Authored by Bojan Stojkovski via Interesting Engineering,

A team of researchers in China has unveiled an all-weather electrolyte designed to boost the performance of lithium batteries across a wide range of conditions. Scientists based in Shanghai and Tianjin report that batteries built with the new hydrofluorocarbon-based electrolyte delivered more than twice the energy density of conventional designs when tested at room temperature. 

Fluorine-based electrolyte could improve EV and drone battery efficiency.

Beyond efficiency gains, the team says the chemistry remains stable in extreme environments, with batteries continuing to operate effectively at temperatures as low as minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit. 

The development points to a potential path for longer-lasting, more resilient batteries suited for EVs and other demanding applications, where both energy density and reliability under stress are critical.

Batteries can store up to three times more energy

In a study published last month in the journal Nature, researchers outlined how hydrofluorocarbon-based electrolytes could help overcome long-standing limits in battery power and energy density. 

The team found that, for the same battery mass, energy storage capacity at room temperature could increase by two to three times compared to conventional designs. In turn, this suggests a  viable route toward significantly more efficient lithium batteries, with implications for EVs, grid storage, and other high-demand applications, the South China Morning Post reported.

The advance could significantly extend electric vehicle range, potentially increasing it from roughly 310–370 miles to about 620 miles on a single charge, the scientists noted. Beyond EVs, the technology may also enhance the performance of devices such as smartphones, drones, robots, and even spacecraft, particularly in extremely cold environments where conventional batteries tend to struggle.

At the core of any battery is the electrolyte, a chemical medium that allows ions to move between the positive and negative electrodes. For decades, most lithium battery electrolytes have relied on oxygen- and nitrogen-based compounds because they effectively dissolve lithium salts. However, these materials have limits – they don’t transfer charge as efficiently under stress, which can slow down charging, reduce performance in cold conditions, and in some cases, raise safety concerns.

New electrolyte powers lithium-metal cells in extreme temperatures

The team, part of Nankai University and the Shanghai Institute of Space Power-Sources (SISP) under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, developed fluorine-based electrolytes for lithium-metal batteries that offer lower viscosity, improved stability, and enhanced performance in cold conditions. 

Using one of their hydrogen-, fluorine-, and carbon-based electrolytes, the researchers produced lithium-metal pouch cells with an energy density exceeding 700 Wh per pound at room temperature and around 400 Wh per pound at minus 58 °F.

By comparison, conventional lithium batteries reach about 136 Wh per pound at room temperature, dropping to roughly 68 Wh per pound at minus 4 °F. The researchers reported that even at minus 94 °F, their fluorine-based electrolyte maintained high efficiency and stable charge-discharge cycles.

Even with strong performance at both room and extremely low temperatures, the team noted that the electrolyte’s high-temperature stability still needs improvement. Raising the boiling point of the electrolytes could open the door to true all-climate applications, making the technology viable across a wider range of environments.

Even Erik Prince is warning the Trump administration to exercise extreme caution in Iran – particularly when it comes to boots on the ground.

The founder of Blackwater, whose private military contractors became synonymous with the U.S. quagmire in Iraq, is pushing back hard on current U.S. strategy toward Iran. Prince issued a sobering warning at CPAC last week. Speaking on the “Breaking Stuff and Killing Bad Guys” panel, Prince expressed deep skepticism about the current trajectory of U.S. involvement in Iran:

“I don’t share the optimism of the administration that there’s going to be a peaceful stop to this. They will burn it down.”

He then highlighted the particular dangers of committing ground forces:

“And my real concern is that if they try to put boots on the ground and force the Strait of Hormuz, you will see imagery of burning American warships in the next couple of weeks. And I don’t think people are really prepared for that.”

Prince is “extremely concerned” about the escalation and noted that Iran’s leadership has been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for decades.

Echoes of Earlier Warnings

Prince cautioned strongly against any US ground commitment nearly a month ago in a March 1 appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room.

“Don’t ever contemplate ground troops in Iran,” he said. “I don’t think a regime has ever been changed by air power alone. It’s wishful thinking.”

Erik Prince’s Advice To President Trump: “Don’t Ever Contemplate Ground Troops In Iran” @realErikDPrince pic.twitter.com/uSGgQJOBNp

— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) March 1, 2026

He was equally skeptical of relying on airpower for regime change:

“Airpower alone is not going to get that done.”

ERIK PRINCE: If there are negotiations with the mullahs for some kind of transition, give them the city of Mashhad almost like a Vatican where they can go and be super Islamic and strict while the rest of Iran breathes free.

Ultimately, it’s the Iranian people’s opportunity to… pic.twitter.com/9JqkM5IGo2

— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) March 2, 2026

The Kharg Island and Strait of Hormuz

Prince’s warnings arrive as discussions continue in Washington about Iran’s critical oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island (which handles the vast majority of Iran’s crude exports) and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Prince described a potential airborne assault on Kharg Island as “mighty thin” and “pretty sporty” due to dense missile defenses and Iran’s effective use of FPV drones down to the squad level.

At CPAC, he reinforced that Iran is no easy target and would respond aggressively to any attempt to seize or blockade key maritime chokepoints.

*  *  * STOCK UP AT A DISCOUNT

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

A district court judge tossed out the Trump administration’s lawsuit on March 27 against Minnesota laws that allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates, or in some cases waive tuition, for college and university classes, ruling that the state law doesn’t violate federal law.

United States District Judge Katherine Menendez, appointed in 2021 by President Biden, granted the state’s motion to dismiss the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit, filed on June 25, 2025, finding Minnesota’s in-state tuition rules didn’t discriminate against citizens.

“As Defendants point out, there are multiple ways a student could qualify for Resident Tuition without residing in Minnesota, such as attending a Minnesota high school while living in a neighboring state, or by attending a Minnesota high school while living in a neighboring state, or by attending a Minnesota boarding school,” Menendez wrote in the decision.

The federal government sued Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials over the state’s laws that allow foreign nationals to receive lower or free tuition for college.

Minnesota law states that any student, other than a non-immigrant alien, can qualify for a resident tuition rate at state universities and colleges if they attend high school in the state for at least three years and graduate from a state high school or get a high school equivalent degree.

The law also states an illegal immigrant must give the state proof they have complied with federal selective service registration requirements, filed to obtain lawful immigration status, and provide documents showing they have tried to get lawful immigration status to qualify for in-state tuition.

Menendez also agreed with Walz and Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison, who argued they should not have been included in the lawsuit by the DOJ because “none of the Minnesota statutes mention either official, and nowhere in the Complaint does the United States allege specific actions of involvement by either official.”

The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it stands as the final judgment and can’t be refiled.

Students paying in-state tuition pay half the cost of those paying out-of-state tuition. For the 2024–2025 school year, the average out-of-state tuition in Minnesota was $26,700, while in-state tuition was about $12,900, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

In addition to the in-state tuition law, Minnesota passed the North Star Promise Program, signed by Walz in 2023, which gives illegal immigrants who attend high school for three years in the state the ability to qualify for free tuition, scholarships, grants, and stipends if their families make less than $80,000.

The DOJ’s lawsuit concerned the interpretation of federal immigration law that limits eligibility and preferential treatment of immigrants not lawfully present in the United States.

The law states immigrants who are not lawfully present in the country “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

In the lawsuit, the DOJ alleged the state’s policy to provide reduced and free tuition for illegal immigrants unlawfully discriminated against U.S. citizens.

The Diana E. Murphy U.S. Courthouse in Minneapolis on June 13, 2024. Michael Goldberg/AP Photo

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time of the lawsuit filing.

Federal law prohibits higher-learning institutions from providing postsecondary education benefits to immigrants that are not offered to U.S. citizens, according to the DOJ.

The DOJ, Walz, and Ellison’s offices did not immediately return requests for comment about the decision.

BYD is entering a tougher phase after releasing weaker-than-expected financial results and signaling growing pressure in China’s electric vehicle market, according to Bloomberg. Chairman Wang Chuanfu described the current environment as having “reached a fever pitch, and is undergoing a brutal ‘knockout stage.’”

The company’s stock fell at the opening of trading in Hong Kong, reflecting investor concerns. Its latest quarterly results showed a sharp drop in profitability, with earnings and revenue both missing forecasts. This downturn followed a challenging year overall, marked by declining annual profits despite BYD maintaining strong global sales and even surpassing Tesla in volume.

At home, the company is losing momentum. Demand in China has softened, and competition—especially from newer, technology-driven entrants like Xiaomi—is intensifying. Although revenue still grew slightly over the past year, profit margins narrowed and overall earnings declined, pointing to rising costs and pricing pressure.

The beginning of 2026 has not reversed this trend. Domestic sales have continued to weaken, and BYD has been overtaken by Geely in the Chinese market. To offset this, the company is focusing more on international expansion, where demand remains stronger and profit per vehicle is higher. Its goal of selling over a million cars abroad highlights how critical overseas markets have become, even though building factories outside China requires significant investment.

Bloomberg writes that financial pressures are also increasing. Analysts suggest that BYD’s domestic car business could soon become unprofitable, leaving exports as the primary source of earnings. While higher oil prices may temporarily push more consumers toward EVs, sustained growth will depend on improving charging infrastructure and broader industry support.

Some of BYD’s difficulties are tied to its own strategic choices. Its “God’s Eye” driver-assistance system, once promoted as a major competitive advantage, has drawn complaints from users. The company had aimed to make this advanced feature standard across its lineup, but the rollout has exposed technical shortcomings and the risks of scaling new technology too quickly.

In response, BYD appears to be adjusting its priorities. Instead of emphasizing advanced software features, it is shifting toward practical improvements like battery efficiency and faster charging. Its latest battery technology can recharge from 10% to 70% in just minutes, signaling a move toward solving real-world concerns such as range and convenience rather than focusing solely on high-tech driving capabilities.

BYD is entering a tougher phase after releasing weaker-than-expected financial results and signaling growing pressure in China’s electric vehicle market, according to Bloomberg. Chairman Wang Chuanfu described the current environment as having “reached a fever pitch, and is undergoing a brutal ‘knockout stage.’”

The company’s stock fell at the opening of trading in Hong Kong, reflecting investor concerns. Its latest quarterly results showed a sharp drop in profitability, with earnings and revenue both missing forecasts. This downturn followed a challenging year overall, marked by declining annual profits despite BYD maintaining strong global sales and even surpassing Tesla in volume.

At home, the company is losing momentum. Demand in China has softened, and competition—especially from newer, technology-driven entrants like Xiaomi—is intensifying. Although revenue still grew slightly over the past year, profit margins narrowed and overall earnings declined, pointing to rising costs and pricing pressure.

The beginning of 2026 has not reversed this trend. Domestic sales have continued to weaken, and BYD has been overtaken by Geely in the Chinese market. To offset this, the company is focusing more on international expansion, where demand remains stronger and profit per vehicle is higher. Its goal of selling over a million cars abroad highlights how critical overseas markets have become, even though building factories outside China requires significant investment.

Bloomberg writes that financial pressures are also increasing. Analysts suggest that BYD’s domestic car business could soon become unprofitable, leaving exports as the primary source of earnings. While higher oil prices may temporarily push more consumers toward EVs, sustained growth will depend on improving charging infrastructure and broader industry support.

Some of BYD’s difficulties are tied to its own strategic choices. Its “God’s Eye” driver-assistance system, once promoted as a major competitive advantage, has drawn complaints from users. The company had aimed to make this advanced feature standard across its lineup, but the rollout has exposed technical shortcomings and the risks of scaling new technology too quickly.

In response, BYD appears to be adjusting its priorities. Instead of emphasizing advanced software features, it is shifting toward practical improvements like battery efficiency and faster charging. Its latest battery technology can recharge from 10% to 70% in just minutes, signaling a move toward solving real-world concerns such as range and convenience rather than focusing solely on high-tech driving capabilities.

Authored by Nate Fischer via American Intelligence,

The relationship between the tech right and the populist right is a central question of our day.

After an initial alliance in the lead-up to the 2024 campaign, fissures quickly appeared. The first prominent one was the Christmas H-1B fight. Others followed, both in and out of the administration. In many ways, the divide has been growing — with Bannon leading tech critiques, and Republican politicians like DeSantis staking out tech-skeptical stances. Trump has managed to keep things together, but the future is unclear.

I believe an alliance is necessary both for America’s success and for the right to have the power to dislodge the entrenched establishment left.

The simplest approach would be a pragmatic alliance of necessity — both factions push distinct priorities, and compromise where necessary to form a political coalition.

But I think we should aim for more — for an alliance between the tech right and the populist (or cultural) right that gives each group a crucial, or even heroic, role in a shared vision for America. I believe such a vision can center on (1) an appreciation for the conditions — and the people — that ultimately drive tech-enabled prosperity, and (2) an appreciation for how disruptive technology can structurally favor right-aligned constituencies and address central priorities of the cultural right.

Populists need tech:

The populist right needs tech. It may not need specific tech elites, or even anywhere close to a majority of current Silicon Valley figures, but it needs a positive vision for technology and it needs people who can master technology. Two factors drive this:

First, Americans have always been favorably inclined to technology. I believe if the parties split on technology, the pro-tech party will have a significant structural advantage with the electorate. This inclination is not new: In 1840, Tocqueville noted how Americans happily built ships that would last only a few years because of their enthusiasm for new innovations that would quickly obsolesce them. In the mid-to-late nineteenth century, Americans broadly embraced the power of technologies from the revolver to the railroad to conquer and settle the West. And America’s embrace of technology was certainly apparent in the broad popularity of the tech industry for much of the last half-century. It’s possible a tech-skeptical party can succeed in other countries, but I suspect that in America any party capable of real wins must present a positive vision for the use and mastery of technology.

Second, whether we like it or not, technology will shape the future. This has always been true to varying extents; people and groups who mastered major new technologies usually gained outsized influence, and often came to rule new regimes. In the case of major transitions like the shift to the digital age, the stakes are particularly high. Opposing technologies like AI may be a little like opposing gunpowder in the fifteenth century: many may not have liked its impact on the world, but the world was shaped by those who mastered it.

Tech needs populists:

The tech right also needs populist support. Entrenched legacy leftist interest groups retain tremendous power, and without strong opposition, will simultaneously try to stifle new technologies and squeeze technologists for the money needed to fund their ever-more-bloated programs. Populists represent large factions deeply skeptical of this legacy regime, and are capable of bringing tremendous political energy to any opposing coalition.

A populist right aligns with tech on more than just opposition to legacy elites. Right-leaning Americans are among the only people on earth broadly supportive of the free market policies and rule of law that allow Silicon Valley to thrive. While populism can create tensions with free-market and rule-of-law idealists, the broad populist right goal of cultural preservation includes restoration of the conditions necessary to preserve these norms.

Deeper alignment:

Finally, I believe the tech right and populist right need each other — not just to politically partner against common enemies, but to achieve the technological dynamism technologists pursue, and the restored status and opportunity populists seek.

This symbiosis reflects the particular character of the American people in a time of technological disruption: Americans are uniquely suited to mastering technology.

Americans are good for tech innovators–multiplying the impact of new technologies by acting not just as consumers but as creative and productive users of technology. This is not limited to a few exceptional entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley; rather, millions of Americans in companies across the country have a particular drive (relative to many other cultures globally) to find new sources of leverage and better ways to do things. These are the people who jump on new technologies that can solve such problems, embracing the change this entails. A country of such people is a country ripe for innovations that would find far smaller markets in more conservative or less resourceful societies. This particular character opens the aperture for technological innovation, and plays a key role in America’s technological dynamism.

By the same token, technologists can be good for the American people. While many tech innovations theoretically spread rapidly around the globe, in practice, Americans will often be the biggest beneficiaries of them because of this particular facility with technology–advancing the relative position of the American people in a time of global and cultural competition. This is especially true for core constituencies of the populist right, such as independent executives and skilled physical-world workers, who stand to benefit from technologies like AI – in contrast with core opposing constituencies like bureaucrats, who are ripe for replacement with AI.

Call to action:

Thus, the tech right should champion not just the free markets widely recognized as enabling Silicon Valley’s success, but also the people and culture that make America such a fertile place for technological innovation and development. Practically this means embracing both product and policy decisions that strengthen rather than undermine this culture. This means building products that solve critical problems and serve as platforms for broader productive application, and avoiding products that contribute to vice or addiction. And it means supporting immigration and trade policies that first and foremost strengthen the American people, rather than optimizing for those that serve the most immediate desires of tech companies.

The populist right should embrace technological innovation. This means encouraging Americans at all levels to master new technologies, recognizing the potential of such technologies to advance America’s position versus geopolitical rivals and the position of core populist right constituencies domestically. And it means politically supporting tech leaders who accept their responsibility to the American people – supporting policies that allow continued innovation, and protecting successful innovators from the confiscatory efforts of the left.

The alliance I propose is aspirational: Today, many in Silicon Valley – even many who would see themselves on the right – have little regard for the priorities of the populist or cultural right. And many populists more easily see the immediate threats that social media poses to families and that AI poses to jobs, and they remember with distrust the degree to which tech companies embraced censorship and deplatforming. But I believe the need for political alliance is clear, and the potential alignment toward a shared vision far deeper than many recognize. One of the great opportunities for statesmanship in coming years is the forging of such an alliance.

Authored by Nate Fischer via American Intelligence,

The relationship between the tech right and the populist right is a central question of our day.

After an initial alliance in the lead-up to the 2024 campaign, fissures quickly appeared. The first prominent one was the Christmas H-1B fight. Others followed, both in and out of the administration. In many ways, the divide has been growing — with Bannon leading tech critiques, and Republican politicians like DeSantis staking out tech-skeptical stances. Trump has managed to keep things together, but the future is unclear.

I believe an alliance is necessary both for America’s success and for the right to have the power to dislodge the entrenched establishment left.

The simplest approach would be a pragmatic alliance of necessity — both factions push distinct priorities, and compromise where necessary to form a political coalition.

But I think we should aim for more — for an alliance between the tech right and the populist (or cultural) right that gives each group a crucial, or even heroic, role in a shared vision for America. I believe such a vision can center on (1) an appreciation for the conditions — and the people — that ultimately drive tech-enabled prosperity, and (2) an appreciation for how disruptive technology can structurally favor right-aligned constituencies and address central priorities of the cultural right.

Populists need tech:

The populist right needs tech. It may not need specific tech elites, or even anywhere close to a majority of current Silicon Valley figures, but it needs a positive vision for technology and it needs people who can master technology. Two factors drive this:

First, Americans have always been favorably inclined to technology. I believe if the parties split on technology, the pro-tech party will have a significant structural advantage with the electorate. This inclination is not new: In 1840, Tocqueville noted how Americans happily built ships that would last only a few years because of their enthusiasm for new innovations that would quickly obsolesce them. In the mid-to-late nineteenth century, Americans broadly embraced the power of technologies from the revolver to the railroad to conquer and settle the West. And America’s embrace of technology was certainly apparent in the broad popularity of the tech industry for much of the last half-century. It’s possible a tech-skeptical party can succeed in other countries, but I suspect that in America any party capable of real wins must present a positive vision for the use and mastery of technology.

Second, whether we like it or not, technology will shape the future. This has always been true to varying extents; people and groups who mastered major new technologies usually gained outsized influence, and often came to rule new regimes. In the case of major transitions like the shift to the digital age, the stakes are particularly high. Opposing technologies like AI may be a little like opposing gunpowder in the fifteenth century: many may not have liked its impact on the world, but the world was shaped by those who mastered it.

Tech needs populists:

The tech right also needs populist support. Entrenched legacy leftist interest groups retain tremendous power, and without strong opposition, will simultaneously try to stifle new technologies and squeeze technologists for the money needed to fund their ever-more-bloated programs. Populists represent large factions deeply skeptical of this legacy regime, and are capable of bringing tremendous political energy to any opposing coalition.

A populist right aligns with tech on more than just opposition to legacy elites. Right-leaning Americans are among the only people on earth broadly supportive of the free market policies and rule of law that allow Silicon Valley to thrive. While populism can create tensions with free-market and rule-of-law idealists, the broad populist right goal of cultural preservation includes restoration of the conditions necessary to preserve these norms.

Deeper alignment:

Finally, I believe the tech right and populist right need each other — not just to politically partner against common enemies, but to achieve the technological dynamism technologists pursue, and the restored status and opportunity populists seek.

This symbiosis reflects the particular character of the American people in a time of technological disruption: Americans are uniquely suited to mastering technology.

Americans are good for tech innovators–multiplying the impact of new technologies by acting not just as consumers but as creative and productive users of technology. This is not limited to a few exceptional entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley; rather, millions of Americans in companies across the country have a particular drive (relative to many other cultures globally) to find new sources of leverage and better ways to do things. These are the people who jump on new technologies that can solve such problems, embracing the change this entails. A country of such people is a country ripe for innovations that would find far smaller markets in more conservative or less resourceful societies. This particular character opens the aperture for technological innovation, and plays a key role in America’s technological dynamism.

By the same token, technologists can be good for the American people. While many tech innovations theoretically spread rapidly around the globe, in practice, Americans will often be the biggest beneficiaries of them because of this particular facility with technology–advancing the relative position of the American people in a time of global and cultural competition. This is especially true for core constituencies of the populist right, such as independent executives and skilled physical-world workers, who stand to benefit from technologies like AI – in contrast with core opposing constituencies like bureaucrats, who are ripe for replacement with AI.

Call to action:

Thus, the tech right should champion not just the free markets widely recognized as enabling Silicon Valley’s success, but also the people and culture that make America such a fertile place for technological innovation and development. Practically this means embracing both product and policy decisions that strengthen rather than undermine this culture. This means building products that solve critical problems and serve as platforms for broader productive application, and avoiding products that contribute to vice or addiction. And it means supporting immigration and trade policies that first and foremost strengthen the American people, rather than optimizing for those that serve the most immediate desires of tech companies.

The populist right should embrace technological innovation. This means encouraging Americans at all levels to master new technologies, recognizing the potential of such technologies to advance America’s position versus geopolitical rivals and the position of core populist right constituencies domestically. And it means politically supporting tech leaders who accept their responsibility to the American people – supporting policies that allow continued innovation, and protecting successful innovators from the confiscatory efforts of the left.

The alliance I propose is aspirational: Today, many in Silicon Valley – even many who would see themselves on the right – have little regard for the priorities of the populist or cultural right. And many populists more easily see the immediate threats that social media poses to families and that AI poses to jobs, and they remember with distrust the degree to which tech companies embraced censorship and deplatforming. But I believe the need for political alliance is clear, and the potential alignment toward a shared vision far deeper than many recognize. One of the great opportunities for statesmanship in coming years is the forging of such an alliance.

Space weather website SolarHam reported Monday morning that a “surprise X1.5 solar flare” was detected on the sun and may impact Earth within the next 48 hours. This comes ahead of NASA’s Artemis II launch on Wednesday and could affect the launch if the solar storm is severe.

“AR 4405 erupted this morning at 03:18 UTC (Mar. 30) with a surprise X1.5 solar flare. This event launched a halo coronal mass ejection (CME) into space, which also appears to have an Earth-directed component,” SolarHam wrote in a space weather update earlier this morning.

A 1.15 X-flare exploded from sunspot 4405, launched a gigantic coronal mass ejection into space which will impact Earth and our surrounding space environment right around April 1st. This is the date set for the launch of Artemis II, a ten day space mission around the Moon by… pic.twitter.com/3cTNRkbsHQ

— Stefan Burns (@StefanBurnsGeo) March 30, 2026

The update continued, “Although the main bulk of plasma is heading to the east, the edge of the CME should pass Earth within the next 48 hours.”

For context, an X1.5 solar flare is large. The standard scale goes A, B, C, M, then X, with each step representing a 10-fold increase in X-ray intensity. That means an X-class flare is the strongest major category.

A strong X-class solar flare can affect GPS, satellites, communications, and power grids, and even cause delays in rocket launches. The size of the disruption depends on whether it is Earth-facing and whether it is accompanied by a coronal mass ejection.

Upcoming this week is NASA’s Artemis II crewed mission atop the Space Launch System rocket. So far, government forecasters are calling for an 80% chance of acceptable weather on launch day. NASA has not provided any update indicating that the current solar storm threat will affect the mission. Artemis II is currently targeted for no earlier than Wednesday, April 1, at 6:24 p.m. EST.

Space weather website SolarHam reported Monday morning that a “surprise X1.5 solar flare” was detected on the sun and may impact Earth within the next 48 hours. This comes ahead of NASA’s Artemis II launch on Wednesday and could affect the launch if the solar storm is severe.

“AR 4405 erupted this morning at 03:18 UTC (Mar. 30) with a surprise X1.5 solar flare. This event launched a halo coronal mass ejection (CME) into space, which also appears to have an Earth-directed component,” SolarHam wrote in a space weather update earlier this morning.

A 1.15 X-flare exploded from sunspot 4405, launched a gigantic coronal mass ejection into space which will impact Earth and our surrounding space environment right around April 1st. This is the date set for the launch of Artemis II, a ten day space mission around the Moon by… pic.twitter.com/3cTNRkbsHQ

— Stefan Burns (@StefanBurnsGeo) March 30, 2026

The update continued, “Although the main bulk of plasma is heading to the east, the edge of the CME should pass Earth within the next 48 hours.”

For context, an X1.5 solar flare is large. The standard scale goes A, B, C, M, then X, with each step representing a 10-fold increase in X-ray intensity. That means an X-class flare is the strongest major category.

A strong X-class solar flare can affect GPS, satellites, communications, and power grids, and even cause delays in rocket launches. The size of the disruption depends on whether it is Earth-facing and whether it is accompanied by a coronal mass ejection.

Upcoming this week is NASA’s Artemis II crewed mission atop the Space Launch System rocket. So far, government forecasters are calling for an 80% chance of acceptable weather on launch day. NASA has not provided any update indicating that the current solar storm threat will affect the mission. Artemis II is currently targeted for no earlier than Wednesday, April 1, at 6:24 p.m. EST.

Authored by Rob Arnott via RealClearPolitics,

We get the government we choose to elect, hence the government we deserve. Voting for ever-higher punitive taxes on the rich is arguably a form of civic suicide. Consider that a wealthy New Yorker can get a raise of almost 40% just by moving.

That’s right. If moving eliminates a 14.8% top state and local tax rate, our top-tier taxpayer gets a 36% raise, not a 14.8% raise, by leaving. It’s doubtful if any of our city and state leaders have done this math, but it’s shocking.

Mamdani wants to take the top rate up another 2%, if not by the state then by the city, which would mean that our rich neighbor can get a 42% raise.

Here’s how the math works.

A rich New Yorker pays a maximum state and city income tax of 14.8%, on top of a maximum federal tax of 37%. But there are hidden taxes. Uncapped Medicare and Medicaid taxes push the marginal federal tax to 39.4%. If the income is earned on investments, the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT, another gift from Obamacare) adds another 3.8%, pushing the top federal tax above 43%.

So, top-tier New York taxpayers may soon pay a marginal tax of 43% to the IRS and 17% to the city and state of New York. The combined 60% marginal tax rates mean they have the privilege of keeping 40 cents of each new dollar they earn. A move to one of the nine states with no income tax allows our taxpayer to keep 57% of every additional dollar of income, instead of 40%. Do the math. That’s a 42% raise.

Forget the argument about “paying their fair share.” “Fair” is an entirely subjective term. Your fair share of someone else’s money might be seen as a ripoff by them, especially if the money is spent less wisely than we might spend our own money. If you are rich and believe you’ve earned your money, will you consider leaving a state for a permanent 40% raise? Of course.

This is hardly a phenomenon unique to New York. California’s headline top rate of 13.3% becomes 14% with the phase-out of deductions. A Silicon Valley billionaire can keep 43% of each new dollar of income. Moving to Dallas or Miami, or Anchorage for the adventuresome, boosts this to 57%, a raise of almost 33%. This doesn’t even count the “please leave now” impetus of a “one-time only” 5% wealth tax on billionaires. Never mind that the fine print on the wealth tax initiative turns a 5% tax into a 50% expropriation for billionaires like the founders of Google, because their 30% voting share at Google, not their 3% equity ownership, is used to determine the tax.

People have called the United States “50 laboratories of democracy.” A state or a city is welcome to impose whatever taxes, regulations, or laws are allowed by its own bylaws or the national Constitution. And citizens are welcome to choose whichever states have taxes, regulations, and laws that they feel best align with their values and beliefs.

Nor is it unique to our various states, with their diverse tax regimes. Taxes drove the Rolling Stones to their own “Exile on Main Street,” relocating to France of all places to escape England’s 90% top tax rate (where a tiny drop to 85% would provide a 50% pay raise). Even Switzerland has divergent tax rates, ranging from 22% in Zug to roughly 40% in Berne, Geneva, and Vaud. Where do the billionaires tend to live? Zug.

Milton Friedman has been credited with the observation that the only thing more mobile than the wealthy is their capital. It is the rich who largely fund government spending, whether that spending is at the federal, state, or local level, and whether that spending is wise or foolish. Instead of a politics of envy, perhaps we should try a politics of gratitude.

Rob Arnott is founding chairman of Research Affiliates, a $160 billion asset management firm based in Newport Beach, CA.