Trump announces Pam Bondi as next attorney general pick
Raghunath Mashelkar gets 50th honorary doctorateIt's no secret that the Boston Red Sox are in pursuit of multiple starting pitchers this offseason, both in free agency and on the trade market. One starting pitcher trade target has drawn more attention from teams than any other, and that is Garret Crochet of the Chicago White Sox. Crochet's market has been the source of speculation for some time, with some MLB insiders saying the White Sox's asking price continues to rise. With the Red Sox holding four top prospects that the front office and fans have little-to-no interest in trading away, what would a trade for Crochet look like? "Based on what the White Sox are saying, I think a package of (Triston) Casas, (Wilyer) Abreu and Connor Wong probably gets close to landing Crochet," wrote Jim Bowden of The Athletic. "The Red Sox could then replace Abreu with prospect Roman Anthony in right field, replace Connor Wong with Kyle Teal at catcher, move (Rafael) Devers to first base and sign either Alex Bergman or Wily Adames in free agency." Casas was formerly ranked as the Red Sox's No. 1 prospect, first debuting in September 2022. Since then, the 24-year-old has slashed .250/.357/.473 with an OPS of .830 (125 OPS+) in 222 games. Parting ways with Casas would be a polarizing decision as the first baseman has quickly become a fan favorite for his outspoken personality, his unique approach to the game, and his poise and power at the plate. The White Sox have reportedly set the asking price for any potential Crochet trade high, but if the Red Sox are not willing to part ways with one of their four coveted prospects, it could mean a very tough decision on the future of a homegrown slugger under team control until 2029. More MLB: Red Sox Reportedly Eye Signing Not One, But Two Premier Free Agent Aces
I'm all about people having the right to express themselves in virtually every way out there. It's what makes America great. Bumper stickers may be a fun way of showing who you are, what you believe in, or even a little bit of your humor, but they do not come without risks to you or your privacy. They won't usually cause accidents directly, but slapping them on your vehicle can put you at risk in unexpected ways. Local officials warn residents that displaying specific bumper stickers may put them in danger for several reasons. Privacy Stickers showing your child’s school, your partner’s hobbies, the number of relatives who served in the army, or even your political beliefs can overshare personal information that others could use against you. Sadly, we are living in a divisive time. Road Rage A bumper sticker that you find humorous may not play the same way to another driver. Others may find displays irritating, causing them to take aggressive action. Reduced Resale Value At the very least, "controversial" bumper stickers may lower the price of your vehicle. Over time, these stickers will peel and damage the paint on your ride, lowering the trade-in value. Listen, you do you. I'm just pointing out another way to look at bumper stickers that give out private information. We often aren't even aware that the risk is even there. Be you, but be safe. Local officials are asking you to reconsider these specific bumper stickers to ensure your and your family's safety on the road and at home. 16 Bumper Stickers You Should Remove From Your Car Right Now Gallery Credit: Ryan Antoinette Valenzuela
Gaming Meets Aviation! How Archer Aviation is Changing the Game
Google and the US government faced off in a federal court on Monday, as each side delivered closing arguments in a case revolving around the technology giant's alleged unfair domination of online advertising. The trial in a Virginia federal court is Google's second US antitrust case now under way as the US government tries to rein in the power of big tech. In a separate trial, a Washington judge ruled that Google's search business is an illegal monopoly, and the US Justice Department is asking that Google sell its Chrome browser business to resolve the case. The latest case, also brought by the Justice Department, focuses on ad technology for the open web -- the complex system determining which online ads people see when they surf the internet. The vast majority of websites use a trio of Google ad software products that together, leave no way for publishers to escape Google's advertising technology, the plaintiffs allege. Publishers -- including News Corp and Gannett publishing -- complain that they are locked into Google's advertising technology in order to run ads on their websites. "Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist," DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum told the court in closing arguments. Presiding judge Leonie Brinkema has said that she would deliver her opinion swiftly, as early as next month. Whatever Brinkema's judgment, the outcome will almost certainly be appealed, prolonging a process that could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. The government alleges that Google controls the auction-style system that advertisers use to purchase advertising space online. The US lawyers argue that this approach allows Google to charge higher prices to advertisers while sending less revenue to publishers such as news websites, many of which are struggling to stay in business. The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology. The government wants Google to divest parts of its ad tech business. Google dismissed the allegations as an attempt by the government to pick "winners and losers" in a diverse market. The company argues that the display ads at issue are just a small share of today's ad tech business. Google says the plaintiffs' definition of the market ignores ads that are also placed in search results, apps and social media platforms and where, taken as a whole, Google does not dominate. "The law simply does not support what the plaintiffs are arguing in this case," said Google's lawyer Karen Dunn. She warned that if Google were to lose the case, the winners would be rival tech giants such as Microsoft, Meta or Amazon, whose market share in online advertising is ascendant as Google's share is falling. The DOJ countered that it simply "does not matter" that Google is competing in the broader market for online ads. "That is a different question" than the market for ads on websites that is the target of the case, said Teitelbaum. Google also points to US legal precedent, saying arguments similar to the government's have been refuted in previous antitrust cases. Dunn also warned that forcing Google to work with rivals in its ad products would amount to government central planning that the court should reject. If the judge finds Google to be at fault, a new phase of the trial would decide how the company should comply with that conclusion. And all that could be moot if the incoming Trump administration decides to drop the case. The president-elect has been a critic of Google's, but he warned earlier this month that breaking it up could be "a very dangerous thing." arp/dwOlivia Hussey, star of the 1968 film 'Romeo and Juliet,' dies at 73
