Aggregator

How a Chinese AI model was persuaded to ignore its rules and give dangerous advice.

Senate Passes 'Protect College Sports Act'

The Senate on Sept. 28 passed a bill that seeks to bring stability to the rapidly changing landscape of collegiate sports, sending it to the House of Representatives.

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 passed on a 77-22 vote. The bill aims to address growing concerns surrounding athlete compensation, transfer rules, conference realignment, and long-term athlete protections. Since the House is out of session, it is unlikely to vote on the bill until after the November midterm elections.

In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump called the Senate's passage of the bill "a really big deal."

"It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves," he said.

Under the legislation, the NCAA would be exempt from antitrust laws, and there would be a nationwide standard for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules that would override the current patchwork of state laws.

As Jackson Richman reports further for The Epoch Times,The bill would allow student-athletes to use five seasons of eligibility within a five-year window and limit athletes to one transfer during their college careers. Division I schools would also be required to honor scholarships for up to 10 years after an athlete's final season.

Additionally, it would revise the Sports Broadcasting Act, allowing athletic conferences to pool television rights.

Another major component of the bill is player health and safety provisions.

Division I schools would be required to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries both during participation and for five years after an athlete's final competition.

The legislation would mandate catastrophic injury coverage, access to second opinions, and post-career physical examinations, and establish a $60 million medical trust fund from the NCAA's coffers to assist smaller schools and athletes with long-term medical conditions.

The bill would also create an independent office within college athletics to provide confidential, free guidance to student-athletes and help resolve disputes involving schools, conferences, or athletic associations.

College football coaches would be prohibited from leaving midseason to take on another college football coaching job. This provision came after Lane Kiffin left his role as head coach of the University of Mississippi football team in November 2025 to take the same title at Louisiana State University.

Under the measure, at least one-third of governing boards or rulemaking committees within athletic associations would be required to consist of current or former student-athletes.

The bill also targets what lawmakers describe as abuses within the NIL system. It would ban compensation arrangements intended to bypass revenue-sharing limits or disguise pay-for-play incentives while preserving legitimate education- and athletics-related benefits established under the House settlement framework.

Under the House v. NCAA settlement, Division I athletes are eligible to receive a share of up to $20.5 million in school-generated revenue, with that cap expected to increase over time. The settlement also included nearly $2.8 billion in back pay for athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024.

The Protect College Sports Act would extend the revenue-sharing cap beyond the expiration of the House settlement after the 2034-35 academic year while allowing annual inflation adjustments.

The measure would create a bipartisan congressional commission to study the long-term future of college athletics, including athlete compensation, Olympic and women's sports, spending limits, health and safety standards, agent regulations, and the overall structure of college sports.

One unresolved issue in college athletics is whether student-athletes should be classified as employees of their schools.

The new legislation does not take a position. Congress has previously attempted to address the issue through measures such as the SCORE Act and SAFE Act. The House had planned to vote on the SCORE Act in May, but the vote was canceled amid concerns about insufficient support. That proposal would prevent student-athletes from being classified as employees.

Moreover, the legislation would prohibit certain large-revenue conferences, such as the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference, from consolidating with or acquiring other conferences. It would limit the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC to 19 schools. Any school from these conferences that changes to another conference would need to operate independently for three years. This provision would sunset in six years.

The bill has the support of the major conferences such as the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference, and others.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who introduced the bill with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said the bill is necessary to bring sanity to college sports.

"The Protect College Sports Act is bipartisan legislation designed to bring order to the chaos, designed to put simple, common-sense rules in place so that college sports remain strong and vibrant for decades to come," Cruz said at a press conference on Sept. 14.

Cantwell said at the press conference, "This is about reining in the bad practices that are happening in college sports today, the runaway costs that are sending people to the state legislature, asking for bailout from taxpayers to pay for sports, asking people to take endowment funds that really should go to things like wheat research or AI, and instead have to be spent because of the runaway arms race in sports spending."

Most importantly, the bill has the support of President Donald Trump.

"The alternative just is no good. ... We have to get it voted on, and we're counting on the House - and I think the House will come through, too," the president told political commentator Clay Travis in an interview on Sept. 26.

Opposition to the bill has come from the NAACP and some Democrats.

"We recognize that the bill contains provisions concerning scholarships, healthcare, athlete agents, safety standards, and student-athlete representation," the NAACP's president and CEO, Derrick Johnson, wrote in an Aug. 4 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

"College athletes deserve those protections. They should not, however, be used as political cover for provisions that insulate institutions and conferences from legal and economic accountability."

In a speech on the Senate floor on Sept. 16, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) disagreed with those who advocate for the bill.

"It's not about the safety, it's not about the well-being, it's not about the education of college athletes," he said. "This is a money play, plain and simple."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:25

Mattress Mack is back -- throwing around cash and beds to boot.

Video shows suspected smugglers dropping off a group of migrants on Imperial Beach in San Diego County.

Supreme Court Lets Trump's Third-Country Deportations Resume, Takes Case

Update (1516ET): The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations and agreed to hear the underlying dispute this winter.

In a brief emergency-docket order in DHS v. D.V.D., the justices stayed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s Feb. 25 judgment, which had blocked the Department of Homeland Security from sending people with final removal orders to countries not named in those orders unless they first received notice and a chance to raise persecution or torture claims.

The stay puts the First Circuit’s Sept. 18 ruling on hold and lets DHS restart removals under its March 2025 guidance while the case proceeds.

The Court also treated the government’s application as a petition for review and granted certiorari. Argument is set for the December 2026 sitting. The stay lasts until the Court issues its final judgment.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay.

The order is the Court’s third intervention in the same litigation. It previously paused Murphy’s preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025, and clarified on July 3, 2025, that the pause applied in full - including a flight the administration sought to send to South Sudan after it was diverted to a U.S. base in Djibouti.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court last week that the First Circuit’s late-night dissolution of its own stay had thrown removal operations into chaos, including cancellation of a flight carrying about 70 deportees - some with criminal convictions - to three countries.

DHS counsel James Percival has said more than 25,000 people have already been removed under the program. Rights groups put the figure at more than 25,000 people sent to about 29 countries, many of them to Mexico.

The justices directed briefing on whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur are allowed under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), and whether the third-country guidance is unlawful under the removal statute, the Due Process Clause, or CAT/FARRA.

Tuesday’s order does not decide those questions. It restores the policy for now and tees them up for a full hearing.

* * *

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24 to revive its third-country deportation program that sends deportees to countries that were not named in their removal orders.

The Trump administration has said it removes individuals to third countries when it cannot quickly return them to their home countries.

However, critics say the policy is used to bypass legal restrictions and deter illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the program twice on its emergency docket.

As Matthew Vadum further reports via The Epoch Times, following Supreme Court rules, the application is addressed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because she oversees emergency appeals from decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the unusual step of asking Jackson to refer the stay request to the full court instead of ruling on it herself if she will not freeze the lower court's order.

Jackson voted against the government both times when the litigation previously came before the high court.

Sauer said lower court decisions were throwing into chaos the delicate arrangements the government has negotiated with other nations to take in deportees who are not their citizens.

"Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews," he said.

Disrupting those plans "imposes massive costs on the government," and forces it to engage in new instances of diplomatic engagement with countries "who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption."

The filing concerns a First Circuit ruling from Sept. 18 that struck down DHS guidance allowing removal based on diplomatic assurances that receiving countries will not persecute or torture people sent to them.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about "blanket assurances" from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won't be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.

The panel affirmed the final judgment U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued Feb. 25 vacating the DHS guidance. In its Sept. 18 decision, it affirmed the striking down of the policy.

Murphy previously certified the respondents, who are people with final removal orders, as a nationwide class.

The respondents argue that the government may deport a removable noncitizen to a willing third country, but not without inquiring about whether the person would be persecuted or tortured in that country.

The case is known as DHS v. D.V.D.

On Sept. 24, Jackson did not respond to Sauer's request. Instead, she directed the other side to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Sept. 28.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:16

Supposedly, through happy coincidence, Our Savior agrees with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico about important planks of his party's platform circa 2026.

''No student should ever be left wondering whether the institutions meant to protect them will listen and act.''

Six Flags Magic Mountain in California announced that it would permanently close the X2 coaster after passengers suffered a string of serious injuries.

Special guests joining Julian Casablancas and co. include TV on The Radio, Beach House and Fcukers.

The billionaire filmmaker has listed his sprawling Beverly Hills estate, as well as another luxurious property in Wyoming.

Why Businesses Haven't Left California - Yet

Authored by Tom Wilson via the Mises Institute,

California has a strange relationship with business. Its lawmakers seem determined to make doing business more expensive, yet companies continue to operate there. Taxes rise, regulations accumulate, and new compliance requirements are added, but California remains home to some of the most successful companies in the world. That raises a question more interesting than whether California is "business friendly." Why do businesses continue to stay - and how far can the state push them before they finally decide the benefits of California are no longer worth the cost?

Adam Smith understood part of the answer long before California became an economic powerhouse. In The Wealth of Nations, he explained that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. California offers businesses an enormous and highly-developed market. Its ports connect them to the world, its universities and industries provide specialized labor, and decades of accumulated capital and expertise create opportunities that aren't easily duplicated elsewhere. Silicon Valley wasn't built overnight, and neither were California's entertainment, agriculture, and international trade networks. Those advantages help explain why businesses tolerate costs in California that they might never accept in a smaller or less developed market. But California shouldn't mistake an advantage for immunity.

Some businesses have already decided those advantages are no longer enough. Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas. Chevron - a company with roots in California stretching back more than a century - moved its headquarters to Houston. Oracle moved its headquarters from California to Austin. These aren't struggling companies desperately searching for somewhere cheaper to survive. They are enormously successful businesses with the resources to operate almost anywhere. Their departures don't prove that California's economy is collapsing. They demonstrate something more important: even California's considerable economic advantages have a price.

A business doesn't have to leave California for California to lose. A company headquartered in Los Angeles can keep its offices there while building its next warehouse, factory, or distribution center in Arizona, Nevada, or Texas. No headline announces another company fleeing the state. The investment simply lands somewhere else. Multiply that decision across thousands of companies making thousands of quiet calls each year, and it may matter more than any single high-profile departure.

One bill now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk offers a good example of the direction California continues to take. AB 2599 would require certain large companies with sufficiently old corporate roots to search historical records for connections to slavery and report what they find to the state. Whatever one thinks of the goal, those records won't search themselves. Someone has to locate them, attorneys have to determine what must be disclosed, and employees have to ensure the company complies. For a corporation with billions in revenue, that expense alone is unlikely to send it running for the Texas border. But that is precisely the point. If Newsom signs the bill, it becomes another requirement, another expense, and another reason for a business to consider making its next investment somewhere else.

California's strength can mask this. Silicon Valley doesn't vanish because of one more regulation, the ports don't relocate to Nevada, and Hollywood isn't rebuilt in Austin overnight. That durability can convince lawmakers businesses will tolerate almost anything. But Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee don't need to match everything California offers - they only need to close the gap enough that lower costs start to win. Workforces can be trained, capital can move, and networks can form elsewhere. California didn't earn a permanent lease on its advantages; it just got there first.

This helps explain why businesses haven't abandoned California. Its markets, access to trade, skilled labor, capital, and generations of accumulated economic activity still provide enormous advantages. But those advantages shouldn't be confused with permanence. Every new tax, mandate, and compliance requirement asks businesses to calculate once again whether California is worth the price. Some have already answered no. Others continue to stay. The question California's lawmakers should be asking isn't how much more businesses can afford to pay. It's how many times they can raise the price of staying before more businesses decide to build their future somewhere else.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:05

Elon Musk Makes A Move On The Banks

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times,

When Elon Musk took over Twitter, fired four out of five employees, and rebranded it X (just because he thought it sounded cool), the talking heads predicted doom for the company. The opposite happened. It is now one of the most popular sources of news in the world, and a major delivery system for what social media is supposed to be.

He always had more in mind. He explained at the outset that he wanted to turn X into the "everything app." I winced when I heard those words. As someone who worked in web development for years, I learned to regard every promise of a "one-stop shop" to be foolish. It never happens. Best to pick one thing you do well and stick with it.

To my own amazement, X is indeed taking steps toward being the Everything App. Not yet, of course, but the advent of his X Money platform is major and serious. It is being rolled out gradually to premium members. Under the new content-creators payout program, people are paid within the app and invited to use the service for transferring money.

Described thusly, it would seem to be another version of Zelle or Venmo and therefore not that much to notice, much less celebrate. But when you look at the details of what X Money is doing, another reality emerges. It would appear that this app is making a move on the banks themselves.

The evidence is on the app now. It offers a way to link your paycheck to X Money to enjoy a quicker payout than if your paycheck flows to your bank account. Speed is one thing, and a good thing, but why else would you do this?

The key comes in the details which have not been advertised (Musk doesn't like old-style marketing). These are not regular dormant cash accounts like you get in a regular checking account. They pay a return. Not just any return. The return is higher than you would otherwise get in a normal money market.

For now the Annual Percent Yield (APY) is an eye-popping 6 percent as an initial customer-acquisition rate.

Not only that, the X Money card that comes digitally with the service (and physically on the ask) offers fully 3 percent cash back.

A high rate plus instant peer-to-peer transmission, a metal Visa card with 3 percent cash back, and early direct deposit is meant to pull balances and daily activity onto the platform.

What you notice from these terms is that this goes way beyond a mere money-transmission service. What's being provided here, with quick and easy signups, is a highly lucrative vehicle for serious investment. Put your cash in and have it earn 6 percent. That beats inflation. With 3 percent cash back, you are way ahead of the game. That is reason enough to switch.

As a user I immediately found myself in a bind. Initially I thought I would enjoy spending my X Money on groceries and movie tickets or something along those lines. But with this level of earning power, I will lose money if I do that. I would be forgoing the return from the money held. Better to use the cash in my bank or my credit card that also pays 3 percent cash back.

The calculation here favors keeping the money in X Money, not spending it. Indeed, the calculator favors moving cash from banks into X Money and earning the return. To be sure, that 6 percent could change in a year or two or three. It would be up to how the app is managed.

Meanwhile, do you understand what this means? It means an actual reward for ... saving money! Imagine that. Cash that earns a return on an app that allows peer-to-peer transfer at zero cost. This is disruptive innovation of the sort we've come to expect from this man and his companies.

Elon has designated the X Money app for now to be a loss leader in direct revenue but a huge investment in becoming what he likely thinks it can be in the long run: an actual option to the banks.

There might even be more afoot here. The banking rails themselves are provided by Cross River Bank. Founded in 2008, the bank carved out a special niche in working with new digital companies that focus on in-app service provision and edgier products like cryptocurrency. It is FDIC-insured but eschews traditional banking in favor of innovation. Even with its smaller capitalization, it is an ideal partner for a disruptive technology like X Money.

Recall too that Elon Musk was one of the founders of PayPal. It was started with a high hope of developing a new form of money transmission and even a new form of money. It eventually found itself regulated out of that vision to become what it is today, which is a highly valued means of payment for the digital age.

X Money seems to learn from mistakes made in those days to build out fully banking services from the very foundation. With the inclusion of crypto as part of the banking rails, we can easily imagine a future in which X Money integrates with a service like Coinbase to move money from dollars to crypto and back again.

One thing that is notable to me is the effortlessness of the signups and verifications. The developers have learned that customers recoil at too many screens, too much language, too many aggressive demands for passwords and accounts. They are using the latest technology to make signups and management extremely easy and clean.

That said, X Money does of course comply with all the arduous federal regulations concerning Know Your Customer laws and tax-reporting requirements. This is by no means an app that places a premium on your privacy. Even to make it work requires government IDs and 3D facial scans from our phone. I despise all of that while also understanding that this is the price any financial entrepreneur pays to make anything innovative these days. X Money is compliant across the board, which, from my point of view, is unavoidably regrettable.

It's entirely possible that Elon has a big vision for this platform that he has not yet shared. Indeed, I'm struck by how much of the system that he has built so far has not been advertised at all. It's extremely interesting how the rollout is going. The app presents direct information to the customer screen by screen, the pitch, the conditions, the advantages. Normal advertising speaks to the masses; Elon's way is to speak to the individual user. It's very different.

We can imagine two polar opposite futures with this new service.

Optimistically, it becomes the innovator of a new form of money and monetary services that eventually replaces paper money and even the dollar.

Remember that the app is global. What if the assets of X and other companies emerge as the asset baking of a new form of currency?

Pessimistically, X Money becomes just another new layer of the emergent financial control grid that spies on us and even worse: the integration of money and social media reminds one of China's Social Credit System. This future sometimes feels baked into the technologies we use and the deep relationship of tech companies and the government.

Which will it be? We do not know. But from what I can see, there is a strong rationale for expecting this platform to be a major player and going concern in the future world of money and finance.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:00

The unique piece could weigh as much as 40 carats, a diamond expert told Page Six Style.

The unique piece could weigh as much as 40 carats, a diamond expert told Page Six Style.

The duo -- both strangers -- approached the victim around 3:20 a.m. in front of Josie’s Bar on East 6th Street near Avenue A and yanked on his fanny pack, police said. 

The musician shared his announcement via Instagram Tuesday alongside his wife, Cassie McConnell.

The musician shared his announcement via Instagram Tuesday alongside his wife, Cassie McConnell.

“My favorite part is pushing the trolley with the snacks. It makes me feel very excited, and very happy,” she said.

President Trump called for "tremendous self-regulation" of artificial intelligence at a White House lunch with tech billionaires — as he prepared to sign orders renaming AI as "super intelligence" in official communications.

Any day now, worried the residents of the luxury Metropolis towers in Los Angeles, the building's power and water could be shut off.