panalo999
Nasdaq Inc. stock underperforms Thursday when compared to competitors despite daily gains
Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’
Significant differences in leg length can make walking more difficult and physically taxing. In this groundbreaking procedure, a nail-lengthening technique known as the extramedullary method was used. The lengthening nail is placed under the muscles alongside the thigh bone rather than inside it. After surgery, the family learns how to operate the lengthening device, which gradually extends the bone by up to one millimetre per day. The progress of this six-month-long treatment is closely monitored at the hospital. Topi Laaksonen , a paediatric orthopaedist at new children's hospital, explained the advantages of this approach: “Compared to traditional lengthening methods that use external devices fixed through the skin and muscles, the nail-lengthening technique is less painful and less stressful psychologically and socially for the patient. It allows for a more normal daily life during the treatment period.” The nail-lengthening technique also significantly reduces the risk of infection and shortens the overall treatment time. Since 2014, nail-lengthening surgery has been used successfully to treat leg-length discrepancies in adolescents whose growth plates have closed. In these cases, a lengthening nail controlled externally is inserted inside the thigh or shin bone. Research and development have expanded the use of this technique to older school-aged children who are still growing. For younger children, placing a lengthening nail inside the growing thigh bone is not feasible. However, this new technique now makes it possible to treat significant leg-length discrepancies in younger children using the nail-lengthening method. “We can now offer this advanced treatment option to young children, where previously it was only available to older adolescents,” Laaksonen concluded. Over the past decade, the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS) has successfully performed 36 nail-lengthening procedures on the lower thigh and shin. The leg-length discrepancy was corrected in 89% of patients. HTNone
Middle East latest: An Israeli strike on a Gaza hospital kills a teen in a wheelchair
None
Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’In Udaipur, a big family fight is making waves—and it’s not your regular argument. It’s a clash between the former royal family! A newly crowned “maharana” (kind of like a king) wanted to visit a family shrine for blessings, but his uncle and cousin blocked him. Why? Because they’ve been left in charge of the palace trust by the late maharana. Drama alert! But wait, this isn’t just happening in Udaipur. All across India, from Rajkot to Gwalior, old royal families are fighting over their fancy stuff—palaces, jewellery, and the titles they don’t officially hold anymore. These families may not rule anymore, but they still have plenty of wealth to argue about. Here’s a quick history lesson: India’s royal families had their golden age from the 1700s to the 1900s, after the Mughal Empire weakened. During British rule, they stayed in power as a kind of second-tier royalty, sometimes helping the Brits and sometimes just enjoying their riches. But when India became a republic in 1947, things changed. By 1971, they lost their royal titles and huge government payments called “privy purses.” So, what do royals do now? Some have joined politics, using their royal charm to win votes. Others turned their palaces into fancy hotels, while some are social media stars, showing off a glamorous, aristocratic life. Around the world, former royals are mostly seen as symbols of history or juicy gossip material. In countries like Britain or the Netherlands, they don’t have real power anymore—they just cut ribbons and attend events. But their personal lives, full of scandals and squabbles, keep people hooked. Even though India is a democracy where everyone is equal (at least in theory), people are still fascinated by royal drama. Whether we’re watching their fights or following their luxurious lifestyles, royals make for amazing reality TV—whether on screen or in real life!
Jimmy Carter’s public service heralded by Southern California lawmakers on either side of the aisleThomaston Gardens Apartments - Where Community and Convenience Unite
Opinion Op-Ed By Amine Ayoub Saudi Arabia has long positioned itself as a central player in the Middle East, aiming to influence regional stability and global geopolitics. The Riyadh summit earlier this month, where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman addressed key issues facing the Muslim world, brought this role into sharper focus. However, as the kingdom seeks to navigate complex geopolitical tensions — such as its evolving relationship with Iran, its criticisms of Israel and its involvement in ongoing conflicts like Yemen — the question arises: Can Saudi Arabia be trusted to broker lasting peace, especially when its own internal and external challenges, including its human-rights record, remain prominent? At the heart of the Riyadh summit was a discussion on Palestinian statehood and the ongoing conflict with Israel. In a notable departure from its previous diplomatic trajectory, bin Salman took a more assertive stance, openly condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and accusing it of genocide against Palestinians. He emphasized the need for the international community to ensure Israel respects Iranian sovereignty, signaling a potential shift in Saudi Arabia’s stance towards Israel and a move toward closer ties with Tehran. This stance appeared to mark a clear pivot away from previous talks aimed at normalizing relations with Israel, which had been a priority under former President Donald Trump’s first administration. While Saudi Arabia had expressed interest in recognizing Israel in exchange for security guarantees and regional stability, particularly in light of shared concerns about Iran, the kingdom’s rhetoric at the Riyadh summit highlighted growing divisions in its foreign policy. This shift is significant, especially given that Saudi Arabia’s rapprochement with Iran in 2023, brokered by China, has already reshaped the regional diplomatic landscape. Saudi Arabia’s growing ties with Iran, along with its criticisms of Israel, suggest a more independent foreign policy that is less reliant on the United States than it has been in recent decades. This makes Saudi Arabia’s role as a potential peace broker more complex. While Riyadh’s attempts at fostering diplomacy — such as encouraging dialogue between Iran and its regional allies — have been welcomed by some, its ability to mediate without bias, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, remains an open question. The trustworthiness of Saudi Arabia as a mediator in regional conflicts must be assessed in terms of its internal and external challenges. On the one hand, Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical clout, bolstered by its vast oil wealth and strategic position in the Gulf, makes it an important player in shaping regional outcomes. On the other hand, its internal governance and human-rights issues raise concerns about its ability to advocate for genuine peace that prioritizes the welfare of ordinary people, especially those living in conflict zones. Internally, Saudi Arabia has faced ongoing criticism for its human-rights record. The government’s suppression of political dissent, its treatment of women and minority groups, and the use of harsh measures against activists and journalists, including the high-profile killing of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, remain major points of contention. These issues have led many to question Saudi Arabia’s commitment to universal human rights, especially when its foreign policy often appears driven by pragmatic, authoritarian priorities. For instance, the war in Yemen, which Saudi Arabia has led since 2015, has been a focal point of international criticism due to the humanitarian crisis it has created. Tens of thousands of people have died, and millions more have been displaced, yet the conflict shows little sign of resolution. The Saudi-led coalition has faced accusations of war crimes, including indiscriminate airstrikes that have killed civilians and targeted vital infrastructure, further complicating its image as a promoter of peace. This contradiction — between Saudi Arabia’s role as a peacemaker on the world stage and its repressive tactics at home and in foreign interventions — casts doubt on whether the kingdom is a reliable or impartial actor in conflict resolution. Saudi Arabia’s recent rhetoric, particularly at the Riyadh summit, underscores its desire to reshape its role in the region. However, it is important to consider whether these efforts are driven by a genuine commitment to peace, or whether they are part of a broader geopolitical strategy. MBS’ condemnation of Israel and his call for international action to protect Iran’s sovereignty may reflect Riyadh’s evolving relationship with Tehran, but they could also be seen as an attempt to consolidate power and influence in a volatile region. Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s increasing reliance on China as a diplomatic partner has allowed it to broker important agreements with Iran, signaling a shift away from the West. While this shift could help reduce tensions in the region, it also means that Saudi Arabia’s conflict-resolution efforts may be influenced by its strategic alliances, potentially limiting its ability to act as a neutral party. The kingdom’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another example of this complexity. On the one hand, Saudi Arabia has historically been a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. Yet, its willingness to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for security arrangements and other benefits underscores the transactional nature of its diplomacy. The apparent contradiction between MBS’ condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza and his interest in normalizing relations with Israel only months ago illustrates how Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy is often driven by shifting geopolitical interests rather than a consistent ethical stance. For Saudi Arabia to be truly trusted as a facilitator of lasting peace, it would need to demonstrate a commitment to resolving conflicts impartially, without ulterior motives, and show a willingness to address its own internal human-rights issues. Until such changes occur, the country’s ability to lead a meaningful peace process, especially in its own neighborhood, will remain a topic of skepticism and debate. ■ Amine Ayoub is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.Phew! Outdoor dining in LA gets another extension
Punjab civic body polls: Nomination papers ‘snatched’ in Patiala, probe ordered