Cowboys confirm suspicion regarding impressive rookie ahead of Week 15 showdown vs Panthers
Iran said on Sunday that it would hold nuclear talks in the coming days with the three European countries that initiated a censure resolution against it adopted by the UN's atomic watchdog. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the meeting of the deputy foreign ministers of Iran, France, Germany and the United Kingdom would take place on Friday, without specifying a venue. "A range of regional and international issues and topics, including the issues of Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the nuclear issue, will be discussed," the spokesman said in a foreign ministry statement. Baghaei described the upcoming meeting as a continuation of talks held with the countries in September on the sidelines of the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. On Thursday, the 35-nation board of governors of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution denouncing Iran for what it called a lack of cooperation. The move came as tensions ran high over Iran's atomic programme, which critics fear is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon -- something Tehran has repeatedly denied. In response to the resolution, Iran announced it was launching a "series of new and advanced centrifuges". Centrifuges enrich uranium transformed into gas by rotating it at very high speed, increasing the proportion of fissile isotope material (U-235). "We will substantially increase the enrichment capacity with the utilisation of different types of advanced machines," Behrouz Kamalvandi, Iran's atomic energy organisation spokesman, told state TV. The country, however, also said it planned to continue its "technical and safeguards cooperation with the IAEA". During a recent visit to Tehran by IAEA head Rafael Grossi, Iran agreed to the agency's demand to cap its sensitive stock of near weapons-grade uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity. Sign up to get our free daily email of the biggest stories! Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in power since July and a supporter of dialogue with Western countries, has said he wants to remove "doubts and ambiguities" about his country's nuclear programme. In 2015, Iran and world powers reached an agreement that saw the easing of international sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme. But the United States unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018 under then-president Donald Trump and reimposed biting economic sanctions, which prompted Iran to begin rolling back on its own commitments. On Sunday afternoon, the United Kingdom confirmed the upcoming meeting between Iran and the three European countries. "We remain committed to taking every diplomatic step to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, including through snapback if necessary," London's Foreign Office said. The 2015 deal contains a "snapback" mechanism that can be triggered in case of "significant non-performance" of commitments by Iran, allowing many sanctions to be reimposed. Ali Vaez, an Iran expert with the International Crisis Group think tank, told AFP that Friday's meeting was set to happen earlier, but "those plans were derailed as a result of Iran-Israel tensions" over the Gaza war. Though the parties will be meeting "without knowing what the incoming Trump administration wants to do", Vaez said that "after a lose-lose cycle of mutual escalation, now both sides are back to realising that engagement might be the least costly option." Tehran has since 2021 decreased its cooperation with the IAEA by deactivating surveillance devices monitoring the nuclear programme and barring UN inspectors. At the same time, it has increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium and the level of enrichment to 60 percent. That level is close, according to the IAEA, to the 90 percent-plus threshold required for a nuclear warhead, and substantially higher than the 3.67 percent limit it agreed to in 2015. pdm/smw/amiHow to use the Double Air Dash Boots in Palworld
Nvidia's stock dips after China opens probe of the AI chip company for violating anti-monopoly laws
Americans have been appalled by thousands of illegal immigrants — those granted temporary legal status or who crossed the border undetected — exacerbating homelessness and straining shelters, schools and social services budgets. President-elect Donald Trump promised aggressive deportations during his campaign, but he hardly has a mandate. He won the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points, and Republicans enjoy a House majority of only three seats. President Biden muffed the immigration issue by reversing most of Mr. Trump’s tough border policies — including requiring many migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims could be heard. The Biden policy coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and economic disorder in much of Latin America, and the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally surpassed 13 million. Hardly all deadbeats, many found work and proved vital to sustaining the robust 2.5% pace of economic growth we enjoyed in the Trump and Biden years, compared with the 1.9% accomplished during the Bush-Obama era. After the pandemic shutdowns, the economy rapidly recovered and was at full employment in the summer of 2023. Over the next year, it added 195,000 jobs a month, when indigenous population growth and legal immigration could support only about 80,000 a month. Illegal immigrants made up the difference, account for half of agricultural workers and are prominently represented in the building trades, hospitality and day care for children and older adults. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance argues that these workers could be replaced by offering Americans higher wages, but that’s silly. In an economy with just 7 million job-seekers, it’s highly problematic to visualize how more than 1 million Americans could be motivated to take backbreaking jobs picking avocados and lettuce in the Central Valley of California, packing meat in Iowa or milking cows in Wisconsin. The combination of workers deported, fleeing to Canada or going into hiding would create significant food shortages and the kind of grocery price inflation suffered during and after the COVID shutdowns. It would force many women to quit the workforce for lack of child care. Familiar faces would disappear at supermarkets, restaurants and dry cleaners, while the pace of inflation, which appears to be settling at about 2.5%, would jump to 4.5%. Economic growth would slow dramatically and retirement security impaired by an anemic stock market. Workers in immigrant-dominated occupations would get pay raises that exceed the rate of inflation. But for Americans employed in other industries, moribund or nonexistent growth would spell more joblessness and wages lagging inflation like the years following the COVID shutdowns. The cost of mass deportation could reach $900 billion — enough to build nearly 3 million homes or 43,450 elementary schools. The incoming Trump administration is misreading its mandate. Americans may want the border and immigration laws tightly enforced, but according to a recent Pew Trust poll, 64% of Americans favor letting illegal immigrants who are already here stay if they meet conditions such as passing a background check. Seeing real incomes fall, shortages of basic services such as child care, elder care, home and office cleaners and counter help at fast-food places — and draconian images of the National Guard and sheriff’s deputies dragging immigrants from their workplaces and homes — would surely make the latter statistic rocket and permit Mr. Trump’s critics to paint him as a fascist. With only a slim Republican majority in the House, prospects for a good deal of his other economic and foreign policy priorities would be impaired. In the propaganda competition with China and Russia for influence in emerging nations, the American brand of champion of human rights would be severely damaged. Our current system permits too few legal immigrants, creating worker shortages, including in the tech sector. It is too biased toward family reunification, which can be abused through chain immigration and a diversity lottery. Instead, we should increase quotas enough to ensure 1 million to 1.5 million more workers a year. Like Canada, we should screen applicants primarily on the basis of their prospective contribution to the economy — prioritize those applicants filling needed employment categories. Let employers sponsor workers but pay a significant fee to be set by auction — the proceeds could be used to assist local governments with resettlement costs. Employers should be required to guarantee work for a minimum period of perhaps a year or two, subject to safeguards to prevent churning. It’s not just blue-collar and low-wage occupations that suffer shortages, and bigger quotas for engineers and other technology workers would likely accelerate growth in ways we have not calculated. Raising the cost to employers of immigrant workers through auctioned licenses would greatly reduce their incentive to turn to immigrants to avoid paying native-born Americans and green card holders higher wages. Stronger growth would raise real incomes for most everyone and help create more secure retirements through a higher worker-to-reitree ratio and a stronger stock market. . Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. .BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) — Andrej Stojakovic converted 11 of 15 from the free throw line and scored 20 points as California held off a late rally to post an 83-77 win over Sacramento State in the Cal Classic tournament on Sunday. Cal came into its tournament without three starters, Jovan Blacksher Jr., DJ Campbell and BJ Omot and the Golden Bears earned back-to-back wins over Air Force and the Hornets. Stojakovic scored a career-high 21 points and freshman guard Jeremiah Wilkinson stepped up with career-best 23 points against the Falcons. Against Sacramento State, Wilkinson came off the bench to score 16 points. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings. Get the latest sports news delivered right to your inbox six days a week.Syracuse and Georgetown meet for the 100th time Saturday when the Orange host the Hoyas in the latest installment of their classic rivalry. As former Big East Conference rivals, Syracuse and Georgetown have staged many memorable contests over the decades with the Orange holding a 54-45 all-time advantage. The teams still meet annually despite the Orange now playing in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Syracuse has won five of the last seven meetings, including a 12-point triumph in Washington D.C. last December. "It definitely felt like a Big East game," Hoyas coach Ed Cooley said after last season's contest. This time around, Georgetown (7-2) is coming off a 73-60 loss to West Virginia in which the team shot under 38 percent from the floor and committed 14 turnovers. "When the ball has music, when the ball is singing, unbelievable music happens," Cooley said. "The music is the play. The music is body movement and screening an open shot. We didn't have good music today." Thomas Sorber is the team's leading scorer at 15.4 points per game, although the freshman has failed to reach that average in six of the last seven games. Syracuse (5-4), meanwhile, is coming off a 102-85 win over Albany despite the absence of leading scorer J.J. Starling (19.8 points), who is out indefinitely with a hand injury. In his stead, freshman Donnie Freeman supplied 24 points on 10-of-13 shooting despite playing just 23 minutes due to an illness. "Whatever (illness) he has, he needs to keep that, if he can keep playing like, whatever he was feeling," Orange coach Adrian Autry joked. Syracuse will be looking for more success from 3-point range after hitting 6-of-15 (40 percent) against Albany. In their previous game -- a five-point loss to Notre Dame -- the Orange failed to make a 3-pointer for the first time in more than a decade. No Syracuse player has made more than 11 3-pointers this season -- and even that player (Chris Bell) is only shooting 25 percent from long distance. --Field Level Media
Chris Mubiru leads Northwestern State over North Alabama 71-58
In the current session, the stock is trading at $18.24, after a 0.55% spike. Over the past month, Huntington Bancshares Inc. HBAN stock increased by 14.71% , and in the past year, by 60.35% . With performance like this, long-term shareholders are optimistic but others are more likely to look into the price-to-earnings ratio to see if the stock might be overvalued. A Look at Huntington Bancshares P/E Relative to Its Competitors The P/E ratio measures the current share price to the company's EPS. It is used by long-term investors to analyze the company's current performance against it's past earnings, historical data and aggregate market data for the industry or the indices, such as S&P 500. A higher P/E indicates that investors expect the company to perform better in the future, and the stock is probably overvalued, but not necessarily. It also could indicate that investors are willing to pay a higher share price currently, because they expect the company to perform better in the upcoming quarters. This leads investors to also remain optimistic about rising dividends in the future. Compared to the aggregate P/E ratio of the 19.3 in the Banks industry, Huntington Bancshares Inc. has a lower P/E ratio of 17.61 . Shareholders might be inclined to think that the stock might perform worse than it's industry peers. It's also possible that the stock is undervalued. In summary, while the price-to-earnings ratio is a valuable tool for investors to evaluate a company's market performance, it should be used with caution. A low P/E ratio can be an indication of undervaluation, but it can also suggest weak growth prospects or financial instability. Moreover, the P/E ratio is just one of many metrics that investors should consider when making investment decisions, and it should be evaluated alongside other financial ratios, industry trends, and qualitative factors. By taking a comprehensive approach to analyzing a company's financial health, investors can make well-informed decisions that are more likely to lead to successful outcomes. © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
NoneToronto Raptors swingman RJ Barrett ’s career has been rejuvenated by the New York Knicks’ decision to trade him last season. The third overall pick in the 2019 NBA Draft, Barrett now consistently looks the part. In fact, he may be on the verge of his first All-Star selection. With averages of 23.3 points, 6.6 rebounds, and 5.9 assists per game, Barrett is one just 17 players posting at least 20 points, five rebounds, and five assists per game this season. Only seven of those players are in the East. “It’s always been there. I’m just getting to showcase it more ,” Barrett tells Michael Grange of Sportsnet. Raptors Rising Star RJ Barrett Relishing Opportunity Knicks Didn’t Give As Grange notes, Barrett’s admission that his opportunities have expanded north of the border isn’t new. The Toronto native literally hit the ground running when he was traded to the Raptors and has been asked what’s changed for him in myriad ways. “No. 1, the brand of basketball is different. I think it fits my style a little more. The team that we have, we’re young, we run... I’ve always been a guy that’s been good in transition, so that always helps.” For those that watched him in New York, his answer isn’t inaccurate either. There have been times when it seemed like the Knicks were prepared to give him the keys to the franchise. However, after New York traded for Jalen Brunson , he took a backseat in the Big Apple. At best, Barrett was going to be the third option behind him and Julius Randle . In that role, he could lean into his strengths as a scorer and connector but it capped his ceiling. Barrett’s latest comments are particularly enlightening though. Not because he concedes being able to step into larger shoes in Toronto. It’s because he acknowledges feeling frozen out of the Knicks’ offense. “I think that those guys were so good that we didn’t need the cuts and stuff ... they’re gonna put the ball in the basket,” he says. “In basketball sometimes, better offense wins, and it clearly worked, it’s effective ... I was able to do my thing [in New York]. It’s just here, I’m more efficient.” “... I cut more [here] just because I know I have a chance to get [the ball] and even when I don’t get it, I’m not upset about it because I know I’m getting it on the next one ... If you cut all the time and you never get the ball, you’re probably not gonna want to cut,” he quips. Avoiding A Territorial Dispute To that point, keep in mind that he’s still just 24 years old. With that being said, though Barrett’s been developing great chemistry with Scottie Barnes and Immanuel Quickley , the Raptors should be aware of where he wants to be in the pecking order. This could be particularly important come draft time. Currently projected to land the No. 4 pick, Toronto could be in position to select a prized perimeter prospect , like Texas freshman Tre Johnson . That’s exactly the type of move that could lead to a decrease in Barrett’s touches though, complicating matters. This article first appeared on Last Word On Sports and was syndicated with permission.New Mexico man awarded $412 million medical malpractice payout for botched injectionsA Nevada commissioner has shot down Rupert Murdoch’s effort to change his family trust to give full control of his media empire to his eldest son, Lachlan, in order to ensure Fox News would retain its conservative editorial bent. In an at-times blistering decision that was filed on Saturday, commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr. found that the father and son, who currently leads Fox News parent company Fox Corp and News Corp, had acted in “bad faith” in their attempts to modify the irrevocable trust, the New York Times reported . As it is currently written, the family trust would divide control of the powerful right-wing media empire – which also includes the New York Post , Wall Street Journal and several other British and Australian newspapers – between Murdoch’s four eldest children following the 93-year-old mogul’s death. Gorman contended in his ruling that the proposal to revise the trust amounted to little more than a “carefully crafted charade” to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” within the Murdoch empire, and did not take into account the “impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the family trust. Adam Streisand, a lawyer for Rupert Murdoch, told the Times that they were disappointed in the ruling and intended to file an appeal. With the trust remaining unchanged, it sets up a possible scenario in which the other three heirs – James, Elisabeth and Prudence – could potentially out-vote Lachlan for control of the sprawling media conglomerate, even though Lachlan currently runs both Fox and News Corp. While Prudence has been the least involved in the family business, Rupert has at various times considered choosing Lachlan, James or Elisabeth to succeed him. Within the past few years and with James and Elisabeth known to hold more politically moderate views than their dad and older brother, Rupert sought to lock in the right-wing slant of Fox News and his other media properties by positioning Lachlan to take charge. The effort to strip the other three children of all voting power while keeping Lachlan entrenched at the top began in earnest in the middle of last year. At that time, according to the court documents, the children had begun discussing the strategy of dealing with their father’s death behind the scenes, spurred on by the episode in the HBO series Succession when fictional family patriarch Logan Roy suddenly passes away. Under the initial trust agreement , which was meant to be binding, the voting shares would be divided equally among the four oldest children after Rupert’s death. This was due to negotiations with Rupert’s second wife Anna – the mother of James, Lachlan and Elisabeth – who was concerned that her ex-husband’s younger children with his third wife, Wendi Deng, would receive equal voting power. Prudence is Murdoch’s first child with his first wife, Patricia Booker . With a provision in the trust giving Rupert the right to make changes as long as he is acting in all beneficiaries’ best interests, Lachlan and his father looked at a way of amending the arrangement to consolidate Lachlan’s power. It also sought to marginalize James, who they were worried was planning a “coup” with Elisabeth and Prudence to push out Lachlan after their father’s death. Ultimately, Gorman sided overwhelmingly against Rupert and his eldest son, claiming they operated secretly for months and had the ulterior motive of keeping Lachlan in power to keep Fox as a right-wing operation. “The effort was an attempt to stack the deck in Lachlan Murdoch’s favor after Rupert Murdoch’s passing so that his succession would be immutable,” Gorman wrote. “The play might have worked; but an evidentiary hearing, like a showdown in a game of poker, is where gamesmanship collides with the facts and at its conclusion, all the bluffs are called and the cards lie face up,” he added.