roulette numbers
What went wrong on the onside kick that almost cost the Vikings?
Maryland is set to examine its current method of evaluating poverty in schools throughout the next year, potentially opening a pathway to boost funding for schools with students in need. A new study is meant to address the undercounting of poverty in Maryland public schools, according to Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman. The Board of Public Works approved funding for the study at its Dec. 4 meeting. “This issue is exacerbated for undocumented students or citizen children of undocumented parents,” Lierman said at that meeting. The current method of tabulating poverty “really penalizes” schools with large numbers of immigrant students, Lierman said. The state currently uses proxy measures, such as eligibility for national programs like Medicaid and SNAP, to calculate aid for public schools, according to the proposal for funds from the Department of General Services. According to the Governor’s Office for Children, an accurate count of students in poverty is important to ensure that they get adequate resources. The office also told CNS that the “Blueprint for Maryland’s Future created several new school funding streams that rely on counts of low-income students.” Schools currently rely on applications for the free and reduced meals program and enrollment in social programs like Medicaid as methods of calculating student poverty. According to the Governor’s Office for Children, “not all low income families participate in these programs.” The office also said that “districts that provide free school meals to all students under the federal community eligibility program do not collect that data.” In the case of immigrant families, some may not qualify or, as the office told CNS, may be hesitant to enroll and reveal their citizenship status. Other data the state might rely upon is out of date. According to Lierman, the Maryland State Department of Education recently proposed using data from 2013 to calculate school poverty in Baltimore City. Lierman said that many public schools have been shuttered in the city since that data was collected. “As a Baltimore City Public School mom,” Lierman said, “I’ve got a lot of strong feelings about this.” The board approved the DGS request for $48,000 monthly for “modeling, analysis and providing a presentation on findings.” According to the Office for Children, a recommendation based on the results of the study will be made to the Maryland General Assembly by Dec. 1, 2025.A Samsung Electronics Co. Galaxy Z Fold 6 smartphone displayed at a Samsung store in Seoul, South ... [+] Korea, on Friday, Oct. 4, 2024. Samsung is expected to report record-high revenue in the September quarter, buoyed by a recovery in chip prices and strong demand for AI-supporting high-bandwidth memory. Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg Samsung is running an early January sale for the Galaxy Z Fold 6 that includes high trade-in prices for your old tech, a free subscription worth $300, and discounted accessories. As is the case with almost all mobile devices in Samsung’s new sale, the deal focuses mostly on higher trade-in prices instead of straight discounts. Money-off the headline price is almost always the best type of deal , but Samsung has upped its trade-in valuations to some of the highest I have ever seen. The best price is $500 for any Google smartphone. Samsung doesn’t have an exhaustive list of what Google phones it will accept. It is not clear if it will take devices from the pre-Pixel era (the terms and conditions do not shed any more light). But I imagine if there was a cut off, Samsung would explicitly say that it will only accept Pixel handsets. At the very least, paying $500 for a 2016 Google Pixel 1 is an exceptional price that you will not get anywhere else. If you have an old Google device sitting around (and you’re looking to buy the Z Fold 6) this is a no-brainer. More enterprising shoppers can get the original Pixel on the secondary market for less than $50. However, it may be difficult to find an old device that fits the below trade-in criteria. Samsung's trade-in criteria. Dark Web Facial ID Farm Warning—Hackers Build Identity Fraud Database In Whiplash Maneuver, Court Rules Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting Requirements Are On Hold Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Clues And Answers For Friday, December 27 It will be easier to find newer smartphones, such as the Pixel 5a or Pixel 4 XL, in better condition that will net the full $500. Both of these can be picked up on eBay or Swappa for under $100. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 Trade In Prices Elsewhere, Samsung has similarly high prices for other smartphones. Here are the best valuations I could find for realistic trade-ins (phones that are more than two years old). In typical Samsung fashion, the company has discounted accessories if they’re bought with the Z Fold 6. The Galaxy Buds 3 are $117 off, while the Galaxy Ring is $80 cheaper . These devices are subject to repeated discounts throughout the year so do not feel pressured to take Samsung up on this deal. The more intriguing bundle offer is two years of VIP Advantage membership, worth $300 in total. That includes Samsung Care Plus, which means unlimited repairs (but doesn’t come with coverage for theft and loss). The VIP membership also knocks 10% off accessories, “exclusive discounts” (although, Samsung’s hardware is often discounted anyway), and free simple installation, or 50% off complex installations and TV mounting. Again, this is being thrown in for free with the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 so there’s little reason to not take it. Just make sure you put a note in your calendar for when the promotion ends, otherwise, you may be automatically charged $149.
USC women move to No. 4 in AP poll as top three unchanged
BEIRUT -- In 2006, after a bruising monthlong war between Israel and Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah militant group, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution to end the conflict and pave the way for lasting security along the border. But while there was relative calm for nearly two decades, Resolution 1701’s terms were never fully enforced. Now, figuring out how to finally enforce it is key to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal approved by Israel on Tuesday. In late September, after nearly a year of low-level clashes , the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into all-out war and an Israeli ground invasion . As Israeli jets pound deep inside Lebanon and Hezbollah fires rockets deeper into northern Israel, U.N. and diplomatic officials again turned to the 2006 resolution in a bid to end the conflict. Years of deeply divided politics and regionwide geopolitical hostilities have halted substantial progress on its implementation, yet the international community believes Resolution 1701 is still the brightest prospect for long-term stability between Israel and Lebanon. Almost two decades after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States led shuttle diplomacy efforts between Lebanon and Israel to agree on a ceasefire proposal that renewed commitment to the resolution, this time with an implementation plan to try to bring the document back to life. In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon along a U.N.-demarcated “Blue Line” that separated the two countries and the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights, which most of the world considers occupied Syrian territory. U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL , increased their presence along the line of withdrawal. Resolution 1701 was supposed to complete Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ensure Hezbollah would move north of the Litani River, keeping the area exclusively under the Lebanese military and U.N. peacekeepers. Up to 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers would help to maintain calm, return displaced Lebanese and secure the area alongside the Lebanese military. The goal was long-term security, with land borders eventually demarcated to resolve territorial disputes. The resolution also reaffirmed previous ones that call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon — Hezbollah among them. “It was made for a certain situation and context,” Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general, told The Associated Press. “But as time goes on, the essence of the resolution begins to hollow.” For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops. Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict. “You had a role of the UNIFIL that slowly eroded like any other peacekeeping with time that has no clear mandate,” said Joseph Bahout, the director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy at the American University of Beirut. “They don’t have permission to inspect the area without coordinating with the Lebanese army.” UNIFIL for years has urged Israel to withdraw from some territory north of the frontier, but to no avail. In the ongoing war, the peacekeeping mission has accused Israel, as well as Hezbollah , of obstructing and harming its forces and infrastructure. Hezbollah’s power, meanwhile, has grown, both in its arsenal and as a political influence in the Lebanese state. The Iran-backed group was essential in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power when armed opposition groups tried to topple him, and it supports Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Yemen. It has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided missiles pointed at Israel, and has introduced drones into its arsenal . Hanna says Hezbollah “is something never seen before as a non-state actor” with political and military influence. Israel's security Cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement late Tuesday, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office. The ceasefire is set to take hold at 4 a.m. local time Wednesday. Efforts led by the U.S. and France for the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah underscored that they still view the resolution as key. For almost a year, Washington has promoted various versions of a deal that would gradually lead to its full implementation. International mediators hope that by boosting financial support for the Lebanese army — which was not a party in the Israel-Hezbollah war — Lebanon can deploy some 6,000 additional troops south of the Litani River to help enforce the resolution. Under the deal, an international monitoring committee headed by the United States would oversee implementation to ensure that Hezbollah and Israel’s withdrawals take place. It is not entirely clear how the committee would work or how potential violations would be reported and dealt with. The circumstances now are far more complicated than in 2006. Some are still skeptical of the resolution's viability given that the political realities and balance of power both regionally and within Lebanon have dramatically changed since then. “You’re tying 1701 with a hundred things,” Bahout said. “A resolution is the reflection of a balance of power and political context.” Now with the ceasefire in place, the hope is that Israel and Lebanon can begin negotiations to demarcate their land border and settle disputes over several points along the Blue Line for long-term security after decades of conflict and tension.
The price tag on celebs’ favorite teddy coat is a lot to bear. Nicky Hilton, Emily Ratajkowski and Alexa Chung (to name but a few) all regularly step out in Max Mara’s Teddy Bear Icon Coat ($4,490), a four-figure fashion statement that pairs with practically any winter outfit. And while the soft style will set you back big-time, the Scoop Faux Fur Oversized Maxi Coat ( $59 $35) offers a similarly luxe look — and it’s on sale right now for under $40. Scoop Faux Fur Oversized Maxi Coat Part of Brandon Maxwell’s Walmart line , the piece has skyrocketed to bestseller status and is already out of stock in several sizes. (At time of publishing, it was in over 100 shoppers’ carts.) While the chocolate hue is sold out, the plush double-breasted design comes in an expensive-looking caramel color in sizes XS to 4X. It’s garnered over 80 five-star reviews (and counting), with shoppers calling it “soft as a cloud” and “such nice quality.” “As with anything made by Scoop, this coat is stunning!” one satisfied shopper raved. “It is well made, quality materials, stylish, and the price is too good to be true.” “Perfect for those cold days,” another added of the “supper warm” style, adding that it “looks far more expensive than it is.” It’s far from the only cozy coat on sale right now, as the shorter Scoop Oversized Faux Fur Jacket ( $64 $38), another bestseller from the brand, is also marked down. Scoop Faux Fur Oversized Faux Fur Jacket And should you prefer a more tailored topper, the Maxwell-designed line’s Faux Wool Oversized Double Breasted Coat ( $59 $35) is just the thing to add to your cart. Scoop Faux Wool Oversized Double Breasted Coat Just be sure to shop fast, as these hot deals on cold-weather essentials won’t last long. Why Trust Page Six Style Shopping This article was written by Hannah Southwick , Commerce Writer/Reporter for Page Six Style. Hannah spies deals on actually affordable celebrity-worn styles , puts Hollywood’s favorite labels to the test and finds the beauty products that keep stars red carpet-ready. She consults stylists and industry pros — including celebs themselves — for firsthand product recommendations, trend predictions and more. In addition to writing for Page Six since 2020, her work has been featured in USA Today and Parade.
Accused SnapChat predator from N.J. facing more charges involving 15-year-old girl
Ex-OpenAI engineer who raised legal concerns about the technology he helped build has diedThe USA might find itself outflanked In early August 2024, Ukrainian forces launched an unprecedented cross-border offensive into Russia’s Kursk region, marking the most significant foreign incursion into Russian territory since the Second World War. The response of Russian President Vladimir Putin to this development was particularly revealing. In the aftermath of the offensive, Putin directed his rhetoric against the USA and Europe, asserting that the West was waging war against Russia through Ukrainian proxies. Despite this assertive rhetoric, Putin refrained from initiating an immediate military counteroffensive, opting instead to maintain the focus of Russian forces on operations in eastern Ukraine. Even three months later, with Ukrainian forces still present in Kursk, Moscow chose to deploy North Korean troops to assist in reclaiming the region, marking the first instance in over a century that Russia permitted foreign troops on its soil. These actions underscore Putin’s unwavering commitment to the war in Ukraine and his broader antagonism towards the West, nearly three years after the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. While the conflict serves as an imperial endeavour aimed at dismantling Ukrainian sovereignty, Putin’s ultimate objectives extend to revising the post-Cold War European order, diminishing US influence, and establishing a new international framework that amplifies Russia’s global stature. Although these ambitions are longstanding, the war has intensified Putin’s resolve and narrowed his strategic alternatives, propelling Russia into deeper isolation while transforming its society, economy, and foreign policy to sustain confrontation with the West. The evolving dynamics suggest that the conflict is far from resolution, with the prospect of escalation remaining high. The incoming Trump Administration’s overtures toward normalizing relations with Moscow are unlikely to mitigate these tensions. Limited Western military support to Ukraine has impeded Kyiv’s capacity to decisively counter Russian aggression, potentially emboldening Moscow to pursue further destabilization efforts once it has replenished its military capacity. This trajectory raises the spectre of continued Russian subversion across Europe and reinforces Moscow’s alignment with states antagonistic to Western interests, such as Iran and North Korea. To address this growing challenge, the USA and Europe must prioritize containment measures against Russia. Delaying such efforts could result in greater strategic costs in the future. Washington, despite its focus on competition with China, cannot afford to downplay the Russian threat, which has significant implications for European security and transatlantic stability. Strengthening Ukraine’s negotiating position, enhancing NATO’s defensive capabilities, and encouraging European states to bolster their own defense frameworks are critical steps in mitigating Russia’s destabilizing influence. Domestically, Putin has consolidated power through extensive economic and societal reorganization. Russia’s defense budget for 2025 is projected to reach unprecedented levels, exceeding six percent of GDP. This militarization has reshaped Russia’s economy into a war-oriented structure, with increased production in defence industries and significant financial incentives for military service. These developments align with Putin’s ideological narrative of an existential struggle against the West, which he uses to legitimize his regime and maintain public support. However, the reliance on repression and control over the information environment presents risks, as excessive suppression of dissent may destabilize his rule over time. Internationally, Russia has forged closer ties with China, Iran, and North Korea, driven by strategic necessity and shared opposition to Western dominance. These partnerships provide Moscow with critical economic and military support while amplifying its ability to challenge US interests globally. The Kremlin’s recalibrated foreign policy reflects a long-term strategy that extends beyond the current conflict in Ukraine, aiming to sustain Russia’s relevance in the multipolar international order. Militarily, Russia is poised for reconstruction and adaptation. Despite significant losses, its armed forces have demonstrated resilience and an ability to incorporate advanced technologies and tactics into their operations. Challenges persist, particularly in scaling production capacities for modern weaponry and addressing skilled labour shortages. However, Russia’s focus on expanding its military infrastructure and replenishing its resources signals a sustained commitment to maintaining a robust defense posture. For NATO and its allies, these developments necessitate heightened vigilance and strategic preparedness. Although NATO’s capabilities— particularly air superiority— are expected to shape future engagements, deficiencies in European defense readiness, such as limited munitions stockpiles, remain concerning. The duality of Russia’s military, characterized by advancements in some areas and reliance on outdated Soviet-era equipment in others, complicates Western efforts to anticipate and counter Russian aggression effectively. Russia’s trajectory under Putin’s leadership suggests a persistent and multifaceted challenge to Western security and global stability. The transformation of Russia’s domestic, economic, and military structures to support prolonged confrontation underscores the enduring nature of the threat it poses. The USA and its allies must adopt proactive measures to address this challenge, ensuring that future confrontations with Russia remain within manageable bounds. In recent years, Europe and the USA have faced immediate threats from unconventional actions orchestrated by Moscow, which has been actively engaging in measures that destabilize the region. Suspected Russian-backed actors have perpetrated incidents such as arson targeting arms depots in Germany and the United Kingdom, tampering with critical infrastructure in Finland, and fomenting migratory pressure on Poland and Finland through Belarus. Further incidents include targeting rail networks in the Czech Republic and Sweden, assassinating a military defector in Spain, and plotting against key European defence industry figures. These acts are part of the Kremlin’s strategy to deter European governments and citizens from supporting Ukraine by demonstrating Russia’s capacity for retaliation. However, Moscow’s objectives extend beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine. Its broader aim is to weaken the West, undermine transatlantic unity, and diminish Europe’s ability to counter Russian aggression. This strategy is reinforced through nuclear brinkmanship, as evidenced by revisions to Russian nuclear doctrine that lower the threshold for their use. Although Russia currently avoids direct confrontation with NATO due to its military limitations, it seeks to exploit divisions and test the alliance’s resolve, particularly if the USA is preoccupied with conflicts in the Indo-Pacific. Should Washington’s commitment to NATO appear to wane, Moscow may feel emboldened to challenge NATO’s eastern flank, risking further destabilization. Moscow’s actions reflect a dangerous propensity for risk-taking and miscalculation, exacerbated by its authoritarian governance structure, where decision-making is often influenced by sycophants. This tendency has already led to significant strategic errors, including the underestimation of Ukrainian resistance and Western resolve. While NATO is well-positioned to repel Russian aggression, the devastation witnessed in Ukraine underscores the imperative to deter Moscow preemptively. A future conflict, even if it concludes in a NATO victory, could result in catastrophic destruction for the affected nations. Globally, Russia continues to challenge Western influence. Despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation efforts following its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has maintained and expanded its partnerships, including hosting summits for BRICS nations, which highlight growing global resistance to Western dominance. Russia’s defiance has implications beyond Europe, as its actions embolden other states to question the consequences of aggression. While this may not directly precipitate Chinese actions in Taiwan, it provides a testing ground for Western resolve and capability. Moscow also actively supports actors opposed to Western interests. In Africa, Russian backing has facilitated military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, leading to diminished Western influence in the region. Similarly, its support for the Houthi movement in Yemen exacerbates instability, disrupts international trade, and threatens US allies. These actions amplify the strategic challenges faced by the West, with Russia positioning itself as a critical enabler of anti-Western sentiment. Moreover, Russia’s growing collaboration with China, Iran, and North Korea intensifies global instability. Military and technological exchanges between Moscow and Beijing erode US strategic advantages in the Indo-Pacific, while Russia’s support for Iran bolsters Tehran’s military and nuclear capabilities. Moscow’s partnership with Pyongyang, including technology transfers and military cooperation, risks escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Such alliances underscore a broader axis of authoritarian regimes opposing democratic norms and Western interests. Hopes that China might temper Russia’s destabilizing actions have proven unfounded. Instead, Beijing appears to benefit from the disorder created by Moscow, leveraging it to pursue its ambitions. The consolidation of ties between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea reflects deeper strategic interests rather than transactional alignments stemming from the Ukraine war. Concessions to Russia would likely embolden this bloc, further undermining Western influence. The enduring threat posed by Moscow requires sustained vigilance. Although Russia is a declining power, its capacity for disruption remains significant. For the USA and its allies, a comprehensive strategy to deter Russia is essential, encompassing strengthened European defence capabilities and increased transatlantic cooperation. By investing in the resilience of NATO and addressing immediate security challenges, the West can prevent Russia from exploiting vulnerabilities. Failure to act decisively risks higher costs in the future, as Moscow’s opportunistic aggression remains a persistent challenge to global stability. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );