[ad_1]
JetBlue home page showing it as flights from 3,200, the actual page says it’s a flat 10% discount.
[ad_2]
William Charles
Source link
[ad_1]
At least three businesses were broken into overnight across the city.
[ad_2]
Christine Flores
Source link
[ad_1]
Former Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey’s new company Block — the parent of merchants payment system Square, mobile peer-to-peer payments Cash App, music streamer Tidal, and open source AI agentic system Goose — is sending shockwaves across the business world tonight after announcing a more than 40% headcount, cutting its workforce by more than 4,000 people out of a prior total of 10,000, despite its latest quarterly earnings statement released today showing $2.87 billion in gross profit up 24% year-over-year.
The culprit? Newfound AI efficiencies. As Dorsey put it in a note shared on his own former social network, X:
“we’re not making this decision because we’re in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we’re already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that’s accelerating rapidly.
i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. i’d rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. a smaller company also gives us the space to grow our business the right way, on our own terms, instead of constantly reacting to market pressures.”
The core of this reorganization is a pivot toward an “intelligence-native” model. Dorsey argues that a significantly smaller team, leveraging the very tools they are building, can deliver more value than a traditional large-scale organization. Block is re-engineering its entire operational stack to be orchestrated by AI, moving away from human-intensive management hierarchies toward what it calls “agentic AI infrastructure”.
This includes four primary focus areas:
Customer Capabilities: Atomic features that allow customers to build directly on top of Block’s infrastructure.
Proactive Intelligence: Moving from reactive dashboards to tools like Moneybot that anticipate customer needs before they ask.
Intelligence Models: A system to orchestrate the company’s internal operations, aiming for extreme speed and product velocity.
Operational Orchestration: An AI model designed to manage the internal decision-making and risk-assessment processes of the firm.
The financial strength cited in the lede is driven by deep engagement in Cash App and Square. Cash App’s gross profit grew 33% YoY to $1.83 billion, while Square saw its strongest year on record for new volume added (NVA).
Specific product highlights include:
Cash App Green: This status program for “modern earners” — a segment of 125 million people including gig workers and freelancers — has become a cornerstone of the company’s engagement strategy.
Square AI: Now embedded in the Square Dashboard, it provides sellers with instant insights into staffing and customer behavior.
Consumer Lending: Cash App Borrow origination volume surged 223% YoY, proving to be a high-return product that manages income variability for users.
Block also exceeded the Rule of 40—the industry benchmark where the sum of gross profit growth and adjusted operating income margin exceeds 40%—for the first time in the fourth quarter.
Not everyone was convinced by Dorsey’s letter stating that AI efficiencies were the primary driver of the layoffs. As Will Slaughter wrote on X: “In 3 years from December 2019 to December 2022, Block $XYZ more than tripled its headcount from 3,900 to 12,500. Unwinding less than half an insane COVID overhiring binge has much more to do with Jack Dorsey’s managerial incompetence than whether AI is going to take your job.”
Entrepreneur Marcelo P. Lima offered a similar sentiment on X, writing in part: “Everyone will assume Jack Dorsey ‘greatest of all time’ is doing this because of AI. He’s not. Block has been massively bloated for years. Don’t forget, Jack was head of Twitter. When Elon took over, he fired 80% of staff within 5 months and the product got better. This was before generative AI and Claude Code.”
And yet, regardless of how heavily AI factored into these layoffs in particular, the outcome on the wider enterprise landscape may ultimately be the same. With Block’s stock price rising more than 24% on the news, the boards and leadership of other public companies will likely be forced to at least entertain the idea of similarly drastic cuts if they believe AI can replace human labor and drive greater organizational efficiencies.
As user @khuppy wrote on X: “By Q2, if you aren’t firing lots of employees, your board will fire you for being a dinosaur who doesn’t implement AI. It’s going to happen fast now. Feudalism, here we come…”
Clearly, companies across sectors but especially those in tech and services will be re-examining their headcount in light of Block’s latest move.
Despite the robust financial performance, the human cost is stark. The reduction from over 10,000 to just under 6,000 employees is one of the most drastic in fintech history. Dorsey’s internal note, while aimed at transparency, was met with a mix of awe at the technical vision and criticism of the timing.
Affected employees are receiving a severance package that includes 20 weeks of salary plus one week per year of tenure, equity vesting through May, and a $5,000 transition fund.
Dorsey noted that communication channels would stay open through Thursday evening so the team could say goodbye properly, stating, “i’d rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold.”
For enterprise decision-makers, Block’s move represents a fundamental challenge to the “growth at all costs” hiring model that has defined the last decade of tech.
Leadership teams should view this not merely as a cost-cutting measure, but as a strategic reset where organizational value is measured by the ratio of output to “intelligence-native” tools rather than total headcount. Executives should begin by auditing their own internal workflows to identify where agentic AI can consolidate roles and flatten management hierarchies before market pressures force a more reactive, less orderly contraction.
Even if not leading to as drastic of cuts, hiring slowdowns and freezes, Block’s move should likely prompt at least the kind of policy introduced separately by Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke nearly a year ago: “Before asking for more Headcount and resources, teams most demonstrate why they cannot get what they want done using AI.”
While the community reaction to Block’s layoffs highlights the potential for brand damage and morale loss, the 24% surge in Block’s stock price suggests that the public market is increasingly rewarding lean, automated efficiency over human-intensive scaling.
Decision-makers should evaluate their current “bloat” against the benchmark set by Dorsey: if a company of 6,000 can drive $12.20 billion in gross profit, the standard for organizational efficiency has been permanently raised.
[ad_2]
carl.franzen@venturebeat.com (Carl Franzen)
Source link
[ad_1]
This year is the 190th celebration of Texas’ independence, and North Texans who want to honor the day have multiple events to choose from this weekend and into March.
According to historians, on the first day of the Convention of 1836, the convention president, Richard Ellis, ordered that a declaration of independence be drafted. And on March 2, 1836, the independent Republic of Texas was officially declared and signed at Washington-on–the-Brazos.
Texans who want to celebrate can find everything from historic reenactments to chili cook-offs and live music.
Starting the weekend off, Longhorn fans can attend the Texas Independence Day Scholarship Banquet hosted by Texas Exes, a chapter of UT’s alumni association. The event will be Friday at 6 p.m. at the Fort Worth Club. Former TCU athletic director Chris Del Conte is the special guest speaker. He is the current director of athletics at UT Austin.
Also in Fort Worth, The Landmark Bar and Kitchen in Fort Worth is hosting the Big Texas Bash Texas Independence Day Party on Saturday, Feb. 28, from noon to 6 p.m. The event will have Texas country music, a mechanical bull contest and special Texas-themed drink and food menus.
The EECU Texas Independence Jam at Billy Bob’s Texas is March 8, though as of Thursday it was already sold out.
Grapevine’s United by the Vine is hosting the Taste of Texas Independence and Chili Cook-off on Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., at Peace Plaza at 815 S. Main St. Proceeds from the event will go to the Grapevine Shield Foundation.
“This is the fifth annual event but first on Peace Plaza, and we’re so excited to celebrate Texas Independence Day in a much bigger way in Grapevine where we love to celebrate history,” said spokesperson Luann Chapman in a statement.
The GSF is a nonprofit organization that provides assistance to the family members of police officers and firefighters who are injured or killed in the line of duty.
“Everyone’s welcome to attend — to celebrate our history and enjoy some amazing chili and live music while helping raise money for the Grapevine Shield Foundation, heritage preservation and more.”
Admission is free and a $20 taste wristband is required for the chili cook-off. You can also check out the peach cobbler baking contest, watch the historical reenactments, bid in a silent auction and see live music performances featuring artists like Joey Green, Tyler Bond, Johnny Cooper and Bart Crow.
For those more interested in fitness, Grand Prairie is hosting the Texas Independence Day 5K, a race and celebration at The Epic on Sunday March 1, at 2960 Epic Place, from 7:30 a.m. to noon. Registration for adults is $40; veterans and first responders pay $25. Tickets include a free T-shirt and medal.
This story was originally published February 26, 2026 at 6:42 PM.
[ad_2]
Fousia Abdullahi
Source link
[ad_1]
In February 2026, a video circulating on social media sites such as Instagram and TikTok claimed to show U.S. women’s ice hockey team captain Hilary Knight declining an invitation to the White House from U.S. President Donald Trump.
Knight’s supposed response spread widely, and Snopes readers wrote in asking if the video was real. We found it was generated with artificial intelligence, and have rated this claim as a fake.
In the video, Knight supposedly claimed the team’s refusal was about more than scheduling conflicts (the reason reportedly given by the team for declining). “It’s about not accepting that the gold medal we earned with blood and sweat is being used as a tool for politicians to avoid trouble,” the voice, supposedly Knight’s, said.
But there were several discrepancies between that video and a Feb. 25 interview Knight gave “SportsCenter”. In the social media video, Knight spoke with strange pauses (or a lack thereof) and inflections that were not present in her interview on SportsCenter. The voices in the two videos also simply did not sound the same. This, and the poor overdubbing that was supposed to convince viewers that Knight was actually speaking the words, cemented the conclusion that the social media video was constructed with AI tools.
The video appeared after the end of the 2026 Milan Cortina Olympics. During the Winter Games, both the U.S. men’s and women’s hockey teams beat Canada 2-1 in overtime to win the gold medal. After the men’s victory, the team was videoed celebrating the win in their locker room with FBI Director Kash Patel, who called Trump.
During the phone call, Trump invited the men’s team to the White House and to his State of the Union address on Feb. 24, but warned he would “have to” bring the women’s team too, adding he would “probably would be impeached” if he did not, to laughter from the men’s team.
The video left a sour taste in some mouths, and people waited to see whether the women’s team would respond and accept the invitation. They declined, according to ESPN, with a statement saying the team was “sincerely grateful for the invitation” but could not attend due to scheduling conflicts.
In Knight’s real SportsCenter interview, she called the president’s words a “distasteful joke” that resulted in the women’s on-ice victories being overshadowed. “We’re really focused on celebrating all great things that have come out of the Olympics,” she said.
[ad_2]
Jack Izzo
Source link
[ad_1]
A section of a major road in Greensboro is closed as police investigate an officer-involved shooting on Thursday morning, according to the Greensboro Police Department.
[ad_2]
Brayden Stamps
Source link
[ad_1]
Two Venezuelan nationals accused of involvement in an ATM “jackpotting” conspiracy linked to the transnational criminal group Tren de Aragua have been charged in connection with robberies and attempted robberies throughout New England.
[ad_2]
John Budenas
Source link
[ad_1]
For the third consecutive year, the Miami Dolphins ranked first in the NFL Players Association annual report cards, according to survey results obtained by ESPN. The Minnesota Vikings finished second, followed by the Washington Commanders in third.
“Players consistently describe the organization as ‘the best in the NFL,’” the NFLPA survey wrote about the Dolphins.
The Pittsburgh Steelers finished last for the first time in the four-year history of the union’s survey. Last year, the Steelers ranked 28th. The Arizona Cardinals finished 31st in the 2026 survey, after a last-place finish in 2025, and the Cleveland Browns finished in 30th, the same as in 2025.
The NFLPA is not making the report cards public this year after a grievance filed by the NFL, which said the survey violated the collective bargaining agreement. Earlier this month, an arbitrator agreed with the league, saying the report cards violated the CBA by “disparaging NFL clubs and individuals.” The NFLPA said it would continue to collect responses for report cards even if it can’t publish them.
A spokesperson for the NFLPA declined to comment.
An NFL spokesperson also declined to comment, saying that, as in previous years, the league had no knowledge of the survey. The league sent a memo to all teams later Thursday, saying that, as the arbitration hearing showed, the survey results are “neither reliable nor scientifically valid.”
“… We continue to recommend that clubs prioritize feedback and information provided directly by their own players rather than relying on the NFLPA’s agenda-driven exercise,” the league said in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by ESPN. “We further recommend that Clubs refrain from commenting or engaging publicly on the alleged survey and Report Card results.”
The report cards grade franchises from A-plus to F-minus on everything from ownership to treatment of families. Per the survey results obtained by ESPN, this year’s report cards are based on responses from 1,759 players. All players who were on a 2025 roster at the time of the survey were eligible to participate, and it was conducted from Nov. 2 to Dec. 11.
The Steelers received low grades in several categories, according to the results obtained by ESPN.
“[Steelers owner] Art Rooney ranks last in the league for willingness to invest in facilities, a trend reflected in the Steelers’ poor facility ratings across the board,” according to the survey.
In a new category added this year, the Steelers had the lowest-rated home field in the league “by a wide margin.”
“Players cite inadequate maintenance and excessive wear from hosting local college and high school games,” according to the survey. “Players across the league note the poor condition of the field and emphasize the need for investment to bring it up to standard.”
The Steelers’ locker room was graded an F. Players reported that it “has only five bathroom stalls for the entire team.”
Per the survey, players report that the Steelers’ training room lacks updated recovery technology and “modalities.” Pittsburgh’s strength coaches ranked last in the NFL, though the training staff ranked first.
“We are not going to comment on a report that we have not seen in its entirety,” Steelers senior director of communications Burt Lauten told ESPN.
A spokesperson for the Cardinals declined to comment.
Miami ranked fourth in home field because of the natural grass at Hard Rock Stadium, “with players highlighting their preference for quality grass fields like this one,” the survey said.
Former Miami coach Mike McDaniel’s grade dropped from an A-plus to a B. “Players identify scheduling, communication, and leadership as key areas for head coaching improvement, presenting an opportunity for [new head coach Jeff] Hafley next season,” the survey said.
Last year, 1,695 players leaguewide responded to the survey. The Vikings and Dolphins earned the highest marks for workplace environment, with owners Zygi Wilf of the Vikings, Stephen Ross of the Dolphins and Arthur Blank of the Atlanta Falcons receiving A-plus grades.
Before filing its grievance in November, the NFL had twice asked the union to suspend the survey, once in 2024 and a second time in June of this year — and the NFLPA declined.
At the NFL league meeting in March 2025, New York Jets chairman Woody Johnson — who along with Art Rooney of the Steelers, Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots, Michael Bidwill of the Cardinals and David Tepper of the Carolina Panthers received ownership grades of D or worse in 2025 — called the survey “totally bogus” and hinted that it violated the CBA.
Johnson said he took issue with “how they collected the information [and] who they collected it from. [It] was supposed to be, according to the agreement we have with the league. It’s supposed to be a process [where] we have representatives, and they have representatives, so we know that it’s an honest survey.
“And that was violated, in my opinion. I’m going to leave it at that, but I think there are a lot of owners that looked at that survey and said this is not fair, it’s not balanced, it’s not every player, it’s not even representative of the players.”
[ad_2]
Kalyn Kahler
Source link
[ad_1]
Anthropic is holding the line. At least for now.
The Pentagon approached Anthropic this week with a demand that it remove guardrails in its AI model Claude to prohibit mass domestic surveillance and fully automated weapons. But Anthropic is refusing to do that, according to a new statement from CEO Dario Amodei, who writes, “we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”
There’s a lot of money on the line. And it’s anyone’s guess what happens next.
Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic a deadline of 5:01 p.m. ET on Friday to agree to the removal of all safeguards, threatening to boot Claude from U.S. military systems or designate the company as a “supply chain risk,” a label used for adversaries of the U.S. that’s never been applied to an American company before.
Hegseth, who refers to the Defense Department as the Department of War, has even threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act, which would theoretically allow the Pentagon to just demand Anthropic do whatever Hegseth wants.
Amodei pointed out Thursday in a letter posted online: “These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.” Experts have called the contradictory messages from Hegseth “incoherent,” a label that might also apply to the Trump regime more broadly.
Anthropic, which has a $200 million contract with the Department of Defense, told CBS News that the Pentagon’s “best and final offer,” which was sent Wednesday, seemed to have loopholes that would allow the military to disregard the protections put in place.
“New language framed as compromise was paired with legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will. Despite DOW’s recent public statements, these narrow safeguards have been the crux of our negotiations for months,” Anthropic reportedly said.
The new letter released by Anthropic on Thursday made sure to point out that the AI company works with the military and intelligence communities and that they “remain ready to continue our work to support the national security of the United States.” But asking to drop all safeguards is just a bridge too far.
“Anthropic understands that the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions. We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” the company wrote.
“However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values. Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do.”
The company went on to list the two use cases where it believes safeguards are needed to protect American interests. In the section on mass domestic surveillance, Amodei put the word domestic in italics, as if to warn Americans more broadly about what’s happening right under our noses.
The letter notes that the government can purchase “detailed records of Americans’ movements, web browsing, and associations from public sources without obtaining a warrant,” something that obviously infringes on the rights of Americans. The Pentagon has suggested it doesn’t have a plan for mass surveillance of Americans, telling CNN the conflict with Anthropic has “nothing to do with mass surveillance and autonomous weapons being used.”
The second section of Amodei‘s letter, which covers autonomous weapons, acknowledges that AI-assisted weapons are already being used on battlefields today in places like Ukraine. But it warns, “frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons.” The letter goes on to say, “We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems, but they have not accepted this offer.”
Amodei met with Hegseth on Tuesday in a meeting that was described by CNN as “cordial,” but it will obviously be interesting to see where this goes.
Hegseth is not known as a particularly smart or level-headed guy, so it’s entirely possible that he tries to label Anthropic as both a national security threat and a part of America’s warfighting machine so vital that he’ll essentially draft the company to do what he wants. It sounds like we all get to find out by end of day Friday.
[ad_2]
Matt Novak
Source link
[ad_1]
The Federal Trade Commission reached a $100 million
multi-state settlement with Walmart over allegations the company deceived
customers and drivers who participated in its Spark Driver Program.
North Carolina was one of several states that sued
the company on behalf of delivery drivers and customers. As part of the
settlement, Walmart must pay its delivery drivers in North Carolina $2 million
for stealing their tips and other payments, Attorney General Jeff Jackson announced
Friday.
The retail giant will also pay another $10 million to be
refunded to delivery customers in North Carolina and nine other states. That’s
for the tips people thought they were paying individual drivers, but which
Walmart kept for itself.
“Walmart misled its drivers and its customers so that the
company could keep tips and other money that belonged to drivers,” Jackson
wrote in a news release. “I’m grateful for the federal government’s
partnership on this case to make Walmart pay back millions for North Carolina
drivers.”
Walmart has run the Spark Driver program since 2018.
Customers can use the Spark App to order products from
Walmart for home delivery, and people can sign up to be drivers on the app.
Drivers pick up products from Walmart stores and deliver them to customers, and
they use the app to view and select offers to complete deliveries for payment.
These offers include an estimate of how much the driver will earn from the
delivery, including the base amount Walmart will pay the driver and any pre-tip
the customer has selected to pay.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Netflix said on Thursday that it will not match Paramount Skydance’s latest bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, clearing the way for a massive merger that could shake up the entertainment and media industry.
Netflix agreed in December to buy part of Warner Bros. Discovery for $27.75 a share, or $82.7 billion. But Paramount Skydance had made a $30 a share all-cash offer to buy all of the company, and on Tuesday raised its offer for Warner Bros. Discovery to $31 a share (Paramount Skydance owns CBS News.)
Earlier on Thursday, Warner Bros. Discovery’s board of directors notified Netflix that Paramount’s $31 per share offer constituted a “superior proposal” for the company.
“The transaction we negotiated would have created shareholder value with a clear path to regulatory approval,” Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters said in a statement Thursday. “However, we’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid.”
Paramount Skydance didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Warner Bros. Discovery owns streaming and film studios, along with cable channels including CNN, Food Network, HBO, HGTV, TBS, TNT and Turner Classic Movies.
The merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery will require approval from federal antitrust enforcers. Paramount Skydance executives have said that combining the companies would benefit consumers and help boost the entertainment industry, which has struggled to recover from the pandemic.
Some entertainment industry groups and lawmakers have raised concerns that uniting two major Hollywood studios could undermine competition.
For its part, Paramount Skydance executives had argued that a union of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns streaming platform HBO Max, was likely to arouse antitrust objections.
In enhancing its offer this week, Paramount Skydance said it would pay a $7 billion termination fee if its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery collapsed over regulatory concerns.
[ad_2]
Prince Harry tells ABC News’ Michael Strahan he doesn’t think “it’s ever going to be possible” to return to his royal role in the U.K. …
source
[ad_1]
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat for a closed‑door deposition with the House Oversight Committee as part of the congressional probe linked to Jeffrey Epstein. Clinton told lawmakers she does not recall ever meeting Epstein and said she had no new information about his crimes. In prepared remarks she accused Republican committee members of using the process to distract from President Trump’s actions.
The deposition briefly derailed when a Republican member of Congress shared photographs from inside the room; one lawmaker sent an image to a commentator and that circulation prompted a pause in proceedings. Democrats on the committee and others called the episode a breach of the rules and condemned the act as part of a broader pattern of partisan grandstanding.
Why this matters
What remains unknown
Key details remain unsettled: whether additional, substantive documents or interviews exist that would materially change the picture; how the committee will proceed after the disruption; and whether the public spectacle will lead to any new criminal or administrative referrals. The episode highlighted both the limits of a closed‑door process and how quickly investigative proceedings can become a flashpoint in Washington politics.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Paramount Skydance has triumphed in its months-long campaign to scupper Netflix’s deal to buy Warner Bros Discovery, after its $111bn bid for the Hollywood studio drove the streaming giant to walk away.
Netflix on Thursday said it would not match Paramount’s $31-a-share offer after WBD’s board declared it “superior” to the deal agreed with the streaming company. The price required to match Paramount’s offer meant “the deal is no longer financially attractive”, Netflix said.
The decision by Netflix clears the way for Paramount to wrest control of assets including HBO, CNN and film franchises such as Harry Potter and Batman in a takeover that will have sweeping ramifications for Hollywood and the wider media landscape.
Before its latest bid, WBD had rejected eight offers from Paramount, after the media group — run by David Ellison and backed by his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison — first approached it in September.
Unlike Netflix, Paramount’s bid is for the entire WBD business, including CNN, HBO and other cable networks. If the deal is approved, the Ellisons will control some of the biggest names in the US news media: CBS News, 60 Minutes and CNN.
The Ellisons have thrust themselves to the top of US media after combining Skydance and Paramount last year. Shares in Paramount jumped by 6 per cent in after-market trading, pushing the media group’s market value above $12bn.
David Zaslav, WBD chief executive, said the merger with Paramount “will create tremendous value for our shareholders”. The deal will need to be approved by regulators in the US and Europe.
Shares in Netflix jumped 8.5 per cent in post-market trading, as investors welcomed the news of the streamer walking away from one of the biggest media deals in history — which would have come with huge antitrust risks. Netflix first struck a nearly $83bn deal to buy WBD’s studio and streaming business in December.
Netflix co-chief executives Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters argued they would have been “strong stewards” of WBD’s brands but said “this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price”.
Netflix’s bid faced scrutiny from regulators and among some in Hollywood, who remain angry at the disruption the streaming pioneer unleashed on the industry. Sarandos had promised that Netflix would release more films in cinemas if it bought WBD, but many were sceptical.
After the WBD board backed the Netflix deal, Paramount launched an all-out pressure campaign to force WBD back to the negotiating table, appealing to the Trump administration and threatening to launch a proxy fight to overturn WBD’s board.
Paramount bumped up its latest offer by $1 a share to $31 compared with the offer WBD rejected in December, as well as offering guarantees over financing of the deal. Its improved approach also included a $0.25-a-share fee for every quarter the deal does not close after the end of September and a guarantee of a $7bn break fee if it is not approved by regulators.
Paramount also offered to pay the $2.8bn fee owed to Netflix if WBD terminates the original deal.
The merger talks have also been affected by politics, as Donald Trump — who counts Larry Ellison as a strong supporter — frequently weighed in on the deal. The US president also purchased about $2mn worth of Netflix and Warner Bros corporate bonds.
In December, Trump said that Netflix would “have a very big market share” in streaming if it acquired Paramount, adding: “It could be a problem.”
Over the weekend, Trump called on Netflix to sack former Democratic national security official Susan Rice from its board or “pay the consequences” after she criticised corporate executives who “bent the knee” to the president. And on Tuesday, David Ellison attended Trump’s State of the Union address as a guest of Republican senator Lindsey Graham.
Paramount argued to investors that it had a clearer path towards regulatory approval than Netflix — charges that Netflix continued to reject even as it pulled out of the deal.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The UNC Board of Governors authorized a new definition of academic freedom on Thursday, a move that enshrines an explanation of the concept into UNC System policy — but also places key limits on what kind of faculty activity it protects.
Academic freedom appeared in system policy before, and it was described as “full freedom, within the law.” The new definition drills down on what exactly it does and does not include.
For system President Peter Hans, the adoption of an expanded definition of academic freedom is an important step toward shared understanding and respect for the concept. The definition doesn’t alter the foundational value, he said in the meeting, but rather clarifies and strengthens it.
But some faculty across UNC System schools are deeply disturbed by the new definition, which they see as an attack on the crucial concept of unbridled academic freedom. That’s because of three main parameters the policy places around it.
The policy states that “academic freedom is not absolute.” It does not include:
Members of the American Association of University Professors gathered in the lobby of the UNC System’s downtown Raleigh office building on Thursday morning to deliver an unsuccessful petition asking the board not to vote on the policy. Association leaders Abigail Hatcher and David Ambaras spoke to reporters before the meeting.
“People who come to this university to do research and teach do so with the expectation that they will be able to pursue the truth,” Ambaras said. “People who come to this university system to study do so with the expectation that they will get the quality education that the name UNC represents. A redefinition of the code to restrict academic freedom would damage that expectation. People would not be confident that they are coming here to learn freely. Parents would not be confident that they can send their children here to study freely, and faculty would not be confident that they could take jobs in the system in order to do their work freely.
“Academic freedom has a definition that’s been accepted by the courts and by higher education, the sector as a whole. This is the first example we’re seeing of a university system trying to revise it downward, and we can’t accept that.”
NC State University professor of natural resources Fred Cubbage said the requirement for expressions of academic freedom to comply with institutional policies gives universities a free pass to fire tenured faculty if they wish.
While the AAUP members said there was no faculty input into the new definition, that’s not exactly true.
Wade Maki, a professor at UNC Greensboro and chair of the system’s Faculty Assembly, led a 15-month initiative to produce the definition ultimately included in the new policy. He consulted chancellors, campus administrators, student governments, the assembly and other university stakeholders, according to UNC.
He then delivered the draft definition to the board, which presented a draft of the new policy at the January Board of Governors meeting. Seeing some points of concern, Maki asked for one more week to bring the definition back to Faculty Assembly and make changes to the wording of certain lines. The board granted him that extra week, and the revisions softened the language of the parameters in some places.
“A lot will depend on the implementation,” Maki said at the Thursday meeting. “Yet this has been a bold project, challenging and worthy, that places a clear stake in the ground nationally. It clarifies freedom and responsibilities for faculty, students and administrators. It will serve as a model for other states. And above all, I want to thank the board for giving us the time and opportunity to weigh in and have feedback considered even well beyond the normal feedback process.”
That revised version was officially voted into policy Thursday.
This story was originally published February 26, 2026 at 7:05 PM.
[ad_2]
Jane Winik Sartwell
Source link
[ad_1]
A day after the February 2026 State of the Union address, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department will visit each household that watched “Jeopardy!” instead of President Donald Trump’s speech.
A rumor that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Department of Justice would visit each household that watched the long-running trivia show “Jeopardy!” instead of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech spread online in late February 2026.
For example, a post to Threads (archived) featured an image of Bondi speaking at a White House podium with a Fox New chyron that said: BONDI: “WE WILL VISIT EACH HOUSE WE KNOW WATCHED ‘JEOPARDY’ INSTEAD OF THE STATE OF THE UNION.
(Threads user @ednawalker7)
Snopes readers searched the site to find out whether Bondi really made that statement.
However, Bondi did not say this. It originated from the Facebook page of James Schlarmann, a satirist and comedian. The Schlarmann’s original Facebook post and the Threads post above — which includes the watermark he includes on his satirical images — so we have rated this claim as labeled satire.
Schlarmann posted the image with the quote to Facebook (archived) the day after Trump’s State of the Union address. The about page of Schlarmann’s Facebook profile included the description “comedian and poltical satirist.”
Snopes sent Schlarmann a message requesting comment. Schlarmann responded by confirming he created the image, saying that “anyone who made the wise choice to watch [“Jeopardy!” host] Ken Jennings instead of Donald Trump can rest easy…for now.”
Searches for the quote on Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing and Yahoo found no credible evidence that Bondi said the government would visit the homes of people who watched “Jeopardy!” over the State of the Union. If the U.S. Attorney General really declared government officials will go to people’s homes because they didn’t watch the president’s speech, major news outlets such as The Associated Press and Reuters would have covered it. There was no reporting on Bondi saying such a thing on Fox News’ website, even though the image included a Fox News logo.
The screenshot of Bondi used in the post was from a Feb. 6, 2026, news conference, during which Bondi spoke of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the arrest of a third suspect in the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that took place in 2012. Everyone in the screenshot is wearing the same clothing they wore during that news conference.
Snopes has previously debunked other rumors that originated from satirical Schlarmann posts people believed to be real, including a February 2026 post using the same image that claimed Bondi ordered people to stop sending ‘coupons for Depends’ to White House and a January 2026 post that claimed she said “Jesus Christ would never have stormed a church” in protest of its leaders.
Let us note here: Whether you agree with something being described as satire or parody is a matter of opinion. Snopes is in the business of facts. We label these rumors based on creators’ description of them. Your call on whether you agree.
[ad_2]
Emery Winter
Source link
[ad_1]
The UNC Board of Governors authorized a new definition of academic freedom on Thursday, a move that enshrines an explanation of the concept into UNC System policy — but also places key limits on what kind of faculty activity it protects.
Academic freedom appeared in system policy before, and it was described as “full freedom, within the law.” The new definition drills down on what exactly it does and does not include.
For system President Peter Hans, the adoption of an expanded definition of academic freedom is an important step toward shared understanding and respect for the concept. The definition doesn’t alter the foundational value, he said in the meeting, but rather clarifies and strengthens it.
But some faculty across UNC System schools are deeply disturbed by the new definition, which they see as an attack on the crucial concept of unbridled academic freedom. That’s because of three main parameters the policy places around it.
The policy states that “academic freedom is not absolute.” It does not include:
Members of the American Association of University Professors gathered in the lobby of the UNC System’s downtown Raleigh office building on Monday morning to deliver an unsuccessful petition asking the board not to vote on the policy. Association leaders Abigail Hatcher and David Ambaras spoke to reporters before the meeting.
“People who come to this university to do research and teach do so with the expectation that they will be able to pursue the truth,” Ambaras said. “People who come to this university system to study do so with the expectation that they will get the quality education that the name UNC represents. A redefinition of the code to restrict academic freedom would damage that expectation. People would not be confident that they are coming here to learn freely. Parents would not be confident that they can send their children here to study freely, and faculty would not be confident that they could take jobs in the system in order to do their work freely.
“Academic freedom has a definition that’s been accepted by the courts and by higher education, the sector as a whole. This is the first example we’re seeing of a university system trying to revise it downward, and we can’t accept that.”
NC State University professor of natural resources Fred Cubbage said the requirement for expressions of academic freedom to comply with institutional policies gives universities a free pass to fire tenured faculty if they wish.
While the AAUP members said there was no faculty input into the new definition, that’s not exactly true.
Wade Maki, a professor at UNC Greensboro and chair of the system’s Faculty Assembly, led a 15-month initiative to produce the definition ultimately included in the new policy. He consulted chancellors, campus administrators, student governments, the assembly and other university stakeholders, according to UNC.
He then delivered the draft definition to the board, which presented a draft of the new policy at the January Board of Governors meeting. Seeing some points of concern, Maki asked for one more week to bring the definition back to Faculty Assembly and make changes to the wording of certain lines. The board granted him that extra week, and the revisions softened the language of the parameters in some places.
“A lot will depend on the implementation,” Maki said at the Thursday meeting. “Yet this has been a bold project, challenging and worthy, that places a clear stake in the ground nationally. It clarifies freedom and responsibilities for faculty, students and administrators. It will serve as a model for other states. And above all, I want to thank the board for giving us the time and opportunity to weigh in and have feedback considered even well beyond the normal feedback process.”
That revised version was officially voted into policy Thursday.
[ad_2]
Jane Winik Sartwell
Source link
[ad_1]
Today marks the 80th Anniversary of the Birth of the late Duchess of Abercorn, who was born on this day in 1946! The illustrious Aristocrat who married into the prominent Anglo-Irish Family, becoming an accomplished philanthropist and the Founder of the Pushkin Trust, today we are featuring her heirloom Diamond Floral Tiara!
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(662); });
A magnificent Diamond Floral Tiara composed of Diamond Leaves and Flowers with a large central flower, which can be worn in several different configurations and can also likely be taken apart to be worn as brooches. The Tiara dates from the early 19th century and there are several examples of similar large Diamond Floral Tiaras in the British Aristocracy, including the Lansdowne Tiara as well as the Diamond Floral Tiara we discovered at E. Wolfe.
In 1837, the then Marchioness of Abercorn, who became the 1st Duchess, was described wearing the Diamond Floral Tiara for a Court Ball along with the family Sapphire Necklace:
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(669); });
Marchioness of Abercorn. -Court costume,. siecle de Louis XIV., composed of a blonde manteau, lined with pink satin, blonde berthe and sabots; petticoat of blonde, over pink satin. Head-dress, feathers, and a magnificent diamond tiara of leaves and flowers; splendid brilliant stomacher, with pendants a la cordeliere; necklace of sapphires and diamonds.
In 1914, the 3rd Duchess of Abercorn seems to have worn the central flower from the Tiara as a Brooch for an official portrait.
Almost a decade later, the Duchess wore that Diamond Flower on her hat for the State Entry into Belfast when the 3rd Duke of Abercorn was appointed the first Governor of Northern Ireland.
In 1966, the Diamond Floral Tiara was notably worn by Alexandra ‘Sacha’ Phillips, for her Wedding of the Marquess of Hamilton, the Heir of the 4th Duke of Abercorn, at Westminster Abbey.
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(671); });
The 4th Duchess of Abercorn was the last Mistress of the Robes to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother and her daughter, Lady Moyra, was a Lady-in-Waiting to Princess Alexandra, both often wearing a versatile Diamond Star Tiara but not the Floral Tiara.
While she held no Court position like her mother- or sister-in-law, the 5th Duchess of Abercorn could also be sometimes spotted at State Banquets, including the one held at Windsor Caste for French President Nicolas Sarkozy and First Lady Carla Bruni in 2008, at which the Duchess paired the Tiara with the heirloom family Sapphire Necklace.
The following year, the Duchess of Abercorn was spotted wearing the Diamond Floral Tiara for the Mexican State Banquet at Buckingham Palace, which seems to be its last public appearance but lets hope we see the Tiara worn again soon on the next generation!
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(672); });
Devonshire Diamond Palmette Tiara
[ad_2]
Saad719
Source link
[ad_1]
The Danish Royal Family celebrated the Wedding of Prince Christian of Denmark and Anne Dorte Maltoft-Nielsen at Kongens Lyngby Kirke on this day in 1971, 55 years ago, who lost his Royal Title for marrying a Commoner and became a Count of Rosenborg!
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(662); });
Prince Christian of Denmark, the son of Hereditary Prince Knud and Hereditary Princess Caroline-Mathilde of Denmark, married Anne Dorte Maltoft-Nielsen at the Kongens Lyngby Kirke, followed by a Dinner at Sorgenfri Palace.
Queen Ingrid of Denmark (wearing the Khedive of Egypt Tiara, Khedive Necklace and the Antique Diamond Earrings)
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(669); });
Hereditary Princess Margrethe (in Queen Alexandrine’s Diamond Drop Tiara) and Prince Henrik of Denmark
Hereditary Prince Knud and Hereditary Princess Caroline-Mathilde (wearing Queen Alexandrine’s Diamond Fringe Tiara)
Princess Elisabeth of Denmark (in Princess Thyra’s Sapphire Tiara)
Count Ingolf and Countess Inge of Rosenborg (wearing Princess Helena’s Diamond Bandeau)
ezstandalone.cmd.push(function () { ezstandalone.showAds(671); });
Princess Feodora of Denmark (in the Diamond Ears-of-Wheat Tiara)
Prince Christian lost his Royal Title for marrying a Commoner and became Count Christian of Rosenborg. The Count and Countess had three daughters; Countess Josephine, Countess Camilla, Countess Feodora of Rosenborg, and passed away in 2013 and 2014 respectively.
[ad_2]
Saad719
Source link
[ad_1]
The commons called. It wants a runway.
Every so often, in the blockchain world’s usual cycle of funding scares, a team maintaining a widely used open source public good declares mayday. Libp2p is a core infrastructure stack that powers multiple Ethereum clients (among others) and a large part of Web3 infrastructure. It was, not long ago, one of the latest projects to put out a call for assistance as financial resources ran thin.
Ethereum’s public goods landscape (in the sense of “teams building and open-sourcing things that are maximally valuable to our ecosystem”) has no shortage of talent: the ecosystem is full of professionals doing work that is deeply technical, widely relied upon, and chronically under-incentivized. These are the projects that quietly keep the ecosystem secure, reliable, and capable of evolving.
They also tend to share a vulnerability: while they are strong at research and engineering, they often lack the fundraising, operational, and business capacity needed to remain future-proof.
The basic symptom is: everyone depends on shared infrastructure, but no one wants to risk ending up at a competitive disadvantage by being the one to fund it. Ad-hoc funding is fragile, political, and cyclical. Reliability of funding flows is almost as important as the funding itself.
Project Odin exists to close that gap: it is a structured support program designed to help a small set of strategic Ethereum Foundation grantees build credible pathways to sustainability over a two year horizon, increasing ecosystem resilience by reducing long-term dependency on a single funding source.
The core mechanic is simple: each team gets an embedded strategic advisor who works alongside them on sustainability planning and execution.
Instead of a single workshop or occasional guidance, Odin is meant to be hands-on, iterative, and grounded in delivery. Over 12 months, participants move from exploration and diagnosis to option mapping, then into validation and execution, with the explicit goal of strengthening their runway by identifying and piloting revenue generating opportunities and ensuring they’re implemented effectively.
Odin began with a pattern we kept seeing across the Ethereum ecosystem (and beyond): some of the most critical teams (those maintaining infrastructure, languages, tooling) were in a perpetual state of fragility. This, of course, isn’t a surprise: they deliver real value but their ability to plan beyond the next grant cycle was constrained by uncertainty, a narrow set of funding options, and limited bandwidth for “non-technical” capabilities like fundraising strategy, stakeholder communications or organizational design.
In many cases, sustainability planning arrived too late. Teams understandably focused on shipping and research while they had runway, and then, near the end of a grant, quickly refocused on securing the next round of funding. This forces distracting pivots and increases pressure. Historically, support on sustainability issues has often been informal and reactive: organizations jump in when a team is already under pressure, but that pattern means that this starts when choices are narrowest.
Odin inverts this dynamic by bringing in structure early, embedding support to reduce volatility and treating sustainability as something teams design from day one rather than something they patch later. While it borrows the accountability and cadence of accelerator-style support, the goal is not venture scale but long-term viability: helping public good projects become stable institutions that can keep shipping over multiple cycles without constant existential risk.
The recurring problem is rarely technical excellence. Instead, the gap is usually a lack of a clear, viable plan to sustainable funding and the execution chops to achieve it. Many teams operate with a single dominant funding source. Without a strategy, they cannot survive market downturns, governance shifts, or changes in funding priorities.
Even when teams make a stab at diversifying, the landscape is difficult to navigate, and serious teams often struggle to identify which sustainability route is actually worth committing to. There are many potential sources (foundation grants, protocol/DAO grants, retroactive public goods mechanisms, quadratic funding, sponsorships and commercial or hybrid models) but each comes with different incentives, timelines, and risks. It’s easy to drift into grants applications rather than building a coherent long-term plan, and it’s hard to evaluate trade-offs (or even generate confident options) without structured guidance.
Operational maturity is another common constraint. A team can be excellent at engineering and still struggle with planning cadence, role clarity, decision-making, stakeholder communications, the right legal setup to offer services and the “translation layer” that turns research and development into outputs that others can reliably adopt, integrate, or even pay to support.
Odin’s pilot focuses on EF grantees who have received significant grants before and whose long-term health matters to the ecosystem. “Critical” refers to a project that directly serves core user needs and materially supports Ethereum’s security, resilience, and day-to-day usability. The selection logic is not “who is struggling” but rather “who was largely funded in the past and likely to benefit from structured sustainability support”: especially where the team’s main bottleneck is fundraising/BD/ops rather than technical capacity.
The engagement takes place over the course of a year-long program and has 3 phases:
Research and map realistic funding and sustainability options available to the team, grounding the work in an understanding of the project’s current state, prior attempts, ecosystem context, and goals, and clarifying the trade-offs involved. This phase is not about forcing a single “correct” model and more about highlighting the range of options and an understanding of the tradeoffs with each funding channel, especially around predictability and operational burden. During this phase, multiple assumptions are formulated regarding the funding mechanisms best aligned with the project’s nature and goals.
Validating the most promising paths teams are comfortable with. It usually means beginning external conversations early (with potential funders, delegates, partner organizations, or potential customers where appropriate), shaping messaging, and constructing a plan that is concrete enough to execute. Defining an ideal customer profile becomes essential here, and leveraging our connections to make sure there is a relationship between the project’s dependencies and its users is the uttermost important outcome of this phase.
Executing or improving the team’s pipeline, building the materials needed for fundraising and partnerships, and, when relevant, helping the team structure and pursue contractable work or support agreements without derailing core public goods output.
Success is not measured by how polished a roadmap looks but by whether teams graduate with increased organizational resilience providing a credible path to reduced dependency on the EF. Concretely, this can look like diversified funding sources, improved operational cadence, stronger external communication and, when it fits the project, at least one repeatable revenue-like stream such as support contracts or service agreements that meaningfully stabilizes monthly operations.
Equally important is producing reusable tools and guidelines: templates, playbooks and measurable success metrics that can be applied to future cohorts so sustainability support becomes more systematic over time, not reinvented per team.
The Vyper core team (supported by grants since the language’s early development) has recently established the Foundation for Verified Software as the institutional home for this work, and gracefully became Odin’s first pilot participant. Their product serves as a valuable case study due to the easily observable implications: they produce important work with ecosystem-wide value but long-term sustainability isn’t automatic. Like many public goods, Vyper can attract grants and community support, yet still face a somewhat delicate operating reality if funding is unpredictable or overly concentrated.
Vyper is a Pythonic smart contract language for EVM, conceived by Vitalik Buterin in 2016, that focuses on security, simplicity, and readability, aiming to make contracts easier to audit and less prone to common pitfalls while still producing gas-efficient EVM bytecode. In nine years of continuous development, 76 releases, 231 contributors and 5,100+ GitHub stars, it became the canonical choice for high-stakes DeFi infrastructure. At its peak, Vyper secured over 27 billion USD in on-chain value and it is led by the team now founding The Foundation for Verified Software.
Why do we want the Foundation for Verified Software to succeed? Why is AI-assisted formal verification their north star, and why are they now building both research and commercial infrastructure around it? At a general level, language diversification is essential for Ethereum resilience, and Vyper’s footprint makes that concrete. Today, 7,959 Vyper smart contracts secure more than 2.3 billion USD in total value locked (TVL) across leading blockchains, with an all-time-high TVL secured reaching over 30.0bn USD. On the ground, Vyper presents a clear opportunity to onboard the next generation of Ethereum smart contract developers, for them to have an unprecedented level of safety and trust in their code, and for the institutional capital that demands a higher level of security guarantees beyond those the traditional audits can provide. It is designed from the ground up for formal verification and represents the next generation of formal-verification-first languages: an approach that prioritizes machine-checkable correctness as a first-class property of software, not an afterthought. It is an opportunity for smart contract developers to have an unprecedented level of safety and trust in their code.
With Vyper, we confirmed that different funding channels, particularly those defined as grants or donations, behave very differently under stress:
Retroactive funding can be powerful, but it is inherently uncertain;
Quadratic funding can work, but it often demands repeated campaigning and can be sensitive to matching-pool volatility and attention cycles;
DAO and protocol grants can be substantial, but they introduce governance overhead and, in some cases, token volatility risk.
This is why Odin treats diversification as a risk management tool. Our program highlights revenue-generating and hybrid options, not as a rejection of public goods funding, but as a way to add predictability in funding flows. For a project like Vyper, paid support contracts, SLAs, training or consulting services can coexist with grants and retroactive funding, providing stable baseline operations while public goods mechanisms fund core development and long-term research.
Success in engaging with Vyper means the focus shifts from pursuing a single ideal funding source to constructing a resilient portfolio. This involves maintaining legitimacy and community support through ecosystem-aligned public goods mechanisms, while simultaneously establishing one or two reliable funding streams to cover a significant portion of operational expenses. Over time, as delivery discipline strengthens and outputs become more contractable, that trajectory begins to resemble the Frontier Research contractor pattern: sustained frontier work funded by a blend of grants and contracts, grounded in real stakeholder needs.
Today, Odin functions like an accelerator for Ethereum-related public goods. If it proves effective, the longer-term goal is to move beyond supporting individual teams and toward a new institutional form the ecosystem currently lacks: Frontier Research Contractors (FRCs). FRCs would fund advanced technical work through a mix of grants and contracts, solving others’ engineering problems with strong delivery discipline and customer focus. They’re needed because existing categories don’t fit fast-growing projects: (1) startups often need product focus and can’t always justify contract-driven work to investors, and (2) larger research organizations excel at coordinated, long-horizon efforts but struggle to meet sharp, fast-moving, high-context needs in an ecosystem like Ethereum.
The Foundation for Verified Software by Vyper is not just an example of this trajectory: it is the first concrete case of what an FRC looks like in practice. It is not a startup: there are no investors requiring it to subordinate long-horizon verification research to product velocity or market timing, while a separate commercial entity can pursue those opportunities without compromising the Foundation’s research mandate. It is not a large research organisation: it moves quickly and can respond to sharp, fast-moving engineering needs that coordinated academic institutions are structurally unable to serve. It sits in exactly the gap the FRC model is designed to fill.
The FRC model fills this gap by providing a durable “delivery engine” for frontier engineering and research. Project Odin is a stepping stone: emphasizing clear outputs, alignment with ecosystem needs, operational rigor, and a stable funding portfolio. In that sense, Odin is not just a support program: it is also a laboratory for understanding what it takes to create durable research-and-delivery institutions for public goods. The common thread among FRC founders will not be the specific form of their technical vision but their ability to sustain and finance progress by addressing real customer needs while pursuing those visions. A future post will dive deeper into this vision.
Ethereum’s resilience depends on the resilience of its public goods, especially from teams doing work that is foundational, technically difficult, and not easily monetized. If such teams operate under constant funding fragility, the ecosystem pays the price in slower iteration, higher risk, and institutional knowledge loss. Project Odin is an attempt to change the default by treating sustainability as a design problem and address it early: with structure, accountability and hands-on support.
This initiative, along with other projects that the EF’s Funding Coordination team is working on, aim to chart a clear direction for Ethereum’s public goods ecosystem. If you want to learn more about project Odin, please contact us at funding-coordination@ethereum.org.
[ad_2]
