jili slot jackpot
The 2024 season at the Red Rabbit Drive-in in Reed Township, Dauphin County is coming to a close. You have until Sunday, Nov. 24 to visit the longtime drive-in and home of the Bunny Burger. The Red Rabbit is reminding followers on its Facebook page of the the seasonal closing and urges them to stock up this weekend on favorites, including the famous Bunny Dust, chili and homemade tartar sauce. “Yes, You CAN GET HERE from There!... and Keep Making the RED RABBIT a HABIT!” reads the message. The Red Rabbit closes every November and reopens Jan. 31, 2025. The drive-in’s famous quarter-pound Bunny Burger includes bacon, cheese, lettuce, tomato, pickle, onion and the restaurant’s special sauce, served on a sesame seed roll. The menu also includes ham and pork barbecue sandwiches, hot dogs, grilled cheese, hamburger, cheeseburger, fish, crab cakes and chicken. There are crab cake dinners, fried jumbo shrimp, filet of haddock dinner and a chicken finger dinner as well as floats, sundaes and ice cream sodas. It is open 11 a.m.-9 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Closed Monday-Thursday. Stories by Sue Gleiter New owner to take over Dauphin County ice cream shop Giant recalls carrots due to E. coli: What you need to know LGBTQ+ bar and club set to open in Harrisburg: ‘It’s a place for all to enjoy’ Restaurant in Hershey closing in early 2025
Hope and fear as world powers absorb Assad's end
In Vietnam's heavily polluted capital Hanoi, teenage taxi driver Phung Khac Trung rides his electric motorbike through streets jammed with two-wheelers belching toxic fumes. Trung, 19, is one of a growing number of Generation-Z workers driving an e-bike trend in the communist nation where 77 million -- largely petrol -- motorbikes rule the roads. A cheap set of electric wheels can now be had for as little as $500, but issues include wasting hours at charging stations and people finding it hard to give up their habits. Trung has long hated riding in Hanoi, rated among the world's top 10 polluted capital cities in 2023 by air quality technology firm IQAir. The air "is unbearable for motorbike riders", said Trung, who is working as a motorbike taxi driver before applying to university. "When stopping at T-junctions... my only wish is to run the red light. The smell of petrol is so bad," he told AFP after a morning rush-hour shift in air labelled "unhealthy" by IQAir. More than two thirds of the poisonous smog that blankets Hanoi for much of the year is caused by petrol vehicles, city authorities said last year. The World Bank puts the figure at 30 percent. Vietnam officials have ordered that a quarter of two-wheelers across the country must be electric by 2030 to help battle the air crisis. In 2023 just nine percent of two wheelers sold were electric, according to the International Energy Agency -- although only in China was the share higher. Low running costs and cheap prices are pulling in students, who account for 80 percent of electric two-wheeler users in Vietnam, transport analyst Truong Thi My Thanh said. But for older drivers, it is harder to give up what they know. Fruit vendor Tran Thi Hoa, 43, has been driving a petrol motorbike for more than two decades and has no intention of switching. "The gasoline motorbike is so convenient. It takes me just a few minutes to fuel up," she said. "I know e-bikes are good for the environment and can help me save on petrol, but I am too used to what I have," Hoa told AFP from behind her facemask. Although most electric two-wheelers can easily be charged at home, fears over battery safety cause many to instead use one of the 150,000 EV power points installed by Nasdaq-listed VinFast across the country. After a fire last year in Hanoi that killed 56 people, several apartment buildings temporarily restricted EV charging -- before police later ruled out battery charging as a possible cause. But some remain fearful, while others living in crowded apartment shares have no space to power up. Trung, whose VinFast scooter has a 200-kilometer range, spends up to three hours a day drinking tea and scrolling on his phone while he waits for his battery to charge -- time he could be picking up fares. But home-grown start-up Selex, which makes e-bikes and battery packs, has pioneered a quick-fix -- stations where riders can instantly swap a depleted battery for a new one. Bowen Wang, senior sustainable transport specialist at the World Bank, told a news conference this month, that it was delivery and taxi firms, as well as rural drivers, who could really benefit. They "typically drive much longer distances than urban users", he said. "That's where the swapping is critical." Selex, which is now backed by the Asian Development Bank, has partnerships with delivery giants Lazada Logistics and DHL Express, who use e-bikes for some of their shipments. Vingroup -- helmed by Vietnam's richest man -- runs a taxi company with a fleet of thousands of e-bikes, mostly in major cities. Selex founder Nguyen Phuoc Huu Nguyen, who left his job on a top-secret defense ministry research project to set up the company, urged the government to help drive momentum through incentives. He suggested that a vehicle registration fee waiver for EVs would help "end-users see the benefits of buying an e-bike". "We all understand that EVs are good for the environment. But it needs investment." Transport analyst Thanh emphasizes that Hanoi must also embrace public transport alongside EVs if it wants to free up gridlocked streets. But if a shift to electric cannot fully solve Hanoi's issues, the growth in ownership "is a beacon of hope", Thanh told AFP.WASHINGTON (AP) — Former White House adviser Peter Navarro, who served prison time related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, will return to serve in Donald Trump’s second administration, the president-elect announced Wednesday. Navarro, a trade adviser during Trump’s first term, will be a senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, Trump said on Truth Social. The position, Trump wrote, “leverages Peter’s broad range of White House experience, while harnessing his extensive Policy analytic and Media skills.” The appointment was only the first in a flurry of announcements that Trump made on Wednesday as his presidential transition faced controversy over Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice for Pentagon chief. Hegseth faces allegations of sexual misconduct, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement, and Trump has considered replacing him with another potential nominee. As he works to fill out his team, Trump said he wanted Paul Atkins, a financial industry veteran and an advocate for cryptocurrency, to serve as the next chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He wrote on Truth Social that Atkins “recognizes that digital assets & other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before.” Trump also said he was changing course on his choice for White House counsel. He said his original pick, William McGinley, will work with the Department of Government Efficiency, which will be run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy with the goal of cutting federal spending. Now David Warrington, who has worked as Trump’s personal lawyer and a lawyer for his campaign, will serve as White House counsel. In addition, Trump announced the selections of Daniel Driscoll, an Army veteran who was a senior adviser to Vice President-elect JD Vance, as Army secretary; Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who conducted the first private spacewalk on Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket, as NASA administrator; and Adam Boehler, a lead negotiator on the Abraham Accords team, as special presidential envoy for hostage affairs. Navarro was held in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated Jan. 6. Sentenced to four months in prison, he described his conviction as the “partisan weaponization of the judicial system.” Hours after his release in July, Navarro spoke on stage at the Republican National Convention, where he told the crowd that “I went to prison so you won’t have to.” Navarro, 75, has been a longtime critic of trade arrangements with China. After earning an economics doctorate from Harvard University, he worked as an economics and public policy professor at the University of California, Irvine. He ran for mayor of San Diego in 1992 and lost, only to launch other unsuccessful campaign efforts, including a 1996 race for Congress as a Democrat. During Trump’s initial term, Navarro pushed aggressively for tariffs while playing down the risks of triggering a broader trade war. He also focused on counterfeited imports and even helped assemble an infrastructure plan for Trump that never came to fruition. Navarro often used fiery language that upset U.S. allies. In 2018, after a dispute between Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Navarro said “there’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door.” Canadians were outraged, and Navarro later apologized. Issacman, 41, has reserved two more flights with SpaceX, including as the commander of the first crew that will ride SpaceX’s mega rocket Starship, still in test flights out of Texas. He said he was honored to be nominated. “Having been fortunate to see our amazing planet from space, I am passionate about America leading the most incredible adventure in human history,” he said via X. Trump kept rolling out positions on Wednesday afternoon. He announced Gail Slater as assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Big Tech has run wild for years, stifling competition in our most innovative sector.” Slater worked for Trump’s National Economic Council during his first term, and she’s been an adviser to Vance. Trump also said Michael Faulkender would serve as deputy treasury secretary. A professor at the University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business, Faulkender was the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for economic policy during Trump’s initial term. He has also been the chief economist at the America First Policy Institute, a think tank formed to further the Trump movement’s policy agenda. Outside the White House, Trump said that he had asked Michael Whatley to remain on as chair of the Republican National Committee. Whatley ran the committee during the election along with Lara Trump, the wife of Trump’s son Eric.
Health In Tech Announces Closing of Initial Public Offering
Afe Babalola: Dele Farotimi reunites with family after 20 days in prisonARLINGTON, Va. (AP) — ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) — AeroVironment Inc. (AVAV) on Wednesday reported fiscal second-quarter net income of $7.5 million. The Arlington, Virginia-based company said it had net income of 27 cents per share. Earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, came to 47 cents per share. The results missed Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of three analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of 66 cents per share. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts The maker of unmanned aircrafts posted revenue of $188.5 million in the period, surpassing Street forecasts. Three analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $179 million. AeroVironment expects full-year earnings in the range of $3.18 to $3.49 per share, with revenue in the range of $790 million to $820 million. AeroVironment shares have climbed 56% since the beginning of the year. In the final minutes of trading on Wednesday, shares hit $196.89, an increase of 40% in the last 12 months. People are also reading... This story was generated by Automated Insights ( http://automatedinsights.com/ap ) using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on AVAV at https://www.zacks.com/ap/AVAV Be the first to know
Touchdown Club ends 22nd season with SC State's Berry, coaches sharing team philosophiesI Have One Of 456 Limited Edition Teal ‘Squid Game’ Xbox Controllers
AP Business SummaryBrief at 2:49 p.m. EST
Trump says he can't guarantee tariffs won't raise prices, won't rule out revenge prosecutionsAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape industries and become integrated in everyday life, the question of how to effectively govern the risks associated with AI technologies has become an urgent legal issue. AI is increasingly integrated into products and services that consumers are interacting with – ranging from autonomous vehicles to medical devices to smart home technologies – raising significant concerns about the potential for harm. As AI systems become more sophisticated in the quest to achieve artificial general intelligence, they rely on multi-layered neural networks to process unstructured data, seek hidden patterns, and engage in unsupervised learning. The AI systems’ autonomy and its ability to learn, as well as the complexity of the models, makes their decision-making processes opaque and difficult to trace. This complexity, combined with the lack of human supervision over the decision-making process as well as the processing of enormous volumes of data, increases the risk that AI-driven decisions may cause personal injury, property damage, or financial losses; yet these factors also make it more challenging to pinpoint the exact cause of harm and hold any party accountable. Given that AI systems evolve autonomously and may learn from vast datasets in ways that are difficult to predict, the traditional frameworks of product liability will need to adapt to the new reality. Product liability laws are designed to determine responsibility when a product causes harm, but they were not originally crafted with AI in mind. AI presents unforeseen challenges to manufacturers and regulators. This has led to growing concerns among regulators worldwide, including in the European Union (EU), the United States, and Canada, about whether the existing legal frameworks are obsolete and can no longer deal with this emerging technology, and whether new regulations should be created to address the specific challenges AI presents. The emerging consensus in many jurisdictions is that organizations should be held liable for damages caused by their AI systems. However, several complex questions remain: How should liability be attributed when an AI system is autonomous and capable of evolving its decision-making over time? How can causation be traced when the outputs of AI systems may be unpredictable? What level of responsibility should be placed on AI developers and deployers to mitigate risks without stifling innovation? These questions underscore the need for legal frameworks that balance consumer protection with technological advancement. Understanding the EU Proposed Directives on Artificial Intelligence The EU has taken a significant step toward addressing these challenges with two key legal proposals introduced in September 2022. The first is a reform of the 1985 Product Liability Directive, which expands the scope of regulated products to include AI systems, software, and digital products. Under this reform, a strict liability regime would apply, meaning that victims only need to prove that the AI product was defective, that they suffered damage (such as injury, property damage, or data corruption), and that the defect directly caused the damages. The directive notably will have extraterritorial application, meaning that victims harmed by AI systems developed outside the EU can still seek compensation within the EU. Another key aspect of this reform is the imposition of ongoing responsibilities on developers to monitor and maintain AI systems after deployment, ensuring their safety and continued functionality as they evolve and learn. The second proposal is the AI Liability Directive, which focuses on fault-based liability and introduces measures designed to simplify the legal process for victims seeking compensation for AI-induced harm. One of the most significant provisions of this directive is the presumption of causality, which allows courts to assume a causal link between noncompliance with an applicable law and harm caused by AI systems, shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant. Thus, for example, if an organization fails to comply with the provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (discussed below), courts would presume that the organization is liable for any harm caused, and the defendant would need to prove otherwise. Additionally, the directive empowers courts to compel the disclosure of technical information about high-risk AI systems, including development data, compliance documentation, and testing results, which could provide crucial evidence in legal proceedings. These two proposals, currently under negotiation, aim to create a more transparent and accountable legal framework for AI, seeking to provide possible victims of AI-related damages with clear pathways to redress. By operating in parallel, the two directives provide complementary routes for addressing AI risks along the traditional strict liability and fault-based regimes. EU AI Act: A Risk-Based Approach to Governance In terms of a substantive law regulating AI (which can be the basis of the causality presumption under the proposed AI Liability Directive), the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) entered into force on August 1, 2024, becoming the first comprehensive legal framework for AI globally. The AI Act applies to providers and developers of AI systems that are marketed or used within the EU (including free-to-use AI technology), regardless of whether those providers or developers are established in the EU or a separate country. The EU AI Act sets forth requirements and obligations for developers and deployers of AI systems in accordance with risk-based classification system and a tiered approach to governance, which are two of the most innovative features of the AI Act. The Act classifies AI applications into four risk categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal or no risk. AI systems deemed to pose an unacceptable risk, such as those that violate fundamental rights, are outright banned. Examples are social scoring when used by governments, categorizing persons based on biometric data to make inferences about attributes, or use of internet or CCTV footage for facial recognition purposes. High-risk AI systems, which include areas such as health care, law enforcement, and critical infrastructure, will face stricter regulatory scrutiny and must comply with rigorous transparency, data governance, and safety protocols. The transparency requirement means that the providers must clearly communicate how their AI operates, including its purpose, decision-making processes, and data sources. Furthermore, users must be informed when they are interacting with an AI system. The goal is to create a sense of accountability, particularly for applications that significantly impact people's lives, such as AI-driven hiring tools or autonomous decision-making systems in public services. One of the most significant aspects of the new directives is the emphasis on ethical AI use. Developers and businesses must ensure that their AI systems respect fundamental rights, adhere to nondiscrimination policies and protect personal data. The EU is prioritizing the concept of human-centric AI, meaning systems should support and enhance human capabilities rather than replace or undermine them. General purpose AI systems, or GPAI, are designed to perform a wide variety of tasks, multi-task, scale to address more complex or more specific challenges, transfer learning, and automate a range of tasks traditionally requiring human input. An example of such systems is OpenAI’s GPT series. GPAI is contrasted with narrow artificial intelligence, which may be used to address one narrow task, such as a voice assistant or an obstacle avoidance system. The AI Act imposes transparency obligations and certain restrictions on the use of GPAI models. For example, systems intended to directly interact with humans must be clearly marked as such, unless this is obvious under the circumstances. Providers of all GPAI models will be required to: Maintain technical documentation of the model and training results, including training and testing process and evaluation results Draw up instructions for third-party use, i.e., information and documentation to supply to downstream providers that intend to integrate the model into their own AI systems Establish policies to comply with EU copyright laws and specifically text and data mining opt-outs Provide to the AI Office a detailed summary about the content used for training the GPAI model. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must conduct model evaluations, perform adversarial testing, track and report serious incidents, and ensure cybersecurity protections. GPAI models present systemic risks when they have “high impact capabilities,” i.e., where the cumulative amount of compute used for its training is greater than 1025 floating point operations (FLOPs). Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright laws and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All GPAI model providers may demonstrate compliance with their obligations if they voluntarily adhere to a code of practice until European harmonized standards are published, compliance with which will lead to a presumption of conformity. Providers that do not adhere to codes of practice must demonstrate alternative adequate means of compliance for European Commission approval. Organizations will have approximately two years to adjust to these new regulations, with some provisions taking effect earlier: 6 months for prohibitions; 12 months for the governance rules and the obligations for general-purpose AI models; and 36 months for the rules for AI systems embedded into regulated products. In the summer of 2024, the European Commission also launched a consultation on a Code of Practice for providers of GPAI models that will address the requirements for transparency, copyright-related rules, and risk management. The Code of Practice is expected to be finalized by April 2025. Additionally, in early 2024, the European Commission established the new AI Office, endowed with exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the AI Act’s provisions related to GPAI and the power to request technical documentation to assess compliance with the law. The AI Office also oversees the AI Act’s enforcement and implementation with the member states. The extraterritorial application of the AI Act and the proposed AI Liability Directive and the reform of the 1985 Product Liability Directive will have widespread implications for American businesses operating in Europe. Given that these laws apply not only within the EU but also to businesses outside its borders – such as American firms that sell or use products using AI in Europe – compliance will necessitate significant operational and legal adjustments for U.S. companies that will touch on several key areas, including product development, data management, corporate governance, and transparency, with the goal of reducing risk, ensuring compliance, and protecting both consumers and organizations from potential liabilities. While the new regulations are strict, the regulators emphasize that they are not designed to stifle innovation. The EU has introduced several initiatives to support research and development within the AI space, including regulatory “sandboxes” that provide companies with a controlled environment to test new AI technologies before full-scale deployment, while ensuring compliance with EU regulations. In the forthcoming installment of the Product Liability Advocate , we will address the U.S. approach to regulating AI.Hong Kong offers rewards for arrest of 2 Canadians, 4 other activists