jili 678

jili 678 East Tennessee State won its fourth straight men’s basketball game Saturday at Freedom Hall Civic Center in a contest which the Bucs dominated statistically. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.UConn 47, Umass 42Waste Connections Inc. stock falls Monday, underperforms market

For Syrians, Assad is in the past: ‘The thing we all have now is hope’It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Parents in earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.”

Netherlands Makes Historic Davis Cup Final LeapEDMONTON, Alberta — Robert Thomas did not say it explicitly. He didn’t need to. After a three-point night in the Blues’ 4-3 overtime win over the Flames on Thursday, Thomas was asked whether he had more energy or motivation the day after the Canadian national team was named for the 4 Nations Face-Off. Thomas, of course, was left off the squad. “Yeah, definitely some motivation,” Thomas said. “That’s for sure.” Despite being one of Canada’s most productive forwards across the last two seasons, Thomas was left off the roster, a decision influenced by his fractured ankle that he suffered in October that forced him to miss four weeks. But in the first game after the announcement, Thomas provided whatever the Blues needed offensively. In the first period, he tickled the inside of the post on the rush for his fourth goal of the season. In the third period, his pass to Pavel Buchnevich on the back door gave the Blues a lead. And then in overtime, Thomas received the puck from Dylan Holloway, drove wide around Flames forward Yegor Sharagovich and nearly tucked in the winner on the far post. But Thomas’ play set up Colton Parayko to poke home the rebound to win for the fourth time in the last five games. “Anytime you can get the d-man standing flat-footed, Holly makes the play happen,” Thomas said. “He drives it across the blue line. I’m coming behind him with a ton of speed. They didn’t have anyone gapped up on me, so I knew if I could make a fake and get around him, I had the speed to get to the back post.” It was the first three-point night of the season for Thomas, and the first by a Blues forward since Buchnevich in Vegas almost two months ago on Oct. 11. “I thought Thomas was the best player on the ice,” Blues coach Jim Montgomery said. “He had a goal and two assists, kept making play after play. Not only that hard play (in overtime), but it speaks to his ability and his skating ability and his strength to be able to take that puck to the two-hole — we call it the two-hole — but to the far post and create that goal when he’s played 23 minutes already.” When Thomas was on the ice at 5 on 5, the Blues held advantages in shots on goal (9-6), scoring chances (8-7), high-danger chances (6-2), expected goals (0.97-0.7) and goals (2-0). Even though Team Canada had already named Connor McDavid, Nathan MacKinnon, Sidney Crosby and Brayden Point to its roster in the summer, there could have been a role for Thomas in the bottom-six, with his general defensive responsibility, two-way play, penalty-killing experience and faceoff acumen. In the last two seasons, Thomas is eighth among Canadian forwards with 1.04 points per game. Ahead of him? McDavid, MacKinnon, Mitch Marner, Sam Reinhart, Point, Crosby and Mark Stone. All of them made Team Canada. “I’m sure he’s naturally disappointed but he’s a leader on our team,” Montgomery said. “He wears an A, and he knew this was an important game for us to keep building on what we’re trying to do. I thought he was really focused on playing the right way tonight and leading us that way.” A rare penalty Blues goaltender Jordan Binnington was issued a minor penalty for delay of game when he played the puck outside the trapezoid behind the net. Behind the goalline, goalies are not allowed to play the puck in the corners. Binnington looked like he was trying to shield the puck away from Flames forward Kevin Rooney before he touched it with his goalie stick. “I don’t know,” Binnington said. “I kind of mishandled it to allow it to get (outside) the trapezoid. I felt like their guy was coming. Tried to just sneak a touch in there, was hoping the ref didn’t see, but he saw it.” It was the first trapezoid penalty of the season, and the first since Edmonton’s Stuart Skinner was guilty of the infraction in Game 1 of the second round vs. Vancouver. Binnington racked up 36 saves, another impressive performance that came on the heels of his appointment to Team Canada. In the last six games, Binnington has a .929 save percentage and 2.14 goals against average. “We had some money on the board,” Binnington said, “so I guess we were fighting hard to pay the boys.” Full tilt Blues forward Pavel Buchnevich was not eased back into action when he returned from a lower-body injury on Thursday night. He missed two games, but then logged 20:22 of ice time vs. the Flames. “I thought he looked great,” Montgomery said. “He never once looked like his skating was hindering (him) or anything. Made a lot of plays. I played him 20 minutes because he was playing well.” Buchnevich had a goal and tied for the team high with four shots on goal, and six shot attempts. — The Blues held an optional practice on Friday afternoon in Edmonton, but defensemen Justin Faulk (upper-body) and Nick Leddy (lower-body) were two of the players on the ice. More should be known about their statuses after St. Louis holds a full morning skate Saturday morning.

Liverpool boss Arne Slot talks up ‘special player’ Mohamed Salah

LONDON — Pooches in pullovers paraded past Buckingham Palace on Saturday for a gathering of dogs in Christmas sweaters to raise funds for rescue charities. About 130 pets, and their owners, walked Saturday from St. James's Park and along the Mall, the wide boulevard that leads to the royal palace as part of the Christmas Jumper Parade. Prizes were awarded for best-dressed pets, with contenders including canine Santas, puppy elves and a French bulldog dressed in a red beret and pink jacket adorned with red bows. The event was organized by Rescue Dogs of London and Friends to raise money for charities that rehome dogs from overseas. Christmas sweater animal parades have become something of an annual tradition in London. There are more to come this year, including an event for corgis — the late Queen Elizabeth II's favorite breed — on Dec. 7 and the dachshund-friendly Hyde Park Sausage Walk on Dec 15. People are also reading... Matt Rhule, Luke Fickell both downplay postgame encounter between Fickell, Donovan Raiola Wisconsin officer grabbing Donovan Raiola's arm a 'misunderstanding,' UW police say ‘I don’t care who’s played': Nebraska’s Dana Holgorsen on personnel changes at tight end Man found dead in north Lincoln, police say Arrest made in 55-year-old cold case of Nebraska teen stabbed to death Here's how Nebraska doctors are finding 'more opportunities to save lives' from lung cancer Amie Just: Bring out the tissues — and the brooms — for Nebraska volleyball's emotional win Cover Five: With pressure rising, Matt Rhule delivers Nebraska a bowl bid in Year 2 Lincoln restaurants open on Thanksgiving Day Nebraska GOP to seek hard-right social policies in 2025 legislative session Signing Day: Meet Nebraska volleyball's five-player 2025 class Here's what Nebraska volleyball's loss to Penn State means for Huskers' Big Ten title hopes Just Askin': What is the best-case scenario for Nebraska football’s bowl destination? Driver of car dead after crash in downtown Lincoln; part of O Street closed Nebraska medical marijuana petitions ruled valid; law set to go into effect Dec. 12Union ministers Ashwini Vaishnaw, C.R. Patil, Chirag Paswan, K. Ram Mohan Naidu and Jayant Chaudhary, alongside three chief ministers — Devendra Fadnavis, Chandrababu Naidu and Revant Reddy, will join hundreds of government and business leaders from across the globe in Swiss ski resort town Davos next month for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2025. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Naidu will also be joined by his son and senior minister in his state Nara Lokesh, while Karnataka 's Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, Tamil Nadu Minister TRB Rajaa and Uttar Pradesh Minister Suresh Khanna will also be there for the five-day annual congregation of the world's rich and powerful, starting January 20, 2025. Actor Bhumi Pednekar, known for films like Dum Laga Ke Haisha, Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, Shubh Mangal Saavdhan, Pati Patni Aur Woh, Badhai Do and Saand Ki Aankh, would also be there. Besides over 50 Presidents and Prime Ministers from across the world, top officials of international organisations like the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, Interpol, NATO, European Central Bank and WTO are also expected to be in Davos for the WEF Annual Meeting 2025. Senior ministers from Pakistan and Bangladesh, including Bangladesh Government's Chief Adviser and head of the interim government Muhammad Yunus would also be present. Mr. Vaishnaw, Minister for Railways, Information & Broadcasting and Electronics & IT, also attended the last WEF annual meeting, alongside Smriti Irani and Hardeep Singh Puri from the Union Council of Ministers. This time, Mr. Vaishnaw will be joined by Jal Shakti Minister Patil, Food Processing Industries Minister Paswan, Civil Aviation Minister Naidu and Minister of State for Skill Development and Education Chaudhary. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also attended the meeting in the past, but there is no official word so far about his participation in the high-profile summit, for which the main theme this time will be 'collaboration for the intelligent age'. Expected to be attended by nearly 50 heads of state and governments from across the world, the annual meeting would take place against the backdrop of a change of regime in the U.S. and various geopolitical and macroeconomic issues, including the Ukraine war and continuing West Asia crisis. Both Mr. Modi and Donald Trump attended the WEF Annual Meeting in 2018 for the first time as India's Prime Minister and the US President, respectively. While Mr. Modi became Prime Minister of India for the third consecutive term earlier this year, Mr. Trump is set to assume office for the second time on January 20, and his return is expected to be among the key topics of discussion at Davos. Maharashtra Chief Minister Fadnavis and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Naidu have been to Davos multiple times, while Telangana Chief Minister Reddy attended the WEF Annual Meeting in January 2024 as well. Besides government leaders and civil society members, the Indian presence would comprise top executives of business conglomerates like Reliance, Tata, Adani, Birla, Bharti, Mahindra, Godrej, Jindal, Bajaj and Vedanta groups. Besides Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, the next-generation leaders from their groups are also expected to be present, while technology leaders, including Salil Parekh of Infosys, Rishad Premji of Wipro, as also Sumant Sinha of ReNew, Vijay Shekhar Sharma of Paytm and Adar Poonawalla of Serum Institute are expected in the Swiss Alpine resort town. Geneva-based WEF, which describes itself as an international organisation for public-private cooperation, will convene leaders from government, business and civil society as well as scientific and cultural thinkers for its 55th annual meeting under the theme of 'Collaboration for the Intelligent Age'. According to the WEF, the meeting will serve as a trusted global platform for dialogue and cooperation, bring together a diverse community of stakeholders, seek to connect the dots in an era of complexity and be firmly future-oriented — both in terms of insights and solutions. Several sessions are expected to be attended by Indian leaders, including one on 'India's Economic Blueprint'. As one of the world's fastest-growing major economies, India has been growing at over 8%, and this growth has been buoyed by a focus on promoting local innovation and startups in technology and manufacturing, representing a departure from traditional export-oriented models. The leaders would deliberate how India has capitalised on this new blueprint and to what extent it can continue to drive global growth. According to the WEF, the annual meeting will take place at a time when geo-economic fragmentation, geopolitical polarisation and divisions over values continue to impact countries and communities across the world. At the same time, exponential innovation and deployment around whole sets of inter-connected technologies -- from AI and quantum to energy tech, biotech and health tech — offer an unprecedented opportunity to increase productivity and hence, standards of living. Reviving and reimagining growth is critical to building stronger and more resilient economies, and the meeting would seek to discuss how to avoid an Age of Fragmentation and instead work together on a can-do, people-centred agenda for an Intelligent Age. The global leaders would also deliberate on how to reinvent the muscle of collaborative innovation to get out of the current low-growth, high-debt world economy and address common challenges from climate change to the ethical use of AI. Published - December 28, 2024 05:52 pm IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit economy, business and finance / India / World

Diamcor Mining (CVE:DMI) Trading Down 16.7% – Should You Sell?How a Thermal Label Printer Can Enhance Efficiency in Retail and ShippingTikTok's future in the U.S. appeared uncertain on Friday after a federal appeals court rejected a legal challenge to a law that requires the social media platform to cut ties with its China-based parent company or be banned by mid-January. A panel of three judges on The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously that the law withstood constitutional scrutiny, rebuffing arguments from the two companies that the statute violated their rights and the rights of TikTok users in the U.S. The government has said it wants ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, to divest its stakes. But if it doesn't and the platform goes away, it would have a seismic impact on the lives of content creators who rely on the platform for income as well as users who use it for entertainment and connection. Here are some details on the ruling and what could happen next: In their lawsuit, TikTok and ByteDance, which is also a plaintiff in the case, had challenged the law on various fronts, arguing in part that the statute ran afoul of the First Amendment and was an unconstitutional bill of attainder that unfairly targeted the two companies. But the court sided with attorneys for the Justice Department who said that the government was attempting to address national security concerns and the way in which it chose to do so did not violate the constitution. The Justice Department has argued in court that TikTok poses a national security risk due to its connections to China. Officials say that Chinese authorities can compel ByteDance to hand over information on TikTok's U.S. patrons or use the platform to spread, or suppress, information. However, the U.S. hasn't publicly provided examples of that happening. The appeals court ruling, written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, said the law was “carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary." The judges also rejected the claim that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, Ginsburg wrote the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to “suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. TikTok and ByteDance are expected to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but it's unclear whether the court will take up the case. TikTok indicated in a statement on Friday the two companies are preparing to take their case to high court, saying the Supreme Court has “an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech." "We expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” a company spokesperson said. Alan Morrison, a professor at The George Washington University Law School, said he expects the Supreme Court to take up the case because of the novelty of the issues raised in the lawsuit. If that happens, attorneys for the two companies still have to convince the court to grant them an emergency stay that will prevent the government from enforcing the Jan. 19 divestiture deadline stipulated in the law, Morrison said. Such a move could drag out the process until the Justices make a ruling. Tiffany Cianci, a TikTok content creator who has supported the platform, said she was not shocked about the outcome of the court's ruling on Friday because lower courts typically defer to the executive branch on these types of cases. She believes the company will have a stronger case at the Supreme Court. “I believe that the next stages are more likely to produce a victory for TikTokers and for TikTok as a whole,” Cianci said. Another wild card is President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the recent presidential campaign that he is now against such action . The Trump transition team has not offered details on how Trump plans to carry out his pledge to “save TikTok." But spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement last month that he plans to “deliver” on his campaign promises. After Trump takes office on Jan. 20th, it would fall on his Justice Department to enforce the law and punish any potential violators. Penalties would apply to any app stores that would violate a prohibition on TikTok and to internet hosting services which would be barred from supporting it. Some have speculated that Trump could ask his Justice Department to abstain from enforcing the law. But tech companies like Apple and Google, which offer TikTok's app on their app stores, would then have to trust that the administration would not come after them for any violations. Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said enforcement discretion — or executive orders — can not override existing law, leaving Trump with “limited room for unilateral action." There are other things Trump could potentially do. It's possible he could invoke provisions of the law that allow the president to determine whether a sale or a similar transaction frees TikTok from “foreign adversary” control. Another option is to urge Congress to repeal the law. But that too would require support from congressional Republicans who have overwhelmingly supported the prospect of getting TikTok out of the hands of a Chinese company. In a statement issued Friday, Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China, said he was “optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok” and allow its continued use in the United States. ByteDance has said it won't sell TikTok . And even if it wanted to, a sale of the proprietary algorithm that powers TikTok is likely to get blocked under Chinese export controls that the country issued in 2020. That means if TikTok is sold without the algorithm, its likely that the buyer would only purchase a shell of the platform that doesn't contain the technology that made the app a cultural powerhouse. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in buying it. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital. The spokesperson did not disclose the identity of the participants.