Last Updated on March 30, 2026 by Daily News Staff

Traveling to Mexico this spring? Here’s what to know about current advisories

(Tiffany Miller for ALG Vacations) For some travelers counting down to spring break, recent headlines about violence in parts of Mexico have sparked a new question: Should I cancel my trip? Travel advisors say they are seeing a surge in calls and emails from clients trying to determine whether developments in one region affect major resort areas elsewhere.

The questions follow several days of unrest in parts of Mexico after security operations targeting organized crime leaders prompted temporary flight disruptions and shelter-in-place guidance for U.S. government personnel in areas including Puerto Vallarta and Guadalajara. In this article, ALG Vacations explains what current travel advisories mean for spring break travelers heading to Mexico.

The U.S. State Department evaluates Mexico state by state, not as a single destination, and advisory levels vary by region. Many major beach destinations, including Cancun, Riviera Maya, Tulum and Los Cabos, are currently under a Level 2 advisory, which encourages travelers to exercise increased caution. It does not discourage travel.

Part of the confusion stems from geography. Puerto Vallarta, on the Pacific coast, is roughly 1,300 miles from Cancun and the Riviera Maya on the Caribbean side, about the distance between New York and Miami. Because advisories are assigned state by state, developments in one region do not automatically alter another.

In recent days, that uncertainty has translated into additional inquiries about whether specific resort areas are experiencing disruptions. U.S. Embassy security alerts issued this week indicate that temporary shelter-in-place guidance affecting Puerto Vallarta was lifted and that flight operations resumed. The advisory level for the Mexican state of Quintana Roo remains unchanged.

Some clients are asking about alternatives, advisors say, but many are continuing with their plans after reviewing official updates. Travel patterns often shift in response to breaking headlines, they add, before stabilizing as clearer information becomes available.

The State Department assigns travel advisories on a four-tier scale ranging from Level 1, exercise normal precautions, to Level 4, do not travel. While Level 2 encourages increased awareness, Level 3 and Level 4 carry stronger language discouraging or restricting travel.

Advisories are reviewed regularly and can be updated as conditions evolve. The State Department’s Mexico advisory page breaks down conditions by state, reflecting the country’s federal structure rather than issuing a single national designation. Travelers can also enroll in the State Department’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, which provides real-time security updates and allows U.S. officials to contact citizens in an emergency.

Advertisement

Embassy notices state that airports, hotels and tourism services in Quintana Roo are operating normally. Security conditions across Mexico vary widely by state, with some regions carrying higher advisories and others designated Level 1. Most destinations popular with U.S. travelers are currently classified as Level 2.

As spring break approaches, advisors say informed decision-making depends on reviewing the advisories assigned to a specific destination and monitoring official updates, rather than reacting to national headlines alone. Travel decisions ultimately depend on individual comfort levels, they add, but advisory levels are assigned regionally and should be evaluated accordingly.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

SOURCE:

ALG Vacations

Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!

https://stmdailynews.com/category/consumer-corner

Last Updated on March 23, 2026 by Daily News Staff

Alnoor Ebrahim, Tufts University

OpenAI, the artificial intelligence company that developed the popular ChatGPT chatbot and the text-to-art program Dall-E, is at a crossroads. On Oct. 2, 2024, it announced that it had obtained US$6.6 billion in new funding from investors and that the business was worth an estimated $157 billion – making it only the second startup ever to be valued at over $100 billion.

Unlike other big tech companies, OpenAI is a nonprofit with a for-profit subsidiary that is overseen by a nonprofit board of directors. Since its founding in 2015, OpenAI’s official mission has been “to build artificial general intelligence (AGI) that is safe and benefits all of humanity.”

By late September 2024, The Associated Press, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and many other media outlets were reporting that OpenAI plans to discard its nonprofit status and become a for-profit tech company managed by investors. These stories have all cited anonymous sources. The New York Times, referencing documents from the recent funding round, reported that unless this change happens within two years, the $6.6 billion in equity would become debt owed to the investors who provided that funding.

The Conversation U.S. asked Alnoor Ebrahim, a Tufts University management scholar, to explain why OpenAI’s leaders’ reported plans to change its structure would be significant and potentially problematic.

How have its top executives and board members responded?

There has been a lot of leadership turmoil at OpenAI. The disagreements boiled over in November 2023, when its board briefly ousted Sam Altman, its CEO. He got his job back in less than a week, and then three board members resigned. The departing directors were advocates for building stronger guardrails and encouraging regulation to protect humanity from potential harms posed by AI.

Over a dozen senior staff members have quit since then, including several other co-founders and executives responsible for overseeing OpenAI’s safety policies and practices. At least two of them have joined Anthropic, a rival founded by a former OpenAI executive responsible for AI safety. Some of the departing executives say that Altman has pushed the company to launch products prematurely.

Safety “has taken a backseat to shiny products,” said OpenAI’s former safety team leader Jan Leike, who quit in May 2024.

Why would OpenAI’s structure change?

OpenAI’s deep-pocketed investors cannot own shares in the organization under its existing nonprofit governance structure, nor can they get a seat on its board of directors. That’s because OpenAI is incorporated as a nonprofit whose purpose is to benefit society rather than private interests. Until now, all rounds of investments, including a reported total of $13 billion from Microsoft, have been channeled through a for-profit subsidiary that belongs to the nonprofit.

The current structure allows OpenAI to accept money from private investors in exchange for a future portion of its profits. But those investors do not get a voting seat on the board, and their profits are “capped.” According to information previously made public, OpenAI’s original investors can’t earn more than 100 times the money they provided. The goal of this hybrid governance model is to balance profits with OpenAI’s safety-focused mission.

Becoming a for-profit enterprise would make it possible for its investors to acquire ownership stakes in OpenAI and no longer have to face a cap on their potential profits. Down the road, OpenAI could also go public and raise capital on the stock market.

Advertisement

Altman reportedly seeks to personally acquire a 7% equity stake in OpenAI, according to a Bloomberg article that cited unnamed sources.

That arrangement is not allowed for nonprofit executives, according to BoardSource, an association of nonprofit board members and executives. Instead, the association explains, nonprofits “must reinvest surpluses back into the organization and its tax-exempt purpose.”

What kind of company might OpenAI become?

The Washington Post and other media outlets have reported, also citing unnamed sources, that OpenAI might become a “public benefit corporation” – a business that aims to benefit society and earn profits.

Examples of businesses with this status, known as B Corps., include outdoor clothing and gear company Patagonia and eyewear maker Warby Parker.

It’s more typical that a for-profit business – not a nonprofit – becomes a benefit corporation, according to the B Lab, a network that sets standards and offers certification for B Corps. It is unusual for a nonprofit to do this because nonprofit governance already requires those groups to benefit society.

Boards of companies with this legal status are free to consider the interests of society, the environment and people who aren’t its shareholders, but that is not required. The board may still choose to make profits a top priority and can drop its benefit status to satisfy its investors. That is what online craft marketplace Etsy did in 2017, two years after becoming a publicly traded company.

In my view, any attempt to convert a nonprofit into a public benefit corporation is a clear move away from focusing on the nonprofit’s mission. And there will be a risk that becoming a benefit corporation would just be a ploy to mask a shift toward focusing on revenue growth and investors’ profits.

Many legal scholars and other experts are predicting that OpenAI will not do away with its hybrid ownership model entirely because of legal restrictions on the placement of nonprofit assets in private hands.

But I think OpenAI has a possible workaround: It could try to dilute the nonprofit’s control by making it a minority shareholder in a new for-profit structure. This would effectively eliminate the nonprofit board’s power to hold the company accountable. Such a move could lead to an investigation by the office of the relevant state attorney general and potentially by the Internal Revenue Service.

What could happen if OpenAI turns into a for-profit company?

The stakes for society are high.

Advertisement

AI’s potential harms are wide-ranging, and some are already apparent, such as deceptive political campaigns and bias in health care.

If OpenAI, an industry leader, begins to focus more on earning profits than ensuring AI’s safety, I believe that these dangers could get worse. Geoffrey Hinton, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize in physics for his artificial intelligence research, has cautioned that AI may exacerbate inequality by replacing “lots of mundane jobs.” He believes that there’s a 50% probability “that we’ll have to confront the problem of AI trying to take over” from humanity.

And even if OpenAI did retain board members for whom safety is a top concern, the only common denominator for the members of its new corporate board would be their obligation to protect the interests of the company’s shareholders, who would expect to earn a profit. While such expectations are common on a for-profit board, they constitute a conflict of interest on a nonprofit board where mission must come first and board members cannot benefit financially from the organization’s work.

The arrangement would, no doubt, please OpenAI’s investors. But would it be good for society? The purpose of nonprofit control over a for-profit subsidiary is to ensure that profit does not interfere with the nonprofit’s mission. Without guardrails to ensure that the board seeks to limit harm to humanity from AI, there would be little reason for it to prevent the company from maximizing profit, even if its chatbots and other AI products endanger society.

Regardless of what OpenAI does, most artificial intelligence companies are already for-profit businesses. So, in my view, the only way to manage the potential harms is through better industry standards and regulations that are starting to take shape.

California’s governor vetoed such a bill in September 2024 on the grounds it would slow innovation – but I believe slowing it down is exactly what is needed, given the dangers AI already poses to society.

Alnoor Ebrahim, Thomas Schmidheiny Professor of International Business, The Fletcher School & Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/

Advertisement

Last Updated on March 18, 2026 by Daily News Staff

Ester Lázaro Lázaro, Centro de Astrobiología (INTA-CSIC)

One night, upon returning to the cave that his tribe calls home, the monkey-humanoid Moon-Watcher finds a strange crystal object, a kind of monolith that fascinates him at first, but then quickly loses his interest when he discovers that it is not edible. Soon after, the true purpose of the monolith is revealed to be none other than penetrating the minds of our ancestors to induce new abilities that, over time, will cause the development of an intelligence capable of creating new technology.

Many readers will recognise this scene from the novel 2001, A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke, and the film of the same name, directed by Stanley Kubrick. It almost goes without saying that the crystal monolith in question is the work of an extraterrestrial civilisation that observes life on other planets and “experiments” on them to encourage the development of intelligence in as many parts of the cosmos as possible.

Seeking simple answers to complex questions

Understanding how we, as a species, came to be intelligent is one of the great enigmas of evolutionary study. Small mutations, followed by a process of natural selection to choose the most advantageous, seems too slow a process for structures as complex as the human nervous system or brain to emerge. It is this very complexity that allows millions of neurons to communicate with each other, resulting in the emergence of qualities such as the ability to respond voluntarily to environmental stimuli, or to ask questions about the very nature of humankind and the universe.

Nowadays, we know that there are evolutionary mechanisms that have lead to great leaps in terms of complexity, but that does not stop people from turning to non-human forces – Gods, extraterrestrials, spiritual energies – to explain things that are difficult to comprehend.

This has always been the case, in all human cultures. A classic example would be attributing atmospheric events – thunder, lightning, floods – to the wrath of God. These ideas came about before humans had ever left the ground, so it is no surprise that we turned our eyes even higher – to extraterrestrials – to explain other phenomena that we could only observe once travelling at high altitudes became part of our daily lives.

The allure of the unknown

The possibility that we might have been visited by beings from other worlds has always fascinated us. The element of mystery, of the unknown, only makes it more interesting.

Any phenomenon is made all the more enticing when it seems it is being covered up or hidden for secretive reasons. The attractiveness of conspiracies often leads people towards ideas which have no scientific basis, such as the belief that the Earth is flat, that humans never set foot on the Moon, or that vaccines can control our behaviour.

Even though these ideas have repeatedly been shown to be untrue, their rapid dissemination through social media, using simple, blunt language that appeals to emotion over logic, makes them very powerful weapons.

The supposed “proof” of alien visits to our planet ranges from specific Bible passages to ancient stone carvings portraying creatures or objects that may appear to be aliens or spacecraft. The latter often take the form of flying saucers.

However, we cannot forget that humans have always created imaginary creatures that resemble them and attributed them with magical powers. When imagining Gods, humans have given them a human appearance, and almost always imagined them as living in the sky.

Advertisement

When we look at these representations through modern eyes, we associate them with extraterrestrial beings or structures, when in fact they could be referring to a range of different things.

When unproven stories become larger than life

Recently, in the United States Congress, UFOs (currently known as UAPs: “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena”) are back in the limelight. This is because a former air force intelligence official has made claims that the Pentagon is in possession of remains of extraterrestrial craft and “non-human biological matter”. The claims have been backed up by the testimony of a retired navy commander and a former navy pilot.

What we can be certain of is that the more we explore our skies, the more likely it is that we will encounter phenomena that we cannot explain. However, this does not mean that they are extraterrestrial. Past experience has shown us that most of these events can be attributed to optical illusions, spy or weather balloons, space junk, or even satellites that we ourselves have made.

In Spain, UFOs were a hot topic between the 1960s and the 1980s. In this era, everyone knew someone who was convinced that they had seen a UFO. This even reached the point where an exoplanet, called Ummo, was made up. It was populated by a more advanced civilisation than ours who made contact with people on Earth. In the letters these aliens supposedly sent, the ‘Ummites’ explained concepts such as genetics and cell structure.

The truth is that nowadays, reading some of these letters can be quite amusing. The story of the planet of Ummo was ultimately proved to be a monumental hoax, a fact later admitted by its own creator.

The Ummo hoax was even linked to the creation of a paedophile ring, which should make us reflect on the harmful consequences that the spread of fabricated news stories can have.

Can we deny the possibility that intelligent alien civilisations exist?

The answer, of course, is no. The universe is immense, and it is more than likely that circumstances similar to those which led to the appearance of life on Earth have been repeated on other planets. But there is a huge distance (literally and figuratively) between acknowledging the existence of these creatures and considering the possibility that they might have visited us.

Exoplanets, also known as extrasolar planets, are extremely far away, and we are limited by the speed of light which, as proven by Einstein, is the maximum possible speed at which anything can travel. Therefore, the journey to even a “nearby” exoplanet would take thousands of years. Maybe a civilisation more advanced than ours could find a way to do it faster, but not to the point of it being something easy or commonplace.

In any case, if the remains of alien life or spacecraft are stored away somewhere, why are they not being shown to us? Scientists would jump at the chance to analyse this organic matter to find out how it is structured, how it metabolises energy, or what molecules it uses to store genetic information.

Until there is proof, this is not a question of science, but rather, of stories. Stories can be very entertaining, but these kinds of stories do not help us to build a more accurate or helpful view of the world.

Advertisement

Ester Lázaro Lázaro, Investigadora Científica de los Organismos Públicos de Investigación. Especializada en evolución de virus, Centro de Astrobiología (INTA-CSIC)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/