Arsenal, Manchester City and Bayern Munich all advanced to the Women’s Champions League quarterfinals with with two games to spare on Thursday. Late substitute Lina Hurtig scored the winner in Arsenal's 1-0 victory over Juventus in London. Khadija Shaw scored twice for City in a 2-1 win at Swedish club Hammarby. City stayed perfect in Group D with four victories and reached the last eight for the first time since 2021. Bayern Munich was held 1-1 at Vålerenga in Norway and still earned a quarterfinal berth after Juventus' loss. Arsenal, Bayern and City join Chelsea, Lyon and Real Madrid in the quarterfinals. Two-time defending champion Barcelona routed Austrian champion St. Pölten 4-1. The Catalan club trails City by three points in their group and is in a strong position to advance. Bayern tops Group C with 10 points, Arsenal has nine followed by Juventus (3) and Vålerenga (1). Man City responded to its first loss of the season, 2-0 at Chelsea in the Women's Super League on Saturday. Still without injured star Vivianne Miedema , Shaw took charge, proving her scoring instincts after half an hour. The forward scored from inside the penalty area with a deflected shot that flew over goalkeeper Anna Tamminen to frustrate more than 20,000 noisy fans at the Stockholm Arena in the Swedish capital. Ellen Wangerheim equalized soon after the interval from close range to rejuvenate the crowd but Shaw struck again to restore the lead just minutes later. This time, she delivered a powerful right-footed finish from the edge of the area. Bayern dominated possession but could not translate it into goals until the 75th minute. It had to rely on substitute Jovana Damnjanović, who gave the visitors a late lead after connecting on a pass from Giulia Gwinn. The Norwegians, who have retained their domestic title, equalized in the 88th on Elise Thorsnes' header following a corner. Pernille Harder, who found the back of the net five times for Bayern in the previous three games, could not do it again on Thursday and was substituted. Hurtig came on with 10 minutes remaining and made her presence immediately felt with several headers. She finally made the breakthrough with a minute remaining in regulation, tapping in from close range after Juventus’ poor clearance of a low cross by Stina Blackstenius. Hurtig won the Italian title with Juventus in 2021 and 2022 before joining the Gunners. Juventus seemed to learn a lesson from its 4-0 loss to Arsenal last week as its defense held firm till Hurtig’s arrival. In an 11-minute span in the first half, Francisca Nazareth netted twice and 18-year-old Vicky Lopez scored once to put Barcelona in control. Nazareth's double was followed by Lopez hitting the third with a shot high into the net for her first Champions League goal. Alexia Putellas made it 4-0 in the second half, finishing a fast attack that tore apart the defense in Vienna. It was her 200th goal for Barcelona and the 100th the club scored in the Champions League’s group stage. Valentina Mädl, an 18-year-old forward, netted a consolation goal for the hosts. Barcelona has scored 20 goals in its past three games and can still become the first club to win its group in all four years since the introduction of the format. AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccerThe day kicked off with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, attended by the school principal, esteemed guests from the American Ivy Academy, and the local community. The event was a celebration of not only the collaboration between the two institutions but also a testament to their shared commitment to providing students with a world-class education that prepares them for success in the global economy.The AP Top 25 men’s college basketball poll is back every week throughout the season! Get the poll delivered straight to your inbox with AP Top 25 Poll Alerts. Sign up here . BOILING SPRINGS, N.C (AP) — Leo Colimerio scored 27 points and Queens University held off Gardner-Webb 85-83 on Saturday. Colimerio shot 8 for 12 (3 for 5 from 3-point range) and 8 of 9 from the free-throw line for the Royals (6-5). He made two foul shots with 9 seconds left to give the Royals a four-point lead. Malcolm Wilson scored 11 points, finishing 5 of 6 from the floor. Nasir Mann shot 3 for 6, including 2 for 4 from beyond the arc to finish with nine points. Darryl Simmons II finished with 23 points and two steals for the Runnin’ Bulldogs (4-7). Jamaine Mann added 18 points and seven rebounds. Pharell Boyogueno had nine points and four assists. ___ The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) — Garry Clark scored 15 points as Texas A&M-Corpus Christi beat Prairie View A&M 109-74 on Saturday night. Clark also contributed five rebounds for the Islanders (5-3). Dian Wright-Forde shot 5 of 6 from the field and 3 of 4 from the free-throw line to add 14 points. Jordan Roberts shot 4 of 6 from the field, including 2 for 4 from 3-point range, and went 4 for 5 from the line to finish with 14 points. The Panthers (1-6) were led in scoring by Tanahj Pettway, who finished with 21 points and six rebounds. Nick Anderson added 15 points and two steals for Prairie View A&M. Marcel Bryant had 14 points and 10 rebounds. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar . For copyright information, check with the distributor of this item, Data Skrive.Former New Zealand prime minister John Key has three white rabbits painted on his helicopter, a nod to his "massively superstitious" habit of repeating "white rabbits" three times at the start of every month. Tennis champion Rafael Nadal performs the same sequence of actions (shirt-tug, hair-tuck, face-wipe) before every serve. Taylor Swift paints '13' on her hand for good luck before a show, while Rihanna won't allow anything yellow in her dressing room. Perhaps you, too, are superstitious. Maybe you have a lucky number, avoid black cats, or shudder at the thought of opening an umbrella indoors. Even if you don't consider yourself superstitious, little things like saying "bless you" after a sneeze, knocking on wood or crossing your fingers are all examples of behaviours with superstitious origins. We humans are particularly susceptible to superstitions. But why are we so quick to develop superstitious behaviours, and do we really believe they can bring good or bad luck? In our new research , we set out to answer this question. We tested whether people could tell the difference between outcomes they caused and outcomes they didn't cause, and this told us something about the cognitive roots of human superstition. Learning about cause and effect From as early as four months, infants learn their actions produce outcomes - kicking their legs shakes the crib, shaking a rattle makes an interesting noise, dropping a toy on the floor means mum or dad picks it up. As we grow older, we develop a more sophisticated understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, asking "why?" questions about the world around us. This sensitivity to causes and effects sets the stage for important developmental milestones, like imaginative play, planning actions to achieve a goal, predicting others' intentions, anticipating and regulating emotions, and cooperating with others. The ability to learn about relationships between causes and effects is a defining feature of human cognition. But how does this square with our superstitious tendencies? When cause and effect is an illusion We learn about causes and effects from experience. When our behaviour is followed by an outcome, we learn about the relationship between our action and that outcome. The more often this action-outcome pairing occurs, the stronger the perceived link between them. This is why we repeat behaviours that produce rewarding outcomes, and avoid repeating behaviours that produce punishing ones. But what happens if an outcome follows our actions by coincidence? If I wear my lucky socks and my favourite sports team wins, this is probably just a coincidence (it's unlikely my sock-wearing actually caused the win). But if this happens a few times, I may develop a superstition about my lucky socks. This suggests superstitious behaviour arises because we aren't particularly good at discerning when our actions cause an outcome, versus when our actions just coincide with (but do not cause) an outcome. This is a common explanation for superstition - but does it have any weight? Testing our ability to detect causality We can test what underpins superstitious behaviour by simply asking people "who caused that outcome?". Getting it right would suggest we can discern action-outcome relationships (and therefore that there must be some other explanation for superstitious behaviour). Our research did exactly that. We asked whether people could tell when their actions did or didn't cause an outcome. We recruited 371 undergraduate students from a large New Zealand university, who participated in one experimental session for a course credit. Participants played a game where a positive outcome (winning) or a negative outcome (losing) occurred either after their own action (clicking a button), or independently of their action. Importantly, participants weren't given any information beforehand about the type of outcome or whether it would depend on their behaviour. This meant they had to rely on what they actually experienced during the game, and we could test their ability to judge whether they had caused the outcome. This also meant participants' preexisting superstitions and other characteristics (such as age) didn't affect our results. Their behaviour during the task was representative of human behaviour more generally. Participants' scores indicated they often got it right: in about 80% of trials, they knew when they'd caused the outcome, and when they hadn't. A built-in bias The distinction between causing and not causing the outcomes was sometimes very subtle. This made it more difficult for participants to tell what had occurred. When they weren't sure, participants defaulted to saying "I caused it", even if they actually hadn't. They were biased to attribute outcomes to their own actions, particularly after winning outcomes. This bias may be the key to explaining why we're superstitious: something I did caused something to happen, even if I can't be sure what it was. And it suggests knowing superstitions aren't real may not actually stop us from behaving superstitiously. On the surface, this may not make sense - why expend energy doing things we know don't affect outcomes? But if we look deeper, this bias serves an important purpose, because it helps ensure we don't miss any potential connections between our actions and their outcomes. In other words, it's better to be safe than sorry. Research shows that engaging in superstitious behaviour can also increase confidence in our abilities to achieve a goal, improve performance in different tasks, and alleviate anxiety by giving us a sense of control. The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our actions (as we found) can boost self-esteem and psychological wellbeing. So, perhaps we'd all benefit by indulging in a little superstitious behaviour. Touch wood.
However, the sustainability of this price rebound remains uncertain. The upcoming season of Lunar December, also known as the traditional Chinese New Year period, is a crucial time for the pig market. During this time, demand for pork products surges as families prepare for festive celebrations and gatherings. This increased demand often leads to a temporary spike in prices.Buggs' 15 lead East Tennessee State over Austin Peay 79-57Buggs' 15 lead East Tennessee State over Austin Peay 79-57