BTN Newsbreak 24/07/2025
COMMONWEALTH GAMES MASCOT The mascot for next year's Commonwealth Games in Glasgow has been unveiled: Finnie the Unicorn. She was designed with the help of school kids in Glasgow, and one of her standout features is her horn, which was inspired by a traffic cone. You see, there's a famous statue in Glasgow that's known for having traffic cones put on it by the locals, a quirky tradition that started in the 1980s. And has since become a bit of a symbol of the Glaswegian sense of humour. I expect we'll see a bit more of Finnie when the Glasgow games kick off next year in July.
AI COMPANIONS Who do you go to when you need someone to talk to? Is it a friend, a family member? What about an AI chatbot? New research shows more and more young people are using AI as companions! It's becoming more and more common for young people to be turning to AI for things like friendship and advice, and are using platforms you've probably seen before. Now a new study that looked at a group of teens in the US found that 72% of them had used AI companions before, and that 52% of them used them regularly. Experts want us to be mindful about how we're using these AI companions. The study found that a quarter of AI companion users share personal information, and that younger people are more likely to trust AI with info like their real name, location or secrets.
ROMANIACS First up, to the streets of Romania, where riders from 63 different countries took part in the first stage of this year's Romaniacs tour. More than 100 tons of rocks, 80 tons of wooden logs, and plenty of other obstacles proved to be no match for these daredevils. Well, maybe there were a few rough moments here and there.
TITANIC EXPERIENCE Now to a 360-degree Titanic experience in London. Admittedly a little bit macabre, but if you're a history buff, this might be up your alley. Audience members are teleported back in time using VR headsets, where they can explore the ship's interiors and hear stories from people on board.
ROBOT FARMING DOG
And finally to Scotland where these researchers are working out a way to make robot dogs work for farmers. But there's one big problem they've had to overcome: constantly losing signal in remote areas. They've been working on a portable 5G network that can be set up on the side of a paddock, hopefully bringing farmers one step closer to using these robot dogs in their day to day farming.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
4 days ago
- The Advertiser
Barnaby Joyce wants Australia to abandon net zero - but his 4 central claims don't stack up
One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
ABC News
6 days ago
- ABC News
World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry
A landmark outcome from the world's highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse. It's been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It's also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation. Australia, one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny. "Under international law, it's huge for Australia. It's going to open us up to a lot more liability," said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne's law school, Liz Hicks. "There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn't been taking seriously until now." The ICJ was tasked with determining what obligations countries have to protect the climate system for current and future generations, and what the consequences are of failing to do so. In a unanimous finding, the court determined that nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. But the 500-page opinion goes much further than that; it has been described as a blueprint for climate justice and a reckoning for those countries perpetuating the destabilisation of the planet. "The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world," Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said. The ICJ's decision isn't binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home. Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic. That's the critical word here. By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free. "What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations," Melbourne Law School's Dr Hicks explained. "Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement." The ICJ judges rejected that outright. They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act. For Australia, the potential ramifications can't be overstated. Australia produces about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. However, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and a top gas exporter, and a UNSW study has concluded Australia is second globally for emissions from fossil fuel exports. When exports are taken into account, Australia makes up about 4.5 per cent of global emissions, the report found. Ella Vines, a climate law researcher at Monash University, said the ICJ ruling would put those emissions into sharper focus. "It's really significant that we can say that Australia should be responsible for its fossil fuel production even though it's consumed overseas. "A lot of the loopholes that Australia has tended to use to get out of liability are starting to get smaller and smaller," Dr Hicks said. The court took this a step further, stating that states are also responsible for regulating fossil fuel companies operating within their borders, which again exposes Australia to legal liability for its booming fossil fuel industry. In some instances, Australian taxpayers are already forking out for the rehabilitation costs once companies have finished digging up and selling their products. Now, they could also be paying for the climate pollution from that coal and gas. "The ICJ observed that a state's failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state's duty to exercise regulatory due diligence," Dr Vines said. The ICJ also shot down another argument used frequently in Australian climate court cases. It goes that no individual project — a gas plant or a coal mine — is responsible for climate change, as it is a cumulative problem, so there is no direct link between its emissions and climate harm. It was an argument used in court last year for the Living Wonders case, which was run by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA). "The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country's contribution to climate change," said EJA's Retta Berryman. "They've said they acknowledge that it's complex, but that it's not impossible. And notwithstanding the fact that climate change is caused by cumulative emissions, it's scientifically possible to determine each state's contribution." International law is not a perfect vehicle for justice, and a longstanding criticism has been its failure to be enforced. But Dr Hicks said that — again — the ICJ addressed this squarely by stating clearly that countries could be liable for penalties, including reparations, if they commit these "wrongful acts" of climate harm. "If there is no clear consequence to breaching [human rights], we are not as good at paying attention. Once you're talking about reparations being a possibility, or other forms of liability and consequences being in play, that is also going to change." The ICJ was asked to consider this issue by Vanuatu and other low-lying island states, which are suffering the consequences and costs of climate change, for which they bear little responsibility. On Friday, Vanuatu's special envoy on climate did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries like Australia. Any theoretical case could potentially be heard in the ICJ's dispute court. A spokesperson for the Australian government told the ABC it is carefully considering the court's opinion. "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change. "…we remain steadfast in our commitment to working together with the Pacific to strengthen global climate action." International law may not be strictly enforceable, but ignoring it would also affect Australia's international, diplomatic and moral standing, if there were any case. One example of an international legal fight in the ICJ is Australia's case against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctica. Australia successfully argued that Japan was breaching international law, and Japan was ordered to stop the program. "I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it's taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability," Dr Hicks said. This legal opinion comes as Australia finalises its 2035 emissions targets, which the ICJ opinion stressed must be its "highest possible ambition". EJA's Ms Berryman believes this legal advice sets out a road map for the federal government's response to climate change. "I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries." Failure to do so could leave all Australians on the hook for the mounting costs of catastrophic climate change.
ABC News
7 days ago
- ABC News
BTN Newsbreak 24/07/2025
ICJ CLIMATE RULINGA huge decision has been made by the International Court of Justice that could see countries that fail to tackle climate change held accountable. Intense weather events, loss of species, rising sea levels. The effects of climate change are all around us, but some of the countries experiencing the 'biggest' impact are some of the 'smallest' contributors, like Vanuatu. It's why a group of small island countries, led by Vanuatu, brought the problem to the world's biggest court, asking them to answer two big questions: what legal duties do countries have when it comes to climate change, and what happens if countries do not meet those legal duties? Today the court delivered its opinion. The court ruled that countries do have a legal responsibility to look after the planet, meaning countries that fail to act could now be seen as violating international law. And this is a biggie. Countries like Vanuatu, that are already suffering the effects, could potentially take major polluters to court. The decision isn't legally binding, meaning it can't force countries to act, but it adds pressure, and lots of people are calling it a path to climate justice. COMMONWEALTH GAMES MASCOT The mascot for next year's Commonwealth Games in Glasgow has been unveiled: Finnie the Unicorn. She was designed with the help of school kids in Glasgow, and one of her standout features is her horn, which was inspired by a traffic cone. You see, there's a famous statue in Glasgow that's known for having traffic cones put on it by the locals, a quirky tradition that started in the 1980s. And has since become a bit of a symbol of the Glaswegian sense of humour. I expect we'll see a bit more of Finnie when the Glasgow games kick off next year in July. AI COMPANIONS Who do you go to when you need someone to talk to? Is it a friend, a family member? What about an AI chatbot? New research shows more and more young people are using AI as companions! It's becoming more and more common for young people to be turning to AI for things like friendship and advice, and are using platforms you've probably seen before. Now a new study that looked at a group of teens in the US found that 72% of them had used AI companions before, and that 52% of them used them regularly. Experts want us to be mindful about how we're using these AI companions. The study found that a quarter of AI companion users share personal information, and that younger people are more likely to trust AI with info like their real name, location or secrets. ROMANIACS First up, to the streets of Romania, where riders from 63 different countries took part in the first stage of this year's Romaniacs tour. More than 100 tons of rocks, 80 tons of wooden logs, and plenty of other obstacles proved to be no match for these daredevils. Well, maybe there were a few rough moments here and there. TITANIC EXPERIENCE Now to a 360-degree Titanic experience in London. Admittedly a little bit macabre, but if you're a history buff, this might be up your alley. Audience members are teleported back in time using VR headsets, where they can explore the ship's interiors and hear stories from people on board. ROBOT FARMING DOG And finally to Scotland where these researchers are working out a way to make robot dogs work for farmers. But there's one big problem they've had to overcome: constantly losing signal in remote areas. They've been working on a portable 5G network that can be set up on the side of a paddock, hopefully bringing farmers one step closer to using these robot dogs in their day to day farming.
