https haha777
Starbucks barista strike expands on fifth day of closures
Motion to impeach Yoon Suk Yeol on track to be scrapped
Wales vs South Africa: Date, kick-off time, TV channel, live stream, team news, lineups, h2h, oddsWest Ham's Antonio in hospital after road traffic incidentThe folks behind the Super League are back . A22 Sports, the company attempting to organise an alternative competition to the UEFA tournaments (Champions League, Europa League and Conference League) announced on Tuesday that it had petitioned UEFA to recognize its new cross-border tournament, the "Unify League." This comes nearly a year after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that UEFA held a dominant position and to comply with competition law, they could not oppose the creation of other cross-border tournaments provided they met certain criteria. Among them are the stipulations that any such tournament must have a qualification process that's inclusive and meritocratic, and that complies with the FIFA match calendar. So that's it? We now have a rival to the Champions League? Not exactly, as there are a ton of hoops to jump through first. Technically speaking, the ECJ judgement found that the UEFA's regulations gave them too much power to block rival cross-border competitions, so UEFA wrote new ones immediately after the verdict -- ones they say comply with the ECJ ruling. Some of those UEFA regulations lay out criteria in terms of open and meritocratic qualification -- things the Unify League appears to meet -- while others, according to A22, do not comply with the ECJ ruling. Editor's Picks Super League revived as 96-team 'Unify League' 8h Alex Kirkland and Rodrigo Faez Man United's statement win, Barca look good but lose, more: Marcotti recaps the weekend 1d Gabriele Marcotti The VAR Review: Why Robertson's red card was wrong; Højlund penalty claim 1d Dale Johnson A22 say there are too many to mention, but they do cite one that prohibits any new club competition from "adversely affect the good functioning" of UEFA tournaments. (Which is kinda the point of competition: disrupt your rivals and grow your market share.) But A22 argues that UEFA's rules, as written, basically force teams who qualify for UEFA competitions to play in them. We haven't heard from UEFA yet, but you assume they think their rules are compliant with ECJ rulings. So I think we can expect more arguing between lawyers and possibly letters to the European Court to clarify this, but that's really just the first hurdle... What's the next one? Well, even if they clear that hurdle and they get their way -- which, as A22 write, means "clubs are free to decide which tournament they want" -- they then need to persuade them it's in their interest to do so. And that's not going to be easy, because while clubs are interested in prestige, history, having a say in their competitions and engaging with fans -- all that good stuff -- let's face it, money is a prime motivator. It's not clear how the Unify League's business model is going to generate more revenue in terms of commercial and media rights. (The UEFA Champions League has certainly cornered the market when it comes to being an event, arguably the Super Bowl of the sport.) What is A22's model anyway? There isn't too much detail, but presumably they'll have sponsors just like UEFA does. The big difference, though, is in media rights. Instead of selling rights to broadcasters and streamers, they're going to have their own streaming service , the Unify Platform. All games will be shown for free, albeit with advertising. And for those who don't enjoy commercial breaks, there will be the opportunity to purchase "affordable premium subscriptions" that will offer more technological bells and whistles than standard TV. Is it possible to make more money this way? The question raises a bunch of pretty obvious questions. If all you have to do to make more money than they do in the existing competitions is show games for free with commercial breaks, why haven't existing broadcasters thought of this? And if the secret to more revenue is having "affordable premium subscriptions" -- rather than the current expensive ones -- why haven't they done that? Sure, there's some merit in questioning the current pricing model -- free to air delivers a bigger audience and more exposure for sponsors, which can mean higher ad rates, while lower subscription fees might make it a volume play, where you get more subscribers and end up with more money -- but it takes a real leap of faith to think these guys can make it work where everybody else has failed. That said, they're convinced their format will be more exciting and generate bigger audiences... How so? You can watch their video explainer here , but in a nutshell there will be four leagues, with the top two -- the Star League and Gold League (don't ask) -- comprised of 16 clubs each. Each league is split into two groups of eight and they play everybody home and away for a total of 14 games. The top four in each group qualify for the quarterfinals, which will also be home and away fixtures, and the semifinals and final will be single-leg affairs. I make that a total of 246 games -- marginally more than the total in the existing "Swiss Model" Champions League (237 games), but, of course, that has 36 clubs vs. the 32 in the combined Star and Gold Leagues, so I guess they can divide their pie in fewer slices and have a slightly bigger pie. As to whether it's more exciting, I'm not sure. You're going to get a lot of the same teams playing each other in a group game, year after year and, I imagine, you'll get a fair few meaningless games because, with four of eight qualifying, you could get teams knowing whether they're in or out with three or four games to go, making the final match days rather irrelevant. (Of course, this concept has been seen at tournaments before, and we're still not sure whether the first-ever Champions League matchday 8, with all 36 teams playing at the same time, will have high stakes hanging in the balance.) There's also the fact that the ECJ ruling forces them to be "merit-based" and "open to all," as that could boomerang against them. What do you mean? Well, the old/aborted European Super League had 12 guaranteed mega-clubs in it -- 15 in the original proposal, before Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Paris Saint-Germain said no. Based on A22's regulations, if the competition had kicked off this season, clubs like Borussia Dortmund, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid -- all of whom are in the Champions League -- would not be guaranteed a place in the competition, but would need to battle their way through multiple qualifying rounds for one of the playoff spots. And guess what? Clubs like sure things and hate uncertainty, especially when it comes to revenues. But won't they end up in the next league down? You mean the "Gold League," right? Actually Atletico and Borussia Dortmund wouldn't even be guaranteed a place in that either; they'd need to get there via the playoffs. But yes, the next league down will presumably generate substantially less revenue than the top league, just as the Europa League makes less money than the Champions League. That's the rub. It's a really tough sell and they'll have a difficult time convincing the clubs this is more lucrative. Unless... GAB & JULS PODCAST Gabriele Marcotti and Julien Laurens dive into the latest news and gossip, analyze matches with special guests, and give their perspective on the world of football. Stream now Unless what? Unless there's somebody out there willing to offer clubs a big, fat downside guarantee, somebody who says "I'll guarantee you more than what you're making now." And that's tough because right now, UEFA generate around €4.4 billion ($4.6bn) from their three competitions. Just over a billion of that goes on administrative costs (€387m), payments to clubs that don't qualify (€440m), subsidies for the Women's and Youth competitions (€25m) and in UEFA's coffers (€230m) to be redistributed to member associations. Now, A22 obviously might be able to run a leaner tournament so their administrative costs will be lower, and maybe they won't want to subsidize the women's competition. (They say they'll have one too, though it remains to be seen how the numbers work out there.) They might not pay as much to clubs who don't qualify or to member associations, though they say they'll have some solidarity mechanism. But they'll still need to get well north of that €4.4bn figure to make it worthwhile. And, remember, since they'll be running the games on their own platform, they'll also have marketing, technology and production costs that are currently absorbed by broadcasters. So yeah, I'd imagine it would take somebody willing to say "I'll chuck in €6bn a year in to cover the downside for the next couple of years to get this thing off the ground and guarantee that you clubs are better off with the Unify League than anywhere else." Frankly, that's a ton of money and, of course, there's the risk of a nightmare scenario for both UEFA and the Unify League. What's the "nightmare scenario" exactly? Imagine they end up competing directly with each other and A22 convinces some clubs, but not others. (Or, because there's also a whole hornets' nest of domestic legislation in various countries that prevents clubs from joining a league like this, and which may or may not be compliant with the ECJ ruling, some clubs simply can't.) What then? Let's say the Unify League has Real Madrid, Manchester City, Bayern and Inter. The Champions League has Barcelona, Liverpool, Borussia Dortmund and Juventus (presumably PSG too, unless Nasser Al Khelaifi jumps ship). Both competitions are markedly weaker and no, it's not a linear decline because the success of the Champions League is founded on having the best clubs all in one place. Take half of them away and the interest isn't halved, it goes down by a lot more than that. Mutually assured destruction might be an exaggeration, but it certainly would make life a whole heck of a lot tougher for everyone. So what happens next? I expect a lot of back and forth between lawyers, and maybe some ECJ clarification, but ultimately this feels like a power move, where A22 want to get UEFA to the table somehow. Except it's hard to see how A22 have any leverage at all because, let's face it: their business model seems goofy and nobody of note, other than Real Madrid, has gone to bat for them. Unless of course there's somebody in the shadows with several billions willing to bankroll the whole shebang.Applied DNA Sciences: Fiscal Q4 Earnings Snapshot
EAGAN, Minn. (AP) — Justin Jefferson might be weary of all the safeties shadowing his every route, determined not to let the Minnesota Vikings go deep, but he's hardly angry. The double and triple coverage he continually faces, after all, is a sign of immense respect for his game-breaking ability. The strategy also simply makes sense. “I would do the same," Jefferson said. "It’s either let everybody else go off or let Justin go off. I’m going to let everybody else go off. That would be my game plan.” When the Vikings visit Chicago on Sunday, they're expecting the usual heavy dose of split-safety coverage designed to put a lid on the passing attack and force them to operate primarily underneath. “We see that every week: Teams just have different tendencies on film, and then when we go out on the field they play us totally different,” Jefferson said, later adding: “I don’t really feel like anyone else is getting played how I’m getting played.” Jefferson nonetheless is second in the NFL in receiving yards (912) behind Cincinnati's Ja'Marr Chase, his former college teammate at LSU. Last week, Jefferson set yet another all-time record by passing Torry Holt for the most receiving yards over the first five seasons of a career. Holt logged 80 regular-season games and accumulated 6,784 yards for St. Louis. Jefferson has 6,811 yards — in just 70 games. “I want to go up against those single coverages. I want to go have my opportunities to catch a deep pass downfield, just one-on-one coverage, like a lot of these other receivers get," Jefferson said. "It’s definitely difficult going up against an extra person or an extra two people, but it is what it is and the concepts that we’re drawing up and the ways that we’re trying to get me open, it definitely helps.” With fellow tight end Josh Oliver ruled out of the game on Sunday because of a sprained ankle, T.J. Hockenson is certain to have his heaviest workload since returning from knee surgery four weeks ago. He's also certain that Jefferson will continue to see persistent double-teams. “It puts it on us to make some plays and do some things to get them out of that,” Hockenson said. Vikings coach Kevin O'Connell has been forced to dig deeper into the vault of play designs and game plans to help keep quarterback Sam Darnold and the offense on track. O'Connell said after Minnesota's 12-7 win at Jacksonville, when Darnold threw three interceptions to precipitate a safer strategy down the stretch, that he superseded his play-calling role with the wisdom of a head coach to help win that game. "Not just the egomaniac of wanting to score points and constantly show everybody how smart we are. There was a mode that I think you have to go into sometimes to ensure a victory,” O'Connell said on his weekly show on KFAN radio. Taking what the defense gives is usually the shrewdest strategy. “You’ve got to really implement some new things and some things that maybe you didn’t come across during your early coaching years whether as a coordinator or position coach or even when you’re responsible for a small area of the game plan as a younger coach," O'Connell said. "You really have to kind of look outside the lens of always what you see on tape.” AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFLSenators say US must boost security after Chinese Salt Typhoon telecom hacking
Northern Minnesota and the rest of the Midwest are in for a cold, costly winter if President-elect Donald Trump succeeds in imposing 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The U.S. buys nearly all the crude oil that Canada produces, but no region depends on those imports more heavily than the Midwest, which gets more than 60% of its oil from Canada. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, the site of two major transnational pipelines, that figure is closer to 80%. At roughly 2.3 million barrels a day, the Midwest uses more Canadian crude than the rest of the U.S. combined. ADVERTISEMENT So it’s going to come as a shock when Republicans across the region — where victories in Wisconsin and Michigan helped propel Trump back to the White House — discover that one of his first official acts will have been to start a trade war that could send energy prices soaring. Trump said he will impose the tariffs on Inauguration Day unless the two countries curtail drug trafficking and illegal immigration at U.S. borders. As bad as that would be for the former “blue wall” states, it would be even worse for Canada. The U.S. is Canada’s most important trade partner, accounting for two-thirds of all Canadian trade. The U.S. is also Canada’s largest investor. The two nations’ economies are so intricately linked that, in 2023, $3.6 billion of goods and services flowed across their borders daily. So, after a series of urgent phone calls, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sprinted south for a visit to Mar-a-Lago to try to reach common ground. For his trouble, Trudeau found himself the object of ridicule. After warning the incoming president that the tariffs could wreck both countries’ economies, Trump reportedly joked that if Canada could not survive without “ripping off” the U.S., perhaps it should become the 51st state, with Trudeau as its governor. Trudeau was said to have laughed, nervously. Canadian Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who accompanied Trudeau, later told reporters in Ottawa that “the president was teasing us. It was ... in no way a serious comment.” Trudeau later said he and Trump had a productive meeting and even thanked Trump for the dinner. Trump undoubtedly was joking, at Trudeau’s expense, but he was also sending a serious message: He does not consider this a partnership of equals. He was serving notice that he is back, with all the brash aggression and seat-of-the-pants governing that marked his first term. Trudeau now is left to wonder whether he can even salvage the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that has guided mostly duty-free trade among the three countries since it was signed in 2020. Trump’s pledge to start tariffs on the first day of his presidency would appear to violate the terms of the agreement and could be a precursor to Trump attempting to renegotiate the deal. ADVERTISEMENT Trump’s stock-in-trade is creating chaos. It is his go-to move for gaining the upper hand in any situation: Do the unexpected. Be unpredictable. Go big. So why not threaten our closest trading partners with punitive tariffs that would wound their economies — and ours? Whatever concessions he wrings out of our partners will be declared “huge” victories. And it’s not just about the cost of oil. The tariffs would also increase the price of fruit and vegetables and the cost of natural gas. They would also hurt the U.S. auto sector. Michigan depends heavily on USMCA for its automotive industry. Most vehicles pass several times through the three countries, even if the final assembly is done in the U.S. Trump knows the stakes. Whether he lets on or not, he understands the concept of tariffs and their limitations. The Tax Foundation found that Trump’s first-term tariffs — many of which continued under President Joe Biden — “raised prices and reduced output and employment, producing a negative impact on the U.S. economy.” So what is Trump’s end game? On the campaign trail, he portrayed tariffs as a powerful cure-all that could generate enough revenue to cut taxes, bring down the deficit, pay for other programs, drive manufacturing back to the U.S., and wring concessions from foreign leaders — all at little to no cost for American consumers. Since being elected, he talks less of the huge revenues — which could only result from permanent tariffs — and seems to have settled on tariffs as a way to force foreign countries to bend to his will. His threat to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico puts the onus on those countries to reduce drug trafficking and illegal immigration at U.S. borders. It also makes them handy scapegoats should they fail to do so. The terms of success have been left undefined — another Trump tactic to keep everyone guessing. In the meantime, Minnesotans and others in the Midwest could start the Trump years by paying more to fill their gas tanks, heat their homes, and fill their refrigerators. That can hardly be the outcome they expected when so many of them threw their lot in with Trump. ADVERTISEMENT Patricia Lopez is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Bloomberg editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mondelēz International Moves to Amazon Web Services to Advance Its Digital and Growth StrategyWhy the perfect Christmas is German not American
Nick Fuentes Arrested For Allegedly Macing Woman Who Confronted Him Over 'Your Body, My Choice' Post
Chinnapong Thesis While Ethereum USD ( ETH-USD ) could still reach higher highs after passing the $4,000 mark, other altcoins have more tailwinds that might allow them to outperform Ethereum with bigger gains in 2025. Specifically, I'm looking at Algorand ( Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of BTC-USD, ETH-USD, SOL-USD, FIL-USD, FLOW-USD, HBAR-USD, ALGO-USD, XLM-USD either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, is reportedly planning to add displays to its popular Ray-Ban smart glasses, marking a significant step towards integrating augmented reality (AR) into everyday eyewear. This move comes as Meta doubles down on its push to develop “AI-native” devices, with the aim of eventually replacing smartphones as our primary computing platform. According to a recent report by the Financial Times, these displays could be incorporated into a new iteration of the Ray-Ban glasses as early as the second half of 2025. While the exact specifications remain under wraps, sources suggest that the screens will likely be small and primarily used for displaying notifications or responses from Meta’s AI assistant. This suggests that Meta is taking a gradual approach to AR integration , focusing on enhancing existing functionalities rather than creating a full-blown mixed-reality experience right away. This news is particularly exciting because it signals a potential acceleration of Meta’s AR ambitions. Just a few months ago, at Meta Connect 2024, the company unveiled its prototype for “Orion,” a more advanced AR glasses device with holographic displays and deeper AI integration. While it was initially unclear whether Orion would ever see the light of day as a commercial product, the positive response it garnered seems to have invigorated Meta’s AR development efforts. Why is Meta betting big on AR glasses? The answer lies in their vision of the future of computing. Imagine a world where you no longer need to pull out your smartphone to check notifications, get directions, or access information. Instead, all of this would be seamlessly displayed in your field of view through a pair of stylish glasses. This is the promise of AR, and Meta believes it has the potential to revolutionize how we interact with technology and the world around us. What can we expect from these new Ray-Ban glasses? While details are still scarce, here are some potential features based on current trends and Meta’s own research: The Road to Mass Adoption: Challenges and Opportunities While the potential of AR glasses is undeniable, there are still several hurdles to overcome before they become mainstream: Despite these challenges, Meta’s commitment to AR is evident. By starting with small, incremental upgrades to its existing Ray-Ban line, Meta is cleverly laying the groundwork for mass adoption. The familiarity and popularity of the Ray-Ban brand could help overcome some of the social barriers associated with wearing tech-infused glasses. Additionally, by focusing on practical applications like notifications and AI assistance, Meta is demonstrating the real-world value of AR in a way that resonates with consumers. My Personal Take As someone who has been following the development of AR for years, I’m incredibly excited about the prospect of Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses with displays. I believe that wearable technology has the potential to be far more intuitive and integrated into our lives than smartphones, and AR glasses are a crucial step in that direction. I’m particularly interested in seeing how Meta addresses the challenges of battery life and social acceptance. If they can crack those nuts, I think we could be on the cusp of a major shift in how we interact with technology. Meta’s reported plans to add displays to its Ray-Ban glasses represent a significant milestone in the evolution of AR. By combining the style and familiarity of Ray-Ban with the power of AI and augmented reality, Meta is poised to bring this technology to the masses. While challenges remain, the future of AR looks brighter than ever, and I, for one, can’t wait to see what Meta has in store for us next.Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are exploring a potential merger, according to people familiar with the matter, which would create a singular rival to Toyota Motor Corp. in Japan and better position the combined company to face competitive challenges around the world. The two carmakers have been holding preliminary talks about a combination, the people said Tuesday, asking not to be identified because discussions are private. One option being considered is the creation of a new holding company under which the combined businesses would operate, one of the people said. The transaction could also be expanded to include Mitsubishi Motors Corp., the person said. Discussions are early stage and may not lead to an agreement, the people said. While Honda and Nissan stopped short of confirming the merger talks, both automakers issued statements that reiterated their previous pledges for further future cooperation. “We will inform our stakeholders of any updates at an appropriate time,” Honda said in its statement. Such a deal would effectively consolidate the Japanese auto industry into two main camps: One controlled by Honda, Nissan and Mitsubishi and another consisting of Toyota group companies. It would also provide them with more resources to compete with larger peers globally after downsizing long-held partnerships with other carmakers. Nissan has loosened ties with France’s Renault SA and Honda has backed away from General Motors Co. The move toward a merger would follow a decision by the two companies earlier this year to work together on electric vehicle batteries and software. At that time, Honda Chief Executive Officer Toshihiro Mibe floated the possibility of a capital tie-up with Nissan. The two Japanese carmakers plan to sign a memorandum of understanding to discuss shared equity stakes in a new holding company, the Nikkei reported earlier in the day. The merger would help the manufacturers compete against rivals in electric vehicles such as Tesla Inc. and Chinese automakers, it said. American depositary receipts of Honda and Nissan shares climbed on the report. Nissan ADRs rose 12% and Honda’s gained 0.9% in late New York trading. In some ways, it could be seen as a defensive merger among Japan’s weaker players. Honda, Nissan and Mitsubishi combined sold about 4 million vehicles globally in the first six months of the year, well shy of the 5.2 million that Toyota sold on its own. Combining forces would allow the two companies to fend off Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, at home and abroad. Toyota has taken stakes in Subaru Corp., Suzuki Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor Corp., creating a powerhouse of brands backed by its top-notch credit rating. Honda’s valuation stood at 6.8 trillion yen ($44.4 billion) as of the close of trading in Tokyo on Tuesday, well above Nissan’s 1.3 trillion yen market capitalization. But even their combined value is dwarfed by Toyota’s 42.2 trillion yen. Honda has long struggled to keep up with bigger capitalized rivals when it comes to investments in new technologies. It recently has shifted gears to boost hybrid gas-electric vehicles even as it spends billions of dollars on all-electric production. At the same time, Honda’s arms-length partnership with GM has been weakened, most recently earlier this month when their self-driving car partnership ended. GM has strengthened its ties with South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co. Nissan is in need of a partner to put it back on a stronger financial footing as it steps up restructuring efforts to cope with stalled revenue growth and lower profits. It faces pressure from an activist shareholder and a daunting debt load that has led to speculation in credit markets about its investment grade rating. The Yokohama-based company has partially unwound its complex 25-year strategic partnership with Renault, a fixation of former Chair Carlos Ghosn. Rivalries and mutual suspicion mounted over the years and came to a head when Ghosn openly contemplated a merger, contributing to his downfall. The former chairman and CEO, who has filed a suit against his former company for ousting him in 2018, warned of a “disguised takeover” of Nissan by Honda in an August interview with Automotive News. The merger talks come after the Financial Times said last month that Nissan was looking for an anchor investor to replace part of Renault’s equity holding and that it hadn’t ruled out having Honda buy some of its shares.