Japanese World War II warship discovered
The first known images of the Japanese World War II era warship, the Teruzuki, have been released by the Ocean Exploration Trust. The ship was discovered by scientists off the coast of the Soloman Islands. Teruzuki was sunk in December 1942 by American patrol boats while it was on a mission to resupply the Japanese Army.
01:16 - Source: CNN
Vertical World News 17 videos
Japanese World War II warship discovered
The first known images of the Japanese World War II era warship, the Teruzuki, have been released by the Ocean Exploration Trust. The ship was discovered by scientists off the coast of the Soloman Islands. Teruzuki was sunk in December 1942 by American patrol boats while it was on a mission to resupply the Japanese Army.
01:16 - Source: CNN
China cracks down on fake "Lafufu" Labubus
Fake Labubu plush toys, dubbed "Lafufu," have gained popularity due to shortages of the original dolls made by China's Pop Mart.
02:05 - Source: CNN
Child flees Israeli strike on Gaza refugee camp
Video shows a child running away as Israeli munitions struck near a UNRWA school in Bureij Refugee Camp behind her.
00:36 - Source: CNN
Jair Bolsonaro denies coup charges as police raid home
Police in Brazil raided the home of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and enforced a ruling from the country's Supreme Court that Bolsonaro wear an electronic ankle tag. Bolsonaro is being accused of plotting to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential election.
01:17 - Source: CNN
Taiwan conducts 10-day military drill
The Taiwanese government is preparing for a war they hope will never happen. For the first time this year, Taiwan combined two major civil defense exercises, with the drills lasting ten days. These drills have included urban combat, mass casualty simulations, emergency supply drops and cyber defense that could be enacted if an invasion was to occur. CNN's Senior International Correspondent, Will Ripley, reports.
01:44 - Source: CNN
Surgeon shows humanitarian crisis in Gaza's hospitals
A surgeon working in southern Gaza says babies are arriving at hospital so malnourished that 'skin and bones doesn't do it justice.' He also describes what appears to be a disturbing pattern in the gunshot wounds of children arriving from food distribution sites. CNN's Nada Bashir reports.
02:55 - Source: CNN
Brazil's Lula tells Christiane Amanpour: Trump 'Was not elected to be emperor of the world'
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva tells CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview it was 'a surprise' to see President Donald Trump's letter posted to Truth Social, threatening Brazil with a crippling tariff of 50% starting August 1st. Lula says that he initially thought the letter was 'fake news.' Watch the full 'Amanpour' interview on CNN.
01:33 - Source: CNN
Gaza's only Catholic church hit by Israeli strike
Gaza's only Catholic church was struck by an Israeli tank, killing three and injuring many more, church officials said. It became internationally recognized after reports emerged that the late Pope Francis used to call the church daily. CNN's Nada Bashir reports
00:53 - Source: CNN
Prince Harry recreates his mother's historic landmine walk
Following in his mother's footsteps, Prince Harry visited Angola's minefields just as Princess Diana did 28 years ago. The Duke of Sussex was in Angola with The Halo Trust as part of the group's efforts to clear landmines.
00:39 - Source: CNN
Massive fire destroys Tomorrowland's main stage
Tomorrowland's main stage went up in flames just days ahead of the festival's opening in Boom, Belgium.
00:38 - Source: CNN
How Trump's image is changing inside Russia
Once hailed as a pro-Kremlin figure, President Donald Trump's image is changing inside Russia. It comes after Trump vowed further sanctions on the country if a peace agreement with Ukraine is not reached in 50 days. CNN's Chief Global Affairs Correspondent is on the ground in Moscow with the analysis.
01:41 - Source: CNN
Who are the armed groups clashing in Syria?
Dozens were killed in Syria this week after clashes between government loyalists and Druze militias in the southern city of Suwayda, prompting Syrian forces to intervene. That, in turn, triggered renewed Israeli airstrikes.
01:57 - Source: CNN
Syrian anchor takes cover from airstrike live on TV
An airstrike on the Syrian Ministry of Defense was captured live on Syria TV, forcing the anchor to take cover. Israel has been carrying out airstrikes on Syria as part of its commitment to protect the Druze, an Arab minority at the center of clashes with government loyalists.
00:30 - Source: CNN
Video shows machine gun fire near Gaza aid site
A video from social media shows machine gun fire spraying the ground near an aid distribution site in southern Gaza as crowds of Palestinians lie on the ground for safety. Although the source of the gunfire is not seen in the video, multiple eyewitnesses say it shows the Israeli military opening fire on Palestinians as they waited for food on Saturday. In a statement, the IDF said, 'The details of the video are under review.'
01:02 - Source: CNN
Analysis: Moscow's reaction to Trump's 50-day peace deadline
President Donald Trump has vowed further sanctions on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. CNN's Chief Global Affairs Correspondent breaks down the Russian reaction and perspective on Monday's announcement from Moscow.
01:13 - Source: CNN
Trump attends FIFA Club World Cup final
CNN's Patrick Snell reports on President Trump's visit to MetLife Stadium for the FIFA Club World Cup Final between Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea.
00:52 - Source: CNN
Top Russian diplomat is in North Korea. What does this mean?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is in North Korea for a three-day visit. CNN's Will Ripley explains why this could be a sign of deepening relations between Moscow and Pyongyang.
01:16 - Source: CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Why US Partners Are Giving In to Trump on Trade
In Donald Trump's first term as president, Japan stood out as an exception in opting not to retaliate against his tariff hikes, as the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reckoned it was better to shrug them off in favor of maintaining the broader economic and security relationship. Most others did retaliate, however, and that experience conditioned economists to anticipate damaging tit-for-tat levies in Trump 2.0 if he proceeded with the aggressive trade actions he campaigned on. Except, something happened on the way to the global recession: Aside from China, American trading partners have largely accepted Trump's new duties.
The Verge
16 hours ago
- The Verge
Fujifilm is raising camera prices by up to $800
Fujifilm has raised prices on cameras and lenses across its lineup, with price hikes reaching into the hundreds of dollars. Among the hikes is an increase to the price of Fuji's ultra-popular X100VI from $1,599 to $1,799. The capable X-T5 has gone from $1,699 to $1,899. And the already very expensive GFX100 II has gone from $7,499 to $8,299 — an $800 increase. Increases to lens prices appear to be somewhat more modest, with bumps in the $50 to $150 range. The price hikes come as President Donald Trump threatens to finally, actually implement his sweeping new round of tariffs on August 7th. Nintendo announced today that it was raising the price on older Switch models, and Apple has said it's burning well over $1 billion on added costs. 'These price increases seem to be here to stay.' For Fuji, the tariffs have been a bit of a disaster. In 2024, the company shifted its supply chain for the X100VI over to China ostensibly to help meet the overwhelming demand it expected after the camera's predecessor, the X100V, blew up on TikTok and was being resold at huge markups for much of its lifespan. Following the initial round of tariffs on China going into effect, Fuji moved some of the X100VI's production back to Japan. But even after cutting a deal with the Trump administration, most imports from Japan are still being hit with an additional 15 percent tariff. The new prices are reflected at retailers like B&H and Adorama. Moment, which sells Fuji cameras, writes in a blog post that it's 'no surprise that Fujifilm needed to increase prices this year' as a result of Trump's tariffs. They don't appear to be temporary, either. 'At this time, these price increases seem to be here to stay,' the company writes. Fuji didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A number of other camera companies have raised prices at this point, including Leica and Canon. PetaPixel reports that Fuji's price hikes were actually set before the new tariff rates were announced, which could put the company in a precarious position if the actual rates are higher than expected. Given the ongoing mystery of when Trump's tariffs will be applied, to whom, at what rate, and for what length of time, this is likely only the start of the price from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Jacob Kastrenakes Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Cameras Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gadgets Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News
Fast Company
18 hours ago
- Fast Company
What the World Court's latest climate change ruling means for the U.S.
The International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion in July 2025 declaring that all countries have a legal obligation to protect and prevent harm to the climate. The court, created as part of the United Nations in 1945, affirmed that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment. The opinion opens a door for future claims by countries seeking reparations for climate-related harm. But while the ruling is a big global story, its legal effect on the U.S. is less clear. We study climate policies, law and solutions. Here's what you need to know about the ruling and its implications. Why island nations called for a formal opinion The ruling resulted from years of grassroots and youth-led organizing by Pacific Islanders. Supporters have called it ' a turning point for frontline communities everywhere.' Small island states like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Barbados and others across the Pacific and Caribbean are among the most vulnerable to climate change, yet they have contributed little to global emissions. For many of them, sea-level rise poses an existential threat. Some Pacific atolls sit just 1 to 2 meters above sea level and are slowly disappearing as waters rise. Saltwater intrusion threatens drinking water supplies and crops. Their economies depend on tourism, agriculture and fishing, all sectors easily disrupted by climate change. For example, coral reefs are bleaching more often and dying due to ocean warming and acidification, undermining fisheries, marine biodiversity and economic sectors such as tourism. When disasters hit, the cost of recovery often forces these countries to take on debt. Climate change also undermines their credit ratings and investor confidence, making it harder to get the money to finance adaptive measures. Tuvalu and Kiribati have discussed digital nationhood and leasing land from other countries so their people can relocate while still retaining citizenship. Some projections suggest nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands could become largely uninhabitable within decades. For these countries, sea-level rise is taking more than their land – they're losing their history and identity in the process. The idea of becoming climate refugees and separating people from their homelands can be culturally destructive, emotionally painful and politically fraught as they move to new countries. More than a nonbinding opinion The International Court of Justice, commonly referred to as the ICJ or World Court, can help settle disputes between states when requested, or it can issue advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized U.N. bodies such as the General Assembly or Security Council. The advisory opinion process allows its 15 judges to weigh in on abstract legal issues – such as nuclear weapons or the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories – without a formal dispute between states. While the court's advisory opinions are nonbinding, they can still have a powerful impact, both legally and politically. The rulings are considered authoritative statements regarding questions of international law. They often clarify or otherwise confirm existing legal obligations that are binding. What the court decided The ICJ was asked to weigh in on two questions in this case: 'What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system … from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases?' 'What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system?' In its 140-page opinion, the court cited international treaties and relevant scientific background to affirm that obligations to protect the environment are indeed a matter of international environmental law, international human rights law and general principles of state responsibility. The decision means that in the authoritative opinion of the international legal community, all countries are under an obligation to contribute to the efforts to reduce global greenhouse emissions. To the second question, the court found that in the event of a breach of any such obligation, three additional obligations arise: The country in breach of its obligations must stop its polluting activity, which would mean excess greenhouse gas emissions in this case. It must ensure that such activities do not occur in the future. It must make reparations to affected states in terms of cleanup, monetary payment and apologies. The court affirmed that all countries have a legal duty under customary international law, which refers to universal rules that arise from common practices among states, to prevent harm to the climate. It also clarified that individual countries can be held accountable, even in a crisis caused by many countries and other entities. And it emphasized that countries that have contributed the most to climate change may bear greater responsibility for repairing the damage under an international law doctrine called ' common but differentiated responsibility,' which is . While the ICJ's opinion doesn't assign blame to specific countries or trigger direct reparations, it may provide support for future legal action in both international and national courts. What does the ICJ opinion mean for the US? In the U.S., this advisory opinion is unlikely to have much legal impact, despite a long-standing constitutional principle that ' international law is part of U.S. law.' U.S. courts rarely treat international law that has not been incorporated into domestic law as binding. And the U.S. has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction in previous climate cases. Contentious cases before international tribunals can be brought by one country against another, but they require the consent of all the countries involved. So there is little chance that the United States' responsibility for climate harms will be adjudicated by the World Court anytime soon. Still, the court's opinion sends a clear message: All countries are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and cannot escape responsibility simply because they aren't the only nation to blame. The unanimous ruling is particularly remarkable given the current hostile political climate in the United States and other industrial nations around climate change and responses to it. It represents a particularly forceful statement by the international community that the responsibility to ensure the health of the global environment is a legal duty held by the entire world. The takeaway The ICJ's advisory opinion marks a turning point in the global effort to hold countries responsible for climate change. Vulnerable countries now have a more concrete, legally grounded base to claim rights and press for accountability against historical and ongoing climate harm – including financial claims. How it will be used in the coming years remains unclear, but the opinion gives small island states in particular a powerful narrative and a legal tool set.
