Tesla tiptoes into long-promised robotaxi service

Pixar's latest film Elio had a rough start, pulling in just $21 million domestically over its opening weekend—the studio's lowest debut ever. For a company known for blockbuster hits, this is a surprising stumble that's raising eyebrows in Hollywood.

Editor’s Note: Pixar has long been the gold standard for animated movies, so a flop like this isn't just about one underperforming film—it hints at bigger challenges. Are audiences losing interest in original stories? Is the post-pandemic theater slump still hitting studios hard? Either way, it’s a wake-up call for an animation giant that’s used to dominating the box office.

Energy markets are on edge as tensions rise in the Middle East, with analysts and traders asking whether Iran might disrupt global oil and gas supplies. The concern stems from geopolitical instability and potential retaliatory actions, which could send shockwaves through an already tight energy market. If Iran takes steps to block key shipping routes or cut exports, prices could spike, affecting everything from gas pumps to inflation rates worldwide.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about oil traders—it’s about everyday costs. If Iran disrupts energy flows, it could mean higher prices for fuel, shipping, and even groceries, adding pressure to an economy already grappling with inflation. For investors and policymakers, it’s a high-stakes waiting game with real-world consequences.

Tesla is dipping its toes into the robotaxi game—starting small with a limited rollout in Austin. Think of it as a beta test for self-driving cabs, where a select few can hail an autonomous Tesla. It’s not a full-scale launch yet, but it’s a big step toward Elon Musk’s vision of a driverless future.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another tech demo—it’s Tesla moving closer to making robotaxis a real-world service. If it works, it could shake up ride-hailing and push other automakers to speed up their own self-driving plans. But for now, Austin gets to be the guinea pig.

This opinion piece argues that Donald Trump's proposal to acquire a "golden share" in U.S. Steel would amount to a de facto nationalization of the company, undermining free-market principles and, in the author's view, harming America's economic standing. The tone is critical, framing the move as a step backward rather than progress.

Editor’s Note: If a major political figure pushes for greater government control over a cornerstone industry like steel, it could signal a shift away from traditional capitalist policies—something that would ripple through markets, politics, and even global trade. Whether you agree or not, it’s a debate worth watching.

This opinion piece argues that Donald Trump's proposal to acquire a "golden share" in U.S. Steel—effectively giving the government control—would amount to a form of nationalization. The author contends this move contradicts his "America First" rhetoric, weakening free-market principles and undermining the country's economic competitiveness.

Editor’s Note: If a major political figure pushes for greater government control over private industry, it could signal a shift in conservative economic ideology—traditionally pro-free market. This isn't just about steel; it raises broader questions about how much influence the state should have in business, and whether such policies might backfire.