Geoffrey Hinton to donate some of Nobel winnings to create new annual award
Nottingham Forest are sweating on the fitness of Elliot Anderson for this weekend’s clash with Arsenal. The Reds mark their return to action after the international break with a trip to face the Gunners on Saturday (3pm kick-off). Nuno Espirito Santo’s side are still unbeaten on the road this season and suffered only their second Premier League defeat of the campaign last time out when they fell 3-1 at home to Newcastle United. Nuno has some big selection decisions to make for the match at the Emirates Stadium and he has said Forest are "managing some players and some situations". Midfielder Anderson is among that group due to the foot problem he has been struggling with in recent weeks. “We took advantage of the international break to try to manage some players who were struggling and Elliot was one of them," Nuno said in his pre-match press conference. "Let’s see how he is tomorrow. But for now, we still have to assess him." Prior to the two-week hiatus, Anderson had been a doubt for the Reds' match with West Ham United earlier this month. In the end, he started on the bench and played the final half-hour - just as was the case against former club Newcastle. Before that clash with the Hammers, Nuno had said: “Elliot, in the game against (Crystal) Palace, somebody stood on his foot and it was very painful. He was able to play against Leicester, but he has been having treatment on it." Long-term absentees Danilo (broken ankle) and Ibrahim Sangare (hamstring) are the only two players definitely ruled out against Arsenal. Nuno explained: “We are just managing some players and some situations. As we mentioned before, we took the chance of this international break to recover some players. Let’s wait and see if they improve.”
LONDON (AP) — A suspected Chinese spy with business ties to Prince Andrew has been barred from the U.K. because of concerns he poses a threat to national security. A British immigration tribunal upheld the decision on Thursday in a ruling that revealed the Chinese national had developed such a close relationship with Andrew that he was invited to the prince’s birthday party. Government officials were concerned the man could have misused his influence because the prince was under “considerable pressure” at the time, according to the ruling. British authorities believe the Chinese national, whose name wasn’t released, was working on behalf of the United Front Work Department, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party that is used to influence foreign entities. The government determined that the businessman “was in a position to generate relationships between senior Chinese officials and prominent U.K. figures which could be leveraged for political interference purposes by the Chinese State,” according to the tribunal's decision. In a statement from his office, Andrew, also known as the Duke of York, said he accepted government advice and ceased all contact with the Chinese national as soon as concerns were raised. “The Duke met the individual through official channels with nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed,′′ his office said. “He is unable to comment further on matters relating to national security.” Prince Andrew, the younger brother of King Charles III, has been repeatedly criticized for his links to wealthy foreigners, raising concerns that those individuals are trying to buy access to the royal family. Andrew’s finances have been squeezed in recent years after he was forced to step away from royal duties and give up public funding amid concerns about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein , the American financier and convicted pedophile who committed suicide in prison in 2019. British intelligence chiefs have become increasingly concerned about China’s efforts to influence U.K. government policy. In 2022, Britain’s domestic intelligence service, known as MI5, warned politicians that a British-Chinese lawyer had been seeking to improperly influence members of Parliament for years. A parliamentary researcher was arrested in 2023 on suspicion of providing sensitive information to China. The 50-year-old Chinese national covered by this week’s ruling was described as a man who worked as a junior civil servant in China before he came to the U.K. as a student in 2002. He earned a master’s degree in public administration and public policy at the University of York before starting a business that advises U.K.-based companies on their operations in China. He was granted the right to live and work in the U.K. for an indefinite period in 2013. Although he didn’t make Britain his permanent home, the man told authorities that he spent one to two weeks a month in the country and considered it his “second home.” He was stopped while entering the U.K. on Nov. 6, 2021, and ordered to surrender his mobile phone and other digital devices on which authorities found a letter from a senior adviser to Andrew confirming that he was authorized to act on behalf of the prince in relation to potential partners and investors in China. The letter and other documents highlighted the strength of the relationship between Andrew, his adviser and the Chinese national. “I also hope that it is clear to you where you sit with my principal and indeed his family,” the adviser wrote. “You should never underestimate the strength of that relationship. Outside of his closest internal confidants, you sit at the very top of a tree that many, many people would like to be on.” The letter went on to describe how they had found a way to work around former private secretaries to the prince and other people who weren’t completely trusted. “Under your guidance, we found a way to get the relevant people unnoticed in and out of the house in Windsor,” the adviser wrote. Andrew lives at the Royal Lodge, a historic country estate near Windsor Castle, west of London. Danica Kirka, The Associated PressBy BILL BARROW, Associated Press PLAINS, Ga. (AP) — Newly married and sworn as a Naval officer, Jimmy Carter left his tiny hometown in 1946 hoping to climb the ranks and see the world. Less than a decade later, the death of his father and namesake, a merchant farmer and local politician who went by “Mr. Earl,” prompted the submariner and his wife, Rosalynn, to return to the rural life of Plains, Georgia, they thought they’d escaped. The lieutenant never would be an admiral. Instead, he became commander in chief. Years after his presidency ended in humbling defeat, he would add a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded not for his White House accomplishments but “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” The life of James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th and longest-lived U.S. president, ended Sunday at the age of 100 where it began: Plains, the town of 600 that fueled his political rise, welcomed him after his fall and sustained him during 40 years of service that redefined what it means to be a former president. With the stubborn confidence of an engineer and an optimism rooted in his Baptist faith, Carter described his motivations in politics and beyond in the same way: an almost missionary zeal to solve problems and improve lives. Carter was raised amid racism, abject poverty and hard rural living — realities that shaped both his deliberate politics and emphasis on human rights. “He always felt a responsibility to help people,” said Jill Stuckey, a longtime friend of Carter’s in Plains. “And when he couldn’t make change wherever he was, he decided he had to go higher.” Carter’s path, a mix of happenstance and calculation , pitted moral imperatives against political pragmatism; and it defied typical labels of American politics, especially caricatures of one-term presidents as failures. “We shouldn’t judge presidents by how popular they are in their day. That’s a very narrow way of assessing them,” Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told the Associated Press. “We should judge them by how they changed the country and the world for the better. On that score, Jimmy Carter is not in the first rank of American presidents, but he stands up quite well.” Later in life, Carter conceded that many Americans, even those too young to remember his tenure, judged him ineffective for failing to contain inflation or interest rates, end the energy crisis or quickly bring home American hostages in Iran. He gained admirers instead for his work at The Carter Center — advocating globally for public health, human rights and democracy since 1982 — and the decades he and Rosalynn wore hardhats and swung hammers with Habitat for Humanity. Yet the common view that he was better after the Oval Office than in it annoyed Carter, and his allies relished him living long enough to see historians reassess his presidency. “He doesn’t quite fit in today’s terms” of a left-right, red-blue scoreboard, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who visited the former president multiple times during his own White House bid. At various points in his political career, Carter labeled himself “progressive” or “conservative” — sometimes both at once. His most ambitious health care bill failed — perhaps one of his biggest legislative disappointments — because it didn’t go far enough to suit liberals. Republicans, especially after his 1980 defeat, cast him as a left-wing cartoon. It would be easiest to classify Carter as a centrist, Buttigieg said, “but there’s also something radical about the depth of his commitment to looking after those who are left out of society and out of the economy.” Indeed, Carter’s legacy is stitched with complexities, contradictions and evolutions — personal and political. The self-styled peacemaker was a war-trained Naval Academy graduate who promised Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy that he’d “kick his ass.” But he campaigned with a call to treat everyone with “respect and compassion and with love.” Carter vowed to restore America’s virtue after the shame of Vietnam and Watergate, and his technocratic, good-government approach didn’t suit Republicans who tagged government itself as the problem. It also sometimes put Carter at odds with fellow Democrats. The result still was a notable legislative record, with wins on the environment, education, and mental health care. He dramatically expanded federally protected lands, began deregulating air travel, railroads and trucking, and he put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy. As a fiscal hawk, Carter added a relative pittance to the national debt, unlike successors from both parties. Carter nonetheless struggled to make his achievements resonate with the electorate he charmed in 1976. Quoting Bob Dylan and grinning enthusiastically, he had promised voters he would “never tell a lie.” Once in Washington, though, he led like a joyless engineer, insisting his ideas would become reality and he’d be rewarded politically if only he could convince enough people with facts and logic. This served him well at Camp David, where he brokered peace between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Epypt’s Anwar Sadat, an experience that later sparked the idea of The Carter Center in Atlanta. Carter’s tenacity helped the center grow to a global force that monitored elections across five continents, enabled his freelance diplomacy and sent public health experts across the developing world. The center’s wins were personal for Carter, who hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm parasite, and nearly did. As president, though, the approach fell short when he urged consumers beleaguered by energy costs to turn down their thermostats. Or when he tried to be the nation’s cheerleader, beseeching Americans to overcome a collective “crisis of confidence.” Republican Ronald Reagan exploited Carter’s lecturing tone with a belittling quip in their lone 1980 debate. “There you go again,” the former Hollywood actor said in response to a wonky answer from the sitting president. “The Great Communicator” outpaced Carter in all but six states. Carter later suggested he “tried to do too much, too soon” and mused that he was incompatible with Washington culture: media figures, lobbyists and Georgetown social elites who looked down on the Georgians and their inner circle as “country come to town.” Carter carefully navigated divides on race and class on his way to the Oval Office. Born Oct. 1, 1924 , Carter was raised in the mostly Black community of Archery, just outside Plains, by a progressive mother and white supremacist father. Their home had no running water or electricity but the future president still grew up with the relative advantages of a locally prominent, land-owning family in a system of Jim Crow segregation. He wrote of President Franklin Roosevelt’s towering presence and his family’s Democratic Party roots, but his father soured on FDR, and Jimmy Carter never campaigned or governed as a New Deal liberal. He offered himself as a small-town peanut farmer with an understated style, carrying his own luggage, bunking with supporters during his first presidential campaign and always using his nickname. And he began his political career in a whites-only Democratic Party. As private citizens, he and Rosalynn supported integration as early as the 1950s and believed it inevitable. Carter refused to join the White Citizens Council in Plains and spoke out in his Baptist church against denying Black people access to worship services. “This is not my house; this is not your house,” he said in a churchwide meeting, reminding fellow parishioners their sanctuary belonged to God. Yet as the appointed chairman of Sumter County schools he never pushed to desegregate, thinking it impractical after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision. And while presidential candidate Carter would hail the 1965 Voting Rights Act, signed by fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson when Carter was a state senator, there is no record of Carter publicly supporting it at the time. Carter overcame a ballot-stuffing opponent to win his legislative seat, then lost the 1966 governor’s race to an arch-segregationist. He won four years later by avoiding explicit mentions of race and campaigning to the right of his rival, who he mocked as “Cufflinks Carl” — the insult of an ascendant politician who never saw himself as part the establishment. Carter’s rural and small-town coalition in 1970 would match any victorious Republican electoral map in 2024. Once elected, though, Carter shocked his white conservative supporters — and landed on the cover of Time magazine — by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” Before making the jump to Washington, Carter befriended the family of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom he’d never sought out as he eyed the governor’s office. Carter lamented his foot-dragging on school integration as a “mistake.” But he also met, conspicuously, with Alabama’s segregationist Gov. George Wallace to accept his primary rival’s endorsement ahead of the 1976 Democratic convention. “He very shrewdly took advantage of his own Southerness,” said Amber Roessner, a University of Tennessee professor and expert on Carter’s campaigns. A coalition of Black voters and white moderate Democrats ultimately made Carter the last Democratic presidential nominee to sweep the Deep South. Then, just as he did in Georgia, he used his power in office to appoint more non-whites than all his predecessors had, combined. He once acknowledged “the secret shame” of white Americans who didn’t fight segregation. But he also told Alter that doing more would have sacrificed his political viability – and thus everything he accomplished in office and after. King’s daughter, Bernice King, described Carter as wisely “strategic” in winning higher offices to enact change. “He was a leader of conscience,” she said in an interview. Rosalynn Carter, who died on Nov. 19 at the age of 96, was identified by both husband and wife as the “more political” of the pair; she sat in on Cabinet meetings and urged him to postpone certain priorities, like pressing the Senate to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. “Let that go until the second term,” she would sometimes say. The president, recalled her former aide Kathy Cade, retorted that he was “going to do what’s right” even if “it might cut short the time I have.” Rosalynn held firm, Cade said: “She’d remind him you have to win to govern.” Carter also was the first president to appoint multiple women as Cabinet officers. Yet by his own telling, his career sprouted from chauvinism in the Carters’ early marriage: He did not consult Rosalynn when deciding to move back to Plains in 1953 or before launching his state Senate bid a decade later. Many years later, he called it “inconceivable” that he didn’t confer with the woman he described as his “full partner,” at home, in government and at The Carter Center. “We developed a partnership when we were working in the farm supply business, and it continued when Jimmy got involved in politics,” Rosalynn Carter told AP in 2021. So deep was their trust that when Carter remained tethered to the White House in 1980 as 52 Americans were held hostage in Tehran, it was Rosalynn who campaigned on her husband’s behalf. “I just loved it,” she said, despite the bitterness of defeat. Fair or not, the label of a disastrous presidency had leading Democrats keep their distance, at least publicly, for many years, but Carter managed to remain relevant, writing books and weighing in on societal challenges. He lamented widening wealth gaps and the influence of money in politics. He voted for democratic socialist Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later declared that America had devolved from fully functioning democracy to “oligarchy.” Related Articles Yet looking ahead to 2020, with Sanders running again, Carter warned Democrats not to “move to a very liberal program,” lest they help re-elect President Donald Trump. Carter scolded the Republican for his serial lies and threats to democracy, and chided the U.S. establishment for misunderstanding Trump’s populist appeal. He delighted in yearly convocations with Emory University freshmen, often asking them to guess how much he’d raised in his two general election campaigns. “Zero,” he’d gesture with a smile, explaining the public financing system candidates now avoid so they can raise billions. Carter still remained quite practical in partnering with wealthy corporations and foundations to advance Carter Center programs. Carter recognized that economic woes and the Iran crisis doomed his presidency, but offered no apologies for appointing Paul Volcker as the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate hikes would not curb inflation until Reagan’s presidency. He was proud of getting all the hostages home without starting a shooting war, even though Tehran would not free them until Reagan’s Inauguration Day. “Carter didn’t look at it” as a failure, Alter emphasized. “He said, ‘They came home safely.’ And that’s what he wanted.” Well into their 90s, the Carters greeted visitors at Plains’ Maranatha Baptist Church, where he taught Sunday School and where he will have his last funeral before being buried on family property alongside Rosalynn . Carter, who made the congregation’s collection plates in his woodworking shop, still garnered headlines there, calling for women’s rights within religious institutions, many of which, he said, “subjugate” women in church and society. Carter was not one to dwell on regrets. “I am at peace with the accomplishments, regret the unrealized goals and utilize my former political position to enhance everything we do,” he wrote around his 90th birthday. The politician who had supposedly hated Washington politics also enjoyed hosting Democratic presidential contenders as public pilgrimages to Plains became advantageous again. Carter sat with Buttigieg for the final time March 1, 2020, hours before the Indiana mayor ended his campaign and endorsed eventual winner Joe Biden. “He asked me how I thought the campaign was going,” Buttigieg said, recalling that Carter flashed his signature grin and nodded along as the young candidate, born a year after Carter left office, “put the best face” on the walloping he endured the day before in South Carolina. Never breaking his smile, the 95-year-old host fired back, “I think you ought to drop out.” “So matter of fact,” Buttigieg said with a laugh. “It was somehow encouraging.” Carter had lived enough, won plenty and lost enough to take the long view. “He talked a lot about coming from nowhere,” Buttigieg said, not just to attain the presidency but to leverage “all of the instruments you have in life” and “make the world more peaceful.” In his farewell address as president, Carter said as much to the country that had embraced and rejected him. “The struggle for human rights overrides all differences of color, nation or language,” he declared. “Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity and who suffer for the sake of justice — they are the patriots of this cause.” Carter pledged to remain engaged with and for them as he returned “home to the South where I was born and raised,” home to Plains, where that young lieutenant had indeed become “a fellow citizen of the world.” —- Bill Barrow, based in Atlanta, has covered national politics including multiple presidential campaigns for the AP since 2012.
(CNN) — President-elect Donald Trump over the weekend suggested the US should retake the Panama Canal, an idea that was immediately rejected by the government of Panama, which has controlled the passage for decades. In social media posts and remarks to supporters, Trump accused Panama of charging the US “exorbitant rates” to use the canal and hinted at growing Chinese influence over the crucial waterway. “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S.,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday. The US-built canal was opened in 1914 and controlled by the United States until a 1977 agreement provided for its eventual handover to Panama. The canal was jointly operated by both countries until the Panamanian government retained full control after 1999. Speaking to a crowd of young conservatives in Phoenix on Sunday, Trump said if the spirit of that agreement is not followed, “then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States. So, to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.” It’s not clear how seriously Trump is taking his threat to reclaim control over the canal, though the weekend was not the first time he has said the US is getting a raw deal. The president-elect has not clarified how he would force a sovereign, friendly country to cede its own territory. And the Panamanian government wants nothing to do with Trump’s suggestion. “As President, I want to express precisely that every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belong to PANAMA, and will continue to be,” President José Raúl Mulino said in a statement Sunday. “The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable,” he added. Before the canal’s completion, ships traveling between the east and west coasts of the Americas would have to sail around Cape Horn, on the southern tip of South America, adding thousands of miles and several months to their journeys. Creating a passageway that would shorten that trip had been an elusive goal of several empires that had colonies in the Americas. In the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt made the completion of a passageway a priority. The territory was at the time controlled by the Republic of Colombia, but a US-supported revolt led to the separation of Panama and Colombia and the formation of the Republic of Panama in 1903. The US and the newly formed republic signed a treaty that year that gave the US control over a 10-mile strip of land to build the canal in exchange for financial reimbursement. The canal was completed in 1914, cementing the US’ status as an engineering and technological superpower, but it came at an enormous human cost. About 5,600 people were estimated to have died during US construction of the canal. The canal’s practicality was demonstrated during World War II, when it was used as a critical passageway for the Allied war effort between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. But the relationship between the US and Panama slowly disintegrated over disagreements about control over the canal, treatment of Panamanian workers, and questions about whether the US and Panamanian flags should be flown jointly over the Canal Zone. Those tensions reached a peak on January 9, 1964, when anti-American riots led to several deaths in the Canal Zone and the brief severing of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Years of negotiations for a more equitable agreement led to two treaties during the administration of President Jimmy Carter. The agreements declared the canal neutral and open to all vessels and provided for joint US-Panamanian control of the territory until the end of 1999, when Panama would be given full control. “Because we have controlled a 10-mile-wide strip of land across the heart of their country and because they considered the original terms of the agreement to be unfair, the people of Panama have been dissatisfied with the treaty,” Carter said in remarks to Americans after the treaties were signed. “It was drafted here in our country and was not signed by any Panamanian.” The then-president added: “Of course, this does not give the United States any right to intervene in the internal affairs of Panama, nor would our military action ever be directed against the territorial integrity or the political independence of Panama.” Not everybody supported Carter’s plan. In a 1976 speech, then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan said that “the people of the United States” are “the rightful owners of the Canal Zone.” Tensions over the canal deteriorated again in the late 1980s under the rule of Manuel Noriega, who was removed from power after the US invaded Panama as part of the “war on drugs.” Shortly after the Panamanians retained full control of the canal in 2000, shipping volume quickly exceeded the waterway’s capacity. A massive expansion project began in 2007 and was completed nearly a decade later. But the area around the canal has been experiencing severe droughts , leading to lower water levels that hindered its ability to function properly. Canal authorities have set restrictions on traffic and imposed higher fees to traverse the canal. Those fees appear to form one part of Trump’s issue with the canal. The president-elect on Sunday described them as “ridiculous” and “highly unfair, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama, I say, very foolishly, by the United States.” Trump’s other claim, that China is seeking to exert more control over Panama and the Canal Zone, is not without merit. In 2017, Panama signed a joint communique that stressed it would not maintain any official ties with Taiwan, the self-governing democracy that China’s ruling Communist Party claims as its own territory. Since then, China’s influence in the area around the canal has grown . Responding to Trump’s remarks over the weekend, Mulino, the Panamanian president, said, “Rates are not a whim.” He also dismissed the idea that China exercised overt control over the canal. “The Canal has no control, direct or indirect, neither from China, nor from the European Community, nor from the United States or any other power,” Mulino said in his statement. Trump’s remarks are the latest example of the president-elect expressing his desire to obtain, or threatening to take or encroach on, territory belonging to a friendly foreign power. Since his election in November, Trump has taunted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by suggesting his country should be made the 51st US state. During his first term, Trump repeatedly floated the idea of the US buying Greenland from Denmark. The island’s government said it is “not for sale.” But Trump does not seem to be dissuaded. Over the weekend, the president-elect resurrected the idea while announcing his pick for ambassador to Denmark. “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump said while announcing the pick. The-CNN-Wire TM & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Paul Annacone , former coach of Roger Federer , believes Carlos Alcaraz lost some of his joy after his loss in the gold medal match at the Paris Olympics. The 21-year-old Spaniard is already seen as one of the top players in men’s tennis, alongside stars like Italy’s Jannik Sinner . Alcaraz had a remarkable 2024 season, winning two of the four Grand Slam titles for the first time in his career. He claimed the French Open by defeating Germany’s Alexander Zverev in a thrilling five-set final. He then defended his Wimbledon title, beating Novak Djokovic in straight sets, 6-2, 6-2, 7-6. You have to find what motivates you and stick with it. And I think Carlos Alcaraz is a joyful player. I think this year he lost a little bit of that joy, for a multitude of reasons. I think one of his greatest accomplishments was one of the biggest obstacles he had to overcome this year, which was getting ‘only’ a silver medal. That’s a great accomplishment, but I think it broke his heart a little bit at the Olympics, and I think it messed him up a little bit for the rest of the summer. Despite his strong start, Alcaraz struggled in the second half of the season. His form became inconsistent, and he ended the year with a disappointing performance at the ATP Finals. There, he failed to reach the semifinals after losing two of his three group-stage matches. In the second half of the season, Alcaraz only won one title, which was at the China Open. The Spaniard beat Sinner in three high-quality sets in the final to secure his fourth title of the season. However, despite the two Grand Slams and an Olympic medal , he wasn’t able to secure a top 2 finish in the ATP rankings. Former American tennis player makes bold prediction about Carlos Alcaraz in 2025 Former tennis player Sam Querrey recently shared his thoughts on Carlos Alcaraz ’s 2024 season during the Nothing Major Podcast. He found it surprising that the four-time major champion ended the year outside the top two, despite winning two Grand Slam titles. Querrey praised the 21-year-old for already having four Grand Slam victories and expressed confidence that Alcaraz would continue to add to that tally in the coming years. This might sound crazy but I am selling a bit of my Alcaraz stock. I have lost a little faith in him, he has thrown in some bad losses. I can see him ending next year at like five in the world. Not like two or three, five! Alcaraz had a strong season overall, with notable wins at the French Open and Wimbledon. These achievements showcased his skill and solidified his status as one of the best players on the ATP Tour. However, inconsistency in the latter part of the year hurt his rankings and momentum. The Spaniard finished third in the year-end rankings, behind Jannik Sinner and Alexander Zverev . At the ATP Finals in Turin, he managed a win against Andrey Rublev but suffered losses to Zverev and Casper Ruud , resulting in an early exit. Meanwhile, Sinner claimed the title and cemented his position as the world No. 1. Querrey noted that Alcaraz faces a tough challenge ahead, with Sinner showing no signs of slowing down. While the Spaniard has already accomplished a lot at a young age, staying competitive in a field that includes rising stars like Sinner will require even greater consistency and focus in 2025. This article first appeared on FirstSportz and was syndicated with permission.Highlights from Trump's interview with Time magazineTAMPA, Fla. (AP) — The Tampa Bay Buccaneers played like a team determined to do whatever's necessary to make the playoffs. Baker Mayfield and the offense purred, the defense tightened after yielding a touchdown just before halftime, and special teams stood out, too, in a 48-14 rout of the Carolina Panthers that kept the team's division and postseason hopes alive Sunday. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings. Get updates and player profiles ahead of Friday's high school games, plus a recap Saturday with stories, photos, video Frequency: Seasonal Twice a week