s777

s777 NVIDIA Corporation NVDA shares are trading higher on Monday after the Biden administration announced a trade investigation into China’s semiconductor industry. What To Know: The “Section 301” investigation focuses on China’s production and trade practices for “legacy” semiconductors, which could lead to higher U.S. tariffs on these components according to Reuters. The probe aims to protect U.S. semiconductor producers from China’s state-driven industry expansion and examines the impact of Chinese chips on critical sectors such as defense and automotive. The U.S. has already increased export restrictions on advanced AI and memory chips to China and imposed a 50% tariff on Chinese semiconductors starting Jan. 1, with the potential for higher tariffs in the future. China’s Commerce Ministry has criticized the U.S. investigation, stating that it will disrupt the global chip industry and supply chains. The broader context potentially includes escalating trade tensions between the U.S. and China, with China retaliating by restricting exports of critical minerals used in chip production. NVIDIA’s stock is rising amid the semiconductor industry’s response to these developments, reflecting optimism about reduced competition from Chinese producers and potential benefits for U.S. chipmakers. NVDA Price Action: Nvidia shares were up 3.24% at $139.06 at the time of writing, according to Benzinga Pro. Read next: Luigi Mangione, Suspected CEO Assassin, Pleads Not Guilty In New York Court Image Via Shutterstock. © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.A "mysterious" fire has broken out at a drone warehouse located in the western region of Russia , leaving expensive devices "destroyed." The warehouse stocks drone parts worth $16 million, said the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine , including the parts for the Shahed-136 unmanned aerial vehicles, reported News Sky. The Ukraine 's ministry of defense released a Telegram statement in light of the fire, which appears to gloat about the destruction. In an interview with News Sky, the ministry said "there will be fair retribution for every war crime committed against the Ukrainian people." In a translated post, the ministry said the following: The occupier will not escape - scouts continue to eliminate the enemy on the southern front ❌Soldiers of the active operations units of the GUR of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, who perform combat missions on the southern front, destroy the invaders and Russian equipment with the help of artillery and FPV drones. 👉The video shows the results of the combat work of military intelligence officers over the week: successful strikes on personnel and fortifications of the Russian occupation army, camouflaged enemy artillery, military equipment and vehicles of the invaders, as well as the spectacular destruction of Russian reconnaissance UAVs in the air. ⚔️The fight continues - the occupier will not escape! 🇺🇦Glory to Ukraine! "The mysterious destructive fire was another blow to the military-industrial complex of terrorist Russia ," Ukraine's ministry said in a Telegram statement. Last week, Russian leader Vladimir Putin said he is willing to compromise with US President-elect Donald Trump on the Ukraine war.

Dow ends at fresh record as oil prices pull back on ceasefire hopesThe massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics marked the first time a terrorist attack was ever covered live on television. Hundreds of millions of people around the world saw the event as it was happening, and learned the devastating news in real time, forever altering the landscape of news, terrorism, socio political tension, and the way we see history as a living document rolling out before our very eyes. The impact of this moment, and what came after, has been examined numerous times in film, most famously in Steven Spieberg’s “Munich” and Kevin Macdonald’s devastating, Oscar-winning documentary “One Day in September.” It’s well-worn territory, but “September 5” hopes to offer something different to the story, a perspective that’s been discussed and documented before but never portrayed with this particular dramatic conceit. Set inside the ABC Sports offices near the Olympic village, director Tim Fehlbaum’s film unfolds entirely from the perspective of the ABC employees who learn of the attack and are forced to suddenly and dramatically shift the entire focus of their coverage. It’s a great, true story, and it makes for one of the year’s must-see dramas. In the early morning hours of September 5, 1972, young sports producer and director Geoffrey Mason (John Magaro) hears reports of gunshots coming from the Olympic village, later verified by German ABC translator Marianna Gebhardt (Leonie Benesch). In a rush to report the story, Masno wakes up his superiors, Marvin Bader (Ben Chaplin) and ABC Sports President Roone Arledge (Peter Sarsgaard), to make them aware of what everything thinks will be a relatively quick resolution to a violent situation. What they find instead is a constantly escalating nightmare, one the ABC team has to cover as the only live sports broadcaster in America working in Munich at the time. If you’re even a vague student of history, you know the basic outline of events that made up the Munich Massacre. You know about Black September, the taking of Israeli hostages, the hours of negotiations, and the awful conclusion to it all, and you know that because you’ve seen the footage, much of it captured by the very ABC crew depicted in this film. The trick, then, is to present the information in a new way, and it’s here that the script – by Fehlbaum, Moritz Binder, and Alex David – becomes crucial. It begins as the story of a group of people who slowly become aware than an unprecedented terrorist event is unfolding just hundreds of yards away from where they’re working, then evolves into a discussion of how, at the dawn of live satellite feeds and in the years before news began to stretch into a 24-hour affair, the event should actually be covered. Can the ABC crew continue to broadcast if someone is shot on live TV? How does the rescue operation figure into their footage? What happens when the satellite feed is meant to switch over to another network? These are all not just moments of fresh tension that keep the viewer on the edge of their seat, but opportunities to insert emotional and philosophical discussions, many of which we’re still having, into the narrative. These ideas, and the clever way Fehlbaum orchestrates them all, keep the story charged with energy, but it’s the cast who has to carry it to a memorable emotional conclusion. In a very stripped down, nuts and bolts way, this is a story about people in rumpled clothes doing hard work in dark rooms, improvising solutions to emerging problems as they go and, along the way, inadvertently inventing an entirely new kind of news coverage. On that basic level, Magaro shines as the clear star. He’s always been an actor who draws the eye, but as an in-over-his-head relative newcomer in uncharted waters, his frantic search to get it all right in a world where “right” hasn’t yet been decided is impossible to ignore. He’s the beacon at the center of this story, even considering Chaplin and Sarsgaard, who both give towering performances, are right next to him. The real gem of the piece, though, is Benesch, who embodies a progressive German trying to move beyond her country’s dark legacy with earnest, vulnerable, honest emotion. She’s wonderful, and she helps make “September 5” into a great ensemble movie. The cast’s ability to make all of this feel real, to breathe true life into the period-perfect production design and use of archival footage, makes “September 5” one of those rare true story films that makes you feel like you truly don’t know how the story will end. Part of this is the different perspective, a sense that we’re seeing this story in ways we never have before, but the key here is the sheer force of great filmmaking craft. Through the direction, the acting, and the raw power of the drama, we are immersed in a world that it feels like we never quite escaped from, and while that makes “September 5” a tough viewing experience, it also makes it a rewarding one. ‘September 5’ is in select theaters December 13, and expands to more theaters January 17.

Pep Guardiola is in the unprecedented position of having lost five games in a row, so all eyes will be on Tuesday’s Champions League match at the Etihad Stadium. This guide explains how to watch Manchester City vs Feyenoord live streams wherever you are in the world. The match kicks off on Tuesday, November 26 at 8.00pm GMT . That’s 3.00pm ET / 12.00pm PT in the US and 7.00am AEDT (Wednesday) in Australia. Amazon Prime Video have first pick of Tuesday night Champions League games and this week they’ve chosen this Man City vs Feyenoord live stream. In the US you can watch every Champions League match on Paramount+, while Aussie fans can tune in on Stan Sport. Overseas on Tuesday? Don’t forget that you can use a VPN to watch your usual UCL live stream from abroad. Find out more below. These are strange times in the blue half of Manchester, as City haven’t recorded a win since beating Premier League strugglers Southampton on October 26. Having lost to Sporting Lisbon on their previous European outing and sitting in 10th place in the Champions League table, Pep Guardiola ( ranked at no.5 in FourFourTwo 's list of the greatest managers ever ) could really do with a win. Dutch opponents Feyenoord (managed by Liverpool boss Arne Slot until last season) are currently 10 places behind City in the expanded Champion League. At any other time you’d expect City to win this game comfortably, but based on current form, all usual bets are off. This article explains how to watch Man City vs Feyenoord live streams. Looking for another UCL match? Check out our guide to watching the Champions League in 2024/25 . Watch Man City vs Feyenoord on Prime Video in the UK If you’re an Amazon Prime subscriber you can watch Man City vs Feyenoord live streams on Prime Video as part of your subscription. The tech giants have the rights to show 17 matches up to and including the 2024/25 season’s semi-final stage, and have their first pick of Tuesday night fixtures – so far they’ve been prioritising matches involving English teams and we expect that to continue throughout the tournament. You can sign up to Prime for £8.99 per month, and new subscribers can take advantage of a 30-day free trial. TNT Sports (formerly BT Sport) and Discovery+ are showing the 187 Champions League matches that aren’t on Prime Video this season. A Discovery+ Premium subscription will set you back £30.99, but you also have the option to add TNT Sports to existing Sky, BT, EE or Virgin Media packages (prices vary). Highlights will also be available on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. Where else can I watch Champions League games on Prime Video? Amazon Prime Video customers in Germany and Italy can also watch selected UCL matches via Prime Video. If you’re not already a subscriber you can take advantage of the 30-day free trial. Check your country’s Prime Video homepage for more information. Use a VPN to watch from anywhere If you’re overseas when Man City vs Feyenoord kicks off on Tuesday, annoyingly your usual on-demand services won’t work. That’s because your IP address tells the broadcaster you’re in another country, and you’ll subsequently be blocked from tuning in – not ideal if you’ve already paid up for a subscription service you’re not able to use. Thankfully there is another option that doesn’t involve resorting to one of those illegal feeds on Reddit. All you need is a VPN (Virtual Private Network), a handy piece of software which can make it look like your device is still back at home. Assuming it complies with your broadcaster’s T&Cs, you can use a VPN to create a private connection between your device and choice and the internet, meaning the streamer can’t work out where you are and won't automatically block the service you've paid for. All the info going between is also entirely encrypted – and that's a result. There are plenty of good-value options out there, but FourFourTwo’s brainy office mates TechRadar are big fans of NordVPN: Watch Man City vs Feyenoord live streams in the US Paramount+ has the rights to show every Champions League match in the US – including Tuesday’s Man City vs Feyenoord live stream. The Paramount+ Essential package costs $7.99 per month or $59.99 per year, while Paramount+ with Showtime (which allows you to stream over 40,000 movies and TV episodes without ads) costs $12.99 per month or $119.99 per year. Champions League soccer is available with both deals. Watch Man City vs Feyenoord in Ireland Subscription service Premier Sports has the rights to show several Champions league matches this season – including the Man City vs Feyenoord live stream. You can subscribe to Premier Sports through Sky, Now and Virgin Media. Irish fans will also be able to watch a selection of matches for free. Virgin Media TV has the rights to show several games every match week – some of which will air on the free-to-air Virgin Media Two and its Virgin Media Play streaming service. (Other games will be available on Virgin Media More, which is exclusive to Virgin Media customers.) You’ll also be able to watch matches on the free-to-air RTÉ 2 and its RTÉ Player . Other games will be covered by subscription service TNT Sports. Want to know which channel each match is on? Check out our guide to watching the Champions League 2024/25 wherever you are. Watch Man City vs Feyenoord in Australia Aussies can watch Man City vs Feyenoord live streams on Stan Sport in the early hours of Wednesday morning, along with every other Champions League match this season. It costs $15 per month to add Stan Sport to your standard Stan subscription. Watch Man City vs Feyenoord live streams in South Africa Soccer fans in South Africa can watch Tuesday’s UCL action on subscription service SuperSport through DStv.

Dow ends at fresh record as oil prices pull back on ceasefire hopes

Julia Wick | (TNS) Los Angeles Times As California politicos look ahead to 2025, the biggest question looming is whether Vice President Kamala Harris — a native daughter, battered just weeks ago by presidential election defeat — will enter the 2026 California governor’s race. Related Articles National Politics | Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people National Politics | Trump taps immigration hard-liner Kari Lake as head of Voice of America National Politics | Trump invites China’s Xi to his inauguration even as he threatens massive tariffs on Beijing National Politics | Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump National Politics | What Americans think about Hegseth, Gabbard and key Trump Cabinet picks AP-NORC poll Harris has yet to give any public indication on her thoughts and those close to her suggest the governorship is not immediately top of mind. But if Harris does ultimately run — and that’s a massive if — her entrée would seismically reshape the already crowded race for California’s highest office. Recent polling suggests Harris would have a major advantage, with 46% of likely voters saying they were somewhat or very likely to support her for governor in 2026, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey co-sponsored by The Times. “If Vice President Harris were to choose to run, I am certain that that would have a near field-clearing effect on the Democratic side,” Rep. Katie Porter, D-Irvine, said during a recent UC Irvine panel interview . Porter, a high-profile Democrat who has been eyeing the wide-open governor’s race, has yet to say whether she plans to run. Porter’s point was broadly echoed in conversations with nearly a dozen California political operatives and strategists, several of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly. Most speculated that a Harris entry would cause some other candidates in the race to scatter, creating further upheaval in down-ballot races as a roster of ambitious politicians scramble for other opportunities. “In politics, you always let the big dogs eat first,” quipped Democratic political consultant Peter Ragone. The current gubernatorial field is a who’s who of California politicians, but lacks a clear favorite or star with widespread name recognition. The vast majority of California’s 22 million voters have yet to pay attention to the race and have little familiarity with the candidates. The list of Democratic candidates includes Los Angeles’ first Latino mayor in more than a century ( Antonio Villaraigosa ); the first female and first out LGBTQ leader of the state Senate ( Toni Atkins ); the sitting lieutenant governor and first woman to hold that post ( Eleni Kounalakis ); the state superintendent of public instruction ( Tony Thurmond ) and the former state controller ( Betty Yee ). Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is serving his second term as California governor, meaning he is ineligible to run again. Several other Democrats, including Porter, outgoing Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta have also publicly toyed with the idea of a run. They could be less likely to enter the fray should Harris decide to run. What the billionaire mall mogul Rick Caruso — who has also been exploring a run — would choose to do is an open question, as Caruso might contrast himself with Harris as a more centrist candidate. The real estate developer was a registered Republican until November 2019. It’s unlikely that Harris will proffer a public decision in the immediate term, leaving plenty of time for political insiders to game out hypotheticals in the weeks and months to come. Harris’ office did not respond to a request for comment. “I think every candidate for governor is trying to get some kind of intel,” Mike Trujillo, a Los Angeles-based Democratic political consultant and former Villaraigosa staffer, said of a potential Harris run. Trujillo speculated that Harris’ current state was probably similar to Hillary Clinton’s hiking sojourns in the Chappaqua woods after losing to Donald Trump in 2016, or Al Gore growing a beard in the bruising aftermath of his 2000 defeat. “The first thing she’s probably thinking about is, ‘Well, can I run again for president in four years?’ Not, ‘Do I run for governor in two years?’” said one political operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. Harris maintains a home in Brentwood and previously served as California’s senator and attorney general. A successful run for governor in 2026 would almost certainly impede a grab for the presidency in 2028. (Though if history is any guide, an unsuccessful run for California governor does not definitively preclude a bid for the Oval Office: Two years after losing the White House to John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon lost the 1962 contest for governor to Pat Brown . The Yorba Linda native became the nation’s 37th president in 1969.) As the chief executive of a state that doubles as the world’s fifth-largest economy, Harris would have more power to steer policy and make changes as a California governor than she did as vice president, where her job required deference to President Biden. But leading a state, even the nation’s most populous, could feel like small potatoes after being a heartbeat (and a few dozen electoral votes) from the presidency. The protracted slog to November 2026 would also be a stark contrast to her ill-fated 107-day sprint toward the White House, particularly for a candidate whose 2020 presidential primary campaign was dogged by allegations of infighting and mismanagement. “I don’t think Kamala Harris has a deep psychological need to be governor of California, or to be in elective office in order to feel like she can contribute to society,” said the operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. “I think some of these people do, but she’s somebody who has enough prominence that she could do a lot of big, wonderful things without having to worry about balancing California’s budget or negotiating with Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel,” the Encino Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s budget committee. Technically, Harris has until March 2026 to decide whether she enters a race. But political strategists who spoke to The Times theorized that she probably would make a move by late spring, if she chooses to do so. “People will be more annoyed if she drops in in June,” a Democratic strategist involved with one of the gubernatorial campaigns said. Sending a clear signal by February would be more “courteous,” the strategist continued, explaining that such a move would give candidates more time to potentially enter other races. Kounalakis is a longtime friend and ally of Harris’ , and the vice president also has long-term relationships with some of the other candidates and potential candidates. California has eight statewide elected offices and campaign finance laws allow candidates to fundraise interchangeably for them, meaning money already raised for a candidate’s gubernatorial campaign could easily be redirected should they decide to run for, say, lieutenant governor instead. There are already a number of candidates running for lieutenant governor, including former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, former state Sen. Steven Bradford and former state Treasurer Fiona Ma. But that office probably would see even more interest should Harris enter the gubernatorial race. It’s a largely ceremonial position, but one that has served as a launching pad for the governorship. Still, even if Harris does enter the race, Republican political strategist Mike Murphy threw cold water on the idea that she would have an automatic glide path to the governor’s office. “It’s like Hollywood. Nobody knows anything. She’s famous enough to look credible in early polling. That’s all we know for sure,” Murphy said. “Does that predict the future? No. Are there a lot of downsides (to a potential Harris candidacy)? Totally, yes.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Australia’s technology sector has not yet felt the “whistleblowing wave” that has torn through Silicon Valley and the European Union, and a new guide is aiming to encourage more insiders to come forward and expose corporate wrongdoing. The past year has been marked by scandals at local technology companies, including WiseTech Global , Grok Academy and Metigy , with executives at each organisation resigning after alleged misconduct was revealed by whistleblowers who raised concerns. American Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen. Credit: AFR Other tech scandals this year include a secretive algorithm that was found to be determining the fate of Australia’s immigration detainees and revelations that photos of Australian children have been used to train AI tools without the knowledge or consent of the children or their families. As the federal government moves ahead with its aggressive plans to regulate Big Tech and reduce the harm caused by social media and artificial intelligence, there are concerns that the role of whistleblowers has been lost in the debate. Technology-Related Whistleblowing: A Practical Guide will be launched on Monday and is the work of The Human Rights Law Centre, Reset Tech Australia, Psst.org and Digital Rights Watch. It builds on equivalent resources in the US and the EU. Frances Haugen, the high-profile American whistleblower who leaked the so-called “Facebook Files” said Australia was, in many respects, a proving ground for many of the world’s incumbent tech giants and an incubator for the good, bad, and the unlawful. ‘Few people, if any at all, actively set out to be whistleblowers. It is a difficult and hazardous path, but sometimes it’s the only path we have to serve the public interest, and even save lives.’ Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen Haugen formerly served as a senior product manager at Facebook before quitting in May 2021 and leaking tens of thousands of internal documents that exposed how much the company knew about the harm it was causing, including knowingly promoting misinformation and hate speech, and pro-eating-disorder content to teenage girls. “Just in 2024, a wide variety of tech scandals came to light in Australia. These powerful investigations by top reporters detail a taste of what’s happening under the surface in data-powered digital companies. There are almost certainly more,” Haugen said.

NoneThe Jaguar Land Rover managing director is defending the British luxury car company after its recent rebranding spurred backlash on social media. Jaguar debuted its new logo and slogan, “Copy Nothing,” in a promotional video last week. The ad featured androgynous models in brightly colored, over-the-top outfits, including one man wearing a dress, along with other slogans such as “create exuberant,” “live vivid,” “delete ordinary” and “break moulds.” Notably, the ad did not feature any cars in its 30-second run. The video blew up on social media, attracting over 163 million views and over 100,000 comments. Critics accused Jaguar of abandoning its legacy as a high-performance sports car manufacturer with the marketing campaign and claimed the brand had gone “woke.” In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Jaguar Land Rover managing director Rawdon Glover defended the brand relaunch and denied the ad was meant to send a “woke” message. While Glover praised the attention around the campaign as “very positive,” he said he was disappointed by the “level of vile hatred and intolerance” shown by social media commentators towards the models in the video. He claimed the ad’s message had been lost “in a blaze of intolerance.” “If we play in the same way that everybody else does, we’ll just get drowned out. So we shouldn’t turn up like an auto brand,” Glover told the FT. “We need to re-establish our brand and at a completely different price point so we need to act differently. We wanted to move away from traditional automotive stereotypes.” The Jaguar rebrand is part of the company’s efforts to attract wealthier customers in its transition to an all-electric vehicle lineup. “This is not a depiction of how we think our future customers are,” Glover told the FT. “We don’t want to necessarily leave all of our customers behind. But we do need to attract a new customer base.” Jaguar previously defended the company’s brand relaunch in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Our brand relaunch for Jaguar is a bold and imaginative reinvention and as expected it has attracted attention and debate. As proud custodians at such a remarkable point in Jaguar’s history we have preserved iconic symbols while taking a dramatic leap forward. The brand reveal is only the first step in this exciting new era and we look forward to sharing more on Jaguar’s transformation in the coming days and weeks,” the statement said. Originally published as Jaguar boss defends new ‘woke’ rebrand after ad airs featuring man in a dress, androgynous models

CES 2025 preview: The new technology we’re expecting and hoping to see in Las Vegas

Dow ends at fresh record as oil prices pull back on ceasefire hopes48 progressive farmers flagged off for 7-days interstate training prog

VERMILLION, S.D. (AP) — Chase Forte scored 21 points as South Dakota beat Western Illinois 89-66 on Saturday. Forte added six rebounds and five assists for the Coyotes (9-4). Cameron Fens added 17 points while going 5 of 8 and 7 of 9 from the free-throw line while grabbing six rebounds. Isaac Bruns had 13 points and shot 4 for 10 (1 for 3 from 3-point range) and 4 of 5 from the free-throw line. Marko Maletic led the Leathernecks (6-5) in scoring, finishing with 24 points. Julius Rollins added 13 points for Western Illinois. Sean Smith had 11 points. South Dakota's next game is Thursday against Utah Tech on the road. Western Illinois hosts Tennessee Tech on Tuesday. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .

Google: 2024 capital investment in NE is $930M, for a five-year tally of $4.4BCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing to wage a legal war against President-elect Donald Trump, convening a special legislative session next month to try to “Trump-proof” the state. But it appears Newsom and California legislators won’t initially include artificial intelligence safeguards in that fight, even though AI regulations were a major preoccupation of the Legislature this year. Trump has promised to immediately rescind President Joe Biden’s executive order that had imposed voluntary AI guardrails on tech companies and federal agencies. The president-elect’s administration could also, immigrant advocates say, use AI tools to assist the mass deportation he has pledged to implement. While California adopted a number of AI regulations earlier this year, other issues are likely to take priority in Newsom’s special session, legislators told CalMatters. There are signs, though, that AI could — in the not-so-distant future — go from abstract concern to prominent political cudgel between the Trump administration and California’s Democratic leaders. It could be another high-profile way to challenge Trump and his newfound tech allies, some of whom have gleefully proclaimed a new, deregulated era for artificial intelligence products. “I think Newsom and the California Legislature have an opportunity to step into the gap that the federal government is leaving — to create a model environment for safe and rights-respecting technology and deployment,” said Janet Haven, executive director of the Data & Society Research Institute, a nonprofit that studies the social implications of AI and other technologies. “On the other hand, there’s no way to get around the fact that Big Tech is right there, and will be a huge factor in whatever the California Legislature and Newsom want to advance in terms of AI legislation.” AI safety advocates told CalMatters they’re not necessarily sweating the apocalyptic AI nightmares imagined by some doomsayers. Instead, they are focused on how AI tools are increasingly used in healthcare, housing, the labor force, law enforcement, immigration, the military, as well as other industries and fields prone to discrimination, surveillance, and civil rights violations — because there’s evidence that such tools can be unwieldy, inaccurate, and invasive . “We have documentation that shows how these AI systems are likely to do all sorts of things—they’re pattern-making systems, they’re not really decision-makers, but the private sector and the public sector are using them as a substitute for decision-makers,” said Samantha Gordon, chief program officer at TechEquity. “That’s not wise.” Santa Ana Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg told CalMatters that 2024 “was a bit of a testing year” for AI bills. California lawmakers outlawed sexually explicit deepfakes and certain election-related deepfake content, required tech companies to provide free AI detection tools, and stipulated that tech companies must publicly release data about their AI training tools. Gov. Newsom ultimately signed roughly 20 AI bills into law. But he also controversially vetoed a major bill by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener that would’ve instituted significant testing requirements on AI tools to make sure they avoid catastrophic outcomes such as major cybersecurity or infrastructure attacks, or the creation of weapons that could cause mass death. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that the bill risked curtailing innovation, but he added that he wanted to “find the appropriate path forward, including legislation and regulation.” Wiener told CalMatters he’s working on updated legislation that could garner “broader support.” Such a bill would presumably include additional buy-in from the tech sector, which the state is relying on for tax revenues , and which has a notable lobbying presence in Sacramento — Google just racked up the largest quarterly lobbying tab in a decade. Asked whether to expect more Big Tech lobbying against regulatory efforts in California, Palo Alto Democratic Assemblymember Marc Berman said: “It’s going to be a good time to be a lobbyist. They’re going to do very well.” Though Wiener’s AI testing bill was batted down, as were a few other noteworthy AI bills that didn’t make it out of the Legislature, California is “far and away the center of AI regulation in the U.S,” said Ashok Ayyar, a Stanford research fellow who co-wrote a comparative analysis of Wiener’s bill against the European Union’s more comprehensive AI efforts. California is leading on AI in large part because the competition is basically non-existent. Congress hasn’t passed meaningful AI legislation. Asked about Trump and the incoming Republican majority, San Ramon Democratic Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said, “There isn’t much regulation to deregulate, to be honest.” Sans federal legislation, President Biden issued an executive order in October 2023 intended to place guardrails around the use of AI. The order built on five policy principles on the “design, use, and deployment of automated systems to protect the American public.” Biden directed federal agencies “to develop plans for how they would advance innovation in the government use of AI, but also protect against known harms and rights violations,” said Haven. Soon after Biden’s executive order, his administration created the U.S. AI Safety Institute, which is housed within the Commerce Department. Biden’s executive order relies on tech companies, many of which are based in California, to voluntarily embrace the administration’s suggestions; it also relies on agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, to be transparent and honest about how they’re using AI technology and not violate people’s civil rights. Like most executive orders, Biden’s AI edict is loosely enforceable and fairly easy to reverse. Trump has already promised to repeal Biden’s executive order on day one of his term; the 2024 Republican platform argues that the executive order “hinders AI Innovation, and imposes Radical Leftwing ideas on the development of this technology.” Homeland Security and other executive branch agencies may be granted far more flexibility when Trump takes office, though advocates say the bar was already low; a June 2024 report from the nonprofit Mijente titled “Automating Deportation” argues the department hasn’t followed through on the Biden administration’s already relatively meager requests. After Trump clinched the 2024 presidential election, segments of the tech industry were jubilant about what they foresee for the AI industry—including an imminent uptick in government contracts. “Stick a fork in it, it’s over,” Marc Andreessen, the billionaire general partner of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, wrote on X. “The US will be the preeminent AI superpower in the world after all.” If mass deportation of undocumented immigrants come to pass, as Trump has promised, that would require a wide variety of technologies, including AI tools. Homeland Security already employs an AI system called the Repository for Analytics in a Virtualized Environment, or RAVEn, a nine-figure government contract. The department also has access to an extensive biometric database, and monitors certain undocumented immigrants outside of detention centers via a surveillance tool that utilizes AI algorithms to try to determine whether an immigrant is likely to abscond. “We know from Trump’s first administration that there are going to be fewer guardrails with the use of this tech, and agents will feel even more emboldened,” said Sejal Zota, co-founder and legal director of Just Futures Law, a legal advocacy group focused on immigration, criminal justice and surveillance issues. “That’s one area where we’re going to see increased AI use to support this mass deportation agenda.” To the best of Zota’s knowledge, there’s little California lawmakers or courts could do to prevent federal agencies from using AI tech against vulnerable populations, including undocumented immigrants. “Is it an issue? Absolutely, it’s an issue,” said Sen. Umberg. “What can we do about it? What can we do about federal agencies using artificial intelligence? We can’t do much.” Estimates show there are at least 1.8 million undocumented immigrants in California. Another potential threat to California’s AI regulations is if the majority Republican Congress passes looser AI rules of its own, preempting state law. California lawmakers, including Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan and Sen. Umberg, said they don’t think significant AI legislation will make it to President Trump for his signature. Congressional gridlock is one reason Sen. Wiener said he’s pursuing AI regulation in the California Legislature in the first place: “I was very clear that if (the issue) were being handled statutorily at the federal level, I’d be happy to close up shop and go home,” he said. “But it wasn’t happening, and it’s certainly not going to happen under Trump.” Not everyone believes Congress will remain stagnant on this issue, however, particularly with one party now dominant in Washington. “I wouldn’t underestimate the creativity of this incoming administration,” said Paromita Shah, executive director of Just Futures Law. Added Haven: “I think it’s possible that with a Republican trifecta, we’ll see an attempt to pass a very weak data privacy law at the federal level that preempts state law. Then it’s a game of whack-a-mole between the state legislature and the federal legislature.” Newsom has to date signed many AI bills but turned back others he says go too far and risk inhibiting an industry he has sought to cultivate as a government partner . A spokesperson for Newsom did not directly respond to CalMatters’ questions for this story, instead providing a statement highlighting the state’s role in shaping the future of so-called “generative AI,” a recent and innovative form of the technology behind tools like ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Midjourney: “California has led the nation in protecting against the harms of GenAI while leveraging its potential benefits,” said spokesperson Alex Stack. President-elect Trump’s team did not respond to written questions from CalMatters. Dan Schnur, a political analyst and professor at UC Berkeley and other campuses, predicted the governor will save his political capital for other clashes. “Newsom’s incentive for strengthening his relationship with Silicon Valley is probably stronger than his need for yet one more issue to fight over with Donald Trump,” Schnur said. Florence G’Sell, a visiting professor at Stanford’s cyber policy center, cautioned Newsom against clinging to the deregulatory side of Silicon Valley. “There is really a very strong movement that wants to highlight the risks of AI, the safety questions,” G’Sell said. “If I were the governor, I wouldn’t be insensitive to this movement and the warnings.” Lawmakers are eyeing other avenues to shore up Californians’ redresses against AI technology. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan previously told CalMatters she plans to reintroduce a stronger version of a bill, which failed to advance past the Legislature last session, to crack down on discriminatory AI practices. Another top AI priority, according to Menlo Park Democratic Sen. Josh Becker, is less sexy, but perhaps just as important: “closely monitor the implementation of this year’s regulatory framework (that we just passed),” he wrote. California’s next AI regulatory steps were always going to be intensely analyzed. That’s even more so the case now, with Trump returning to office—a challenge state lawmakers are embracing. “One of the things that is somewhat amusing to me is when folks come to me and say, ‘Whatever you do in California is going to set the standard for the country,’ Sen. Umberg said. “As a policymaker, that’s catnip. That’s why I ran for office.”Brazil’s federal police last Thursday formally accused Mr Bolsonaro and 36 other people of attempting a coup. They sent their 884-page report to the Supreme Court, which lifted the seal. “The evidence collected throughout the investigation shows unequivocally that then-president Jair Messias Bolsonaro planned, acted and was directly and effectively aware of the actions of the criminal organisation aiming to launch a coup d’etat and eliminate the democratic rule of law, which did not take place due to reasons unrelated to his desire,” the document said. At another point, it says: “Bolsonaro had full awareness and active participation.” Mr Bolsonaro, who had repeatedly alleged without evidence that the country’s electronic voting system was prone to fraud, called a meeting in December 2022, during which he presented a draft decree to the commanders of the three divisions of the armed forces, according to the police report, signed by four investigators. The decree would have launched an investigation into suspicions of fraud and crimes related to the October 2022 vote, and suspended the powers of the nation’s electoral court. The navy’s commander stood ready to comply, but those from the army and air force objected to any plan that prevented Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s inauguration, the report said. Those refusals are why the plan did not go ahead, according to witnesses who spoke to investigators. Mr Bolsonaro never signed the decree to set the final stage of the alleged plan into action. Mr Bolsonaro has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or awareness of any plot to keep him in power or oust his leftist rival and successor. “No one is going to do a coup with a reserve general and half a dozen other officers. What is being said is absurd. For my part, there has never been any discussion of a coup,” Mr Bolsonaro told journalists in the capital Brasilia on Monday. “If someone came to discuss a coup with me, I’d say, that’s fine, but the day after, how does the world view us?” he added. “The word ‘coup’ has never been in my dictionary.” The top court has passed the report on to prosecutor-general Paulo Gonet. He will decide whether to formally charge Mr Bolsonaro. Rodrigo Rios, a law professor at the PUC university in the city of Curitiba, said Mr Bolsonaro could face up to a minimum of 11 years in prison if convicted on all charges. “A woman involved in the January 8 attack on the Supreme Court received a 17-year prison sentence,” Mr Rios told the Associated Press, noting that the former president is more likely to receive 15 years or more if convicted. “Bolsonaro’s future looks dark.” Ahead of the 2022 election, Mr Bolsonaro repeatedly alleged that the election system, which does not use paper ballots, could be tampered with. The top electoral court later ruled that he had abused his power to cast unfounded doubt on the voting system, and ruled him ineligible for office until 2030. Still, he has maintained that he will stand as a candidate in the 2026 race. Since Mr Bolsonaro left office, he has been targeted by several investigations, all of which he has chalked up to political persecution. Federal police have accused him of smuggling diamond jewellery into Brazil without properly declaring them and directing a subordinate to falsify his and others’ Covid-19 vaccination statuses. Authorities are also investigating whether he incited the riot on January 8 2022 in which his followers ransacked the Supreme Court and presidential palace in Brasilia, seeking to prompt intervention by the army that would oust Mr Lula from power. Mr Bolsonaro had left for the United States days before Mr Lula’s inauguration on January 1 2023 and stayed there for three months, keeping a low profile. The police report unsealed on Tuesday alleges he was seeking to avoid possible imprisonment related to the coup plot, and also await the uprising that took place a week later.

Saints hope to ride the Rizzi factor back to relevance after their bye week

Stock market today: Wall Street mixed at the start of a holiday-shortened week

International Coffee & Tea Data Breach Exposes Personal Information: Murphy Law Firm Investigates Legal Claims

Arsenal get their statement road win in Champions League as Odegaard dazzles

49ers GM John Lynch says Brock Purdy status ‘tenuous’ after MRI on shoulder injury