Author: admin

• The New York Knicks won their first NBA championship since 1973 on Saturday.
• It’s been a long 53 years for long-suffering New Yorkers.
• Here’s what the Big Apple was like the last time the Knicks were world champs.

Cue the Frank Sinatra song — New Yorkers are on top of the world this week.

After a 53-year-long drought, the New York Knicks are finally able to bring the Larry O’Brien championship trophy to New York City and celebrate with their loyal fans, who haven’t given up in more than half a century.

Here’s what life was like in New York City the last time the New York Knickerbockers were world champs.

The last time the New York Knicks won an NBA championship was in 1973. Here’s the team celebrating their win at City Hall.

Knicks champs Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed, and Bill Bradley celebrated at the airport, too.

There was no ticker-tape parade because the then-mayor, John V. Lindsay, wanted to cut costs and avoid disruptions, calling for smaller celebrations instead.

It was a big year for New York City. The World Trade Center was officially dedicated in April 1973.

The year 1973 was the Year of the Ox. There were street celebrations, much like today.

Source: Lower East Side History Project

Here’s what Coney Island looked like that summer. It remained popular throughout the 1970s, despite the city’s financial crises.

Just like they do today, kids flocked to the carnival games, but they cost 50 cents back then, not $3.

The subway was a little worse for wear in 1973, with many cars covered in graffiti.

One ride cost 35 cents. Now, a subway ride is $3.

The Knicks weren’t the only sports story out of NYC in ’73. Secretariat completed his historic Triple Crown at the Belmont Stakes near Queens.

Also in 1973, the New York Mets reached the World Series in October, despite being in last place in August.

The Knicks played at Madison Square Garden, an iconic venue. In July 1973, rock legends Led Zeppelin recorded a concert film there.

John Lennon was also spotted walking around the city, where he lived until his death in 1980.

While a lot has changed in the city, some things remain the same.

One thing that has remained the same in 53 years? New Yorkers love the Knicks.

• The US imposed export controls on Anthropic’s newest AI models. In response, Anthropic closed access.
• The restrictions could play directly into Mistral’s long-standing AI sovereignty pitch.
• Mistral’s CEO has warned for more than a year that Europe risks becoming dependent on US AI firms.

The White House’s move to restrict access to Anthropic’s newest AI models could hand one of Europe’s leading AI startups exactly the opening it has been preparing for.

On Friday, US officials imposed export controls on Anthropic’s cybersecurity-focused models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5. They cited national security concerns that safeguards meant to prevent misuse of Fable 5 could be bypassed.

The restrictions block any foreign national from accessing the two models. Anthropic responded by suspending access to the systems altogether, creating uncertainty around who ultimately controls access to frontier AI.

The episode has the hallmarks of a scenario Mistral’s CEO, Arthur Mensch, has been warning about for more than a year — and has since made part of his pitch for why people should choose it over models from US firms like OpenAI and Anthropic.

Speaking at London Tech Week in June 2025, Mensch warned about American AI companies “having the keys” for their models, adding that he sees it as European companies “giving leverage to their providers.”

“At some point, you need to be able to turn it off or turn it on, and you don’t want to leave it to another country,” he said.

Sovereign AI

Since then, the French startup has positioned itself around AI sovereignty, the idea that governments and businesses should not become overly dependent on a handful of foreign AI providers.

To do so, it has championed open-weight models that customers can deploy on their own infrastructure and customize using their own data.

“European governments are coming to us because they want to build the technology and they want to serve their citizens,” Mensch said on the “Big Technology Podcast” in January.

Mensch doubled down on his position at a hearing on digital sovereignty and AI at France’s National Assembly last month, warning that Europe has two years to build its own artificial intelligence infrastructure before becoming permanently dependent on American tech giants.

At Mistral’s first-ever summit in Paris that same month, executives, government officials, and enterprise customers repeatedly returned to the same theme: AI sovereignty.

“You need to know where your data is and what happens to your data,” Jan van den Bremen, Accenture’s technology lead across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, told Business Insider at the event.

While Mistral is widely considered the top AI model provider in Europe, it lags behind the likes of Anthropic in terms of valuation, model capabilities, and user numbers. The French startup was last valued at around $13.6 billion, compared to Anthropic’s $965 billion valuation.

But the Anthropic restrictions make Mistral’s core argument easier to understand: Most of the time, control of AI ultimately lies with the provider and its government.

• I created “special time” to spend one-on-one time with each of my sons.
• The tradition helps me stay connected as they grow older and more independent.
• I hope these small outings become the foundation of lifelong relationships.

“When’s my turn for special time, mama?” The question I love to hear most in the world from my three sons is asking when they can go out for a walk or cake and coffee with me.

It’s become a tradition, almost a haphazard one, but I’d never let it slip away. These times one-on-one with each of my children, which they have coined as “special time,” have been and I hope will continue to be one of the ways I connect with each of them as they age.

It started small

It started soon after my oldest was 3. His younger brother had just turned 1 and needed my constant care and attention to keep him from the destruction of the toddler era. I knew that the oldest was getting less of me than ever before, frequently asking for his dad rather than me.

I remember once he said he’d rather play with “dada” than me, and I was crushed.

Perhaps it was a slightly dramatic response to the whims of a 3-year-old and months of unsettled sleep with a newborn and toddler, but it cemented in my mind that I needed to spend time just with him. I wanted him to have my full, undivided attention, and I wanted to have his.

And so, I started finding an hour out consistently — perhaps once a month, although this wasn’t always the case — to just be with him. I recall that walking around a local lake was our most frequent activity.

When he started part-time state education at 4, I used the hours he was in school to have “special time” with his little brother, too — walks around the park, feeding the ducks.

The goal was to get outside the house

With both of the boys, the aim was always to get out of the house. In the house, I was too distracted by all that needed to be done, unable to fully concentrate on whoever’s special time it was.

We didn’t have spare income at this point, so nearly all our activities were free and very simple.

When my third child came along, his special times were different. I was exhausted and just wanted to sit with him, coloring. I’d take him to a local coffee shop that sold one-dollar mini hot chocolates for kids, and he thought he was having the best treat.

The point was never extraordinary moments they’d remember forever, but consistent windows to connect as mother and son.

I still take time to connect with them now that they are older

Over the years, I’m increasingly grateful I decided on a whim to make special times a tradition. These quick touch-base outings have been beneficial for each of them.

I have often felt guilty about how much I rely on these special times to connect, wishing I were more present in each moment through each day. But that’s not my reality as a working mom, who also maintains a home, hobbies, and other relationships.

Although I don’t think the relationships with our kids end when they hit 18, I’m fully aware that there are only a select number of years they are under the roof of their parents.

They will get older (and it’s already happening fast). They will move out. And I’m counting on these special times being the foundation for my forever relationships with them. That they will always remember coffee with mom, and know that anytime they want it, I’ll be ready to pay for a special time.

• The Trump administration imposed export controls on Anthropic’s latest models on Friday.
• Anthropic responded by pulling access to Mythos and Fable entirely.
• Here’s the inside story on what exactly happened.

The Trump administration’s decision to impose sweeping export controls on Anthropic followed a frantic 24-hour effort by senior officials to convince the company to voluntarily pull a newly released artificial intelligence model that officials believed posed security risks, according to two administration officials and a senior White House official, who, like others in this story, were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the episode.

The move, which followed multiple tense calls between Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, underscores how the White House is wrestling in real time with regulating fast-moving, potentially dangerous AI models.

The details of the calls have not been previously reported.

The administration’s imposition of export controls forced Anthropic to pull its new AI model, Fable, just days after it was released to the public. Anthropic had given assurances that it was safe, but soon after its release, top administration officials developed fresh doubts that the AI’s guardrails were as secure as the company had suggested.

On Thursday, two days after the model’s public release, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy raised concerns to the White House about the ability to bypass the model’s guardrails, according to the two administration officials and the senior White House official.

(Amazon, which is an investor in Anthropic, was responding to an administration request for feedback, said a person familiar with Amazon’s discussions.)

By Friday morning, the issue had reached the highest levels of the White House.

Bessent, Cairncross, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and other senior officials met to discuss the model and the administration’s response, according to the administration official and the senior White House official. Bessent joined remotely while traveling to Houston for a previously scheduled public event, one of them said.

Following the meeting, the administration attempted to reach Amodei but was told he was unavailable because he was attending a wellness retreat, one of the administration officials and the senior White House official said.

A spokesperson for Anthropic rejected the claim that he was at a wellness retreat, saying, “This is absolutely false.”

A person close to Anthropic said Amodei was first requested around noon and was on the phone with senior officials within an hour and 15 minutes. While he was out of pocket, Anthropic offered other senior leaders in his place, the person said.

When the administration finally reached Amodei, he participated in three calls with a combination of roughly half a dozen senior administration officials, including Cairncross, Bessent, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, according to the senior White House official and one of the administration officials.

Other senior White House staff and administration officials, including Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Jeffrey Kessler, White House staff secretary Will Scharf, White House deputy chief of staff Richard Walters, and assistant to the president for policy Walker Barrett, also participated in some of the calls, according to the senior White House official.

During the calls, Amodei tried to clear up what he assumed was a misunderstanding. He pushed back on the administration’s concerns, defended the guardrails, and argued that the type of bypass that occurred, which he believed to be specific, did not pose the same risk as a broader “jailbreak” that would allow it to be used without any of the guardrails put in place by Anthropic.

In a blog post after the export controls were put in place, Anthropic said that “no testers have yet been able to find a universal jailbreak — a jailbreak method that can very broadly bypass the model’s safeguards, unblocking a wide range of cyber capabilities,” and that total avoidance of any jailbreaks isn’t now possible for them or any other companies. They defended their systems, which they said “are so strong that many users have complained that they are overly broad.”

Cairncross and Bessent were unmoved by Amodei’s arguments. A White House official said Amazon’s findings were run past the National Security Agency, and they felt they had “proof.”

They urged Anthropic to voluntarily remove the model and coordinate with the government to address the vulnerabilities, according to the senior White House official and the two administration officials. Amodei asked for more time and information, but he made no commitments to pull the model, and at one point, Bessent told Amodei directly that he was making a “bad decision,” according to the senior White House official.

Shortly after the call, the Trump administration imposed its export control on the Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, citing national security authority and banning their use by foreign nationals, according to Anthropic. The company said the “net effect” of the order was to “abruptly disable” the models for all customers “to ensure compliance.”

“Export controls were a last resort after begging them for hours to work with us,” the senior White House official said. “This was not something we wanted to do, but our hands were tied.”

After publication, one of the people close to Anthropic disputed that the company was given a choice to voluntarily work with the administration.

“The White House gave 90 minutes to take the models down, with no details on the actual threat,” the person said. “There was never any begging — or asking — for them to work with us, just a declared 90 minute deadline.”

White House officials — who had heard Amodei liken the dangers of Anthropic’s technology to a nuclear bomb — were baffled when the CEO said he was unwilling to take the system down to address a known security vulnerability, the senior White House official said. Anthropic has defined itself among the industry as a vocal advocate for AI regulation to counter massive global security risks and job disruption as AI quickly advances.

Three people familiar with the government’s thinking said Amazon wasn’t the only company to raise concerns.

“The crux of the issue was the lack of seriousness that Anthropic was applying to it,” said one of the three people. “Had Anthropic taken it seriously and, rather than dismissing it as isolated, moved to fix or pause access, this would have never happened.”

A second person close to Anthropic refuted the idea that the “jailbreak” was a breakdown of Fable 5’s safety systems and pointed to the company’s collaboration with the administration before it released Fable. The government didn’t object to Fable’s release in multiple conversations, the person said.

In its blog post after the administration enacted the export controls, Anthropic said it was complying with the government’s directive, but called it disproportionate.

“As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles,” Anthropic said.

A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said innovation remains the White House’s “number one goal, but we also have to prioritize security as well.”

Amazon, in a statement, declined to share the details of its discussions with the administration. “It’s not uncommon for governments to seek our counsel on potential security risks,” an Amazon spokesperson said. “When they occur, we don’t share the details of these discussions.”

Anthropic announced in early April that its latest powerful model, Mythos, would only be available to a limited set of tech and cyber firms, which could use it to test for vulnerabilities in their software. The company needed to limit the release because the model was so powerful, it said at the time, that it could wreak havoc in the wrong hands.

The model’s debut kicked off a series of meetings between Amodei and senior White House officials. Both sides described those meetings as productive. They led to a series of conversations about regulating advanced models that culminated in a recent executive order, which requested companies voluntarily submit their advanced models to the government before deploying them widely.

Fable 5, which launched publicly this week, was described by Anthropic as a “Mythos-class model” with safeguards to make it safe for general use. The model underwent reviews by the administration and the United Kingdom’s AI Security Institute.

But once the alleged security flaws were disclosed, multiple administration officials felt the model needed to be pulled.

In a post on X on Saturday morning, David Sacks, the former White House AI czar and a staunch opponent of regulation, agreed with the administration’s decision to pursue export controls for Anthropic.

Sacks said he did not believe the “jailbreak” was simple or not serious, nor did he believe the export controls were an attempt to exert control over the industry more broadly.

“The Admin’s hope now is that Anthropic remediates the safety issue, the export control is lifted, and Fable goes back into general release,” Sacks wrote. “The Admin wants all of this to happen as soon as possible. It is frankly bewildered that Anthropic hasn’t wanted to comply with safety requests that it previously said were its highest priority.”

Sacks and other officials in the administration have been critical of Anthropic, accusing it of leftist political bias and fearmongering because of its advocacy for stronger regulation of the industry and warnings about mass job disruption.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon elevated the administration’s disagreements with Anthropic to an unprecedented level earlier this year, designating the company a supply chain risk on March 3 over its refusal to allow its AI tools to be used for mass domestic surveillance and in autonomous weapons.

On Saturday, Sacks said the past feuds between the administration and Anthropic were separate from the export control decision.

“The Admin values Anthropic’s technical capabilities and feels that this issue, while serious, should be easily resolved. The ball is in Anthropic’s court,” Sacks wrote.

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

Brendan Bordelon contributed to this report.

• Taylor Mitchell turned her frugal Walmart shopping habit into a seven-figure income.
• The 29-year-old mom of three recommends products at Walmart and other retailers through a virtual storefront.
• She discussed overcoming struggles, balancing social media’s demands, and switching marital roles.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Taylor Mitchell of Greenville, SC, who turned her financial life around by driving affiliate sales for Walmart and other retailers. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I was a young mom when I started a link-in-bio online storefront selling products for Walmart and other retailers. I’d been a paralegal and stopped working after my daughter was born. We made it work, but my husband had to sell his truck. For so long, we could barely keep $1,000 in our savings account.

I was already buying Walmart clothes constantly because it was all I could afford. I started to fall in love with the things they had, and I wanted to share that information with others. We all want to look really cute, but we all need to stick to a budget. So any time I needed to go to Walmart, I started to take pictures and share things, and it just started doing well. I don’t limit myself to Walmart, but that’s what works best for me income-wise and what I enjoy the most.

I started earning money in 2020. It was very minimal income for several years, but it was enough to help with diapers and groceries. Then things exploded in 2025 when I started pushing affiliate marketing through the Later platform.

It’s been beyond my wildest dreams. We were always living paycheck to paycheck. Now I’m doing around $100,000 a month, give or take. My husband and I are always pinching ourselves.

Developing a signature style

I love wearing bright colors and fun statement pieces. My style came out of my postpartum journey. I’d been posting on social media for eight years, sharing pictures and outfits. I went through a big weight loss — I used to be over 250 pounds — and shared that online as well. After my third child three years ago, I went on this health journey and took everybody along with me. I wanted to feel good, be healthy, and be able to shop for clothes and feel confident in them.

I’d been in the mom culture world for so many years, I think I have a really good eye for what would sell well. I posted about a hot-pink glider lawn chair I saw in Walmart the other day that was super cute, but for moms, it’s a justifiable purchase. Places like Walmart or Target are very justifiable for people to order from because they probably already have other things in their cart.

Switching roles at home

As my business grew, my husband left his job as a manager in the distribution center at Walmart to be my assistant and full-time dad. It got to the point where we thought his job was losing us money because there was so much he could be helping me with if he were home. Things really felt real when he left because we had been using his income as a security blanket. I was so scared I’d wake up one morning, and it would all go away.

Becoming the main breadwinner wasn’t uncomfortable for us because my husband and I have always been on the same page with money. We always had a joint account, and we were always just paying our bills and figuring out what we needed. I’d worried about not being able to provide things like karate, dance, and sports for my children.

The biggest thing that happened for us once we started seeing this money come in was that our stress melted away. His mental health has also improved, being able to be with our family so much. I feel like there are so many men out there who would excel in that role that’s traditionally more for women, but they don’t have the same opportunity to.

Dealing with social media’s pitfalls

Not everyone is nice online — I realized that when I started sharing my health journey. There’s the pressure of keeping up. And sometimes things will fail, and it has nothing to do with anything I did: It’s the algorithm. That stuff that is so frustrating when you’ve worked really hard on something. And with social media, when you don’t post as many times, you almost get put out of the algorithm. So it’s hard for me at times to slow down because I want to make sure that I’m not hurting my ability to reach people. I definitely have to keep reminding myself I need to chill out.

Long term, our hope is to do different things like invest and potentially take on rental properties, so we don’t have to rely solely on me posting. But right now, I’m loving every second of posting.

• Emily Blunt refused to use AI in Steven Spielberg’s new film, “Disclosure Day.”
• Blunt created the alien language used in the film by experimenting in her bathroom.
• Some actors have pushed back against AI in the entertainment industry.

Emily Blunt took a very human approach to creating the alien language in Steven Spielberg’s new film “Disclosure Day.”

During her press tour for the film, Blunt said she refused Spielberg’s offer to use AI to perfect the clicking noises her character makes in the film.

“He said, ‘You know, we could do it with AI, or you could do it,'” Blunt told Entertainment Tonight earlier this month. “And I was like, ‘I feel confident I can make some weird noises.'”

Blunt said she experimented with sounds alone in her bathroom and would send different versions to Spielberg.

“Clicking, humming, doing weird Barry White sort of low singing mixed with clicking with Morse code sounds,” Blunt said. “I just tried everything. We sort of threw the kitchen sink at it, and I think he wanted it to sound mathematical and not too terrifying.”

She said the final version audiences hear in “Disclosure Day” is an accumulation of layered noises she recorded in a sound booth.

Spielberg’s extraterrestrial thriller, which debuted on Friday, also stars Josh O’Connor, Colin Firth, Colman Domingo, and Eve Hewson.

Although parts of Hollywood have embraced AI as a way to speed up production and save money, others have derided and protested the technology. Critics are concerned AI could displace human workers, use their likeness or voice without consent, and devalue art.

Blunt has, so far, been unimpressed by AI.

She was dismayed during a Variety interview in September 2025 when she learned about AI actor Tilly Norwood.

“That is really, really scary. Come on, agencies, don’t do that. Please stop. Please stop taking away our human connection,” Blunt told Variety.

In April, Blunt also said AI is a “very scary bubble to poke your head inside” while speaking to USA Today.

“My children don’t go online, and they’re young still. You’re kind of holding on to them by their ankles as they get older and want more independence,” Blunt said. “At some point, I’m sure they’ll want a phone — they’d probably like one now, and they’re not going to get one. It’s like having a drug dealer in your house that doesn’t pay rent or actually give you any of the good stuff.”

Blunt isn’t the only actor to criticize AI, and some have even taken legal action to protect their brand. Matthew McConaughey, for example, has secured several trademarks meant to protect his likeness and certain iconic phrases. Singers Taylor Swift and Lionel Richie have also filed trademark applications for their likenesses.