(Disclaimer: This is image is generated using AI)

Two days before opening arguments, Elon Musk pulled out his phone and threatened OpenAI’s president by text. Greg Brockman had floated the idea of a peace deal—both sides drop everything, walk away. Musk’s reply, now sitting in the trial record: “By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.”The thing about the trial that began on April 27 in an Oakland federal courtroom is that it’s full of moments like this. Moments where you remember the people building the future of artificial intelligence are also, on a very human level, deeply not okay. They keep diaries where they write things like “Financially, what will take me to $1B?” They tear paintings off walls during equity negotiations. They rant about whether their rivals at competing AI labs are evil. They threaten each other by SMS. And then they put on suits and try, with varying degrees of success, to convince nine ordinary people in California that they are the reasonable one.On paper, this is a narrow case. Musk dropped his fraud claims days before the trial started. Two claims survive. He wants $150 billion in damages, Sam Altman removed from OpenAI’s board, and the for-profit structure the company adopted last year unwound. What’s actually playing out, in front of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, is something looser and meaner. After roughly seven trial days, neither side looks like it’s running away with this. Both sides have witnesses who damaged themselves on the stand. The jury looks tired. And the strongest piece of evidence in the entire courtroom is a folder of text files on Greg Brockman’s laptop.

The man who isn’t testifying haunts every email

You can date the rupture between Musk and Altman, if you want, to May 2015. Altman emailed Musk pitching a “Manhattan Project for A.I.” Musk replied that evening. Probably worth a conversation, he said. By December that year OpenAI existed as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Musk had drafted most of the founding language, picked the name, and written to Altman that he’d dedicate “whatever amount of my time is useful,” even at the cost of SpaceX and Tesla.But the trial keeps revealing that the founding wasn’t really about charity. It wasn’t even, despite Brockman’s later courtroom telling, an Altman-and-Brockman buddy project that Musk happened to fund. It was a panic response. And the man who triggered the panic isn’t in the courtroom. He isn’t on the witness list. He runs Google DeepMind, and his name comes up more in Musk’s evidence file than almost anyone except Altman himself.Demis Hassabis founded DeepMind in 2010 and sold it to Google four years later. According to Brockman’s testimony, Musk talked about Hassabis “many, many times” during OpenAI’s early years and was “very consistent and fixated” on him. The first thing Brockman remembers Musk asking at one early AI dinner was, “Is Demis Hassabis evil?” In a 2016 email Musk wrote, “I feel like they are playing the Super Bowl and we are playing the Puppy Bowl.” Shivon Zilis—then an OpenAI board member, now the mother of four of Musk’s children—wrote him a personal note calling slowing Hassabis down “the only nonnegotiable net good action I can see.” She also passed along a rumour that DeepMind staffers had started meeting in a London coffee shop without their phones, because they didn’t trust Hassabis not to be reading their email. The last reference to Hassabis in the trial exhibits so far is a March 2019 message from Altman to Musk: “Have some mild Demis updates to share.” They agreed to discuss it on the phone.OpenAI was incorporated to stop Hassabis. The for-profit pivot, the Microsoft billions, the lawsuit, this courtroom—it’s all downstream of that one fixation. Once you see it that way, a lot of the testimony stops looking like a charity dispute and starts looking like a custody battle between two men who can’t agree on whose paranoia counts as the founding vision.

Musk on the stand, doing his worst impression of Musk

Musk was the first witness, on April 28. Black suit, black tie. By every account from inside the courtroom, he looked oddly flat. Elizabeth Lopatto of The Verge, who covered Musk’s defamation trial a few years ago, noted that he had charmed that earlier jury into acquittal. This time the charm did not arrive. He only really animated when bragging—about coming up with the name OpenAI, about recruiting Ilya Sutskever, about being instrumental.His direct examination ran the standard founder-myth playbook. He arrived in Canada with $2,500 in traveler’s checks. He works 80 to 100 hours a week. He doesn’t own a yacht. Neuralink’s actual long-term goal, he explained from the stand, is AI safety—if we can closely tie the human world to AI, “if there’s symbiosis we’re more likely to have a future with AI that’s good for humanity.” Sure.The cross-examination is what people will remember. OpenAI’s lead counsel William Savitt has, in a previous life, both represented Musk and sued him—Tesla’s side of the SolarCity case, then Twitter against Musk during the 2022 acquisition fight. He knows Musk’s tells, and he came in prepared. He pulled up a 2026 X post in which Musk wrote that Tesla “will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form,” and asked Musk to square it with his sworn testimony minutes earlier that Tesla wasn’t pursuing AGI. He pulled up the four-page term sheet for OpenAI’s 2018 for-profit pivot and got Musk, after several rounds of crosstalk, to admit he hadn’t actually read it. He took Musk’s deposition figure—$100 million in donations—and made him walk it back, on the stand, to $38 million.Musk handled none of this well. He compared one of Savitt’s lines to asking when he had stopped beating his wife. The judge cut him off. He raised his voice. He volunteered, completely unprompted, that his “AI-enabled robot army” remark about Tesla wasn’t meant in a military sense. The judge then asked him to summarise the plot of Terminator in one sentence. “Worst-case situation is AI kills us all, I suppose,” he said. The jurors had developed what one reporter called “thousand-yard stares.” Lopatto’s verdict, after watching five hours: “I have never been more sympathetic to Sam Altman in my life.”Then Musk’s fixer answered a question he was not supposed toThe strangest hour of the trial happened the next day. Musk had stepped down. Jared Birchall, who runs Musk’s family office, took the stand. Most of his testimony was so dry that a woman in the gallery pulled a sleep mask down over her eyes.Then, near the end of his direct examination, a note was passed to the lawyer questioning him. The lawyer asked Birchall about the $97.4 billion bid Musk and a coalition had made for OpenAI’s nonprofit assets in February 2025. Birchall started talking. He said the bid existed because Sam Altman was on “both sides of the table”—the for-profit and the nonprofit—trying to undervalue the charity’s stake during the company’s restructuring.OpenAI’s lawyers leapt up. The jury was sent home early. Then Judge Gonzalez Rogers did something unusual: she started questioning Birchall herself. Where did the $97.4 billion number come from? He didn’t know. Who chose it? The legal team. Who on the legal team? He couldn’t recall. Discovery on the bid had been blocked before trial. Now the question was whether Musk’s own lawyers had just pried that block open by asking about it on the stand.When the judge demanded to know who’d written the note that triggered the question, the courtroom went silent. Eventually Marc Toberoff, one of Musk’s senior attorneys, stood up and admitted it was him. Why? “I thought it was appropriate.”“Sounds like you wanted to open the door, then,” the judge said.Birchall’s testimony about the bid was struck. Whether more comes through that door is one of the trial’s open questions. So is the simpler one of why a billionaire’s most senior fixer claimed under oath he could not remember who picked a $97.4 billion number.

Brockman’s diary, and the cleverest boy in the room

Brockman took the stand in week two, in an unusual order—cross first, direct second. The cross was where the journal entries came out, and where Brockman, slowly and entirely on his own, made himself untrustworthy to the jury.His stake in the OpenAI for-profit is now worth roughly $30 billion. Steven Molo, Musk’s lead lawyer, asked Brockman why, if he himself had once written that $1 billion would be enough, he hadn’t donated the other $29 billion to the nonprofit. Brockman could have said the obvious things. That paper wealth isn’t liquid. That dumping that much stock at once would crater the company’s valuation. That founders are expected to keep skin in the game. He said none of that. He talked instead about how much the nonprofit’s stake in the for-profit was worth. Molo asked again. They went back and forth, and the jury’s heads turned side to side, and the question never got answered.Then there was the pedantry. When Molo read evidence aloud and skipped a small word—an “a,” a “the”—Brockman corrected him, every time. When asked whether Microsoft’s $10 billion investment was OpenAI’s biggest financial event, he replied that it was the only $10 billion investment. He kept saying things like “I wouldn’t characterise it that way.” Lopatto’s note: if you can define the word epistemology, you should not testify in your own defence.The journal entries did the rest. “It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him” sits uncomfortably close to Musk’s “stole a charity” framing. “Maybe we should just flip to a for-profit. making money for us sounds great and all” sits uncomfortably close to a confession. Brockman explained these were expressions of frustration, not plans. By the time he got to direct examination—where he spun a polished founding myth involving cozy dinners in Napa, traffic jams nobody noticed because the conversation was so good, and a photograph from OpenAI’s first day of work that very pointedly did not include Elon Musk—the jury had already heard him say, on cross, that he didn’t think it was morally bankrupt to promise Marissa Mayer in 2015 that he was personally donating $100,000 to the new lab and then never make the donation.His direct testimony did include one genuinely vivid moment. Recalling a 2017 meeting where the cofounders refused Musk’s demand for majority equity, Brockman said Musk tore a Tesla Model 3 painting off the wall and started storming out. “I actually thought he was going to hit me,” Brockman told the jury. As he was leaving, Musk asked Brockman and Sutskever when they were planning to quit. Then he said he’d withhold funding until they decided. The quarterly donations stopped after that.

What the jury actually has to decide, and why nobody looks good doing it

The witnesses still to come are stacked. Shivon Zilis is up first, with the possibility her testimony won’t be live-streamed because of threats made against her and her children. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is scheduled for then. After him, Ilya Sutskever, who co-founded OpenAI, was central to the November 2023 board move that briefly fired Altman, and according to filed evidence had vested OpenAI shares worth roughly $4 billion at the time of that firing. Why he flipped and pushed for Altman’s return is one of the most-asked questions in the AI industry. He may answer some of it under oath.The trial is expected to wrap by May 21. The jury will then be asked something fairly narrow—did OpenAI breach a charitable trust or a contract Musk relied on when he gave the company $38 million? If the jury finds for Musk, Judge Gonzalez Rogers decides damages and remedies, which on Musk’s wishlist include unwinding OpenAI’s for-profit structure entirely.Two facts hover over what’s actually at stake. SpaceX, which now owns xAI, has filed for an IPO that could reportedly raise up to $1.75 trillion. OpenAI is preparing one of its own. A verdict either way will land in the middle of that planning, and is likely to move markets faster than the appeals that follow.What the trial has actually shown so far is something the legal filings can’t quite capture. Both Musk and Brockman damaged their credibility on the stand, in different ways. Musk filibustered yes-or-no questions and forgot details he’d testified to hours earlier the same morning. Brockman argued over articles, refused to give a clean answer about his own $30 billion stake, and was caught wishing in his own diary for a way to “get out from Elon.” The jury, as Judge Gonzalez Rogers told Musk’s lawyers when they tried to remove jurors who disliked Musk, doesn’t have to like him. It just has to decide who is more credible.On the available evidence, that’s a hard call. Not because either man comes off well, but because neither does. Three weeks of testimony are still ahead. The strongest witness either side has put up so far is, of all things, a text file on Greg Brockman’s laptop, written nine years ago, by a man who probably never imagined a stranger would one day read it out in court.

New Delhi: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM on Wednesday claimed that Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) “goons” attacked and vandalized the statue of communist icon Vladimir Lenin in Murshidabad district, where the saffron party’s Gauri Shankar Ghosh had won the assembly elections by over 30,000 votes.The party said it filed a police complaint, leading to five arrests, and vowed to reconstruct the statue on May 8.“On the night of May 5, in Jiaganj area of ​​Murshidabad district, BJP goons attacked and vandalized a statue of Lenin. Our comrades responded immediately and lodged a police complaint. A demonstration was held, following which five were arrested. This morning, our comrades again visited the site. The statue will be rebuilt on May 8,” the party posted on Twitter.Vladimir Lenin was a Russian revolutionary who led the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and founded the Soviet Union, becoming one of the most influential communist leaders. He had tremendous influence in West Bengal politics under the CPM rule, which was overthrown by TMC’s Mamata Banerjee in 2011 after three decades.The mega turnaround was repeated on May 4 when the BJP, similarly, demolished the ruling Trinamool by winning 207 seats in the 294-seat Bengal Assembly with a vote share of 45.8 per cent.Since the decision, violence has been witnessed across the state, with at least four people killed, dozens injured and party offices vandalized as rival cadres of the Trinamool Congress and BJP clashed in several districts overnight.There is news of two deaths in Kolkata within 24 hours. In Beleghata, 45-year-old Trinamool poll agent Biswajit Patnaik was found lying in a pool of blood at his doorstep after walking out after a phone call. Police suspect that he was chased, tried to run across the rooftops and fell, although his family alleges that he was dragged out and beaten.In 2018, two Lenin statues were pulled down in South Tripura just days after the Left’s defeat in the assembly elections by the BJP and its ally IPFT, which together commanded a two-thirds majority in the House in the state where the CPI(M) had been in power for 25 years.A five-foot-tall fiber glass statue of Lenin was toppled in Belonia, while a smaller statue in Sabroom was vandalized two days earlier.

ज्येष्ठ माह के पहले बड़े मंगलवार के मौके पर अयोध्या में आस्था का अद्भुत नजारा देखने को मिला. शहर के प्रमुख मंदिरों में सुबह से ही भक्तों की लंबी कतारें लग गईं। दूर-दूर से भक्त हनुमान जी के दर्शन के लिए आए और दिनभर पूजा-अर्चना का सिलसिला चलता रहा। मंदिरों में भजन-कीर्तन व धार्मिक कार्यक्रमों का आयोजन किया गया, जिससे पूरा माहौल भक्तिमय हो गया. “जय श्री राम” और “जय बजरंगबली” के जयकारों से गूंज उठा अयोध्या धाम.

हनुमानगढ़ी समेत सभी मंदिरों में भीड़ उमड़ी
हनुमानगढ़ी मंदिर समेत शहर के सभी हनुमान मंदिरों में भारी भीड़ देखी गयी. भगवान के दर्शन के लिए भक्त सुबह से ही लाइन में खड़े थे. लोग बजरंगबली से अपने जीवन में सुख, समृद्धि और सौभाग्य की प्रार्थना कर रहे थे। मंदिरों में विशेष पूजा-अर्चना की गई और भक्तों ने पूरे उत्साह के साथ इसमें भाग लिया।

भजन-कीर्तन व पूजन से वातावरण गूंज उठा।
पूरे दिन मंदिरों में भक्ति गीतों और भजन-कीर्तन की धुन गूंजती रही। श्रद्धालु भक्ति में लीन होकर पूजा कर रहे थे। कार्यक्रम के दौरान धार्मिक कार्यक्रमों ने लोगों को आध्यात्मिक ऊर्जा से भर दिया। इस मौके पर कई जगहों पर प्रसाद वितरण और भंडारों का भी आयोजन किया गया, हालांकि कुछ जगहों पर सीमित व्यवस्थाएं देखने को मिलीं.

मल द्रव्यमान के कारण विशेष स्थिति
इस बार ज्येष्ठ माह को दो भागों में बांटा गया है, क्योंकि बीच में मल मास पड़ रहा है। इससे बड़े मंगल ग्रह का क्रम कुछ समय के लिए रुक जाएगा। खास बात यह है कि इस बार कुल 8 बड़े मंगलवार पड़ रहे हैं, जो एक दुर्लभ संयोग माना जाता है. इस समय का भक्तों के लिए विशेष धार्मिक महत्व है।

गैस सिलेंडर की कमी का असर, फिर भी उत्साह बरकरार
गैस सिलेंडर की कमी के कारण कई स्थानों पर भंडारों का आयोजन सीमित रहा। इसके बावजूद श्रद्धालुओं के उत्साह में कोई कमी नहीं आयी. लोग अपनी श्रद्धा और भक्ति के साथ मंदिरों में पहुंचते रहे और पूजा-अर्चना करते रहे।

सुरक्षा के कड़े इंतजाम थे
भारी भीड़ को देखते हुए प्रशासन ने सुरक्षा के पुख्ता इंतजाम किये थे. मंदिर परिसर और आसपास के इलाकों में पुलिस बल तैनात रहा, ताकि श्रद्धालुओं को किसी तरह की परेशानी न हो. प्रशासन की सतर्कता के कारण पूरा कार्यक्रम शांतिपूर्वक संपन्न हो गया.

(रिपोर्ट:अनूप कुमार अयोध्या)

Actress Deepika Padukone meets fans in January 2026. One fan brought his mother to the event. Mother gifted home made Puran Poli to Deepika. Deepika accepted the gift warmly and held her mother’s hand. With this gesture, tears of happiness welled up in mother’s eyes. The fan shared the emotional moment online. Many people liked Deepika’s humility and gratitude.

Homemade food has a distinct aroma and essence attached to it. If it is made by the mother, the emotional connection with the dish is unique. When Bollywood star Deepika Padukone received home-made Puran Poli from a mother, she was in tears of joy after her approval. Scroll down to see what really happened.

Meet and greet with Deepika Padukone

It all happened in the month of January 2026, when actress Deepika Padukone hosted a get-together with her fans and well-wishers to celebrate her birthday. During the grand event, the actress also cut a brown three-tier cake and posed for pictures with the attendees. While all the influencers and content creators shared their moments of joy and happiness, one moment that took the internet by storm was shared by the handle @zadmayur. Wonder why? It was not about him, but about that moment of happiness for his mother and about Deepika’s expression, which made her cry with joy.

What actually happened?

Fans on social media revealed about Deepika’s gesture during her meeting with her mother. According to him, he warmly held his mother’s hand and invited her to sit near him. In a Reels post viewed over 3 million times, he expressed his gratitude to Deepika, saying, “This time, I took my mother with me. Staying with me, she also gradually became a fan of Deepika. When I told her that we were going to meet Deepika, she said, “Chal, Khota Bolu Nakos” (Don’t lie), “Evadhya Vela Bhetalas, Mala Kadhi Nahi Nelas” (You met her so many times, but I never got to meet her) Didn’t take it with me). But when she actually met Deepika she was completely stunned.She also told that when her mother held the actress’s hand, she had tears in her eyes. Deepika also thanked her mother for the special gift which was a special handmade Puran Poli. The fan further added, “She walked away with tears in her eyes – and honestly, every fan can relate to that moment, the emotions we go through after meeting a diva like her.”

what does this teach us

Well, for Deepika it must have been one of those many fan moments where she got a hand gesture. But what he did certainly teach us the lesson of gratitude: the ability to recognize and value the effort, time, or thought someone has invested in us. By accepting the tiffin, he also showed humility, showing that we can receive kindness as graciously as we give it. These actions develop emotional connections, build trust and create a culture of appreciation in everyday life. How often do you express gratitude to the people around you? Share your thoughts with us.

How to make classic Puran Poli at home

Material: 1 cup chana dal, 1 cup jaggery, 1/2 tsp cardamom powder, a pinch of nutmeg, 1.5 cups whole wheat flour, 2 tbsp oil or ghee, a pinch of salt, water and ghee for cooking Method: First of all, wash chana dal and cook in pressure cooker till soft but do not let it get soft. Drain off excess water and mash or grind the dal, then cook it in a pan with jaggery on low flame. Stir continuously and cook until the mixture leaves the sides of the pan. Add cardamom and nutmeg. Let it cool. Meanwhile, knead the dough using flour, salt, water and oil/ghee. Cover the dough and keep it aside for 20 minutes. Divide the dough into small balls, fill each ball with 2 tablespoons of filling and roll out the paratha. Heat the pan and apply ghee on both the sides and cook the poli till golden spots appear. serve hot.

पहले चरण के तहत जनगणना निदेशालय की ओर से प्रदेश भर में मकान सूचीकरण और मकान गिनती का काम चल रहा है. 24 मई तक होने वाली गृह जनगणना के बीच लोगों के मन में परिवार की गिनती को लेकर कई सवाल थे. निदेशक जनगणना ईवा आशीष श्रीवास्तव ने कहा कि रसोई घर में रहने वाले परिवार का आधार होगी।

यदि किसी घर में पति-पत्नी एक साथ रहते हैं और एक ही रसोई में खाना खाते हैं। यदि दो दोस्त एक रसोई साझा करते हैं या एक नौकरानी अपने मालिक के परिवार के साथ रहती है, तो उन सभी को एक परिवार के रूप में गिना जाएगा। ऐसे कई परिवार हैं जहां एक ही घर में दो रसोई होती हैं।

यह भी पढ़ें…उत्तराखंड: अटक सकती है आठ बीजेपी विधायकों की तैयारी और उम्मीदवारी, दो पार्टी सर्वे की कसौटी पर फेल

इसलिए उन्हें दो परिवारों के रूप में गिना जाएगा। ऐसे कई घर हैं जिनमें माता-पिता, दो बेटों की तीन अलग-अलग रसोई हैं तो वे तीन परिवार माने जाएंगे। निदेशक जनगणना ने बताया कि इस संबंध में प्रदेश भर में निर्देश जारी कर दिये गये हैं.