California
R&B Singer Angela Bofill Dead at 70 in California
Angela Bofill – the R&B vocalist best known for her songs, “I Try” and “Angel of the Night,” has died.
Bofill passed away at her daughter’s home in Vallejo, California. Her cause of death was not disclosed, but she had previous health issues.
In 2006 and 2007, Bofill suffered two strokes, causing paralysis on the left of her body.
Bofill’s friend and manager, Rich Angel, announced her death Friday in two Facebook posts, saying her family was “saddened” by the news.
Born in NYC, Bofill rose to fame in the ’70s with a bunch of hits, including “I Try,” “Angel of the Night,” “This Time I’ll Be Sweeter” and “What I Wouldn’t Do (For the Love of You).”
Her success continued through the ’80s, ’90s and early 2000s – catching the eye of music mogul Clive Davis at one point. Davis was the head of Arista Records, which produced several of Bofill’s albums.
Last year, Bofill was inducted into “The Women Songwriter’s Hall Of Fame.”
TMZ Studios
She is survived by her husband Chris and daughter Shauna.
Bofill was 70.
RIP
California
Mysterious puzzle on California building finally solved
At first glance, it looked like a decorative art installation. Look closer (much, much closer), and you may have realized the spinning circles at the top of Adobe’s headquarters in downtown San Jose were a puzzle waiting to be solved.
After three years of playing on repeat, the code has been finally cracked. Software engineer Brian Vincent solved the semaphore this spring, Adobe announced, staring at and analyzing the circles’ rotations until he ultimately realized it was conveying an image from the “Birth of Venus” painting by Italian Renaissance painter Sandro Botticelli.
A semaphore is a way to send a visual message. It can be done with waving flags, fire or flashing lights. Think of Paul Revere’s famous example, when he used lanterns to signal the British were coming.
In the case of the San Jose Semaphore, there are four circles that can each appear in four positions, making a total of 256 possible combinations between them. The puzzle first debuted in 2006, transmitting a message on a loop. The circles take a new position every 7.2 seconds.
This version of the puzzle has been playing repeatedly since May of 2023, waiting for someone to figure out its message.
“I wanted to create a code that was impossible for me to solve,” said its creator and artist Ben Rubin.
The first-ever San Jose Semaphore from 20 years ago broadcast the full text of the novel “The Crying of Lot 49” by Thomas Pynchon. The second was broadcasting an audio file instead: the the famous Neil Armstrong quote “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
This puzzle, the third in the semaphore’s history, was transmitting a visual medium: a small segment of a Renaissance painting.
How is that possible? Well, it turns out it’s extremely complicated. It took years for someone to solve it, after all.
In the simplest terms, the circles were essentially transmitting a code for colors in the pixels of a digital image. Vincent spent years agonizing over the four circles’ rotations until he finally discovered the solution. It was a code for one small rose from the “Birth of Venus.” (Hear more about how Rubin crafted the tricky puzzle and how Vincent cracked the code in the video at the top of this story.)
“I want to say that the difficulty level on this puzzle is probably perfect,” Vincent said. “In some ways it seems a little bit simple, but at the same time it takes a lot of work and a lot of effort, and it stands for years before anyone solves it.”
Now that the code has been cracked, it’s time for a new puzzle. A fourth semaphore is planned for the San Jose building, Adobe said. Whoever solves the next one will get a two-year subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud and major bragging rights.
California
Should billionaires pay a wealth tax? California will be a big test.
Widening income inequality and a growing number of U.S. billionaires is supercharging the political debate around wealth taxes, at both the national and local level. Democratic lawmakers and candidates, including some from the party’s energized democratic socialist wing, are promising to impose new levies on the über-wealthy should they win control of Congress, citing both fiscal and moral imperatives. Many blue states and cities are exploring similar measures, even as critics warn of high-income residents fleeing to lower-tax red states.
A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires. The Golden State has a history of pioneering policy ideas via ballot initiatives.
Supporters say the ballot measure, sponsored by a healthcare workers union, would generate needed funds to cover rising healthcare costs for low-income people. Critics – including Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom – say it could decimate the state’s tax base by driving wealthy people away. Opposition groups, funded in large part by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent over $100 million to try to defeat the initiative. They are backing two counterinitiatives that would undercut the billionaire tax and that will also appear on this November’s ballot.
Why We Wrote This
With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on the wealthy have been gaining traction. A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires.
“What happens in California is going to determine the course of what happens in this country on this issue,” said California Rep. Ro Khanna, who supports the billionaire tax, on a call with reporters last month. “This fight is defining, for what type of Democratic Party we’re going to be.”
Taxing the rich has long been a familiar refrain among Democrats. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been calling for wealth taxes for decades, and President Joe Biden proposed a billionaire tax in 2024. With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on high-net-worth individuals have been gaining traction.
In Washington state, which historically has not had an income tax, legislators this spring passed a 9.9% tax on incomes over $1 million. Opponents there are mobilizing behind a referendum to repeal the measure, which appears headed for the November ballot. Maine’s governor this spring signed into law a new income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $1 million, and legislatures in Minnesota and Rhode Island have passed similar measures.
In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani won a historic victory last fall with a campaign that promised to impose new taxes on the wealthy while making life more affordable for ordinary New Yorkers. While New York legislators have not moved ahead on Mr. Mamdani’s biggest tax proposals, in May they passed a tax on second homes worth more than $1 million.
California’s wealth tax, known as Proposition 40, would apply to all billionaires who were living in the state at the start of 2026. Proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, 90% of revenue from the tax will be earmarked to cover funding gaps caused by federal cuts to Medicaid; the other 10% would go to food assistance and public education from kindergarten through two years of community college.
Hours after the measure officially qualified for the November ballot, Mr. Newsom, who is term-limited and thought to be eyeing a White House run, announced his support for a federal wealth tax instead. Mr. Khanna and Mr. Sanders, who also support the California tax, introduced a bill in March for a 5% annual wealth tax on billionaires, which they say would raise $4.4 trillion in revenue over 10 years.
When congressional Republicans passed President Donald Trump’s tax and spending plan last summer, they approved tax cuts for wealthier Americans and funding cuts to food benefits and healthcare. With the cost of living rising and gas prices up since the start of the Iran war, voters are concerned about affordability and disapprove of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, according to polls.
Surveys show slightly higher public support for raising income taxes on top earners than for a wealth tax. A majority of Americans support higher taxes on the wealthy, and more than 80% say they’re bothered by the feeling that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.
“We think this is about values, we think this is about fairness, we think this is about equity,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, on a press call with Mr. Khanna. “We believe that Californians are willing to say that the most fortunate and the wealthiest people among us can put forth a modest, one-time 5% tax so that millions and millions and millions of people will continue to have at least a stable health insurance system.”
California – which has a progressive tax system that relies heavily on high earners as a source of revenue – is home to more than 200 billionaires, though some have relocated in recent years. Elon Musk, who recently became the world’s first trillionaire, moved his family and some of his business operations from California to Texas. Mr. Brin reportedly moved to the Nevada coast of Lake Tahoe early in 2026. Others – like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Bill Gates – own homes in other states as well as in California.
The proposed tax, if approved by voters, would raise about $100 billion, according to its architects. But critics say in the long run it could actually result in decreased revenue for the state. Even though the ballot measure is only a one-time tax, they predict many billionaires will anticipate that more such taxes will likely follow, and move out of state in response.
“[California gets] the one-time windfall of taxing the wealth, but then if [rich] people leave after that, they’re missing out on all of the income and capital gains taxes that would come for all of the future years they would have lived in California,” says Adam Michel, director of tax studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
California’s dependence on tax revenue from high-income people, Dr. Michel says, makes it especially vulnerable to shocks like a downturn in the stock market – or people and businesses moving away.
Supporters of the wealth tax say those concerns are overblown.
“It is a total fallacy that this is going to mean that investment leaves California,” said Mr. Khanna, who represents a district in the Bay Area, on a press call. “There’s more capital infusion into California than ever before. No one thinks that the AI revolution is happening in Miami, Florida. It’s happening in Silicon Valley.”
In countries like Spain, where there might be three different wealth taxes in a 50-kilometer radius, studies have shown that wealthy people don’t tend to move in response, says Brian Galle, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and one of the authors of the California measure.
“The overwhelming evidence is that very few people move in response to wealth taxes,” says Professor Galle. “People are pretty embedded in their work and social lives.”
It’s possible to structure a tax so it doesn’t distort behavior, says Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Ideally, the tax would be retroactive, only applying to economic activity that already took place. It’s also better if the tax kicks in at the same time that it’s announced. And it needs to be one-time, he says.
Reassuring people on that last point may be hard in this case, though. While the architects of the billionaire tax say it is only a one-time levy, “if voters are willing to pass this one-time tax, it’s possible they’re willing to pass another,” says Mr. Pomerleau.
Mr. Regan, the president of the union, calls the state-level tax an imperfect solution. In a perfect world, the tax would be federal, he said in a press briefing the night the measure officially qualified for the California ballot. But that would require Democratic control of Congress. For now, the union views this as the next-best step.
Billionaire Tax Now, the coalition backed by the union to campaign for the measure, has far fewer resources than Building a Better California, the billionaire-backed coalition supporting the countermeasures.
There’s some concern voters might get confused among the three different ballot initiatives pertaining to the billionaire tax, two of which are designed to effectively neutralize it. One countermeasure would prohibit new taxes on retirement accounts and other assets, and includes a provision prohibiting retroactive taxes. The other requires audits of any state program funded by special taxes before funds are received. It would also prohibit California from creating or collecting new taxes that bypass the state’s appropriations limit, which caps the growth of tax-funded spending.
Wealth tax proponents note that California’s billionaires have seen their assets grow substantially just in the past six months.
“The estimates I’ve seen say that already this year their wealth has grown by 6% or 7%,” says Professor Galle, who also helped to author former President Biden’s proposed billionaire minimum income tax. “Even after they pay this tax, they’ll be richer at the end of the year than when they started.”
California
Exclusive: Paramount weighs leaving California over Warner Bros. rift
Paramount has made repeated entreaties to Bonta to strike a deal that would allow its merger with Warner Bros. to close.
The studio proposed a firm commitment, via a consent decree, to produce 30 films annually, with a 45-day theatrical release window and a 90-day streaming window, alongside promises to keep both Paramount and Warner Bros. lots open in California, the people said.
Privately, Ellison and other Paramount executives have expressed frustration at Bonta’s refusal to engage, and have pointed to the commitments around content spending — some $30 billion annually — and employment that would flow into California. Already, the region has faced a production exodus to other states — even to Canada — with thousands of entertainment jobs lost in recent years. Ellison and his executives have said that the combined Warner Bros.-Paramount would create jobs in California, helping to stymie that outflow.
But Paramount believes Bonta’s office has rebuffed its overtures, creating what one Ellison adviser said is an “inhospitable” environment for Paramount to operate in. If Bonta sues, the adviser said, the state’s hostility would push the company over the edge.
Bonta’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Last month, he told MSNOW that there were “red flags in the air everywhere,” and that he was “concerned about job loss and prices being increased.”
In a statement, Paramount said, “We continue to engage constructively with the remaining few regulators around the world still considering the merger, including State Attorneys General, and are prepared to address any legitimate antitrust issues.” It added: “We are confident this transaction raises no such concerns, as demonstrated by the dozens of antitrust authorities around the world that have carefully reviewed the transaction.”
-
California4 minutes agoMysterious puzzle on California building finally solved
-
Colorado10 minutes agoColorado State football 2026 outlook from national experts
-
Connecticut16 minutes agoHBO casting in CT for neighbor dispute docuseries
-
Delaware22 minutes ago
Heat watches, advisories issued for Delaware. How hot will it get?
-
Florida28 minutes agoSouth Florida scientists studying newborn sea turtles
-
Georgia34 minutes agoGeorgia twins launch 3D-printed toy business
-
Hawaii40 minutes agoGuided tours take visitors into Honouliuli internment camp’s ‘Hell Valley’
-
Idaho46 minutes agoIdaho attorneys rebuff DOJ threat to prosecute Secretary of State in voter roll dispute