8k8 com download apk latest version

8k8 com download apk latest version Chrome is one of those browsers that is synonymous with the Google brand identity, which means you see its footprint everywhere across the company's products. If history has taught us anything, it's that such close association on a Big Tech platform only means bad news for the competition , and the average user, by that extension. The U.S. Department of Justice wants Google to break Chrome into a separate business because of competition concerns and how it was helping create a monopoly in the search and advertising business. The latest legal tussle involving Google has experts scurrying to find similarities with the landmark Microsoft antitrust case over two decades ago. The lengthy United States vs. Microsoft antitrust battle, which had Internet Explorer at the center of it , is a close example. However, the internet has matured dramatically since the heyday of Internet Explorer, as browsers are no longer just about visiting the web. They are the center point of a deeper web that binds together user activity tracking and targeted advertising. It is, therefore, no wonder that Chrome could go for as much as $20 billion if Google is forced to sell the browser business. Now, a final ruling is only expected to arrive in the latter half of 2025, but August 2024 has already made it clear that Google is viewed as a monopoly in the online search and advertising market. So, even if a sale doesn't materialize, we can expect some big changes in how Google moves ahead with Chrome and the ecosystem built around it. Chrome's value is worth billions of dollars on its own, and on top of that, it offers unhindered access to Google's search engine. Spending to the tune of an estimated $20 billion for Chrome — which is arguably the most advanced browser out there on both mobile and desktop platforms — would mean the buyer could theoretically look for a fast way to reap a return on their fat investment. There are only a few ways to do that at scale. The first one is to put a premium on accessing Chrome, which would dramatically diminish its appeal as Google has offered it free so far. Another option is to somehow monetize it, a web that inevitably entangles Chrome once again with Google Search, the biggest search engine out there by an overwhelming majority. In the hands of another company, Chrome's convenient access to Google Search or its ad network could either get technically hobbled or pushed behind a premium. In either case, there are going to be overhead costs, and recovering that won't be easy for any company spending billions of dollars to buy Chrome. So, we're back to square one. Finally, there's the challenge of technical development. Google is in a uniquely advantageous position to keep innovating Chrome. A buyer likely won't play by the same rules. "Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do," notes Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Google. Selling off Chrome would pose an existential threat. Curiously, it once again harkens back to the "browser wars" era, when Microsoft launched Internet Explorer as a free tool, crushing Netscape and forcing the monumental open-source release of the latter's code. From the ashes rose Mozilla, which eventually spawned the Firefox browser as we know it today. Notably, the very survival of Firefox depends on the money it gets from Google, despite being a Chrome competitor. That's because Google reportedly pays Mozilla to the tune of half a billion dollars each year to keep Google Search as the default search engine. A team of researchers highlighted the same conundrum in a research paper discussing the unique antitrust paradox of Chrome. "The precedent set by Mozilla's financial dependence on Google highlights potential challenges for Chrome in maintaining its operations without similar support," says the research paper . The paper also makes a case for the reverse scenario, arguing that Chrome definitely offers enough incentive for Google to keep investing billions of dollars into its development, which means a buyer(s) would likely pour money to extract the benefits. But the buyer has to be a deep-pocket entity, preferably from the Big Tech pool. However, such an exchange of hands would again raise antitrust alarms. Google, on the other hand, already has an eponymous app that offers browsing perks. It won't take the company too much time to make it the next avenue for accessing its search engine and other services. Whoever ends up snagging Chrome, the biggest challenge would be to keep it competitive in terms of convenience as well as functionality. Right now, Chrome acts as a direct window to not just Google Search but also to other Google services ranging from the Gemini chatbot and the AI-fied search answers to Gmail, Map, and the entire Workspace suite. Decoupling the Google productivity suite from Chrome and its seamless interplay could deter buyers. All these services come as a default to users, and consumer psychology tends to stick with the defaults unless there is a strong incentive to look elsewhere. The court's ruling in the antitrust case has a whole section dedicated to "The Power of Defaults," citing a massive proportion of search queries originating from default access points, such as Chrome and Android OS . Even if Google is forced to sell Chrome, the open-source Chromium project that underpins it — and a host of other browsers such as Microsoft's Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi — would still rely on Google's development work. "If they're really just saying, 'Give up Chrome,' that would be very weird because Google would still control all the underlying technology and they could just tank anyone who would try to do stuff with it, including anyone who ends up owning Chrome," notes Christo Wilson, a professor of computer science at Northeastern University. Then there's the question of making money from the hefty Chrome investment. A focus on returns would also mean lower margins for development and functional downgrades for users, at least in the short term. Assuming the DOJ's push for spinning Chrome out of Google's conglomerate is successful, the biggest beneficiary (or loser) would be Google Search. Some of the testimonies in the antitrust offer a clear look at how the company built a wall around Google Search and what the outcome could be. "When the court asked why Google pays billions in revenue share when it already has the best search engine, he answered that the payments "provide an incredibly strong incentive for the ecosystem to not do anything"; they "effectively make the ecosystem exceptionally resist[ant] to change"; and their "net effect . [is to] basically freeze the ecosystem in place[.]" wrote U.S. judge Amit Mehta, citing a testimony provided by Dr. Sridhar Ramaswamy, a Google Search veteran and former Senior Vice President of Ads and Commerce at Google. To fix the problematic conduct, the DOJ has requested that Google start sharing ad data at no cost with competitors and do something similar for user data as well as access to the Search Index, including data listed on Google-owned platforms such as YouTube. The remedy seeks to share the data with "suitable security and privacy safeguards" in tow. Google argues that doing so would open the doors for "major privacy and security risks," citing how AOL unintentionally exposed the search data of over half a million users. Targeted harassment, doxxing, surveillance, aggressive ad targeting by third parties, and profiling are just some of the possible outcomes if the search and ad data fall into the wrong hands.

They’re political soulmates except when it comes to climate. President-Elect Donald Trump praised Hungary’s right-wing populist leader Viktor Orbán as respected, smart and a “strong man” in his winning 2024 campaign. During Hungary’s rotation at the top of a council of European Union leaders, Orbán promised to “make Europe great again.” But on climate they don’t see eye-to-eye. Trump has rejected the need for climate action, instead promising to drill for more planet-warming oil and gas. Meanwhile, Hungary has set a net-zero emissions goal. Other far-right governments, such as Italy and the Philippines, have said strong climate action is needed because it's a serious threat to their countries and the world. They also see it as an economic opportunity. “We can balance ambition with pragmatism, establishing Europe as a global leader in climate action without compromising the prosperity of our industries and agriculture,” Orbán told attendees of ongoing United Nations climate negotiations. European officials say they're just recognizing reality. Hungary is pushing climate action “because we understand that that's the only way forward,” said Veronika Bagi, who leads negotiations both for Hungary and for the EU. “You see from people, it’s their priority. They are becoming more and more aware.” In contrast, Trump in his first term pulled out of the historic 2015 Paris agreement that calls for nations to limit warming and has discussed doing so again. And Project 2025, written by conservatives in Trump's orbit, calls for the even more drastic move of pulling out of a 1992 treaty — negotiated by George H.W. Bush's administration and approved unanimously by the Senate — that sets up the underlying environmental program behind climate negotiations. The U.S. is now the world's largest oil producer, so the country has a financial interest in fossil fuels. Trump isn't alone. Argentina's right-wing President Javier Milei recently pulled his team out of climate negotiations in Baku and has considered withdrawing from the Paris agreement. That’s a problem because limiting emissions requires international cooperation, said Dieter Plehwe, a climate politics expert at the Berlin Social Science Center. “If country after country drops out, then of course Paris is dead," he said. Look at oil and gas supplies, said former U.S. climate envoy Jonathan Pershing, now executive director of the environment program at the Hewlett Foundation (The Associated Press receives support for climate coverage from Hewlett). “The primary difference” between European right-wing parties and those in the Americas “is what your resource supply looks like,” Pershing said, noting that Italy and Hungary have little oil or gas. “If I don't have the resources what do I care about? I care about energy security,” which can come from climate-friendly renewables, he said. There's also a philosophical difference between Europe and America that cuts across ideologies, Pershing said. In Europe even the right wing views “that government is part of national policy,” he said, but in America “government is seen as an obstruction to individual freedoms.” Francesco Corvaro, Italy’s special envoy for climate change, said young people care about reducing carbon emissions, setting expectations that the right-wing government will act. And then there are efforts to create mistrust of climate action. The origins of American climate doubt developed decades ago and was driven by a partnership between oil and gas interests and anti-regulation think tanks, according to Bob Ward, policy and communications director with the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics. In 1988, NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen told Congress that carbon dioxide was warming the planet, raising public awareness of global warming for the first time. A coalition of pro-business groups cast doubt on that science — a tactic that splintered public opinion. “It became an identity issue that denying the science of climate change was a statement of your identity. And equally, accepting the science of climate change was a statement of your identity as a Democrat,” he said. Industry efforts succeeded. In 2022 — more than three decades after Hansen raised the alarm — the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act was the first major piece of U.S. climate change legislation. In the U.S. “you can spend as much as you want on campaigns. You can lobby openly. You can purchase influence, basically, if you are a huge industry,” said Timmons Roberts, a politics of climate change expert at Brown University. Mario Loyola, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation focused on environmental policy and regulation, rejected blame aimed at the right. “Even without the Heritage Foundations and the so-called right, when people realize what the costs of climate policies are, they reject them,” he said, pointing as an example to large French protests over rising fuel prices in 2018. A recent United Nations poll found a majority of people support strong climate action, but Loyola said when costly solutions are implemented they become unpopular and countries are likely to abandon them. That anti-regulation influence hasn't achieved similar dominance across Europe, experts said. Atilla Steiner, state secretary for energy and climate policy in Hungary and a top negotiator for the EU, said he doesn't see a conflict between reducing emissions and conservatism, which he says values protecting a country's resources. “I think if you have a family – if you have children – then you care about their future,” he said, adding that means you care about the climate and environment. It’s not that every right-wing party in Europe is a climate champion. There are far-right parties that oppose climate action, see it as unimportant, or reject the science. A right-wing party in the Netherlands, for example, campaigned on pulling out of the Paris agreement, though it backed away from that position after the election. But at this point, outright denial or disengagement rarely drives government decision-making, Ward said. And Europe's elections are shorter, less costly — and therefore less susceptible to money's influence — than those in the U.S., where climate-friendly Republicans can be vulnerable to primary election challenges from more conservative party rivals. The fossil fuel industry and its executives poured millions into Trump's campaign, and spends heavily on supportive politicians throughout government. Fossil fuel interests do have influence in Europe, but there’s “certainly a difference in the strength of the opposition,” according to Plehwe of the Berlin Social Science Center. He said the structure of the European Union helps by coordinating policy across borders and funding the transition away from fossil fuels. In Poland, for example, EU funding helped coal-dependent regions shift to renewable energy, retrain workers and clean up polluted land. Right-wing climate action extends beyond Europe. Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son of the country’s former dictator, agreed to host leaders of a fund that would help places hit hardest by climate change. The island nation is highly vulnerable to climate change and there's not the view that climate action stands in the way of economic success, according to Lidy Nacpil, a Filipino coordinator with the Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development. “The basic position that we need to be free of fossil fuels eventually and rapidly as we need to cuts across parties,” she said.DETROIT (AP) — Starting in September of 2027, all new passenger vehicles in the U.S. will have to sound a warning if rear-seat passengers don’t buckle up. Related Articles National News | Knife-wielding man shot inside federal courthouse in Harrisburg, PA National News | Former TV host Carlos Watson gets nearly 10 years in prison in case about failed startup Ozy Media National News | Steve Bannon tells Young Republicans Trump may run in 2028. National News | Hannah Kobayashi returns to U.S. after being located in Mexico: report National News | They died in police custody. Their deaths are attributed to a disputed but ‘very real’ phenomenon called excited delirium. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Monday that it finalized the rule, which also requires enhanced warnings when front seat belts aren’t fastened. The agency estimates that the new rule will save 50 lives per year and prevent 500 injuries when fully in effect, according to a statement. The new rule will apply to passenger cars, trucks, buses except for school buses, and multipurpose vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds. Before the rule, seat belt warnings were required only for the driver’s seat. Under the new rule, outboard front-seat passengers also must get a warning if they don’t fasten their belts. Front-center seats will not get a warning because NHTSA found that it wouldn’t be cost effective. The agency said most vehicles already have warnings for the outboard passenger seats. The rule also lengthens the duration of audio and visual warnings for the driver’s seat. The front-seat rules are effective starting Sept. 1 of 2026. Rear passengers consistently use seat belts at a lower rate than front passengers, the agency says. In 2022, front belt use was just under 92%, while rear use dropped to about 82%. About half of automobile passengers who died in crashes two years ago weren’t wearing belts, according to NHTSA data. The seat belt rule is the second significant regulation to come from NHTSA in the past two months. In November the agency bolstered its five-star auto safety ratings to include driver assistance technologies and pedestrian protection. Safety advocates want the Department of Transportation, which includes NHTSA, to finish several more rules before the end of the Biden administration, because President-elect Donald Trump has said he’s against new government regulations. Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, urged the department to approve automatic emergency braking for heavy trucks and technology to prevent impaired driving.Swiss National Bank Reduces Stock Holdings in Range Resources Co. (NYSE:RRC)

Syrian government forces withdraw from central city of Homs as insurgent offensive acceleratesMichigan catches fire from 3, smokes Western Kentucky to close nonconferenceMore than 828 million people worldwide suffered from the severe impacts of famine in 2021, with one in ten facing critical situations and struggling to access nutritious food. In this context, the loss and degradation of soil used for crop cultivation exacerbate global hunger, according to the press release of the Food and Agriculture Organization. The growing global population and soil degradation may result in less individual sown acreage by 2025, potentially amounting to just a quarter of the land available in 1960, according to the United Nations FAO. This highlights the critical role soil plays in the agricultural sector to ensure a steady food supply for the world. Although agricultural technologies are improving, excessive use of chemicals is degrading the soil layer, leading to the loss of arable land and deforestation. Additionally, the process of global warming is further degrading fertile soil. To date, 33 per cent of the world’s soil has been deteriorating. Scientists have warned that if countries do not take action to conserve soil layers in time, the world will face food shortages, which could lead to significant social problems. Myanmar is facing deforestation, unregulated mining practices, and unsystematic slash-and-burn methods, all of which contribute to soil erosion. Natural disasters, such as flooding and landslides, also cause significant soil loss. While humans cannot fully prevent the impacts of these disasters, storms and floods exacerbate the destruction of soil layers. Soil erosion is primarily caused by torrential rains and the rapid flow of water in creeks and rivers. Steep slopes can accelerate the movement of water from hilly areas to the plains, leading to the erosion of soil layers. As a result, the quality of soil declines, reducing fertile land available for crop cultivation. This can lead to food shortages and reliance on low-quality food. Additionally, soil erosion may contribute to desertification, environmental degradation, and the loss of biodiversity. These environmental challenges can further worsen the socioeconomic conditions of affected communities. Everyone should recognize that the soil layer is an invaluable natural resource for society, essential in producing agricultural food. Healthy soil is the lifeblood of the Earth. Scientists have stated that it takes more than 500 years to form just one inch of soil. Therefore, all countries worldwide must implement effective policies to prevent soil degradation as a crucial strategy. Only when people round the world prioritize soil protection will the loss of arable land for food production be halted.

Dublin Rathdown General Election 2024 updates: The Green’s Catherine Martin in danger she fights it out with Sinead Gibney (SD) and Michael Fleming (Ind) for fourth seat