slot game zone

President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter Jr. died on Sunday, December 29, 2024 at his home in Plains, Georgia, at 100 years old. Carter will be remembered as a consummate humanitarian and Nobel Prize winning statesman who spent his retirement years building houses with Habitat for Humanity and all but eradicating a truly terrible parasite, the guinea worm, from the planet. He will also be rather unfairly remembered as a weak, ineffectual leader, relegated to a single four-year stint in the White House; a rarity among modern presidents. It’s a reputation pushed by the Greed-is-Good Reaganites who immediately followed Carter’s single-term presidency. But looking back, it’s clear that Carter’s presidency included plenty of far-reaching changes that could have drastically altered the course of America — specifically, our dependency on cars and foreign oil, and our rate of toxic pollution output — if only we had stuck with his plans. It is far beyond anyone’s ability to sum up such a man, even with a few thousand words to work with, but here’s how Carter biographer Jonathan Alter describes his subject : With skills ranging from agronomist, land-use planner, nuclear engineer and sonar technologist to poet, painter, Sunday School teacher and master woodworker, Carter was the first president since Thomas Jefferson who could rightly be considered a Renaissance Man. He was also the first since Jefferson under whom no blood was shed in war. And his record of honesty and decency — once seen as minimum qualifications — have loomed larger with time. At a farewell dinner just before leaving office, his vice-president, Walter F. Mondale, whose job Carter turned from punchline into a position of real responsibility, toasted the Carter Administration: “We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace.” Carter later added a fourth major accomplishment: “And we championed human rights.” Carter served as president from 1977 to 1981, during a time when the U.S. alone consumed one-third of the entire planet’s energy production — much of that going towards fueling the large, criminally inefficient cars of the era. Carter created ground-breaking policies that attempted to reverse this trend, many of which Regan dismantled quicker than a solar panel on the White House roof. Even so, there were some deeply-felt lasting effects of his administration. Carter wrote in his autobiography: The Congressional Quarterly reported that since 1953 Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and I ranked in that order in obtaining approval of legislation proposed to Congress. The Miller Center reported that my record exceeded Kennedy’s. Indeed, he got his legislative way in Congress 76.6 percent of the time, according to Politifact . He left a deep mark on this country, especially when it comes to the environment and the automotive industry. Carter was the first president to bail out an American automaker, Chrysler, with a $1.5-billion Treasury loan. He was the first to attempt to get oil companies to pay their fair share of taxes during times of record profits (and record gas-pump prices) and the first leader in the world to address global warming, and humanity’s role in it, as a reality. Carter looked at our wasteful, energy-hungry American culture and struck a solemn — occasionally scolding — chord, imploring us to build toward a brighter future. But such a vision is not sexy, and it’s not fun. It’s certainly not part of what we think of as the go-go 1980s culture. Instead of seriously investing in innovations that would reduce our dependence on carbon-emitting oil from hostile countries, America chose to proceed in an entirely different direction, made clear when the electorate chose Ronald Regan by a landslide in the 1980 presidential election. “Carter also envisioned electric cars by the mid-1980s, and would have used his power to push automakers in that direction, as he did on CAFE standards,” Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told Jalopnik. Alter believes that a second Carter term would have been much better in a lot of ways. “Starting with more compassion domestically and less saber-rattling abroad, where he would have likely completed the unfinished business of Camp David, namely some comprehensive Mideast peace deal that included an eventual Palestinian state. Carter told me this was his biggest regret about losing.” Carter won the Nobel Peace Price in 2002, the committee citing his groundbreaking work towards peace throughout his career, both as president and as a private civilian. The Camp David Accords ended 30 years of hostility between Egypt and Israel and remain the longest-lasting peace agreement since World War II. That’s not to say Carter was without fault. As president, Carter saved Chrysler (and the automaker paid off its debt to the American people seven years early), but the Carter administration also helped establish an emboldened corporate America where workers still regularly bear the burden of highly-paid CEOs’ mistakes. He created a new tax that would directly result in the rise of the SUV, inspiring automakers to revamp their ’70s gas-guzzler shortsightedness for the 21st century. And he led a White House that seemed chaotic and directionless when America yearned for strong leadership. Let’s take a look at where this influential president went right — and where he went wrong — in his dealings with the American automotive industry. Taking on Fuel Economy and Big Oil By 1977, the concept of the modern suburb was only about 25 years old, but had overtaken the American way of life. By the 1970s, the number of cars on American roads had quadrupled in two decades, to 118 million vehicles, and the number of miles traveled by car had doubled. This was the Malaise Era of cars — a time of inefficient, poorly built, uninspired land yachts. The rise of in-car air conditioning shaved even more miles off the U.S. economy average, costing new car owners about two and a half miles per gallon. Carter addressed this waste in his first address as president: We have learned that “more” is not necessarily “better,” that even our great Nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems. We cannot afford to do everything, nor can we afford to lack boldness as we meet the future. So, together, in a spirit of individual sacrifice for the common good, we must simply do our best. The country was still reeling from the 1973 Gas Crisis, caused after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries placed an embargo on U.S. oil sales in response to the U.S. re-supplying Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This caused a spike in gas prices and shortages in fuel across the country. OPEC ended its embargo in May of 1974, but fuel prices remained high while oil companies profited immensely. To prevent another painful energy crisis, Carter’s predecessor, Gerald Ford, had signed into law the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. This policy would eventually be expanded by the energy bill Carter promised in his inaugural address. Passed in 1978 as the National Energy Act, the collection of eight bills created the Department of Energy, pushed renewable energy goals, raised fleet average MPG requirements, reduced oil imports by supporting the U.S. oil industry, and imposed a gas guzzler tax which would increase as CAFE standards tightened. Carter called the previous administration’s energy crisis the “...moral equivalent of war,” and he planned to come out with both guns blazing. His new Department of Energy would be put to the test just a year after its creation when, in 1979, Carter faced the moral war of his own energy crisis. The Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis sent oil prices soaring from $13 per barrel in mid-1979 to $34 per barrel by mid-1980 — despite the loss in oil supply being estimated at only four to five percent. Long lines at fuel pumps were once again angering Americans. But folksy Carter was famous for facing moral struggles. The president sequestered himself at Camp David for 10 days to consider the energy problems facing America. He met with leaders in business, science and faith, and spent hours alone studying and writing. After this period of reflection, Carter believed he had identified the problem. In what would later become known as Carter’s Malaise Speech , he cut to the heart of U.S. consumerist culture: The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America. . . . In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose. The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world. While certainly not wrong, saying as much is kind of a bummer. Amazingly, Carter’s incredibly low approval numbers received an 11-point bump after the speech, which was squandered a few days later when Carter fired five cabinet members. His presidency seemed scattered and chaotic heading into the 1980 presidential election. In order to bring down gas prices, Carter would begin to deregulate domestic fuel markets even as he imposed a large tax on oil company windfalls during the nationwide gas shortages and price hikes. His policies would initially lead to an increase in domestic oil production of nearly 1 million barrels a day between 1980 and 1985, according to the Miller Center. However, the price of oil plummeted in the mid ’80s, and the tax became a significant hindrance to domestic oil production, while not raking in all that much dough for the federal government. It was repealed in 1988; politicians have been twitchy over the idea of taxing massive oil company profits ever since. President Joe Biden recently floated the same idea, which was almost universally panned as being doomed to repeat Carter’s failure. Carter’s regulation of the auto industry wasn’t perfect, either. During his time in office, Carter expanded a tax on Japanese light-trucks in order to prop up domestic sales. Reagan would build on this policy in 1981, pressing Japanese automakers into “voluntary” export restrictions. Further, light trucks were exempt from Carter’s strict new MPG standards, and continue to be exempt to this day. These little favors for the automakers would lead directly to the rise of deadly, dangerous and wasteful SUVs and trucks on America’s roads, setting us up for yet another energy crisis in 2022, when gas prices and inflation once again reared their ugly heads. Carter told the Harvard Business Review he was proactive with automakers about building more fuel-efficient cars even before his own oil crisis. The heads of the Big Three were hesitant to get on board, however: [...] I called in to my cabinet room the chief executive officers—the chairmen of the board and the presidents of every automobile manufacturer in the nation—along with the autoworkers’ union representatives. I told them we were going to pass some very strict air pollution and energy conservation laws. My hope was that they would take the initiative right then and commit themselves to producing energy-efficient automobiles that would comply with these strict standards. Their unanimous response was that it simply was not possible. I told them that automakers in Sweden and in Japan were doing it, so it was possible. But they insisted that they just couldn’t make a profit on it because their profit came from the larger automobiles. So they refused to modify their designs. Eventually we passed a law that required them, incrementally and annually, to improve their automobiles’ efficiency and to comply with environmental standards. In the meantime, American manufacturers lost a lot of the domestic market. That was a case of the automobile industry being unwilling to look to the future. They could not see the long-run advantage, even though it might prove to be costly in the close-in years. That delay would cost Chrysler dearly. The 1979 Chrysler Bailout That lack of long-term foresight Carter spoke of in his Malaise speech would send Chrysler spiraling towards something unimaginable in the post-war United States: The bankruptcy of a major American automobile manufacturer. And yet, in 1979 Chrysler faced half a billion dollars in losses. At a time of rising gas prices and the emergence of stringent federal fuel economy standards, the American automaker was still churning out those poorly-built road yachts. No automaker built them quite as big (or as wasteful) as the Chrysler corporation. At the time, Chrysler was the third-largest automaker in the country, and the 10th-largest industrial manufacturer. By the time Carter took office, America had waded through five years of energy ups and downs, but Chrysler hadn’t changed its vehicles all that much. When the second gas crisis hit, along with the new regulations put in place by Carter’s energy policy, Chrysler fumbled. The company had recently scooped up celebrity CEO Lee Iaoccoa , fresh off eight years of making money hand over fist for Henry Ford II. Iacoccoa was the fall guy for the Ford Pinto disaster, but had made few friends with his desire to push the company towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. As a sign of the serious situation Chrysler was in, Iacoccoa took a salary of only $1 in his first year as CEO. Iacocca then tried to move Chrysler towards smaller vehicles, but quickly realized his new employer would not be able to weather this financial storm alone. Iacocca reached out to the feds for help. He persuaded lawmakers that Chrysler was too big to fail. Carter’s Treasury Department was on board, but in order to get enough support in Congress for a loan, the Carter administration would ask the company, and the UAW, to make deep concessions. Treasury Secretary G. William Miller proposed a $1.5 billion loan, then the Carter Administration’s Council on Wage and Price Stability testified before the Senate Banking Committee that such a loan would be consumed in three years flat, thanks to the automaker’s obligations to the UAW. After a summer of bad press and congressional cajoling, the UAW eventually agreed to $525 million in concessions in late October 1979, along with a three-year wage freeze. Just before Christmas, Chrysler got its $1.5 billion loan in the form of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act. The act did more than just bail out Chrysler. While Chrysler would be subject to more government oversight while paying off the debt — including $2 billion in cost-cutting measures and a three-year plan approved by Congress to get the company back on track — the special act also relaxed the brand-new gas mileage requirements updated by the 1978 National Energy Act. That alone gave Chrysler a much-needed boost, which Iacocca used to springboard the company-saving K-cars and, eventually, the minivan, which came to define the brand in the 1980s and 1990s. This bailout would be used as a blueprint by the Obama administration in 2008 when General Motors and Chrysler found themselves in the same situation Chrysler had faced in 1979. While Chrysler employees weren’t the ones who made the bad business decisions in the ’70s, they would bear a great burden in the plan to right the company’s course. As they accepted major concessions, union members were painted by the media as selfish and lazy, willing to kill Chrysler to get their golden retirement funds. Even with steep concessions and wage freezes in the middle of historic inflation, Chrysler laid off 57,000 of its 134,000-strong production workforce, the Washington Post reported in a retrospective on the bailout published in 1984. All told, the auto industry as a whole would lay off 239,000 workers in one month in 1980 . Still, Carter biographer Jonathan Alter says saving Chrysler was worth it. “It was a binary decision: Save Chrysler and thousands of jobs or not, and he clearly made the right call for workers, for whom he had much more respect than did Reagan,” Alter told Jalopnik The damage to unions would last much longer than Chrysler’s debt. The automaker managed to pay off its loan seven years early — mostly to get out from under federal oversight. The U.S. made $300 million on its investment in the company. While Chrysler would thrive in the ’80s and ’90s thanks to Iacocca’s simple, fuel-efficient K-cars and the popular minivan, union membership in America dropped precipitously as Right-to-Work laws swept the nation. And as union memberships stagnate, so do wages . Carter Was Right The energy crisis was a key issue to voters who tossed Carter out in favor of Ronald Reagan in a legendary landslide. Having fellow democrat Ted Kennedy challenge the sitting president for his party’s nomination was just one more nail in the coffin of Carter’s re-election campaign. His shaky administration didn’t look any more solid when the president lost consciousness during a 10K run. Reagan didn’t chide the American public for their gas-guzzling cars. He didn’t ask Americans to spend less, or look deep within themselves and question consumerist culture — Reagan promised wealth, abundance and a revitalization of the American dream (for some, anyway). Once he took office, Reagan stripped the Carter-installed solar panels off the roof of the White House and tossed them in a basement. The dismantling served as a symbol of America rejecting Carter’s old energy policies wholesale. When the solar panels were found in 2010, they still worked . Carter’s concerns about the U.S. didn’t disappear — we just put them on the back burner for a few decades. Now we’re facing challenges similar to what Carter attempted to address with his time in office: climate change; oil companies profiteering on the back of sky-high fuel prices; the runaway popularity of giant, inefficient vehicles; and detrimental consumerism on a scale familiar to anyone who lived through the 1970s. So what if Reagan had lost the 1980 election? According to a New York Times op-ed, we might be living in a very different world: According to a recent report by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, it would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Had we continued this wise course, we might not have had to fight the Persian Gulf war, and we would have insulated ourselves from price shocks in the international oil market. Just before Carter left office in 1981, a member of his White House Council on Environmental Quality, Gus Speth, authored a presidential report as part of Global 2000, a process recommending action on global warming. It was the first such policy pronouncement anywhere in the world. “Speth’s recommendations for tackling climate change in 1981 would be almost identical to the Paris Climate Accords some 34 years later. Such a report would have become part of Carter’s legislative agenda in 1980,” Alter told Jalopnik. With Jimmy Carter’s death, America didn’t just lose an exemplary humanitarian who doubled the size of the National Parks system and signed 15 major pieces of environmental legislation, including the first toxic waste cleanup. We lost a reminder that our nation once had a head-start on solving some of the greatest problems we face today: environmental pollution, runaway oil consumption, rampant consumerism, a mental health crisis, climate change and Middle East violence. Carter envisioned a different, more responsible America, and he was rejected for it. Carter’s most enduring legacy will be this: He tried to leave America a little better than he found it. He attempted to warn Americans about the challenges we’d face over the next five decades. Our own legacy shows we were completely unwilling to heed those warnings.Could Buying Rivian Stock Today Set You Up for Life?slot game zone 。

'Every Attack Makes Us Stronger, Every Obstacle A Stepping Stone’: Gautam Adani Responds To US Charges

New Delhi: The BJP on Saturday, November 30, hit back at the Congress for questioning the electoral process, including EVM’s integrity, saying its chief ministers and other elected representatives like Rahul Gandhi should first resign and announce that they will contest only after ballot papers are brought back. Such a stand will underscore their trust in the issues being raised by them, BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia told reporters, adding that their allegations will otherwise be nothing but empty words. The Congress should move the courts over the issue too, he said, while stressing that the Supreme Court has quite a few times endorsed the transparency of the electoral process and the integrity of Electoral Voting Machines. Congress chief ministers, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra should resign as they were elected through the same electoral process the opposition party is questioning, Bhatia said. It was ironic that Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge questioned EVMs on a day Priyanka Gandhi Vadra took oath as a Lok Sabha MP, he said. The Congress will soon be confined to the pages of history books, he said. Speaking on the incidents targeting Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, the BJP spokesperson noted the stand of the Indian government and expressed confidence that India’s strong voice cannot be ignored. As the biggest democracy in the world, it is India’s duty to raise its voice when minorities are facing harassment anywhere, Bhatia claimed. He also accused Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav of acting as a shield for rioters and alleged that the party’s members, including MPs, are involved in instigating violence rather than showing commitment to the restoration of peace. Targeting the SP, he alleged that riots frequently broke out when it ruled the state and that the opposition party has no faith in the police. The BJP’s reaction came after Yadav accused the BJP of orchestrating violence in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh where protesters who were opposing a court-ordered survey of a mosque clashed with police last Sunday.Boon raises $20.5M to build agentic AI tools for fleets

Nine Energy Service sees $1.16m stock purchases by William MonroeJimmy Carter: A brief bio

NoneRobert Smith: Steel City's steel saga continues'AI textbooks' are coming to Korea. But is the country ready for them? Published: 30 Dec. 2024, 07:00 LEE SOO-JUNG [email protected] A person tests the prototype of an AI textbook at an edtech fair held in Gangnam District, southern Seoul, in September. [YONHAP] “AI textbooks” aren't physical textbooks — they're tablet apps — but they aim to be something even better. They include real-time practice questions and can analyze intonation and pronunciation as a learner speaks. An integrated model assesses each user's level of comprehension and tailors questions and explanations appropriately. Instructors can view each student's practice performance, assessed level and correct answer ratio. It's a textbook, but smarter — and personalized. At least, that's the Korean Ministry of Education's pitch. On Dec.2, the ministry unveiled authorized AI textbooks from private publishers, which are expected to be introduced over the upcoming four years — from 2025 to 2028 — to Korean classrooms. Elementary students to high schoolers, nationwide, will be learning from AI textbooks across English, math, social studies, sciences, history and technology. Incorporating AI into public and mandatory education will offer more personalized learning experiences, said the ministry, with each student provided a device of their own. However, on Thursday, the ministry's grand AI transition ran into a hurdle when the National Assembly demoted the AI textbooks to supplementary materials. The passage of an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, led by the opposition Democratic Party — even stripped AI textbooks of their "textbook" title, relegating them to "subsidiary references." However, Education Minister Lee Ju-ho said that introducing AI textbooks would be the "starting point of reducing educational imbalances," helping tackle the polarization of knowledge. He also said the selective use of AI textbooks could worsen the educational gap between AI textbook learners and those not having a chance to use them. In late November, Education Minister Lee also said AI textbooks would “awaken classrooms” and motivate students to study eagerly, preventing them from dropping out. However, such an awakening is unlikely to happen without resistance, nor will it come cheap. Scholars, students and teachers, despite the ministry's effort to incorporate contemporary technology in classrooms, have been less than enthusiastic. Due to the parliamentary measure, the AI textbooks' downgraded status could prevent the ministry from funding AI textbook distribution and upgrading classroom IT systems. While textbooks are mandatory at schools nationwide and funded by the state, using subsidiary materials is at the discretion of school principals. The parliamentary National Assembly Research Service calculated that subscription fees paid to textbook publishers would total between 1.9 trillion won ($1.3 billion) and 6.6 trillion won over four years. The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education was set to earmark 203.7 billion won into system improvement and subscription costs. ━ An incomplete endeavor An employee of an AI textbook publisher demonstrates the program at the Sejong government complex on Monday. Left monitor shows the display for students and the right monitor shows students' academic progress. [NEWS1] Does AI add that much to a traditional textbook? Experts aren't so sure. Joo Jeong-heun, a senior researcher at the Seoul Education Research and Information Institute, believes the technology is not yet comprehensive enough to help students apply their knowledge. AI is “competent in delivering factual information but has limits in encouraging actual usage of learned knowledge in real life,” Joo told the Korea JoongAng Daily. “Digital educational content and AI lack intuitive thoughts, which are catalysts prompting people to apply learned knowledge in actual experiences,” Joo said. Joo said educational policymakers should evaluate how an AI textbook effectively triggers the transfer of learning rather than treating it as a tool for improving students’ grades. Fourth graders at Seoul Sinseong Elementary School participate in an English class using AI last May. Then-Seoul education superintendent Cho Hee-yeon also attended the class. [NEWS1] Prof. Kim Bong-jae from Seoul National University of Education’s AI value judgment design center said current AI textbooks do not encompass complex developmental characteristics, which are deeply related to emotional development and value judgment. “AI technology simply translates students’ behaviors and responses only into intellectual ability,” Kim said. “Only human teachers are capable of understanding the process and variables that influence student’s answer choices and reflecting those behavioral and psychological elements into the curriculum.” Prof. Kim believes AI textbooks in elementary schools would be “inappropriate” as the students undergo the most significant emotional and social developments during those years. He said using AI textbooks in middle and high schools would be “acceptable,” as those students are mature enough to handle the technology. Teachers try out prototypes of AI textbooks at an educational conference in Daegu in August. [YONHAP] But even high school faculty are skeptical about bringing AI textbooks into classrooms because of their potential to create more work for teachers. A total of 49 percent of 1,656 teachers in Gyeonggi answered that an AI learning tool dubbed High-Learning — developed by the provincial education office — was “meritless,” according to a survey by the Gyeonggi Teachers Union in October. The AI-powered High-Learning program has been up and running since September of last year. The union told the Korea JoongAng Daily that AI-based educational content was inefficient in terms of time management. “Device distribution, itself, does not complete education,” said Kim Hee-jung, a teacher’s union spokesperson, who pointed out that the widespread use of AI textbooks puts a number of additional tasks on an instructor's plate, such as troubleshooting a fleet of tablets and ensuring that students are logged into the correct server. “Based on experience, if one or two students forget their ID and passwords, teachers have to help their log-in process, which normally takes up around 20 to 30 minutes during class hours.” ━ Schools unready Six graders from Daejeon Neuriul Elementary School receive new textbooks for the fall semester in August. [NEWS1] The teacher’s union representative also doubted the ministry’s belief that AI technology would narrow learning gaps among students, citing “extremely low digital literacy” among high schoolers. The teachers’ union said that leaving students to study on their own digital devices could “polarize educational achievements.” A 2024 survey by the National Youth Policy Institute indicated that 63.9 percent of some 2,261 high- and middle-schoolers nationwide know little to nothing about generative AI. “On average, five percent of students in each high school classroom are capable of using ChatGPT,” Kim from the Gyeonggi teachers’ union said. Her remarks echo those other critics of AI have been making across sectors as the technology explodes — that it only benefits those who already know how to use it while leaving the rest baffled. Plus, Kim Hee-jung worries, struggling students might just use the tablets to play online games. People who object to the introduction of AI textbooks hold a press conference in front of the government complex in central Seoul last month. [YONHAP] Teachers also expressed concern about “lack of time getting familiar with AI textbooks before the spring semester,” which starts in March. Considering faculty reshuffle and relocation, slated to be complete in mid-February, teachers will likely have only 10 to 15 days to practice content in the AI textbooks — designated by each school before their relocation. “Teachers are unsure of the effectiveness of teaching accompanied with AI textbooks when lessons are given to students in an underprepared situation,” said Min Jae-sik, a representative of the union of middle school teachers. Min also noted that AI textbooks have an attached manual for teachers, but not for students. “Because there is no manual available for students, teachers have to address questions raised by students or solve their technical difficulties one by one,” Min said. ━ The silver lining Despite the uncertainties surrounding the need for AI textbooks and her own awareness of the technology's limitations, Joo pointed to AI textbooks as having the potential to become a “great learning tool.” “There are parts where simple and repeated exercises are crucial, and using AI textbooks for such purposes would amplify students' learning.” Joo has faith that teachers will figure out the optimal timing and usage of AI textbooks as they are well aware of effective teaching methods per each academic lesson. “Teachers will use AI textbooks once they are proven to be effective and well-made.” Education Minister Lee also stressed that surveys after AI textbook pilot programs revealed a "high" level of satisfaction. Lee told lawmakers this month that post-use reviews are what really matter. AI textbook publishers are also confident that their products will gain the trust of students, parents and teachers. Visang Education, an authorized AI textbook publisher, told the newspaper that his company would make an effort to provide “customized solutions” to students by automatically analyzing data about their behavior and achievements in real time. “AI textbooks will help students digest academic lessons through a personalized curriculum regardless of one’s learning speed,” a Visang spokesperson said. The official believes that the wary public attitude derives from vague stereotypes of AI in the education sector. “Learning with AI textbooks,” the spokesperson insisted, “would be a totally different experience.” BY LEE SOO-JUNG [ [email protected] ] var admarutag = admarutag || {} admarutag.cmd = admarutag.cmd || [] admarutag.cmd.push(function () { admarutag.pageview('3bf9fc17-6e70-4776-9d65-ca3bb0c17cb7'); });

Nanjing, China, Dec. 19, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. ("the Company") (Nasdaq: OST), a leading supplier of display modules and polarizers based in China, today announced that it has resolved to effect a reverse share split of the Company's ordinary shares, with the split ratio set at 1-for-10 (the "The Reverse Share Split”). The Reverse Share Split was approved by the Company's shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting held on November 25, 2024. The Company's Class A ordinary shares will begin trading on an adjusted basis, reflecting the Reverse Share Split, on December 26, 2024, under the existing ticker symbol "OST.” The new CUSIP number for the Company's Class A ordinary shares will be G67927114. Upon the effectiveness of the Reverse Share Split, every ten shares of the Company's issued and outstanding Class A ordinary shares as of the effective date will automatically be combined into one Class A ordinary share. This adjustment will reduce the total number of outstanding Class A ordinary shares of the Company from approximately 18.1 million to approximately 1.81 million. In conjunction with the Reverse Share Split, the Company also amended its Memorandum of Association to proportionately reduce the number of authorized shares for issuance and to adjust the par value of the post-reverse share split ordinary shares to $0.001 per share. The Reverse Share Split is part of the Company's efforts to regain compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 5550(a)(2) related to the minimum bid price of at least $1.00 per share of the Company's ordinary shares. No fractional shares will be issued; instead, shareholders who would otherwise be entitled to a fractional share will have their entitlement rounded up to the nearest whole share. Further details regarding the reverse share split and the associated changes to the Company's share capital can be found in the Company's notice of extraordinary general meeting, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024. About Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. Founded in 2010, the Company is a supplier of display modules and polarizers in China. The Company designs, develops, and manufactures TFT-LCD display modules in a wide range of sizes and customized sizes which are mainly used in consumer electronics, outdoor LCD displays, and automotive displays. The Company also manufactures polarizers used in the TFT-LCD display modules. For more information, please visit http://ostin-technology.com/index.html Forward-Looking Statement This press release contains forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, underlying assumptions, and other statements that are other than statements of historical facts. When the Company uses words such as "may, "will, "intend," "should," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "estimate" or similar expressions that do not relate solely to historical matters, it is making forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to uncertainties and risks including, but not limited to, the following: the Company's goals and strategies; the Company's forecast on market trends; the Company's future business development; the demand for and market acceptance for new products; expectation to receive customer orders for new products; the anticipated timing for the marketing and sales of new products; changes in technology; the Company's ability to attract and retain skilled professionals; client concentration; and general economic conditions affecting the Company's industry and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing and other risks contained in reports filed by the Company with the SEC. For these reasons, among others, investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements in this press release. Additional factors are discussed in the Company's filings with the SEC, which are available for review at www.sec.gov . The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date hereof. For more information, please contact: Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. [email protected] Investor Relations: Janice Wang Wealth Financial Services LLC Phone: +86 13811768599 +1 628 283 9214 Email: [email protected]

Roku, Inc. ( NASDAQ:ROKU – Get Free Report ) shares rose 2.1% during trading on Thursday . The stock traded as high as $68.29 and last traded at $67.71. Approximately 2,894,370 shares were traded during mid-day trading, a decline of 34% from the average daily volume of 4,410,360 shares. The stock had previously closed at $66.31. Analysts Set New Price Targets ROKU has been the topic of a number of research reports. UBS Group began coverage on Roku in a research note on Friday, November 22nd. They set a “neutral” rating and a $73.00 price target on the stock. Morgan Stanley upped their target price on Roku from $60.00 to $65.00 and gave the stock an “underweight” rating in a research report on Tuesday, October 29th. Wells Fargo & Company lifted their price target on shares of Roku from $72.00 to $74.00 and gave the company an “equal weight” rating in a research report on Thursday, October 31st. JPMorgan Chase & Co. upped their price objective on shares of Roku from $90.00 to $92.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a report on Thursday, October 10th. Finally, Loop Capital lifted their price objective on shares of Roku from $65.00 to $70.00 and gave the company a “hold” rating in a report on Thursday, October 31st. Two investment analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, nine have given a hold rating, twelve have given a buy rating and one has assigned a strong buy rating to the company. Based on data from MarketBeat, the company has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $82.62. Check Out Our Latest Stock Analysis on ROKU Roku Stock Up 1.9 % Roku ( NASDAQ:ROKU – Get Free Report ) last posted its earnings results on Wednesday, October 30th. The company reported ($0.06) earnings per share for the quarter, beating analysts’ consensus estimates of ($0.35) by $0.29. Roku had a negative return on equity of 7.22% and a negative net margin of 4.42%. The business had revenue of $1.06 billion during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $1.02 billion. During the same quarter in the previous year, the firm earned ($2.33) EPS. The company’s quarterly revenue was up 16.5% compared to the same quarter last year. As a group, equities analysts anticipate that Roku, Inc. will post -1.1 EPS for the current fiscal year. Insider Buying and Selling In other news, CAO Matthew C. Banks sold 8,693 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction on Monday, November 18th. The shares were sold at an average price of $71.44, for a total transaction of $621,027.92. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief accounting officer now directly owns 7,264 shares in the company, valued at $518,940.16. The trade was a 54.48 % decrease in their position. The transaction was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this link . Also, insider Charles Collier sold 15,454 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction on Thursday, September 12th. The stock was sold at an average price of $75.00, for a total transaction of $1,159,050.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the insider now directly owns 200 shares in the company, valued at approximately $15,000. The trade was a 98.72 % decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . In the last 90 days, insiders have sold 90,240 shares of company stock valued at $6,729,582. Company insiders own 13.98% of the company’s stock. Institutional Trading of Roku A number of large investors have recently modified their holdings of ROKU. Raelipskie Partnership purchased a new stake in Roku in the third quarter valued at approximately $32,000. Future Financial Wealth Managment LLC bought a new position in shares of Roku in the 3rd quarter worth $43,000. GS Investments Inc. increased its holdings in shares of Roku by 33.4% in the 3rd quarter. GS Investments Inc. now owns 587 shares of the company’s stock worth $44,000 after buying an additional 147 shares during the last quarter. EverSource Wealth Advisors LLC raised its position in shares of Roku by 123.4% during the 2nd quarter. EverSource Wealth Advisors LLC now owns 679 shares of the company’s stock valued at $40,000 after buying an additional 375 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Cedar Wealth Management LLC bought a new stake in shares of Roku during the 2nd quarter worth $48,000. Institutional investors own 86.30% of the company’s stock. About Roku ( Get Free Report ) Roku, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, operates a TV streaming platform in the United states and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Platform and Devices. Its streaming platform allows users to find and access TV shows, movies, news, sports, and others. The Platform segment offers digital advertising, including direct and programmatic video advertising, media and entertainment promotional spending, and related services; and streaming services distribution, such as subscription and transaction revenue shares, and sale of premium subscriptions and branded app buttons on remote controls. Featured Articles Receive News & Ratings for Roku Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Roku and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .

Sabres get power-play goals from Zucker and Thompson in 4-2 win over the Blues

If your New Year’s resolution is to establish a wellness practice that promotes health from the inside and out or to cut down on in-office aesthetic treatments for glowing skin, now’s the time to purchase the premium tools to help get you started ahead of 2025. One of our favorite skincare and wellness brands LYMA is having a rare early Black Friday sale and we’ve never seen its products marked down so steeply. was founded by former fashion journalist and luxury publicist Lucy Goff after a postpartum septicemia (blood poisoning) diagnosis opened her eyes to a void in the wellness industry. Dr. Paul Clayton, an expert in preventative degenerative disease, introduced Goff to clinically dosed supplements, inspiring a collaboration. Together, they created , a high-grade nutraceutical made with ingredients like turmeric, ashwagandha, saffron, and vitamins D and K to improve sleep, reduce anxiety, enhance focus, and sharpen immunity. It was an instant success. Cut to 2024, and has solidified itself as a pioneer in the industry, with innovations engineered to keep its customers feeling, as well as looking their best. While still known for its supplements, the beauty brand has recently garnered a cult following for its and clinical-grade skincare. All LYMA products are backed by science and patented technology, and have been shown to reduce skin damage without the pain, downtime or a trip to the dermatologist. The is already live and will continue while supplies last. Its products are on sale for up to 30 percent off, and discounts will be applied at checkout. This is a once-annual opportunity, as LYMA does not discount its products any other time of year. In other words, take advantage while you can.

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) — Snapping a franchise-record 10-game losing streak, winning for the first time at home this season and ending the Indianapolis Colts' slim playoff hopes Sunday didn't salvage the season for the New York Giants. The main positive in the 45-33 win that Drew Lock led with four touchdown passes and a late TD run was the Giants (3-13) got to walk off the field with smiles for the first time in months after a season of misery that will could lead to major changes. Another factor from the win: New York no longer has control of the No. 1 overall pick in the draft. Giants coach Brian Daboll, who has had two straight losing seasons following a playoff berth in 2022 in his first year, said that he was happy the team got a chance to celebrate after losing eight straight at MetLife Stadium. “Those guys put a lot into it. They come out, they grind every day. They have good attitudes,” Daboll said. “It’s never easy when you when are losing. But I’m proud of the character and all the people in the building, and I’m mostly happy for them.” Lock, who threw two pick-6s in the loss to Atlanta a week ago, sandwiched touchdown passes of 31 and 59 yards to Malik Nabers around TD passes of 32 yards to Darius Slayton and 5 yards to Wan'Dale Robinson in leading the Giants (3-13) to their first win since beating Seattle on Oct. 6. “I've won a lot in my life,” Slayton said. "I wouldn’t say I ever forget the feeling of winning, but, you know, obviously it’s nice to get that feeling back today.” Ihmir Smith-Marsette had a 100-yard return on the second-half kickoff on a day the league's worst offense set a season high for points. Jonathan Taylor scored on runs of 3 and 26 yards for Indianapolis (7-9), while Joe Flacco, subbing for the injured Anthony Richardson, threw touchdown passes of 13 yards to Alec Pierce and 7 yards to Michael Pittman, the last bringing the Colts within 35-33 with 6:38 left in the fourth quarter. Lock, who finished 17 of 23 for 309 yards, clinched the game by leading a nine-play, 70-yard drive that he capped with a 5-yard run. “It’s kudos to him,” said Nabers, who now has 104 catches for 1,140 yards and six touchdowns. “He looked over the film, found some things that he could get better on and did all that through the week, and it showed how good he can be.” The 45 points were the most for New York since putting up 49 in a 52-49 loss to the Saints in 2015. It’s the Giants most in a win since a 45-14 rout against Washington in 2014 and most at home since a 52-27 win against the Saints in 2012. The No. 6 overall pick in the draft, Nabers finished with seven catches for a career-high 171 yards. “That’s why we drafted him, where we drafted him,” Daboll said. “I’ve been asked about it since training camp and I think the response has been, ‘He’s a pretty good football player.’” Flacco was 26 of 38 for 330 yards with two interceptions, the second by rookie Dru Phillips shortly after Lock's TD run. Taylor, who rushed for 218 yards in a win over Tennessee last week, finished with 125 yards on 32 carries. Pierce had six catches for 122 yards. The Colts came into the game needing to win their final two games and also get help to make the playoffs. “We had something to play for today and obviously we didn’t get it done," Flacco said. The Colts haven't made the playoffs since posting an 11-5 record in 2020. “It's hard to explain,” said Colts coach Shane Steichen, who led the team to a 9-8 record in his first season in 2023. “We had to play a complete game. We haven’t done it all year. We have to be on the same page, and to go out there like that is obviously not good enough.” Nabers and running back Tyrone Tracy become the third pair of rookies to have more than 1,000 yards from scrimmage in the same season. The previous duo was running back Reggie Bush and receiver Marques Colston of the Saints in 2006. Colts: Richardson was inactive with foot and back injuries sustained against Tennessee. Giants: DL Armon Watts (knee) was ruled out in the first half. Colts: Finish the regular season by hosting Jacksonville. Giants: At Philadelphia to face Saquon Barkley and the Eagles. AP NFL coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/NFLOn the Town: Gift Raps show brings hip-hop and holiday giving

Bronny James on showing resilience and overcoming mental health issues through his journey in the NBA

Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’

Hutson scores 20 as Northern Iowa defeats Southern Illinois 78-67— BIRTH NAME: James Earl Carter, Jr. — BORN: Oct. 1, 1924, at the Wise Clinic in Plains, Georgia, the first U.S. president born in a hospital. He would become the first president to live for an entire century . — EDUCATION: Plains High School, Plains, Georgia, 1939-1941; Georgia Southwestern College, Americus, Georgia, 1941-1942; Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1942-1943; U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1943-1946 (class of 1947); Union College, Schenectady, New York, 1952-1953. — PRESIDENCY: Sworn-in as 39th president of the United States at the age of 52 years, 3 months and 20 days on Jan. 20, 1977, after defeating President Gerald R. Ford in the 1976 general election. Left office on Jan. 20, 1981, following 1980 general election loss to Ronald Reagan. — POST-PRESIDENCY: Launched The Carter Center in 1982. Began volunteering at Habitat for Humanity in 1984. Awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Taught for 37 years at Emory University, where he was granted tenure in 2019, at age 94. — OTHER ELECTED OFFICES: Georgia state senator, 1963-1967; Georgia governor, 1971-1975. — OTHER OCCUPATIONS: Served in U.S. Navy, achieved rank of lieutenant, 1946-53; Farmer, warehouseman, Plains, Georgia, 1953-77. — FAMILY: Wife, Rosalynn Smith Carter , married July 7, 1946 until her death Nov. 19, 2023. They had three sons, John William (Jack), James Earl III (Chip), Donnel Jeffrey (Jeff); a daughter, Amy Lynn; and 11 living grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren. Source: Jimmy Carter Library & Museum