ASML Deadline: ASML Investors with Losses in Excess of $100K Have Opportunity to Lead ASML Holding N.V. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Netflix signs US broadcast deal with FIFA for the Women's World Cup in 2027 and 2031None
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — A ban on New Zealanders wearing or displaying symbols of gang affiliation in public took effect on Thursday, with police officers making their first arrest for a breach of the law three minutes later. The man was driving with gang insignia displayed on the dashboard of his car and was among more than a dozen people arrested or summoned to appear in court for exhibiting such symbols since the law took force, New Zealand’s police said Friday. The prohibition on displaying gang insignia anywhere outside private homes, including on clothing or in vehicles, is among a suite of new measures intended to bolster police powers to disrupt the groups. Wearing or displaying the insignia of 35 listed gangs will now prompt a fine of up to 5,000 New Zealand dollars ($2,940) or up to six months in jail. New Zealand’s center-right government, which pledged ahead of last October’s election to tackle gang crime, says the measures will reduce the membership of groups responsible for violence and drug offenses. But detractors say the law breaches civil liberties and could drive gang activities underground. "Gangs aren’t community groups. They’re not a Rotary club," Prime Minister Christopher Luxon wrote on social media Thursday. “They thrive on destroying the lives of other New Zealanders, whether that’s by peddling drugs or through brutal acts of violence that leave communities in fear.” Under the new law, officers can also disperse public gatherings of three or more members, bar some gang affiliates from associating with each other, and enter homes of those who keep breaking the law to search for banned items. Gang membership will now be considered by the courts when sentencing offenders. Police Minister Mark Mitchell told reporters Thursday that two people were arrested hours after the law took effect for wearing gang “patches,” which are large insignia often worn by gang members on the backs of leather jackets or vests. The government says the patches are intimidating because members are required to earn them through violent acts. The measures shift New Zealand's response to gangs closer to that of neighboring Australia, which also uses a law to suppress the public visibility of gangs, and away from jurisdictions like the U.S. and Britain, which use criminal law to respond to specific activities carried out by organized crime groups, according to a report published by Treasury officials in February. Facial tattoos that display gang insignia are exempt from the ban, as is the wearing of gang colors. The government was criticized by some for not including white supremacist groups in its list of 35 organizations targeted by the new law. That means displaying swastikas and making Nazi salutes remains legal in New Zealand -– unlike in Australia, which banned both in a law that took effect in January. There are nearly 9,400 people on a New Zealand police list of known gang members. New Zealand’s population is 5 million. Successive governments have vowed to tackle criminal gangs, which often are linked to poverty and other deprivation. The previous center-left government was decried by Luxon’s administration for working with gangs on social initiatives, including COVID-19 vaccination efforts, while the current government has been denounced for advancing policies that are likely to ensnare some of New Zealand’s most marginalized groups, including Indigenous Māori. Official reports say three-quarters of those on the national gang list are Māori, who make up less than 20% of New Zealanders, and that 80% to 90% of those in two of the most notorious gangs are former wards of the state. Luxon made a formal apology this month for the widespread abuse of children and vulnerable adults in state care over the past seven decades.
Not so intelligent after all Many people believe that in future, AI will play an even more significant role in their lives If there is one phrase that seems to be dominating discussions worldwide, it has to be ‘Artificial Intelligence.’ AI has already become an essential tool for researchers, freelancers, corporations, businessmen, and countless others, helping them efficiently carry out their day-to-day tasks. Many people believe that in the future, it will play an even more significant role in their lives, providing unparalleled convenience and driving success in almost every kind of work humans engage in. It is generally viewed as a technological advancement with the potential to benefit mankind in countless ways. To a large extent, this perception may hold. AI is still in its formative stages and incapable of generating content that surpasses the quality of, say, an essay written by a grade-school student or slightly above that level. However, its potential for growth is vast, and most experts agree that advancements in AI are inevitable. But is this necessarily a good thing? AI represents the second form of intelligence, distinct from the natural intelligence that humans are born with and rely on throughout their lives. What it means for humanity to coexist with this alternative, rival, or perhaps complementary form of intelligence is a question that demands exploration and understanding. In countries like Pakistan, where there is already a significant surplus of manpower, the use of AI to replace humans in mundane and repetitive jobs – such as manning hotel receptions or operating cash tills in grocery stores – raises serious questions. Will the removal of such jobs from human workers harm society or help it in any way? One possible answer lies in equipping individuals with the knowledge and skills to use AI to their advantage. However, implementing such measures in Pakistan is fraught with challenges. For AI to truly be beneficial, education and training in its use must start at the school level, with lessons introduced as early as the primary grades. Yet, the reality of Pakistan’s education system presents significant hurdles. The country’s official literacy rate hovers just above 60 per cent, and for women, it is much lower. In practical terms, organisations working in the field of education estimate that real literacy rates are even lower, as literacy is often defined as the mere ability to sign a document or perform a basic numerical task. Moving from this point to a level where workers in factories or workshops can competently use AI would require nothing less than a complete overhaul of the existing education system. This grim reality suggests that AI could exacerbate the hardships faced by Pakistan’s impoverished population, widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. A similar argument can be made for other developing nations with comparable challenges. It is not merely about introducing AI to these societies but ensuring that it does not deepen existing inequities. In a country where unemployment rates are already high, replacing even the most basic jobs with AI could have devastating consequences for millions of families. Even in developed countries, where education levels and technological infrastructure are far superior, there are growing concerns about the potential risks of AI. Interestingly, some of the loudest warnings have come from individuals who were instrumental in developing the first AI tools. These experts argue that AI’s rollout occurred too rapidly, leaving insufficient time for a comprehensive analysis of its pros and cons. This rush was driven by intense competition among corporations and governments – a hallmark of our capitalist world. One of the most pressing concerns raised by experts is what could happen if AI surpasses human intelligence. Such a scenario, they suggest, could lead to disasters even more severe than the ongoing climate crisis. For example, there is the alarming possibility that AI systems, manipulated by malicious actors, could seize control of security systems, misuse sensitive data such as credit card information, or even shut down power grids in entire cities or countries. Such scenarios underscore the urgent need for caution and proactive measures. AI also compels us to reflect on the social and cultural changes it might bring. In today’s world, where social isolation is already a growing issue, will AI make our lives more connected or deepen our loneliness? For instance, AI’s ability to create hyper-realistic images and holograms raises profound questions. Musicians and singers, reproduced as holograms, could perform on stage with the same voice and accuracy as their human counterparts, and at a fraction of the cost. If this becomes the norm, will audiences still value live human performances? Such possibilities challenge our notions of creativity, artistry, and human uniqueness. Ethical concerns are another critical dimension of the AI debate. AI, being devoid of emotions, compassion, or empathy, operates without any moral compass. Intelligence untempered by these qualities can be a deeply unsettling prospect. The entire scenario resembles a science fiction story, eerily echoing the dystopian visions of robots and artificial beings imagined in literature long before today. Another issue to consider is how AI might redefine employment and productivity. For instance, as AI systems become more sophisticated, they could potentially eliminate not only low-skill jobs but also roles requiring mid-level expertise. This raises the question of whether AI will render certain professions obsolete and what society can do to adapt to such changes. Some argue that this will open up opportunities for new kinds of jobs, ones that we cannot yet envision. Others warn that the transition will not be smooth and will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. As humanity stands at this crossroads, we must carefully consider the path forward. The development of AI is now irreversible, much like the invention of the atom bomb. The warnings sounded at the early stages of AI’s development were largely ignored, and we now face the consequences of that oversight. The future trajectory of AI remains uncertain – it could either prove to be a transformative force for good, bringing unparalleled benefits to people around the globe, or it could pose an existential threat to humanity. The only viable course of action is to approach AI with vigilance and responsibility. Governments, corporations, and civil society must come together to establish guidelines, regulations, and ethical frameworks to ensure that AI is used in ways that enhance, rather than undermine, the well-being of humanity. Additionally, education systems around the world must adapt to prepare the next generation for a world where AI is omnipresent. Ultimately, AI is a tool, and like any tool, its impact will depend on how it is used. It has the potential to revolutionise industries, improve healthcare, and address complex global challenges. At the same time, it carries the risk of misuse and unintended consequences. The stakes could not be higher, and the time to act is now. The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor. She can be reached at: kamilahyat@hotmail.com
The Girls’ School Association has warned that Labour’s plan to charge VAT on private school fees in January could lead to fewer women growing up to have careers in male-dominated industries such as sports or physics. Beth Probert, 27, is an award-winning astrophysicist and PhD researcher at the University of Strathclyde’s Applied Space Technology Laboratory in Glasgow. Here she explains why this isn’t the case . I grew up in the countryside near Alice Holt forest in Hampshire in the south of England. That was lucky because it’s one of the darkest regions in the South. When I was a child, I spent a lot of time outside, just lying down, and staring at the stars. I was completely mesmerised by all these little lights in the sky. I’ve always been a bookworm, so I’d go and get lots of encyclopedia books to learn as much about the sky as possible. I remember giving myself minor existential crises about how big the universe was and how small we were, and just trying to wrap my child brain around that idea. We’re a speck of dust in the universe. I’ve always been fascinated. I went to a state school , and I like to think I’m doing pretty well for myself as a result. I went to Weydon School in Farnham, which is a mixed-gender science specialist school, where I had a lot of exposure to science and we had specialist labs that we received funding for. Today, I’m a PhD researcher with a background in software engineering, looking at satellite communications and automating collision avoidance between satellites. Personally, having a state school education enabled me to experience diversity in broader terms than just gender, but also in background and upbringing in socioeconomic terms, which helped me develop a stronger sense of empathy and understanding for people in circumstances different to me. I made friends with people from a much more diverse set of backgrounds. I’ve carried that with me today and the experiences I had at school have shaped me to become someone who is very passionate about diversity and inclusion in STEM. Even though my school was a specialist school for science, I definitely faced some barriers because I was a girl. I remember telling one of my teachers that I loved physics. He said: “You’d make a really great physics teacher. There’s a shortage of women physics teachers. You should think about going into teaching.” I never had any interest in teaching. I wanted to be a scientist. But I was never encouraged to consider it. Read Next I ditched healthy morning routines – and feel better than ever But that didn’t matter. Instead, the biggest inspiration for me was my upbringing. I grew up in a female-only household. My mum is one of the strongest women I know, and she’s known about my love of space and science pretty much since I was born. She has only ever encouraged me, pushed me and challenged me to go that bit further and to chase my ambition. She’s never tried to box me into anything or tell me I should aim for less. Growing up I had never seen women be limited. I think really helped me push ahead. At university, I studied astrophysics at Bath. There were around 120 people on the course, and around 20 were girls. Barely any of them went to a private school. A friend who did go to private school actually went there on a scholarship. Private education doesn’t dominate the field. Regardless of whether you send your child to a girls’ private school or a mixed-state school, I think there is a bigger problem that needs addressing. Teachers have a huge role to play in encouraging girls to pursue their dreams, whatever school they teach at. There’s so much research that shows children as young as eight have already learned gender stereotypes about what girls and boys can and can’t do. We need to start even younger than secondary school, which is probably where I had my first real exposure to learning science. If we want more girls in physics, we need to be showing girls in primary school that they are capable of anything. There was another piece of research done recently by WISE that showed that in STEM job advertisements, boys relate more to verbs. Such as “You will be programming,” or “You will be problem-solving”. On the other hand, girls respond more to adjectives that describe a person: “You are a logical thinker” or “You are creative.” To get more girls into science, rather than sending them to a private school, we need to stop talking about what scientists do in terms of complex equations and instead ask: What is a scientist like? How does a scientist think? I think a lot of girls don’t realise that they have the right personality for the job. Firstly, you have to be creative to find unique solutions. You need to be resilient because science is all about trying and failing. We assume scientists are introverted and like to work alone, but in reality, to be a good scientist you need to be a really strong communicator. You need to be able to work well with others. The programming skills can be learnt later. There is a stereotype that state schools are limiting. However, the majority of students in the UK still go to state schools and succeed. I don’t regret going to my state school, and I haven’t achieved any less for it.
