Eli Lilly may sign $2B deal with Hong Kong AI drugmaker

 Eli Lilly and Company is set to close a $2 billion deal with Insilico Medicine, a Hong Kong biotech company which uses artificial intelligence (AI) for drug discovery, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

According to the outlet, Eli Lily will acquire the exclusive rights to sell the GLP-1 diabetes drug. The report read that the American drugmaker is "like its rivals in the global pharmaceutical sector, aggressively hunting in China for new drugs."

Neither Eli Lilly nor Insilico commented on the report. The official announcement is expected later in the day.

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Eli-Lilly-may-sign-dollar2B-deal-with-Hong-Kong-AI-drugmaker/65972445

UAE seeks reparations from Iran

 Senior Advisor to Emirati President Anwar Gargash declared on Sunday that the political solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East must include Iran's reparations to the United Arab Emirates.

Iran must pay reparations for "targeting civilian and vital facilities as well as civilians," Gargash wrote on X. He added that the peace deal must address "the Iranian aggression against the Arab Gulf states" and ensure that no violence will be conducted by Tehran in future.

"Iran deceived its neighbors about its intentions before the war and revealed premeditated aggression despite their sincere efforts to avoid it," he said, concluding that the Iranian regime has become "the primary threat to the security of the Arab Gulf."

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/UAE-seeks-reparations-from-Iran/65972447

'Meta and Google lost a major social media addiction lawsuit. Their troubles are far from over'

This week’s verdict in the landmark social media addiction trial against Meta (META) and Google (GOOG, GOOGL) could have major implications for how the companies, and their rivals, operate their businesses.


But the road between the Los Angeles jury finding Meta and Google negligent and the companies being forced to overhaul their respective platforms is a long one that may never materialize.

Jurors in the trial said Meta and YouTube knew the designs of their platforms were dangerous, that users wouldn't realize the danger, and that the companies failed to warn of the danger when a reasonable platform would have.

They also awarded the plaintiffs, a now-20-year-old woman known in legal filings as K.G.M. and her mother, Karen, $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Both Google parent Alphabet and Meta say they plan to appeal.

The suit is seen as a potential watershed moment as parents, school districts, and states line up thousands of similar lawsuits against the two companies. But experts say the appeals process will take months and raise questions related to free speech protections that could send the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

A win for the plaintiffs there could be disastrous for Meta and Alphabet, while raising serious questions about free speech on the web. But if the companies prevail, it could close the door on the way the plaintiffs’ attorneys approached their lawsuit.
The path ahead and free speech concerns

The social media addiction lawsuit is important because it’s seen as a bellwether for future cases against Meta, Google, and counterparts like TikTok and Snap (SNAP).

The case, known as JCCP 5255, alleged that K.G.M.’s social media use, which began when she was 10, led to “dangerous dependency on [the social media companies’ products], anxiety, depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphia.”
Plaintiffs' attorney Mark Lanier arrives in the morning to the Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, March 25, 2026 in Los Angeles, CA. (Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) · Kayla Bartkowski via Getty Images

Critics have traditionally argued against the content social platforms host, saying that it is dangerous and damaging to younger users. But Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet companies from being held liable for hosting user content and for making “good faith” efforts to moderate content they find “objectionable.”

The law has drawn the ire of both Republicans and Democrats in the past, with Republicans arguing that it allows companies to censor right-wing voices and Democrats saying it aids the spread of disinformation.

Courts have largely sided with social media and internet companies on Section 230 in the past. But the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Los Angeles trial framed their arguments around the design of the social platforms, including features like infinite scroll, “likes,” and notifications, resulting in Wednesday’s verdict.


Harvard Law School lecturer Timothy Edgar told Yahoo Finance that he expects the social media companies to mount a First Amendment challenge to the verdict on the grounds that their algorithms and their design choices are a form of speech.
Lawyer Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center speaks to the press. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images) · Jill Connelly via Getty Images

Allowing the verdict to stand as is, and holding companies liable for those kinds of design decisions, he explained, could have a chilling effect on the internet as a whole.

“Of course, we're all happy to see that maybe tech companies are going to be incentivized to be more responsible. But what does that really mean in practice? Does that mean that they design their services so that people don't talk about controversial topics so that they're much more controlled?” Edgar said.

“I worry that we may look back on the time of the early 21st century as a time when we had a lot more freedom online than what we might have in the next five or 10 years,” he added.

Columbia Law School professor Eric Talley says whether Section 230 applies to the lawsuit could end up sending the case to the Supreme Court.

“This is kind of an interesting new twist on a plaintiff's side theory … a deliberate attempt to try to sidestep the prohibition [regarding content] that Section 230 lays out,” Talley said.

“And so there's a chance that under federal law, this would be considered to be an impermissible attempt to sidestep [Section 230]. And if that is true, then that would basically dispose of … the California … and any other state claims that are based on this theory,” he added.

If Meta and Google were to lose before the Supreme Court, and the designs of their platforms aren’t protected under Section 230, Talley says we could see members of Congress expand the law to do so.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg leaves the Federal Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles on February 19, 2026. (Jon Putman/Anadolu via Getty Images) · Anadolu via Getty Images

If not, Meta and Google could change the design of their platforms to address the issues raised in the Los Angeles suit.

Social media companies are facing pressure globally as regulators look for ways to address concerns around teen use and mental health.

Australia has already imposed a ban on teens under 16 using social media services and, according to Reuters, others have followed suit. Brazil, for instance, now bans features like infinite scroll. Other countries also ban teen use or are crafting legislation to do so.

Advocates against such bans say they limit teens’ access to information on the web and keep them from connecting with supportive communities and groups that could benefit their mental health.

Bans also introduce thorny questions about online privacy, including whether users misidentified as teens have to use government-issued IDs to verify their actual ages.

Decisions about these topics and more will become vitally important to the online world as the appeals process in the Los Angeles trial begins and other cases take shape. And it’s all far from clear.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-and-google-lost-a-major-social-media-addiction-lawsuit-their-troubles-are-far-from-over-130000496.html

Lessons From Working At Hedge Funds

 

As I move toward retirement, I look back on my work at multiple large ("multistrat") hedge funds and all the lessons I've learned during that time. This series of posts will capture some of those lessons.

The first lesson is that of professionalism. Once in a great while I've seen portfolio managers puff themselves up, point the finger at themselves, and make it clear to everyone that they're at the top of the world. I've never seen those managers last. Rather, the successful managers always feel as though they don't know enough. They scour for more news, they talk with more colleagues, they perform more analytical studies. If they feel confidence and conviction, they double down and look for what they might be missing before acting on how they feel. They invest in themselves, learning new skills, strategies, and markets, because they know that markets are ever-changing. I see it now in terms of the applications of AI to trading and in new forms of teamwork in trading. I see it in terms of new and different market research.

As I write this, the overall stock market is in a downturn and has failed to bounce from short-term oversold conditions. A few traders I've spoken with have been buying, convinced that this is a time to pick up bargains. Others, fearful of the situation in the Middle East and the debt overhanging the economy--as well as the deterioration of high-yield markets--have taken a very defensive posture. One successful manager I've spoken with has gathered decades of market data and investigated markets in history that have behaved similarly to the current one.

That manager is not bearish. That manager is not bullish. That manager is curious. Because he learns, he earns.

Brett Steenbarger, Ph.D

https://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2026/03/lessons-from-working-at-hedge-funds.html

Uber expands fuel relief program as Iran war fuels spike in gas prices

 Uber is rolling out expanded fuel discounts and higher earnings incentives for U.S. drivers and couriers as rising gas prices from the Iran war continue to squeeze gig workers.

The company said it will significantly increase fuel savings opportunities through May 26, 2026, while also ramping up promotions aimed at helping drivers keep pace with higher costs at the pump.

At the center of the update is a major expansion of gas discounts through Upside and Shell Fuel Rewards. Drivers can now save up to $1.00 per gallon using Upside—quadrupling the previous maximum of 25 cents—depending on their Uber Pro tier. Meanwhile, Shell Fuel Rewards discounts have been raised to as much as 21 cents per gallon, up from 7 cents.

These offers can be stacked with savings from the Uber Pro Card, amplifying total discounts.

Uber is also increasing cash-back rewards on fuel purchases. Drivers using the Uber Pro Card will receive an additional 5% cash back at gas stations nationwide.

Additional bonuses include 3% cash back at Exxon and Mobil stations and 1% at Mastercard Easy Savings locations. Altogether, drivers can now earn up to 15% cash back on fuel, which i up from the previous 10% cap.

Uber estimates that, when combining all discounts and rewards, top drivers could save as much as $1.44 per gallon, based on an average gas price of $3.98.

The effort comes as gas prices rise sharply nationwide.

The national average is now $3.98 per gallon, up about $1.00 from a month ago, according to AAA. Prices are climbing across nearly every region, with some states already well above the national average. On the West Coast, drivers are seeing the highest costs, with prices reaching $5.86 per gallon in California and $5.32 in Washington.

Along the East Coast, gas prices are nearing $4.00 a gallon, including $3.92 in New York and $3.99 in Maryland.

Meanwhile, in the Midwest, Illinois stands out with prices at $4.21 per gallon, while much of the region remains in the mid-$3 range. Prices are generally lower across the South, though still on the rise, with Texas at $3.59 and Florida at $3.95.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/uber-expands-fuel-relief-program-iran-war-fuels-spike-gas-prices

The First Alt-War: Online Fantasy vs. Reality in the Iran Campaign

 by Roger Kimball

A commentator in (mirabile dictu) The Washington Post made an excellent point about how the war in Iran is being understood. “We are living through the first alt-war,” the Tel Aviv University scholar Jen Brick Murtazashvili wrote. On the one hand, we have the war as it is fought online. On the other, we have the war as it is fought in reality, on the ground. The two “have diverged so completely,” Murtazashvili noted, “that they might as well be happening on different planets. It’s not that people lack information; it’s more that they are constructing an entirely different alternate reality—one that confirms what they already believe.”

The online narrative—I hesitate to call it “reality”—takes place not just online but in the propaganda press more generally. The dominant theme here is excited angst and handwringing, typified by a recent cover story in The Economist, “Advantage Iran.” Yes, really. “A month of bombing Iran has achieved nothing. . . . For now, at least, the advantage lies with the Islamic Republic.”

The painful truth is that this is essentially the same narrative being peddled by the Iranian regime itself. See, for example, the silly Lego videos the regime has been releasing. They are supposed to expose the U.S.-led anti-regime coalition to ridicule. The effect is a self-deconstructing farce. What genius, I wonder, came up with that embarrassing gambit?

Most of the legacy media is caught in the grip of painful nostalgia. Not only do generals tend to fight the last war, but media hacks also reach into yesterday’s satchel of clichés to describe the new conflict. Thus, we see Politico solemnly opining that “The administration’s interest in pinpointing a negotiating partner signals a desire to find some way out of the quagmire that Iran has quickly become, jolting world markets, spiking oil prices, and renewing concern about inflation.”

“Quagmire”? The war against the theocratic lunatics who have oppressed Iran since 1979 began just a month ago. Is that enough time to become mired in anything, let alone a quag or swamp? Hugh Hewitt treated this lazy, politically charged gambit to some portion of the contempt it deserves:

Quagmire? 70-year-old B-52s are lumbering across defenseless Iranian skies using precision JDAMs at will to continue pummeling the military-industrial complex of #Iran and that’s a ‘quagmire?’

‘Quagmire’ was appropriately applied to Vietnam in 1968–1969 when LBJ had 538,000 American troops in the country, up from the 11,000 JFK had there in 1962. By the time RN ended deployment of American troops there in 1973, more than 58,000 troops had died there. That is a quagmire.

Hewitt is right: The campaign against the Iranian regime is an astonishing success story, “achieving its military objectives in rapid fashion with near total dominance of the battlefield. It is not a quagmire in any way. Looking for a sane actor to guide the radicalized elite out of its fanaticism is not a ‘signal’ of anything other than appropriate planning.” Game, set, and match.

Reaching into the same lexicon that produced “quagmire,” the legacy media warns about this conflict becoming an “endless war” à la Iraq or Afghanistan. We’re only four weeks into this campaign; almost all of Iran’s leadership has been killed, its navy sunk, its air force destroyed, and its offensive capabilities largely neutralized. But the media remembers the neocons. It likes President Trump even less than it liked them, so they cast Trump in the role they both know and love to hate. The problem is, Trump is not a neocon. He did not start a war with Iran. He is ending the war against the West that Iran’s mullahs started in 1979. This internet commentator is right: “The President is no neo-con; he’s a calculating strategist focused on results, not rhetoric. Once American objectives are secured, he’ll let the Middle East resolve itself on its own terms.”

Meanwhile, as the legacy media crows that President Trump is “backtracking,” “blinking,” and so on because those crafty Iranians reminded him that a lot of oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz—why hadn’t he thought of that?—the U.S. and Israel continue their strikes against Iranian infrastructure and regime personnel. That’s the reality side of the disjunction Murtazashvili discerned. Last week, President Trump issued an ultimatum. Open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, or we will destroy your energy infrastructure. He then decided to extend the deadline. Then he extended it again. But that wasn’t blinking. It was smiling. The U.S. and Israel continued to destroy military targets and eliminate key government personnel and scientists. Trump temporarily exempted Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi from the coalition’s kill list. Weakness? Blinking? Backtracking? I think it is searching.

President Trump sees the incidents of the Iranian people targeting IRGC and Basij forces. He hears people like the Iranian-American actor Sam Asghari, who just said on X that “The people of Iran are in love with America. The gap between Iran’s regime and its people is vast. They want freedom. And I’m happy this situation is happening.” President Trump is searching for plausible candidates for Iranian leadership with whom he can negotiate. This is not an alternative to victory. The U.S. and Israel have already won the military victory. That is the reality. Now it just needs to be codified by a new Iranian regime. That will happen very quickly, in a matter of weeks, if not days. The imminent arrival of two Marine Expeditionary Force contingents and paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne will help concentrate the mind.

I don’t expect the legacy media to be happy about it. I am not even sure they will acknowledge the victory. But what they do or do not do hardly matters. They are more and more like those computer-generated figures in Iran’s pathetic anti-Trump Lego clips. Those online battles are the only ones they can win. The alternative is the war we have been fighting with deeds, not memes. On that battlefield, America, the Iranian people, and the Middle East as a whole have won a remarkable victory. It remains only to discover the names of the people President Trump decides he can do business with.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/29/the-first-alt-war-online-fantasy-vs-reality-in-the-iran-campaign/

Novo First Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Approved for Type 2 Diabetes

 The FDA approved insulin icodec (Awiqli) as the first once-weekly, long-acting basal insulin for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes, developer Novo Nordisk announced.

Of note, the agency rejected the product in 2024 for type 1 diabetes, where it is still not indicated.

Designed to reduce treatment burden as an alternative to daily basal insulin, the once-weekly injection is approved in type 2 diabetes as an adjunct to diet and exercise. Patients administer the dose on the same day each week, with or without food, using a pre-filled FlexTouch device.

The approval is supported by the phase IIIa ONWARDS clinical program, which was comprised of four randomized, treat-to-target trials. Roughly 2,680 adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were enrolled across the program, using insulin icodec with either mealtime insulin or in combination with common oral anti-diabetic agents and/or GLP-1 receptor agonists.

In ONWARDS 1, participants had a greater average reduction in HbA1c with insulin icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 over 52 weeks (estimated between-group difference -0.19%, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.03). While the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was low, it was numerically higher with insulin icodec compared with glargine U100 at week 52 (0.30 vs 0.16 events per person-year).

The approval follows a nearly 3-year regulatory journey.

Safety concerns regarding hypoglycemia previously prompted an FDA advisory committee to convene in May 2024 to discuss the use of icodec in patients with type 1 diabetes. In the ONWARDS 6 trial, the once-weekly injection showed non-inferiority to once-daily insulin degludec for HbA1c reduction in the type 1 population, but carried a significantly higher estimated rate of severe or clinically significant hypoglycemia.

Ultimately, the committee determined the risk-benefit profile was unfavorable for type 1 diabetes, and in July 2024, the FDA rejected insulin icodec over these safety concerns, as well as ones related to manufacturing.

Novo Nordisk expects to launch once-weekly insulin icodec for type 2 diabetes in the second half of this year.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/endocrinology/diabetes/120534