winners

Europe’s established technology companies are emerging as unexpected beneficiaries of the artificial intelligence boom, as businesses shift from AI experimentation to large-scale deployment. Rather than model developers capturing all the value, companies specializing in enterprise software, consulting, and cloud infrastructure are seeing stronger demand by helping organizations integrate AI into existing operations.

Enterprise AI Shifts Toward Implementation

Recent earnings from SAP, Capgemini, Sopra Steria, and OVHcloud indicate that corporate AI spending is increasingly focused on implementation rather than simply acquiring AI models.

Large organizations require AI systems that integrate with legacy software, fragmented databases, compliance frameworks, and existing business processes. This complexity has created growing demand for firms with deep experience in enterprise technology integration.

Integration Becomes the Next AI Battleground

Industry analysts argue that the next phase of AI competition lies in applications rather than foundation models.

As businesses adopt multiple AI models for different functions, the challenge is no longer selecting the best model but ensuring those systems work securely across finance, supply chains, human resources, and customer operations.

This transition is benefiting European firms that have spent decades building enterprise software ecosystems and managing digital transformation projects.

Strong Corporate Results Reflect Growing Demand

SAP reported a 26% increase in its cloud backlog, reflecting continued migration of enterprise systems onto cloud platforms that increasingly support AI deployment.

Meanwhile, Capgemini and Sopra Steria upgraded their business outlooks after stronger-than-expected growth in bookings and consulting demand, particularly for AI integration, governance, and data management services.

These results suggest implementation services are becoming a major source of value creation within the AI economy.

European Digital Sovereignty Gains Importance

Demand is also growing for AI infrastructure that provides greater control over corporate and government data.

Sectors such as defense, aerospace, healthcare, and critical infrastructure increasingly prioritize security, regulatory compliance, and data sovereignty when deploying AI.

This trend has supported European cloud providers such as OVHcloud, while companies including Airbus have chosen European AI infrastructure and cloud services for sensitive applications.

Challenges Remain

Despite improving demand, Europe’s technology incumbents must demonstrate that AI-driven growth is sustainable over the long term.

Automation could pressure consulting margins, while increasing competition among AI providers may compress pricing. Companies will also need to continue investing heavily in infrastructure and software development to maintain their competitive position.

Analysis: Europe’s Competitive Advantage Lies Beyond AI Models

The latest earnings reinforce a broader shift in the AI value chain. While much investor attention has focused on companies developing large language models, the commercialization of AI increasingly depends on firms capable of integrating those models into complex enterprise environments. Europe’s established technology companies possess decades of expertise in enterprise software, systems integration, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance areas becoming increasingly critical as organizations deploy AI at scale. If businesses continue prioritizing implementation, governance, and digital sovereignty over standalone AI models, Europe’s incumbents could become some of the most durable long-term beneficiaries of the global AI transformation, despite not leading the race to build frontier AI models.

With information from Reuters.

Love Island’s 2026 summer of love has come to an end, with Julia and Lorenzo taking £50,000 home after the public voted them as the winners

Love Island‘s 2026 winners have been crowned. Lorenzo Alessi and Julia Majchrzak were voted the winners by the public, taking home £50,000 between the two of them. The final aired on Monday 27 July.

Julia and Lorenzo went up against Jasmine Muller and Kavan Murphy for the title and it was the former who took home the crown. It came after Simba Kudyiwa and Angelista Gunda bagged a third place finish.

The winners looked stunned after their name was called, but it was a well received decision from the live audience and former islanders alike, with Lorenzo being lofted up high by his villa pals.

But despite loud cheers from the crowd, not all fans online were impressed. One user on X fumed: “Such an awful love island uk finale. love island usa may have had awful production, people, and couples too but they went off with the final dates & the audience went off with crowning brinity the winners #loveislanduk #loveisland.”

Another added: “I already said what I said: the winners of love island uk this year are AWFUL. y’all just failed this season.” And a third said: “the final is the worst episode of Love Island, it’s always boring, they need a to rethink it and maybe go down a big brother route.”

Going into the final, there were four couples who could have taken the crown: Jasmine and Kavan, Lorenzo and Julia, Simba and Angelista and Yasmin Hadlow and Tommy Stagg. But a twist in the game meant Yasmin and Tommy were dumped before the show went live.

On Sunday night, after Mica Harris and Samraj Toor were axed by their series’ dumped Islanders, it was revealed that the pair would be allowed to pick another couple to leave with them.

Knowing what was at stake, Samraj vowed not to make his decision based on who he was friends with. As such, though many fans predicted that the couple’s arguments with Julia would mean she and Lorenzo would be dumped, it was Yasmin and Tommy who went instead.

The remaining couples were fairly strong. Simba and Angelista had mostly been together since Simba entered as a bombshell. Though he returned from Casa Amor with Mara, leaving Angelista single, he soon decided to get back with the OG Islander and won her over with a poem.

Meanwhile, Jasmine and Kavan have been together for weeks. Kavan also returned from Casa with a bombshell, Charleen Murphy, but he and Jasmine got back together as well, after Kavan saw just how hurt Jasmine was by his actions. Though some fans have been hoping she and Lorenzo, her original partner would get back together, and rumours of an ‘affair’ had swirled around the villa, former Islanders have said that Jasmine and Kavan are head over heels for each other.

Likewise, Sean Fitzgerald told Maya Jama on Aftersun that Julia and Lorenzo were well suited to each other. The two became a favourite to win after returning from Casa, not just because Lorenzo was a one of the public’s favourite boys, but because they felt Julia hadn’t been treated well by the other Islanders.

This came amid a feud with Lola Deal, who objected to how Julia flirted with Sean during Casa. Shortly afterwards, Julia and Lorenzo were voted favourite couple. They were given the opportunity to dump a couple, but Lola and Sean decided to volunteer to be dumped.

This was the 13th series of Love Island. Last year’s winners Toni Laites and Cach Mercer have since split, but have gone on to feature in other reality series. Toni has taken a role on new Love Island spin off The Debrief, providing commentary on the main show, while Cach will appear on Strictly Come Dancing later this year.

The show is expected to return in January for an All Stars addition, which could include some Islanders from this season. Earlier this summer, All Stars winners Tom Clare and Molly Smith married after meeting on series two of the spin off.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Two winners have been crowned for the 2026 series of Bake Off: The Professionals after an emotional final.

Bake Off: The Professionals has crowned its season 11 winners.

12 teams of pastry chefs were whittled down to the final three, with the final airing on Wednesday, July 22.

Hosts Ellie Taylor and Liam Charles and judges Benoit Blin and Cherish Finden had taken the teams through technical challenges, showpieces and epic patisserie tests before the final task.

In the grand final, the remaining teams had 12 hours to complete a masquerade-themed challenge, with one pair eliminated halfway through.

The final two raced to finish desserts, building monumental showpieces out of sugar, chocolate sculptures and making a total of 200 creations across five desserts per team.

Edwardian Hotels’ Ashish and Loki were up against The Stafford London’s Aubin and Avneet, before the winners were officially crowned.

Ahead of announcing the winners, presenter Ellie admitted how difficult the decision had been for the judges.

She shared: “This has been quite possibly the closest final in the history of Bake Off: The Professionals, but after much deliberation, Benoit and Cherish have made their decision.”

She announced Ashish and Loki the winners, with the pair celebrating with their family and friends at the banquet.

“Can’t believe it,” Loki said, as Ashish added: “The emotions came out in that moment.”

Despite their defeat, Aubin and Avneet praised: “Honestly, Ashish and Loki they nailed it.”

Judge Benoit added: “Every year I’m amazed that we find pastry chefs of this calibre.”

“They’ve both worked so hard, they’re so determined, passionate and most of all, very resilient, it’s incredible,” Cherish agreed.

Channel 4 had previously teased: “In a completely new challenge for the spectacular final, the remaining teams are throwing every ounce of passion, skill and patisserie prowess into one monumental twelve-hour Masquerade Ball Banquet-themed challenge – where only absolute brilliance will be enough to claim this title.

“Judges Cherish and Benoit demand the teams hit the ground running in the longest challenge ever set, as they produce two desserts for a brutal halfway judging.

“After six relentless hours, one team will be sent home on the spot – leaving just two to go head-to-head for the coveted trophy as they work to complete a further three desserts and their banquets, producing five desserts in total…45 of each… over 200 stunning creations in total.”

Bake Off: The Professionals is available to watch on Channel 4.

Fifa will present World Cup rings to the winners of Sunday’s final between Argentina and Spain, which will be attended by Donald Trump.

Winner rings are a tradition in American sport, with the NFL’s Super Bowl victors presented with them.

Thirty rings will be made available to the world champions, and a further 1,996 rings will go on sale to fans. Each ring will include a mini World Cup trophy in its design and an engraving in the band.

President Trump, who is to present the trophy, has not attended any of the 102 World Cup games so far, missing all of the USA’s matches before they went out to Belgium in the last 16.

There is a weather warning in New York over air quality caused by wildfires in Canada, but there is no suggestion the final at MetLife Stadium will be affected.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino had already said Trump would attend the final and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has confirmed he will.

The relationship between Infantino and Trump has been at the heart of the biggest controversy at this summer’s World Cup, with the US president calling the Fifa chief to seek a review of United States striker Folarin Balogun’s red card.

The subsequent decision to suspend Balogun’s automatic ban was heavily criticised, with questions raised about the integrity of the tournament.

Balogun was allowed to feature in the knockout game against Belgium, but the USA suffered a 4-1 thrashing.

No other red or yellow cards have been suspended during this World Cup, despite France and England appealing to have their own respective incidents reviewed.

The 16 host cities across the US, Canada and Mexico have been welcoming an influx of fans and tourists boosting hospitality, hotels and local businesses.

But while the Scots drank Boston dry and have won the heart of the city and its people, experts say the long-term economic benefits are minimal.

Fifa estimated some $41bn would be added to the global economy, of which $17bn would boost the US economy alone, with 185,000 jobs created, mostly in hospitality and accommodation.

But Alexander Budzier, a fellow in management practice at Oxford University and chief executive of project management company Oxford Global Projects, says the long-term economic benefits of hosting such a big sporting event just do not materialise.

Host cities actually typically see a big drop in visitors, he says, as many seek to avoid the tournament chaos.

And while there may be a spike in hiring, he argues it is typically only for lower-paid jobs in hospitality. “It creates jobs, but it does not create wealth,” he says.

Official figures show that hiring in US pubs, bars and restaurants ramped up ahead of the tournament in May, but the boom was short-lived.

The only “worthwhile” economic benefit, Budzier argues, is the regeneration projects that can be done, such as the redevelopment and housing built in Stratford in London following the 2012 Olympic Games.

But due to much of this World Cup using existing stadia, hotels, training complexes and travel infrastructure, “there won’t be any economic benefits from development”.

So who are the losers, besides fans who have forked out high prices for tickets to see free-flowing, entertaining football – only for the game to be stopped in each half?

Well, World Cup debutants Curacao were in dreamland after equalising to make it 1-1 against Germany shortly before a first-half drinks break in Houston on Sunday.

However, the smallest nation ever to play at the World Cup, by size and population, were not the same when play resumed and lost 7-1 after the drinks break allowed the Germans to regroup.

The Czech Republic were on top during the first half against South Korea, but the hydration break abruptly ended that spell of pressure, and when play resumed, they lost momentum.

Despite taking the lead, they ended up losing the game 2-1.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands led Japan 2-1 going into the second-half hydration break in Arlington, Texas, on Sunday. They failed to hold on and drew 2-2.

Hydration breaks are not always the cause of these momentum shifts, of course.

But the further we go into the tournament, the more it should become clear whether the interruptions are becoming a major factor.

Former Arsenal and England forward Ian Wright made it clear where he stood on the breaks.

“I just think it’s another way of getting adverts into it from an American point of view,” he said.

US broadcaster Fox US overran adverts, external during a hydration break in the opening match of the tournament between Mexico and South Africa.

“They’ve used the fact that it’s for the players, but it’s not for me,” added Wright.

While the breaks have their detractors, there are others who believe they are a positive introduction.

“I am always interested in the health of my players. I think it’s the right measure, a pause, freshen up and continue,” said Spain boss Luis de la Fuente before his side’s opening game against debutants Cape Verde on Monday (17:00 BST).

That match is taking place in Atlanta where the venue has a retractable roof and is temperature controlled.

“Tomorrow, it’s chilled temperatures in the stadium,” added De la Fuente on Sunday.

“Throughout the week, we’ve seen huge temperatures. It’s very difficult to be exposed to these temperatures for so long when you’re working.

“In my opinion, the best thing to do is to drink lots of water. Take a break, let them breathe for a few seconds.

“It’s not going to be that hot [on Monday] but we need to let them breathe and then one or two minutes to give them a couple of directions.”

The 79th Tony Awards return to Radio City Music Hall on Sunday to celebrate the best of Broadway. Pop-star Pink hosts the show for the first time, and while she hasn’t been on Broadway yet herself, her songs have been featured in the musicals “Moulin Rouge!” and “& Juliet.”

The broadcast airs air live beginning at 5 p.m. on CBS and Paramount+, but don’t sleep on the annual pre-show, “The Tony Awards: Act One,” where the first round of Tonys will be presented. It will stream live on free service Pluto TV starting at 3:35 p.m. and be hosted by Tony Award nominee Laura Benanti and actor Tituss Burgess.

Times staff writer Eloise Rollins-Fife wrote a complete guide on how to watch and everything you need to know.

Play

“The Balusters”
“Giant”
“Liberation”
“Little Bear Ridge Road”

Musical

“The Lost Boys”
“Schmigadoon!”
“Titaníque”
“Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Revival of a play

Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman”
Gina Gionfriddo, “Becky Shaw”
Duncan Macmillan and Jonny Donahoe, “Every Brilliant Thing”
“Fallen Angels”
Robert Icke, “Oedipus”

Revival of a musical

“Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
“Ragtime”
Richard O’Brien’s “The Rocky Horror Show”

Performance by an actress in a leading role in a musical

Sara Chase, “Schmigadoon!”
Stephanie Hsu, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Caissie Levy, “Ragtime”
Marla Mindelle, “Titaníque”
Christiani Pitts, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Performance by an actor in a leading role in a musical

Nicholas Christopher, “Chess”
Luke Evans, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Joshua Henry, “Ragtime”
Sam Tutty, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Brandon Uranowitz, “Ragtime”

Performance by an actress in a leading role in a play

Rose Byrne, “Fallen Angels”
Carrie Coon, “Bug”
Susannah Flood, “Liberation”
Lesley Manville, “Oedipus”
Kelli O’Hara, “Fallen Angels”

Performance by an actor in a leading role in a play

Will Harrison, “Punch”
Nathan Lane, “Death of a Salesman”
John Lithgow, “Giant”
Daniel Radcliffe, “Every Brilliant Thing”
Mark Strong, “Oedipus”

Book of a musical

David Hornsby and Chris Hoch, “The Lost Boys”
Cinco Paul, “Schmigadoon!”
Marla Mindelle, Constantine Rousouli and Tye Blue, “Titaníque”
Jim Barne and Kit Buchan, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Original score

Music: Caroline Shaw, “Death of a Salesman”
Music: Steve Bargonetti, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Music and lyrics: The Rescues, “The Lost Boys”
Music and lyrics: Cinco Paul, “Schmigadoon!”
Music and lyrics: Jim Barne and Kit Buchan, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Performance by an actor in a featured role in a play

Christopher Abbott, “Death of a Salesman”
Danny Burstein, “Marjorie Prime”
Brandon J. Dirden, “Waiting for Godot”
Alden Ehrenreich, “Becky Shaw”
Ruben Santiago-Hudson, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Richard Thomas, “The Balusters”

Performance by an actress in a featured role in a play

Betsy Aidem, “Liberation”
Marylouise Burke, “The Balusters”
Aya Cash, “Giant”
Laurie Metcalf, “Death of a Salesman”
June Squibb, “Marjorie Prime”

Performance by an actor in a featured role in a musical

Ali Louis Bourzgui, “The Lost Boys”
André De Shields, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Bryce Pinkham, “Chess”
Ben Levi Ross, “Ragtime”
Layton Williams, “Titaníque”

Performance by an actress in a featured role in a musical

Shoshana Bean, “The Lost Boys”
Hannah Cruz, “Chess”
Rachel Dratch, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Ana Gasteyer, “Schmigadoon!”
Nichelle Lewis, “Ragtime”

Scenic design of a play

Hildegard Bechtler, “Oedipus”
Takeshi Kata, “Bug”
David Korins, “Dog Day Afternoon”
Chloe Lamford, “Death of a Salesman”
David Rockwell, “Fallen Angels”

Scenic design of a musical

dots, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Soutra Gilmour, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Rachel Hauck, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Dane Laffrey, “The Lost Boys”
Scott Pask, “Schmigadoon!”

Costume design of a play

Brenda Abbandandolo, “Dog Day Afternoon”
Qween Jean, “Liberation”
Jeff Mahshie, “Fallen Angels”
Emilio Sosa, “The Balusters”
Paul Tazewell, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”

Costume design of a musical

Linda Cho, “Ragtime”
Linda Cho, “Schmigadoon!”
Qween Jean, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Ryan Park, “The Lost Boys”
David I. Reynoso, “The Rocky Horror Show”

Lighting design of a play

Isabella Byrd, “Dog Day Afternoon”
Natasha Chivers, “Oedipus”
Stacey Derosier, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Heather Gilbert, “Bug”
Heather Gilbert, “The Fear of 13”
Jack Knowles, “Death of a Salesman”

Lighting design of a musical

Kevin Adams, “Chess”
Jane Cox, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Donald Holder, “Schmigadoon!”
Adam Honoré, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Adam Honoré and Donald Holder with 59 Studio, “Ragtime”
Jen Schriever and Michael Arden, “The Lost Boys”

Sound design of a play

Justin Ellington, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Tom Gibbons, “Oedipus”
Lee Kinney, “The Fear of 13”
Josh Schmidt, “Bug”
Mikaal Sulaiman, “Death of a Salesman”

Sound design of a musical

Kai Harada, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Kai Harada, “Ragtime”
Adam Fisher, “The Lost Boys”
Brian Ronan, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Walter Trarbach, “Schmigadoon!”

Direction of a play

Nicholas Hytner, “Giant”
Robert Icke, “Oedipus”
Kenny Leon, “The Balusters”
Joe Mantello, “Death of A Salesman”
Whitney White, “Liberation”

Direction of a musical

Michael Arden, “The Lost Boys”
Lear deBessonet, “Ragtime”
Christopher Gattelli, “Schmigadoon!”
Tim Jackson, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Zhailon Levingston and Bill Rauch, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”

Choreography

Christopher Gattelli, “Schmigadoon!”
Ellenore Scott, “Ragtime”
Ani Taj, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Omari Wiles and Arturo Lyons, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Lauren Yalango-Grant and Christopher Cree Grant, “The Lost Boys”

Orchestrations

Doug Besterman and Mike Morris, “Schmigadoon!”
Ethan Popp, Kyler England, Adrianne “AG” Gonzalez and Gabriel Mann, “The Lost Boys”
Lux Pyramid, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Brian Usifer, “Chess”
Andrew Lloyd Webber, David Wilson, Trevor Holder and Doug Schadt, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”

Animals at Guadalajara Zoo in Mexico are making their own predictions for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Elephants, gorillas, a puma and giraffes picked winners from a selection of upcoming matches, continuing a World Cup tradition made famous by Paul the Octopus, who correctly predicted 12 of 14 results at the 2010 tournament.

For the sixth and final time before votes are counted, the leading contenders for California governor gathered Thursday night for a televised debate, this one a 90-minute session in San Francisco.

Times columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria absorbed the rhetorical blows, followed the heated back-and-forths and took in each and every one of the candidates’ myriad policy prescriptions. Here’s their assessment:

Arellano: Near the end of the debate, co-moderator and San Francisco Examiner editor-in-chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas groaned as candidates talked over each other while trying to answer a question that was supposed to elicit a yes or no response.

That’s pretty much how California voters have reacted to this primary.

In an era where politics are far too often about choosing the least worst option, voters in this election are left with the political version of the Angels baseball team.

No candidate has polled higher than 20-some percent — a testament to how many are in the running, but also an indication that none of them has truly captured the zeitgeist of today’s California.

This year’s debates have done little to catapult anyone to the top, and tonight was more of the same. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for, and no one inspired me to side with them. No one offered a clear vision of how they would pull Californians out of a spiritual malaise that has so many of us leaving the state, or thinking about leaving.

Instead, what I heard too many of the candidates evoke was the glories of the past — their past.

Antonio Villaraigosa’s closing remarks made a mantra out of “Dream with me,” a slogan he used back when he was L.A. mayor — that was 13 years ago.

Xavier Becerra bragged about how he stood up to President Trump as California attorney general — that was five years ago.

Katie Porter pulled out a white notebook with something written on it and directly challenged Becerra to answer a question — a callback to her time as a congressmember grilling people on Capitol Hill with a whiteboard and a marker, which she first made famous seven years ago.

The two Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, spoke of a halcyon California destroyed by feckless Democrats and vowed a return to those days.

The only candidates who didn’t live in the past were San José Mayor Matt Mahan and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer — but they seemed particularly out of their league, with Steyer too often looking down at notes instead of speaking off the cuff with his well-rehearsed populist pluck.

The word “nostalgia” first emerged to describe what doctors back then considered a malady, thinking it unwise to long for the past. It’s a concept historically antithetical to California, long boosted as the land of today and tomorrow by everyone from the Mission fathers to orange barons, developers to politicians. Indeed, nostalgia has sometimes been a dangerous factor in California politics, unleashing the Spanish fantasy heritage movement, Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and all sorts of other nonsense.

The two candidates who advance to the general election would be wise to offer Californians a hope for the future that doesn’t call back to our yesterdays. For now, the only real winners are the political consultants, and the only real losers are Californians, because we still don’t know for sure that any of the candidates can make things better.

All we can expect is that they’ll turn things for the worse.

Barabak: A popular expression — which Steyer mentioned — defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

By that measure, was the audience for Thursday night’s throwdown insane? Masochistic? Or a group of high-minded, dutiful, quite-conscientious California voters?

The leading gubernatorial candidates have been at this so long that they’re like actors in a stage troupe, delivering well-rehearsed lines, or an old band getting together to play their greatest hits, though far less melodious.

Among those reprising familiar roles were Steyer as the boastful billionaire; Bianco as the angry white avenger; Hilton as the chipper doomsayer; Mahan as the kid brother insinuating his way into the conversation; Porter as the left-wing tribune promising a progressive Valhalla; and Villaraigosa as the old political war horse.

Once more, Becerra was the focal point of attacks, befitting his newfound status as the candidate to beat. “This is what happens when you take the lead in polls,” he rightly noted.

And so rivals again assailed Becerra’s performance as state attorney general and Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. They accused of him being a shill for Big Oil. They tried, implying guilt-through-association, to rope Becerra into the scandal involving his former aides who embezzled from a dormant campaign account.

(Becerra, crisper and more lively than he’s previously been, noted that prosecutors in the case have described him as a victim and not a perpetrator or co-conspirator.)

It’s hard to see all the jostling and thrown elbows making a huge difference. The promises made and attacks scattered like buckshot on the San Francisco soundstage all seem much less important than the numbers that show up in opinion polls between now and Election Day.

Many Democrats, spooked by the prospect of their party being frozen out in June’s top-two primary, have been clinging to their ballots, intending to vote at the last moment for whichever Democrat appears likeliest to finish first.

In that way, the race seems to be shaping up as less a competition than a self-fulfilling prophecy. And Thursday night’s performance, while not wholly irrelevant, was just another television rerun broadcast to a less-than-mass audience.

Chabria: Here’s what I’ll say about Thursday night: It was a debate. The old-school kind where everybody is mostly well-behaved and polite, and the audience scrolls on their phones to stay awake.

The candidates themselves seemed low-energy, even with their jabs — which were largely directed at Becerra, as Mark said.

But no sparks also means we have more clarity. Barring an Eric Swalwell-style blow-up, the top three — Becerra, Steyer and Hilton — are really the only true contenders.

But I’ll give a shout-out to Porter, who had her best performance to date with answers that were clear and laid out policy with detail. Still, I fear it’s too little, too late.

Becerra, on the other hand, seemed subdued to the point of flat (sorry, Mark, he came off crisp like a week-old apple to me) often relying on the line that he sued Trump more than a hundred times as attorney general of California during Trump’s first term. I’m not sure that’s inspiring, though it did lead to some court victories.

Granted, Becerra has had a hard week, with a gaffe with a reporter that went viral and a plea deal by a former aide in that case of money misappropriated from his dormant campaign account. It’s not clear yet if voters care about either of those glitches — but if they stick in people’s minds, that could open a path for Steyer to scrape up the small margin he needs to get through the primary.

But Thursday night also did little to help Steyer’s cause — or hurt it. He made some clear, forceful points that positioned him as the changemaker progressive, especially around his policies on moving away from fossil fuels. He also had some convoluted answers that didn’t land. He didn’t give undecided voters much to work with.

I’ll end with one answer from Hilton that women should pay attention to: He said that if elected, he would allow California abortion providers to be extradited to states such as Louisiana to face criminal charges for mailing abortion medications.

Women across the U.S. now must rely on states such as California for any access to abortion care. Hilton’s position is not just bad for California but presents a risk to women everywhere.

For me, that answer should disqualify him for the highest office in our pro-choice state.