game tester jobs for 11 year olds
JAMES CITY — Grove Christian Outreach Center on Wednesday opened the first free grocery market in the Williamsburg area for families facing food insecurity. Christened The Gathering Place, the new marketplace inside the center at 8880 Pocahontas Trail provides a free shopping experience to families who need a little extra help. Replacing the center’s original food pantry program, the market provides families with fresh produce options while also helping prevent food waste by having them pick according to their own preferences. During a ribbon-cutting ceremony, Terry Banez, CEO of the Greater Williamsburg Chamber of Commerce, congratulated Grove Christian Outreach Center Executive Director Katie Patrick and her team for their efforts in creating the market. “What an amazing and beautiful place, and we wish you much success,” Banez said. “It’s really phenomenal what you’ve all done.” The Gathering Place saw much support in its fruition. Along with donations from community and business partners, the center was selected for Food Lion Feeds’ annual event, The Great Pantry Makeover. This saw Food Lion associates volunteer in completing the center’s buildout while also stocking shelves with over 3,000 pounds of shelf-stable food. Likewise, the Williamsburg Health Foundation provided funding for the market’s installation of new refrigeration systems for fresh produce storage. The approximately 2,000-square-foot space that makes up the market was previously the service room for the original Grove Community Church. “The pastor and his wife were founders of Grove Christian Outreach Center. The church was still meeting here and just over the years, the last several years, we recognized the need for the space,” Patrick said. The Gathering Place joins the nonprofit center’s 20-plus years of feeding families in the Williamsburg area, as well as providing clothing, school supplies, financial assistance, holiday programs, transportation and more. Last year, the center served nearly 32,000 people through various programs. It provided over 1,000 food pantry visits to area families last month alone. Patrick expressed the importance of providing a meaningful shopping experience for those who are struggling to put food on the table. Families qualify to receive services based on need. “If I have to stand in line for food, I really want to get food that my kids are going to eat, that’s meaningful to me and the culture that my family celebrates ... and that I am not going to throw away,” Patrick said. “I love making sure people are well fed. If you guys have never heard me say it, food is love. It’s how we show up in the world, and it means a lot.” Stephanie Kalantarians, chair of the center’s board of directors, said there is a real need to help those with food insecurity that goes beyond the Grove community. Someone is generally considered to have food insecurity when they lack access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food. “We’re serving the Grove community, but I think it’s so important for people to have an awareness that this need exists in your community,” Kalantarians said. “And the need is increasing, doubling, in years time.” For more information, call 757-887-1100 or visit groveoutreach.com . Donations and volunteers are continuously welcomed. James W. Robinson, 757-799-0621, james.robinson@virginiamedia.com Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on X (Opens in new window) Most Popular Trump chooses Pam Bondi for attorney general pick after Gaetz withdraws Trump chooses Pam Bondi for attorney general pick after Gaetz withdraws Meet the Fort Monroe Authority’s new CEO Meet the Fort Monroe Authority’s new CEO Court documents: 3-year-old grabbed dad’s gun off kitchen counter and accidentally shot himself Court documents: 3-year-old grabbed dad’s gun off kitchen counter and accidentally shot himself Army-Navy 2024: Navy specialty uniforms to honor Jolly Rogers aviation squadron Army-Navy 2024: Navy specialty uniforms to honor Jolly Rogers aviation squadron Here’s what development around the Virginia Beach Convention Center could look like Here’s what development around the Virginia Beach Convention Center could look like 2 injured after vehicle failed to stop at Suffolk railroad crossing, police say 2 injured after vehicle failed to stop at Suffolk railroad crossing, police say Newport News’ first Saladworks combines former doctor’s passions for health and business Newport News’ first Saladworks combines former doctor’s passions for health and business Bike shop in Midtown Row rebrands, coffee shops celebrate and more business news from the Historic Triangle Bike shop in Midtown Row rebrands, coffee shops celebrate and more business news from the Historic Triangle Virginia live election results Virginia live election results Entertainment venue Uptown Alley no longer coming to Williamsburg Entertainment venue Uptown Alley no longer coming to Williamsburg Trending Nationally Castle Rock school bus driver who left 40 kids at busy intersection “didn’t know what to do” A ‘horrific accident’: 2 deputies who died, 1 injured in Palm Beach County crash identified Illinois high court overturns Jussie Smollett’s convictions in allegedly staged hate crime San Diego toddler’s backyard snake bite bills totaled more than a quarter-million dollars Trump chooses Pam Bondi for attorney general pick after Gaetz withdraws
Mathieu Olivier knows his name is circulating in MontrealPeople determined to spread toxic messages online have taken to masking their words to bypass automated moderation filters. A user might replace letters with numbers or symbols, for example, writing “Y0u’re st00pid” instead of “You’re stupid”. Another tactic involves combining words, such as “IdiotFace”. Doing this masks the harmful intent from systems that look for individual toxic words. Similarly, harmful terms can be altered with spaces or additional characters, such as “h a t e ” or “h@te”, effectively slipping through keyword-based filters. While the intent remains harmful, traditional moderation tools often overlook such messages. This leaves users — particularly vulnerable groups — exposed to their negative impact. To address this, we have developed a novel pre-processing technique designed to help moderation tools more effectively handle the subtle complexities of hidden toxicity. An intelligent assistant Our tool works in conjunction with existing moderation. It acts as an intelligent assistant, preparing content for deeper and more accurate evaluation by restructuring and refining input text. By addressing common tricks users employ to disguise harmful intent, it ensures moderation systems are more effective. The tool performs three key functions. It first simplifies the text. Irrelevant elements, such as excessive punctuation or extraneous characters, are removed to make text straightforward and ready for evaluation. It then standardises what is written. Variations in spelling, phrasing and grammar are resolved. This includes interpreting deliberate misspellings (“h8te” for “hate”). Finally, it looks for patterns. Recurring strategies such as breaking up toxic words (“I d i o t”), or embedding them within benign phrases, are identified and normalised to reveal the underlying intent. These steps can break apart compound words like “IdiotFace” or normalise modified phrases like “Y0u’re st00pid”. This makes harmful content visible to traditional filters. Importantly, our work is not about reinventing the wheel but ensuring the existing wheel functions as effectively as it should, even when faced with disguised toxic messages. Catching subtle forms of toxicity The applications of this tool extend across a wide range of online environments. For social media platforms, it enhances the ability to detect harmful messages, creating a safer space for users. This is particularly important for protecting younger audiences, who may be more vulnerable to online abuse. By catching subtle forms of toxicity, the tool helps to prevent harmful behaviours like bullying from persisting unchecked. Businesses can also use this technology to safeguard their online presence. Negative campaigns or covert attacks on brands often employ subtle and disguised messaging to avoid detection. By processing such content before it is moderated, the tool ensures that businesses can respond swiftly to any reputational threats. Additionally, policymakers and organisations that monitor public discourse can benefit from this system. Hidden toxicity, particularly in polarised discussions, can undermine efforts to maintain constructive dialogue. The tool provides a more robust way for identifying problematic content and ensuring that debates remain respectful and productive. Better moderation Our tool marks an important advance in content moderation. By addressing the limitations of traditional keyword-based filters, it offers a practical solution to the persistent issue of hidden toxicity. Importantly, it demonstrates how small but focused improvements can make a big difference in creating safer and more inclusive online environments. As digital communication continues to evolve, tools like ours will play an increasingly vital role in protecting users and fostering positive interactions. While this research addresses the challenges of detecting hidden toxicity within text, the journey is far from over. Future advances will likely delve deeper into the complexities of context—analysing how meaning shifts depending on conversational dynamics, cultural nuances and intent. By building on this foundation, the next generation of content moderation systems could uncover not just what is being said but also the circumstances in which it is said, paving the way for safer and more inclusive online spaces.Why Hunter Biden’s pardon is such a gift for Donald Trump
ROSEN, LEADING INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages Unisys Corporation Investors to Inquire About Securities Class Action Investigation – UIS
BNP-linked groups rally to protest attack on Agartala mission
Hyperchanging Tech Markets Demand Smarter Procurement and Agile Evaluation, Says Info-Tech Research GroupDid you recently receive a required minimum distribution (RMD) from your IRA, beating the Dec. 31 deadline? Excellent. Or perhaps you took this money out earlier in the year. Whatever the case, you're now likely sitting on a decent-sized stash of cash that's waiting to be put to work. If this is the case, don't sweat it. Here's a list of five savvy uses of any RMD money you'd like to use more constructively. You may be able to utilize more than one of these possibilities, in fact, if there's enough to work with. 1. Park it in a high-yielding money market fund Assuming you took your required minimum distribution in the form of cash and have yet to do anything more with it, it's probably in your bank checking or savings accounts. And despite their pointlessly low yields, leaving it there for a brief time is fine. But if your plan is to keep this money relatively available for a while though, there's a better, similar option. As an alternative, invest this money in a higher-yielding money market fund, many of which are paying in the ballpark of 4% to 5% . These funds are bought and sold just like stock or bond funds, meaning they require explicit trade instructions. That's why your bank may not even be able to offer them to customers who only have checking or savings accounts. If you can move this money to a more conventional brokerage account, you're more likely to have access to this option. 2. Pay down credit card debt It almost goes without saying that you'll always want to keep any credit card debt to a minimum. After all, you're racking up interest charges on any balances beyond 30 days. If you've got more than a little left to pay on your total debt right now, however, you might want to knock as much of it out as soon as you can. See, although overall interest rates are still relatively low on a historical basis, credit card interest rates aren't following suit. They're at or near record highs. The Federal Reserve reports the average annualized interest rate charged by credit card issuers right now is a whopping 21.8%, although depending on your card, you could be paying much more. Credit cards issued by retailers are charging a little more than 30% per year, on average, with many of them upping these rates without making a clear announcement of these changes. You'd be hard-pressed to achieve a comparable rate of return on any money not used to pay down this debt... meaning getting rid of this debt is your best investment prospect right now. 3. Use it to cover taxes on a conversion to a Roth IRA Have you been kicking around the idea of converting your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA so you don't have to worry about taking required minimum distributions ever again (since RMDs don't apply to Roths)? Although such conversions are taxable as ordinary income for the year in which they're completed, the IRS doesn't care where the subsequent tax payment comes from. You could use your RMD money to cover at least some of any such tax bill. That said, right now may be the absolute worst time for some investors to complete a conversion to a Roth. Why? Because traditional IRAs that are heavily invested in stocks would be undergoing the conversion process at a time when the subsequent tax burden would be quite high, while waiting just a little while longer could lower this burden quite a bit. See, stocks are now well into record-high territory, and well overvalued as a result. The S&P 500 's ( ^GSPC -1.11% ) trailing-12-month price-to-earnings ratio is just above 30, while its price-to-sales ratio is in excess of 3.0. Both are uncomfortably high for what's supposed to be a normal economic environment. It matters simply because a corrective pullback could be on the horizon, which would make it at least a little cheaper to convert your conventional IRA to a Roth. 4. Make a charitable donation Were you forced to take a required minimum distribution of cash or assets you just don't need, and probably will never need? Although it's too late to take advantage of the IRS's generous qualified charitable distribution rules (which also satisfy RMD requirements), you can still lower your tax bill by giving away this money or in-kind distribution of assets. Doing so of course will reduce your taxable income for the year in which the donation is completed. Just be sure to get a dated receipt or confirmation from whatever charity you're making a gift to. 5. Reinvest it Finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- just because you're required to remove money or investments out of your conventional IRA doesn't mean this distribution needs to remain held as cash or a cash-like holding. If you needed this money to produce risk-adjusted growth when it was inside a retirement account, you'll arguably still need it to do the same outside that account. So, reinvest it. It wouldn't be inherently wrong to reinvest the RMD in the exact same stocks, bonds, or funds it was invested in before the distribution was made (although an in-kind distribution of these assets could have saved you a couple of steps). But, since you've now got some additional liquidity, now's a great time to make adjustments to your overall portfolio's allocation . Just bear in mind that there are different kinds of investments you'll want to hold in a taxable account, as opposed to a tax-deferred account like an IRA. For example, if you don't actually need dividend income but you still want to own dividend-paying value stocks, holding your growth stocks in a taxable brokerage account will give you more control of your taxable income in any given year. Conversely, dividend payments dished out by dividend-paying stocks held in an IRA don't actually generate taxable income, as these payments are being made. Just optimize your allocation for your particular situation.
Some quotations from Jimmy Carter: We have a tendency to exalt ourselves and to dwell on the weaknesses and mistakes of others. I have come to realize that in every person there is something fine and pure and noble, along with a desire for self-fulfillment. Political and religious leaders must attempt to provide a society within which these human attributes can be nurtured and enhanced. — from 1975 book “Why Not the Best?” Our government can express the highest common ideals of human beings — if we demand of government true standards of excellence. At this Bicentennial time of introspection and concern, we must demand such standards. — “Why Not the Best?” I am a Southerner and an American, I am a farmer, an engineer, a father and husband, a Christian, a politician and former governor, a planner, a businessman, a nuclear physicist, a naval officer, a canoeist, and among other things a lover of Bob Dylan’s songs and Dylan Thomas’s poetry. — “Why Not the Best?” Christ said, “I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.” I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do — and I have done it — and God forgives me for it. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. — Interview, November 1976 Playboy. This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our Government, and a new spirit among us all. A President may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it. — Inaugural address, January 1977. It’s clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper — deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation and recession. ... All the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. ... It is a crisis of confidence. — So-called “malaise” speech, July 1979. But we know that democracy is always an unfinished creation. Each generation must renew its foundations. Each generation must rediscover the meaning of this hallowed vision in the light of its own modern challenges. For this generation, ours, life is nuclear survival; liberty is human rights; the pursuit of happiness is a planet whose resources are devoted to the physical and spiritual nourishment of its inhabitants. — Farewell Address, January 1981. We appreciate the past. We are grateful for the present and we’re looking forward to the future with great anticipation and commitment. — October 1986, at the dedication of the Carter Presidential Library and Museum. War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. — December 2002, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. ... The influence of these various trends poses a threat to many of our nation’s historic customs and moral commitments, both in government and in houses of worship. — From 2005 book “Our Endangered Values.” I think that this breakthrough by Barack Obama has been remarkable. When he made his speech (on race) a few months ago in Philadelphia, I wept. I sat in front of the television and cried, because I saw that as the most enlightening and transforming analysis of racism and a potential end of it that I ever saw in my life. — August 2008, commenting on then-Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy. I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president. ... No matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect. — September 2009, reacting to Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during a speech to Congress by President Barack Obama. I’m still determined to outlive the last guinea worm. — 2010, on The Carter Center’s work to eradicate guinea worm disease. You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford? Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero. You know how much will be raised this year by all presidential, Senate and House campaigns? $6 billion. That’s 6,000 millions. — September 2012, reacting to the 2010 “Citizens United” U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited third-party political spending. I have become convinced that the most serious and unaddressed worldwide challenge is the deprivation and abuse of women and girls, largely caused by a false interpretation of carefully selected religious texts and a growing tolerance of violence and warfare, unfortunately following the example set during my lifetime by the United States. — From 2014 book “A Call to Action.” I don’t think there’s any doubt now that the NSA or other agencies monitor or record almost every telephone call made in the United States, including cellphones, and I presume email as well. We’ve gone a long way down the road of violating Americans’ basic civil rights, as far as privacy is concerned. — March 2014, commenting on U.S. intelligence monitoring after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks We accept self-congratulations about the wonderful 50th anniversary – which is wonderful – but we feel like Lyndon Johnson did it and we don’t have to do anything anymore. — April 2014, commenting on racial inequality during a celebration of the Civil Rights Act’s 40th anniversary. I had a very challenging question at Emory (University) the other night: “How would you describe the United States of America today in one word?” And I didn’t know what to say for a few moments, but I finally said, “Searching.” I think the country in which we live is still searching for what it ought to be, and what it can be, and I’m not sure we’re making much progress right at this moment. — October 2014 during a celebration of his 90th birthday. The life we have now is the best of all. We have an expanding and harmonious family, a rich life in our church and the Plains community, and a diversity of projects at The Carter Center that is adventurous and exciting. Rosalynn and I have visited more than 145 countries, and both of us are as active as we have ever been. We are blessed with good health and look to the future with eagerness and confidence, but are prepared for inevitable adversity when it comes. — From 2015 book, “A Full Life.”
Goehring & Rozencwajg commentary on the Natural Resource Market for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024, titled “Copper and Uranium: The Coming Divergence”. Table of Contents Copper and Uranium: The Coming Divergence The Depletion Paradox King Hubbert – a History Copper and Uranium: The Coming Divergence “How the world’s biggest offshore wind company was blown off course: Denmark’s Ørsted was once seen as a model for how oil and gas giants could go green. Its recent troubles suggest that things may not be so easy” Financial Times, December 5th 2024 “Amazon, Google make dueling nuclear investments to power data centers with clean energy. Nuclear energy is a climate solution in that its reactors don’t emit the planet-warming greenhouse gases that come from power plants that burn fossil fuels.” Associated Press, October 16th 2024 We turned bullish on copper in the second quarter of 2016 when copper was $2.10 per pound. In the essay “Renewables and the Upcoming Huge Bull Market in Copper,” we outlined how the positive fundamentals emerging in global copper markets were overshadowed by the prevailing pessimism of copper prices that had fallen below $2 per pound. Read more hedge fund letters We explored the traditional drivers of copper demand and delved into the impending impact of renewable energy expansion—a topic few investors contemplated at that time. Since that essay, copper prices have surged nearly 150% and copper stocks have been superb performers. The COPX, the most popular copper equity ETF, has soared almost 500%, significantly outpacing the S&P 500’s 260% return over the same period. Today, everybody’s a copper bull. The metal has transformed from an unremarkable commodity into a must-have asset, even for those adhering to strict ESG mandates, chiefly due to its critical role in the renewable energy sector—a connection we extensively explored nearly 8 years ago. Investors now hail copper as the “greenest” of metals and believe investments in renewable energy can only skyrocket. What’s not to love? This optimistic outlook is epitomized in S&P Global’s influential report, “The Future of Copper,” published in July 2022—a document that has become the gospel for copper bulls. S&P Global asserts: “Technologies critical to the energy transition— such as EVs, charging infrastructure, solar photovoltaics (PV), wind, and batteries— all require much more copper than conventional fossil-based counterparts. The rapid, large-scale deployment of these technologies globally, particularly EV fleets, will generate a huge surge in copper demand.” S&P Global projects that copper demand will double between 2023 and 2035, climbing from 25 million tonnes to nearly 50 million tonnes. Almost half of this increase—about 17 million tonnes—is expected to come from renewable sources. Copper demand is anticipated to grow at a compounded annual rate of nearly 6%, doubling the growth rate of the previous two decades. Additionally, S&P Global foresees significant structural deficits emerging in global copper markets by the mid-2030s, driven by surging demand and stagnant mine supply. If you asked us in 2016 whether these projections were reasonable, we would have agreed. However, since then, our perspective on renewables and their impact on global copper markets has radically changed. After extensive study of the energy efficiency of renewables compared to hydrocarbons and nuclear power, we’ve concluded that large-scale adoption of renewables—including EVs—will be unfeasible unless societies are willing to accept substantial declines in economic growth and living standards—a topic we’ll revisit shortly. Our research suggests that the universally bullish copper demand forecasts are poised to unravel, potentially leading to bearish copper price implications. Shifting our focus to uranium, in the first quarter of 2018, just after uranium prices bottomed at $17 per pound, we published our first bullish report: “Uranium: The Quiet Before the Storm,” highlighting the positive fundamentals that had emerged in global uranium markets which had been ignored by investors still reeling from the Fukushima nuclear accident seven years prior. Since then, uranium prices have climbed over 300% and companies like Cameco— the Western world’s largest uranium producer—have delivered returns exceeding 550%, vastly outperforming the general market’s 150% gain in the same timeframe. Much like copper, investor sentiment toward uranium has turned markedly bullish. The looming structural deficit in global uranium markets is now widely acknowledged. Also, the significant advantage of generating electricity from uranium— namely zero CO2 emissions—is finally being recognized as an essential positive by environmentally conscious investors. As evidence of this change, we highly recommend Oliver Stone’s 2023 documentary, “Nuclear Now—Time to Look Again.” The renowned filmmaker was the highlight of that year’s Davos conference with his compelling argument that nuclear power offers a clean and reliable alternative to fossil fuels—a viewpoint that resonated with the Davos attendees. From a contrarian standpoint, the newfound popularity of both metals might raise cautionary flags about potential investment pitfalls. Should investors consider selling both metals? In the short term, we remain bullish on both copper and uranium. However, we believe a crucial fundamental divergence is emerging that will make one metal a far superior investment over the coming decade. When the enthusiasm for renewable investments peaked at the end of the last decade, consensus opinion focused on the declining “levelized cost” of wind and solar electricity as proof of their inevitable dominance. The prevailing belief was that as these costs fell below those of hydrocarbon-generated power a massive expansion of the renewable industry was all but guaranteed. However, our research revealed severe flaws in this framework. We argued that focusing solely on declining operating costs--cost that were distorted by falling commodity prices and interest rates---failed to capture the actual expenses associated with renewables. Instead, we turned to the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) framework championed by energy scholars such as Charles Hall, Mark Mills, and Vaclav Smil. We found this approach more accurately reflected the actual costs of renewable, hydrocarbon, and nuclear power investments. By applying the EROI concept and recognizing that technologies with inferior energy efficiency have never supplanted those with superior efficiency (and vice versa), we feel better equipped to understand the forces shaping investments in renewables, hydrocarbons, and nuclear power, as we progress through this decade. Though it might seem academic, adopting new technologies based on their relative EROI is a common real-world phenomenon. Consider two examples from a familiar industry, occurring just years apart. In 1956, ocean liners carried 80% of passenger traffic between North America and Europe. The Boeing 707 took to the skies two years later, connecting New York, London, and Paris. By 1964, jets had captured 80% of transatlantic passenger traffic, decimating the ocean liner business in just six years. The reason? The 707 transported passengers one mile using 40–60% less energy than ocean liners. The superior efficiency of flying across the Atlantic in the Boeing 707 made the competition obsolete. You might argue that reduced travel time was the decisive factor causing the demise of the ocean liner industry, but consider another scenario where the new technology offered even faster travel, but inferior efficiency. The result: the new technology failed to displace the old technology. By the mid-1960s, aviation experts like Juan Trippe, CEO of Pan American Airways, who pushed Boeing relentlessly to build the 707 jet, believed supersonic aircraft were destined to displace subsonic jets. Boeing and a British-French consortium raced to develop aircraft that could cross the Atlantic in three hours. While Boeing abandoned its SST project in 1971, the Concorde entered service in 1976. Simply put, the Concorde was an engineering marvel that offered a huge advancement in the technology of air travel. However, despite cutting transatlantic travel time in half, the Concorde consumed 50% more energy per passenger mile than its competitor--now the Boeing 747. Its inferior energy efficiency prevented it from gaining market share or profitability. Instead of displacing subsonic jet travel, the Concorde never amounted to more than a plaything for Hollywood celebrities, investment bankers, and rock stars. High energy consumption prevented mass adoption. The last flight of the Concorde took place in 2003, three years after the unfortunate Paris crash, which produced a wave of negative publicity from which the plane never recovered. These examples illustrate the importance of energy efficiency and how it often trumps other advantages such as speed. Applying this framework to various means of energy production, we believe societies will increasingly question their commitments to renewable investments. Replacing energy sources with EROIs of 30:1 (hydrocarbons) with those of 10–15:1 (offshore wind) or 5:1 (solar farms) will lead to severe economic destabilization. If lower EROEIs indeed have such destabilizing effects, investors must reconsider the widespread assumption that renewable-driven copper demand will double global consumption rates in the next decade. When we wrote our bullish copper essay in 2016, we had only started to explore the energy efficiency of renewables and we believed they had a strong case for increased adoption, especially amid rising energy costs. However, subsequent research convinced us that renewables would not achieve the penetration levels predicted by bodies like the International Energy Agency and firms like S&P Global. In recent years, investors have rallied around copper as the quintessential “green” metal. Our research indicates that the surge in copper demand from renewables will fall short. The highly bullish sentiment, based on flawed assumptions about renewable energy adoption, is likely to unravel as the decade progresses. At the October 2022 Grant’s Interest Rate Observer conference, we cautioned that further investments in renewables could have dire, unappreciated consequences. We told the Grant’s audience: “Attempts to fulfill various green initiatives, such as achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, will create many losers and few winners. Economic growth will be severely impacted and CO2 reduction goals will not be met. Due to their inferior energy efficiency, renewables produce only marginal surplus energy. Since surplus energy drives economic growth, pursuing renewables hampers economic progress and leads to destabilization—as evidenced by Europe’s current struggles.” If this doesn’t describe the economic agony that grips Europe today, we don’t know what does. Volkswagen’s recent announcement of plans to close up to three German manufacturing facilities underscores the deep-rooted problems afflicting Germany in particular and Europe in general. Over the past fifteen years, Germany has invested nearly $1 trillion in renewable energy, primarily wind and solar, doubling its electricity production capacity. Concurrently, the government phased out nuclear power—its most energy-efficient source—greatly escalating the country’s energy problems. Pre-Fukushima, nuclear plants supplied about 25% of Germany’s electricity; today, none remain operational. Replacing nuclear power with renewables, an energy source with far less efficiency , has led to unintended and unfortunate outcomes— precisely as we predicted. In summarizing our views at the Grant’s conference, we concluded: In contrast, the fundamentals of uranium could not be more different. The nuclear power industry is on the cusp of radical change with the advent of molten-salt small modular reactors (SMRs), a significant technological advancement that promises to boost both the energy efficiency, and the perceived safety of nuclear fission. Regarding renewables, we are just where the Concorde was in 1975—there was huge hype, but the underlying problem of energy efficiency couldn’t be overcome and the Concorde was never successful. However underlying fundamentals in the nuclear power generating business and uranium markets put the world just where the Boeing 707 was in 1957—one year before it entered scheduled service. With the 707’s huge lift in energy efficiency, the global travel world was about to be disrupted--with huge societal benefits that are still being felt. The SMR, we believe, is the Boeing 707 of today. Currently, nuclear power relies on large, high-pressure, water-based reactors, which are already highly energy-efficient. For every unit of energy invested—from mining uranium to constructing power plants—we get 100 units of energy output. However, these reactors require operating pressures of over 2,000 psi to prevent water from boiling at core temperatures of 600 °C. The pressurized vessel necessitates massive amounts of steel and concrete, consuming significant energy in construction—about 60–70% of the total energy invested. Molten-salt SMRs, on the other hand, operate at atmospheric pressure since molten salt boils at 1,400°C--far above the reactor’s core temperature. The low pressure reduces the need for heavy materials and complex safety systems. We estimate that SMRs require 80% less energy to build than traditional reactors, boosting the EROI from 100:1 to 180:1. We believe the steel and cement requirements of a molten-salt SMR are almost 90% lower per kWh than a high-pressure water-cooled reactor. By drastically lowering the energy required for steel, cement, and manufacturing, an SMR’s EROI is nearly double that of a pressure water reactor. The molten salt-based small modular reactor (SMR) is not only a marvel of energy efficiency, but it also introduces advancements in operational safety--important to an industry haunted by its history. The specters of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and, most recently, Fukushima still loom large in the public imagination, underscoring the necessity of a technology that prioritizes operational security and safety. Here, the molten salt SMR again distinguishes itself. With a circulatory fluid boiling point far beyond the 600-degree Celsius range and a design that operates at atmospheric pressure, it sidesteps the Achilles’ heel of traditional water-cooled reactors--- the risk of leaks and explosions related to high-pressure operating environments. The threat of radioactive water or vapor scattering into the air becomes essentially impossible with an SMR. Safety isn’t the only point of distinction. SMRs powered by molten salt leverage HALEU—High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium—fuel enriched to 20% U-235, compared to the 5% used in traditional reactors. HALEU burns hotter, reducing radioactive waste by as much as 90% compared to older designs. Far less waste addresses a criticism that has dogged nuclear power for decades. Despite these advances, nuclear power remains the “most successful failure of all time,” as energy economist Vaclav Smil aptly describes it. Antiquated designs and a persistent fear of nuclear calamity have betrayed promises of an energy utopia. Lewis Strauss’s 1954 prophecy that nuclear electricity would be “too cheap to meter” and Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg’s 1971 vision of a world in 2000 powered 100% by nuclear energy now read like wistful fantasies. Instead, nuclear contributes a meager 9% to global electricity generation today. This stagnation stems from a fateful decision made nearly seventy years ago. Admiral Hyman Rickover, the U.S. Navy’s nuclear program architect, dismissed molten salt reactors in favor of water-cooled designs. His reasoning was pragmatic: water-cooled reactors suited the Navy’s maritime-water based environment--molten salt explodes when coming in contact with water. But this choice chained the nuclear industry to a design optimized for submarines, not power grids. Smil observed that today’s pressurized water reactors are little more than “beached versions” of Rickover’s submarines. The molten salt alternative, with its inherent safety and efficiency, was left behind. Today, the industry is finally shaking free of its midcentury constraints. Molten salt SMRs are poised to revolutionize energy production, addressing the fears of past accidents and the CO2 crisis that looms over our planet. Data centers—prodigious energy consumers—are already adopting this technology to meet their immense demands-- the uranium section of this letter lists all recent announcements. Regulatory hurdles remain formidable, but the momentum is undeniable. The implications for investors are equally profound. The choice, as we see it, is between uranium and copper—between investing in the Concorde, a technological marvel that failed to take flight commercially, and the Boeing 707, the plane that launched the jet age. The Concorde sits in museums today; the legacy of the 707 is written in the contrails crisscrossing the globe. The parallels between SMRs and the energy revolution they promise are clear. At Goehring & Rozencwajg, we know which side of history we want to be on. The Depletion Paradox The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off- guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1%, or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still. Our view has been met with no shortage of skepticism. Many of our conversations with clients and industry insiders suggest a broad belief that today’s declines are but a pause, not a prelude to sustained contraction. Optimists contend that higher prices and a deregulatory push will spark a new wave of drilling and fresh production gains. After all, President-elect Trump’s “Three Arrows” energy plan prominently promises a 3-million-barrel-per-day increase in US oil-equivalent production. But we see this optimism as misplaced. The primary forces behind the current downturn are neither policy-related nor purely economic—they are geological and inexorable. Depletion, not market dynamics or regulatory overreach, is the central culprit. Admittedly, the incoming administration features several well-informed and capable figures in the energy sphere, including Chris Wright and Scott Bessent. Their leadership will undoubtedly foster a favorable climate for drilling activity. Yet, even with their expertise and the administration’s likely zeal for energy development, we remain convinced that these efforts will struggle to offset the entrenched declines now gripping the shale sector. The geology of the shale patch has spoken, and its verdict seems increasingly final. Our thesis is built upon the enduring insights of the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, whose groundbreaking prediction of the peak in conventional U.S. crude production in 1970 remains a landmark in energy analysis. In this essay, we aim to show how we have adapted Hubbert’s foundational work, augmenting it with the latest advances in artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning to address the complexities of shale production. The implications of our findings are profound. Our edge lies in an uncommon synthesis: the marriage of cutting-edge computational techniques with deep, domain-specific expertise in the energy sector. Too often, we observe legacy oil and gas analysts tethered to antiquated models, while AI practitioners—adept at the math but unfamiliar with the nuances of resource extraction—arrive at flawed conclusions. Neither approach alone suffices anymore. Our unique combination of skills allows us to reach conclusions that defy conventional wisdom, and we are confident these conclusions will ultimately prove prescient. Let us explain why. In recent months, we’ve engaged with a range of investors and oil industry executives. While many grasp the logic behind our analysis, few are ready to accept its implications. At a recent talk before an audience of oil and gas operators at the Houston Petroleum Club, the most common counterargument boiled down to this: if shale production continues to decline, higher prices will follow. And with higher prices, operators know precisely where to drill next. Each operator, brimming with confidence in their ability to boost production, assumes that the industry as a whole will do the same. The rationale seemed straightforward: with the rig count far below previous peaks, availability is unlikely to be a bottleneck. While the remaining drilling locations might be less productive, they could still yield acceptable returns at elevated oil and gas prices. Given the vast number of undrilled but economically marginal locations, operators were convinced that U.S. shale production would rebound swiftly, negating any nascent rally in prices. Yet, as we will argue, this collective confidence may rest on shaky ground. The factors driving shale’s decline are far more structural than the industry at large appears willing to admit. Our models point to a sobering conclusion: even with substantially higher prices and an abundance of undrilled locations, production is set to continue its decline. We call this phenomenon the “depletion paradox.” It is a familiar story, and history provides a clear precedent. Consider the case of conventional U.S. crude production in the 1970s. Production peaked in November 1970 at 10 million barrels per day, with oil priced at just $3.18 per barrel. At that time, the industry operated a modest 302 rigs drilling for oil. The first OPEC oil crisis in 1973 sparked a response from President Nixon in the form of Project Independence—a sweeping initiative aimed at reversing the decline in U.S. output through deregulation and expedited permitting. Much like today, optimism abounded among oil producers, who believed that higher prices would unleash a drilling boom and restore U.S. production growth. They were confident they knew where to drill; all they needed was the right price signal. Prices soared from $3.18 per barrel in 1973 to $34 per barrel by 1981. Producers, true to their promises, responded with vigor. The rig count climbed from 993 in 1973 to a staggering 4,500 by late 1981. Yet despite this unprecedented surge in drilling activity, U.S. oil production steadily declined throughout the 1970s. By the end of 1981, production had fallen to 8.5 million barrels per day—far below the peak achieved a decade earlier and lower than when Nixon announced his ambitious goals. Three decades later, in 2010, U.S. oil production hit a nadir of 5 million barrels per day, even as prices hovered around $100 per barrel—30 times higher than in 1973. The depletion paradox had firmly taken hold. The industry’s assumption—that higher prices alone could counteract geological realities—proved tragically flawed. Today, as we observe the shale sector grappling with similar dynamics, it seems history may once again be repeating itself. We believe the U.S. shale sector now stands at a crossroads eerily similar to that faced by conventional oil production in 1973. While shale’s achievements have been extraordinary, they remain subject to the inexorable forces of depletion. Yet, the industry, Wall Street, and the President-elect appear poised to repeat the missteps of half a century ago. The lessons of history are clear: enthusiasm for growth, however well-intentioned, cannot override the fundamental constraints of geology. And if we fail to heed these lessons, we risk not just disappointment, but the stark realization that higher prices and bold policy initiatives are no match for depletion’s steady advance. King Hubbert – a History M. King Hubbert, a geologist for Shell, was born in 1903 and left an indelible mark on the study of petroleum resources. In 1956, during a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, he presented a bold prediction: U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 at around 10 million barrels per day. At the time, his assertion seemed audacious, even implausible—after all, U.S. production had been rising steadily since Colonel Drake’s first successful well nearly a century earlier. Hubbert faced significant skepticism, but history proved him right. In November 1970, just as he had forecasted, U.S. production reached its apex and began its long decline. Although Hubbert’s name is widely associated with the concept of “peak oil,” surprisingly few have taken the time to engage deeply with his original work. His conclusions may have sparked controversy, but the principles underpinning them are remarkably straightforward. Hubbert’s central argument was simple yet profound: every hydrocarbon basin is a finite resource. As such, the cumulative production of a field will follow a predictable trajectory. It begins at zero, rises as extraction ramps up, and ultimately reaches an upper limit that represents the total recoverable resource in the basin. When plotted over time, cumulative production inevitably traces a curve with this general shape: While Hubbert acknowledged that the exact profile of production could vary widely, he emphasized that it would always slope upward—what mathematicians call “monotonically increasing”—as cumulative production can only grow, never shrink. For instance, a field developed rapidly might display a near-vertical rise, while one extracted at a steady pace might show a slower, more linear progression before reaching its upper bound. Hubbert proposed using a logistic curve to approximate this behavior. The logistic curve forms a smooth, symmetrical “S” shape: it starts at zero, accelerates as production ramps up, and eventually approaches a fixed value, which represents the basin’s total resource. This elegant model captured the essential dynamics of resource depletion and provided a framework that has shaped energy forecasting ever since. Taking the derivative of cumulative production with respect to time reveals the field’s production profile. For a logistic cumulative production function, this derivative yields a bell-shaped curve, perfectly symmetric around its peak—a hallmark of Hubbert’s framework. Read the full letter here.
For Kailyn Lowry , the holidays marked the most wonderful time for a body transformation. The Teen Mom 2 star has announced that she has undergone breast reduction surgery. In an Instagram Story selfie posted by fans and on multiple outlets, including Page Six Dec. 29, the mom of seven holds up a peace sign, captioning the snap, "4 days post op." She also included a poll with the question, "Do you want breast reduction videos?" In a separate Instagram Stories video, Kailyn is seen holding up the peace sign while lying down in a dark room. The clip is captioned, "Out of surgery, lots of videos to come." Kailyn, who had undergone has spoken about her desire to undergo such plastic surgery before. Earlier this year, months after welcoming her sixth and seventh child, twins Valley and Verse , now 14 months old, the 32-year-old revealed she broke down in tears after she was denied a "boob job." "I call around. I'm making these consultations to get a boob job," Kailyn shared on the May 17 episode of her Barely Famous podcast . "You know what they told me? I need to lose 40 pounds...more like 50, but maybe get away with 40 pounds before they can even operate on me." She added, "That was extremely humbling." Kailyn, who shares her twins and son Rio , 2, with fiancé Elijah Scott and is also a mom to sons Isaac , 14, Lincoln , 11, Lux , 7, and Creed , 4, from previous relationships, has had plastic surgery before. In 2016, the reality star underwent a Brazilian butt lift and tummy tuck, her surgeon, Dr. Michael Salzhauer aka Dr. Miami, had confirmed at the time. "It was the best decision I ever made," Kailyn noted of her past procedures on her Baby Mama No Drama podcast in January. "The worst decision I ever made was not waiting until I was done having kids." The podcaster, who had her tubes tied after giving birth to her twins , added that she planned to get a breast reduction "no matter what." Read on to find out what more celebrities have said about their plastic surgeries and cosmetic procedures over the years... Kailyn Lowry The Teen Mom 2 star and mother of seven underwent a Brazlian butt lift and tummy tuck in 2016 and breast reduction surgery in December 2024. Gypsy Rose Blanchard Gypsy underwent a rhinoplasty and septoplasty (nose job) in April 2024, three months after she was released from prison (where she served seven years for her role in the murder of her mother Clauddine "Dee Dee" Blanchard ). Caroline Stanbury The Real Housewives of Dubai star publicly documented her November 2023 face lift and the recovery on social media. "I wanted people to see how, when you come out, the scars and the cuts and what it really looks like," she e xclusively told E! News of the procedure. "I literally looked like I'd been in a car crash and the car had won, but five days later you're presentable. Ten days later I was in a restaurant completely fine." As for why the Bravo star was so open about her face lift journey? As she noted, "Being on a reality TV show, obviously it's going to look weird if I come back next season looking 10 years younger, which I do, obviously." Selena Gomez The singer has said she has gotten Botox . Brandi Glanville The former Bravo star has been candid about her plastic surgery procedures in the past, including getting a nose job, having breast implants and dabbling with Botox and filler. And now, she's turned to CellSound's body sculpting treatment to tighten her stomach. "I have actual abs," she told People in an interview published March 21. "I have lines on my stomach that I haven't had since before I got pregnant. I think any mother knows after kids the elasticity of your skin will never be the same." Ariana Madix Responding to an Instagram user who accused the Vanderpump Rules star of getting lip filler, Botox, jawline contouring with liposuction and eyelid surgery, Madix clapped back by confirming all of her past cosmetic procedures . “i’ll tell you what i’ve had!” she wrote on Instagram in July 2024. “you’re partially correct. tox in 11’s, outer brow, and my neck. ellevate for my neck in 2019 by @theneckdoctor minimal lip filler bc my face is too small to handle very much and filler in my chin. absolutely no filler anywhere else and def no bleph yet. hope this helps! i’ll keep yall posted if i do anything else.” Jill Zarin "I'm bravely sharing that I had a lower facelift and a couple other minor tweaks," Jill said in a June 4 Instagram video , with a black bandage wrapped around her head. "I had a fat transplant put into my hands because I hated my hands, and the worst part was the lipo coming out of my leg to fill my hands. Believe it or not, that's the most pain I've had." The 60-year-old promised that she'll post side-by-side photos of her transformation once she heals, adding, "I just want to share my story and my journey." Brittany Cartwright The Valley star revealed she underwent facial liposuction before filming the new Bravo series. "I had work done on my double chin. We call it the turkey gobbler, runs in my family," she said on the March 14 episode of her When Reality Hits podcast. "No matter what I was going through, no matter how much weight I lost, I still felt I had something there." Martha Stewart After years of denying cosmetic procedures, the lifestyle expert recently confessed in the Feb. 8 episode of her eponymous podcast that she gets Botox, fillers and lasers to tighten her skin. "I don't think a lot about age," she explained, "but I don't want to look my age." Tori Spelling The Beverly Hills, 90210 star has spoken publicly about her nose job and her breast implants . Sharon Osbourne In addition to getting candid on using Ozempic for weight loss, the talk show host admitted that her 2021 facelift was "the worst thing that I ever did," explaining in December 2023, "I looked like Cyclops." Lady Gaga "I've never had any work-work done, but I went through a phase when I was smoking pot when I was really obsessed with getting facial injections," the "Born This Way" singer told radio host Howard Stern in 2013. "I was going to this strip mall in Chicago in the back...Everybody was like, 'You are a nut job.'...I'm telling you, I wasn't exactly in the best frame of mind, and I would smoke a bunch of joints and have some drinks and I would be like, 'Oh, let's go see my girl' and we would drive to this strip mall and I would get shot up with a bunch of whatever, Juvéderm, and then leave." She continued, "Now all the stuff is gone. Before I shot the 'Applause' video, [a photographer friend] was like, 'Gaga, I love you but if you don't stop injecting s--t in your face I'm going to just kill you.'" Bethenny Frankel The Real Housewives of New York star got breast implants in 2005, but removed them in 2008. "Now I feel comfortable," she told Life & Style . "If there's something you're not comfortable with and you can correct it, great." Olivia Colman The Crown star revealed that she's a fan of Botox. "I've had loads," the 50-year-old told BBC Radio 2 . Julie Chen In 2013, The Talk co-host revealed on the show that she got plastic surgery at the beginning of her career in order to make her eyes look bigger. "And after I had it done, the ball did roll for me," she said. "And I wondered, did I give in to the man?" She added, "I have to live with every decision that I've made. And it got me to where we are today. And I'm not going to look back." Jamie Lee Curtis "I've done it all," the actress told The Telegraph in 2002. "I've had a little plastic surgery. I've had a little lipo. I've had a little Botox. And you know what? None of it works. None of it." Jennifer Aniston "I had [a deviated septum] fixed–best thing I ever did," the actress told People in 2007. "I slept like a baby for the first time in years. As far as all the other [rumors], as boring as it sounds, it's still mine. All of it. Still mine." NeNe Leakes In 2010, the Real Housewives of Atlanta star revealed that she had had a nose job, a breast lift and liposuction. "I'm very comfortable and confident in myself," she told People . "I just wanted a tune up." Kim Zolciak In 2015, the reality star called Dr. Lenny Hochstein her "boob God" doctor for giving her perky breasts. Of course, the reality TV personality has been an open book about her other procedures , including a tummy tuck and lip injections. Lisa Rinna The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star had her lips injected with silicone at age 24. In 2010, she had some of the filler removed. "I find it so interesting that it's become such a big thing because I can't tell you how many girls have done their lips. I feel like I'm a pioneer," she said on Today in 2013. "I was one of the first ones to ever do it and be honest about it."She also said, "I would do it again. I never had a career before I had the lips so my lips have had their own career!" Heidi Montag In 2009, at just 23 years old, the Hills star underwent a head-to-toe transformation, having 10 cosmetic procedures done in one day. In addition to Botox, chin reductions and a nose job, the reality star also got fat injections in her lips. Iggy Azalea The Aussie rapper said in the April 2015 issue of Vogue magazine that she got breast implants. "I did change something: Four months ago, I got bigger boobs! I'd thought about it my entire life," she revealed. Tyra Banks In her memoir , Perfect Is Boring, the supermodel revealed that she went under the knife early in her career. "I had bones in my nose that were growing and itching," she wrote in her book. "I could breathe fine, but I added cosmetic surgery. I admit it! Fake hair, and I did my nose." Kim Kardashian "I really, genuinely care about looking good," the SKKN founder told Allure for its August 2022 issue. "I probably care more than 90 percent of the people on this planet. It's not easy when you're a mom and you're exhausted at the end of the day or you're in school, and I'm all of the above. I do my beauty treatments usually late at night. After everyone's in bed, I'm doing laser treatments." Kim revealed she's also gotten "a little bit of Botox," but hasn't dabbled with filler on her lips or cheeks, revealing, "No filler. Never filled either one, ever." Kristin Cavallari During an Instagram Stories Q&A on Aug. 23, the reality TV star didn't shy away from answering a fan's question about her boobs. "Gonna keep it real with y'all," Kristin began her response. "Got a lift after breast feeding all 3 kids." While The Hills alum isn't opposed to cosmetic procedures, she admitted she's "never done" Botox. "It's not for me. But I've seen it look amazing on some people," she wrote. "My concern is that we don't know the long term effects of it (and I don't mean 5-10 years, I mean like 20 years) and I think your face is muscle, so we need to work it out the same way we would any other muscle." John Stamos In his new memoir, If You Would Have Told Me , John opened up about feeling insecure with his appearance, which led him to get two nose jobs. "That nose," he wrote. "It bothers me." "My nose looks kind of pushed up like Peter Pan or something," he shared of the initial procedure. "So on my next hiatus, I have it redone by Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon." Sia The singer recently revealed she got a facelift. "I'm a pop star that normally hides my face and doesn't lie about s--t," she said at the 5th annual Daytime Beauty Awards in Los Angeles on Oct. 1.. "I got an amazing face lift from Dr. Ben Talei. He is incredible. And he is doing so much good work—and not just for the pop stars of the world." Nicki Minaj The rapper revealed she recent went under the knife. "I had to get a breast reduction," she told Vogue in a cover story published Nov. 9, "and actually I love it. I used to want a bigger butt, and now I look back and realize how silly that was." Vanessa recently shared the cosmetic treatments she gets, telling Page Six , "I'm due for Botox . I don't do filler and I have so much full movement that there is no Botox at all." When asked if she's thought about going under the knife, she replied, "That would be the one thing that I would probably put off for the very last thing. The technology now for lifting, sculpting, tightening, is incredible. And there's a machine for anything. I just got a microcurrent thing for your neck, it was called Forma and it's like a total package facial." The Sex and the City alum opened up about why she receives cosmetic injectables. "I'm in my 60s now and I'm all about battling aging in every way I can," Kim told The Sunday Times in an interview published June 4. "There are fillers, Botox, there's so many different things that you can investigate and try and see if it's for you. It's not just a vanity thing."NoneBy RONALD BLUM NEW YORK (AP) — Major League Baseball will test robot umpires as part of a challenge system during spring training at 13 ballparks hosting 19 teams, which could lead to regular-season use in 2026. MLB has been experimenting with the automated ball-strike system in the minor leagues since 2019 but is still working on the shape of the strike zone. An agreement for big league use would have to be reached with the Major League Baseball Umpires Association, whose collective bargaining agreement expires Dec. 1. “I would be interested in having it in ‘26,” baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred said Wednesday after an owners’ meeting. “We do have a collective bargaining obligation there. That’s obviously a term and condition of employment. We’re going to have to work through that issue, as well.” Manfred said the spring training experiment will have to be evaluated before MLB determines how to move forward. “There’s two sides to that test,” he said. “It’s what the clubs think about it and also what do the players think about it? And we’re going to have to sort through both of those.” Triple-A ballparks used ABS this year for the second straight season, but there is little desire to call the strike zone as the cube defined in the rule book and MLB has experimented with modifications during minor league testing. Related Articles MLB | With Geno Auriemma poised to set his record at UConn, a look at sports’ winningest coaches MLB | Dom Amore’s Sunday Read: Geno, CD’s historic partnership; LeBron’s praise for Steph Castle and more MLB | Aaron Boone plans to join Juan Soto’s upcoming meeting with Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner MLB | Aaron Boone not currently discussing contract extension with Yankees, but happy to be back as manager MLB | Dom Amore: 20 years later, the ’04 Red Sox curse-busters revel in a victory that will live forever The ABS currently calls strikes solely based on where the ball crosses the midpoint of the plate, 8.5 inches from the front and the back. The top of the strike zone was increased to 53.5% of batter height this year from 51%, and the bottom remained at 27%. After splitting having the robot alone for the first three games of each series and a human with a challenge system in the final three during the first 2 1/2 months of the Triple-A season, MLB on June 25 switched to an all-challenge system in which a human umpire makes nearly all decisions. During the second half of the season, each team had three challenges in the Pacific Coast League and two in the International League. A team retains its challenge if successful, similar to the regulations for big league teams with video reviews. “I think we will have a spring training ABS test that will provide a meaningful opportunity for all major league players to see what the challenge system will look like,” Manfred said. “It won’t be in every single ballpark but we actually have a plan where every team will get meaningful exposure.”Some quotations from Jimmy Carter: We have a tendency to exalt ourselves and to dwell on the weaknesses and mistakes of others. I have come to realize that in every person there is something fine and pure and noble, along with a desire for self-fulfillment. Political and religious leaders must attempt to provide a society within which these human attributes can be nurtured and enhanced. — from 1975 book “Why Not the Best?” Our government can express the highest common ideals of human beings — if we demand of government true standards of excellence. At this Bicentennial time of introspection and concern, we must demand such standards. — “Why Not the Best?” I am a Southerner and an American, I am a farmer, an engineer, a father and husband, a Christian, a politician and former governor, a planner, a businessman, a nuclear physicist, a naval officer, a canoeist, and among other things a lover of Bob Dylan’s songs and Dylan Thomas’s poetry. — “Why Not the Best?” Christ said, “I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.” I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do — and I have done it — and God forgives me for it. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. — Interview, November 1976 Playboy. This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our Government, and a new spirit among us all. A President may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it. — Inaugural address, January 1977. It’s clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper — deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation and recession. ... All the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. ... It is a crisis of confidence. — So-called “malaise” speech, July 1979. But we know that democracy is always an unfinished creation. Each generation must renew its foundations. Each generation must rediscover the meaning of this hallowed vision in the light of its own modern challenges. For this generation, ours, life is nuclear survival; liberty is human rights; the pursuit of happiness is a planet whose resources are devoted to the physical and spiritual nourishment of its inhabitants. — Farewell Address, January 1981. We appreciate the past. We are grateful for the present and we’re looking forward to the future with great anticipation and commitment. — October 1986, at the dedication of the Carter Presidential Library and Museum. War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. — December 2002, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. ... The influence of these various trends poses a threat to many of our nation’s historic customs and moral commitments, both in government and in houses of worship. — From 2005 book “Our Endangered Values.” I think that this breakthrough by Barack Obama has been remarkable. When he made his speech (on race) a few months ago in Philadelphia, I wept. I sat in front of the television and cried, because I saw that as the most enlightening and transforming analysis of racism and a potential end of it that I ever saw in my life. — August 2008, commenting on then-Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy. I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president. ... No matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect. — September 2009, reacting to Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during a speech to Congress by President Barack Obama. I’m still determined to outlive the last guinea worm. — 2010, on The Carter Center’s work to eradicate guinea worm disease. You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford? Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero. You know how much will be raised this year by all presidential, Senate and House campaigns? $6 billion. That’s 6,000 millions. — September 2012, reacting to the 2010 “Citizens United” U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited third-party political spending. I have become convinced that the most serious and unaddressed worldwide challenge is the deprivation and abuse of women and girls, largely caused by a false interpretation of carefully selected religious texts and a growing tolerance of violence and warfare, unfortunately following the example set during my lifetime by the United States. — From 2014 book “A Call to Action.” I don’t think there’s any doubt now that the NSA or other agencies monitor or record almost every telephone call made in the United States, including cellphones, and I presume email as well. We’ve gone a long way down the road of violating Americans’ basic civil rights, as far as privacy is concerned. — March 2014, commenting on U.S. intelligence monitoring after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks We accept self-congratulations about the wonderful 50th anniversary – which is wonderful – but we feel like Lyndon Johnson did it and we don’t have to do anything anymore. — April 2014, commenting on racial inequality during a celebration of the Civil Rights Act’s 40th anniversary. I had a very challenging question at Emory (University) the other night: “How would you describe the United States of America today in one word?” And I didn’t know what to say for a few moments, but I finally said, “Searching.” I think the country in which we live is still searching for what it ought to be, and what it can be, and I’m not sure we’re making much progress right at this moment. — October 2014 during a celebration of his 90th birthday. The life we have now is the best of all. We have an expanding and harmonious family, a rich life in our church and the Plains community, and a diversity of projects at The Carter Center that is adventurous and exciting. Rosalynn and I have visited more than 145 countries, and both of us are as active as we have ever been. We are blessed with good health and look to the future with eagerness and confidence, but are prepared for inevitable adversity when it comes. — From 2015 book, “A Full Life.”
Rumor Replay: Apple Television, AirTag 2 upgrades, iPhone 17 tidbitsInvestors look to Fed move for momentum
Since J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972 — after 48 years of leading the FBI — the seven men chosen to lead the premier law enforcement agency had previous experience as senior lawmen, senior federal prosecutors and federal judges. If President-elect Donald Trump has his way, the agency will instead be headed by a political loyalist who has pledged to use his powers to target the president’s political opponents. Kash Patel, 44, is a former junior-level federal prosecutor who was a White House aide in Trump’s first administration. That’s drawing scrutiny not just from Democrats, but from at least one Senate Republican. RELATED STORY | Mother of Pete Hegseth reportedly told son he was an 'abuser of women' in email South Dakota Republican Mike Rounds expressed support for current FBI Director Chris Wray — who Trump appointed after firing predecessor James Comey in 2017. “The president has the right to make nominations, but normally these are for a 10-year term. We'll see what his process is and whether he actually makes that nomination,” Rounds said Sunday during an interview on ABC News’ “This Week.” It would also be the second time Trump removed an FBI director before the end of the congressionally mandated 10-year term, which is designed to allow FBI directors to outlast the presidential administration. Since the end of the first Trump Administration, Patel has been actively engaged with the Make America Great Again movement supporting Trump. He was also one of the select group of supporters who accompanied Trump during the trial earlier this year in Manhattan that led to Trump being convicted of 34 felony counts related to falsifying corporate documents. RELATED STORY | Here's who Trump has asked to join his administration He has also said that a charity he operates provides financial help to families of people charged in connection with the January 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol. In an interview with conservative strategist Steve Bannon, Patel said he and others “will go out and find the conspirators not just in government but in the media.” ”We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel said, referring to the 2020 presidential election in which Biden, the Democratic challenger, defeated Trump. “We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly. We’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice.” In an interview earlier this year on the “Shawn Ryan Show,” Patel vowed to sever the FBI’s intelligence-gathering activities from the rest of its mission and said he would “shut down” the bureau’s headquarters building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., and “reopen it the next day as a museum of the ‘deep state.’” Rounds, meanwhile, praised Wray and said he saw no reason he should be removed. “Chris Wray, who the president nominated the first time around — I think the president picked a very good man to be the director of the FBI when he did that in his first term,” Rounds said. “When we meet with him behind closed doors, I've had no objections to the way that he's handled himself, and so I don't have any complaints about the way that he's done his job right now.” The Associated Press contributed to this report.Injuries pile up, 49ers uncertain QB Brock Purdy can return SundayAP News Summary at 4:49 p.m. EST