MINNEAPOLIS, Dec. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CVRx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVRX) ("CVRx"), a commercial-stage medical device company, today announced that the management team will present at the 43 rd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference on Wednesday, January 15, 2025. The Company is scheduled to present at 2:15 PM Pacific Time the same day via webcast. A live audio webcast of the conference presentation will be available online at the investor relations page of the Company’s website at ir.cvrx.com . About CVRx, Inc. CVRx is focused on the development and commercialization of the BarostimTM System, the first medical technology approved by FDA that uses neuromodulation to improve the symptoms of heart failure. Barostim is an implantable device that delivers electrical pulses to baroreceptors located in the wall of the carotid artery. Baroreceptors activate the body's baroreflex, which in turn triggers an autonomic response to the heart. The therapy is designed to restore balance to the autonomic nervous system and thereby reduce the symptoms of heart failure. Barostim received the FDA Breakthrough Device designation and is FDA-approved for use in heart failure patients in the U.S. It has also received the CE Mark for heart failure and resistant hypertension in the European Economic Area. To learn more about Barostim, visit www.cvrx.com . Investor Contact: Mark Klausner or Mike Vallie ICR Healthcare 443-213-0501 ir@cvrx.com Media Contact: Laura O’Neill Finn Partners 402-499-8203 laura.oneill@finnpartners.com
AP Business SummaryBrief at 2:36 p.m. EST
BEIRUT — Israel's military launched airstrikes across Lebanon on Monday, unleashing explosions throughout the country and killing at least 31 while Israeli leaders appeared to be closing in on a negotiated ceasefire with the Hezbollah militant group. Israeli strikes hit commercial and residential buildings in Beirut as well as in the port city of Tyre. Military officials said they targeted areas known as Hezbollah strongholds. They issued evacuation orders for Beirut's southern suburbs, and strikes landed across the city, including meters from a Lebanese police base and the city's largest public park. The barrage came as officials indicated they were nearing agreement on a ceasefire, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's Security Cabinet prepared to discuss an offer on the table. Bulldozers remove the rubble of a destroyed building Monday that was hit in an Israeli airstrike in Dahiyeh, in the southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon. Foreign ministers from the world’s leading industrialized nations also expressed cautious optimism Monday about possible progress on a ceasefire. “Knock on wood,” Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said as he opened the Group of Seven meeting outside Rome. “We are perhaps close to a ceasefire in Lebanon," he said. "Let's hope it's true and that there's no backing down at the last-minute.” A ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon was foremost on the agenda of the G7 meeting in Fiuggi, outside Rome, that gathered ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, in the last G7 encounter of the Biden administration. For the first time, the G7 ministers were joined by their counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, as well as the Secretary General of the Arab League. Thick smoke, flames and debris erupt Monday from an Israeli airstrike that targeted a building in Tayouneh, Beirut, Lebanon. Meanwhile, massive explosions lit up Lebanon's skies with flashes of orange, sending towering plumes of smoke into the air as Israeli airstrikes pounded Beirut's southern suburbs Monday. The blasts damaged buildings and left shattered glass and debris scattered across nearby streets. Some of the strikes landed close to central Beirut and near Christian neighborhoods and other targets where Israel issued evacuation warnings, including in Tyre and Nabatiyeh province. Israeli airstrikes also hit the northeast Baalbek-Hermel region without warning. Lebanon's Health Ministry said Monday that 26 people were killed in southern Lebanon, four in the eastern Baalbek-Hermel province and one in Choueifat, a neighborhood in Beirut's southern suburbs that was not subjected to evacuation warnings on Monday. The deaths brought the total toll to 3,768 killed in Lebanon throughout 13 months of war between Israel and Hezbollah and nearly two months since Israel launched its ground invasion. Many of those killed since the start of the war between Israel and Hezbollah have been civilians, and health officials said some of the recovered bodies were so severely damaged that DNA testing would be required to confirm their identities. Israel claims to have killed more than 2,000 Hezbollah members. Lebanon's Health Ministry says the war has displaced 1.2 million people. Destroyed buildings stand Monday in the area of a village in southern Lebanon as seen from northern Israel. Israeli ground forces invaded southern Lebanon in early October, meeting heavy resistance in a narrow strip of land along the border. The military previously exchanged attacks across the border with Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militant group that began firing rockets into Israel the day after the war in Gaza began last year. Lebanese politicians have decried the ongoing airstrikes and said they are impeding ceasefire negotiations. The country's deputy parliament speaker accused Israel of ramping up its bombardment to pressure Lebanon to make concessions in indirect ceasefire negotiations with Hezbollah. Elias Bousaab, an ally of the militant group, said Monday that the pressure has increased because "we are close to the hour that is decisive regarding reaching a ceasefire." Israeli officials voiced similar optimism Monday about prospects for a ceasefire. Mike Herzog, the country's ambassador to Washington, earlier in the day told Israeli Army Radio that several points had yet to be finalized. Though any deal would require agreement from the government, Herzog said Israel and Hezbollah were "close to a deal." "It can happen within days," he said. Israeli officials have said the sides are close to an agreement that would include withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and a pullback of Hezbollah fighters from the Israeli border. But several sticking points remain. A member of the Israeli security forces inspects an impact site Sunday after a rocket fired from Lebanon hit an area in Rinatya, outskirts of Tel Aviv, Israel. After previous hopes for a ceasefire were dashed, U.S. officials cautioned that negotiations were not yet complete and noted that there could be last-minute hitches that either delay or destroy an agreement. "Nothing is done until everything is done," White House national security spokesman John Kirby said Monday. The proposal under discussion to end the fighting calls for an initial two-month ceasefire during which Israeli forces would withdraw from Lebanon and Hezbollah would end its armed presence along the southern border south of the Litani River. The withdrawals would be accompanied by an influx of thousands more Lebanese army troops, who have been largely sidelined in the war, to patrol the border area along with an existing U.N. peacekeeping force. Western diplomats and Israeli officials said Israel demands the right to strike in Lebanon if it believes Hezbollah is violating the terms. The Lebanese government says such an arrangement would authorize violations of the country's sovereignty. On paper, being more sustainable and eco-friendly while shopping sounds great—so why don't more people do it? There is growing consumer consciousness about the environmental impact of where people choose to shop and the sustainability of the products they buy. According to McKinsey, over 60% of individuals surveyed in 2020 said they would be willing to pay more for a product that is packaged in an eco-friendly way. Since 2019, products marketed as being environmentally sustainable have seen a 28% growth in revenue compared to 20% for products with no such marketing, a 2023 McKinsey and NielsenIQ report found. Much of this is thanks to the preferences and attitudes of Gen Z, who, on average, care more than their older counterparts about being informed shoppers. The younger generation also has more social justice and environmental awareness altogether. Shoppers are willing to spend around 9.7% more on a product they know is sourced or manufactured sustainably, with 46% saying they would do so explicitly because they want to reduce their environmental footprint, according to a 2024 PwC report. Sustainable practices consumers look for from companies include production methods, packaging, and water conservation. But despite the growing consciousness around being more environmentally responsible, consumer actions don't always align with their values. In psychology, this is defined as the "say-do gap": the phenomenon wherein people openly express concern and intention around an issue, but fail to take tangible action to make a change. According to the Harvard Business Review in 2019, most consumers (65%) say they want to buy from brands that promote sustainability, but only 1 in 4 follow through. So why don't people actually shop sustainably, despite how much they express a preference for eco-friendly products—and how can we close the gap? The RealReal examined reports from the Harvard Business Review and other sources to explore why some shoppers want to buy sustainably but struggle to follow through. This lack of action isn't due to a lack of caring—in many cases, it's hard to know how to be a sustainable consumer and other factors are often outside of shoppers' control. But the more people shop sustainably, the easier and more accessible that market will be for everyone—making it much easier for folks to buy aligned with their values. There are many obstacles preventing shoppers from upholding eco-friendly habits as much as they may want to—but not all of these barriers are necessarily real, or accurately understood. Shopping sustainably simply isn't convenient or accessible for many. Those who live in apartment buildings are 50% less likely to recycle , according to Ipsos. Reasons for this can vary from lack of space to buildings being excluded altogether because of recycling contamination issues. Many believe that sustainable products are too expensive or of a lower quality. The former is often true, which does create a hurdle for many: The manufacturing processes and materials for sustainable products are pricey. For instance, organic cotton requires an intensive production process free of certain chemicals or pesticides; by definition, true eco-friendly products can't be mass-produced, further upping their price tag. Using recycled materials for packaging, or obtaining an eco certification, can also be expensive. However, although the narrative of eco-friendly products being more expensive is true, there is often more of an effort to use better quality materials that last longer than their noneco-friendly counterparts. This could end up saving consumers money in the long run: By paying more upfront, they can get more wear out of sustainable fashion, for instance. There is also undeniable political rhetoric surrounding eco-friendly products—however, despite many Conservative politicians decrying sustainable products, members of all generations are increasingly choosing to prioritize shopping sustainably regardless of their political affiliation, according to research from NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business . This finding shows a trend toward seeing sustainability as a nonpartisan subject everyone can benefit from, no matter where they lie on the political spectrum. Some might think eco-friendly clothing, in particular, is not fashion-forward; after all, many of the top clothing retailers in the world partake in fast fashion. However, brands are increasingly being recognized as 'cool' and 'trendy' for supporting environmentally ethical practices, particularly as younger generations prioritize sustainability, as noted before. Many increasingly popular online stores are taking advantage of this paradigm shift by offering secondhand shopping options that are not only fashionable, but also more affordable, like ThredUp or Poshmark. Additionally, many legacy large-name brands are hopping on the sustainability movement and are gaining appreciation from loyal customers. Amazon's Climate Pledge Friendly program partners with third-party certification bodies to make it easier for shoppers to identify eco-friendly products as they browse the website. H&M's newly launched H&M Rewear program debuts a resale platform that allows the resale of all clothing brands—not just their own. Similarly, Patagonia's Worn Wear program allows shoppers to trade in and buy used gear and clothing. The federal government is also working to close this gap. The Environmental Protection Agency's Safer Choice program is attempting to make sustainable shopping easier for consumers and companies alike. It includes a directory of certified products, a list of safer chemicals to look out for on labels, a "Safer Choice" label that products can earn to denote they are eco-friendly, and resources for manufacturers looking to adopt more sustainable practices. Most of all, though, the biggest way shoppers can shift toward sustainable shopping is through their behaviors and attitudes amongst their peers and communities. Studies show that humans largely care what others think of their actions; the more shoppers make environmentally conscious shopping the norm, the more others will follow suit. From an economic perspective, the more consumers shop eco-friendly, the more affordable and accessible these products will become, too: Sustainable products are currently more expensive because they are not in high demand. Once demand rises, production rates and prices can lower, making these products more accessible for all. Story editing by Carren Jao. Additional editing by Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Kristen Wegrzyn. This story originally appeared on The RealReal and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio. Get local news delivered to your inbox!CVRx to Present at the 43rd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference
CAL STATE NORTHRIDGE 89, DENVER 60
Ignoring cultural context can lead people to make financial decisions that don't align with their values.Source: Kaboompics .com / Pexels When it comes to money, it’s easy to believe that there’s a “right” or “wrong” way to handle personal finances. Popular media, financial advisors, and even well-meaning family members often frame financial decisions in terms of good versus bad, success versus failure. Personal finance is nuanced, especially when considering the powerful influence of culture on our beliefs and behaviors around money. Without understanding the cultural messages that shape our attitudes toward wealth, debt, and spending, we risk making financial decisions based on narrow or incomplete perspectives. Just as we learn language, customs, and social norms from the culture around us, we also absorb messages about money.Cultural competence is the ability to understand and appreciate how different cultures influence our behaviors. Understanding how our cultural experiences tie into money experiences is crucial. In more collectivist cultures, financial decisions often take into account family or community well-being. Lending between family members, for instance, may be seen as an expression of solidarity rather than an individual financial decision. The cultural values that shape these financial practices aren’t “right” or “wrong.” They’re simply different.Personal finance is often presented in terms of absolutes. Ultimately, understanding the cultural influences that shape our financial beliefs is crucial to making thoughtful, intentional financial decisions. The messages we’ve absorbed over a lifetime inform how we view money and what we consider to be financial success. We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:Central Committee on Counter-Terrorism meeting 2024 heldoutboundIQ Achieves Certified Implementation Partner (CIP) Status with Five9FILE – A cargo ship traverses the Agua Clara Locks of the Panama Canal in Colon, Panama, Sept. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix, File) FILE – President Jimmy Carter applauds as General Omar Torrijos waves after the signing and exchange of treaties in Panama City on June 16, 1978, giving control of the Panama Canal to Panama in 2000. At far right is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carterís National Security Advisor. (AP Photo, File) FILE – President Jimmy Carter views the Panama Canal at the Miraflores Locks in Canal Zone on June 17, 1978. On Friday Carter signed the final Panama Canal Treaties giving control of the canal to Panama in 2000. (AP Photo/Tasnadi, File) FILE – A cargo ship traverses the Agua Clara Locks of the Panama Canal in Colon, Panama, Sept. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix, File) By WILL WEISSERT, JUAN ZAMORANO and GARY FIELDS PANAMA CITY (AP) — Teddy Roosevelt once declared the Panama Canal “one of the feats to which the people of this republic will look back with the highest pride.” More than a century later, Donald Trump is threatening to take back the waterway for the same republic. Related Articles National Politics | President-elect Trump wants to again rename North America’s tallest peak National Politics | Inside the Gaetz ethics report, a trove of new details alleging payments for sex and drug use National Politics | An analyst looks ahead to how the US economy might fare under Trump National Politics | Trump again calls to buy Greenland after eyeing Canada and the Panama Canal National Politics | House Ethics Committee accuses Gaetz of ‘regularly’ paying for sex, including with 17-year-old girl The president-elect is decrying increased fees Panama has imposed to use the waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He says if things don’t change after he takes office next month, “We will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America, in full, quickly and without question.” Trump has long threatened allies with punitive action in hopes of winning concessions. But experts in both countries are clear: Unless he goes to war with Panama, Trump can’t reassert control over a canal the U.S. agreed to cede in the 1970s. Here’s a look at how we got here: It is a man-made waterway that uses a series of locks and reservoirs over 51 miles (82 kilometers) to cut through the middle of Panama and connect the Atlantic and Pacific. It spares ships having to go an additional roughly 7,000 miles (more than 11,000 kilometers) to sail around Cape Horn at South America’s southern tip. The U.S. International Trade Administration says the canal saves American business interests “considerable time and fuel costs” and enables faster delivery of goods, which is “particularly significant for time sensitive cargoes, perishable goods, and industries with just-in-time supply chains.” An effort to establish a canal through Panama led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, who built Egypt’s Suez Canal, began in 1880 but progressed little over nine years before going bankrupt. Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases devastated a workforce already struggling with especially dangerous terrain and harsh working conditions in the jungle, eventually costing more than 20,000 lives, by some estimates. Panama was then a province of Colombia, which refused to ratify a subsequent 1901 treaty licensing U.S. interests to build the canal. Roosevelt responded by dispatching U.S. warships to Panama’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The U.S. also prewrote a constitution that would be ready after Panamanian independence, giving American forces “the right to intervene in any part of Panama, to re-establish public peace and constitutional order.” In part because Colombian troops were unable to traverse harsh jungles, Panama declared an effectively bloodless independence within hours in November 1903. It soon signed a treaty allowing a U.S.-led team to begin construction . Some 5,600 workers died later during the U.S.-led construction project, according to one study. The waterway opened in 1914, but almost immediately some Panamanians began questioning the validity of U.S. control, leading to what became known in the country as the “generational struggle” to take it over. The U.S. abrogated its right to intervene in Panama in the 1930s. By the 1970s, with its administrative costs sharply increasing, Washington spent years negotiating with Panama to cede control of the waterway. The Carter administration worked with the government of Omar Torrijos. The two sides eventually decided that their best chance for ratification was to submit two treaties to the U.S. Senate, the “Permanent Neutrality Treaty” and the “Panama Canal Treaty.” The first, which continues in perpetuity, gives the U.S. the right to act to ensure the canal remains open and secure. The second stated that the U.S. would turn over the canal to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999, and was terminated then. Both were signed in 1977 and ratified the following year. The agreements held even after 1989, when President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama to remove Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. In the late 1970s, as the handover treaties were being discussed and ratified, polls found that about half of Americans opposed the decision to cede canal control to Panama. However, by the time ownership actually changed in 1999, public opinion had shifted, with about half of Americans in favor. Administration of the canal has been more efficient under Panama than during the U.S. era, with traffic increasing 17% between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 . Panama’s voters approved a 2006 referendum authorizing a major expansion of the canal to accommodate larger modern cargo ships. The expansion took until 2016 and cost more than $5.2 billion. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino said in a video Sunday that “every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to.” He added that, while his country’s people are divided on some key issues, “when it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag.” Shipping prices have increased because of droughts last year affecting the canal locks, forcing Panama to drastically cut shipping traffic through the canal and raise rates to use it. Though the rains have mostly returned, Panama says future fee increases might be necessary as it undertakes improvements to accommodate modern shipping needs. Mulino said fees to use the canal are “not set on a whim.” Jorge Luis Quijano, who served as the waterway’s administrator from 2014 to 2019, said all canal users are subject to the same fees, though they vary by ship size and other factors. “I can accept that the canal’s customers may complain about any price increase,” Quijano said. “But that does not give them reason to consider taking it back.” The president-elect says the U.S. is getting “ripped off” and “I’m not going to stand for it.” “It was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions — you’ve got to treat us fairly. And they haven’t treated us fairly,” Trump said of the 1977 treaty that he said “foolishly” gave the canal away. The neutrality treaty does give the U.S. the right to act if the canal’s operation is threatened due to military conflict — but not to reassert control. “There’s no clause of any kind in the neutrality agreement that allows for the taking back of the canal,” Quijano said. “Legally, there’s no way, under normal circumstances, to recover territory that was used previously.” Trump, meanwhile, hasn’t said how he might make good on his threat. “There’s very little wiggle room, absent a second U.S. invasion of Panama, to retake control of the Panama Canal in practical terms,” said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. Gedan said Trump’s stance is especially baffling given that Mulino is a pro-business conservative who has “made lots of other overtures to show that he would prefer a special relationship with the United States.” He also noted that Panama in recent years has moved closer to China, meaning the U.S. has strategic reasons to keep its relationship with the Central American nation friendly. Panama is also a U.S. partner on stopping illegal immigration from South America — perhaps Trump’s biggest policy priority. “If you’re going to pick a fight with Panama on an issue,” Gedan said, “you could not find a worse one than the canal.” Weissert reported from West Palm Beach, Florida, and Fields from Washington. Amelia Thomson-Deveaux contributed to this report from Washington.
New York state government to monitor its use of AI under a new lawNEW DELHI: Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim posted a poignant tribute to Dr Manmohan Singh on 'X' Friday, recalling the many kindnesses of "his cherished friend" when he, Anwar, was incarcerated, and describing him as "slightly awkward as a politician but undeniably upright, steadfast and resolute as a statesman", a man "whose legacy would inspire generations to come". Singh was "the midwife of India's emergence as one of the world's economic giants", Anwar wrote on 'X' as he bid goodbye, describing the late former PM as "my mitra, my bhai, Manmohan". He said he had the privilege of "witnessing the early years of these transformative polices first-hand" when they both served as finance ministers of their countries during the 1990s. "We shared a fervent commitment to the war against corruption - even collaborating to unravel a major case," Anwar wrote. Anwar said it was time for people to know why Singh, "as the Bard would have it", was a "man so full of the milk of human kindness". He recalled: "During the years of my incarceration , he extended a kindness that he didn't have to - one that was neither politically expedient nor, as one can imagine, appreciated by the Malaysian govt at that time. Yet, true to his character, he did it anyway. He offered scholarships for my children, particularly my son, Ihsan." He said though he had declined the offer, "such a gesture undoubtedly showed his extraordinary humanity and generosity..." "In those dark days, as I navigated the labyrinth of imprisonment, he stood by me as a true friend. Such acts of quiet magnanimity defined him, and they will remain etched in my heart forever," Anwar, who was imprisoned 1999-2004, wrote. Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India . Don't miss daily games like Crossword , Sudoku , Location Guesser and Mini Crossword .
France's Macron announces fourth government of the year
Upstart Holdings chief legal officer sells $446,284 in stock
‘Twas the day before Christmas, And it’s time for Mawer, To reflect on the past year: 2024. Investors kept pondering: When will the ball drop? Isn’t recession coming? Two years and no plop. Most central banks eased rates, As Inflation had dwindled, Investors celebrated, Markets rekindled. But Japan was different, And made a small raise, A hike long considered, A move met with praise. And the bears took their leave, Their growls turned to sighs, AI bulls roamed the market, With laser-like eyes. But the markets were puzzling. Is the trend too soon? The infrastructure’s not there To support such a boon? And then came the third quarter, Returns broadened out, Technology stocks lagged, They better not pout! Great companies are still there, Let us not ignore The “S&P 493,” Which is ripe to explore. “Anything but China” — for much of the year, Investors looked elsewhere, Too much risk and some fear. Now there’s massive stimulus, And some wondered how Will the dragon take flight? Or falter somehow? Switching gears to fixed income, Credit spreads so tight, Risk seemed to be forgotten, Like a dream in the night. And the borrowers did thrive, A festive parade, The lenders found solace, In risks underplayed. And though high yield is tempting, We truly avow, The impact could be harmful, The time is not now. ‘Twas the year of elections, Billions went to vote, Seventy-two countries, To find an antidote. Trump elected president, So buyer beware, Tariff Man’s coming! Canada: “Not fair!” Higher tariffs, lower taxes, Deregulation too, All of this expected, In the U.S. queue. But savvy investors, Need not nervously squirm. The true impact of elections On markets short term. Swift-e-nomics was poppin’, Local shops did glory, Despite high ticket prices, ‘Twas a Love Story. And Gen Alpha’s new language, Created great shocks, RIZZ, Bet, Sus, Skibidi, No more “no show” socks. Still, we try to be direct, No jargon to confuse, We keep being boring, Fundamentals our muse. Our horizon is long term, And while uncertainty abounds, Diversification’s a must, To sleep well and sound. So as we come to the end, With caution and cheer, We look ever onward, To a hopeful new year. From all of us at Mawer, We wish you great cheer, Peace, happiness, joy, and A profitable new year.