What are people really asking ChatGPT?

With adoption growing, ChatGPT prompts are shifting as consumer behavior evolves. While software development prompts continue to dominate, their share has fallen meaningfully over the past year, reflecting how developers were among the earliest users of ChatGPT for code and other applications.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows the most popular ChatGPT prompt categories, based on data from Sensor Tower.

Top Categories for ChatGPT Prompts in 2025

Below, we show the leading prompt categories on ChatGPT between March and April 2025:

Covering 29% of all prompts, software development is the top category for ChatGPT users.

Along with simplifying coding tasks across multiple programming languages, ChatGPT can help debug and automate tasks. A separate study found that early coders (those with under a year of coding experience) were most likely to be AI optimists among coders.

History and society prompts were the second-most common type of prompt, at 15% of the total share. Meanwhile, AI and machine learning prompts followed closely behind.

Interestingly, the fastest-growing category was economics, finance and tax—with its share jumping more than threefold in a year as users increasingly look for insights on stocks, financial markets, and macroeconomic trends.

To learn more about this topic from a user perspective, check out this graphic on the most popular AI tools in 2025.

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

Lawmakers in Washington are gearing up to pass three bills for the blockchain industry in an event they have dubbed “crypto week.”

The US Congress has been working on legislation that the crypto industry lobby says will help bring clarity to the industry and help it grow, primarily through two laws governing stablecoins and creating a crypto market structure. Congress is also considering a law preventing the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Crypto has found support on both sides of the aisle, with Democratic and Republican lawmakers each making a number of amendments to the bills under consideration. Major crypto exchanges operating in the United States, like Coinbase, have stepped up their campaigning for the legislation as well.

With Congress set to take action on three critical bills during Crypto Week, here’s a look at what they’re considering and what it means for the crypto industry.

The three bills expected during Crypto Week. Source: House Financial Services Committee

Crypto week aims to pass three bills into law

The US House Financial Services Committee announced Crypto Week would start on July 14. It will consider three bills, namely:

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act)

Republican Representative French Hill introduced the CLARITY Act only at the end of June. The bill aims to provide a framework for the digital assets industry, including defining the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). 

The crypto industry has long thought that the Howey test, as outlined in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is out of date and that the SEC should not apply it nor exercise jurisdiction over digital assets. 

The CLARITY Act would “provide an exemption from the Securities Act of 1933’s registration requirement for offers of investment contracts involving digital commodities on mature blockchains that meet certain conditions.”

It also defines “mature” blockchains as networks that have a digital commodity “substantially derived from the use and functioning of the blockchain.” It can’t have user restrictions and must limit certain holders to less than 20% of ownership.

Under the bill, the CFTC would gain “exclusive regulatory jurisdiction” over crypto transactions. Crypto exchanges and brokers would be required to register with the commission and would be subject to record keeping, reporting, antitrust considerations and other regulatory considerations.

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)

Perhaps the most well-known of the three bills being considered during crypto week is the GENIUS Act, the long-awaited regulatory framework for stablecoins. 

The bill was introduced in February, just over a week after President Donald Trump took his oath of office, by a bipartisan group of legislators. It is now in the House after passing the Senate in a bipartisan vote on June 17.

The bill defines what type of entities may issue stablecoins and states that “issuers must maintain reserves backing the stablecoin on a one-to-one basis using U.S. currency or other similarly liquid assets, as specified.”

It also subjects issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act and sets provisions for the event of a stablecoin issuer going insolvent. 

Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act

Republican Representative Tom Emmer introduced the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act on March 6, which seeks to prevent the Federal Reserve, the US’s central bank, from issuing a CBDC.

Under the pretense of concern over citizens’ privacy, the act would forbid the Fed from issuing a CBDC either by itself or through a third party, prevent the Fed from using a CBDC to influence monetary policy and give Congress the sole authority to issue a digital dollar. 

According to an announcement from the House Committee on Financial Services, supporting organizations include the Blockchain Association, the Digital Chamber of Commerce and a number of banking lobbies. 

Can the crypto bills actually pass?

Given the glacial pace of lawmaking in Washington, one week is a short time to pass three laws, especially considering the size and economic implications of these three bills.

Major crypto companies like Coinbase have been lobbying hard. On July 7, Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto lobbying organization started by Coinbase, sent a letter to lawmakers signed by 65 executives from various crypto firms, urging Congress to pass the CLARITY Act. 

On July 9, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong wrote a message supporting the same, saying that “America is ready for crypto.” 

Polymarket doesn’t reflect this readiness. Participants in the “Clarity Act signed into law in 2025?” market give the bill a 52% chance at publishing time. 

The CLARITY Act’s success has divided punters. Source: Polymarket

The CLARITY Act has been panned by lawmakers and consumer protection organizations alike as being a “crypto crash grab” and a means for companies to avoid SEC regulation.

Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) called the bill “a massive deregulatory bill backed by a gusher of campaign cash and lobbying muscle from ultra-wealthy venture capital firms and crypto billionaires. The bill will enrich them at the expense of consumers, communities, and financial stability.”

The AFR also raised concerns about Trump’s personal crypto dealings and noted that the bill contains no provisions regarding corruption and ethical concerns. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a noted crypto critic, has also opposed the bill, stating that it allows major firms to skirt SEC regulation. 

“Under the House bill, a publicly traded company like Meta or Tesla could simply decide to put its stock on the blockchain and — poof! — it would escape all SEC regulation,” said Warren. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren at a July 9 Senate hearing. Source: Senate Banking Committee

The GENIUS Act, by comparison, has experienced more debate and revision in both halls of Congress. According to Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s sponsors, the Senate has done significant work to include provisions addressing Democratic concerns over terrorism financing and money laundering. 

When the bill passed the Senate in mid-June, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said it “targets illicit finance, places limitations on Big Tech, puts in place ethical guardrails, and strengthens national security.”

Concerns remain, like the potential effect the act could have on dollar dominance and treasury markets. Even so, betting markets are optimistic. Participants on Polymarket give the bill a 92% chance of passing this year. 

The anti-CBDC bill is still under deliberation. On July 9, the House Committee on Ways and Means and Oversight Subcommittee announced a July 16 hearing on “affirmative steps needed to place a tax policy framework on digital assets.”

The hearing is reportedly set to address aspects related to Emmer’s anti-CBDC bill. 

Whether pro-crypto lawmakers can pass three laws in a week seems a high bar to clear, but even if they don’t, their focus in the near future is definitely crypto. 

Waking up for the London Stock Exchange isn’t complete without the daily ritual: fire up the espresso machine, grind those dark roasted Robusta beans, and 30 seconds later—boom—a jolt of caffeine strong enough to skim a dozen Goldman, UBS, and Bank of America notes. But here’s the kicker: the morning rocket fuel might be doing a lot more than energizing you for the trading session. 

According to a massive UK Biobank study, coffee—yes, even the decaf, instant, and ground stuff—appears to protect against chronic liver disease (CLD).

“Coffee consumption has been linked with lower rates of CLD, but little is known about the effects of different coffee types, which vary in chemical composition,” researchers from the University of Edinburgh Centre for Inflammation Research wrote in the report. 

Here are the key takeaways from the study, which found that compared to non-coffee drinkers, regular coffee drinkers had a: 

• 21% lower risk of incident CLD
• 20% lower risk of CLD or steatosis
• 49% lower risk of death from CLD

Dose-Response: “The maximal protective effect was seen at around 3–4 cups each day. The findings were robust to excluding events in the first 5 years. Drinkers of decaffeinated, instant, and ground coffee (including espresso) also had lower risks of incident CLD, incident CLD or steatosis, death from CLD, and, to a lesser extent, HCC, with ground coffee (including espresso) having the largest effect,” the researchers found. 

Researchers noted, “This study agrees with previous cohort studies that generally report inverse associations between coffee consumption and CLD outcomes, including deranged liver enzymes, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.”

Biologically, coffee’s protective effect is plausible. Caffeine inhibits the A2aA receptor, which otherwise promotes liver fibrosis. Yet decaffeinated coffee was also protective, pointing to other active compounds like chlorogenic acid, kahweol, and cafestol—especially concentrated in ground coffee. These compounds have shown anti-fibrotic effects in animal studies, suggesting a multifactorial mechanism behind coffee’s liver-protective properties.

What better way to armor your liver and support your favorite forward-looking financial news site than by grabbing a bag of our ZeroHedge-approved coffee beans?

Top pick? The dark roast. Bold, unapologetic—just like our headlines.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Most of them are opposed to the expulsion of any illegal immigrants, yet self-censoring their criticism of Iran’s policy discredits their criticisms of Trump’s similar one, while acknowledging the “Weapons of Mass Migration” pretext upon which Iran’s policy is premised justifies Trump’s.

Approximately 800,000 Afghans have reportedly been expelled from Iran ahead of Sunday’s deadline for undocumented members of this estimated 4 million-strong community to leave. Publicly financed Press TV said that the policy is aimed at mitigating the security threat that they pose after some of them were caught spying for Israel and carrying out terrorist attacks at its behest during the latest conflict. In any case, this poses a dilemma for many of Iran’s supporters, most of whom oppose Trump’s similar policy.

After all, Trump’s justification for expelling illegal immigrants from the US is also partially premised on security-related reasons, yet his opponents still condemn it as “racist”, “fascist”, and “xenophobic”. Some of these same opponents at home and abroad also strongly support Iran, especially in the context of the latest conflict, and criticizing it for any reason is thus deemed to be “politically incorrect” according to their dogma. Self-censoring criticisms of Iran’s expulsions, however, discredits their criticisms of Trump’s.

Opponents of mass expulsions also tend to be leftist-aligned regardless of how they politically self-identify (e.g. “moderate”, socialist, communist, etc.), so they’re already ideologically in favor of “open borders” or at the very least consider the expulsion of any illegal immigrants to be unacceptable. The abovementioned problem though is that criticizing Iran for its mass expulsion of Afghans, despite being driven by “anti-Zionist” security-related reasons, could lead to them being “canceled”.

That’s because their online activist community regularly carries out inquisitions against anyone who doesn’t perfectly conform with their talking points at any given time. Even constructive critiques of various countries, leaders, and policies, no matter how mild, can lead to one being viciously smeared as a “Zionist” or “CIA agent” and accused of “infiltrating” their cause in order to “subvert it from within”. Criticizing Iran on this point right after the latest conflict could therefore destroy someone’s reputation.

The crux of their dilemma is whether the concept of “Weapons of Mass Migration” (WMM), which Ivy League scholar Kelly M. Greenhill introduced in 2010, exists. In this context, it refers to the weaponization of some migrant communities by foreign powers, exactly as Israel is suspected of doing with some Afghans vis-à-vis Iran. WMMs objectively exist, but most leftist-aligned activists have hitherto gaslit that they don’t, afraid to lend this concept credence that could then justify Trump’s policies.

It remains to be seen how this community as a whole reacts to Iran’s mass expulsion policy, if at all since most might prefer to remain silent to avoid being “canceled” by their peers, and whether they’ll still criticize Trump’s similar policy if they acknowledge that WMMs do indeed exist. The overarching issue is the interplay between ideology, groupthink, dogma, “cancel culture”, and resultant dilemmas, which isn’t exclusive to Iran’s supporters or leftist-aligned individuals but afflicts all causes.

For reasons of consistency, they’d do well to acknowledge that WMMs exist but with the caveat that they could be exploited as the pretext for massively expelling entire groups for ulterior reasons, which could even include those such as naturalized citizens who should be legally protected. The aforesaid proposal would require modifying the dogma to which many of Iran’s supporters adhere, however, which could ironically provoke a mass inquisition (“expulsion”) of suspected “subversives” from their ranks.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told President Trump that he supports the idea of a nuclear deal in which Iran is unable to enrich uranium, according to US officials who spoke to Axios.

However, amid reports saying that the same message has been conveyed to Tehran, Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim denied it, quoting an “informed source” as saying Putin had not sent any such messages.

Russia has long advocated that Iran should have the right to enrich, so Putin signing off on this ‘zero enrichment’ US plan marks what could be a significant shift, and much tougher position. Presumably a scheme like this would involve an external power like Russia shipping in the enriched product needed for nuclear energy plants.

In the wake of the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which ended with the US bombing three key Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump has declared as his red line that the Islamic Republic no longer enrich uranium.

Moscow, which has long acted as a diplomatic go-between involving Iran and the US, appears to now side with this US position as a way forward:

Citing three European officials and one senior Israeli official familiar with the matter, the outlet reported that Moscow has encouraged Tehran to accept the “zero-enrichment” condition.

“We know that this is what Putin told the Iranians,” a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

But again, the Iranians appear to be denying this, based on current state media reports.

The basic framework of ‘deals’ Washington has offered the Iranians is said to be that Tehran must abandon any all efforts for highly enriched uranium in return for sanctions relief.

“Putin supports the no-enrichment option. He encouraged the Iranians to move in this direction to facilitate dialogue with the U.S. But Tehran refused even to consider this possibility.”

But the Iranians have also been demanding answers to the question of when and how these layers of sanctions will be removed by Washington.

Iranian leaders also don’t trust the US, given a history of flip-flopping on key agreements like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of in 2018, during his first term.

Tehran is expected to reject taking enrichment down to zero, considering it sees as a matter of national sovereignty, but may agree to impose limits on enrichment and a monitoring regimen – though it just reportedly kicked UN IAEA inspectors out of the country.

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system – including the scrapping of jury trials for some offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty – are all part of larger “reforms” that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism.

Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson made the news this week with the publication of his report recommending, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.

Note the language, by the way. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.

This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the worldwide agenda for years now.

Within weeks of “Covid” starting, Scotland moved to suspend jury trials entirely (a move so unpopular they reversed it within 24 hours). At the same time, noted lawyers wrote opinion pieces for the Guardian headlined:

“Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing”

Also in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins wrote that Covid had presented an “opportunity” to get rid of the old-fashioned jury trial system. He repeated the idea in another column a couple of months ago.

Less than a year later, Scotland wanted to waive jury trials again, this time in rape cases, to “protect the victim”. They scrapped that plan, too.

Not long after that, in the US, the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict caused the predictable pundits to rant and rave about the “broken” jury system.

In January 2023, the French government announced it would be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15-20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.

Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with ChatGPT-like artificial intelligences. A possibility to horrendous to contemplate.

Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ID – it’s a lid that fits every pot.

I don’t know what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have against jury trials specifically, but it’s easy to speculate that the potential lack of control is an anathema to our ruling institutions and the rigidly patrolled society they are trying to create.

In the end, the motivation is as immaterial as the agenda is obvious.

Rather aptly, like a murder trial, lack of knowledge of motive doesn’t override direct evidence, and the evidence is clear: Jury trials are in the crosshairs.

However, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Goodbye, right to appeal

Leveson’s recommendations extend beyond jury trials; we covered them when they were first “leaked” back in April, but the final report is even worse than expected.

It takes aim at the Right to Appeal as well [emphasis added]:

I begin by recommending that the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court should be replaced with a requirement for a defendant to apply for permission to appeal.

incentivizing guilty pleas

The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas:

Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the Sentencing Council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% (if made at the first available opportunity)

Combine this with the knowledge you’ll be tried by a judge (or tribunal) rather than a jury, and that’s a system directly incentivising pleading guilty.

A recipe for a huge increase in convictions.

But there’s more, and it goes beyond this report to the broader story of our criminal justice system. To see it you have to take a step back and see the big picture, like at the end of The Usual Suspects.

Long-term Propaganda

The narrative push for “reform” of the justice system is old, and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.

Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness, and length of jury trials go back twenty-five years or more.

We’ve had literally years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. We’ve had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be “protected” – including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination, and removing jury trials.

The intention was clearly to tee up this report (or one like it), which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.

This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success. You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your “reforms” have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.

It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.

More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation. Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest. These are crimes that carry a social stigma such that a) the public generally assumes anyone accused is guilty, and b) nobody will want to be seen criticizing the reform, for fear of being labelled a child pornography/animal cruelty apologist.

Hate speech convictions

It’s not mentioned in the Leveson report, but a good percentage of the alleged “backlog” in court cases is due to a huge increase in “malicious communications” offenses. Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts etc., more than double the pre-pandemic numbers.

Increasing the number and types of criminalised behaviours will inevitably increase the number of “criminals”.

Prison reform

Prison “reform” is a major part of the plan for the future, too. Since Labour won the election last year, there has been a constant drizzle of “prison crisis” stories.

In March, we were warned of a “prison system in crisis” and that could collapse by 2026 if “rapid action” was not taken. The same month, Labour were “forced” to implement “Operation Safeguard” to deal with prison overflow.

Last month, a report claimed “overcrowded prisoners fuel prisoner violence”.

In September of last year, Labour very publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to “ease overcrowding” (and make room for those newly convicted for “social media offences” following the incredibly fake “riots”). They later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals “by mistake”.

Why did this story hit the headlines? Why wouldn’t they do this in secret?

Because the outrage is part of the story. Because you’re being offered a false choice.

“Oh you don’t want us to release criminals onto the streets? I guess we’d better reform the justice system and increase our prisoner capacity then.” (And indeed, “Digital ID will help us track these released prisoners!”)

What will the proposed prison “reform” look like?

Well, for starters, it will be prison expansion rather than reform. That has already been confirmed.

Secondly, we probably can expect increased privatisation. The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England’s 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners, being run privately.

The first of Labour’s four new prisons, HMP Millsike, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run (and “green” too, yay!)

It will be hard sell for a Labour government already seen as betraying its base on winter fuel payments, benefits and more, but it was Blair’s government that saw the UK’s first real surge in private prisons, and Keir is very much Blair jnr.

In summary

So, what can we conclude?

Let’s bullet point exactly what our “reformed” justice system might look like:

• Increase in criminalised behaviour (“hate speech” etc.)

• No jury trials for certain offenses, or any charges carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years or less.

• Incentivised guilty pleas.

• No automatic right of appeal.

• Expanded and increasingly privatised prison system.

In headlines up and down the country, Leveson has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to “prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system”.

But these measures ARE the collapse of the criminal justice system.

And the start of a criminal justice system.

Russia’s lone large aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov is designed to engage major surface targets, but it has been undergoing major repairs for over five years, and it’s last mission of note was in the Mediterranean where it conducted airstrikes in Syria in support of the Assad government 

A fire in 2019 resulted in two fatalities and 14 injuries, and it has had to undergo a large-scale reconstruction process at at estimated cost of almost $260 million. It was supposed to be deployable again in 2022 – but this has been postponed time and again as the vessel keeps suffering problems, including sinking drydocks, and severe repair delays, and even reports of corruption related to its expanding budget.

Fresh reports out of Russia say the Kremlin considering decommissioning the Admiral Kuznetsov, according to the pro-government newspaper Izvestia, which further says repair and modernization work on the carrier has been halted.

Officials from the Navy High Command and the United Shipbuilding Corporation, which was charged with overseeing the repairs, are said to be assessing whether it’s feasible to return the vessel to service.

“The Kuznetsov belongs to a bygone era,” Sergei Avakyants, former commander of Russia’s Pacific Fleet, described. “It’s an extremely costly and inefficient military asset. The future lies in unmanned systems and robotic technologies.”

Other analysts have pointed out that the grinding Ukraine war has become the highest priority, and thus all the state’s defense costs have been sunk into achieving objectives there

The Kuznetsov reaches back to the Soviet era, as it was launched in 1985 and commissioned in 1991, which has led many officials to conclude that it is now outdated.

In 2024, one US publication questioned, will it ever sail again? It’s conclusion was likely not:

Aircraft carriers, in a way, are like a metric measuring a nation’s general fortune. Why? Because aircraft carriers are complex; aircraft carriers are extremely expensive – both to produce and to maintain. Accordingly, only affluent nations, with resources to spare, can burden the cost of developing and fielding an aircraft carrier.

The US, the world’s most powerful nation, has eleven “supercarriers.” China, an ambitious and revisionist “up and comer” is working to expand their aircraft carriers fleet – and is on the verge of fielding a third carrier. India has two. Italy has two. The United Kingdom has two – but has decommissioned 41 – suggesting the island nation’s decline in global relevance. And Russia, a hollowed out paper tiger, has just the Admiral Kuznetsov, which many assume will never sail again.

One military and maritime analyst, Robert Beckhusen, has written that Kuznetsov “is barely capable of doing what carriers are supposed to do: launch fighters. When she does, she uses a bow ramp instead of steam catapults, which forces reductions in planes’ takeoff weight and patrol time.”

Russia’s only aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov” may be scrapped for metal

The cruiser has been under repair since 2017 and has faced a series of mishaps: in 2018, Russia’s largest floating dock sank, and in 2019, a major fire broke out on board. Modernization work has been… pic.twitter.com/1LXDzefdVk

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 11, 2025

At the same time, the Ukraine war has made clear that Russia is shifting battlefield tactics to heavy reliance on drone warfare. Also, it routinely launches cruise missiles from destroyers in the Black Sea.

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

The French Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an investigation into X over the alleged use of its algorithm for foreign interference.

According to a statement from Magistrate Laure Beccuau on Friday, prosecutors have launched a probe into whether X violated French law by manipulating its algorithms to extract user data fraudulently.

The investigation was launched after two reports were submitted to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office’s cybercrime division on Jan. 12 — one by MP Éric Bothorel, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble Pour La Republique party, and another by a senior government official whose identity was not disclosed.

In Bothorel’s statement posted Friday on X, he wrote that he filed his initial inquiry because he was “convinced that an informational bias, extreme on the X platform, was being used to serve Elon Musk’s political opinions and that this could only happen through algorithmic manipulation.”

He added that he was pleased that the “French justice system is taking meaningful steps to combat foreign interference.”

The case was referred to the General Directorate of the National Gendarmerie on Wednesday, officially launching an investigation into X. 

The investigation focuses on two elements: tampering with the operation of an automated data processing system as part of an organized group, and the fraudulent extraction of data from an automated data processing system as part of an organized group.

France’s J3 cybercrime unit will lead the investigation. J3 conducted an investigation that led to the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in August 2024.

X faces growing scrutiny across Europe

Since Elon Musk purchased X in 2022, it has had several run-ins with regulators, especially in Europe. In February, two German NGOs won a ruling from the Berlin Regional Court that required X to provide access to publicly available engagement data to assist researchers in analyzing potential election interference.

The European Union is investigating X for a possible violation of the Digital Service Act. This new landmark regulation requires online platforms to take down illegal content and increase transparency around algorithms.

As Musk pushes to turn X into a financial hub with crypto at its core, mounting pressure from European regulators could undermine the trust he needs to secure approval for offering financial services in the EU.

Authored by Gonzalo Schwarz via RealClearPolitics.com,

Another July 4th has come and gone, and the American experiment continues to face many tests. Amid economic uncertainty and a recent resurgence of socialism, we are pushing the boundaries of what “America” even means.

Benjamin Franklin famously preferred “a republic, if you can keep it.” Even though the U.S. Constitution had formed a republic, it was up to the people to keep it alive and well. The same applies today, and there is much more to America than flag parades, fireworks, and summer barbecues.

Now, we go back to our petty squabbles, ready for the next debate on Capitol Hill after the “Big, Beautiful Bill” reached the finish line. More and more Americans are pessimistic that we can “keep” our republic for the next generation. More people think the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis than believe that democracy still exists. Most are concerned about threats to democracy, and political violence in particular.

It begs the question: What is holding us all together?

Perhaps our founding document said it best about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” keeping the flame of freedom alive.

However, the American Dream is a better representation of American ideals in our current times. There is no better chance at national unity than the American people seeking to live better, richer, and fuller lives, regardless of where they started and their circumstances at birth. It transcends identity politics, and new research proves it.

According to the sixth annual edition of the Archbridge Institute’s “American Dream Snapshot,” people are still optimistic about the promise of America and their own chances of living their dreams. Most Americans (seven in 10) believe they have achieved the American Dream or are on their way to achieving it, regardless of race, income, or education.

In other words, the American Dream is alive and well. Compared to last year, fewer people say that the American Dream is out of reach. And most believe they have more or about the same opportunities as their parents, meaning that our nation continues to be the land of opportunity. 

Most people continue to understand that living better and fuller lives – rather than simply becoming wealthy – is essential to the American Dream. “Freedom of choice in how to live” (83%) and “having a good family life” (80%) remain the most important achievements associated with the American Dream. In comparison, only 15% of U.S. adults claim becoming wealthy is essential – down from 19% last year.

Of course, many challenges remain. While believing in themselves, Americans are less optimistic about their fellow citizens, with only 51% believing that most Americans can achieve their American Dream. Nearly 60% of Americans say that recent tariff increases will make it more difficult for them to achieve the American Dream, and only 12% believe higher tariffs will help them.

When it comes to advancements in artificial intelligence, most Americans are ambivalent about the effects of technology on the American Dream, although pessimism is more common than optimism. Half (51%) of U.S. adults think AI will not affect their pursuit of the American Dream, but 31% of people believe it will have a negative effect, and only 16% think that AI will have a positive effect.

Economic anxiety cannot be overstated. Among the 30% of people who think the American Dream is out of reach, over half blame economic conditions.

But, on the bright side, economic issues are easier to address than more intractable cultural problems, such as a fundamental disbelief in the American Dream – only 8% of the aforementioned 30% believe this to be the case.

Post-July 4th and the passage of Congress’ tax bill, now is a time to take stock. As we dive headfirst into future political debates, we must ensure that criticism and pessimism about the American Dream do not become self-fulfilling prophecies, recognizing the need for hope and optimism while also striving to remove barriers to opportunity. 

As Benjamin Franklin said, it is up to us to keep the promise of America alive, or the experiment will fail. Even and especially when there are no national holidays to celebrate, we must keep the flame of the American Dream alive daily, promoting a culture of human flourishing for all.

The Israel Defense Forces are routinely killing civilians in Gaza with commercial drones modified to drop grenades on them — often leaving the corpses to be eaten by dogs, according to interviews with seven soldiers and officers conducted by Israeli investigative journalists. The tactic is being used to deter civilians from venturing into areas declared off-limits by the IDF, with indifference to the fact that the individuals — some of them children — pose no threat. Compounding the amorality of the conduct, the soldiers say the off-limits areas aren’t marked on the ground.   

According to Israel’s +972 Magazine and Local Call, every Palestinian killed in this fashion was counted as a “terrorist” in the IDF’s official reporting. The soldiers say that’s utterly false. One soldier identified as “S” says that he coordinated dozens of drone attacks over the 100 days his unit was deployed in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, and that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed civilians. The only two exceptions were a single executed Palestinian who merely had a knife, along with only one legitimate encounter with armed militants. 

By his recollection, the battalion killed a civilian in this fashion on a daily basis, even though it was obvious to him that the Palestinians posed no threat. “It was clear that they were trying to return to their homes — there’s no question. None of them were armed, and nothing was ever found near their bodies. We never fired warning shots. Not at any point.”

Adding another layer of horror to the IDF-orchestrated hell that is Gaza, the corpses — which were upwards of a mile from their killers — were typically left to be eaten by dogs, says S.: 

“You could see it on the drone footage. I couldn’t bring myself to watch a dog eating a body, but others around me watched it. The dogs have learned to run toward areas where there’s shooting or explosions — they understand it probably means there’s a body there.”

Worse, S. said children have been deliberately targeted: 

“There was a boy who entered the [off-limits] zone. He didn’t do anything. [Other soldiers] claimed to have seen him standing and talking to people. That’s it — they dropped a grenade from a drone…In most cases, there was nothing you could tell yourself. There was no way to complete the sentence, ‘We killed them because ____.’”

“There were many incidents of dropping grenades from drones,” said H., a soldier who’d been deployed to central Gaza.  . “Were they aimed at armed militants? Definitely not. Once a commander defines an imaginary red line that no one is allowed to cross, anyone who does is marked for death,” even just for “walking in the street.” These new accounts are consistent with previous reporting that the IDF creates “kill zones” where soldiers shoot anyone moving inside the area, followed by the IDF boasting that another terrorist was killed. Where IDF soldiers’ ability to mow down civilians in kill zones was previously limited by the range of their rifles, drones now let them kill from several kilometers away.  

Exclusive |

Aerial footage obtained depicts Israeli soldiers dropping grenades from a drone, targeting a group of civilians fleeing Netzarim last September. One person is visibly struck and collapses

Netzarim became a kill zone, and as the military gradually expanded it, so did… pic.twitter.com/QPW2EVHJ3D

— Younis Tirawi | يونس (@ytirawi) July 3, 2025

Elaborating on this capability, a soldier called “Y.” described how he and other soldiers made bloody examples of Palestinians who entered forbidden areas: 

“You send a drone up 200 meters high, and you can see three to four kilometers in every direction, You patrol like that: you see someone approaching, the first one gets hit with a grenade, and after that, the word spreads. One or two more come, and they die. The rest understand.”

When killing wasn’t automatic, the criteria used to determine who is dangerously suspicious was so expansive as to capture just about anyone. “[Someone who] walks too fast is suspicious because he’s fleeing. Someone who walks too slowly is also suspicious because [it implies] he knows he’s being watched, so he’s trying to act normal,” said S. Soldiers say even the simple act of bending over is sufficient basis for dropping a grenade on a Palestinian. 

Most of these grenade-dropping drones are modified EVO models manufactured by China’s Autel for photography use, +972 Magazine reports. They only cost about $3,000 compared to $2 million for Israel’s military-grade Elbit Hermes 450. The IDF modifies the EVOs with a military “iron ball” appendage that can carry a grenade dropped by the push of a joystick button. H. described how drones change the nature of taking a human life: 

“This technology has made killing much more sterile. It’s like a video game. There’s a crosshair in the middle of the screen, and you see a video image. You’re hundreds of meters away, [sometimes] even a kilometer or more. Then you play with the joystick, see the target, and drop [a grenade]. And it’s even kind of cool. Except this video game kills people.”

One soldier who spoke to +972 Magazine said he recalled signing thank-you letters addressed to Americans who donated drones to his unit.  Autel says it hasn’t supplied its photography drones to Israel: “We find the prospect of our products being associated — even mistakenly — with violence against civilians to be utterly unacceptable. Autel Robotics has never sold drones to any users in the Israeli region, including but not limited to the Israeli military or Ministry of Defense.”

Enforced by these routine killings of civilians in “kill zones,” the coerced depopulation of entire areas goes hand-in-hand with the recent announcement by Israel’s defense minister that the IDF is going to build a concentration camp in Rafah, the southernmost Gaza city. The plan is to force all 2 million residents of Gaza into a “humanitarian city” ringed by IDF guards preventing anyone from leaving.   

Last month, a different group of IDF soldiers offered their own damning testimony about the IDF’s conduct, confirming the routine use of deadly force on unarmed Palestinians as a barbaric form of crowd control at distribution points for humanitarian aid. Israeli Prime Minister repeatedly calls the IDF “the most moral army in the world.” They say if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the truth — but it’s hard to fathom the quantity of lies necessary to overcome the growing stack of damning testimonies from IDF soldiers and officers.