www fc188 tv
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump has identified what he sees as an all-purpose fix for what ails America: Slap huge new tariffs on foreign goods entering the United States. On Monday, Trump sent shockwaves across the nation's northern and southern borders, vowing sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada , as well as China, as soon as he takes office as part of his effort to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs. In a pair of posts on his Truth Social site, Trump railed against an influx of illegal migrants, even though southern border apprehensions have been hovering near four-year lows. He said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the country from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% tariff on goods from China, as one of his first executive orders. He said the new tariffs would remain in place "until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!" The president-elect asserts that tariffs — basically import taxes — will create more factory jobs, shrink the federal deficit, lower food prices and allow the government to subsidize childcare. Economists are generally skeptical, considering tariffs to be a mostly inefficient way for governments to raise money. They are especially alarmed by Trump's latest proposed tariffs. Carl B. Weinberg and Rubeela Farooqi, economists with High Frequency Economics said Tuesday that energy, automobiles and food supplies will be particularly hit hard. "Imposing tariffs on trade flows into the United States without first preparing alternative sources for the goods and services affected will raise the price of imported items at once," Weinberg and Farooqi wrote. "Since many of these goods are consumer goods, households will be made poorer." High Frequency Economics believes the threats are not meant to support new trade policy and are instead a tool to elicit some changes along the borders and for imports from Canada, Mexico and China. Though Vice President Kamala Harris criticized Trump's tariff threats as unserious during her failed bid for the presidency, the Biden-Harris administration retained the taxes the Trump administration imposed on $360 billion in Chinese goods. And it imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. Indeed, the United States in recent years has gradually retreated from its post-World War II role of promoting global free trade and lower tariffs. That shift has been a response to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, widely attributed to unfettered trade and an increasingly aggressive China. They are typically charged as a percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller. In the United States, tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country. The tariff rates range from passenger cars (2.5%) to golf shoes (6%). Tariffs can be lower for countries with which the United States has trade agreements. For example, most goods can move among the United States, Mexico and Canada tariff-free because of Trump's US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Trump insists that tariffs are paid for by foreign countries. In fact, its is importers — American companies — that pay tariffs, and the money goes to U.S. Treasury. Those companies, in turn, typically pass their higher costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices. That's why economists say consumers usually end up footing the bill for tariffs. Still, tariffs can hurt foreign countries by making their products pricier and harder to sell abroad. Yang Zhou, an economist at Shanghai's Fudan University, concluded in a study that Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods inflicted more than three times as much damage to the Chinese economy as they did to the U.S. economy By raising the price of imports, tariffs can protect home-grown manufacturers. They may also serve to punish foreign countries for committing unfair trade practices, like subsidizing their exporters or dumping products at unfairly low prices. Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue driver for the government. From 1790 to 1860, tariffs accounted for 90% of federal revenue, according to Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who has studied the history of trade policy. Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade grew after World War II. The government needed vastly bigger revenue streams to finance its operations. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government is expected to collect $81.4 billion in tariffs and fees. That's a trifle next to the $2.5 trillion that's expected to come from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes. Still, Trump wants to enact a budget policy that resembles what was in place in the 19th century. He has argued that tariffs on farm imports could lower food prices by aiding America's farmers. In fact, tariffs on imported food products would almost certainly send grocery prices up by reducing choices for consumers and competition for American producers. Tariffs can also be used to pressure other countries on issues that may or may not be related to trade. In 2019, for example, Trump used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on waves of Central American migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the United States. Trump even sees tariffs as a way to prevent wars. "I can do it with a phone call,'' he said at an August rally in North Carolina. If another country tries to start a war, he said he'd issue a threat: "We're going to charge you 100% tariffs. And all of a sudden, the president or prime minister or dictator or whoever the hell is running the country says to me, 'Sir, we won't go to war.' " Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They're also likely to provoke retaliation. The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China responded to Trump's trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country. A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump's tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs "neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment'' where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found. Despite Trump's 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States. Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had "negative employment impacts,'' especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports. If Trump's trade war fizzled as policy, though, it succeeded as politics. The study found that support for Trump and Republican congressional candidates rose in areas most exposed to the import tariffs — the industrial Midwest and manufacturing-heavy Southern states like North Carolina and Tennessee.
Buffalo’s Common Council on Tuesday approved paying $8.7 million to two men who spent a total of 50 years in prison for a murder before a judge threw out their conviction. The city will pay $4.35 million each to Darryl Boyd and John Walker, both 65, who were convicted as teenagers of murdering and robbing William Crawford, 62, outside his home on Fillmore Avenue in 1976. Darryl A. Boyd, left, and John H. Walker, shown in a Buffalo News file photo, each served 20-plus years in prison for a 1976 murder they say they did not commit. A judge set aside the convictions in 2021. The Buffalo Common Council approved $4.35 million payments to each of them on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2024 to settle their wrongful arrest lawsuits against the city. Buffalo is considering paying $4.35 million each to Darryl A. Boyd and John H. Walker, who were imprisoned for nearly three decades for a murder they say they did not commit. Council members approved the payments Tuesday afternoon to settle wrongful arrest lawsuits that Walker and Boyd filed in federal court. Crawford was found beaten to death on Jan. 3, 1976. Boyd and Walker were both 16 when police arrested them. They were convicted of murder in jury trials in 1977, but for decades they insisted they did not kill Crawford. In 2021, State Supreme Court Judge Christopher Burns overturned their convictions, citing errors by defense attorneys. Boyd spent 28 years in state prison and Walker 22 years. "The payout is not indicative of what these men have suffered," Council Member Rasheed Wyatt said of the settlements. "Typically individuals who are incarcerated wrongly will get $1 million per year. This is far from that. They lost their lives, family, people have passed on." "The $4 million we are paying is what the city can afford. But certainly not what we would have liked to. They deserve more. But unfortunately because of our finances, we are limited. I’m glad they are getting something in hopes they can piece their lives together," he said. Council Member Leah Halton-Pope said that the city will pay the $8.7 million from money in its legal settlements fund, police and fire pension fund, and a fund used to pay for fuel costs. In 2022, Boyd and Walker sued Buffalo and Erie County, accusing city police and the district attorney’s office of wrongful arrest and prosecution. Homicide detectives ignored strong evidence that implicated an adult neighbor of Crawford in the murder, and instead used false evidence and trickery to build a case against Walker and Boyd, their attorney, Joel Rudin, alleged. The Buffalo News reported on Nov. 15 that city officials were considering settling their lawsuits . “Our clients’ lawsuits against Erie County continue in federal court,” Rudin told The News last week. In all, the Council approved nearly $10 million in settlements of lawsuits on Tuesday, including these: John H. Walker, who served an entire 21-year murder sentence in state prison for a crime he didn't commit, reacts to the news that a State Supreme Court justice has reversed his conviction. He and other members of the "Buffalo Five" who have always asserted their innocence and have fought since their release to clear their names. $500,000 for officer's crash The city will pay $500,000 to Jyirah C. Bailey , who was injured in a police officer’s 2020 crash that left another woman a quadriplegic. Bailey was injured when Officer Branden Lowe was driving almost 80 mph on Main Street while responding to a 911 call about a domestic dispute and he struck Bailey’s vehicle. Lowe then careened onto the sidewalk, hitting a utility pole and two pedestrians – Chelsea Ellis and her friend, Karley Mueller. The city previously agreed to pay $43 million to Ellis, who became a quadriplegic, and $325,000 to Mueller, who was seriously injured. $270,000 for garbage truck accident The committee approved a $270,000 settlement for Kevin M. Osborne, of Buffalo, who suffered serious injuries when a city sanitation truck backed into his car in August 2020. Osborne’s Jeep was stopped on Abbott Road when city employee Tera Whiteside backed a garbage truck into the rear of Osborne’s vehicle, according to his lawsuit. Get Government & Politics updates in your inbox! Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter. News reporter, Watchdog Team {{description}} Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.NoneBOSTON (AP) — Two men, including a dual Iranian American citizen, have been arrested on charges that they exported sensitive technology to Iran that was used in a drone attack in Jordan that killed three American troops early this year and injured dozens of other service members, the Justice Department said Monday. The pair were arrested after FBI specialists who analyzed the drone traced the navigation system to an Iranian company operated by one of the defendants, who relied on technology funneled from the U.S. by his alleged co-conspirator, officials said. “We often cite hypothetical risk when we talk about the dangers of American technology getting into dangerous hands,” said U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy, the top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts. “Unfortunately, in this situation, we are not speculating.” The defendants were identified as Mahdi Mohammad Sadeghi, who prosecutors say works at a Massachusetts-based semiconductor company, and Mohammad Abedininajafabadi, who was arrested Monday in Italy as the Justice Department seeks his extradition to Massachusetts. Prosecutors allege that Abedininajafabadi, who also uses the surname Adedini and operates an Iranian company that manufactures navigation systems for drones, has connections to Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. They allege that he conspired with Sadeghi to circumvent American export control laws, including through a front company in Switzerland, and procure sensitive technology into Iran. Both men are charged with export control violations, and Abedini separately faces charges of conspiring to provide material support to Iran. A lawyer for Sadeghi, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was arrested Monday in Massachusetts, did not immediately return an email seeking comment. U.S. officials blamed the January attack on the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias that includes Kataib Hezbollah. Three Georgia soldiers — Sgt. William Jerome Rivers of Carrollton, Sgt. Breonna Moffett of Savannah and Sgt. Kennedy Sanders of Waycross — were killed in the Jan. 28 drone attack on a U.S. outpost in northeastern Jordan called Tower 22. In the attack, the one-way attack drone may have been mistaken for a U.S. drone that was expected to return back to the logistics base about the same time and was not shot down. Instead, it crashed into living quarters, killing the three soldiers and injuring more than 40. Tower 22 held about 350 U.S. military personnel at the time. It is strategically located between Jordan and Syria, only 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the Iraqi border, and in the months just after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, and Israel’s blistering response in Gaza, Iranian-backed militias intensified their attacks on U.S. military locations in the region. Following the attack, the U.S. launched a huge counterstrike against 85 sites in Iraq and Syria used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Iranian-backed militia and bolstered Tower 22’s defenses. ____ Tucker and Copp reported from Washington. Steve Leblanc, Eric Tucker And Tara Copp, The Associated Press
I t was around 1am when I discovered my impostor was watching me. I was sitting up in bed, scrolling on my phone through the list of people who had viewed my Instagram story. The audience was the same as it always was: friends, family and a smattering of followers I had picked up over the years. But a tug from my subconscious told me, this time, something was wrong. I scrolled back up and there it was: an account I had never seen before. Their profile photo was a selfie I had taken in a bookshop basement years ago. Have you ever walked by an unexpected mirror and jumped at your own reflection? That’s how it felt as I stared back at myself, unnerved by my sudden appearance. I brought the screen close to my face. The photo was old, from 2016, but it was a day I remembered well. I had just handed in my university dissertation and I was enjoying my newfound freedom. I had been ambling through Cardiff and had taken a snapshot in a mirror to mark the moment. My gold iPhone 5 looked tiny in my hand and I was wearing my favourite flannel shirt. These were familiar fragments of my life back then. Now, someone had seemingly come along and picked them up out of the bin. Was it just a glitch? A strange Meta mess-up that would reset if I clicked on their account? I would feel silly but relieved, then settle into bed with the world returned to how it was. But when I visited their page the image remained. According to Instagram, it now belonged to someone named Paweł Sibilski. Paweł had 691 followers and he was following more than 2,600 people. I couldn’t see who they were, or the four posts he had shared, because his profile was private. In his bio, written in Polish, he described himself as a developer and investor. There was a Facebook link beneath it. I tapped it with a curiosity that swelled into horror. Paweł’s Facebook was like a shrine devoted to my face. His profile photo was a selfie I had taken outside a pub in 2018. His cover photo, directly above it, was a shot of me wearing a hoodie on a frosty day in 2016. There was another photo where I was mid-expression, my hair blown sideways; I couldn’t even remember when that was taken. It was like watching footage of myself sleepwalking; there I was, all over his account, with no memory of how I got there. Panic set in. The account was mostly private, but I pieced together what I could. Every photo (besides a stock image of an empty bar) was a different closeup of me. Paweł had been uploading them since 2020, but they spanned almost a decade of my life. Hundreds of people had liked and commented on them, and Paweł had humbly thanked them. He was incredibly popular, with 4,600 Facebook friends (about six times more than I have on my own account) – and he had spent the last four years convincing them that he was really me. I thought of the hapless hero in Dostoevsky’s novel The Double, when Golyadkin encounters his beguiling doppelganger. The duplicate charms his way into Golyadkin’s life, wins over his colleagues and friends, and eventually replaces him. Golyadkin later loses grip of his identity and has a severe mental breakdown. I know this story because it was the subject of my dissertation, the same one I had handed in before taking that bookshop selfie. Did my impostor somehow know this? Had he read the book as well? What else were we sharing that I had once thought belonged only to me? Paweł’s Facebook account had a longer bio, again written in Polish. I used Google to translate the top line. “Bądź Zawsze Sobą,” it read. “Always be yourself.” I couldn’t decide if it was comical or violating. I was concerned, but also weirdly flattered. I couldn’t help feeling slightly buoyed up by the fact that I had been selected; that my photos were considered worth stealing. But who was Paweł, why had he chosen me and what had he done with my identity? M y impostor was more protective of my personal details than I had been in my online life. In order to see what else he had hijacked, I had to become his Facebook friend. A fresh wave of paranoia made me wonder if we were already connected. I rushed back to my private account and scanned my friends list. How well did I really know these people? In recent months I had tightened my social media security, but in the past I had recklessly accepted all requests. I’d had the same Facebook account for over 15 years, and Paweł had clearly been watching me for about half a decade. I tried to view my profile as one of my current 800 “friends” would see it. They would know the names of my family and pets, where I studied, where I worked, where my parents were buried, what my childhood looked like, where I lived, the places I had been and the places I was likely to visit again. It was a fraudster’s cheat sheet, a stalker’s dream. Paweł was accepting compliments about my face beneath my reproduced photos and passing them off as his own. He was clearly a crafty catfish, an online con artist who takes someone else’s images and pretends to be them to deceive others. I decided to give him the same treatment; I would make a fake account and try to catfish my own impostor. Creating an alias was harder than I expected. I didn’t want to use a name that might belong to a real person, but the pseudonyms I came up with sounded ridiculous, like badly written 1950s detectives: would you accept a friend request from Eric Pistachio or Dirk Avalanche? I ended up using my middle name followed by the first syllable of my mother’s maiden name. I typed “cartoon character” into Google and used a popular result as my profile photo: an image of the anime ninja Naruto. For a cover photo I went with a generic woodland. It was as easy as that: a fake name and a fake face, made real by the internet. Facebook suggested some strangers I should add, so I sent them all requests to make me look more legitimate. I was surprised when dozens immediately accepted. How easily they had just let a catfish into their lives. I clicked on some of their profiles: family photos, career updates and tagged locations – I had access to the lot. I sent Paweł a friend request. It felt sticky and horrible, as if I was betraying myself and playing into his game. Here I was, dressed as a cartoon character while I asked a stranger for permission to look at myself. Everything was out of sync. I closed my laptop, laid down in bed and tried not to think about Golyadkin. The next morning I had 89 new friends, but Paweł wasn’t among them. He had either rejected or ignored my request. Had he somehow seen right through it? In a normal state I would have waited but I was too agitated for patience. I started drafting a message under my pseudonym. It was confrontational, so I dialled it back. I wanted answers, not to scare him off. I told him my name was Andrew, and that I knew he was using my photos, but I said I was more curious than annoyed and simply had some questions. I took a breath and clicked send. “This account can’t receive your message because they don’t allow new message requests from everyone.” I had stooped to the level of a catfish for nothing. In frustration I copied and pasted my message beneath one of his (my) photos. I took screenshots of his accounts and posted them to my Instagram story, to warn my friends and family. Then I took a selfie and pointed accusingly at the camera. My finger loomed large, close to the lens; on the tip I wrote, “Get your own face, Paweł.” My followers reacted just like I had, with a mix of shock and laughter. It was surreal but funny, wasn’t it? A troubling sort of compliment. I had so many messages that I almost missed one. It was sent in such a frantic state it was missing proper punctuation. “Hey do we know each other? Where do you know me from?” it read. It was Paweł. The fake innocence riled me up, along with the subtle accusation that I was somehow bothering him . He had a new profile photo now, a stock image of a silhouetted concert crowd. I told him who I was and that I wanted answers. He read this straight away and then the chat went dead for 12 minutes. “I think it’s only fair, don’t you?” I followed up. “You have been using my photos for many years without my knowledge and befriending lots of people posing as me. All I’m asking for is an explanation.” He started to type. He typed for a long time. The three dots promised some sort of closure, but his response when it came was disjointed and confusing – eight lines long without any full stops. Paweł later revealed he was translating everything I’d said into his native Polish, and I sensed he was also panicking. So I slowed down and asked him very basic questions. “Would you be happy to share your real name, or your age or general location?” “I’m a bit ashamed,” he replied, and seemed to mean it. He typed like an embarrassed child who had been caught stealing sweets. “How old are you?” I tried again. “I’m assuming you’re a man?” “Yes, that’s right, I’m a man. I gave my age as 25 – I’m generally a bit older.” “How much older than 25?” He was being coy, but I felt as if I was getting somewhere. The chat went silent again for a few minutes. “I live in Warsaw. I’m 42 years old, I have a wife, two children and, as you can see, a double personality.” I reeled back. I had assumed he was a young loner, not a family man. I imagined him now, messaging me while his kids played nearby. It creeped me out again. I tried to keep my questions straightforward and calm, so I didn’t scare him into silence, and slowly he began to reveal what he had done with my identity. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Paweł said he initially created the account because he wanted to make money. He had some sort of scheme I didn’t understand, but it involved selling products. He needed a photo of someone “handsome” to lure customers in. He had found me by chance as a Google result because of an old article I had written; then he had tracked down my social media. He had used my face because he thought no one would recognise it. “Pretty boy not very popular,” he wrote. “You are not a celebrity, you are not famous.” I was now being negged by my impostor. Paweł failed to make money from the account, but somewhere along the line he started to enjoy logging in as me. “I could be free. I wasn’t afraid of anyone,” he wrote. I almost felt sorry for him as he explained how he would come home from a tough, physical job, start drinking alcohol and slip into his online identity. “Then I opened up – I was you,” he wrote. “I could feel like someone else for a moment and express my opinion without fear of persecution.” This made me incredibly nervous. “What sort of opinions did you express using my profile photo?” “Generally you got nice opinions,” he said, as if he was unable to separate the two of us in his mind. The exception, he said, would be in talking to “someone, mainly a woman, who overdid it with plastic surgery. Then I wrote honestly that she was ruining her appearance, and because you are so handsome, they wondered if they were doing the right thing.” I felt a pang of helpless shock. Paweł was dressing up as me and haranguing women. I had viewed him as a low-risk fantasist, but he clearly had a cruel streak. Over the following days we continued to message, and Paweł’s revelations became more sinister. “Most girls wanted to have sex with you,” he wrote. “I also got some nude photos and videos, it was so nice.” He said he had used the account to start simultaneous romantic relationships with women who all thought they were talking to me. These lasted for up to six months at a time and ended only because Paweł refused to meet them in person. He said he still had their videos saved in a personal archive. “Did you feel bad that the people sending you nude images thought they were sending them to someone else?” I asked in disbelief, trying not to let my anger show. “Honestly I didn’t think about it, I was amused by the fact that they were so naive,” he wrote. “Maybe something is wrong with my psyche?” I had thought I was the main casualty of Paweł’s deception, but now it was clear that the real victims were the women he had tricked. I felt sickened that he had involved me in this. I asked if his wife knew. He said she almost caught him on the fake account once, but he convinced her it belonged to a friend. She had no idea about his second life and the string of women he had manipulated. “I feel guilty,” Paweł wrote. “It’s good you caught me because I wanted to end it for a long time, thank you.” “Were you worried about being found out?” I asked. “I have done nothing wrong to anyone. On the contrary, [as] you see for yourself, so many years and no one has reported me or anything,” he wrote, having recovered from his short-lived shame. “Can I still have your account for a while as you?” He claimed he was using the catfish account for “good” and acting as a “psychologist” for the people he had tricked, because he talked them through their problems. This just made them sound all the more vulnerable, and his actions all the more despicable. “I would like you to tell anyone you are still speaking to that you are not really me, and to close the account,” I wrote back. “OK, I will do that,” he replied finally. P aweł later told me he had deleted the profile, but I could see it was still intact. He had simply removed my images, leaving empty templates ready to be filled again. At one point Paweł unashamedly liked all of my recent Instagram photos. Part of me feared he had saved them for future use, then I remembered something he had said about AI being so convincing these days that you could use that to make a fake account instead. This was hardly reassuring. I asked Paweł if he would put me in touch with the women he had tricked. I didn’t know what I would say to them even if he agreed; I suppose I just wanted to check they were OK. He ignored this request, then eventually said he didn’t want them to know the truth. Without his help it was impossible to track them down; his friends and followers lists were still private. Even if I somehow gained access, he had amassed thousands of connections; I had no idea which of them, or how many, he had manipulated. I tried to shut Paweł’s account down by reporting it to Meta. I received an automatic response in seconds that said his profile didn’t go against their community standards so they wouldn’t remove it. I emailed Facebook support and tried Meta’s press office, asking about their stance on catfishing and what it would take to remove a fake account, but I received no response. I emailed the Metropolitan police, who advised me to report what had happened, but they told me they weren’t sure where it would sit as a criminal case because the impostor seemingly lived in Poland. It felt as if there was nothing I could do to stop him. I asked Paweł if he had a final comment about his actions. “That’s how it is in life – we don’t always do everything as it should be, it’s important to admit the mistake and change for the better,” he wrote. “I’m busy with work now and I got bored of pretending to be someone else.” Who knows if this, or anything he told me, was true. His Facebook account is still online. For years Paweł secretly followed me; now our roles have been reversed. I find myself occasionally searching his name and keeping tabs on his page, making sure those images are still empty and not filled in with updated photos of my face, or that of someone else completely oblivious to his deception.Apogee Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ:APOG) Shares Sold by Quest Partners LLCNone
What to know about ceasefire deal between Israel and Lebanon’s HezbollahGov Eno presents N955bn budget to Akwa Ibom Assembly
San Francisco, Dec 12 (AP) Apple is pumping more artificial intelligence into the latest iPhones during the holiday shopping season with a free software update that includes a feature that enables users to create customised emojis within a matter of seconds. The Wednesday release of the iPhone's upgraded operating system, iOS 18.2, extends Apple's expansion into AI months after rivals such as Samsung and Google began implanting the revolutionary technology on their devices. The update builds upon another one that came out in late October to usher in the AI era for Apple and the iPhone, as well as for the iPad and Mac. Also Read | Syria News Update: Militants Lift Curfew in Damascus, Urge Residents To Return to Work. The latest round of AI tricks includes “Genmojis,” Apple's description for emojis that iPhone users will be able to ask the technology to create and then share. Apple says it is placing some limits its AI's emoji artistry to prevent the distribution of violent or hateful imagery. Other features include an “Image Playground” for a variety of AI-styled illustrations, writing tools and options for summarizing emails. The technology won't work on iPhones that Apple made before 2023 because it requires a special processor that isn't in older models. The AI will work on the iPhone 16 line-up that came out in September and the premium iPhone 15 models released last year. Also Read | US President Joe Biden Approves National Security Memo on China, Iran, North Korea and Russia Ahead of President-Elect Donald Trump's Return. That exclusivity is expected to propel a cycle of iPhone upgrades during the current holiday shopping season into next year, driving up Apple's profit even higher from the USD94 billion that the Cupertino, California, company pocketed in its last fiscal year ending in September. That expectation is the main reason Apple's stock price has climbed by about 30 per cent so far this year to push the company's market value closer to the USD4 trillion threshold for the first time. Apple is broadening the AI suite's appeal by including English versions tailored for Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK that are included in the latest software update. Although the iPhone's AI is similar to many of the features that have already been available from other companies, Apple is taking a slightly different approach to the technology in an effort to stand out from the rest of pack. It is emphasizing its ongoing commitment to protecting iPhone users' privacy by processing most of its AI on the device itself or corralling it in a secured data center. Users seeking more AI wizardry than the device or the special data centre can handle will have the option to reach out to the popular ChatGPT technology made by OpenAI, which has forged a partnership with Apple. (AP) (This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)
Sir Keir Starmer has been warned by a trade union not to impose “blunt headcount targets” for the size of the Civil Service but Government sources insisted there would be no set limit, although the number “cannot keep growing”. Departments have been ordered to find 5% “efficiency savings” as part of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spending review, potentially putting jobs at risk. The size of the Civil Service has increased from a low of around 384,000 in mid-2016, and the Tories went into the general election promising to reduce numbers by 70,000 to fund extra defence spending. Any reduction under Labour would be more modest, with the Guardian reporting more than 10,000 jobs could be lost. A Government spokesman said: “Under our plan for change, we are making sure every part of government is delivering on working people’s priorities — delivering growth, putting more money in people’s pockets, getting the NHS back on its feet, rebuilding Britain and securing our borders in a decade of national renewal. “We are committed to making the Civil Service more efficient and effective, with bold measures to improve skills and harness new technologies.” Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect trade union said: “We need a clear plan for the future of the civil service that goes beyond the blunt headcount targets that have failed in the past. “This plan needs to be developed in partnership with civil servants and their unions, and we look forward to deeper engagement with the government in the coming months.” A Government source said: “The number of civil servants cannot keep growing. “But we will not set an arbitrary cap. “The last government tried that and ended up spending loads on more expensive consultants.” The Government is already risking a confrontation with unions over proposals to limit pay rises for more than a million public servants to 2.8%, a figure only just over the projected 2.6% rate of inflation next year. Unions representing teachers, doctors and nurses have condemned the proposals. In the face of the union backlash, Downing Street said the public sector must improve productivity to justify real-terms pay increases. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “It’s vital that pay awards are fair for both taxpayers and workers.” Asked whether higher pay settlements to staff would mean departmental cuts elsewhere, the spokesman said: “Real-terms pay increases must be matched by productivity gains and departments will only be able to fund pay awards above inflation over the medium-term if they become more productive and workforces become more productive.” TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: “It’s hard to see how you address the crisis in our services without meaningful pay rises. “And it’s hard to see how services cut to the bone by 14 years of Tory government will find significant cash savings. “The Government must now engage unions and the millions of public sector workers we represent in a serious conversation about public service reform and delivery.”WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump has identified what he sees as an all-purpose fix for what ails America: Slap huge new tariffs on foreign goods entering the United States. On Monday, Trump sent shockwaves across the nation's northern and southern borders, vowing sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada , as well as China, as soon as he takes office as part of his effort to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs. In a pair of posts on his Truth Social site, Trump railed against an influx of illegal migrants, even though southern border apprehensions have been hovering near four-year lows. He said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the country from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% tariff on goods from China, as one of his first executive orders. He said the new tariffs would remain in place "until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!" The president-elect asserts that tariffs — basically import taxes — will create more factory jobs, shrink the federal deficit, lower food prices and allow the government to subsidize childcare. Economists are generally skeptical, considering tariffs to be a mostly inefficient way for governments to raise money. They are especially alarmed by Trump's latest proposed tariffs. Carl B. Weinberg and Rubeela Farooqi, economists with High Frequency Economics said Tuesday that energy, automobiles and food supplies will be particularly hit hard. "Imposing tariffs on trade flows into the United States without first preparing alternative sources for the goods and services affected will raise the price of imported items at once," Weinberg and Farooqi wrote. "Since many of these goods are consumer goods, households will be made poorer." High Frequency Economics believes the threats are not meant to support new trade policy and are instead a tool to elicit some changes along the borders and for imports from Canada, Mexico and China. Though Vice President Kamala Harris criticized Trump's tariff threats as unserious during her failed bid for the presidency, the Biden-Harris administration retained the taxes the Trump administration imposed on $360 billion in Chinese goods. And it imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. Indeed, the United States in recent years has gradually retreated from its post-World War II role of promoting global free trade and lower tariffs. That shift has been a response to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, widely attributed to unfettered trade and an increasingly aggressive China. They are typically charged as a percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller. In the United States, tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country. The tariff rates range from passenger cars (2.5%) to golf shoes (6%). Tariffs can be lower for countries with which the United States has trade agreements. For example, most goods can move among the United States, Mexico and Canada tariff-free because of Trump's US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Trump insists that tariffs are paid for by foreign countries. In fact, its is importers — American companies — that pay tariffs, and the money goes to U.S. Treasury. Those companies, in turn, typically pass their higher costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices. That's why economists say consumers usually end up footing the bill for tariffs. Still, tariffs can hurt foreign countries by making their products pricier and harder to sell abroad. Yang Zhou, an economist at Shanghai's Fudan University, concluded in a study that Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods inflicted more than three times as much damage to the Chinese economy as they did to the U.S. economy By raising the price of imports, tariffs can protect home-grown manufacturers. They may also serve to punish foreign countries for committing unfair trade practices, like subsidizing their exporters or dumping products at unfairly low prices. Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue driver for the government. From 1790 to 1860, tariffs accounted for 90% of federal revenue, according to Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who has studied the history of trade policy. Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade grew after World War II. The government needed vastly bigger revenue streams to finance its operations. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government is expected to collect $81.4 billion in tariffs and fees. That's a trifle next to the $2.5 trillion that's expected to come from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes. Still, Trump wants to enact a budget policy that resembles what was in place in the 19th century. He has argued that tariffs on farm imports could lower food prices by aiding America's farmers. In fact, tariffs on imported food products would almost certainly send grocery prices up by reducing choices for consumers and competition for American producers. Tariffs can also be used to pressure other countries on issues that may or may not be related to trade. In 2019, for example, Trump used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on waves of Central American migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the United States. Trump even sees tariffs as a way to prevent wars. "I can do it with a phone call,'' he said at an August rally in North Carolina. If another country tries to start a war, he said he'd issue a threat: "We're going to charge you 100% tariffs. And all of a sudden, the president or prime minister or dictator or whoever the hell is running the country says to me, 'Sir, we won't go to war.' " Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They're also likely to provoke retaliation. The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China responded to Trump's trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country. A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump's tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs "neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment'' where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found. Despite Trump's 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States. Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had "negative employment impacts,'' especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports. If Trump's trade war fizzled as policy, though, it succeeded as politics. The study found that support for Trump and Republican congressional candidates rose in areas most exposed to the import tariffs — the industrial Midwest and manufacturing-heavy Southern states like North Carolina and Tennessee.None
Ocean Power Technologies Announces Financial Results for Second Quarter Fiscal 2025EastEnders’ Shona McGarty teases soap return to save Bianca and Sonia from killer psycho Reiss for 40th anniversary
AAI Recruitment 2024: Apply For 197 Vacancies By December 25
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" Thanks for your interest in Kalkine Media's content! To continue reading, please log in to your account or create your free account with us.Calls for government to legalise 'natural Valium' after King's encounter with ceremonial calming drink during trip to SamoaInternational conference in Venezuela agrees to mobilise global movement against fascism
NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump used his image as a successful New York businessman to become a celebrity, a reality television star and eventually the president. Now he will get to revel in one of the most visible symbols of success in the city when he rings the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday as he's also named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. Trump is expected to be on Wall Street to mark the ceremonial start of the day's trading, according to four people with knowledge of his plans. He will also be announced Thursday as Time's 2024 Person of the Year , according to a person familiar with the selection. The people who confirmed the stock exchange appearance and Time award were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. It will be a notable moment of twin recognitions for Trump, a born-and-bred New Yorker who at times has treated the stock market as a measure of public approval and has long-prized signifiers of his success in New York's business world and his appearances on the covers of magazines — especially Time. Trump was named the magazine's Person of the Year in 2016, when he was first elected to the White House. He had already been listed as a finalist for this year's award alongside Vice President Kamala Harris, X owner Elon Musk, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kate, the Princess of Wales. Time declined to confirm the selection ahead of Thursday morning's announcement. “Time does not comment on its annual choice for Person of the Year prior to publication,” a spokesperson for the magazine said Wednesday. The ringing of the bell is a powerful symbol of U.S. capitalism — and a good New York photo opportunity at that. Despite his decades as a New York businessman, Trump has never done it before. It was unclear whether Trump, a Republican, would meet with New York's embattled mayor, Democrat Eric Adams , who has warmed to Trump and has not ruled out changing his political party. Adams has been charged with federal corruption crimes and accused of selling influence to foreign nationals; he has denied wrongdoing. Trump himself was once a symbol of New York, but he gave up living full-time in his namesake Trump Tower in Manhattan and moved to Florida after leaving the White House. CNN first reported Wednesday Trump’s visit to the stock exchange and Politico reported that Trump was expected to be unveiled as Time's Person of the Year. The stock exchange regularly invites celebrities and business leaders to participate in the ceremonial opening and closing of trading. During Trump’s first term, his wife, Melania Trump, rang the bell to promote her “Be Best” initiative on children’s well-being. Last year, Time CEO Jessica Sibley rang the opening bell to unveil the magazine's 2023 Person of the Year: Taylor Swift . After the Nov. 5 election, the S&P 500 rallied 2.5% for its best day in nearly two years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged 1,508 points, or 3.6%, while the Nasdaq composite jumped 3%. All three indexes topped records they had set in recent weeks. The U.S. stock market has historically tended to rise regardless of which party wins the White House, with Democrats scoring bigger average gains since 1945. But Republican control could mean big shifts in the winning and losing industries underneath the surface, and investors are adding to bets built earlier on what the higher tariffs, lower tax rates and lighter regulation that Trump favors will mean. Trump has long courted the business community based on his own status as a wealthy real estate developer who gained additional fame as the star of the TV show “The Apprentice” in which competitors tried to impress him with their business skills. He won the election in part by tapping into Americans' deep anxieties about an economy that seemed unable to meet the needs of the middle class. The larger business community has applauded his promises to reduce corporate taxes and cut regulations. But there are also concerns about his stated plans to impose broad tariffs and possibly target companies that he sees as not aligning with his own political interests. Trump spends the bulk of his time at his Florida home but was in New York for weeks this spring during his hush money trial there. He was convicted, but his lawyers are pushing for the case to be thrown out in light of his election. While he spent hours in a Manhattan courthouse every day during his criminal trial, Trump took his presidential campaign to the streets of the heavily Democratic city, holding a rally in the Bronx and popping up at settings for working-class New Yorkers: a bodega, a construction site and a firehouse. Trump returned to the city in September to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at his Manhattan tower and again in the final stretch of the presidential campaign when he held a rally at Madison Square Garden that drew immediate blowback as speakers made rude and racist insults and incendiary remarks . At the stock exchange, the ringing of the bell has been a tradition since the 1800s. The first guest to do it was a 10-year-old boy named Leonard Ross, in 1956, who won a quiz show answering questions about the stock market. Many times, companies listing on the exchange would ring the bell at 9:30 a.m. to commemorate their initial offerings as trading began. But the appearances have become an important marker of culture and politics -- something that Trump hopes to seize as he’s promised historic levels of economic growth. The anti-apartheid advocate and South African President Nelson Mandela rang the bell, as has Hollywood star Sylvester Stallone with his castmates from the film “The Expendables.” So, too, have the actors Robert Downey Jr. and Jeremy Renner for an “Avengers” movie and the Olympians Michael Phelps and Natalie Coughlin. In 1985, Ronald Reagan became the first sitting U.S. president to ring the bell. “With tax reform and budget control, our economy will be free to expand to its full potential, driving the bears back into permanent hibernation,” Reagan said at the time. “We’re going to turn the bull loose.” The crowd of traders on the floor chanted, “Ronnie! Ronnie! Ronnie!” The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed in 1985 and 1986, but it suffered a decline in October 1987 in an event known as “Black Monday.” Long reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.
The average rate on a 30-year mortgage in the U.S. edged closer to 7% this week, climbing to its highest level since July. The rate rose to 6.84% from 6.78% last week, mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday. That’s still down from a year ago, when the rate averaged 7.29%. Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, popular with homeowners seeking to refinance their home loan to a lower rate, also ticked up this week. The average rate rose to 6.02% from 5.99% last week. A year ago, it averaged 6.67%, Freddie Mac said. When mortgage rates increase they can add hundreds of dollars a month in costs for borrowers, reducing homebuyers’ purchasing power at a time when home prices remain near all-time highs, even though U.S. home sales are on track for their worst year since 1995. The average rate on a 30-year mortgage fell to a two-year low of 6.08% in late September but it’s been mostly rising since then, echoing moves in the 10-year Treasury yield, which lenders use as a guide to pricing home loans. The yield, which has mostly hovered around 4.4% since last week and was below 3.70% in September, has been rising in recent weeks following mixed reports on inflation and the economy. It also surged after the presidential election, reflecting expectations among investors that President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies may widen the federal deficit and crank up inflation. Mortgage rates slid to just above 6% in September following the Federal Reserve’s decision to cut its main interest rate for the first time in more than four years. While the central bank doesn’t set mortgage rates, its actions and the trajectory of inflation influence the moves in the 10-year Treasury yield. The central bank’s policy pivot is expected to eventually clear a path for mortgage rates to generally go lower. But that could change if the next administration’s policies send inflation into overdrive again. September's pullback in mortgage rates helped drive a pickup in sales of previously occupied U.S. homes last month. However, the recent climb in rates has put a damper on the housing market in the near term, said Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at Realtor.com. “Mortgage rates reached the high-6% range in late October, and have remained elevated since, much to the disappointment of buyers hoping to find some relief in the late-fall housing market,” she said. Forecasting the trajectory of mortgage rates is difficult, given that rates are influenced by many factors, from government spending and the economy, to geopolitical tensions and stock and bond market gyrations. Economists predict that mortgage rates will remain volatile this year, but generally forecast them to hover around 6% in 2025. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.NoneMotibhai and Company Limited Chairman and CEO, Kirit Patel last night acknowledged the “new space” that the Coalition government has given Fijians to work and live in Fiji. He made the comments at the Prime Ministers International Business Awards after the company won the Supreme Award and Mr Patel was named Executive of the Year. “This was all possible because ne of our subsidiaries The Fiji Times only excelled once the draconian media decree was once and for all abolished,” said Mr Patel. “That set the platform for our group to excel because during those years of the decree was a very challenging time and to navigate that was not easy.” “The important part of the new coalition government has given businesses, and individuals a total new space to operate and work in.” For the Supreme Award, Motibhai and Company Limited was recognised for its commercial success and excellence across multiple areas, including job creation, innovation, service excellence, social responsibility, adaptation, resilience, and skill-building to sustainably drive growth and social cohesion. For the Executive of the Year award, Mr Patel was recognised as a visionary leader who has propelled Motibhai Group to new heights. “His strategic acumen, commitment to excellence, and dedication to employee development have made him a true inspiration,” stated Investment Fiji in its citation. “Under his guidance, Motibhai has not only thrived but also made significant contributions to Fiji’s economy and society.” Investment Fiji stated Mr Patel’s passion for business growth, employee welfare, and community engagement sets him apart as a deserving recipient of the Executive of the Year Award.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has defended his decision to prevent a former Israeli politician from entering Australia arguing her presence would “seriously undermine social cohesion”. It was revealed in November that Israel’s former justice and interior minister Ayelet Shaked had been refused a visa to attend a Canberra-Jerusalem Strategic Dialogue, a decision the former right wing politician branded as a “hostile antisemitic act” and a betrayal of Australia’s relationship with Israel. But the Home Affairs Minister defended the decision to refuse the visa by pointing to public comments the right wing politician had made about the Palestinians and the conflict in Gaza. “She sought a visa to come and make public statements. That means we have to have a look at what she said previously,” Mr Burke told Sky News Australia’s Sunday Agenda. “She's no longer a minister, so she's not coming representing the government. She's wanting to come on a public speaking tour, and I have to have the exact same principles against people who would demean Palestinians that I already have and have been shown to have against people who want to demean Israelis.” “If someone's going to compare Palestinian children to snakes to call for all two million people -Palestinians in Gaza - to leave, to talk about cities being turned into soccer fields. “Yeah, I get the people who call for the deaths of terrorists, but Ms Shaked has called for the killing of the mothers who kiss them goodnight. Like, we don't need that in Australia.” Mr Burke said he was applying the same standard when rejecting the visas of people with a history of making “horrific antisemitic comments”. “I have been refusing a large number of visas ... of people who want to come here to talk about the conflict, if we think that they are going to seriously undermine social cohesion when they're here,” Minister Burke said. “Let me put it in these terms ... (if) someone had previously said they wanted all the Jews to leave Israel, I would not give them a visa. Ms Shaked has said that all the Palestinians should leave Gaza. “If somebody wanted to come here, and had previously said that they had nominated specific cities in Israel and said they should be completely levelled. I wouldn't give them a visa to come here and make speeches. Ms Shaked has said specifically that about cities in Gaza, said that one of them should become a soccer field.” “If someone previously had made comments about Israelis and had described Israelis using terms like being like an octopus or being like reptiles or something horrific like that. There's no way I'd let them in the country. Ms Shaked has compared Palestinian children to, described them as little snakes.” The Labor Minister said that if there was one comment he heard all the time from constituents it was that they “do not want the hatreds from overseas imported here”. “Whether those hatreds are demeaning of Israelis or demeaning of Palestinians, I'm going to have the exact same hard line,” he said “My view is really simple. If you're simply coming here to demean people, we can do without you.” The Australian/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) – which organised the strategic dialogue Ms Shaked was set speak at – slammed the government’s decision to refuse the visa as a “disgraceful act of hostility towards a democratic ally”. “It is not the act of a responsible government, but further evidence of the loss of perspective and principle where the primary concern seems to be shoring up votes, since the horrific terrorist attacks of October 7,” AIJAC executive director Colin Rubenstein said. But Minister Burke rejected the criticism, pointing out that if that were the case he wouldn’t have rejected all the visas of people who had said “horrific things about Israel and Israelis” "I've been completely consistent.... my responsibility as immigration minister is to listen to the security advice that we've had from the director general of ASIO - that's all been said publicly - about the threats to social cohesion," he said. “And if someone is coming for the specific purpose of a public speaking tour where they have a record of saying things that would incite discord, then (my responsibility is) protecting Australia, and that's what I've done. That's what I'll continue to do. “My obligation is a national security obligation to Australia, and I take it seriously.”Researchers highlight Nobel-winning AI breakthroughs and call for interdisciplinary innovation November 26, 2024 Carnegie Mellon University A new article examines the convergence of physics, chemistry, and AI, highlighted by recent Nobel Prizes. It traces the historical development of neural networks, emphasizing the role of interdisciplinary research in advancing AI. The authors advocate for nurturing AI-enabled polymaths to bridge the gap between theoretical advancements and practical applications, driving progress toward artificial general intelligence. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIN Email In 2024, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton for their foundational work in artificial intelligence (AI), and the Nobel Prize in chemistry went to David Baker, Demis Hassabis, and John Jumper for using AI to solve the protein-folding problem, a 50-year grand challenge problem in science. A new article, written by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Calculation Consulting, examines the convergence of physics, chemistry, and AI, highlighted by recent Nobel Prizes. It traces the historical development of neural networks, emphasizing the role of interdisciplinary research in advancing AI. The authors advocate for nurturing AI-enabled polymaths to bridge the gap between theoretical advancements and practical applications, driving progress toward artificial general intelligence. The article is published in Patterns . "With AI being recognized in connections to both physics and chemistry, practitioners of machine learning may wonder how these sciences relate to AI and how these awards might influence their work," explained Ganesh Mani, Professor of Innovation Practice and Director of Collaborative AI at Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business, who coauthored the article. "As we move forward, it is crucial to recognize the convergence of different approaches in shaping modern AI systems based on generative AI." In their article, the authors explore the historical development of neural networks. By examining the history of AI development, they contend, we can understand more thoroughly the connections among computer science, theoretical chemistry, theoretical physics, and applied mathematics. The historical perspective illuminates how foundational discoveries and inventions across these disciplines have enabled modern machine learning with artificial neural networks. Then they turn to key breakthroughs and challenges in this field, starting with Hopfield's work, and go on to explain how engineering has at times preceded scientific understanding, as is the case with the work of Jumper and Hassabis. The authors conclude with a call to action, suggesting that the rapid progress of AI across diverse sectors presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges. To bridge the gap between hype and tangible development, they say, a new generation of interdisciplinary thinkers must be cultivated. These "modern-day Leonardo da Vincis," as the authors call them, will be crucial in developing practical learning theories that can be applied immediately by engineers, propelling the field toward the ambitious goal of artificial general intelligence. This calls for a paradigm shift in how scientific inquiry and problem solving are approached, say the authors, one that embraces holistic, cross-disciplinary collaboration and learns from nature to understand nature. By breaking down silos between fields and fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity that spans multiple domains, innovative solutions can be identified to complex global challenges like climate change. Through this synthesis of diverse knowledge and perspectives, catalyzed by AI, meaningful progress can be made and the field can realize the full potential of technological aspirations. "This interdisciplinary approach is not just beneficial but essential for addressing the many complex challenges that lie ahead," suggests Charles Martin, Principal Consultant at Calculation Consulting, who coauthored the article. "We need to harness the momentum of current advancements while remaining grounded in practical realities." The authors acknowledge the contributions of Scott E. Fahlman, Professor Emeritus in Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science. Story Source: Materials provided by Carnegie Mellon University . Note: Content may be edited for style and length. Journal Reference : Cite This Page :Islamabad: The Ministry of Interior on Sunday denied the use of lethal weapon against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) protestors at D-Chowk on November 26. Ministry mentioned in it’s mentioned that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on 21 November directed the federal government to take all necessary measures to maintain law and order in the federal capital. The IHC directed the interior minister to engage with the PTI leadership in this regard. Given the sensitivity of Belarusian President and Chinese high level delegation visit, PTI was initially asked to postpone the protest but on their persistence to continue with the protest, PTI was subsequently offered Sangjhani area as a designated location. In this regard, out of the ordinary and at odd timings, meetings were also allowed between the PTI leadership and its founder. On the contrary and inspite of the extraordinary concessions extended, PTI violated the court’s orders blatantly and instead of holding protest at designated place (Sangjani), unlawfully breached entry towards the Red Zone of Islamabad. Throughout the protest march from Peshawar to Red Zone Islamabad, violent protestors of PTI aggressively engaged LEAs repeatedly using firearms and all sorts of other weaponry including steel sling shots, stun grenades, tear gas shells and nail studded batons to force their way to Red Zone Islamabad. This violent protest was primarily orchestrated and logistically & financially sustained and supported by the resources of the government of KP. Alarmingly, PTI’s protest included violent and trained miscreant elements including many illegal Afghan nationals who spearheaded the riots and violent activities throughout the march. These miscreants, employed as violent vanguard, comprised approximately 1500 hard core fighters working directly under absconder and proclaimed offender Murad Saeed. This vanguard group, using militant tactics violently attacked the LEAs and breached the blocks with the help of government machinery paving the way for the second wave of vehicles and protestors to cross. It must be noted that LEAs personnel, despite sustaining grievous injuries, exhibited a high degree of restraint against these violent protesters led by trained miscreants. During this, a vehicle also ran over Rangers personnel performing duty at a check post in Islamabad, resulting in shahadat of three Rangers soldiers and critical injuries to five. Besides, during the violent protest, one policeman embraced shahadat and 232 LEAs personnel were also grievously injured by these miscreants. This violent mob not only attacked security forces but also set multiple police vehicles on fire, showcased fire arms, burnt trees and police tents, damaged properties and created terror among the common citizens. Pakistan Army was deployed in Islamabad under Article 245 of the Constitution only to secure key government installations and foreign diplomats in the sensitive Red Zone while ensuring a secure environment for high-profile foreign dignitaries visiting the country. On 26 November, as protesting miscreants reached the Red Zone, violating the lawful orders of the IHC, the situation escalated and they directly clashed multiple times with LEAs using fire arms, tear gas shells, stun grenades, steel sling shots and nail studded batons etc. LEAs comprising Police and Rangers were employed without live ammunition to disperse this violent mob while Army neither came in direct clash with these miscreants nor employed for riot control. During this process, the armed guards of the protesting leaders and the hard core armed miscreants resorted to indiscriminate firing. The leadership under the cover of such self-induced violence instead of controlling the violent mob fled from the area. Once the area had been cleared from the violent protestors and miscreants, site media visit was also promptly undertaken by both the Information Minister and Minister for Interior followed by the press talks. Unfortunately, social media accounts of PTI resorted to planned and coordinated massive fake propaganda of deaths caused by LEAs so as to divert attention from this senseless, violent and failed activity. The major hospitals of the Capital city after due diligence rubbished reports of alleged gun shots casualties inflicted by LEAs. However, a sustained fabricated social media campaign, using old and AI generated clips is being viciously undertaken by PTI and joined by other inimical elements. There have been multiple false claims of deaths ranging from tens to hundreds to thousands on social media as well as PTI political leadership and their official pages. Alarmingly, certain elements of foreign media also fell prey to this fake news and propaganda without any credible evidence. The government functionaries including Ministers as well as Chief Commissioner ICT and senior police officials, who were directly involved in these riot control operations, have already repeatedly explained and clarified the actual situation and events unfolding with credible evidence. It may also be noted that use of lethal means by LEAs, if at all to be employed, was best suited at multiple enroute blocks rather than within Red Zone under complete media and public glare. Officers and jawans of LEAs embraced shahadat, sustained injuries and risked their lives enduring grave physical hardships for multiple days to protect the lives and properties of citizens of Pakistan. Still many jawans of Rangers and Police are critically injured and are receiving medical care. Unfortunately PTI and its social media propagandists are bent upon creating divisions and confusion within the society. Such elements, whether inside the country or abroad, will surely be held accountable under relevant laws and no one will be allowed to sow divisions, hatred and propagating fake news. It is deplorable that the Chief Minister of KP made baseless inflammatory statements against institutions, using KP Assembly as a platform to distort facts and spread blatant lies, rather than being shameful of inciting innocent youth of KP for such undesirable activities. It is concerning to note that 39 lethal weapons including 18 automatic weapons have been recovered from the violent protesters and that amongst the apprehended offenders there are more than three dozen paid aliens. With regards to material losses incurred during the violent protests, initial estimates suggest damages to the tune of hundreds of million. Besides, 11 vehicles of LEAs were damaged including prison vans set ablaze. Due to these violent protests, indirect losses to the economy are estimated to be Rs 192 billion per day. In addition to that, significant expenditure incurred on taking necessary security measures. While the plundering of the financial resources by the KP Government are separate. The people of Pakistan including the proud people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa reject this kind of violent and extremist streak of politics. They also reject the baseless allegations and malicious designs behind the vicious propaganda and the complete nation wholeheartedly stands firm with peace and stability in the country.
NoneAmbient Scientific unveils first ever AI module powered by a coin cell battery
Atlanta activist sentenced for aiding Russian propaganda efforts in the U.S.
口内クリーナー dental washer fc188-wh