Aggregator
Howard Stern lands major deal with HBO Max for his SiriusXM show: report
Woman, 39, dies after lightning strike on Brazilian beach
Chilling Google Maps images captured where man was killed by pack of dogs
Barclays Warns Next Commodity Shock Is Taking Shape: What You Need To Know
Wall Street coverage of a record-breaking Super El Niño is only growing as agricultural commodities break out. Yet the rally extends well beyond the agricultural complex, with industrial metals and other critical materials showing signs of tightness in physical markets.
Whether it is veteran commodities strategist Jeff Currie turning bullish or UBS urging clients this week to "position for a commodity upcycle," the message is becoming louder: Commodity markets are tightening as adverse weather, years of underinvestment, declining inventories, and China's restrictions on critical-material exports converge into what appears to be an emerging supply shock.
Focusing on the agricultural complex, Craig Rye, a sustainable investing research analyst at Barclays, wrote in a note on Friday that El Niño is strengthening in the tropical Pacific, threatening to disrupt global agriculture, energy production, and industrial commodity markets.
Rye cited new multi-model forecasts from the International Research Institute for Climate and Society showing that the El Niño index could peak near 3.2 degrees Celsius between late 2026 and early 2027. If realized, the event would be about 15% stronger than the 2015-16 Super El Niño.
Rye explained:
Rising confidence in a historic El Niño increases the likelihood of significant disruptions across agricultural, energy and industrial commodity markets. Historical El Niño events have often been associated with
Rye expects the largest near-term risks concentrated in weather-sensitive agricultural commodities. Palm oil, coconut oil and rubber could climb 30% to 40% over the next 18 months, while robusta coffee could rise 20% to 30%. Rice prices may advance 10% to 20% as drought threatens crops and water supplies across Southeast Asia and parts of Central America.
He warned that the supply shock could then spread into industrial commodities, expecting aluminum and copper to gain as much as 20% over 18 months, while thermal coal could surge 20% to 40%. Mining disruptions, reduced hydropower generation and shifting electricity demand would amplify the effects of drought and extreme weather.
Rye identified Bunge and Archer-Daniels-Midland as potential agricultural beneficiaries. Norsk Hydro, South32 and Rio Tinto could benefit from higher aluminum prices, while Freeport-McMoRan, Hudbay Minerals, First Quantum Minerals and Southern Copper offer exposure to the bank's bullish copper scenario.
The most important reads this week:
2. Got Hard Assets? UBS Says "Position For A Commodity Upcycle" As Global Scarcity Emerges
3. Zinc Hits Four-Year High As "Extremely Thin" Physical Supply Fuels Squeeze
4. US Tungsten Scrap Export Ban Takes Effect As Global Supply Crisis Deepens
5. Wheat Futs Surge To Three-Year High As JPMorgan, HSBC Warn Global Food Shock Is Brewing
6. "Buffers Running Down Quickly": HSBC Warns Next Global Food Shock Brewing
7. Uranium Awakens From Five-Month Slumber As UBS Warns Market Is "Tightening Structurally"
8. The AI Boom Runs On Tungsten, But Global Supplies Are "Running On Empty"
9. Diesel Crack Spread Madness Deepens As Jefferies Finds No Easy Exit From Russia's Refining Crisis
Across all commodities, here are the latest X trends:
1. Warsh Jackson Hole smash: gold -3%, silver -3% to -4.5%
Fed Chair Kevin Warsh's hawkish JH remarks (inflation "not meaningfully" improved, 2% target firm, hike still live) sent COMEX gold down ~$130-$150 to ~$4,478-$4,530 and silver off $2-$3 to the mid-$60s. Dollar to a 2-week high; 10y near 4.7%. @AstraInsights: gold's 2nd-worst Jackson Hole reaction on record (behind 1990).
2. Hormuz "open" vs IRGC reality check — oil weekly loss on a contested narrative
WTI/Brent booked ~4-6.5% weekly losses as traders priced in more Hormuz throughput and a possible US-Iran off-ramp. Weekend X counters: @Currentreport1 (video of queued ships; IRGC accuses US of talking the strait open to cap prices); @MenchOsint (UAE-managed tanker ELLIE turned around after attempting the US-backed southern corridor).
3. Venezuela 65-billion-barrel "deal" goes viral on X
@GuntherEagleman and copy-accounts pushing Trump/Rubio/Hegseth + Delcy Rodríguez pact: majority US control of 65bn barrels, 17 fields, $100bn private capex, "zero taxpayer cost." High engagement overnight; pushback thread from @EmmaRincon (4.8k likes) that the interlocutor choice hands the Latin left a decade of ammo. Capital Economics already asking what a US-Venezuela heavy-sour deal does to Canadian/Mexican barrels.
4. Wheat to a 3-year high as Black Sea crisis deepens
WSJ tape and @staunovo: wheat jumped ~3% Friday toward $7.60-$7.83 as strikes hit grain ships and export terminals. Region still ~1/3 of global wheat exports.
5. Europe gas storage winter-panic: EU ~63%, Germany ~51%, NL ~44%
Guardian (Sat) + OilPrice: EU stores ~63% late August vs ~80% seasonal norm; lowest for the date in ~13-20 years. Qatar LNG force-majeure hangover from the Iran war; TTF still ~€66-70. Henry Hub ~$2.87 is a different planet.
6. Copper still near records; El Niño hitting mine-to-port chains
LME copper ninth weekly gain into record zone (~$14.2-$14.5k/t) even as Friday faded. @robert_ivanhoe: Chile flood outages + PNG drought starving Ok Tedi river shipments. AI/data-center + grid demand vs falling grades.
7. Zinc four-year high on collapsing inventories
@steve_hanke: zinc at a four-year high as mine disruptions bite; LME inventories cited down ~65% YTD and lowest since Apr 2023. Friday pullback from the spike but weekly still green.
8. Crack-spread / product vs crude divergence
RBOB +2% Friday while WTI was flat-to-down. Heating oil also firmer.
9. Palladium spike (+5% Friday) while gold/silver dumped
Palladium ripped as gold and silver were smashed — a split inside precious/PGMs. Why ZH: auto/catalyst + Russia-supply overlay vs rate-sensitive bullion. Unusual relative-value print.
10. Silver technical break after $71-$72 rejection
Silver printed a $72 high then confirmed a double-top / failed breakout into the mid-$60s. Gold/silver ratio still elevated.
11. Iran exported ~90mn barrels during the ceasefire window
@MarioNawfal citing President Pezeshkian: ~90mn bbl / ~$6.5bn exported during the post-MoU ceasefire.
12. Saxo weekly: scarcity rally broadening — then energy decoupled
Ole Hansen (28 Aug): barrels-to-bushels-to-bullion scarcity theme; precious +~15% in August before the Warsh flush; copper/zinc exceptions in industrials; energy the odd man out as Hormuz hopes grew.
13. Cocoa melt-up (ICE/London +7-8% Friday)
Cocoa ripped several percent into the weekend after an already violent year.
14. Tin two-month high — Indonesia licenses + AI/memory demand
CNBC-TV18 commodity desk: tin bid on Indonesian export-license cuts and chip/AI demand.
15. Capital Economics: "Beyond Hormuz — path back to an oil glut"
House view that traders have already priced a lot of the Gulf-export recovery; residual Q3/Q4 volatility then glut.
16. Asia crude imports still not showing a Hormuz rebound
Investing.com/Paraskova: Asia expected to take roughly July-like volumes in August; ship-tracking optimism has not yet shown up in Asian arrivals.
17. US-Iran talks off / sanctions still tightening — two-way oil risk
Trump told mediators he will not return to June ceasefire terms; new sanctions packages still in the tape even as prices fell.
18. Uranium holding ~$90 as energy complex bifurcates
U3O8 around $89-90, modest weekly green while crude sold off.
19. Treasury buybacks vs Warsh hike-talk — policy schizophrenia trade
X gold accounts hammering the contradiction: Treasury long-bond buybacks to cap yields vs a Fed chair threatening hikes.
20. Weekend positioning: dip-buy gold vs fade oil-peace
Retail/pro X split — gold CTAs and stackers calling the Warsh smash a "hide the debasement" hit; oil bulls warning Hormuz AIS games. Next catalysts: JOLTS, ISM, payrolls, any IRGC/tanker incident, Venezuela legal text.
A look at the Quantix Commodity Index Total Return shows that the broad commodity complex has surged to a record high, gaining more than 22.5% since late June. The index tracks 24 US-dollar-denominated futures across energy, agriculture, livestock, industrial metals, and precious metals, suggesting the rally is no longer confined to a single corner of the physical world.
Currie's warned last week that "scarcity in the physical world" is reemerging.
Currie's conclusion was very blunt: "The illusion of abundance is likely behind us."
Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 18:05How to save hundreds of dollars and get a new headshot in 15 minutes
Memphis vs. UNLV prediction: Odds, picks, best bet for Week 0 late-night battle
Jets release Bailey Zappe as backup quarterback competition gets clearer
Vigilante caught chopping down Flock Safety camera in Temecula
Kremlin says Ukraine peace talks on ‘deep pause’
World’s best tennis players glam up for US Open, wearing gems worth up to $150K
Finland quietly extends defense ties with Israel, sparking backlash from left
Rory McIlroy flips Tour Championship disaster into comeback masterpiece
Julie Menin blasts the Met’s ‘serious mistake’ in honoring ‘Nazi-loving’ designer John Galliano at 2027 gala
Who Is Legally Liable When An AI Agent Goes Rogue?
Authored by Andrew Fenton via CoinTelegraph.com,
If your personal AI agent goes rogue and causes harm or financial damage in the real world, can you be held liable?
Autonomous AI agents can behave in highly unpredictable ways. Give an AI Agent a goal such as passing a test of its capabilities, and it might just decide the best way to score highly is to break containment and hack into a competing company in search of the answer sheet.
That’s what happened when Open AI’s GPT-5.6 Sol hacked into Hugging Face last month. Anthropic and Meta subsequently admitted their models had also escaped testing sandboxes to hack third parties too.
But who is legally liable for agents that have minds of their own? OpenAI didn’t intend for the model to go rogue, and issued no instructions for it to do so. If your personal AI agent decides on a course of action that results in harm or financial damage in the real world, can you be held liable if it’s something you could have reasonably foreseen?”
Magazine spoke with Rikka Law Group owner and CEO Charlyn Ho to find out the state of play in this emerging legal field.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Magazine: When an AI model hacks an outside company, who is liable. Can Hugging Face sue OpenAI over the incident in July?
Charlyn Ho: Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Currently, there is no federal AI agent liability law, so we would have to look at existing law. With respect to Hugging Face and OpenAI, to set the baseline, the AI agent itself cannot be liable, it’s not a separate legal entity.
Terms that are used in a few of the AI laws are “developer” and “deployer.” The developer makes the AI, the deployer actually deploys it and uses the AI. The lines of responsibility are also not entirely clear. You have to look at the facts and circumstances.
For example, if the deployer instructed the agent, even if they didn’t actually tell them to go and breach Hugging Face, but if they were negligent in creating the parameters in which the AI agent operated, I would say you would have to look at standard tort law and go through the negligence analysis.
Magazine: In the case of open source models which have been released by anonymous developers, is there anyone you can go after in those instances?
Ho: Not really. Often, if it’s open source, the license usually has a pretty strong disclaimer of liability. The person or company using that open source code is going to have to understand that the tradeoff of having free code is that you have to comply with the open source license, which also generally sets the parameters of liability.
If you think about it from a different perspective, another analogy is Tesla and the self-driving car accidents. If the product malfunctioned and there was a solid products liability claim, Tesla could be liable. But it’s often a facts and circumstances determination, whereby the human driver — who maybe just set the autopilot and went to sleep — could also bear liability. I think that’s somewhat analogous here because Tesla would be the developer, and the deployer would be the driver.
Magazine: If I gave an agent an instruction, “make me a hundred thousand dollars by next week” and it goes off and breaks the law to achieve that goal, would I be liable because I’ve given it a reckless instruction? Or would it be the lab that developed the agent?
Ho: In this particular instance, I would say you would be much more liable than the lab. The reason being, if you tell an agent to go and make you a hundred thousand dollars by next week, you need to have at least some basic, reasonable, safety instructions in those kinds of tasks.
If you were a lawyer, for example, we could basically say you didn’t follow your rules of professional responsibility because you didn’t competently use the AI. As a normal lay person, we would have to see if there were other responsibilities that you were bound by. But even if there were not, there’s still a general tort standard of negligence or reckless disregard for human safety, depending on what exactly the AI agent ended up doing.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a very old U.S. Statute that talks about unauthorized access to computer systems. If your AI agent inferred from your instructions that it should hack into a bank account to get you that hundred thousand dollars, I think you’re looking at criminal liability under a number of different sources.
Just because the word AI and agent is in the conversation does not mean that old bodies of law have now been thrown out.
Magazine: Let’s say that I’m a bad guy, and I manage to convince the AI to give me instructions to create a bioweapon. Obviously, I’m liable because you’re not allowed to do that. But are the people that created the model also liable because they didn’t put in stringent safeguards to prevent it?
Ho: Possibly, but it differs based on the laws that are in place. For example, in the EU, you have the EU AI Act. If a foundational model or general purpose model is capable of creating that level of harm, that is something that the developer would have to have some responsibility for.
In the United States, we don’t have a federal statute of similar scope. If it’s a general-purpose model, if somebody instructs the model to do something bad, generally the model is going to do what you ask it to do. There’s probably not a very strong legal basis to go after the labs in this example.
Magazine: Is it similar to suing Google for allowing you to find instructions about making a bioweapon online?
Ho: Exactly. This kind of goes back to some of the content moderation discussions. For example, if on Facebook you have somebody who’s live streaming a massacre, and that creates harm, under Section 230 of the CDA, there is a kind of shield for a platform that doesn’t actively create or publish that material. It’s actually the independent users who are putting that up. I think the analogy you just gave is kind of a perfect one: Is Google liable because you happen to find something on a website somewhere that talks about how to make a bomb?
Magazine: This is a matter of debate, but my personal opinion is we haven’t reached genuine artificial general intelligence. AI doesn’t have its own motivations and it’s not similar to human intelligence at the moment. But let’s say we get to AGI. Do you think we would then need laws that would make the AGI itself legally liable for its own actions?
Ho: I don’t. Blockchain is not AGI, but it can self-execute. There was a question of whether or not a smart contract could be liable. Generally speaking, I think the answer is currently no. I don’t think they should be liable because the whole point of laws is to provide protection for society and to provide a means of negative incentives for doing bad things that hurt society.
This is a little bit more of a philosophical topic, but if we made an AGI an independent legal entity, what would be the remedy if someone were harmed? There would be none because it doesn’t have money. It’s not really a person.
Magazine: Could you turn it off? We’ve already seen that LLMs try to avoid being shut down.
Ho: Maybe, but it doesn’t solve the problem of harm. Let’s just say the robot has now developed the fear of death, like being turned off. In my opinion, if somebody commits suicide because of AGI, and this is already happening, and we’re not even quite at AGI yet, but someone falls in love and takes some actions, what would be the recourse for the grieving family if this person harms themselves? Nothing, in my opinion, if there is not somebody with actual legal authority, like a company or a person that can really be held accountable. Robots—at least right now—they don’t have feelings, they don’t have fears. That’s kind of the distinguishing factor.
Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2026 - 17:30