Google has introduced Gemini Spark, a new AI assistant that operates around the clock to handle routine tasks. The tool can summarize emails, plan local events, and manage other daily workflows without requiring user initiation. Early tests suggest the assistant delivers on its promise of convenience, though its positioning as a separate product has puzzled some observers.

Gemini Spark runs continuously in the background, monitoring connected accounts and services. It can generate daily briefings from Gmail, suggest calendar adjustments based on incoming messages, and even recommend nearby restaurants or activities by analyzing user preferences. The assistant also integrates with Google Maps and Google Calendar to provide context-aware suggestions.

Unlike Google's existing Gemini chatbot, which requires explicit prompts, Spark proactively offers assistance. It learns user patterns over time, refining its recommendations and automating repetitive actions. For example, it can draft replies to common email queries or reschedule meetings when conflicts arise.

The decision to brand Gemini Spark as a distinct product has sparked debate. Google already offers Gemini as a conversational AI across its ecosystem, and some analysts argue that Spark's features could have been integrated into the existing assistant. Google has not publicly explained the rationale behind the separate launch.

Gemini Spark is available starting today in the United States. It works with Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google Maps, with plans to expand to third-party services in the future. The assistant is accessible via a dedicated app on Android and iOS, as well as through a web interface.

Pricing for Gemini Spark is set at $19.99 per month, which includes access to all features and priority support. A free tier offers limited functionality, such as daily summaries but no proactive suggestions. Google is also offering a 30-day trial for new users.

Google emphasized that Gemini Spark processes data locally on the device where possible, with cloud processing used for complex tasks. The company stated that user privacy remains a priority, with data encrypted in transit and at rest. Users can review and delete their activity logs at any time.

"Gemini Spark is designed to save people time by handling the small but constant tasks that add up during the day," a Google spokesperson said. The company plans to roll out the assistant to additional countries in the coming months, though no specific dates have been announced.

A new sporting competition called the Enhanced Games has emerged, where the majority of athletes compete while using performance-enhancing drugs. The event, which took place in Las Vegas, has drawn attention from the tech industry as a potential new business model. Organizers position the games as a radical departure from traditional sports, embracing drug use rather than banning it.

The competition featured events such as swimming and track and field, with participants openly using substances like steroids. The Enhanced Games' founder, Aron D'Souza, has pitched the event as a celebration of human enhancement, arguing that current anti-doping rules are outdated. The games have attracted investors and sponsors from the tech sector, who see potential in a less regulated sporting environment.

Tech industry figures have expressed interest in the Enhanced Games, viewing it as a platform for innovation in human performance. Some investors believe the event could disrupt traditional sports leagues and create new revenue streams. The games have also sparked debate about the ethics of drug use in sports, with critics warning of health risks and unfair advantages.

The Enhanced Games awarded prize money to winners, with some athletes earning significant sums. The event's business model relies on media rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales, similar to traditional sports. Organizers plan to expand the competition to other cities and add more events in the future.

Athletes participating in the Enhanced Games have defended their choice to use drugs, citing personal freedom and the desire to push human limits. Some have backgrounds in traditional sports but were banned for doping violations. The games provide an opportunity for these athletes to compete without restrictions.

The event has drawn comparisons to historical competitions like the ancient Olympics, where drug use was not prohibited. However, modern sports organizations have strict anti-doping policies, making the Enhanced Games a controversial outlier. The tech industry's embrace of the event reflects a broader trend of challenging established norms.

The Enhanced Games' next edition is scheduled for 2025 in a location yet to be announced. Organizers are seeking additional investors and partners from the tech sector. The event's long-term viability remains uncertain, but its backers are optimistic about its growth potential.

A spokesperson for the Enhanced Games stated that the competition is about freedom and innovation, and that athletes have the right to choose their own enhancement methods. The games have already secured several million dollars in funding from tech investors. The next event is expected to feature more sports and higher prize money.

The Trump administration's plan to send Americans exposed to Ebola to Kenya for quarantine and treatment has been blocked by a Kenyan court. The administration had devised the plan amid the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, refusing to repatriate the exposed individuals to the United States. Instead, officials aimed to establish a makeshift facility in Kenya, about 120 miles north of Nairobi in Laikipia, where the US operates an air base.

The initial phase of the plan involved setting up a 50-bed quarantine facility, which was expected to become operational on May 29. In a subsequent phase, officials intended to establish isolation and biocontainment units to house Americans infected with the virus. However, the Katiba Institute, a Kenyan advocacy group focused on constitutional rights, filed a petition on Thursday challenging the establishment of the facility.

The court's decision has stalled the plan, leaving US officials scrambling to find alternative locations. The Katiba Institute argued that the facility would violate Kenyan constitutional rights and posed health risks to the local population. The Trump administration has not publicly commented on the court ruling or outlined next steps.

The US government has specialized biocontainment facilities capable of handling Ebola cases, such as those at the National Institutes of Health in Maryland and Emory University in Atlanta. Despite this, the administration opted to seek a location in Kenya, raising questions about its rationale. The Ebola outbreak in the DRC has infected thousands and killed hundreds, with the World Health Organization declaring it a public health emergency of international concern.

Kenya has not reported any Ebola cases during the current outbreak, but the proposed facility sparked fears among local communities and activists. The Katiba Institute's petition highlighted concerns about inadequate consultation with Kenyan authorities and potential environmental and health impacts. The court has not yet set a date for a full hearing on the matter.

As of now, the US government has not disclosed how many Americans are exposed to Ebola or where they are currently located. The administration's efforts to find another country willing to host the facility continue, but no agreements have been announced. The Trump administration has faced criticism for its handling of the Ebola response, including cuts to funding for global health security.

The Katiba Institute's legal challenge has effectively halted the plan, at least temporarily. The organization stated that the facility would have violated Kenyan sovereignty and constitutional protections. The court's intervention underscores the legal and diplomatic hurdles the US faces in executing its Ebola response strategy.

Stanley Plotkin, a 93-year-old vaccine developer, recently expressed regret for living long enough to see public health progress reverse. Plotkin's sentiment reflects a broader frustration among scientists as anti-vaccine sentiment persists. Thomas Levenson's new book 'A Pox on Fools' examines the historical roots of vaccine opposition. The book's subtitle identifies three groups behind the movement: true believers, grifters, and cynics. Levenson argues that the accusations these groups levy against vaccines can be categorized as wrong, bad, and intolerable.

Levenson traces the origins of anti-vaccine arguments to the early 18th century. At that time, a few Westerners learned about smallpox inoculation from Ottoman women and an enslaved African. Infectious disease was then the leading cause of death, as it had been for centuries. In the 19th century, roughly 40 percent of infants died from infection before age five. Despite the clear benefits of vaccination, opposition emerged almost immediately.

The book breaks down the arguments into three categories. The first category, 'wrong,' includes claims that vaccines are ineffective or cause disease. The second, 'bad,' encompasses moral objections, such as the belief that vaccines interfere with divine will. The third, 'intolerable,' involves accusations of government overreach or conspiracy. Levenson shows that these same arguments have recurred for centuries, adapting to new vaccines and technologies.

Levenson's analysis highlights the role of grifters who profit from spreading misinformation. Cynics exploit public fear for political or financial gain. True believers, meanwhile, are genuinely convinced of the dangers of vaccines, often due to misinformation. The book argues that understanding these categories is essential for countering anti-vaccine rhetoric.

The historical perspective reveals that anti-vaccine arguments are not new. They have persisted since the first inoculations, evolving with each new vaccine. Levenson's work aims to provide context for the current resurgence of vaccine hesitancy. By recognizing the patterns, public health advocates can better address the root causes of opposition.

'A Pox on Fools' is available now from Basic Books. The book offers a comprehensive history of vaccine opposition, from smallpox to COVID-19. Levenson, a professor at MIT, combines historical research with analysis of contemporary anti-vaccine movements. The book has received positive reviews for its clear-eyed examination of a contentious topic.

Plotkin's regret underscores the stakes of the ongoing battle against vaccine misinformation. Levenson's book provides a framework for understanding why such misinformation persists. The author concludes that recognizing the enduring nature of these arguments is the first step toward overcoming them.