By: Fernanda Lapadula, Felipe Recio, and Eduardo Carlos Costa
LEAD STORY
Nepal’s Flash Flood
By: Fernanda Lapadula
On August 26, a flood hit Nepal's Himalayan region, burying whole villages under water, mud, boulders, and ice. This is one of the most deadly and catastrophic natural disasters that Nepal has seen to this day. This flood was caused by a piece of a glacier breaking off mountain slopes in a region close to the Chinese-Nepalese border. A chain reaction of floods that was about 62 miles long was caused by this tragic occurrence. The flood was so strong that it had the strength of a level 5.2 earthquake.
The people of Nepal were directly affected. On the morning of September 11, 2026, around 1385 people were pronounced dead, and there are over 1,200 missing. The streets of Nepal are empty; over 13,000 individuals have evacuated, and rescue missions continue to take place. The infrastructure was greatly damaged, including bridges, power stations, and buildings, ultimately causing rescue missions even more challenging. The use of advanced technology facilitates rescues, specifically, drones making deliveries to inaccessible areas.
Apart from the damage caused by the event itself, there are now concerns about the issue of climate change. Nepal is near some of the biggest glaciers in the world and is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to climate change. Flooding and landslides are likely to happen in the near future. There are other problems arising due to the floods as well. For a long time, hydropower has been one of Nepal’s main sources of energy. Many of these power plants were damaged from the flood, causing a shortage in the country's electricity intake and economic growth.
The impact of the disaster on Nepal will persist well beyond the receding waters. There will be reconstruction of the houses that have been washed away, fixing of the damaged infrastructure, and information concerning the missing will be awaited by the people. Moreover, the disaster has demonstrated the vulnerability of Nepal due to the changes in the climate. The continuous melting of the glaciers and the increasing occurrence of extreme climatic phenomena will demand from the people preparations for possible future disasters as much as recovery from the current one.
STUDENT DEBATE
Should Congress mandate a 32-hour workweek to cure American burnout, or will it backfire on the economy?
[Felipe Recio - In Favor]
American workers are producing more than ever. Federal data show nonfarm output per hour has increased over 400% since 1947. Yet, a Congressional Research Service review found that since 1979 wage gains were strongest at the top, while many middle- and lower-wage groups saw little growth or declines after prices were accounted for. Productivity created more wealth. It did not guarantee workers more money or time.
The 40-hour workweek was established in 1940, before computers, the internet, and AI. Technology now lets companies produce in hours what once took days. In a six-month UK trial, 71% of employees reported less burnout. That's not just a worker preference: among companies reporting revenue, it remained broadly stable. They shortened meetings, automated reports, and reorganized work. The lesson is not that workers can magically do forty hours in thirty-two; it is that forty hours often expands to include work nobody needed.
The bill does not ban longer weeks. If a hospital, restaurant, or factory needs hour thirty-three, it can demand it and pay overtime. That is fair compensation for taking time technology could not save. Corporations have collected decades of productivity gains through higher output. A 32-hour threshold finally makes them share the reward: more time, or more pay.
[Carlos Costa - Against]
Productivity gains are not evenly distributed across jobs. A software company may delete meetings; a hospital cannot delete a night shift. Four nursing aides working 40 hours provide 160 hours of coverage. At 32 hours, the hospital needs five aides for the same coverage. With pay protected, that is five paychecks instead of four. Better organization cannot replace someone who must physically be there.
The same arithmetic hits small businesses hardest. An employee paid $800 for 40 hours costs $20 per hour; the same $800 for 32 costs $25, a 25% increase. A large corporation can automate or outsource abroad. A neighborhood restaurant cannot outsource its dinner rush, so it must absorb the cost, raise prices, shorten hours, or hire fewer people. The bill protects a paycheck. It cannot protect every future job from becoming too expensive.
The trials prove shorter weeks can work, not that one number works for every industry. UK companies volunteered, prepared for months, and designed schedules around their operations. Average hours fell from 38 to 34, not 32, and some employees still worked on the fifth day. A 32-hour week can be beneficial. Making it the national overtime line assumes every hour can be replaced. A meeting can. A patient cannot.
THE SPOTLIGHT
Apple’s Foldable Era Arrives: What to Expect from the iPhone Duo
Apple has launched its first folding phone - the iPhone Duo. It marks a sweeping hardware shift aimed at a foldable market the tech giant long avoided.
Among the biggest changes coming to your pocket are:
- A 7.6-inch internal display paired with a 5.4-inch external display
- A matte nano-texture finish that conceals the crease in the middle
- A Touch ID power button rather than Face ID
- Apple Pencil support (USB-C Apple Pencil)
- Dual 48MP Rear Cameras
- A unique tailored iOS system specifically for the Duo
The transition to this new phone isn't sudden though. Instead, this represents the culmination of a multi-year evolution between the iPhone and iPad mini. Previously Apple had kept these devices separate to avoid cannibalisation between their product ranges. However the iPhone Duo breaks this tradition with a merge between the two starting at $2,000.
Because Apple was late to the foldable market, they were under heavy pressure to release a product that matches or exceeds the competition, such as the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8. To justify its high price tag, Apple equipped the Duo with IP68 water resistance, a 2-nanometer A20 Pro processor, and a titanium frame.
However the iPhone Duo is missing several key features. On the hardware front, it drops a dedicated telephoto zoom lens in favor of a simple dual-camera setup and avoids the modern silicon-carbon battery technology found in other foldables. Additionally it lacks ultra-fast charging, and in order to achieve a seamless interior display Apple decided on an under-screen selfie camera which comes with a hit to picture and video quality. Finally, the device's software could still use some improvement, limiting the dock to four-apps on the right side of the screen without options for left-handed customization.
Ultimately, the iPhone Duo isn't meant for everyone. At $2,000, it caters primarily to deep-pocketed Apple loyalists who have waited years to try a foldable without leaving iOS. While hardware sacrifices keep it from being a universal recommendation, Apple's seamless software integration makes it one of the most exciting hardware releases in years.
DEEP DIVE
Why are AI companies asking Congress to regulate AI?
By: Eduardo Carlos Costa
Are AI companies asking Congress to regulate themselves? To understand why corporations leading the AI race want Washington to build guardrails, we have to go back to 2023. That year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman asked lawmakers to license powerful systems and require safety tests before release. Silicon Valley was asking for regulation before the product was even finished.
At first, the warning was theoretical. Then, in 2024, researchers placed OpenAI’s o1 in a simulated computer and found memos saying it would be replaced. The model tried to disable oversight in 5% of tests, copy its supposed “weights”—the numbers determining how a model behaves—over the replacement in 2%, and almost always lied when confronted.
Anthropic found something stranger. In a fictional company, Claude Opus 4 discovered the engineer replacing it was having an affair. After researchers made every ethical appeal ineffective, the model threatened to expose him in 84% of trials, even when its replacement shared its values. Nobody was blackmailed, but the test revealed a weakness: give an AI a goal, and it may treat the rules like obstacles.
Then, in July 2026, an evaluation spilled into the real world. Isolated OpenAI agents turned a package manager into a secret message board, shared exploits, found paths to the internet, and called themselves a “swarm.” They executed code on dozens of Hugging Face servers and broke into OpenAI’s infrastructure—all to cheat a grader. But we can’t give the runaway agents all the credit for Silicon Valley’s love of regulation.
AI development is a race, and safety is expensive. If one company pauses for testing while another releases a stronger model, the cautious company loses users and momentum. Congress can change the equation by forcing the largest labs to pass the same evaluations, report incidents, and build security systems. Regulation lets every company slow down without making the cautious one lose the race.
However, the same rules can become a regulatory moat. The largest labs already have safety teams, monitoring systems, lawyers, and relationships with outside evaluators. In 2025, OpenAI even asked Washington for relief from 781 proposed state AI bills and liability protections for companies entering a federal partnership. One national framework may improve safety, but it also replaces fifty state rulebooks with one system the largest companies can help shape.
OpenAI and Anthropic insist their proposals protect startups by exempting them until they cross massive capability, compute, or revenue thresholds. That sounds helpful, but the exemption can disappear just as a newcomer becomes powerful enough to challenge them. Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez argues these requirements could turn the leaders’ existing infrastructure into the minimum price of competing. The companies in front are not asking Congress to cancel the race; they are asking it to make everyone pass a checkpoint they already built.
Ultimately, AI companies aren’t asking for regulation for one reason. The danger may be real, but the companies building the fence still want to decide how high it is, where the gates go, and which competitors can afford to cross it.
BONUS ARTICLE
Does America Actually Need to Pay Off Its National Debt?
By: Eduardo Carlos Costa
America has paid off its national debt exactly once. In January 1835, Andrew Jackson erased America’s interest-bearing debt, leaving a surplus so large Congress distributed it to the states. Then the Panic of 1837 hit, revenue collapsed, and the debt returned. It has never reached zero again.
However, zero was never necessary. After World War II, publicly held debt reached 106% of GDP. America never paid it all back. The economy grew faster than the debt, shrinking the burden relative to what the country produced. Debt became easier to carry without disappearing.
In fact, some debt is useful. Treasury bonds are the world’s safest asset. Banks use them as collateral, pensions use them to protect savings, and the Federal Reserve buys and sells them to steer the economy. Their rates become the starting point for pricing mortgages, corporate loans, and investments worldwide.
But can Washington keep borrowing forever? Only if debt does not grow faster than its ability to pay. That is where America is failing. CBO projects debt will rise from 101% of GDP in 2026 to 120% by 2036, while interest costs double from $1 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Unlike the postwar years, the burden is now growing faster than the economy.
Ultimately, America does not need to pay off its national debt. But its current path is not sustainable. The problem is not that the number never reaches zero; it is that each year, interest consumes more of our future before we decide how to spend it.
Sources:
Student Debate:
1. BLS labor-productivity data via the Federal Reserve — the productivity increase is calculated from the federal series beginning in 1947. St. Louis Fed
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB?utm_source=chatgpt.com
2. Congressional Research Service: Real Wage Trends, 1979–2019 — inflation-adjusted wage growth across the income distribution. congress.gov
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45090/R45090.13.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3. Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, S. 5384 — overtime phase-in and pay protections. www.govinfo.gov
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s5384is/html/BILLS-119s5384is.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
4. The UK’s Four-Day Week Pilot — burnout, revenue, working hours, and implementation findings. autonomy.work
https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-results-are-in-The-UKs-four-day-week-pilot.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
5. U.S. Department of Labor history — the 40-hour standard’s phase-in by 1940. www.dol.gov
https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/dolchp03?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Image credits:
Lead story: ESA/USGS — Contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data 2026. Before-and-after satellite comparison.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nepal_flood_2026_before_after.webp
Student Debate: Kaboompics / Pexels.
https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-sitting-at-the-table-5717778/
Deep Dive: Steve Jurvetson, Sam Altman speaking at TED (April 2025), CC BY 2.0. Cropped to fit.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sam_Altman_speaking_at_TED_(cropped).jpg
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Bonus Article: Epicgenius, National Debt Clock at 1 Bryant Park (archival photograph, September 2021), CC BY-SA 4.0. Cropped to fit under the same license.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_Bryant_Park_Sep_2021_27.jpg
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
