of a high-ranking Emirati diplomat to the top position at the United Nations has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and loyalty.

The UAE's involvement in Sudan's conflict is a major point of contention, with UN independent panels accusing the country of arming and funding the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), who are fighting the government army Sudanese Armed Forces. This alleged support includes re-exporting Chinese-guided bombs and howitzers by the Emirates, which breaches the arms embargo on Darfur.

The Emirati government has denied these allegations, claiming that they do not supply weapons or military support to either side in the conflict. However, an investigation by Amnesty International found evidence of UAE involvement in the RSF's military activities.

Critics argue that appointing a high-ranking official from a country with such alleged ties to human rights abuses would be disastrous for UN operations in Sudan and other regions. The UAE's actions are seen as enabling the massacre of civilians in El Fasher, which has been determined by the UN to have the hallmarks of genocide.

The selection process for the next secretary-general is currently underway, with several candidates having undergone public hearings and informal straw polls. However, concerns about potential conflicts of interest and loyalty may impact the outcome.

The appointment of a UAE diplomat would be particularly contentious given the one-year anniversary of the El Fasher massacre approaching next week. Critics argue that celebrating this occasion by appointing an official from the country responsible for enabling such violence would send the wrong message to the global community.

The nomination of Nusseibeh has injected a fresh dynamic into the UN secretary-general selection process.

Nusseibeh's appointment as an Emirati diplomat to the Council has given member states another option in the contest for the top post.

The latest straw poll results show that none of the candidates have managed to secure consensus from all members, with each drawing two discourage votes from a P5 member in the October 16 poll.

Despite this, experts suggest that the nominees must do more negotiating to overcome these initial obstacles and build support.

One diplomat described the red cards" as an initial hurdle that candidates need to clear before gaining momentum.

The addition of Nusseibeh as a candidate has also expanded the pool of contenders, with four women now vying for the position.

This development is significant given that the UN has never had a female secretary-general in its 81-year history.

A crucial straw poll on the UN Secretary-General position has been postponed to possibly next week, allowing the UAE time to submit Nusseibeh's nomination. The delay is seen as a significant development in the ongoing selection process for the world body's top post.

The postponement of the straw poll means that diplomats will now expect Nusseibeh to participate in an interactive dialogue at the General Assembly before another vote takes place. This move could potentially impact the outcome of the election, given the UAE diplomat's nomination is still pending submission.

In related news, the General Assembly president has indicated a change in approach for upcoming interactive dialogues, and any new candidate emerging will be introduced to the wider UN membership as per relevant revitalisation resolutions.

France 24 English: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20261022-emirati-diplomat-could-become-next-un-chief-despite-human-rights-concerns-uae-sudan-un-secretary-general-lana-nusseibeh

According to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, over a quarter of Muse's engaged users are using the AI agent for shopping, with an average purchase size exceeding $200. This level of adoption is significant, especially considering that the platform has only recently gained mainstream attention.

The high demand generated by Muse users has put pressure on payment systems, prompting payment app Stripe to raise credit limits to meet the increased transaction volume. Financial services company Plaid also reported unusual activity with its connector, citing volumes it had not seen before with any other service.

Meta's success in achieving a "product-market fit for Muse is a testament to the AI agent's ability to seamlessly integrate into users' shopping habits. This milestone marks a significant step towards making personal AI agents an integral part of everyday life.

As the use of AI-powered shopping assistants continues to grow, it raises questions about the future of human interaction with businesses and services. Will we soon see a world where transactions are completed entirely through AI-to-AI communication?

Meta's vision for its AI-powered shopping assistant, Muse, is expanding rapidly. The company aims to create a network of billions of Muses that can collaborate and accomplish more tasks than individual agents. This large-scale network will enable people and businesses to tap into the collective capabilities of multiple AIs.

The ultimate goal is for the revenue generated by Muse to surpass the earnings of Meta's existing family of apps, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, and Messenger. By scaling up its operations, Muse aims to become a significant contributor to Meta's bottom line.

Muse is also set to integrate with Meta's upcoming smart glasses, which are scheduled for release next month. This integration will allow users to access their personal AI assistant on the go, eliminating the need to constantly check their smartphones. The idea is to have your own personal superintelligence always at hand.

Meta's plan to gamify the experience of using a personal AI agent like Muse has been hinted at through its concept of the Muse network". This initiative is expected to make the use of these agents more engaging and interactive, but details on how it will work are still scarce.

Meta's plans for its AI agent Muse continue to take shape, with a focus on interactivity and social features that go beyond individual use.

The company's third-quarter revenue has reached $64.6 billion, marking a 26% increase from the same period last year. However, costs have surged significantly, rising by 68% to $51.6 billion due in part to Meta's agreement with 52 attorneys general to settle litigation related to teen mental health and social media.

The financials come as Meta continues to develop its AI capabilities, including the integration of shopping features into its Muse agent. This initiative is expected to make online purchases more engaging and interactive, allowing users to interact with businesses' agents in a more natural way.

CNET: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/meta-muse-ai-agent-shopping-earnings/

Proposition 40 is an unprecedented measure that has left many wondering how it will impact the wealthiest individuals in California. According to healthcare workers union leader Dave Regan, this novel idea aims to address a pressing issue: restoring $100 billion worth of health care cuts made by the federal government over the next few years.

The proposed tax on billionaires is a direct response to President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," which includes significant cuts to Medicaid funding. This move could have severe consequences for three-and-a-half million people who risk losing their health insurance, as well as potentially affecting jobs in Regan's own union, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West.

Regan's tactics in promoting the billionaire tax have come under scrutiny from critics who argue that his methods are overly aggressive and potentially counterproductive.

The union leader has been making claims about the benefits of a five-year wealth tax, which he believes would raise significant revenue for California's coffers. When asked if this tax is indeed a viable solution, Regan unequivocally stated that it was.

The debate over the billionaire tax has sparked controversy and led some high-net-worth individuals to consider leaving the state in protest.

Opposition to the wealth tax has been vocal, with several billionaires choosing to leave California rather than face higher taxes. This includes venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Critics of the billionaire tax argue that it would have unintended consequences, driving away the very individuals who could create jobs and stimulate economic growth in the state.

The proposed billionaire tax in California aims to address a fundamental issue: how to tax individuals who accumulate wealth through investments rather than income. This is a complex problem because most of a billionaire's wealth typically grows in stocks, which are not subject to taxation until they sell. As a result, the state misses out on significant revenue from these assets.

Tax experts point out that billionaires can pay substantial taxes in California, including income, property, and capital gains taxes. However, this is just one part of their tax burden, as most of their wealth remains untaxed due to the current system's loopholes. Critics argue that a billionaire tax would drive away high-net-worth individuals who could contribute to job creation and economic growth in the state.

Professor Ray Madoff from Boston College Law notes that the US tax system has essentially exempted the wealthiest Americans, much like the pre-revolutionary French aristocracy. While she supports Prop 40's goal of reforming the tax system, she believes meaningful change requires a federal-level overhaul.

The proposed billionaire tax in California is seen by some as a temporary fix rather than a long-term solution. Critics argue that it will not make a significant dent in the state's budget deficit, and that more comprehensive reforms are needed.

Polls on the issue have become increasingly divided, with voters now split on whether to approve Prop 40. Some proponents of the tax see it as part of a broader effort to address income inequality, while others view it as a necessary step towards reforming the state's tax system.

Not everyone is willing to weigh in on the issue, however - several billionaires contacted by our team declined to comment on Prop 40, except for one notable exception: Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of Nvidia.

Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of Nvidia, expressed a unique perspective on California's proposed billionaire tax when approached for comment. He acknowledged that paying $8 billion in taxes over five years would be a privilege, demonstrating his willingness to contribute to the state's revenue.

Dave Regan, the architect behind Prop 40, is already looking ahead to its potential impact beyond November and California's borders. According to him, other states will likely follow California's lead, similar to past instances where the state has paved the way for national reforms.

CBS MoneyWatch: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proposition-40-californias-proposed-billionaire-tax-how-does-it-add-up/

There's a way for more Americans to share in the wealth generated by AI - by making them owners of innovative companies. A proposal has been put forward to create "Innovation Accounts that would give adults a stake in America's technological engine, modeled on the concept of Trump Accounts for newborns. These accounts would invest seed money into a technology-stock index, allowing individuals to benefit directly from the growth and profits of AI companies.

Some prominent tech firms have already suggested giving governments a stake in their companies - OpenAI has reportedly floated the idea of handing over up to 5% of its shares to the government, with other leading AI companies considering similar moves. Both President Trump and progressive Democrats have also proposed public ownership stakes in these companies. However, history suggests that governments are not skilled at picking winners and losers in the stock market.

The benefits of investing directly in innovation can be significant - for example, $1,000 invested in the Nasdaq-100 a decade ago would now be worth around $5,727 more than its initial value, assuming an annual return of 21%. If seed money is invested into innovation accounts at a similar rate, gains of up to $28,635 could be made.

The idea of Innovation Accounts has yet to gain traction, but it offers a compelling solution for ensuring that more Americans benefit from the growth and profits generated by AI. By allowing individuals to own a stake in innovative companies, governments can help bridge the gap between those who profit from technological advancements and those who do not.

A precedent exists for government-funded investments in citizens' futures, one that could inform the concept of Innovation Accounts. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act created Trump Accounts, a scheme where American children born between 2025 and 2028 receive a $1,000 stake in the stock market.

This idea draws inspiration from Alaska's Permanent Fund, which invests a share of the state's oil wealth and distributes annual dividends to residents, including children. The fund has been operating for decades, providing an alternative model for governments to consider when it comes to investing in citizens' futures.

Investing directly in individual stocks carries inherent risks, but a diversified technology index fund could offer more Americans access to the potential benefits of AI-driven productivity growth. Currently, only 58% of American adults own stock, with many holding retirement accounts rather than direct investments.

The concept of Innovation Accounts aims to bridge the gap between those who stand to benefit from technological advancements and those who do not. By giving individuals a stake in innovative companies, governments can help mitigate the potential downsides of AI adoption, such as rising electricity costs and job disruption.

Philanthropic organizations could provide an initial source of funding for Innovation Accounts, offering a faster and deficit-neutral way to seed the program. The beneficiaries of AI development, founders, early employees, investors, and foundations at labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, may also be natural sources of capital given the significant wealth they are expected to generate in the near future.

Designing an eligibility criterion for Innovation Accounts poses significant challenges. A universal approach could involve opening $1,000 accounts for every American over 18 years old when Trump accounts expire, but this would come at a substantial cost of around $270 billion.

However, limiting the program to households with wealth under $500,000, approximately 70% of Americans, would reduce the estimated expense to $190 billion. Another alternative is to make the program more targeted, focusing on specific sectors or regions that are most heavily impacted by job displacement due to AI.

For instance, an unemployment trigger could be implemented, where individuals in highly disrupted sectors qualify for accounts based on their sector's unemployment rate compared to the national average over a 10-year period. If the unemployment rate in their sector is at least 1.5 times higher than the average, they would be eligible.

The concept of universal basic capital" has garnered support from diverse figures such as MIT economist David Autor and Senator Bernie Sanders. This broader idea envisions providing every individual with a certain amount of capital to help them adapt to the changing job market.

A pilot program could seed 1 million accounts at $5,000 each, which would require an initial investment of approximately $5 billion plus administrative costs. If successful, the government or philanthropists could scale up the initiative over time.

The potential returns on this investment are substantial, with a 21% annual return on a tech-heavy index like the Nasdaq-100 potentially generating significant gains over a decade. This would provide individuals with the capital to retrain, start their own businesses, or navigate the changing job market with greater autonomy and financial security.

As one of the global hubs for artificial intelligence research and development, the United States is uniquely positioned to capitalize on the opportunities presented by this emerging field. With a disproportionate share of private investment flowing into AI initiatives, America's leading labs are driving innovation at an unprecedented pace.

However, as the country hurtles towards a future where AI may significantly disrupt traditional employment patterns, there is growing concern about the impact on American workers. While it's impossible to predict with certainty the magnitude of job displacement that will occur, one thing is clear: uncertainty demands proactive planning and investment in economic infrastructure designed to mitigate the effects.

A key component of this strategy should be Innovation Accounts, a proposal aimed at strengthening household balance sheets during times of significant disruption and abundance. By providing individuals with access to capital for retraining, entrepreneurship, or navigating the changing job market, these accounts would offer a vital safety net in an era of rapid technological change.

Ultimately, implementing such a plan is not only a matter of economic prudence but also a reflection of America's core values: ingenuity and sharing in the abundance it creates. By investing in Innovation Accounts, the country can ensure that its citizens are equipped to thrive in an AI-driven future.

Fortune: https://fortune.com/2026/10/18/innovation-accounts-americans-ai-wealth/

Keith Wilson, co-chair of the pro-independence group Let Alberta Decide, told supporters at a rally outside the Alberta legislature on Saturday that regardless of the outcome, they had already achieved a significant victory by making separation a major political issue.

Wilson's comments suggest that even if Albertans decide to remain a province and reject the proposal for independence, the movement will continue to push for its goals. The vote is not a direct referendum on independence but rather a decision on whether to initiate the legal process leading up to a potential future referendum on separation.

The separatist movement has made significant strides in convincing hundreds of thousands of Albertans that independence is legally possible and forcing a broader debate over the province's grievances against Ottawa, according to Wilson.

The Alberta separatist movement has attracted a diverse range of supporters, including individuals who opposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates and were part of the 2022 trucker convoy that brought Ottawa to a standstill for weeks. This convergence of interests has been driven by long-standing grievances against the federal government over issues such as energy policies and power distribution.

The pandemic has served as a catalyst for the separatist movement, drawing in activists who felt constrained by COVID-19 restrictions and were influenced by various conspiracy theories. These individuals have joined forces with those who have historically felt alienated from Ottawa, fueling a sense of Western disenfranchisement.

At a recent gathering, Wilson invited American UFC middleweight champion Sean Strickland to the stage, where he praised the Canadian trucker convoy as an inspiration for Americans fighting for their rights and freedom to protest. Strickland's endorsement was seen as a significant gesture of support from across the border.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has been vocal in his opposition to Alberta separation, warning that initiating the process would lead to years of economic uncertainty. His concerns are compounded by the ongoing trade war with the US and threats to Canada's sovereignty, which have raised questions about the country's place within North America.

Despite Premier Danielle Smith's opposition to independence, she called for a referendum on Alberta's separation from Canada, which ended in defeat. The vote was met with disappointment by separatist supporters who had been advocating for the province's autonomy.

The pandemic and subsequent vaccine mandates were cited as key factors drawing young people like 23-year-old Madison Holmes into politics. She said COVID-19 was the catalyst that got her involved in activism, initially targeting government policies under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his predecessor.

ABC News International: https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/alberta-separatists-fighting-after-independence-vote-137354542

According to sources familiar with the matter, Decagon has already engaged in early discussions with cloud software giant ServiceNow. However, a spokesperson for ServiceNow has clarified that these talks have since ceased. The involvement of an investment bank suggests that Decagon is considering its options and weighing up potential offers.

Decagon's recent fundraising round, which saw it secure $5 billion earlier this year, may be part of the reason behind its current explorations. The influx of capital could provide the company with the financial resources to continue growing and innovating, or alternatively, it may have sparked interest from larger players looking to acquire a stake in the AI agent market.

Decagon's recent funding round has not only provided the company with a significant influx of capital but also sparked interest from potential acquirers in the AI market. According to sources familiar with the matter, Decagon has been engaged in early merger and acquisition talks with other companies.

The interest in acquiring or partnering with Decagon is part of a broader trend in the tech industry where companies are increasingly looking to buy their way into promising markets, particularly those related to artificial intelligence. This shift away from venture capital-backed growth reflects a changing landscape in which established players are seeking to accelerate innovation through strategic acquisitions.

Decagon's valuation stands at around $5 billion, and its early success has likely caught the attention of larger companies looking to expand their presence in the AI market. The company's ability to automate customer support using generative AI technology has attracted major enterprise customers such as Delta, Snapchat, and Ticketmaster.

Decagon's significant funding from prominent Silicon Valley investors has attracted attention from major players in the industry. The company has raised over $400 million from a group of well-known investors, including Andreessen Horowitz and Index Ventures.

This substantial investment has likely contributed to ServiceNow's interest in acquiring Decagon. As the software giant continues to navigate the impact of AI on its business model, it is exploring ways to adapt and innovate. Its previous acquisition strategy, including a $7 billion deal for Armis, may have been seen as a way to mitigate this threat.

ServiceNow's shares had declined earlier this year due to investor concerns about the erosion of profit margins in software companies, but they have since rebounded by 55% over the past six months.

Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-agent-company-decagon-hired-investment-bank-acquisition-interest-2026-10

These AI agents can continue working even when their users are not actively engaged with them, running on cloud computers and connecting to external services as needed.

The capabilities of these AI agents differ significantly from traditional chatbots that require continuous monitoring. They offer a more autonomous experience, allowing users to provide a task and then step away while the agent continues to work in the background.

Meta's Muse is one such example, capable of performing tasks such as shopping, form completion, travel planning, email management, and price monitoring.

OpenAI's new agents are also integrated with their existing services, including ChatGPT, Work, and Codex, allowing for seamless collaboration between these tools.

OpenAI's Dot agents can be granted access to users' local computers to retrieve files or browse the internet, allowing them to perform tasks that require direct interaction with the user's device.

This level of control is made possible by the fact that each Dot has its own cloud computer, which enables it to utilize connected plugins and remember relevant context. This means that Dots can keep working on scheduled or recurring jobs without requiring constant supervision.

However, OpenAI plans to introduce a feature that will enable users to manage multiple Dots simultaneously, making it easier to keep track of the various tasks and agents in use.

The ability for Dots to access local computers also raises concerns about data security. Users must be mindful of what permissions they grant to their Dots, as this can provide access to sensitive information such as email accounts or browsing history.

Meta's Muse agent has taken a more cautious approach by requiring permission before taking sensitive actions like sending an email or making a purchase. This is part of Meta's efforts to ensure that users have control over what their agents can do.

OpenAI also employs permissions, Custom Rules and Auto-review to manage the capabilities of its Dots. However, both companies acknowledge that their agents are not infallible and can make mistakes.

The cost of using these agents is another significant difference between them. Meta's Muse offers a free tier with usage limitations, while OpenAI's Dots require a subscription fee, with individual users needing to pay at least $100 per month for the lowest available option.

Activity from personal-plan Dots may be used to improve OpenAI's models if a user has allowed it through their ChatGPT settings, but this only applies to personal plans and not Business or Enterprise users who are exempt by default.

The availability of these AI agents is also limited, with Dots being rolled out to eligible Pro users outside the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK. Business Premium users can access Dots in supported regions for ChatGPT, while Enterprise access remains in beta.

Dots do not count towards usage limits unless they are working within specific features like ChatGPT Work or Codex. In contrast, Meta's Muse is currently available to users in the US and Canada.

Engadget: https://www.engadget.com/2281289/openai-dot-vs-meta-muse-ai-agents-comparison/

The statement was made by Mohsen Rezaei, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and a former Revolutionary Guard commander. Rezaei's comments were carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency, which reported his warning that if fighting intensifies again, Tehran will target data centers and cables in the region.

Iran has been locked in a protracted dispute with the United States over issues such as nuclear development and maritime security. The two nations have engaged in diplomatic efforts to find common ground, but progress remains slow. Iran's delegation to the annual U.N. gathering of world leaders last month proposed a revised agreement that would expedite an existing memorandum of understanding.

The proposal was met with rejection by the United States, but the two sides continue to maintain communication through mediation. Despite this, Rezaei stated that Iran is no longer responding to U.S. proposals and is instead waiting for Washington to clarify certain issues.

Tehran's stance has significant implications for regional security, particularly as tensions between the United States and Iran remain high. The situation has been further complicated by recent developments in Israel, where former attorney general Avichai Mandelblit testified in corruption cases against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose political future hangs in the balance ahead of upcoming elections.

The Iranian government has made it clear that they will not hesitate to target sensitive sites in the region if the current conflict escalates further. This warning comes from a senior official who threatened to attack cables, data centers, AI facilities and other sites in the area.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's navy has issued a stern warning to ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Any vessel that fails to keep its navigation and identification systems active will be considered hostile, according to an IRNA report. This move follows a recent increase in attacks on ships transiting the strait, which began after Iran's proposal was rejected.

In other developments related to the ongoing conflict, former Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has taken the witness stand in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial. Mandelblit indicted Netanyahu seven years ago for fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes, marking the first time a sitting prime minister had faced such charges.

The testimony is particularly significant given that Mandelblit was handpicked by Netanyahu himself to serve as Attorney General, a position he held until 2022. Netanyahu has been accused of offering favors to wealthy associates and media moguls in exchange for political gain, but denies any wrongdoing.

In Saudi Arabia, another attack on the King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh has caused damage to the same passenger terminal that was hit over the weekend. The airport had already been closed following Saturday's attack, which killed 12 people, and Saudi authorities report injuries from Sunday's strike.

The ongoing conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia has taken a deadly turn, with both sides trading blows in recent days. The situation on the ground remains volatile, with civilians caught in the crossfire.

In an effort to raise awareness about the risks of flying in Saudi airspace, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, the Houthi military spokesperson, has issued a stark warning to travelers and airlines alike. His message is clear: those who underestimate the threat posed by the conflict do so at their own peril.

Meanwhile, in Gaza, residents are still reeling from the aftermath of Israeli strikes that have left homes in ruins and families without shelter. Bassam Abed, a local resident, paints a grim picture of the devastation: entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, with little time for people to evacuate or salvage their belongings.

The Israeli military claims its actions were targeted at militant infrastructure, including rocket launch sites and command centers used by Hamas militants. However, the strikes have also had a devastating impact on civilians, who are caught in the midst of the conflict. One year after a ceasefire deal was reached between Israel and Hamas, the situation remains precarious.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded to criticism over the country's military actions in Gaza by launching an investigation into those who participated in a new documentary that sheds light on civilian casualties during the conflict. The film, NAZA, has sparked controversy with its portrayal of Israeli military tactics and their impact on civilians.

The documentary NAZA" has reignited tensions between Israel and the international community, sparking heated debates about the Israeli military's actions in Gaza.

The controversy surrounding the film is taking place against a backdrop of heightened security concerns for Netanyahu ahead of the October 27 election, where his handling of national security will be closely scrutinized by voters.

Lebanon has also been affected by the ongoing conflict, with its army reporting that a retired officer was killed by Israeli artillery fire in the southern town of Yater, prompting condemnation from the Lebanese military.

Fortune: https://fortune.com/2026/10/11/iran-war-cables-data-centers-ai-facilities-gulf-region/

The move comes as part of a larger national struggle for control over high court seats, which can have far-reaching impacts on state laws and policies. A string of recent court decisions on contentious issues such as abortion, voting rights, and climate change has sparked controversy among Republicans, prompting party officials to inject more partisan politics into Montana's officially nonpartisan Supreme Court elections.

To counter this trend, citizen activists have launched a campaign to enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state constitution through a statewide vote. This effort has put pressure on the November election, which will not only feature a ballot proposal but also a unique contest between two candidates for the state Supreme Court who are both officially nonpartisan.

The Montana Supreme Court election is one of several high-profile contests taking place this fall across roughly two dozen states, with millions of dollars being spent to sway voters. The intense focus on these elections reflects the growing importance of top state judicial offices in shaping policy and governance at the local level.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court elections have set a precedent for the high stakes involved in nonpartisan state judicial races. A record-breaking $100 million was spent on last year's pivotal contest, which saw liberals maintain their narrow control of the court.

This control has already had significant implications, with the liberal majority striking down an abortion ban law and overturning state legislative districts that benefited Republicans. These decisions have put partisan control of both chambers in play ahead of this year's election.

The importance of state supreme courts is becoming increasingly clear, with many regarding them as key arbiters of rights and liberties. This has led interest groups to focus on court races in several states, positioning themselves for bigger battles in 2028.

One such group is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is investing heavily in Supreme Court races across multiple states. According to its chief political and advocacy officer, Deirdre Schifeling, state supreme courts are "really, really important -- increasingly important" arbiters of rights and liberties.

The ACLU has committed $5.5 million to Supreme Court races in Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, with additional funds allocated for contests in Georgia and Wisconsin earlier this year.

The Montana Supreme Court's recent rulings on abortion laws, voter registration, and environmental protection have sparked controversy among state lawmakers. In particular, the court's decision to strike down restrictive abortion laws has drawn criticism from Republicans who hold legislative majorities.

Eddy's involvement in these landmark cases has put her at odds with some Republican circles. As a fill-in Supreme Court judge, she was part of the majority that ruled against the state's abortion laws, citing individual privacy rights enshrined in the state constitution. This decision has been seen as a key factor in Eddy's bid for election.

Legislative efforts to curb the judiciary's power have been ongoing, with new laws allowing political parties to contribute money to judicial candidates taking effect this year. While legislation to require partisan judicial elections passed the Senate, it stalled in the House. This development has led some to speculate about the motivations behind these attempts to shape the court.

The ACLU has committed significant resources to supporting Eddy's campaign, including a $2.1 million contribution to efforts to enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state constitution. The organization has also mailed flyers highlighting her stance on abortion rights and her decision not to accept party funding. These moves have been seen as part of a larger effort to counter Republican-backed candidates.

Meanwhile, Wilson's campaign has received funding from various Republican Party committees and he has spoken at GOP events, further emphasizing the partisan nature of this election. The contrast between Eddy's campaign and Wilson's has raised questions about the role of party politics in shaping the judiciary.

The debate over partisanship in judicial elections continues to gain attention as Montana's Supreme Court faces its own test.

In recent years, several states have seen significant changes to their high court election processes, often driven by partisan interests. Kansas voters rejected a proposal to elect judges instead of appointing them through a Republican-backed initiative in August.

The outcome in North Carolina has been particularly notable, where the Republican-led state Legislature passed a law restoring partisan elections for Supreme Court justices after Democrats gained a majority on the nonpartisan court in 2018.

This move allowed Republicans to reclaim control of the court in the 2022 elections and led to significant changes. Just months later, the new conservative majority reversed previous decisions by upholding a voter photo identification law and overturning a ruling against a Republican-drawn congressional map.

In Ohio, the Republican-led Legislature introduced a law requiring partisan labels for Supreme Court judges on general election ballots in 2021, paving the way for Republicans to expand their court majority.

The push to make state Supreme Court elections more partisan has been met with resistance from groups advocating for nonpartisan judicial selection processes. According to Tish Gotell Faulks, state courts director for one such group, this shift towards partisanship will be a gradual process that may take time to reverse.

In North Carolina and Ohio, both parties are defending Supreme Court seats in upcoming elections, while Montana's contest will fill a vacancy left by the retirement of a swing-vote judge. The outcome of these races is expected to have long-term implications for the ideological balance of their respective state courts.

The Brennan Center for Justice's Douglas Keith notes that the 2028 election cycle will be crucial in determining whether the court's ideology shifts significantly, and that this year's results will set the stage for future developments.

ABC News Politics: https://abcnews.com/Politics/wireStory/nonpartisan-state-supreme-court-elections-put-test-montana-137170591

The emotional plea was made by Stephen Federico, whose daughter Logan was tragically shot and killed during a break-in in Columbia, South Carolina, while visiting friends in 2025. Federico had previously called for the passage of Logan's Law as a tribute to his daughter. At a law enforcement roundtable event in North Charleston, South Carolina, Federico spoke out about the need for such legislation.

Federico was seated alongside Blanche and Graham at the event held at the Charleston County Sheriff's Office. The bill in question, introduced by Lindsey Graham's late brother Senator Lindsey Graham, has stalled since its introduction six months ago.

The bill introduced by Lindsey Graham before his sudden passing has been met with silence from lawmakers despite mounting pressure to address the issue of repeat offenders.

If enacted, the legislation would establish a publicly accessible database managed by the attorney general, containing information on individuals convicted of violent crimes. The database would facilitate data-sharing between states, enabling law enforcement agencies to identify and apprehend career felons who evade justice by crossing jurisdictional boundaries.

The bill's introduction coincides with Federico's efforts to hold local authorities accountable for his daughter's death. As he pointed out, the alleged killer was arrested multiple times, but police departments failed to recognize the outstanding warrants against him due to a lack of coordination between jurisdictions.

Darline Graham is facing a challenging re-election campaign in South Carolina, where she is currently defending her Senate seat against Democrat Annie Andrews. Recent polls have suggested that Graham and Andrews are neck and neck, a surprising development given the Republican Party's long-standing dominance in the state.

The tragic loss of Federico's daughter has clearly left a lasting impact on him, as he has publicly expressed his determination to make a difference. Despite the emotional toll of this experience, Federico remains resolute in his commitment to advocate for policy changes that can prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

CBS News Politics: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-man-presses-doj-lawmakers-career-felons/

The proposed investment was an attempt to address a critical problem: universities struggling to manage their most valuable assets. According to experts, it is not a lack of money or rules that is causing the turmoil, but rather the inability of institutions to effectively run their sports programs.

The tumultuous state of college sports has been evident in recent months, with high-profile coaches and players making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Lane Kiffin's departure from Ole Miss and subsequent move to LSU is just one example, as universities grapple with issues such as player transfers and coach contracts.

In response to these challenges, Congress has introduced several bills aimed at reforming college sports. The Protect College Sports Act, passed by the Senate and awaiting consideration in the House, is one of the most prominent proposals. However, its prospects for passage remain uncertain.

The Protect College Sports Act has been touted as a solution to the sport's problems, but critics argue that it needs further refinement before being put into action. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise has expressed reservations about the bill, stating that it requires significant changes before it can be considered.

The debate over college sports reform is set to continue, with multiple proposals and counter-proposals emerging in Congress. The fate of the Protect College Sports Act will likely depend on the outcome of the midterms, when the House takes up the issue for further consideration.

The financial realities of college sports are becoming increasingly clear. Student athletes are now earning a significant share of revenue from marketing deals and other sources, contributing to a staggering total of over $2 billion annually. This influx of cash has also led to substantial salaries for top coaches, with some even rivaling those in the professional leagues.

The trend of high coach salaries is not limited to just current employees, as former head coaches have collected over $1 billion in severance packages since 2015 alone. Meanwhile, the constant flux of players transferring between schools has created a free agency environment that would be unrecognizable in any professional league. In fact, nearly one in five football players changes teams each year.

The proposed Cruz-Cantwell bill aims to address these issues by imposing stricter regulations on athlete pay and transfers, as well as prohibiting midseason coaching changes. Additionally, it offers incentives for Power Conference schools to share media rights with smaller institutions, effectively creating a pool of resources that could help level the playing field.

Despite its intentions, however, the bill would not fundamentally alter the underlying economics of college football. As the nation's second most valuable sports media property, the market for player and coach compensation will likely continue to rise, drawing closer to professional league standards.

University administrators rushing to Capitol Hill should take heed of Ray Kroc's warning that government intervention can be a sign of weakness rather than strength. In reality, college athletics is already subject to genuine market forces, but schools have yet to make the necessary investments to adapt and compete effectively in this new landscape.

The key to success in professional sports is not just about having a talented roster, but also about investing in the underlying infrastructure that supports it. This includes areas like player development, capital allocation, data analytics, and sports science, which can give an organization an edge even when its talent is changing.

College programs often neglect this groundwork, with many struggling to compete with the resources available to top professional teams. For example, the Seattle Seahawks employ nearly three times as many non-uniform football operations personnel as the Indiana Hoosiers, who won the College Football Playoff championship.

This lack of investment in infrastructure is evident in the way coaches approach games. Even top college programs still rely on printed manuals for in-game strategy, and are praised for using them at all. This is a far cry from the more sophisticated approach taken by professional teams, which use data analytics to inform their decisions.

The shift towards using transfer portals and away from traditional high school recruiting routes has also exposed weaknesses in the infrastructure of college sports programs. Many of the most successful coaches have built their careers on relationships with local high school coaches, who served as de facto talent pipelines.

As these old networks begin to crumble, there is a growing need for modern replacements that can adapt to changing circumstances. However, it remains to be seen whether colleges are willing or able to make the necessary investments in this area.

College athletics departments are often locked in an arms race to build identical facilities, such as state-of-the-art weight rooms that offer little more than sameness.

The leadership structure of universities may be part of the problem. NFL general managers have a direct line to team owners, whereas university presidents face challenges in terms of job security, with tenure declining over the past two decades.

This shift in power dynamics means that universities must re-evaluate who is making decisions and how they are being made. Power could reside with the president, other members of the athletics department, or even the board of directors.

The value proposition offered by colleges is also under scrutiny. As public trust erodes and funding priorities shift towards individual researchers rather than legacy institutions, universities must consider whether exceptional students truly require their services.

The college sports landscape will continue to be dominated by a multi-billion-dollar bidding war for top talent, with NIL payments and coaching contracts driving the competition.

As the college sports landscape continues to evolve, it is clear that a fundamental shift has occurred in how athletes are valued and compensated. The current system, which prioritizes athletic prowess over academic achievement, has led to a culture of exploitation where student-athletes are treated as commodities rather than students.

A more equitable approach would be to recognize the value of education and provide fair compensation for athletes who choose to pursue their passions while in college. This could involve implementing policies that allow student-athletes to profit from their own name, image, and likeness without sacrificing their eligibility or academic standing. Ultimately, a sustainable future for college sports requires a more nuanced understanding of the complex issues at play.

Fortune: https://fortune.com/2026/10/07/college-sports-professional-management-investment/