Poor cellular signals are now a thing of the past for the many spectators attending events inside the concrete bowl of BC Place Stadium in downtown Vancouver. Just in time for the grand finale of Taylor Swift’s globe-trotting Eras Tour, telecommunications giant Rogers completed a $10 million upgrade to improve 5G connectivity inside BC Place Stadium. And it clearly works. The newly enhanced permanent cellular infrastructure was put to the ultimate stress test over the three nights of Eras Tour concerts, with Swiftie ticketholders — numbering about 60,000 for each of the concert nights — able to use record volumes of cellular data. Over the course of Swift’s three concerts, fans on the Rogers 5G network at BC Place Stadium used 32 TB of data, including 11 TB during her last-ever concert for the tour on Sunday, December 8 — setting a new Canadian record. This far exceeded the previous record recently set at Swift’s concert at Rogers Centre in downtown Toronto on November 21, when Swifties used 7.4 TB of data on the Rogers 5G network. A data usage of 11 TB is equivalent to streaming her entire music catalogue 9,450 times. Some Swifties were even able to livestream the entire final concert in high quality on YouTube, amassing hundreds of thousands of live viewers. According to Rogers, the data used during the concert on December 8 at BC Place Stadium is equivalent to uploading 307,000 photos and 2,180 hours of video streaming. The data usage spike patterns show the most-shared moments of the concert were when Taylor Swift came on stage and at the start of the “Reputation” era. “Taylor fans use incredible amounts of data at her concerts to share the experience, and their data usage at the Vancouver shows have set a new bar for Rogers 5G network at a stadium event,” said Mark Kennedy, chief technology officer of Rogers, in a statement today. “Our 5G network at BC Place is brand new and we’re thrilled fans set a new record sharing this once-in-lifetime experience.” More stadium venues are increasingly adopting 5G technology to provide faster speeds, lower latency, and more capacity, as a large number of spectators livestream and share moments in real time. The 5G infrastructure upgrade performed and funded by Rogers will greatly enhance the experience of spectators attending events at BC Place Stadium, including for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. BC Place Stadium’s network was completely redesigned with a brand-new in-stadium network system. Rogers’ staff spent 10,000 hours on planning and installation, and over 40 crew members spent another 10,000 hours installing the equipment and infrastructure. These upgrades increased the 5G network capacity by 38 times inside the stadium, which is equivalent to coverage provided by 20 towers in Vancouver. As well, as an interim measure only over the three-night concert weekend, Rogers also installed two temporary “Cell on Wheels” to increase wireless capacity and ensure reliable connectivity for the large crowds of Swifties outside the stadium. This clear pivot to Rogers represents a major move for the venue. In 2012, the provincial government scrapped a deal with Telus that would have provided the telecommunications giant with a $40 million naming rights and branding contract for BC Place Stadium, including extensive infrastructure upgrades for WiFi and cellular connectivity. In , the provincial government announced its intention to restart its process to seek a naming rights sponsor for the stadium to help support the ongoing operations, maintenance, and upgrade costs for the venue, but those efforts appear to have since stalled. Over the past few months, , including three additional boards and one replacement. Just in time for The Eras Tour, the , making it one of the largest screens of its kind in the province. Over the lifespan of these signs, the stadium will generate significant revenue. Currently, provincial Crown corporation Pavco is also in the process of seeking a contractor to inside the stadium. As , this new installation will be a that reuses the existing steel/aluminum structural frame and wiring. Other include the renovation of the three existing small elevators, the potential construction of up to three new additional large elevators, renovations to the Edgewater Lounge on Level 3 that convert it into a new fan zone accessible to everyone under general admission, repurposing BC Sports Hall of Fame’s existing storage space next to the Edgewater lounge into additional spectator areas, converting the food court area on Level 1 into an enclosed purpose-built multi-functional space, and renovations to the old and outdated player dressing rooms and facilities. The stadium is also set to see the . Pavco officials previously stated a decision has yet to be made on whether the natural grass pitch would be made a permanent feature of the stadium, or whether it would be temporary, with the venue reverting to artificial turf.Generative Artificial Intelligence AI Chipset Global Market Projected to Reach $86.24 Billion by 2028 with 27.9% Growth

‘I’m fine with it’: Shark confirms rumours, talks up LIV legacy ‘I’ll always have’NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 9, 2024-- Braze (Nasdaq: BRZE) the leading customer engagement platform that empowers brands to Be Absolutely EngagingTM, today announced results for its fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2024. “We continued to execute in the third quarter, delivering strong revenue growth and operating leverage while maintaining steady investment in our product, our ecosystem, and our go-to-market motion to continue positioning Braze as the leading cross-channel customer engagement platform,” said Bill Magnuson, Cofounder and CEO of Braze. “We are confidently on track to meet our profitability targets for the fiscal fourth quarter of and full fiscal year 2025, and continue to focus on driving growth through customer engagement innovations that empower our customers to create more valuable customer experiences.” Fiscal Third Quarter 2025 Financial Highlights Recent Business Highlights Financial Outlook Braze is initiating guidance for the fiscal fourth quarter ending January 31, 2025 and updating guidance for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2025. Braze has not reconciled its guidance as to non-GAAP operating income (loss), non-GAAP net income or non-GAAP net income per share to their most directly comparable GAAP measure as a result of uncertainty regarding, and the potential variability of, reconciling items such as stock-based compensation expense specific to equity compensation awards that are directly impacted by unpredictable fluctuations in Braze’s stock price. Accordingly, reconciliations are not available without unreasonable effort, although it is important to note that these factors could be material to Braze’s results calculated in accordance with GAAP. Conference Call Information: What: Braze Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Results Conference Call When: Monday, December 9th at 4:30 pm EST / 1:30 pm PST Webcast & Supplemental Data: investors.braze.com Replay: A webcast replay will be available on Braze’s investor site at investors.braze.com . Supplemental and Other Financial Information Supplemental information, including an accompanying financial presentation and other information can be accessed through Braze’s investor website at investors.braze.com . Non-GAAP Financial Measures This press release and the accompanying tables contain the following non-GAAP financial measures: non-GAAP gross profit and margin, non-GAAP sales and marketing expense, non-GAAP research and development expense, non-GAAP general and administrative expense, non-GAAP operating income (loss), non-GAAP operating margin, non-GAAP net income (loss), non-GAAP net income (loss) per share, basic and diluted, and non-GAAP free cash flow. Braze defines non-GAAP gross profit and margin, non-GAAP sales and marketing expense, non-GAAP research and development expense, non-GAAP general and administrative expense, non-GAAP operating income (loss), non-GAAP operating margin, and non-GAAP net income (loss) as the respective GAAP balances, adjusted for stock-based compensation expense, employer taxes related to stock-based compensation, charitable contribution expense, contingent consideration adjustments, acquisition related expense, amortization of intangible assets, and restructuring expense. Prior to the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended January 31, 2024, Braze did not adjust non-GAAP gross profit and margin, non-GAAP sales and marketing expense, non-GAAP research and development expense, non-GAAP general and administrative expense, non-GAAP operating income (loss), non-GAAP operating margin or non-GAAP net income (loss) for contingent consideration adjustments, because there were no such adjustments in prior periods. Braze defines non-GAAP free cash flow as net cash provided by/(used in) operating activities, minus purchases of property and equipment and minus capitalized internal-use software costs. Investors are encouraged to review the reconciliation of these historical non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. Braze uses this non-GAAP financial information internally in analyzing its financial results and believes that this non-GAAP financial information, when taken collectively with GAAP financial measures, may be helpful to investors because it provides consistency and comparability with past financial performance and assists in comparisons with other companies, some of which use similar non-GAAP financial information to supplement their GAAP results. The non-GAAP financial information is presented for supplemental informational purposes only, and should not be considered a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (GAAP), and may be different from similarly-titled non-GAAP measures used by other companies. The principal limitation of these non-GAAP financial measures is that they exclude significant expenses that are required by GAAP to be recorded in Braze’s financial statements. In addition, they are subject to inherent limitations as they reflect the exercise of judgment by Braze’s management about which expenses are excluded or included in determining these non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation is provided below in the financial statement tables included below in this press release for each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure stated in accordance with GAAP. Braze encourages investors to review the related GAAP financial measures and the reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, which it includes in press releases announcing quarterly and fiscal year financial results, including this press release, and not to rely on any single financial measure to evaluate Braze’s business. Definition of Other Business Metrics Customer : Braze defines a customer, as of period end, as the separate and distinct, ultimate parent-level entity that has an active subscription with Braze to use its products. A single organization could have multiple distinct contracting divisions or subsidiaries, all of which together would be considered a single customer. Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) : Braze defines ARR as the annualized value of customer subscription contracts, including certain premium professional services that are subject to contractual subscription terms, as of the measurement date, assuming any contract that expires during the next 12 months is renewed on its existing terms (including contracts for which Braze is negotiating a renewal). Braze’s calculation of ARR is not adjusted for the impact of any known or projected future events (such as customer cancellations, expansion or contraction of existing customers relationships or price increases or decreases) that may cause any such contract not to be renewed on its existing terms. ARR may decline or fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, including customers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Braze’s products and professional services, pricing, competitive offerings, economic conditions or overall changes in Braze’s customers’ spending levels. ARR should be viewed independently of revenue and does not represent Braze’s GAAP revenue on an annualized basis or a forecast of revenue, as it is an operating metric that can be impacted by contract start and end dates and renewal rates. Dollar-Based Net Retention Rate : Braze calculates dollar-based net retention rate as of a period end by starting with the ARR from a cohort of customers as of 12 months prior to such period-end (the Prior Period ARR). Braze then calculates the ARR from the same cohort of customers as of the end of the current period (the Current Period ARR). Current Period ARR includes any expansion and is net of contraction or attrition over the last 12 months, but excludes ARR from new customers in the current period. Braze then divides the total Current Period ARR by the total Prior Period ARR to arrive at the point-in-time dollar-based net retention rate. Braze then calculates the weighted average point-in-time dollar-based net retention rates as of the last day of each month in the current trailing 12-month period to arrive at the dollar-based net retention rate. Remaining Performance Obligations: The transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations represents amounts under non-cancelable contracts expected to be recognized as revenue in future periods, and may be influenced by several factors, including seasonality, the timing of renewals, the timing of service delivery and contract terms. Unbilled portions of the remaining performance obligation are subject to future economic risks including bankruptcies, regulatory changes and other market factors. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including but not limited to, statements regarding Braze’s financial outlook for the fourth quarter of and the full fiscal year ended January 31, 2025. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. Words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “goal,” “hope,” “intend,” “may,” might,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “shall,” “should,” “target,” “will,” and variations of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify these forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements are based on Braze’s current assumptions, expectations and beliefs and are subject to substantial risks, uncertainties, assumptions and changes in circumstances that may cause Braze’s actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These risks include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties related to: (1) unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on Braze’s business, financial condition and share price; (2) Braze’s recent rapid revenue growth may not be indicative of its future revenue growth; (3) Braze’s history of operating losses; (4) Braze’s limited operating history at its current scale; (5) Braze’s ability to successfully manage its growth; (6) the accuracy of estimates of market opportunity and forecasts of market growth and the impact of global and domestic socioeconomic events on Braze’s business; (7) Braze’s ability and the ability of its platform to adapt and respond to changing customer or consumer needs, requirements or preferences; (8) Braze’s ability to attract new customers and renew existing customers; (9) the competitive markets in which Braze participates and the intense competition that it faces; (10) Braze’s ability to adapt and respond effectively to rapidly changing technology, evolving cybersecurity and data privacy risks, evolving industry standards or changing regulations; and (11) Braze’s reliance on third-party providers of cloud-based infrastructure; as well as other risks and uncertainties discussed in the “Risk Factors” section of Braze’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on April 1, 2024 and other subsequent filings Braze makes with the SEC from time to time, including Braze’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2024 that will be filed with the SEC. The forward-looking statements included in this press release represent Braze’s views only as of the date of this press release and Braze assumes no obligation, and does not intend to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law. About Braze Braze is the leading customer engagement platform that empowers brands to Be Absolutely Engaging.TM Braze allows any marketer to collect and take action on any amount of data from any source, so they can creatively engage with customers in real time, across channels from one platform. From cross-channel messaging and journey orchestration to Al-powered experimentation and optimization, Braze enables companies to build and maintain absolutely engaging relationships with their customers that foster growth and loyalty. The company has been recognized as a 2024 U.S. News Best Technology Companies to Work For, is a 2023 UK Best Workplace for Women by Great Place to Work, and was named a Leader by Gartner® in the 2024 Magic QuadrantTM for Multichannel Marketing Hubs and in The Forrester WaveTM: Cross-Channel Marketing Hubs, Q1 2023. Braze is headquartered in New York with 10+ offices across North America, Europe, and APAC. Learn more at braze.com . Braze uses its Investor website at investors.braze.com as a means of disclosing material non-public information, announcing upcoming investor conferences and for complying with its disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Accordingly, you should monitor its investor relations website in addition to following its press releases, blog posts on its website (braze.com), SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts. Selected Financial Data (1) Includes stock-based compensation as follows: (2) Includes employer taxes related to stock-based compensation as follows: (3) Includes 1% Pledge charitable donation expense as follows: (4) Includes acquisition related expense as follows: (5) Includes amortization of intangible assets acquired in the acquisition expense as follows: (6) Includes restructuring related expense as follows: (7) Includes adjustment to the fair value of the contingent consideration liability as follows: Source: Braze, Inc. Braze is a registered trademark of Braze, Inc. All product and company names herein may be trademarks of their registered owners. View source version on businesswire.com : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241209508572/en/ CONTACT: Investors: Christopher Ferris IR@braze.com (609) 964-0585Media: Meghan Halaszynski Press@braze.com KEYWORD: NEW YORK UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: TECHNOLOGY MARKETING ADVERTISING COMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE NETWORKS INTERNET DIGITAL MARKETING DATA MANAGEMENT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SOURCE: Braze Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 12/09/2024 04:05 PM/DISC: 12/09/2024 04:06 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241209508572/enShare A new Department of Government Efficiency will be led by Trump's close allies A new Department of Government Efficiency will be led by Trump's close allies Can Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy turn government into something sleek? Can Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy turn government into something sleek? Musk and others should remember that the US government is not a startup In the grand theatre of US politics, a new act has taken the stage, and it's one that could either be a masterclass in efficiency or a huge payday for entrepreneurs wanting to sell eggs to angry mobs. The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, will be led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. They have promised to slice through the government's wasteful spending and regulations by employing the Argentine President Javier Milei's signature chainsaw approach. But will this be a revolution, where '¡AFUERA!' becomes the battle cry of a generation of policymakers within the world's most important government or just another fanciful idea falling flat on its face? While the idea of the DOGE spearheaded by the dynamic duo of Musk and Ramaswamy has its allure, promising a future where the US government operates with the efficiency of a well-oiled machine, I remain sceptical. Trump's claim of an 'unprecedented and powerful mandate' could indeed legitimise any wacky or outlandish move his administration proposes. Such a mandate might be the jet fuel needed to propel major reforms with a speed that Washington has seldom seen before. With Musk's tech wizardry and Ramaswamy's business acumen, DOGE may offer more than just a cost-cutting avenue; it could very well serve as America's economic and bureaucratic 'Zeitenwende'. But let's not kid ourselves. The political landscape of America, especially DC, isn't exactly a machine with many hot swappable components. The idea of significant change often runs into the quagmire of political resistance. Congress, state governments, and the courts are not... Jacob Farley

Soviet Lessons China Watching

The E-J Group Welcomes State Electric Corporation to the Organization

Edited by Jude Blanchette of CSIS and Hal Brands of SAIS, the Marshall Papers is a series of essays that probes and challenges the assessments underpinning the U.S. approach to great power rivalry. The papers will be rigorous yet provocative, continually pushing the boundaries of intellectual and policy debates. In this Marshall Paper, Ford Hart argues that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political institutions, the CCP’s practical behavior, and continued veneration of Marxism-Leninism in the CCP constitution highlight the Soviet model’s deep influence on Beijing. As such, lessons from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) can help us understand the CCP’s approach to governance today. Soviet-origin governing institutions and processes exert enduring influence on the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Its substantially imported political structure arguably has at least as much practical impact on Beijing’s behavior as the ideology it also imported from Moscow. While the PRC is not a carbon copy of the USSR, Soviet lessons still have much to teach observers about Chinese governance. PRC policy shifts over the past two decades have reinforced the relevance of these lessons, and the increased opacity of the Chinese political system makes it necessary to exploit all available tools to assess its behavior. The Soviet experience illuminates, for instance, the impact of the Leninist apparatus on PRC regime behavior, the challenges for understanding China, and the future of its political system. Key insights include the following: The Soviet model is not China’s destiny; it is only one of several factors that have shaped PRC history and will continue to influence its future. Nonetheless, understanding it is indispensable to making sense of China’s behavior and prospects for change. The CCP embraces a Leninist apparatus that exhibits strong continuity with the party-state transferred to Beijing by the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union between the early 1920s and 1950s. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin pioneered its operating norms before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and led the system’s improvisational build-out during its early years in power. Other Soviet leaders, especially Joseph Stalin, contributed to its development. Leninist regimes—especially the surviving communist states (China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba) and the two former European ones established principally through indigenous struggle (the USSR and Yugoslavia)—represent a category of authoritarianism with characteristic institutions and processes that manifest recurring patterns of behavior. (The Leninist regimes of other East European communist states were largely external creations that ended with the USSR’s demise.) All authoritarian regimes are repressive, and some practices of Leninist regimes are common among them, but most of them are not Leninist. A Leninist system features an authoritarian regime in which the ruling elite monopolizes political power in the name of a revolutionary ideology through a highly articulated party structure that parallels, penetrates, and dominates the state at all levels and extends to workplaces, residential areas, and local institutions. Party members are subject to strict discipline and ideological indoctrination, regardless of whether they work in the party apparatus or, like most, outside it. In its struggle to seize and then hold power, the Bolshevik Party pioneered hallmark institutions long familiar to outside observers: a Central Committee, a secretariat with specialized departments (e.g., propaganda, personnel, and internal discipline), and a supreme leadership body at the very center commonly known as the Politburo—all mirrored at subordinate levels. From the capital to the most distant locality, a Leninist party controls leadership appointments and transfers not merely within itself and the state but also among the military and security forces, the economy, academia, the media, the arts, religious institutions, social organizations, and beyond. Classic Soviet operational practices—such as centralization, mobilization, united front operations, and cadre self-criticism—endure in China. A ruling Leninist regime always seeks to maintain robustly coercive security services that are loyal, first and foremost, to the party itself. It also exhibits high levels of intervention in the economy, ranging widely from state capitalism to command economics. Control of the economy is as important to party dominance as it is to overall national strength or the popular welfare. The foundations of CCP ideology also came from Moscow. This body of thought combined a Marxist, class-based economic interpretation of history progressing inexorably toward utopia, Lenin’s own theoretical revisions to Marxism, and, crucial to governance, his advocacy of an elite revolutionary party’s unique role in leading the masses. To a ruling communist party, Marxism-Leninism’s single greatest ideological value may well be in granting the secular equivalent of divine right rule through its role as the sole interpreter of “laws” of history. Karl Marx’s thoughts on social and economic justice remained enormously appealing, but it was Lenin’s ruthless pragmatism that enabled communist regimes to seize and hold onto power. Chinese communists learned from Moscow that although the content of the ideology could vary substantially, its mere existence was functionally vital to the party’s survival. It is telling that while communist regimes around the world have extensively revised their ideologies, they have been less liberal in modifying core structures, norms, and processes.This week, the superannuation industry gathered for its annual talkfest, and while these events can feel like an insider’s game, this year was different – everyday people were the real winners. The Albanese government announced some long-overdue reforms to the retirement phase of super – and the industry rallied around retirement for once. Together, the interest in, and the changes being made might actually make your life easier as you approach retirement. The changes announced this week could be good news for the size of your super balance. Credit: Simon Letch If you’re thinking, t his sounds like industry talk, not my problem , let me stop you right there. These changes are aimed squarely at solving real retirement problems for everyday Australians like you – problems you might not even realise can be fixed. For those approaching retirement in the next 10 years, there are three important shifts. Loading 1. There will be changes to the retirement products offered by super funds Let’s be honest: most Australians today won’t retire with millions in super. For the majority, it’s about piecing together enough for a comfortable life, with the pension often the largest income layer. But the media still frames retirement as a “wealth management” problem – something reserved for the super-rich. The reality? Retirement isn’t about managing millions, it’s about managing enough . That’s where the reforms announced this week get interesting. One of the government’s key focuses is making an emerging category called lifetime income streams part of everyday retirees lives – a way to turn part of your super into a steady, guaranteed paycheck for life. For people worried about outliving their savings or being too exposed to the stock market, this could be a game-changer. Currently, retirement income usually comes from two main sources: the pension, which acts as a base income and an account-based pension from your super, which many people manage conservatively, afraid to spend or take risks in retirement. This approach has its challenges. Many retirees tiptoe through their savings, afraid of running out of money. Lifetime income streams change that by introducing a third layer – a secure, guaranteed income for life. The best part? You only need to invest a portion of your super to gain this added security. For years, we’ve been told super is like a conveyor belt: money goes in, grows steadily, and pops out a nice pile of cash when you retire. Here’s how it works. The pension provides a foundation. A lifetime income stream adds a guaranteed paycheck, covering essential expenses. The rest of your super stays invested for growth, allowing you to take more risks or boost your lifestyle with confidence. For some it’s a smarter, more secure way to stretch your retirement savings. Take Anne, who’s retiring at 67 with $300,000 in super. She’s worried about spending her savings too quickly. She’ll qualify for a full age pension now – almost $30,000 for a single person; and on top she will have two income layers – a lifetime income stream which she allocated a portion of her super to at age 60, and an account-based pension. At 67, the $100,000 of lifetime income stream secures an income every year of about $7500 unconditionally for the rest of her life. The rest of her super could stay invested in growth assets, giving her the flexibility to take on riskier investments, and achieve more upside over the long term without constant fear of running out of money to live on. But here’s the kicker: it’s not really just about the products changing in the market. These products, if implemented well, are about building confidence, helping retirees feel secure enough to actually spend the money they’ve got growing in super on living a better life. The big news this week is that the government’s reforms are focused on making these products easier to understand, safer to use, and directly available through your super fund – no longer tucked away behind confusing jargon or exclusive to financial advisers. If super funds get this right, lifetime income streams could transform how Australians approach retirement over the next 10 years. 2. Retirement planning will finally get some attention For most Australians in midlife, questions about retirement start piling up: What are my goals? Have I saved enough? Will my super last? How much can I afford to spend? What happens if my health takes a turn? Lifetime income products could give you more comfort in retirement. Credit: Glenn Hunt These aren’t simple, automated decisions like super contributions during your working years. They’re messy, personal, and – let’s face it – stressful. For years, we’ve been sold the idea that superannuation is like a conveyor belt: money goes in, grows steadily, and pops out a nice pile of cash when you retire. But anyone who’s tried to navigate modern retirement knows that’s far from reality. Almost every step is clunky, complex and overwhelming. You’ve got to figure out how much you’ll need, how long your money will last, and what trade-offs to make, all without much support. Financial literacy gaps and the high cost of advice often leave ordinary Australians to fend for themselves. And with too few financial planners to go around, the “just get advice” mantra doesn’t solve the problem for everyone. This week, however, I saw a shift. The superannuation and financial advice industries are finally starting to acknowledge that retirement isn’t just about money – it’s about navigating life’s biggest transitions. It’s about understanding your options and making decisions that work for your personal circumstances. Thankfully, the government and some big super funds are stepping up. The government has committed to upgrading the MoneySmart website, our only independent, government-provided resource for tackling the complexities of retirement. The promise? Better calculators, practical projection tools, and clearer information on how super and the pension work together. Meanwhile, super funds are focusing on their own tools, encouraging members to use calculators that can boost confidence and improve drawdown strategies. In fact, they’ve found that people who take the time to learn about retirement – whether through government tools or fund-provided resources – are often better equipped to make informed, empowered decisions. For many, these tools will provide the actionable information needed to handle less complex decisions, even before seeking professional advice (if it’s needed at all). Loading But here’s the catch: while the commitment to better tools is promising, an upgraded MoneySmart website isn’t expected until 2027, which is too late for more than 450,000 retirees who will have transitioned by then. Here’s hoping it delivers when it arrives. For the first time, though, it feels like the system is starting to meet people where they are: acknowledging that retirement is deeply personal and often overwhelming. That shift alone is worth celebrating. 3. Retirement has to be a system that evolves as retirees do Retirement today is vastly different from what it will look like in a decade. People retiring now have only had super contributions at 9 per cent or higher for part of their working lives, leaving them with modest balances averaging around $250,000. But in 10 years, retirees will have had 9 per cent or more for their entire careers, resulting in average balances exceeding $500,000 – and lifestyle expectations to match. This shift will redefine retirement as we know it. Currently, retirees control about $2.4 billion of Australia’s GDP. In 10 years, that figure will skyrocket, fundamentally reshaping the way we think about retirement and its impact on the broader economy. We’re about to witness a significant transformation – and the system needs to evolve to meet the needs of both today’s retirees who will need to rely on the age pension, and those in the future who will rely on superannuation – and will need a different mix of products to secure their income. With larger balances to manage, the system is being reshaped to offer better tools and tailored products that cater to their more complex financial needs. I’m impressed. The reforms we saw this week are all about fixing the everyday frustrations that come with planning and living your retirement: Loading Tools that make complex decisions simpler. Products that give you financial security and peace of mind. A system designed to support everyone, not just those with millions in super. While some of the changes won’t arrive until 2027, the shift in focus is happening now. For the first time, it feels like the superannuation industry is listening to what people really need – and that’s a big deal. Bec Wilson is the author of the bestseller How to Have an Epic Retirement . She writes a weekly newsletter at epicretirement.net and is host of the Prime Time podcast. Advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making financial decisions. Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter . Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. License this article Retirement living Opinion Bec Wilson is the author of How To Have An Epic Retirement and writes a weekly newsletter for pre- and post-retirees at epicretirement.net. Most Viewed in Money Loading

Orca carried her dead calf for 17 days. She now has a new baby

In the summer of 2015, three Syrian girls who had narrowly survived an airstrike some weeks earlier stood before Tulsi Gabbard with horrific burns all over their bodies. Gabbard, then a US congresswoman on a visit to the Syria-Turkey border as part of her duties for the foreign affairs committee, had a question for them. “How do you know it was Bashar al-Assad or Russia that bombed you, and not Isis?’” she asked, according to Mouaz Moustafa, a Syrian activist who was translating her conversation with the girls. It was a revealing insight into Gabbard’s conspiratorial views of the conflict, and it shocked Moustafa to silence. He knew, as even the young children did, that Isis did not have jets to launch airstrikes. It was such an absurd question that he chose not to translate it because he didn’t want to upset the girls, the eldest of whom was 12. “From that point on, I’m sorry to say I was inaccurate in my translations of anything she said,” Moustafa told . “It was more like: How do I get these girls away from this devil?” Even before Gabbard left the Democratic Party, ingratiated herself with Donald Trump and secured his nomination to become director of National Intelligence, she was known as a prolific peddler of Russian propaganda. In almost every foreign conflict in which Russia had a hand, Gabbard backed Moscow and railed against the US. Her past promotion of Kremlin propaganda has provoked on both sides of the aisle to her nomination. Her journey from anti-war Democrat to Moscow-friendly Maga warrior began in Syria. The devastating conflict was sparked by pro-democracy uprisings in 2011, which were brutally crushed by the Assad regime. It descended into a complex web of factions that drew extremist Islamists from around the world and global powers into the fray. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based monitoring group with a network of sources on the ground, . It said at least 162,390 civilians had died in that same time, with the Syrian government and its allies responsible for 139,609 of those deaths. But Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq War, viewed it all as a “ ” fueled by the West and aimed at removing the dictator from power. She saw Assad – and Russia, when it entered the conflict – as legitimate defenders of the state against an extremist uprising. In 2015, when Russia entered the Syrian war on the side of the dictator Assad, Gabbard expressed support for the move, even as the civilian toll from Moscow’s devastating airstrikes . “Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911,” she wrote on Twitter. It was precisely because of her support for Assad and Russia’s war that Moustafa was keen for her to attend the congressional delegation to southern Turkey to meet the victims of the conflict. “From experience, everyone that we bring over to the border, and they see the victims, they always come back with a realistic view of what’s happening and who is behind the mass displacement and killing and atrocities and so on, and so that was the objective,” he said. “What was shocking was her lack of empathy. She’ll sacrifice the facts, even when it came to little girls in front of her telling her they got bombed by a plane – it didn’t matter.” Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who testified twice on Syria to the House Foreign Affairs Committee when Gabbard was a member, spent years debunking her various conspiracy theories about the war. “Her consistent denial of the Syrian regime’s crimes is so wildly fringe that her potential appointment as DNI is genuinely alarming,” he told . Lister said her views “appear to be driven by a strange fusion of America First isolationism and a belief in the value of autocratic and secular leaders in confronting extremism.” They included a suggestion that Syrian rebels chemical weapons attack against their supporters to provoke Western intervention against Assad — something the US intelligence agencies she will soon lead had concluded was false. She declined to call Assad a war criminal , despite masses of evidence, and used a video of Syrian government bombings to in the war. “Her descriptions of the crisis in Syria read like they were composed in Assad’s personal office, or in Tehran or Moscow – not Washington,” Lister added. Gabbard was not swayed by meeting the victims of Assad’s airstrikes in 2015. In fact, two years later, she went to Damascus to meet the Syrian president in person and came away even more convinced of her opinions. The congresswoman said her visit to meet Assad – the first by a sitting US lawmaker since the conflict began – was aimed at bringing an end to the war. “I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace,” she told CNN at the time. Gabbard was forced to defend her embrace of Assad and other dictators during her 2020 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. During the Democratic primary debate, she clashed with Kamala Harris, who accused her of being “an apologist for an individual – Assad – who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.” “She has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I’m prepared to move on,” added Harris, who would subsequently drop out of the race and later be selected as Joe Biden’s running mate. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Gabbard again found herself defending Russian aggression. “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/Nato had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns,” she posted on Twitter in 2022. Gabbard appeared to fall for various conspiracy theories about the conflict that were promoted by Russia, as she had done in Syria. One of those conspiracy theories was a Russian claim about the existence of in Ukraine that were supposedly producing deadly pathogens. She later walked back on those remarks, suggesting that there might have been some “miscommunication and misunderstanding.” Gabbard’s frequent echoing of Kremlin talking points has earned her praise in Russian state media. Indeed, an article published on 15 November in the Russian-state controlled outlet RIA Novosti went so far as to Gabbard a “superwoman.” The possibility that Trump would tap someone with Gabbard’s history to be America’s top intelligence official shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who followed the president-elect’s first four years in the White House. During his 2018 summit with President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the then-president was asked if he believed the US intelligence community’s assessment, which stated that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf. That assessment was based on analysis of what was determined to have been state-sponsored campaigns of fake social media posts and ersatz news sites to spread false stories about his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, as well as cyberattacks targeting the Democratic National Committee and prominent operatives associated with the Clinton campaign. But Trump, who’d just spent several hours in a closed-door meeting with Putin, stunned the assembled press and the entire world by declaring that he trusted the Russian leader’s word over that of his own advisers. ​​"President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be," he replied. Trump would go on to repeatedly clash with his own intelligence appointees during the remainder of his term. He sacked his first DNI, former Indiana senator Dan Coats, after Coats repeatedly declined to back away from the government’s assessment of what Russia had done during the 2016 presidential race. Larry Pfeiffer, the director of George Mason University’s Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security, said Gabbard’s apparent susceptibility to foreign disinformation and her affinity for strongmen will give pause to American allies with whom the US routinely shares intelligence on common threats. Intelligence services, he explained, are notoriously territorial and tight-lipped on sources and methods – particularly when it comes to so-called human intelligence, or Humint, which refers to information collected by and from spies and sources within hostile governments. Pfeiffer said foreign allies are likely already concerned about how a second Trump administration will handle intelligence, given the president-elect’s record. He also predicted that Gabbard’s confirmation as DNI would cause even more problems among skittish partners. “I think they wouldn’t feel like they’ve got an American confidant that they can deal with on a mature level,” he said. “I can guarantee you that the foreign intelligence services of Europe, including the Brits, are all having little side conversations right now about ... what is this going to mean, and how are we going to operate, and what are we going to do now.” The former US intelligence veteran also said Gabbard’s record of spreading foreign talking points calls into question whether she will be able to carry out the DNI’s important responsibility of briefing the president on threats to the nation. He told : “Somebody like Tulsi Gabbard, you look at her long history of statements that seem to come out of the Kremlin’s notebook, her propensity to be influenced by their viewpoint – [it] raises questions as to whether she has the ability to present the intel community’s perspective as it is, or is she going to be one who’s going to want to discount it, influence it, color and change it, or ignore it and just present her own view? “I think it also raises questions of judgement. You know, here’s an individual who seems very prone to misinformation, prone to conspiracy theory. That should worry anybody who’s worried about America’s national security,” he added. Trump’s selection of the ex-Hawaii congresswoman could be a problem for the senators tasked with confirming her, on several different levels. For one, the position is unique among cabinet agencies in that there are strict requirements for who can serve in the director’s role. The text of the 2004 law which established the ODNI in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and Washington and the intelligence community’s failures leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, specifically states that any person who serves in the DNI job “shall have extensive national security expertise.” The first person to serve as DNI, John Negroponte, was a widely respected foreign service veteran who had served as US ambassador to Iraq, Mexico, Honduras and the Philippines, as the country’s ambassador to the United Nations, and as a deputy national security adviser during the Reagan administration. The next three people to hold the office were flag-rank military officers with significant intelligence experience. Pfeiffer, a US intelligence veteran of three decades’ standing who once ran the White House Situation Room and served as chief of staff to then-CIA director General Michael Hayden, told that Gabbard’s experience in the House and her military service, while admirable, do not match the standards envisioned by the authors of the 2004 law which established the office. “That’s national security experience ... but she was a freaking military cop ... operating at a largely tactical level, not that strategic, long-term national security perspective that one would expect,” he said. Gabbard may have left the Syrian conflict behind, but Moustafa still works with its victims every day. And he believes the connection between her views on Syria and Ukraine is clear. “What happened in Syria is what allowed the Russians to feel that they could do the very same in Ukraine,” he said. “And what she is doing with Ukraine shows that it goes beyond her maybe misunderstanding one conflict. She is, hook, line and sinker, a Russian puppet.”

US troops in Syria to prevent Islamic State resurgenceUS troops in Syria to prevent Islamic State resurgence

Teen actor Hudson Meek, who appeared in ‘Baby Driver,’ dies after falling from moving vehicle

The spirit of giving falls to this time of year. We are thankful for what we do have in November and in December we look forward to giving to others. One of the ways a person can give back to others is to donate to non-profit organizations. In this article, I will discuss what to look for in a non-profit or charitable organization and next month I will discuss some of my favorite organizations and why. First, look for an organization that supports your ideals or purpose. For example, the America Red Cross, which is known for blood donations and helping during a disaster. Have you or a loved one been touched by a disaster? This might resonate with you. So, to help you understand how a charitable organization works, first we need to know what type of organization it is. The most commonly talked about are 501(c)3. However, according to donorbox.org there are thirty-two different types of tax-exempt organizations that have significant impact on our community. A nonprofit is a legal entity that is created and operated for a collective, public, or social benefit. If a corporation has applied for and has been accepted by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501 status, then the deductions are tax deductible. The most common as I said was 501(c)3 which, by definition, is a religious, charitable, scientific testing for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competitions, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. They must file 990 (type) tax returns each year. This is one area the IRS is going to look closely at in the next year and hold managing directors responsible for aligning with the rules that grant exemption from tax. The information must be disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service and be made available to the public. It must have financial transparency with the 990s and the annual reports. It should have a mission statement and be visible to all. Also, a list of board members and paid employees. The best way to analyze an organization is to look at some common variables. What is the percentage of administrative expenses? This would include the highest paid employees. For a nonprofit, the administrative expenses should not be any more than 20 percent. Figuring as well how much does it cost to raise $100. There are some great charity websites out there that will provide you with the information. Pro Publica has a great website where you can search the larger organizations. So, the take aways for the Red Cross is that the officers collectively have a salary of $859,260. It has $3.22 billion in revenue and the administrative expenses are 2 percent of that revenue. For more information, donorbox.org and https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ (Pro Publica) are great resources.