Blog

  • Creative Australia chief executive facing mounting pressure to resign after Khaled Sabsabi controversy | Creative Australia

    Creative Australia chief executive facing mounting pressure to resign after Khaled Sabsabi controversy | Creative Australia

    Creative Australia chief executive Adrian Collette is facing mounting pressure to resign after the body’s decision to reinstate Khaled Sabsabi as Australia’s 2026 Venice Biennale representative.

    Senior arts figures have also criticised the Creative Australia board, as a former chair of the selection panel for the biennale said the board and Collette did not “understand or at least trust the power and complexity of the visual arts”.

    An external report, released on Wednesday, recommended a review into Creative Australia’s governance processes, better training for future board members, and the urgent appointment of a board member with deep visual arts expertise, after the protest resignation of artist Lindy Lee shortly after the board voted to withdraw the Sabsabi commission in February.

    But Max Bourke, general manager of the Australia Council from 1987 to 1994, said he was “appalled” by Creative Australia’s handling of the controversy and called for Collette’s resignation. A former arts adviser to the federal government also told Guardian Australia that the CEO should step down.

    Callum Morton, professor of fine art at Monash University who chaired the selection panel for the 2017 biennale, said he did not believe the current selection process – where the chief executive, informed by a panel of experts, makes the final decision – was flawed.

    It was a process that delivered last year’s Archie Moore exhibition at Venice, which won the Golden Lion, he pointed out.

    But Morton added that a series of “kneejerk reactions that caved into baseless scaremongering” on the part of the executive and board ultimately betrayed the artist.

    “It speaks to a CEO and board who frankly didn’t seem to understand or at least trust the power and complexity of the visual arts,” Morton said.

    “I think the conversation should be less about the process and more about how we choose board members, so that the right industry experts are given proper place and a voice to advise on these matters.

    “This will help boards avoid these self-inflicted crises that hurt artists and arts workers and embarrass our reputation nationally and internationally.”

    The Blackhall & Pearl report also expressed surprise that Creative Australia management had not requested a contentious issue report into the selected artist, given this appeared to be standard practice in the organisation’s other grant and investment decisions.

    Another senior arts figure told Guardian Australia that although a panel of experts acting in an advisory capacity recommended Sabsabi for Venice, “either way, it was Adrian Collette, the CEO of Creative Australia, who made the final decision”.

    “Firstly, he’s got no visual arts expertise. Secondly, the board doesn’t seem to have been involved in the deliberations at all,” they said.

    “This is the most important thing Creative Australia does – it’s the biggest decision they make. You would expect the CEO to have appropriate expertise, and the board to be fully engaged. That simply didn’t happen.”

    Prof Jo Caust, a principal fellow at the University of Melbourne’s school of culture and communication, said the Blackhall & Pearl report highlighted serious problems with governance at Creative Australia.

    “If you look at the current board, some are arts people, but some clearly are not,” Caust said. “You need people who understand the sector, who can stand up and be counted.”

    The Blackhall & Pearl report did not identify a failure of process, governance or decision on the part of the Creative Australia board, but said that “with the benefit of hindsight there are things the Board might have done differently”.

    Whether the board erred in its decision to decommission Sabsabi was an assessment outside the scope of its terms of reference, the report said, but added that it believed “the board and Creative Australia are able to learn from this exercise and be better prepared should a similar situation arise in future”.

    Guardian Australia has requested comment from Collette and the acting chair of the Creative Australia board, Wesley Enoch.

    Continue Reading

  • Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) – MDEP publishes workshop report on safety of high temperature gas-cooled reactors

    Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) – MDEP publishes workshop report on safety of high temperature gas-cooled reactors








    Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) – MDEP publishes workshop report on safety of high temperature gas-cooled reactors


















    HTGR

    The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) has published the proceedings of the International Brainstorming Workshop on High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) Safety, which took place in March 2024.

    The event convened regulatory authorities, technical experts and industry representatives from around the world, as well as from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). Participants exchanged of views on the safety challenges and regulatory considerations associated with HTGR technologies.

    The report outlines key outcomes and recommendations from the workshop, including:

    • benchmarking approaches for verification and validation (V&V) of computational codes;
    • fuel safety and qualification strategies;
    • research priorities to support HTGR development;
    • probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) of first-of-a-kind (FOAK) designs;
    • application of Defence-in-Depth (DiD) principles tailored to HTGRs;
    • selection and qualification of materials for high-temperature reactor systems; and
    • considerations for adapting regulatory frameworks to address HTGR-specific safety issues

    Read the report here.


    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

    T1gVy17jRuJLtqHG

    Continue Reading

  • Massive Review Finds No ‘Safe’ Level of Processed Meat Consumption : ScienceAlert

    Massive Review Finds No ‘Safe’ Level of Processed Meat Consumption : ScienceAlert

    We know that processed meat isn’t particularly good for us, having already been linked to dementia, diabetes, and cancer, but how much of it counts as a ‘safe’ level of consumption? According to new research, there’s no such thing.

    US researchers reviewed over 70 previous studies (involving several million participants in total), analyzing the relationships between ultra-processed food and three health issues: type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and colorectal cancer.

    Associations for processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and trans fatty acids were looked into, and it was the processed meat that came out with the worst results – even if the amount eaten is only small.

    “The monotonic increases in health risk with increased consumption of processed meat suggest that there is not a ‘safe’ amount of processed meat consumption with respect to diabetes or colorectal cancer risk,” the team from the University of Washington in Seattle writes in their published paper.

    Related: The Secret to Better Sleep Could Be As Simple As Eating More Fruit And Veggies

    It’s important to put the research into context. The associations found are relatively weak, they don’t prove direct cause and effect, and the analyzed studies relied on self-reported dietary habits (which may not be completely accurate).

    However, the study has several strengths too – it uses a Burden of Proof method, which is more conservative when assessing impacts on health. The results tend to be minimum values, which means they likely underestimate the true health risk.

    The researchers charted processed meat consumption against health conditions, including type 2 diabetes. (Haile et al, Nature Medicine, 2025)

    What’s particularly notable here is that minimal increases in consumption still raised risk levels.

    “Habitual consumption of even small amounts of processed meat, sugary drinks, and trans fatty acids is linked to increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease and colorectal cancer,” University of Washington nutrition biologist Demewoz Haile told CNN.

    For example, the equivalent of one hot dog a day was associated with at least an 11 percent greater risk of type 2 diabetes, and at least a 7 percent greater risk of colorectal cancer, compared to eating no processed meat at all.

    For beverages, an extra can of sugar-sweetened pop a day was linked to a 8 greater risk of type 2 diabetes, and a 2 percent greater risk of ischemic heart disease, compared to not drinking anything sugary.

    For trans fatty acids, a small daily amount was associated with a 3 percent increase in risk of ischemic heart disease, compared with zero consumption.

    “This information provides critical data for public health specialists and policymakers responsible for dietary guidelines and potential initiatives that aim to reduce the consumption of these processed foods,” write the researchers.

    While the study has limitations, its scale and conservative methodology make it worth taking note of.

    This is backed up by a commentary in the same journal, which does note the role of ultra-processed foods in improving food accessibility and shelf life, particularly in areas with limited access to fresh food.

    The message from the research team is that cutting out ultra-processed foods as much as possible is the best option for our health.

    The research has been published in Nature Medicine.

    Continue Reading

  • Sony’s latest flagship OLED TV, a ‘proper’ projector, PMC floorstanders and more earn five stars

    Sony’s latest flagship OLED TV, a ‘proper’ projector, PMC floorstanders and more earn five stars

    It is finally July, which as well as a heatwave in our native shores, also brings a fresh entry into our regular Pick of the Month column.

    Here, we once again detail all the products to earn five-star ratings from our team of hi-fi and home cinema experts over the past month.

    Continue Reading

  • Bring a Loupe: A Pair Of Honest Tudors And The First Quartz-Powered Patek Philippe Wristwatch

    Bring a Loupe: A Pair Of Honest Tudors And The First Quartz-Powered Patek Philippe Wristwatch

    If you’ve been reading Bring A Loupe with regularity during my tenure, you would already know my affinity for gilt-dialed Tudor Submariners. As with the Rolex Sub, there is a deep and nerdy history to explore when it comes to those offered by Tudor throughout the vintage period. In the 1960s, while Rolex’s Subs featured dials with a deep gloss, now known simply as “gilt” dials, their Tudor contemporaries offered a different finish — matte gilt. The text and chapter ring tone are the same, but the black of the dial is softer, making for a distinctly different look in the metal. Some collectors have begun to shy away from Rolex gilt dials, fearing fragility and scratches on the gloss surface. With the Tudors, there is less to worry about.


    Continue Reading

  • ‘Balcony solar’ may at last become a reality for flat residents in Britain | Solar power

    ‘Balcony solar’ may at last become a reality for flat residents in Britain | Solar power

    From herb boxes and flower pots to washing lines and hanging baskets, residents of Madrid, Berlin and other European cities are well versed at making the most of their compact balconies – even generating power for wifi, the kettle and the TV.

    “Balcony solar” allows urbanites to install a small number of panels in the tight space outside apartments, which then generates electricity that can be used for the household. Soon flat owners and renters in the UK could be able to use the same “plug-in” technology, which is currently prohibited here.

    The DIY systems which have grown in popularity in countries such as France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany are typically plugged straight into the home’s power sockets, saving money on electricity bills and allowing people access to a new source of power.

    So why can’t balconies in the UK simply have the same systems installed? Regulations around solar systems and wiring here mean that professionals must be involved in their installation and the panels cannot simply be plugged into the mains like a toaster.

    In some European countries, where electrical systems are different to the UK, residents are allowed to put in place their own small systems – such as a few panels being hung off a balcony.

    Thomas Newby of the Leeds-based engineering company Morgan & Newby says this difference in regulation means the technology has grown in popularity. In Germany, Balkonkraftwerk (balcony power plant) systems are now installed at 1.5m apartments.

    “Various countries permit systems limited in output to 800W to be connected via a standard appliance plug to a socket-outlet,” he says. “As a result of this lower cost entry point, well suited to apartments where the solar modules can be hung or positioned on the balcony, uptake has increased significantly of late.”

    This week the government said it would launch a safety study “with the aim of unlocking opportunities for plug-in solar over the next few years” as part of a new plan to triple the UK’s solar capacity by 2030.

    In theory, this could mean people in flats would have a much cheaper way to access solar energy as the cost of labour is taken off the bill. And renters could take the systems with them when they move from flat to flat. This would give people who usually do not have access to cheap power a way to reduce their energy bills.

    Newby said a typical kit containing two solar panels, a battery to store energy and the plugs needed to convert it to the household electrics would cost about £2,000. Batteries are used to store energy which is generated and not used immediately in the home, especially on sunny days such as those experienced last month, when temperatures reached 33C.

    The study by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will look at whether the plug-in systems would be safe to use in the UK, where the electricity supply system is significantly different to countries such as Germany.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    Solar Energy UK, the trade body for the industry, said the installation of plug-in solar panels is not allowed under building regulations or planning policy.

    “This is due to a range of considerations including aesthetics, structural/building safety and consumer safety. There are other practical considerations including the location of electric sockets and cable protection – we do not tend to have electrical sockets installed on balconies in this country,” said Gemma Grimes, director of policy.

    “The installation of all electrical equipment comes with risks, and it is important that any risks are fully understood prior to widespread rollout. We are aware of examples on the continent – including Germany – and are keen to learn from their experience.”

    Continue Reading

  • Lux Vide’s Luca Bernabei Leaving As Fremantle Ups Stake To 100%

    Lux Vide’s Luca Bernabei Leaving As Fremantle Ups Stake To 100%

    Lux Vide boss Luca Bernabei is exiting the firm he joined more than three decades ago, with Fremantle upping its 70% stake to 100%.

    Bernabei, whose father Ettore Bernabei co-founded Lux Vide in 1992, joined The Medici, Costiera and Sandokan producer in 1994 as an associate producer and worked his way up to CEO in 2013. Luca Bernabei’s sister Matilde Bernabei, who also founded the company, will remain on the board and become Lux Vide President.

    During Luca Bernabei’s tenure, the company became the first in Italy to win an Emmy for Joseph from The Bible Collection and picked up Golden Globe and Emmy nominations for co-produced Coco Chanel. Other big-budget credits include Netflix‘s Medici starring Dustin Hoffman, Richard Madden and Sean Bean, Prime Video’s Leonardo starring Aidan Turner and Devils, the high-stakes financial thriller with Patrick Dempsey.

    Bernabei is exiting as Fremantle ups its stake to 100%. The super-indie took a 70% stake in Lux Vide in 2022, with the founding Bernabei family retaining the remaining 30% at that point.

    Alongside Matilde Bernabei, the new Lux Vide board will include Valerio Fiorespino (COO and interim CEO of the Fremantle Italy Group); Elena Bucaccio (Head of Drama Lux Vide); Corrado Trionfera (Head of Production Lux Vide); Manuela Monterossi (General Counsel of the Fremantle Italy Group); Valentina Monaca (CFO of the Fremantle Italy Group) and Barbara Pavone (Chief Marketing and Sales Officer). Lux Vide’s leadership team also includes Sabina Marabini (Head of Local Development), Niccolò Dal Corso (Head of International Development), who will report to Bucaccio.

    Matilde Bernabei said: “We are happy to introduce our new management team. They are highly experienced professionals and recognized leaders. I am happy to be able to work with them to take Lux Vide to new goals, also thanks to our solid relationship with Fremantle. Since day one, Fremantle has fully supported the company, the team and the projects. Series such as Hotel Costiera and Sandokan are proof of this: international productions that we could not have made without their involvement.”

    Bernabei is not the first founder of a Fremantle-backed production outfit to step down this week. On Wednesday, Gaspard de Chavagnac, the co-founder and CEO of Asacha Media Group, revealed he was exiting as Fremantle completed its integration of Death in Paradise producer Asacha.

    Continue Reading

  • Perplexity's New Max Plan Targets Power Users With Unlimited AI Access – TechRepublic

    1. Perplexity’s New Max Plan Targets Power Users With Unlimited AI Access  TechRepublic
    2. Perplexity launches a $200 monthly subscription plan  TechCrunch
    3. The rise of $200/pm AI plans — why Perplexity, ChatGPT and Gemini are all going up  Tom’s Guide
    4. Aravind Srinivas announces Perplexity Max with unlimited Labs and early Comet, Veo 3 access  India Today
    5. Perplexity adds a Max tier just as expensive as its rivals  Mashable India

    Continue Reading

  • Why the left gains nothing from pop stars’ support

    Why the left gains nothing from pop stars’ support

    The high priests of speaking out are John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, and Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor. “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends,” Mill warned, “than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Niemöller famously ventriloquised the many Germans who kept silent when the Nazis “came for the socialists”, the trade unionists and the Jews: “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    Continue Reading

  • Call for delay to EU rules on GPAI models and ‘high-risk’ AI

    Call for delay to EU rules on GPAI models and ‘high-risk’ AI

    AI Act rules applicable to ‘general purpose’ AI (GPAI) models are due to take effect on 2 August 2025. A highly anticipated code of practice to support compliance with those rules, which was supposed to be published by the AI Office in early May this year, has yet to be finalised and published. Further AI Act rules applicable to ‘high-risk’ AI systems will take effect in August 2026.

    Both sets of rules should be postponed, to allow for “innovation-friendly” changes to, and simplification of, the rules to be considered, a group of 50 European business leaders have said. They warned that the “Europe’s AI ambitions” are “at risk” as a result of “unclear, overlapping and increasingly complex EU regulations”. The group includes senior leaders from AI trade associations as well as companies such as Airbus, BNP Paribas, Mercedes Benz, and Phillips.

    The group’s call, made in an open letter to senior EU officials, coincided with a report by Politico which suggested that the European Commission is considering delaying implementation of the GPAI code to the end of 2025.

    According to Politico, the Commission will also decide by the end of August whether to delay implementation of the rules on ‘high-risk’ AI. That decision, according to Politico’s report citing an interview with EU commissioner Henna Virkkunen, will be influenced by whether new standards, being designed to support compliance with the ‘high-risk’ AI regime, have been finalised.

    “We welcome recent discussions considering the need to postpone the enforcement of the AI Act as relevant guidelines and standards continue to be developed, and as various industries work together to find solutions that work for everyone,” the business leaders said.

    “To address the uncertainty this situation is creating, we urge the Commission to propose a two-year ‘clock-stop’ on the AI Act before key obligations enter into force, in order to allow both for reasonable implementation by companies, and for further simplification of the new rules. This should apply both to obligations on e.g. high-risk AI systems, due to take effect as of August 2026, and to obligations for general-purpose AI models (GPAI), due to enter into force as of August 2025 while the corresponding and much anticipated code of practice has yet to be released,” they said.

    “This postponement, coupled with a commitment to prioritise regulatory quality over speed, would send innovators and investors around the world a strong signal that Europe is serious about its simplification and competitiveness agenda. In the context of the broader review of EU digital rules you have announced, it would also create the room needed to develop an innovation-friendly implementation strategy and identify pragmatic avenues for regulatory simplification, covering both GPAI models and high-risk AI systems as well as broader digital regulations. We have developed detailed proposals and are ready to work hand in hand with the Commission,” the group added.

    “It is a remarkable letter”, said Dr. Nils Rauer, expert in AI law and regulation at Pinsent Masons. “It is important to note that the authors do not call into question the overall need for a sound regulatory framework for AI – their concern is legal certainty. AI, if used in a false manner, can become poisonous.”

    “All new laws initially come with some level of uncertainty,” added Anna-Lena Kempf, also of Pinsent Masons. “There are no court decisions or administrative orders yet which could provide steer on how the legal provisions are to be understood and applied.”

    EU proposals for “simplification” of the EU’s digital policy rulebook are expected to be published in the autumn. That Commission package is anticipated in response to increasing industry and political pressure to reduce regulatory burdens in digital markets. The US government, for example, has called on the EU to do more to support technological innovation by companies, with many US-headquartered technology companies operating in the EU market, while Mario Draghi, the former European Central Bank president, in a report into EU competitiveness, last year urged action to reduce regulation – particularly for tech companies.

    Earlier this summer, EU law makers at the Council of Ministers were presented with wide-ranging proposals for digital regulatory reform. Those proposals, drafted by the Polish government, including potentially using ‘stop the clock’ legislative instruments to delay the effect of legislative provisions that have already been finalised – including the enforcement provisions in the AI Act – in the same way that has happened already in the context of EU sustainability-related due diligence and disclosure obligations.

    Last month, the Commission open a consultation regarding implementation of the AI Act’s rules on ‘high-risk’ AI systems. According to the consultation, some changes to those rules are under Commission consideration – including in relation to the classification of high-risk AI systems and the obligations associated with providing, deploying, importing or distributing those systems. The consultation closes on 18 July 2025.

    Rauer said: “It is no secret that the EU AI Act is a highly complex piece of legislation. The European legislator is trying to build a regulatory framework both for AI systems and AI models with distinguished obligations for providers, deployers, importers etc. In this context, it is a challenge for businesses to define their own role and to make sure their own products are compliant by design and by default.”

    Out-Law revealed in April that the mainstream emergence of DeepSeek – the Chinese open source AI tool developed at a fraction of the cost of other LLMs on the market, and without access to the same computing power – has spurred discussions within the Commission around classification of GPAI models in the context of the scope of rules applicable to GPAI models under the AI Act.

    Continue Reading