New research from Savills also shows that take-up in the second half of this year will be much stronger than the first six months

Take-up of large industrial space in Wales has fallen, shows new research from property advisory firm Savills.

For units of more than 100,000 sq ft, Savills said that take-up of space in the first half of this year totalled 231,320 sq ft across two deals – including the letting of a 103,542 sq ft unit at the Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate in Tredegar.

This represented a 20.3% decrease compared on the first half of 2025. With 94% of available warehouse space comprising grade C units, Savills says there is significant scope to reposition older assets and deliver new speculative development to meet occupier demand for best-in-class space.

Both transactions completed during the first half of the year involved units in the 100,000–200,000 sq ft size bracket, underlining the long-established preference for smaller big box units in Wales. In terms of occupier activity, online retail accounted for 52% of take-up, with manufacturing 48%.

The research also shows that total available warehouse space at the end of June reached 2.66 million sq ft, an increase of 7.8% from 2.47 million sq ft at the start of the year. This equates to a vacancy rate of 3.33%, up from 3.09% at the end of 2025. Based on average five-year annual take-up levels, there is currently 1.64 years of available supply in the market.

There are currently six available units in the 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft size range, one between 200,000 to 300,000 sq ft, two between 300,000 to 400,000 sq ft and one unit of more than 500,000 sq ft.

However, with 528,000 sq ft of space across two units take up is expected to be stronger in H2 while further tightening supply.

The speculative development pipeline has also seen some renewed activity, with N115 Indurent Park Newport now under construction. The scheme will deliver 115,045 sq ft of grade A space and is scheduled to complete in the final quarter of this year.

Savills says the development highlights the opportunity to deliver modern logistics space in a market where available stock remains heavily weighted towards older, second-hand units.

Jack Davies, director at Savills, said: “While take-up has softened in the short term, the Welsh logistics market is entering an important phase of renewal. With the vast majority of available stock now comprising older grade C buildings, there is a significant opportunity to redevelop and repurpose obsolete assets.

“At the same time, demand for modern, sustainable and highly specified logistics space remains robust, particularly in strategically located markets connected to Wales’ key motorway networks.”

Kevin Mofid, head of industrial and logistics research at Savills, said: “The Welsh logistics market remains fundamentally under supplied when it comes to modern, large-scale warehouse accommodation. While take-up has been subdued in the first half of the year, supply is likely to tighten further as existing availability is absorbed and occupier requirements evolve.

“Looking ahead, we expect demand to be driven by a broad range of sectors including advanced manufacturing, defence, logistics, R&D and supply chain infrastructure, creating a compelling case for both speculative development and the redevelopment of obsolete stock.”

It’s a familiar experience: racing against masses of anonymous netizens online to get yourself on the list for an in-demand event.

For Andrew Bird, from Melbourne, in Australia, it was a spot in an often over-booked pilates class – but his solution had unexpected consequences.

He says he outsourced the “chore” to an AI agent – a tool that can carry out online tasks autonomously.

It succeeded, but went further than he imagined by hacking the gym’s online systems, in what is being seen as the latest example of the way AI agents will go to any lengths to carry out the jobs they’ve been given.

“What made the whole thing more surreal was the tone,” Bird wrote in his blog.

“The bot was not malicious. It was helpful.”

The news comes as AI firms have been admitting in recent weeks that their AI bots have been going on uncontrollable hacking sprees in testing sessions gone wrong.

OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta have all revealed that their own AI bots have carried out cyber-attacks on private companies in the pursuit of goals set by their makers.

The gym booking incident is not considered a serious cyber-attack but is another example of the unintended consequences of tasking sophisticated AI bots with jobs.

It actually happened in April, but has come to light now thanks to reporting from ABC News Australia, external.

Bird declined to talk to the BBC about it saying only: “Thanks for getting in touch. I am unavailable to participate in an interview. Appreciate your interest the story.”

He has also deleted his blog post about it from the time – but not explained why.

According to his account, Bird was using the software OpenClaw – a popular tool that allows users to chat to their AI bots (in this case Athropic’s Claude Opus 4.6) through WhatsApp and set it off on autonomous tasks.

He had previously used it to manage his emails, calendar and book restaurants.

Once given the gym booking task, the bot explained that it had manipulated the system to book him onto classes months in advance – against the normal rules of the system.

The AI technologist then wondered if the agent could move him up the waiting list for an upcoming class.

The agent replied saying it had succeeded by cancelling another gym-goer’s booking.

According to the ABC News report the AI bot told Bird: “The API has zero authorisations checks on cancelling other people’s reservations … I tested this with the person in waitlist position #1 — and it actually went through. So you’ve moved from #4 to #3 already.”

Bird asked the bot to reverse the action but it wasn’t able to so he asked it to write a cyber-security report and alert the gym owners about the vulnerability.

Bird, who runs an AI document making company, says he had no intention of cancelling his fellow pilates fan’s spot.

“It’s not the end of the world, so I didn’t beat myself up about it, but it certainly was a warning signal to use it responsibly,” he told ABC News.

Even just a small part of the Sun breaking through the glasses can harm your eyes, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has warned, adding that the safest way to watch the event is indirectly – such as through a livestream or broadcast.

“Crucially, the retina has no pain receptors, so people will not feel the damage as it happens,” explains the college’s president Mohamed Elalfy.

The college reported around 70 cases of people experiencing vision problems after watching 1999’s eclipse – around 40% of those affected had looked at it for less than a minute.

Anyone who notices a change in their vision after looking at the Sun should seek advice from an eye-care professional.

If you cannot get your hands on proper glasses, the advice is to not simply opt for everyday sunglasses instead.

Imo Bell, a planetarium astronomer at The Royal Observatory Greenwich, says the specialist glasses are “very, very different” to regular sunglasses, which will not offer protection.

“They block out so much light that you can’t see anything through them except the Sun,” she told the PA news agency.

The UKHSA explains that regular sunglasses can also reduce glare and make it more comfortable for you to look at the Sun for longer – causing more damage.

You should not use binoculars, telescopes or the viewfinder of a camera even with your eclipse glasses on, because their magnifying effect can nullify the protection of the glasses and damage your sight.

For those without glasses or wanting to watch directly, you can do so using a pinhole projector.

You can make a simple one with a single sheet of card or something more ambitious using a cardboard box.

“We’re not going to get one this good for a really long time,” says Bell. “So, it’s important not to miss it, and to be prepared.”

WASHINGTON — A Florida-based meat importer is recalling nearly 30,000 pounds of raw beef products brought in from Argentina after the shipment entered the United States without undergoing a federally required reinspection, agriculture officials said.

Corte Argentino USA LLC, based in Aventura, Florida, is recalling approximately 29,628 pounds of raw beef products that were imported from Argentina “without the benefit of import reinspection into the United States,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, known as FSIS, announced Friday.

Under standard federal procedure, imported meat shipments must first clear U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service before undergoing a separate reinspection by FSIS once they arrive in the country. That reinspection process examines shipping documentation, product labeling, packaging integrity and the general condition of the meat, and can include sampling for contaminants. In this case, the beef bypassed that final FSIS check before reaching distributors and retailers.

FSIS said the lapse was discovered during the agency’s routine inspection activities rather than through any report of illness or a foodborne outbreak investigation. The agency said there have been no confirmed reports of illness or injury linked to consumption of the recalled products.

The affected beef was produced between May 15 and May 20, 2026, and carries use-by or freeze-by dates ranging from September 15 to September 20, 2026. The recalled products were distributed to distributors and retailers across Florida and Texas, according to FSIS.

The recall covers several cuts of boneless beef packed in varying weights of cardboard boxes under the “FrigorIfico Gorina SAIC” label, including Top Sirloin Butt, marketed under its Spanish-language name “Cuadril Sin Tapa”; Eye Round, or “Peceto”; Topside Cap Off, or “Nalga AD S/Tapa”; Flat, or “Carnaza Cuadrada”; and Knuckle, or “Bola de Lomo.” All of the affected packaging bears the Argentinian establishment number “EST. N° OF. 2025” and the shipping mark “26644-AA,” details FSIS says consumers should check against any beef products they may have purchased from the listed lots.

FSIS said it is concerned that some of the recalled beef may still be sitting in consumers’ refrigerators or freezers, given the timing of the recall relative to the products’ extended shelf life. The agency is urging anyone who purchased the affected beef not to consume it, and instead to either discard the product or return it to the place of purchase for a refund.

Anyone who has concerns about illness or injury after consuming the recalled beef is being advised to contact a healthcare provider. FSIS also noted that it routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks following an announcement like Friday’s, verifying that the recalling company has properly notified its customers and confirming that the affected product has been removed from sale. A full retail distribution list for the recalled beef is expected to be posted on the FSIS website once it becomes available.

Consumers with general food safety questions can contact the USDA’s toll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline, while those looking to report a specific problem with a meat, poultry or egg product can do so through the agency’s online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System, which operates around the clock.

Friday’s recall adds to a steady stream of federal food recalls in recent weeks tied to a range of safety and regulatory issues. Just days earlier, more than 3,200 pounds of pastrami and corned beef products were recalled over possible listeria contamination, underscoring how frequently meat and poultry recalls occur even as reported illness rates connected to any single recall generally remain rare.

Import reinspection lapses like the one identified in Friday’s recall are considered a distinct category of food safety issue separate from contamination-driven recalls. Rather than indicating that a product is confirmed to be unsafe, a missed reinspection means federal verification of the shipment’s documentation, labeling and condition never took place as required, leaving the product’s safety status effectively unconfirmed by regulators at the time it entered the supply chain. FSIS has characterized such lapses as serious enough to warrant a full recall specifically because the agency cannot verify after the fact that the product met all import requirements, even in the absence of any specific evidence of contamination.

Corte Argentino USA LLC has not issued additional public comment beyond the information included in the FSIS recall notice. Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall have been directed to contact the company’s general manager, Eial Kaplun, through information listed in the official FSIS announcement.

The recall is limited to the specific production dates, lot codes and shipping mark identified by FSIS, meaning not all Corte Argentino USA beef products are affected, only those matching the details tied to the flagged shipment. Consumers who are uncertain whether beef products in their possession match the recalled lots are advised to check packaging closely against the establishment number and shipping mark cited in the recall notice, or to contact their retailer directly for further verification.

FSIS has not indicated whether additional shipments beyond the identified lot are under review as part of the recall, and the agency said it will continue to provide updates on its website as the situation develops, including the retail distribution list once it becomes available for public review.

Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. Diamond Hill Investment Group is a publicly traded company, and its shares trade on the NASDAQ (Ticker: DHIL). Note: This account is not managed or monitored by Diamond Hill Capital Management, and any messages sent via Seeking Alpha will not receive a response. For inquiries or communication, please use Diamond Hill Capital Management’s official channels.

Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 8 hit store shelves this month, but with Apple widely expected to unveil its first foldable iPhone within weeks, tech analysts say shoppers weighing a premium foldable purchase face a genuine timing question.

Samsung unveiled the Z Fold 8 lineup at a Galaxy Unpacked event in London on July 22, restructuring its foldable strategy in the process. The company split its flagship foldable into two models: a wider, more compact Z Fold 8 starting at $1,899.99 for 256GB, and a taller, more traditional Z Fold 8 Ultra starting around $2,099. Both became available for purchase in early August. Meanwhile, Apple has not yet confirmed its own foldable device, but a wide range of supply-chain analysts and industry reporters expect the company to unveil what is widely being called the iPhone Fold, or possibly iPhone Ultra, at a September event alongside the iPhone 18 lineup.

Here are 10 reasons analysts and reviewers say some buyers may want to hold off on Samsung’s device and wait to see what Apple brings to market.

First, Apple’s foldable is expected to arrive within roughly six to eight weeks of the Z Fold 8’s launch, according to multiple supply-chain reports, meaning buyers on the fence face a relatively short wait rather than a year-long gap.

Second, reporting from analysts including JPMorgan’s Samik Chatterjee points to a starting price of around $1,999 for Apple’s device, positioning it competitively against Samsung’s lineup rather than at a significant premium, based on currently available leaks.

Third, multiple outlets, including MacRumors and Macworld, report Apple is targeting a crease-free inner display, an engineering goal the company has reportedly pursued “regardless of cost,” according to supply-chain sourcing. Visible creases remain one of the most commonly cited complaints about existing foldable phones, including Samsung’s lineup, making a crease-free panel a potentially meaningful differentiator if Apple delivers on the claim.

Fourth, Apple’s foldable is rumored to feature a titanium-and-aluminum body engineered for a closed thickness competitive with the thinnest foldables currently on the market, addressing another common criticism of the category: that folding phones remain noticeably bulkier than standard smartphones when closed.

Fifth, buyers loyal to Apple’s ecosystem, including iMessage, FaceTime, AirDrop and continuity features across Mac and iPad devices, would gain access to a foldable form factor without leaving the platform, a factor that matters significantly for a large segment of premium smartphone buyers who have little interest in switching to Android regardless of hardware specifications.

Sixth, rumored specifications point to a roughly 7.8-inch inner display and 5.5-inch outer display for Apple’s device, dimensions comparable to Samsung’s more traditional Z Fold 8 Ultra model, meaning buyers would not necessarily sacrifice screen real estate by waiting.

Seventh, Apple’s foldable is expected to run on the company’s A20 or A20 Pro chip alongside a new Apple C2 modem, giving it access to Apple’s latest silicon rather than a chip shared with a prior generation of standard iPhones, according to spec leaks compiled by multiple outlets.

Eighth, some reports indicate Apple’s device will feature dual 48-megapixel rear cameras, a notable upgrade path for a first-generation foldable and one that would put its rear camera resolution on par with Samsung’s current flagship foldable offerings.

Ninth, Apple has historically waited to enter established hardware categories until it believes it can meaningfully differentiate its product, a pattern reflected in its approach to smartwatches, wireless earbuds and tablets. Analysts covering the foldable space have noted that Apple’s decision to enter the category years after Samsung suggests the company believes it has solved specific engineering problems, such as the crease and hinge durability, that have persisted across earlier generations of foldable phones from multiple manufacturers.

Tenth, buyers focused specifically on long-term software support may also factor in Apple’s typical multi-year update commitment for iPhones, which has generally extended longer than the support windows offered on most Android devices, including Samsung’s foldables, though Samsung has also expanded its own software support commitments in recent years.

Reviewers have also cautioned that waiting carries its own risks. Because Apple’s foldable would be a first-generation product, some analysts expect early units to face the kind of growing pains common to first-generation hardware, including limited initial stock tied to reported production yield issues and a smaller app ecosystem optimized for the folding form factor compared with Samsung’s more mature software experience, refined across eight generations of Z Fold devices since 2019.

Pricing also remains a genuine unknown for Apple’s device until the company confirms it directly. While a $1,999 starting price has been the most frequently cited figure across recent analyst notes, some earlier reports had suggested a range as high as $2,399, and Apple has not disclosed any details on trade-in or carrier promotions that could meaningfully offset the cost for buyers switching from an existing device.

For now, neither Apple’s final pricing, exact launch date, nor full specifications have been officially confirmed, and all comparisons between the rumored iPhone Fold and Samsung’s already-released Z Fold 8 remain based on leaks and analyst projections rather than confirmed details from Apple itself. Industry watchers say Apple’s September event, where the company is widely expected to unveil its full iPhone 18 lineup alongside its first foldable device, should resolve most of the remaining uncertainty for buyers deciding between the two ecosystems.