jhon 777
Why Volatility Is The New Normal: From Great Moderation To 'Temperamental Era'Ruling on Monday after an emergency hearing at Belfast High Court, judge Mr Justice McAlinden rejected loyalist activist Jamie Bryson’s application for leave for a full judicial review hearing against Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn. The judge said Mr Bryson, who represented himself as a personal litigant, had “very ably argued” his case with “perseverance and cogency”, and had raised some issues of law that caused him “some concern”. However, he found against him on the three grounds of challenge against Mr Benn. Mr Bryson had initially asked the court to grant interim relief in his challenge to prevent Tuesday’s democratic consent motion being heard in the Assembly, pending the hearing of a full judicial review. However, he abandoned that element of his leave application during proceedings on Monday, after the judge made clear he would be “very reluctant” to do anything that would be “trespassing into the realms” of a democratically elected Assembly. Mr Bryson had challenged Mr Benn’s move to initiate the democratic consent process that is required under the UK and EU’s Windsor Framework deal to extend the trading arrangements that apply to Northern Ireland. The previously stated voting intentions of the main parties suggest that Stormont MLAs will vote to continue the measures for another four years when they convene to debate the motion on Tuesday. After the ruling, Mr Bryson told the court he intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Any hearing was not expected to come later on Monday. In applying for leave, the activist’s argument was founded on three key grounds. The first was the assertion that Mr Benn failed to make sufficient efforts to ensure Stormont’s leaders undertook a public consultation exercise in Northern Ireland before the consent vote. The second was that the Secretary of State allegedly failed to demonstrate he had paid special regard to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory in triggering the vote. The third ground centred on law changes introduced by the previous UK government earlier this year, as part of its Safeguarding the Union deal to restore powersharing at Stormont. He claimed that if the amendments achieved their purpose, namely, to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, then it would be unlawful to renew and extend post-Brexit trading arrangements that have created economic barriers between the region and the rest of the UK. In 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the trading arrangements for Northern Ireland are lawful. The appellants in the case argued that legislation passed at Westminster to give effect to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement conflicted with the 1800 Acts of Union that formed the United Kingdom, particularly article six of that statute guaranteeing unfettered trade within the UK. The Supreme Court found that while article six of the Acts of Union has been “modified” by the arrangements, that was done with the express will of a sovereign parliament, and so therefore was lawful. Mr Bryson contended that amendments made to the Withdrawal Agreement earlier this year, as part of the Safeguarding the Union measures proposed by the Government to convince the DUP to return to powersharing, purport to reassert and reinforce Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in light of the Supreme Court judgment. He told the court that it was “quite clear” there was “inconsistency” between the different legal provisions. “That inconsistency has to be resolved – there is an arguable case,” he told the judge. However, Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the Government, described Mr Bryson’s argument as “hopeless” and “not even arguable”. He said all three limbs of the case had “no prospect of success and serve no utility”. He added: “This is a political argument masquerading as a point of constitutional law and the court should see that for what it is.” After rising to consider the arguments, Justice McAlinden delivered his ruling shortly after 7pm. The judge dismissed the application on the first ground around the lack consultation, noting that such an exercise was not a “mandatory” obligation on Mr Benn. On the second ground, he said there were “very clear” indications that the Secretary of State had paid special regard to the customs territory issues. On the final ground, Justice McAlinden found there was no inconsistency with the recent legislative amendments and the position stated in the Supreme Court judgment. “I don’t think any such inconsistency exists,” he said. He said the amendments were simply a “restatement” of the position as set out by the Supreme Court judgment, and only served to confirm that replacing the Northern Ireland Protocol with the Windsor Framework had not changed the constitutional fact that Article Six of the Acts of Union had been lawfully “modified” by post-Brexit trading arrangements. “It does no more than that,” he said. The framework, and its predecessor the NI Protocol, require checks and customs paperwork on goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Under the arrangements, which were designed to ensure no hardening of the Irish land border post-Brexit, Northern Ireland continues to follow many EU trade and customs rules. This has proved highly controversial, with unionists arguing the system threatens Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Advocates of the arrangements say they help insulate the region from negative economic consequences of Brexit. A dispute over the so-called Irish Sea border led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2022, when the DUP withdrew then-first minister Paul Givan from the coalition executive. The impasse lasted two years and ended in January when the Government published its Safeguarding the Union measures. Under the terms of the framework, a Stormont vote must be held on articles five to 10 of the Windsor Framework, which underpin the EU trade laws in force in Northern Ireland, before they expire. The vote must take place before December 17. Based on the numbers in the Assembly, MLAs are expected to back the continuation of the measures for another four years, even though unionists are likely to oppose the move. DUP leader Gavin Robinson has already made clear his party will be voting against continuing the operation of the Windsor Framework. Unlike other votes on contentious issues at Stormont, the motion does not require cross-community support to pass. If it is voted through with a simple majority, the arrangements are extended for four years. In that event, the Government is obliged to hold an independent review of how the framework is working. If it wins cross-community support, which is a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists, then it is extended for eight years. The chances of it securing such cross-community backing are highly unlikely.
Squid Game character you've forgotten has a 'major role' in season 2Rocket Pharmaceuticals Announces Proposed Public Offering of Common StockTechnology stocks led a broad rally on Wall Street Tuesday during a holiday-shortened trading session ahead of Christmas. The S&P 500 rose 1.1% for its third-straight gain. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.9%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite climbed 1.3%. While Big Tech companies, including Apple, Amazon and chip company Broadcom helped push the market higher, the gains were widespread. Advancers outnumbered decliners by more than 3-to-1 on the New York Stock Exchange. Broadcom rose 3.2%, Apple gained 1.1% and Amazon closed 1.8% higher. Super Micro Computer climbed 6%. Tesla jumped 7.4% for the biggest gains among S&P 500 stocks. American Airlines shook off an early loss and ended with a 0.6% gain after the airline briefly grounded flights nationwide due to a technical issue. Elsewhere in the market, U.S. Steel rose 1.9% a day after an influential government panel failed to reach consensus on the possible national security risks of the nearly $15 billion proposed sale to Nippon Steel of Japan. NeueHealth surged 74.9% after the health care company agreed to be taken private in a deal valued at roughly $1.3 billion. All told, the S&P 500 rose 65.97 points to 6,040.04. The Dow added 390.08 points to 43,297.03, and the Nasdaq rose 266.24 points to 20,031.13. Treasury yields held steady in the bond market. The yield on the 10-year Treasury was little changed at 4.59%. European markets closed mostly higher. Markets in Asia mostly gained ground. Tuesday’s U.S. market rally comes as the stock market enters what’s historically been a very cheerful season. The last five trading days of each year, plus the first two in the new year, have brought an average gain of 1.3% since 1950. The so-called “Santa rally” also correlates closely with positive returns in January and the upcoming year. So far this month, the U.S. stock market has lost some of its gains since President-elect Donald Trump’s win on Election Day, which raised hopes for faster economic growth and more lax regulations that would boost corporate profits. Worries have risen that Trump’s preference for tariffs and other policies could lead to higher inflation , a bigger U.S. government debt and difficulties for global trade. Even so, the stock market remains on pace to deliver strong returns for 2024. The benchmark S&P 500 is up 26.6% so far this year and remains within roughly 1% of the all-time high it set earlier this month — its latest of 57 record highs this year. U.S. markets will be closed Wednesday for Christmas. Wall Street has several economic reports to look forward to this week, including a weekly update on unemployment benefits on Thursday.
Elon Musk’s preschool is the next step in his anti-woke education dreams
NoneDana Hull | (TNS) Bloomberg News Jared Birchall, Elon Musk’s money manager and the head of his family office, is listed as the chief executive officer. Jehn Balajadia, a longtime Musk aide who has worked at SpaceX and the Boring Co., is named as an official contact. Related Articles National Politics | Trump’s picks for top health jobs not just team of rivals but ‘team of opponents’ National Politics | Biden will decide on US Steel acquisition after influential panel fails to reach consensus National Politics | Biden vetoes once-bipartisan effort to add 66 federal judgeships, citing ‘hurried’ House action National Politics | A history of the Panama Canal — and why Trump can’t take it back on his own National Politics | President-elect Trump wants to again rename North America’s tallest peak But they’re not connected to Musk’s new technology venture, or the political operation that’s endeared him to Donald Trump. Instead, they’re tied to the billionaire’s new Montessori school outside Bastrop, Texas, called Ad Astra, according to documents filed with state authorities and obtained via a Texas Public Information Act request. The world’s richest person oversees an overlapping empire of six companies — or seven, if you include his political action committee. Alongside rockets, electric cars, brain implants, social media and the next Trump administration, he is increasingly focused on education, spanning preschool to college. One part of his endeavor was revealed last year, when Bloomberg News reported that his foundation had set aside roughly $100 million to create a technology-focused primary and secondary school in Austin, with eventual plans for a university. An additional $137 million in cash and stock was allotted last year, according to the most recent tax filing for the Musk Foundation. Ad Astra is closer to fruition. The state documents show Texas authorities issued an initial permit last month, clearing the way for the center to operate with as many as 21 pupils. Ad Astra’s website says it’s “currently open to all children ages 3 to 9.” The school’s account on X includes job postings for an assistant teacher for preschool and kindergarten and an assistant teacher for students ages 6 to 9. To run the school, Ad Astra is partnering with a company that has experience with billionaires: Xplor Education, which developed Hala Kahiki Montessori school in Lanai, Hawaii, the island 98% owned by Oracle Corp. founder Larry Ellison. Ad Astra sits on a highway outside Bastrop, a bedroom community about 30 miles from Austin and part of a region that’s home to several of Musk’s businesses. On a visit during a recent weekday morning, there was a single Toyota Prius in the parking lot and no one answered the door at the white building with a gray metal roof. The school’s main entrance was blocked by a gate, and there was no sign of any children on the grounds. But what information there is about Ad Astra makes it sound like a fairly typical, if high-end, Montessori preschool. The proposed schedule includes “thematic, STEM-based activities and projects” as well as outdoor play and nap time. A sample snack calendar features carrots and hummus. While Birchall’s and Balajadia’s names appear in the application, it isn’t clear that they’ll have substantive roles at the school once it’s operational. Musk, Birchall and Balajadia didn’t respond to emailed questions. A phone call and email to the school went unanswered. Access to high quality, affordable childcare is a huge issue for working parents across the country, and tends to be an especially vexing problem in rural areas like Bastrop. Many families live in “childcare deserts” where there is either not a facility or there isn’t an available slot. Opening Ad Astra gives Musk a chance to showcase his vision for education, and his support for the hands-on learning and problem solving that are a hallmark of his industrial companies. His public comments about learning frequently overlap with cultural concerns popular among conservatives and the Make America Great Again crowd, often focusing on what he sees as young minds being indoctrinated by teachers spewing left-wing propaganda. He has railed against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, and in August posted that “a lot of schools are teaching white boys to hate themselves.” Musk’s educational interests dovetail with his new role as Trump’s “first buddy.” The billionaire has pitched a role for himself that he — and now the incoming Trump administration — call “DOGE,” or the Department of Government Efficiency. Though it’s not an actual department, DOGE now posts on X, the social media platform that Musk owns. “The Department of Education spent over $1 billion promoting DEI in America’s schools,” the account posted Dec. 12. Back in Texas, Bastrop is quickly becoming a key Musk point of interest. The Boring Co., his tunneling venture, is based in an unincorporated area there. Across the road, SpaceX produces Starlink satellites at a 500,000-square-foot (46,000-square-meter) facility. Nearby, X is constructing a building for trust and safety workers. Musk employees, as well as the general public, can grab snacks at the Boring Bodega, a convenience store housed within Musk’s Hyperloop Plaza, which also contains a bar, candy shop and hair salon. Ad Astra is just a five-minute drive away. It seems to have been designed with the children of Musk’s employees — if not Musk’s own offspring — in mind. Musk has fathered at least 12 children, six of them in the last five years. “Ad Astra’s mission is to foster curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking in the next generation of problem solvers and builders,” reads the school’s website. A job posting on the website of the Montessori Institute of North Texas says “While their parents support the breakthroughs that expand the realm of human possibility, their children will grow into the next generation of innovators in a way that only authentic Montessori can provide.” The school has hired an executive director, according to documents Bloomberg obtained from Texas Health and Human Services. Ad Astra is located on 40 acres of land, according to the documents, which said a 4,000-square-foot house would be remodeled for the preschool. It isn’t uncommon for entrepreneurs to take an interest in education, according to Bill Gormley, a professor emeritus at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University who studies early childhood education. Charles Butt, the chairman of the Texas-based H-E-B grocery chain, has made public education a focus of his philanthropy. Along with other business and community leaders, Butt founded “Raise Your Hand Texas,” which advocates on school funding, teacher workforce and retention issues and fully funding pre-kindergarten. “Musk is not the only entrepreneur to recognize the value of preschool for Texas workers,” Gormley said. “A lot of politicians and business people get enthusiastic about education in general — and preschool in particular — because they salivate at the prospect of a better workforce.” Musk spent much of October actively campaigning for Trump’s presidential effort, becoming the most prolific donor of the election cycle. He poured at least $274 million into political groups in 2024, including $238 million to America PAC, the political action committee he founded. While the vast majority of money raised by America PAC came from Musk himself, it also had support from other donors. Betsy DeVos, who served as education secretary in Trump’s first term, donated $250,000, federal filings show. The Department of Education is already in the new administration’s cross hairs. Trump campaigned on the idea of disbanding the department and dismantling diversity initiatives, and he has also taken aim at transgender rights. “Rather than indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material, which is what we’re doing now, our schools must be totally refocused to prepare our children to succeed in the world of work,” Trump wrote in Agenda 47, his campaign platform. Musk has three children with the musician Grimes and three with Shivon Zilis, who in the past was actively involved at Neuralink, his brain machine interface company. All are under the age of five. Musk took X, his son with Grimes, with him on a recent trip to Capitol Hill. After his visit, he shared a graphic that showed the growth of administrators in America’s public schools since 2000. Musk is a fan of hands-on education. During a Tesla earnings call in 2018, he talked about the need for more electricians as the electric-car maker scaled up the energy side of its business. On the Joe Rogan podcast in 2020, Musk said that “too many smart people go into finance and law.” “I have a lot of respect for people who work with their hands and we need electricians and plumbers and carpenters,” Musk said while campaigning for Trump in Pennsylvania in October. “That’s a lot more important than having incremental political science majors.” Ad Astra’s website says the cost of tuition will be initially subsidized, but in future years “tuition will be in line with local private schools that include an extended day program.” “I do think we need significant reform in education,” Musk said at a separate Trump campaign event. “The priority should be to teach kids skills that they will find useful later in life, and to leave any sort of social propaganda out of the classroom.” With assistance from Sophie Alexander and Kara Carlson. ©2024 Bloomberg News. Visit at bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Russia plans to fire more hypersonic missiles at Ukraine, Putin saysJudge dismisses charges against Karen Read supporter who scattered rubber ducks and fake $100 billsBreaking News: Italy is Celebrating Ruffo Caselli's Robotics in Art
Elon Musk’s preschool is the next step in his anti-woke education dreamsNone
In recent years, the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) has gained significant attention from the international community, including the United Nations and the G20, as a new policy paradigm for development. But understanding the risks of DPI is crucial to ensuring that its potential benefits materialise. The risks stem from the fact that "digital public infrastructure" lacks a clear definition. The term encompasses the many digital technologies that serve as economic and social infrastructure, from digital identification and payment systems to data exchanges and health services. As a policy initiative, though, DPI refers to a vague vision of using these technologies to serve the public interest. This could result in the internet and technological innovation working for everyone -- or just as easily turn them into tools for political control. In discussions about DPI, policymakers often point to cases that highlight how technology and connectivity can spur development. They frequently cite India's Unified Payments Interface, which has expanded financial inclusion and reduced the costs of digital transactions for its hundreds of millions of users. It is also understood that such infrastructure is to be built with Digital Public Goods (DPGs), a concept that encompasses open-source software, open standards, and other non-proprietary components. This definition is partly intended to position DPIs as being "for the public" but also to enhance competition and mitigate concentrations of power in the global digital economy. Lastly, proponents point out that DPI could bolster international cooperation, particularly as the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) approaches. This important UN initiative has provided the framework for countries to collaborate on digital development. Although authoritarian states have previously sought to assert greater control over the internet's governance during these negotiations, a focus on promoting DPI could avoid this politicised debate and instead foster a constructive agenda to bridge digital divides. But basing policy on such an ill-defined concept poses significant risks. Ideally, governments would convene other stakeholders to create an enabling environment for DPI and safeguard users' rights and interests. It is easy to imagine, however, that some governments will place their own interests above civil liberties and fundamental rights, using this infrastructure for surveillance and targeting in the name of law enforcement or national security. An especially pernicious example could involve the monitoring and regulation of individual behaviour through dystopian social-credit systems. Moreover, while many proponents hope that DPI could chip away at Big Tech's outsize power, it has also been associated with narratives of digital sovereignty that could contribute to the internet's fragmentation -- a systemic threat to global communications. For example, one can imagine scenarios in which some governments challenge the multi-stakeholder model for governing global internet resources like IP addresses and domain names on the grounds that they constitute DPIs. In fact, we recently witnessed something similar in the European Union when it proposed an amendment to the Electronic Identification, Authentication, and Trust Services (eIDAS) regulation that would have empowered governments to mandate the recognition of digital certificates that did not adhere to stringent industry standards. This risked undermining the global governance model for browser security and could have allowed European governments to survey communications both within and beyond their borders. The policy vision of DPI will continue to evolve, and ongoing discussions, it is hoped, will help identify and clarify further opportunities and risks. Initiatives such as the UN's Universal DPI Safeguards Framework, which seeks to establish guardrails for DPI, are a promising start. But much more must be done. For example, the UN's framework has recognised the need for continuous learning to ensure that the right safeguards are in place. As the concept of DPI gains traction in the UN system and other multilateral organisations, vigorous and informed debate regarding its potential advantages -- and pitfalls -- will be essential. With clear-cut policy guidelines and protections, we can help prevent these technologies from becoming tools for surveillance and repression, ensure that everyone benefits from the burgeoning digital economy, and keep the internet open, globally connected, and secure. ©2024 Project Syndicate Carl Gahnberg is Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society.
I started dieting at 9 after a mean comment from a boy. A non-surgical procedure finally helped me lose over 100 pounds.
Oxford: Owner of Tommy Bahama, Lilly Pulitzer and Johnny Was Reports Third Quarter Results
A court challenge over a Stormont vote on extending post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland has been dismissed, and the Assembly debate will go ahead as planned on Tuesday. Ruling on Monday after an emergency hearing at Belfast High Court, judge Mr Justice McAlinden rejected loyalist activist Jamie Bryson’s application for leave for a full judicial review hearing against Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn. The judge said Mr Bryson, who represented himself as a personal litigant, had “very ably argued” his case with “perseverance and cogency”, and had raised some issues of law that caused him “some concern”. However, he found against him on the three grounds of challenge against Mr Benn. Mr Bryson had initially asked the court to grant interim relief in his challenge to prevent Tuesday’s democratic consent motion being heard in the Assembly, pending the hearing of a full judicial review. However, he abandoned that element of his leave application during proceedings on Monday, after the judge made clear he would be “very reluctant” to do anything that would be “trespassing into the realms” of a democratically elected Assembly. Mr Bryson had challenged Mr Benn’s move to initiate the democratic consent process that is required under the UK and EU’s Windsor Framework deal to extend the trading arrangements that apply to Northern Ireland. The previously stated voting intentions of the main parties suggest that Stormont MLAs will vote to continue the measures for another four years when they convene to debate the motion on Tuesday. After the ruling, Mr Bryson told the court he intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Any hearing was not expected to come later on Monday. In applying for leave, the activist’s argument was founded on three key grounds. The first was the assertion that Mr Benn failed to make sufficient efforts to ensure Stormont’s leaders undertook a public consultation exercise in Northern Ireland before the consent vote. The second was that the Secretary of State allegedly failed to demonstrate he had paid special regard to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory in triggering the vote. The third ground centred on law changes introduced by the previous UK government earlier this year, as part of its Safeguarding the Union deal to restore powersharing at Stormont. He claimed that if the amendments achieved their purpose, namely, to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, then it would be unlawful to renew and extend post-Brexit trading arrangements that have created economic barriers between the region and the rest of the UK. In 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the trading arrangements for Northern Ireland are lawful. The appellants in the case argued that legislation passed at Westminster to give effect to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement conflicted with the 1800 Acts of Union that formed the United Kingdom, particularly article six of that statute guaranteeing unfettered trade within the UK. The Supreme Court found that while article six of the Acts of Union has been “modified” by the arrangements, that was done with the express will of a sovereign parliament, and so therefore was lawful. Mr Bryson contended that amendments made to the Withdrawal Agreement earlier this year, as part of the Safeguarding the Union measures proposed by the Government to convince the DUP to return to powersharing, purport to reassert and reinforce Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in light of the Supreme Court judgment. He told the court that it was “quite clear” there was “inconsistency” between the different legal provisions. “That inconsistency has to be resolved – there is an arguable case,” he told the judge. However, Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the Government, described Mr Bryson’s argument as “hopeless” and “not even arguable”. He said all three limbs of the case had “no prospect of success and serve no utility”. He added: “This is a political argument masquerading as a point of constitutional law and the court should see that for what it is.” After rising to consider the arguments, Justice McAlinden delivered his ruling shortly after 7pm. The judge dismissed the application on the first ground around the lack consultation, noting that such an exercise was not a “mandatory” obligation on Mr Benn. On the second ground, he said there were “very clear” indications that the Secretary of State had paid special regard to the customs territory issues. On the final ground, Justice McAlinden found there was no inconsistency with the recent legislative amendments and the position stated in the Supreme Court judgment. “I don’t think any such inconsistency exists,” he said. He said the amendments were simply a “restatement” of the position as set out by the Supreme Court judgment, and only served to confirm that replacing the Northern Ireland Protocol with the Windsor Framework had not changed the constitutional fact that Article Six of the Acts of Union had been lawfully “modified” by post-Brexit trading arrangements. “It does no more than that,” he said. The framework, and its predecessor the NI Protocol, require checks and customs paperwork on goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Under the arrangements, which were designed to ensure no hardening of the Irish land border post-Brexit, Northern Ireland continues to follow many EU trade and customs rules. This has proved highly controversial, with unionists arguing the system threatens Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Advocates of the arrangements say they help insulate the region from negative economic consequences of Brexit. A dispute over the so-called Irish Sea border led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2022, when the DUP withdrew then-first minister Paul Givan from the coalition executive. The impasse lasted two years and ended in January when the Government published its Safeguarding the Union measures. Under the terms of the framework, a Stormont vote must be held on articles five to 10 of the Windsor Framework, which underpin the EU trade laws in force in Northern Ireland, before they expire. The vote must take place before December 17. Based on the numbers in the Assembly, MLAs are expected to back the continuation of the measures for another four years, even though unionists are likely to oppose the move. DUP leader Gavin Robinson has already made clear his party will be voting against continuing the operation of the Windsor Framework. Unlike other votes on contentious issues at Stormont, the motion does not require cross-community support to pass. If it is voted through with a simple majority, the arrangements are extended for four years. In that event, the Government is obliged to hold an independent review of how the framework is working. If it wins cross-community support, which is a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists, then it is extended for eight years. The chances of it securing such cross-community backing are highly unlikely.