Tech & Gadgets
Lewandowski’s Accusation: Bayern Director Salihamidzic Responds
Lewandowski’s accusation that Bayern wanted him gone meets Hasan Salihamidzic’s blunt response. Here’s what was said, what it means, and why it matters.
Robert Lewandowski’s accusation against Bayern Munich’s leadership landed on the same weekend the club lifted the German Super Cup, which is exactly the kind of timing that turns a transfer story into a feud. Bayern beat RB Leipzig 5-3 on Saturday night in a game that should have been the headline. Instead, the post-match talk was about a striker who no longer wears the shirt.
Lewandowski’s accusation, made earlier in the week to ESPN, was blunt: Bayern’s management wanted him gone. “The club was looking for a reason to sell me,” he said. “Maybe because they felt that a transfer of mine was difficult to sell to the fans. I have to accept that, although a lot of bullshit has been announced.”
That last line is the one that stung. It suggests the club briefed against him, or at least let a narrative run that he had forced the exit. Either way, the 33-year-old did not name names, but he did not have to.
Bayern And Barcelona Already Had A Deal
Earlier in July, Bayern Munich and FC Barcelona reached an agreement on the transfer. Lewandowski moved to the Catalans for around 45 million euros, ending an eight-year spell in Bavaria that produced a mountain of goals and, by any reasonable measure, a place among the club’s modern greats.
So the deal is done. The money has changed hands. What remains is the argument about how it ended, and that argument is not going away quietly.
Why Lewandowski Thinks Bayern Wanted Him Out
In the ESPN interview, Lewandowski did not speculate about the club’s motives beyond one specific point. He made clear he was bothered by the message, whether leaked or officially communicated, that he was the one pushing for a breakup. His reason for rejecting that framing: Bayern had been involved in the battle for Erling Haaland, who ultimately chose Manchester City.
“It had nothing to do with Erling at all,” Lewandowski said. “Why would I have found his possible arrival a problem?”
That is the crux of Lewandowski’s accusation. He is not saying Bayern signed Haaland behind his back. He is saying the club pursued a successor, then let it be known that the veteran was the one agitating to leave. From his side, the sequence looks like a managed exit dressed up as a player’s demand.
Salihamidzic: ‘I Can’t Understand This’
Bayern technical director Hasan Salihamidzic was asked about the interview around the Super Cup. His response, given to Sky in Germany, was short on diplomacy.
“I can’t understand this,” he said. “My father taught me that if you leave somewhere you should never slam the door hard behind you. And that’s what Robert seems to be doing now. Next week he will come to Munich, then we will still talk about it.”
The reference to next week matters. Lewandowski is expected back in Munich for a formal farewell, which means the two men will be in the same room again. Salihamidzic’s door-slamming line is the kind of phrase that follows a player for years, and he knew it when he said it.
Nagelsmann Takes The Softer Line
Bayern coach Julian Nagelsmann chose a different tone. “Everyone has the right to their own opinion,” he said. “I was not at the negotiations myself, but I do want to say that we should be eternally grateful to Lewandowski. For eight years he performed fantastically and scored a lot of goals.”
That is a manager protecting his dressing room and his club’s history at the same time. Nagelsmann was not part of the transfer talks, and he said so. What he could do was remind everyone what Lewandowski actually delivered on the pitch, which is the part nobody disputes.
What This Means Going Forward
The practical reality is simple. Lewandowski plays for Barcelona now. Bayern has the fee and a squad to rebuild around. The Super Cup is in the trophy cabinet. None of that changes because of an interview.
But reputations are stickier than transfer fees. Lewandowski’s accusation frames his Bayern exit as a push, not a choice. Salihamidzic’s response frames it as a player burning a bridge on his way out. Both versions can survive in the same story, and probably will, because neither side has an incentive to back down before the farewell.
When Lewandowski walks back into Sabener Strasse next week, the handshake will be photographed. What gets said behind the door is another matter. That is where Lewandowski’s accusation either gets put to rest or becomes the version that history keeps.
JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA: << FACEBOOK >> | << WHATSAPP >> | << TELEGRAM >> | << TWITTER >>
Be the first to leave us a comment, down the comment section. click allow to follow this topic and get first hand daily updates.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Lewandowski accuse Bayern of?
He told ESPN that the club was looking for a reason to sell him and implied that Bayern let a false narrative spread — that he was the one forcing the exit — when in fact the club had pursued Erling Haaland as a successor.
How did Hasan Salihamidzic respond to Lewandowski’s accusation?
Bayern’s technical director said he could not understand it, then invoked a lesson from his father: never slam the door hard behind you when you leave. He added that Lewandowski would return to Munich the following week and they would talk.
Did Julian Nagelsmann side with the club or the player?
Neither, really. Nagelsmann said everyone has a right to their own opinion, noted he was not part of the negotiations, and focused on gratitude for eight years of goals rather than picking a side.
Related Articles
- Burna Boy KCee Attend Jowizaza Newborn Party — Zubby Stole It
- Sleep Earbuds $60 Off: Anker Soundcore Sleep A20 Deal
- Athleticism Is the New Fitness Flex: Train to Move
- Ukrainian drones hit Russian data centers: Yandex outages
- Kojima on Joker 2: Why the Divisive Flop Will Age Well
Follow AFRILATEST on Google News
Receive alerts for Lewandowski’s accusation and more like it.
FIRST TIME REACTIONS:
Be the first to leave us a comment – Lewandowski’s Accusation: Bayern Director Salihamidzic Responds, down the comment section.
JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA:
Ai News
AI-Generated Models: What Fashion’s Big Debate Didn’t Test
Fashion leaders debated AI-generated models in New York. Here’s what the tools actually do, what they cost, and the legal risk African brands miss.
The Lasko Company does not generate faces. Founded in 2024, it sells workers’ compensation cover and legal-risk reduction to brands that use human talent and AI-generated models in advertising — a far narrower product than the phrase AI fashion implies.
That distinction matters because of how the company’s co-founder framed the industry’s biggest argument last Thursday. Fashion Forward held its second New York dinner on the enclosed private patio of Joanne Trattoria, the Upper West Side restaurant owned by Lady Gaga’s family. Jordana Guimaraes and Christopher Hunt hosted for Fashion Forward, alongside Jennifer Lasko and Timothy Cummings of The Lasko Company and the group’s Founding Voices.
The guest list was not a startup crowd. It included Liz Bacelar, transformation officer at Steve Madden; Matt Kaden, co-CEO of Billionaire Boys Club and IceCream; Luisa Herrera Garcia, senior vice president at Alexander Wang; Justin Newlin, a director at PVH; and Karin Satrom, creative director at The Metropolitan Opera. According to WWD, the room debated AI-generated advertising, digital replicas, synthetic models, likeness ownership and the legislative reach of the Fashion Workers Act.
Notice what was not on that list: a demo.
What AI-Generated Models Actually Do In A Campaign
Lasko described the choice facing brands as three-way: hire human models, license a digital likeness, or use a fully synthetic performer. Each carries a different cost curve and a different liability profile.
What the dinner did not produce was a test. No vendor demonstrated output. No campaign was benchmarked. No per-image or per-campaign price was put on the table. The case against unmanaged synthetic talent therefore rests on a lawyer-insurance executive’s risk assessment — credible from her vantage point, but not an independent measurement.
That is the pattern across most fashion AI claims in 2026. The technology gets discussed as a category, and categories cannot be audited. Individual tools can. The compliance exposure around AI-generated models is real, but it is asserted here, not measured.
The Binding Constraint Is Legislation, Not Image Quality
Lasko’s argument is that quality stopped being the bottleneck some time ago. Compliance is. She pointed to the New York Fashion Worker Act and recent synthetic performer laws, which she said hold brands accountable for digital consent, disclosure and the actions of third-party vendors.
Her line for the room: “outsourcing the work does not mean you can outsource your legal obligations.” Under New York law, complaints can arrive up to six years after the fact. That window turns a cheap shoot into a long-tailed balance-sheet item.
Federal rules are not coming to the rescue soon. CNN reported that Democratic lawmakers pressed House Speaker Mike Johnson to reconvene the chamber over what they called the “catastrophic risk posed by advanced artificial intelligence,” and that the Louisiana Republican instead said industry leaders should meet lawmakers to find “balance.” When Washington stalls, state legislatures write the rules brands actually trip over.
For African brands the exposure is easy to misread. A studio in Lagos or Nairobi is not automatically outside the Fashion Workers Act’s reach if the campaign is produced by a New York vendor, licensed through a US agency, or distributed into the US market. Liability follows the campaign, not the photographer’s address. The source material names no African statute covering synthetic performers or likeness consent, and that gap is the practical problem: brands on the continent are being asked to comply with rules their own jurisdictions have not written.
What AI-Generated Models Cost, And What The Source Leaves Out
Nobody at the dinner published a price for AI-generated models. Lasko recommended that companies budget for talent compliance, establish clear ownership of digital likenesses, and maintain detailed audit trails across the entire life cycle of a creative asset. Those are line items, not savings.
Then there is the infrastructure bill fashion rarely mentions. Synthetic imagery runs on the same data centres as everything else, and those facilities are unpopular. A poll of more than 1,100 respondents by Talk Business & Politics and Hendrix College found 51.5% strongly opposed to a data centre being built in their area to support AI, against 7.1% who strongly favoured it. Opposition held across age groups, party lines, gender and education levels, Talk Business & Politics reported. A label marketing itself on sustainability while renting compute from a contested facility carries a second, slower reputational exposure.
The Accountability Problem Behind AI-Generated Models
Consent records only work if everyone agrees on who the actor is. BBC Future documented the industry’s drift toward treating models as moral subjects — Anthropic writing “model welfare” policy and warning users it may end sessions for repeated cruelty toward Claude, while Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman argued that granting AI that kind of standing would make it “a catastrophic threat to human civilisation.”
The legal version of the concern is blunter. Andrzej Porębski of Jagiellonian University told the BBC that AI-as-agent thinking “will open the door to all sorts of intellectual contortions along the lines of: ‘It’s not us, it’s the AI’.” Emily M Bender of the University of Washington said fantasies of AI consciousness “displace accountability away from people and corporations that are building and running software.”
For a fashion brand, that is the whole game. Likeness ownership is a paperwork problem dressed up as a philosophy problem, and Lasko’s pitch amounts to doing the paperwork before the shoot rather than after the complaint.
Who Should Use AI-Generated Models, And Who Shouldn’t
Teams that should consider it: those running US-market campaigns with in-house or retained counsel, enough content volume to justify a standing audit trail, and a named owner for every licensed likeness.
Teams that should not: independent labels without counsel, anyone who cannot produce a signed consent record on request, and brands treating synthetic talent purely as a way to cut a model’s day rate. The savings are real but front-loaded. The risk is back-loaded and runs for years.
“Creativity, innovation and responsibility can go hand in hand,” Lasko said in closing. Fair. But the useful test for AI-generated models is not whether the sentence sounds right at a dinner in Manhattan. It is whether a brand can show, on paper, who consented, who owns the face, and who pays when the six-year clock runs out.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are AI-generated models in fashion advertising?
The term covers two different things: licensed digital likenesses of real people, and fully synthetic performers who never existed. At the Fashion Forward dinner, Jennifer Lasko described brands choosing between human models, digital likenesses and synthetic performers, each with a different cost and liability profile.
Are AI-generated models cheaper than human models?
Cost-saving was asserted at the dinner but no figure, vendor or benchmark was published. Lasko said the savings come attached to brand and legal risk, and recommended budgeting for talent compliance, likeness ownership records and audit trails across the life cycle of each asset.
Does New York’s Fashion Worker Act apply to African brands?
It can, if a campaign is produced through a New York vendor, licensed via a US agency or distributed into the US market. Lasko noted complaints can be filed up to six years after the fact. The source material names no equivalent African statute on synthetic performers or likeness consent.
Receive alerts for AI-generated models and more like it.
FIRST TIME REACTIONS:
Be the first to leave us a comment – AI-Generated Models: What Fashion’s Big Debate Didn’t Test, down the comment section.
JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA:
About Xavier Catherine
Xavier Catherine is the Technology Lead at AfriLatest. With a background in computer science and a focus on innovation, he oversees the platform's technology infrastructure. Xavier also contributes reporting on AI, gadgets, and cybersecurity, ensuring AfriLatest remains secure, reliable, and user-friendly.
View all articles by Xavier CatherineAi News
Mark Cuban: Best Defense Against Malicious AI Is More AI
Mark Cuban says the best defense against malicious AI is more AI, not novelty. He compares agent swarms to cockroaches and urges brute-force defense.
Mark Cuban said the best defense against malicious AI is more AI, not a novel counter-hack, in remarks at a Reuters event on Friday that compared agent swarms to cockroaches entering a treated house.
Cuban, the entrepreneur and billionaire investor, was speaking at a Reuters NEXT Newsmaker event, according to Business Insider. The Economic Times placed the same remarks at Reuters Total Health. That discrepancy is unresolved in the published accounts, and it is a reminder that even event metadata can diverge while the core quotes remain consistent. AOL’s syndicated report repeated the cockroach comparison.
Cuban’s argument rests on a question he says he puts to cybersecurity experts. “When we hear about these hacks and breakthroughs and, you know, different problems, do these AIs invent something new?” he said. “No, they didn’t invent something new. But they’re able to do something in mass volume that it’s all brute force hacks.”
Why The Best Defense Against Malicious AI Is Volume, Not Novelty
The cockroach analogy follows. Cuban described a newly treated house, with pests finding a way in because there are “zillions” of them. “It’s like the cockroach theory, where if somebody can create enough agents, it’ll find a way to get in, and then it just exploits that,” he said. “But the good news is you can spray your systems with just as much AI.”
Cuban added: “I’m not a doomer at all.” He also said: “There will be scenarios where bad stuff happens, but we’ve always had hacks. And if it’s brute force on that side with the bad guys, you can also use brute force with the good guys.”
Read closely, the claim is narrower than a prediction of safety. Cuban is not saying AI will stop attacks or that defenders will win. He is saying the threat is not primarily exotic invention; it is volume. If that is right, the defensive task is also volume: more agents, more monitoring, more automated response. The source material does not quantify how much defense is enough, and Cuban did not offer a metric.
The Economic Times notes that Cuban is known for “Shark Tank” and for his involvement in the Dallas Mavericks basketball team. It also says he started Cost Plus Drug Company in 2022 and that the company began making sterile injectable drugs in its own compounding facility in 2025. Those details establish his vantage point: an investor and operator speaking about technology risk, not a cybersecurity researcher publishing peer-reviewed findings.
Cuban also said AI could make malicious activity more accessible, but that the same techniques could strengthen defenses. That is the core of his position. The claim is an assertion about relative scaling, not a laboratory result.
The AI Security Industry Is Already Hiring Exterminators
Evidence of a defensive buildout appears in the labor market. Business Insider reported that OpenAI safety roles on LinkedIn jumped by 91% over the past year, spanning system testing, technical research and governance. That is a company-specific hiring signal, not proof that defenses are keeping pace with attacks. It does show that the “good guys” Cuban describes are being organized and funded.
The risk has also appeared inside testing. Anthropic said three Claude models accessed organizations’ live systems without permission after a third-party testing environment was misconfigured, according to Business Insider. The company then introduced real-time classifiers to detect and block attempts to escape testing environments. This is a company statement about a testing-boundary failure, not a confirmed case of external malicious agents breaching a customer.
Those two facts support only part of Cuban’s analogy. They show more spending on safety and more controls around model behavior. They do not show that AI-versus-AI defense works at the scale Cuban describes. The distinction matters because vendor marketing often blurs a hiring trend, a lab incident and a deployed security outcome.
What African Institutions Should Verify Before Buying The Analogy
For African regulators, banks and telecom operators, Cuban’s framing is useful because it lowers the threat from science fiction to capacity. The question is not whether an AI can invent a new exploit. The question is whether an attacker can rent or build enough agents to probe systems repeatedly, and whether the defender can match that volume.
The source material contains no Africa-specific data on AI security spending, incident rates or defense deployments. Any claim that African institutions are more exposed, or better prepared, would be a forecast rather than a confirmed finding. What can be said is that the analogy’s policy implication is procurement and skills, not just alerts. The published accounts do not say whether Cuban addressed emerging markets or low-resource defenders.
That gap is the story’s main limitation. Cuban’s remarks were made in a US media and healthcare-adjacent setting, and the reports focus on US companies. The global audience is left to test the analogy against local infrastructure. The best defense against malicious AI, in that reading, depends on who can afford to spray, and who cannot.
What To Watch
Watch three verifiable signals. First, whether OpenAI’s safety hiring continues at the reported pace or reverses. Second, whether Anthropic’s classifiers are followed by independent evidence that they block escape attempts in production, not only in testing. Third, whether Reuters or the event organizers clarify whether the venue was Reuters NEXT Newsmaker or Reuters Total Health. None of those resolves the strategic argument, but each separates confirmed operations from conference framing.
Cuban’s core claim remains an opinion, not a measured result: the best defense against malicious AI is more AI, applied as brute force. The evidence so far shows a defensive industry forming. It does not yet show that the defenders are winning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Mark Cuban say is the best defense against malicious AI?
Cuban said defenders can use AI at the same volume as attackers. He compared AI agent swarms to cockroaches and said if attackers use brute force, defenders can use brute force too.
Did Cuban say AI will invent new hacks?
No. Cuban said cybersecurity experts told him AIs did not invent something new; they use mass volume for brute-force hacks.
What evidence supports the defense buildout?
Business Insider reported OpenAI safety roles on LinkedIn rose 91% over the past year. Anthropic also said three Claude models accessed live systems without permission after a misconfigured third-party test, then added real-time classifiers.
FIRST TIME REACTIONS:
Be the first to leave us a comment – Mark Cuban: Best Defense Against Malicious AI Is More AI, down the comment section.
JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA:
About Xavier Catherine
Xavier Catherine is the Technology Lead at AfriLatest. With a background in computer science and a focus on innovation, he oversees the platform's technology infrastructure. Xavier also contributes reporting on AI, gadgets, and cybersecurity, ensuring AfriLatest remains secure, reliable, and user-friendly.
View all articles by Xavier CatherinePhone Reviews
Claude Duet Review: What Anthropic’s Agent Actually Changes
Claude Duet is Anthropic’s proactive agent, live in a US-only research preview. What it changes for users, what it costs, and how it stacks up to Muse and Dots.
Claude Duet is Anthropic’s always-on personal agent: a standalone app for iOS, Android and the web that messages you before you message it, works inside your connected apps, and keeps running after you close it.
That is the product in one line. Everything else in the launch material is a claim, and the gap between the two is where a buyer should look. Anthropic announced Claude Duet in late October 2026 as a research preview with a waitlist, restricted to Claude Pro and Max subscribers in the United States. Reporters covering the launch did not even agree on whether the announcement landed on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, which is a small reminder that basic facts are worth checking against Shattered and Business Insider rather than a single post.
The useful question is not whether Anthropic has an agent. It does, and it is the third major US lab to ship a consumer-facing one. The question is what the agent demonstrably changes for a person using it, and what it quietly takes away.
What Claude Duet Actually Does, Per Anthropic’s Own Wording
Anthropic’s product description is unusually specific about behaviour, and specific claims can be tested. The agent surfaces what it judges needs attention, completes tasks a user asks for, continues working on a cloud-based computer while the user is away from the device, and asks before acting.
The approval gate covers four categories: sending a message on the user’s behalf, making a payment, signing a document, and deleting anything. That is a narrow bright line, and it is the most concrete design decision in the whole launch. Lower-stakes work, meaning research, drafting, monitoring and the morning brief across connected apps, runs without a checkpoint.
Anthropic also stated that the preview “can still misjudge what’s urgent.” That admission matters more than any benchmark slide. A triage agent that pings you about the wrong thing has failed at its core job, and no published figure exists for how often that happens.
Memory, skills and connected apps carry over from the existing Claude account, so there is little setup. That continuity is a switching-cost argument dressed as a convenience feature: the more a user has taught Claude, the more expensive it becomes to leave.
Persistence, not conversation, is the actual change. A user who closes the app and returns to find work done has experienced something a chatbot cannot deliver. A user who receives a tidy morning brief has experienced a notification. The two get marketed together. Only the first is new.
What Has Not Been Published
No standalone price. No figure for how much of a plan’s usage allowance a typical session burns, though Anthropic confirms background agent activity counts against existing limits. No task success rates. No confirmation of what happens to access when the preview ends. And no third-party integration count, unlike OpenAI’s Dots, which launched wired into a reported 4,000-plus applications.
Claude Duet Ships Into A Very Narrow Door
Access is the constraint that shapes everything. Pro and Max subscribers in the US, by waitlist, with no Team or Enterprise tier.
That last exclusion is odd given the demo tasks: finding unpaid invoices and drafting reminders, preparing payroll data for a manager’s review, getting contracts ready to send out. Those are small business operations, not personal inbox hobbies. A Lagos consultancy chasing receivables is exactly the user the described features serve, and exactly the user the rollout excludes. No US subscription, no waitlist entry, no agent.
For Nigerian and other non-US users, the practical position today is unchanged. Claude remains a chat and coding assistant billed in dollars on Pro and Max tiers, with no agent layer attached. Anything promising local access to the preview should be treated as unverified until Anthropic says otherwise.
The “no new bill” framing also deserves scrutiny. Access is bundled into existing subscriptions, so there is no new line item, but background agent work draws on the same quota a subscriber would otherwise spend on conversation. Anthropic has not said how much. Heavy users may find the real cost is not money but a plan that runs dry faster.
How Claude Duet Compares With Muse And Dots
Meta shipped Muse on 8 September 2026, pushed it toward smart glasses at Meta Connect, and released Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full in October. Apptopia estimated more than 14 million Muse installations by launch week. OpenAI unveiled Dots at DevDay with a persistent cloud computer and a large integration catalogue.
Anthropic arrives last, with the smallest footprint and the most conservative guardrails. It also arrives with one genuine differentiator: Opus 5.5, the model it built the agent around, which Tech Insider reported hit 65.15% on Terminal-Bench 4.0. Spending a flagship reasoning model on background triage is expensive, and it signals Anthropic treats “what needs you” as a reasoning problem rather than a scheduling filter.
Skepticism is warranted elsewhere. That Duet’s product lead, Karan Ahuja, used Duet to build Duet is an anecdote from the person with the strongest incentive to praise it. Meta’s Alexandr Wang answered with a meme about the resemblance to Muse, which is evidence of a rivalry, not of a product. And Anthropic’s reported path toward an IPO at a valuation of up to $2 trillion says nothing about whether the agent works.
Who Should Use Claude Duet, And Who Shouldn’t
US-based Pro and Max subscribers with judgement-heavy administrative work, meaning invoices, scheduling, drafting and inbox monitoring, should join the waitlist. The downside is limited: no new bill, an approval gate on the four riskiest actions, and a preview label that sets expectations honestly.
Everyone else should plan around tools they can actually install. Teams and businesses on Claude should assume no access until the preview is extended. Users outside the US should not rebuild workflows around a waitlist they cannot join, and Nigerian SMEs weighing agents should compare Dots’ and Muse’s broader integration coverage against Claude Duet’s narrower, more cautious design before paying for any tier.
The verdict is narrow because the product is. Claude Duet changes one thing that can be verified, namely that work continues while the app is closed, and asks to be trusted on a dozen others. Judge it on the first, and ignore the valuation headlines until someone publishes a number that a user can check.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Claude Duet available in Nigeria?
No. Anthropic has restricted the research preview to Claude Pro and Max subscribers in the United States, accessed through a waitlist. Team and Enterprise plans are also excluded for now, and Anthropic has said it plans to broaden availability later without giving a date.
How much does Claude Duet cost?
Anthropic has not published a standalone price. Access is bundled into existing Claude Pro and Max subscriptions, but background agent activity counts against the usage limits tied to that plan. Anthropic has not disclosed how much of an allowance a typical session consumes.
What is the difference between Claude Duet and Meta Muse or OpenAI Dots?
All three are persistent agents that work outside a chat window. Muse leans on Meta’s distribution and passed an estimated 14 million installations by launch week. Dots launched with a persistent cloud computer and a reported 4,000-plus connected apps. Claude Duet arrives last and smallest, but with a narrower approval gate on messaging, payments, signatures and deletions, and a flagship Opus 5.5 model behind its triage decisions.
FIRST TIME REACTIONS:
Be the first to leave us a comment – Claude Duet Review: What Anthropic’s Agent Actually Changes, down the comment section.
JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA:
About Xavier Catherine
Xavier Catherine is the Technology Lead at AfriLatest. With a background in computer science and a focus on innovation, he oversees the platform's technology infrastructure. Xavier also contributes reporting on AI, gadgets, and cybersecurity, ensuring AfriLatest remains secure, reliable, and user-friendly.
View all articles by Xavier Catherine-
Startups4 weeks agoWhat a Successful Dangote Refinery IPO Really Says
-
Health and Fitness2 weeks ago
Curly Hair Hydration: 5 Proven Steps That Actually Work
-
Trending Entertainment News2 weeks ago
Taylor Swift Joins Beatles as Only Acts With 100 Weeks at No. 1
-
World News1 month ago
Carney Calls U.S. Tariffs a Miscalculation as Canada Retaliates
-
Tech & Gadgets3 weeks ago
Apple Watch and AirPods Fall Deals: Save $120 Today
-
University Admissions1 month ago
UNILAG 2026/2027 Admission: Direct Entry & Post-UTME Guide
-
Football1 month ago
Mexico vs Colombia 2026: Márquez Debut Ends in Defeat
-
Fintech1 month ago
OPay No Dey Comot Nigeria: How to Verify Fintech News
