ReportWire

Tag: iab-business and finance

  • Biden administration moves ahead with Medicare drug price negotiations amid industry lawsuits | CNN Politics

    Biden administration moves ahead with Medicare drug price negotiations amid industry lawsuits | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Undeterred by a growing number of lawsuits, the Biden administration on Friday released revised guidance for Medicare’s new drug price negotiation program.

    The latest guidance outlines how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will negotiate with drugmakers to reach agreement on a maximum fair price for a selected medicine, the agency said. It was informed by public input on the initial guidance the agency released in March, which explained how it will select the drugs and how the negotiations will be conducted.

    The program, which was authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act that congressional Democrats passed last year, has prompted a fierce backlash from the pharmaceutical industry. Two drug manufacturers and two industry groups have filed lawsuits, arguing the measure is unconstitutional.

    But the administration is not backing down from implementing its historic new power. It intends to keep its timeline of announcing the first 10 drugs that will be selected for negotiation by September 1. CMS and the drugmakers will negotiate during 2023 and 2024. The prices will be effective starting in 2026.

    “The Biden-Harris Administration isn’t letting anything get in our way of delivering lower drug costs for Americans,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “Pharmaceutical companies have made record profits for decades. Now they’re lining up to block this Administration’s work to negotiate for better drug prices for our families. We won’t be deterred.”

    The initial set of drugs will be chosen from the top 50 Part D drugs that are eligible for negotiation that have the highest total expenditures in Medicare. CMS will consider multiple factors when developing its initial offer, including the drugs’ clinical benefits, the price of alternatives, research and development costs and patent protection, among others.

    If drugmakers don’t comply with the process, they will have to pay an excise tax of up to 95% of the medications’ US sales or pull all their drugs from the Medicare and Medicaid markets. The pharmaceutical industry contends that the true penalty can be as high as 1,900% of sales.

    CMS said it received more than 7,500 comments on its initial guidance from patient groups, drug companies, pharmacies and others.

    The changes it is making are aimed at improving transparency while keeping confidentiality in mind, as well as fostering “an effective negotiation process,” the agency said.

    They include revising the confidentiality process to state that CMS will release information about the negotiations when it publishes the explanations of the prices. Also, drug companies may publicly discuss the negotiations – the prior secrecy requirement had been a point of contention among manufacturers that was mentioned in the lawsuits. And they won’t be required to destroy data relating to the negotiations.

    In addition, CMS will hold patient-focused listening sessions to provide drug companies and the public more opportunities to engage with the agency. The sessions – which will give patients, caregivers and others the chance to share input on how a medication addresses unmet needs, how it impacts specific populations and what therapeutic alternatives exist – will be held in the fall for the first round of drugs.

    Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, and the US Chamber of Commerce have all recently filed lawsuits in federal courts across the US. They each argue the program is unconstitutional in various ways.

    The challengers also say that the negotiation provision will harm innovation and patients’ access to new drugs.

    Among the arguments are that the program violates the Fifth Amendment’s “takings” clause because it allows Medicare to obtain manufacturers’ patented drugs, which are private property, without paying fair market value under the threat of serious penalties.

    Plus, the negotiations process violates the First Amendment, the challengers say, because it coerces manufacturers into saying that they agree to the price that the government has dictated and that it’s fair.

    Another argument is that the process violates the Eighth Amendment by levying an excessive fine if drugmakers refuse to negotiate and continue selling their products to the Medicare market.

    Merck expects its diabetes drug Januvia to be among the drugs named in September and its blockbuster cancer treatment Keytruda and diabetes drug Janumet to be subject to negotiation in the future. Bristol Myers Squibb believes its blood thinning medication, Eliquis, will be subject to negotiations this year, and its cancer medication, Opdivo, will be selected in a subsequent round.

    The changes in the revised guidance did not allay the complaints of the pharmaceutical industry. PhRMA said that transparency remains “severely limited,” patients’ views are not being taken into account and Medicare beneficiaries could have less access to drugs.

    “The very few substantive changes to the final guidance demonstrate CMS saw this as a box checking exercise, not an opportunity to mitigate the negative impacts this price setting policy will have on patients or the broader health care sector,” PhRMA said in a statement.

    “The approach CMS took in this final guidance confirms what we claimed in our lawsuit – Congress’ unconstitutional shortcuts taken in the law have given the administration far too much flexibility to set prices at their whim without any oversight or accountability to anyone,” the group continued.

    The Biden administration will “vigorously defend” the drug price negotiation program, said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

    “We feel the law is on our side,” she said in a call with reporters Friday.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why there won’t be a backlash against the Supreme Court this time | CNN Politics

    Why there won’t be a backlash against the Supreme Court this time | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court handed down several key rulings this past week that dismayed liberals. Chief among them was the court’s decision to disallow colleges and universities from using race or ethnicity as a specific factor in admissions. The court also found that President Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan was unconstitutional and that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create websites that celebrate same-sex weddings over religious objections.

    Unlike last year, when the Supreme Court greatly upset liberals by overturning Roe v. Wade, this year’s big rulings by the justices are unlikely to spark a major backlash from the public at large.

    This is well reflected in the public polling. Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide, had become massively popular.

    Right before the decision to overturn Roe leaked in May 2022, a Fox News poll found that 63% of registered voters were opposed to such a move while 27% supported it. An ABC News/Washington Post poll put the split at 54% wanting the court to uphold Roe and 28% wanting the decision overturned.

    This majority of Americans who wanted abortion to be legal nationally have maintained their stance since the Supreme Court officially struck down Roe in June 2022. Since that time, abortion supporters have won every related measure placed on the ballot across the country – from deep-blue states like California to ruby-red ones like Kentucky.

    California is an important state to note because voters there faced a 2020 ballot measure to consider the use of race, sex or ethnicity in government institutions (such as education). A clear majority, 57%, voted against allowing state and local entities to consider such factors in public education, employment and contracting decisions.

    When a state that voted for Biden by nearly 30 points is against affirmative action, it shouldn’t be surprising that the nation as a whole is.

    A Pew Research Center poll released last month found that 50% of Americans disapproved of certain colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account in admissions decisions to increase diversity. Only 33% approved of the practice.

    This Pew poll is no outlier. An ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted after the court decided its case showed that 52% of Americans approved of the decision, while 32% were opposed.

    Some polling before the ruling had shown even more opposition: 70% of Americans in a recent CBS News/YouGov survey indicated that the Supreme Court should not allow colleges to consider race and ethnicity in admissions.

    But perhaps what’s most interesting isn’t how many people are for or against considering race in college admissions. Rather, it’s how many people simply didn’t care enough to pay close attention to the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court.

    When explicitly given the option, a majority (55%) said in a May Marquette University Law School poll that they hadn’t heard enough to form an opinion about the case. (Those who had heard enough were against allowing colleges to use race in admissions.)

    This is quite different from March 2022, when just 30% of Americans hadn’t heard enough to form an opinion about the court potentially overturning Roe v. Wade, when asked the same question by Marquette but about the abortion case. (A plurality of those who had heard enough didn’t want the court to overturn Roe.)

    It’s hard for an issue to galvanize voters when they aren’t paying attention to it.

    The same holds true for Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan that the court blocked. A USA Today/Ipsos poll from April indicated that 52% of Americans were familiar with the case and a mere 16% were very familiar with it. (Those who had student loans were more familiar at 71%, though that’s a fairly low percentage for something that could affect them directly.)

    Possibly because of that low familiarity, the percentage of Americans who favor or oppose canceling certain student debt differs greatly depending on how the question is worded. When Marquette didn’t mention Biden or the government specifically in its May poll, a majority (63%) said they favored forgiveness of up to $20,000. It was a much lower 47% in the Ipsos poll.

    Surveys that did identify the proposal as Biden’s plan tend to be in the same ballpark, with a split public and a sizable percentage unsure.

    The ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 45% approved of the court striking down Biden’s student debt plan, with 40% disapproving. About a sixth (16%) of the public was undecided.

    This jibes with polling before the court’s decision was announced. An NBC News poll from last year showed that 43% said Biden’s plan was a good idea compared with 44%, who said it was a bad idea. Just over 10% had no opinion.

    The USA Today/Ipsos survey found that 43% of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to allow the government’s student loan forgiveness plan to move forward, while 40% did not. Another 17% had no opinion.

    (I should point out that those with student debt were more likely to want government forgiveness in all these surveys, though about 80% of Americans don’t have student loan debt.)

    The public was similarly split about the court ruling in favor of the Colorado web designer who refuses to make wedding websites for same-sex couples over religious objections. According to the ABC News/Ipsos poll, 43% of Americans agreed with the court’s decision, 42% disagreed and 14% were undecided.

    There was limited polling on this case before the ruling, though none of it indicated massive opposition. A majority (60%) in a Pew poll that specifically mentioned “wedding websites” and “same-sex marriages” indicated they believed business owners should be allowed to refuse services if it violated their religious or personal beliefs.

    The polling on Roe v. Wade didn’t look anything like this last year. There were no close splits in opinion. People were consistently against overturning Roe, and they cared a lot about it. This led to a historically strong performance for the party in the White House during the 2022 midterm elections and a major backlash against the Supreme Court.

    The current polling on affirmative action in college admissions, Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and allowing people to opt out of certain services to married LGBTQ couples if they believe it goes against their religion suggests that court’s opinions on those issues aren’t likely to have a similar impact.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Foxconn pulls out of $19 billion chipmaking project in India | CNN Business

    Foxconn pulls out of $19 billion chipmaking project in India | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Foxconn says it is exiting an ambitious project to help build one of India’s first chip factories.

    The world’s largest contract electronics maker will “no longer move forward” with its $19.4 billion joint venture with Vedanta

    (VEDL)
    , an Indian metals and energy conglomerate, in Asia’s third largest economy, it said Monday.

    The news was seen as a blow to the Indian government’s plans to turn the country into a tech manufacturing powerhouse, even as officials have sought to counter that view.

    In a statement to CNN, Foxconn, a Taiwanese tech giant best known for being one of Apple

    (AAPL)
    ’s top suppliers, said the decision was based on “mutual agreement” and allowed the company “to explore more diverse development opportunities.”

    The joint venture will now be wholly owned by Vedanta.

    In a followup statement Tuesday, Foxconn reaffirmed its commitment to invest in Indian chipmaking, saying it will apply for a government program that subsidizes the cost of setting up semiconductor or electronic display production facilities in the country.

    “Building fabs from scratch in a new geography is a challenge, but Foxconn is committed to invest in India,” the company said, referring to fabrication plants, the technical term for semiconductor factories.

    “There was recognition from both sides that the project was not moving fast enough, there were challenging gaps we were not able to smoothly overcome, as well as external issues unrelated to the project,” it said.

    Since announcing the deal in February 2022, Foxconn said it had worked with Vedanta on plans to set up a semiconductor plant in the country that would support a wider ecosystem for manufacturers.

    It did not provide an investment figure for the facility, but Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted in September that the total investment would amount to 1.54 trillion rupees, which was then equivalent to $19.4 billion.

    Foxconn said last year it was actively scouting for locations for the plant and held discussions with “a few state governments.”

    Foxconn CEO Young Liu has in recent months courted Indian partners, having traveled there in February to seek new collaborators.

    The company, which already has factories in the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, is one of many global tech firms looking for opportunities in the country, particularly as multinationals seek to diversify their supply chains beyond China.

    On Monday, India’s electronics and information technology minister Ashwini Vaishnaw told Indian news outlet and CNN affiliate News18 that both Vedanta and Foxconn are “completely committed to India’s semiconductor mission.”

    Rajeev Chandrasekhar, the country’s minister of state for electronics and IT, also tweeted that the news “changes nothing about” India’s semiconductor manufacturing goals, adding that the decision would still allow “both companies to independently pursue their strategies” in India.

    The project had been hailed as a milestone in India’s campaign to attract more investment in manufacturing, a sector sorely needed to help ease unemployment.

    Prime Minister Modi had framed the project as a significant boost for the economy and jobs.

    Foxconn shares rose 1.3% in Taipei on Tuesday following its announcement, while Vedanta’s shares fell 1.4% in Mumbai. The latter has not responded to a request for comment.

    Other prominent tech companies have moved to expand production in India recently.

    Last month, US chipmaker Micron

    (MICR)
    announced a new factory in the western state of Gujarat, calling it the country’s first semiconductor assembly and test manufacturing facility.

    The venture will see Micron invest up to $825 million, and create “up to 5,000 new direct Micron jobs and 15,000 community jobs over the next several years,” according to the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US orders deployment of fighter jets and Navy destroyer to Middle East in response to Iranian activities | CNN Politics

    US orders deployment of fighter jets and Navy destroyer to Middle East in response to Iranian activities | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered F-35 and F-16 fighter jets deployed to the Middle East, as well as the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner, in response to Iranian activities in the Strait of Hormuz.

    “In response to a number of recent alarming events in the Strait of Hormuz, the Secretary of Defense has ordered the deployment of the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner, F-35 fighters and F-16 fighters to the US Central Command Area of Responsibility to defend US interests and safeguard freedom of navigation in the region,” Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh said Monday.

    The deployments come after two incidents earlier this month in which Iranian Navy ships attempted to seize merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.

    The US Navy intervened in both incidents on July 5. In one instance, in which an Iranian vessel was approaching the Richmond Voyager oil tanker, Iranian personnel opened fire on the tanker and hit the ship near the crew’s living spaces.

    “In light of this continuing threat, and in coordination with our partners and allies, the department is increasing our presence and ability to monitor the straight and surrounding waters,” Singh said. “We call upon Iran to immediately cease these destabilizing actions that threaten the free flow of commerce through this strategic waterway of which the world depends on for more than one fifth of the world’s oil supply.”

    Last week, a senior defense official said that US air and maritime forces are working together to continue monitoring the waterway, recently starting to fly A-10 attack aircraft over the Strait of Hormuz. The A-10s were deployed in late March.

    The US also bolstered its forces in the Middle East in May after destabilizing actions from Iran in the Persian Gulf.

    “[The] United States will not allow foreign or regional powers to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz,” National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said at the time.

    He added that there is “simply no justification” for Iranian actions to interfere, harass or attack merchant ships.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s student loan forgiveness program faces a new threat from Senate Republicans | CNN Politics

    Biden’s student loan forgiveness program faces a new threat from Senate Republicans | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program may face a new threat from Senate Republicans even before the US Supreme Court rules on whether it can be implemented.

    Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Joni Ernst of Iowa and John Cornyn of Texas are planning to introduce a resolution to overturn Biden’s debt relief program, which promises up to $20,000 of debt relief for eligible borrowers, as soon as this week.

    Biden would very likely veto the measure if it succeeds in both the Senate and House. But votes would force members of his own party, who have not all been in support of the student loan forgiveness program, to take a public stance.

    The program is currently blocked. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in late June or early July.

    “President Biden’s student loan scheme does not ‘forgive’ debt, it just transfers the burden from those who willingly took out loans to those who never went to college, or sacrificed to pay their loans off,” Cassidy said in a statement.

    The Republican senators plan to introduce their resolution using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to roll back regulations from the executive branch without needing to clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate that is necessary for most legislation.

    It was unclear whether the Congressional Review Act would apply to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program until the Government Accountability Office made a determination on the matter earlier this month.

    Biden issued his first veto last week concerning a retirement investment resolution, which was also brought under the Congressional Review Act.

    While many key Democratic lawmakers have urged Biden to cancel some federal student loan debt, not every member of the party has been supportive.

    Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada who won a competitive reelection race last year, has previously been critical of Biden’s forgiveness plan.

    “I’ll review the full text of the CRA when it is released, but like I said before, I disagree with President Biden’s executive action on student loans because it doesn’t address the root problems that make college unaffordable,” she said in a statement sent to CNN.

    Her statement was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

    Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has previously called Biden’s student loan forgiveness program “excessive.” His office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

    Biden’s one-time student debt forgiveness program is estimated to cost $400 billion over time.

    Individual borrowers who made less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 a year could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are awarded to students from very low-income families who are more likely to struggle paying back their student loans.

    While the debt relief would help borrowers with student loans now, the program wouldn’t change the cost of college in the future – and some critics argue that it could even lead to an increase in tuition. A separate proposal from Biden, expected to take effect later this year, would create a new income-driven repayment plan that could lower monthly payments for both current and future borrowers.

    The legal challengers to the student loan forgiveness program argue that the Biden administration is abusing its power and using the Covid-19 pandemic as a pretext for fulfilling the president’s campaign pledge to cancel student debt.

    The White House has said that it received 26 million applications before a lower court in Texas put a nationwide block on the program in November, and that 16 million of those applications have been approved for relief – though no debt has been canceled yet. It’s possible the government moves quickly to forgive those debts if it gets the green light from the Supreme Court.

    If the justices strike down Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, it could be possible for the administration to make some modifications to the policy and try again – though that process could take months.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US designates Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich as wrongfully detained by Russia | CNN Politics

    US designates Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich as wrongfully detained by Russia | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The US State Department on Monday officially designated Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich as wrongfully detained by Russia.

    “Today, Secretary Blinken made a determination that Evan Gershkovich is wrongfully detained by Russia,” State Department principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said in a statement.

    The designation gives further backing to the assertions by the US government and the Wall Street Journal that the espionage charges against the reporter are baseless. It will empower the Biden administration to explore avenues such as a prisoner swap to try to secure Gershkovich’s release.

    His case will now be handled at the State Department through the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, which has played a key role in the release of US citizens held hostage and wrongfully detained around the world.

    Both of the Americans who have been recently brought home from Russia – Trevor Reed and Brittney Griner – had been designated as wrongfully detained and were freed in prisoner swaps.

    Paul Whelan, who has been imprisoned in Russia for more than four years on espionage charges that he and the US government deny, has also been declared wrongfully detained.

    In his statement, Patel said the “U.S. government will provide all appropriate support to Mr. Gershkovich and his family.”

    “We call for the Russian Federation to immediately release Mr. Gershkovich,” he said. “We also call on Russia to release wrongfully detained U.S. citizen Paul Whelan.”

    The editor in chief and publisher of the Wall Street Journal on Monday said they “are doing everything in our power to support Evan and his family and will continue working with the State Department and other relevant U.S. officials to push for his release.”

    “He is a distinguished journalist and his arrest is an attack on a free press and it should spur outrage in all free people and governments around the world,” the statement from Emma Tucker and Almar Latour said.

    Gershkovich was detained in late March and formally charged with espionage last Friday. As of Monday, officials at the US Embassy in Moscow had not been granted consular access to Gershkovich.

    “It is a violation of Russia’s obligations under our consular convention and a violation against international law,” Patel said at a State Department briefing Monday. “We have stressed the need for the Russian government to provide this access as soon as possible.”

    The official determination that Gershkovich is wrongfully detained comes after a bureaucratic process played out within the US government.

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week they were “very deliberately but expeditiously” carrying out that process, but “in (his) own mind, there’s no doubt that he’s being wrongfully detained by Russia.”

    The arrest of the journalist – the first of its kind in Russia since the Cold War – prompted the top US diplomat to make a rare call to his Russian counterpart.

    “Secretary Blinken conveyed the United States’ grave concern over Russia’s unacceptable detention of a U.S. citizen journalist,” a State Department readout of the April 2 call said.

    That call was only the third time that Blinken has spoken with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov since the war in Ukraine began, and all of those conversations have discussed detained US citizens. The two spoke in person for the first time since the war broke out on the sidelines of the G20 foreign ministers meeting in India last month, and Blinken said he raised the issues of the war, Russia’s suspension of its participation in the New START nuclear agreement, and Whelan’s ongoing detention.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Accelerating the EV revolution whether you like it or not | CNN Politics

    Accelerating the EV revolution whether you like it or not | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a plan to remake the way car-obsessed Americans live, using public safety rules to accelerate the shift from internal combustion to electric vehicles.

    Just a fraction of the current auto market is EVs, but under standards announced by the EPA Wednesday, up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the US would be zero-emission or plug-in hybrid within a decade.

    The rules, which are not yet final, would use authority under the Clean Air Act to force auto companies to cut pollution and slash vehicle emissions by more than half. They would phase in with model year 2027 vehicles and be fully implemented by 2032. Read CNN’s full report.

    While ambitious, the goals are not unprecedented. They put the federal government on track to catch up with state governments, led by California, that want to stop allowing the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2035. Read this report from CNN Business about why that’s not as crazy as it seems.

    There is a very big legal question mark looming behind California’s action and the EPA’s effort, which still has a public comment and revision period.

    The current Supreme Court, dominated by conservative justices, has already shown its scorn for EPA rulemaking and its indifference to addressing climate change. Last year, the court nixed the Biden administration’s plan to curb emissions from existing power plants.

    I asked CNN climate reporter Ella Nilsen for her takeaways from the EPA announcement. She offered these key points:

    The standards are ambitious, but doable

    If enacted, the newly proposed EPA emissions standards would be one of the Biden administration’s most aggressive climate-change policies yet – moving the US auto market decisively toward electric vehicles in the next decade.

    However, multiple experts said the standards are doable, and even lag slightly behind the California standards, which will completely phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035 to usher in electric vehicles. The US is also following countries including the EU and China, which are moving more aggressively toward electric vehicles.

    ► Charging infrastructure and consumer incentives could be tricky

    This new proposed rule won’t happen overnight; it would be gradually phased in over the next decade. At the same time, the US needs to build up a network of electric charging stations in addition to the ubiquitous gas station. Federal officials have also talked about needing to incentivize more Americans to buy EVs by bringing the cost down, with federal tax credits.

    However, the new $7,500 tax credits (passed last year by Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act) are incredibly complex due to manufacturing requirements. The credits could actually shrink the eligible number of cars that qualify (however, leased vehicles have more leeway under the new system). Regardless, it will take years for the EV infrastructure, incentives and supply to fall into place to make electric vehicles available to most Americans.

    This is a big deal for US climate policy

    This rule will impact the US economy, but it’s also major climate policy. The proposed EPA tailpipe standards would cut planet-warming pollution from US cars in half. Combined with the agency’s medium and heavy-duty vehicles standard, the proposals could cut nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2055.

    Given Americans’ reliance on cars, transportation is a big part of overall US emissions – it accounts for nearly 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the EPA. Cutting down on tailpipe pollution from gas-powered cars and trucks is a big part of decarbonizing the US.

    While the federal government and key states are all in on moving toward EVs, and auto companies are spending big to get competitive in the market, Americans generally are not yet completely embracing the idea.

    Just 4% of Americans currently own an EV, and a scant 12% are seriously considering buying one, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. Less than half, 43%, say they would consider buying an EV in the future, and a sizable 41% are completely closed off to the idea.

    The expected partisan breakdown applies to those figures. Most of the interest in EVs is among Democrats. Most of the staunch opposition is among Republicans. Younger Americans and those making $100,000 and above are also more interested in buying an EV in the future.

    There are also key regional disparities. In the West, where states are already working to phase in EVs, only 28% say they would not buy an EV. Compare that to half of Southerners who would not consider buying an EV.

    A majority of the country is skeptical that EVs will even have an effect on the climate, according to the poll, with 61% saying EVs will help address climate change only a little or not at all.

    In a separate AP-NORC poll released this week, the most-cited major reasons for not wanting to purchase an EV – out of eight offered in the poll – were expense (60% said they cost too much) and convenience (50% said there aren’t enough charging stations available).

    Access and affordability should be addressed as inventory increases, writes CNN’s Peter Valdes-Dapena, who covers the auto industry. A decade from now, charging should be quicker and easier, EV ranges should be longer and prices should be at or below the cost of an internal combustion vehicle. Read his full report.

    Rather than fighting the rules, as the fossil fuel industry is sure to do, the auto industry is already investing heavily in EVs, responding to tougher regulation already imposed around the world and by California, which moved to ban the sale of new gas and diesel powered vehicles by 2035.

    California actually took the lead on pushing for EVs in the years when the Trump administration was dialing back on federal climate policy. Other states, like Oregon, Washington and Minnesota, have tied their standards to California’s.

    Valdes-Dapena notes that car companies with loyal customer bases are slowly making the switch. He writes:

    Currently, Toyota offers only one electric model in the United States, the BZ4X SUV, but more are planned. Honda, another Japanese brand with a loyal following, offers no EVs currently but the company is gearing up factories in Ohio to build future EV models. Honda expects to offer its first EV next year. General Motors also has a number of EV models coming in the next year or two.

    He also notes that GM has pledged to sell only electric passenger vehicles by 2035.

    And no, this does not mean internal combustion vehicles will be banned. They will still make up the vast majority of vehicles on the road in a decade even if this rule is finalized and withstands challenges in court. But it would represent a tectonic shift.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta’s latest round of layoffs is underway | CNN Business

    Meta’s latest round of layoffs is underway | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Facebook parent Meta on Wednesday began its latest round of layoffs focusing on technical workers, who are often thought of as more immune to job cuts in Silicon Valley.

    Meta spokesperson Nkechi Nneji confirmed to CNN that some previously announced layoffs were taking place Wednesday, and pointed to CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s March announcement that the company would cut another 10,000 employees in the coming months.

    Zuckerberg’s notice said that restructurings and layoffs in Meta’s tech groups would take place in April. Among those affected by Wednesday’s layoffs were members of the company’s sustainability, well-being, user experience, news feed and messaging teams, according to public LinkedIn posts.

    Meta reportedly told North American employees to work from home on Wednesday in anticipation of the layoffs. (CNN has not independently confirmed that.)

    Members of Meta’s recruiting team were notified of additional layoffs last month, and cuts to the company’s business groups are expected to take place in late May.

    The 10,000 job reductions mark the second recent round of significant job cuts at Meta. The company said in November that it was eliminating approximately 13% of its workforce, or 11,000 jobs, in the single largest round of cuts in its history.

    In September, Meta reported a headcount of 87,314, per a securities filing. With 11,000 job cuts announced in November and the 10,000 announced last month, Meta’s headcount will fall to around 66,000 — a total reduction of about 25%.

    Meta has said the layoffs are part of its “year of efficiency,” as the company attempts to engineer a turnaround following repeated revenue declines, heightened competition, concerns about user growth and big losses in its Reality Labs division amid its pivot to building the so-called metaverse. Zuckerberg has also taken responsibility for over-hiring earlier in the pandemic, when there was strong demand for the company’s products and online advertising, which dropped off somewhat once the world reopened.

    Zuckerberg said last month that, in some cases, it may take through the end of this year to complete its staff restructuring processes.

    “As I’ve talked about efficiency this year, I’ve said that part of our work will involve removing jobs — and that will be in service of both building a leaner, more technical company and improving our business performance to enable our long term vision,” Zuckerberg said in his March statement.

    Meta is set to report earnings for the first three months of 2023 next week, during which Wall Street analysts expect it to post its fourth straight quarterly decline in revenue and a more than 30% decline in profits. Still, Meta’s shareholders appear to have been reassured by Zuckerberg’s plans for efficiency — the company’s shares were up more than 70% year-to-date as of midday Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Klobuchar says Biden and McCarthy should negotiate over budget, not debt limit | CNN Politics

    Klobuchar says Biden and McCarthy should negotiate over budget, not debt limit | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said Sunday that she believes President Joe Biden should sit down with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and negotiate Republicans’ proposed spending cuts, but she insisted those talks should be in relation to the federal budget – not raising the debt limit.

    “Of course, President Biden should sit down with Speaker McCarthy,” Klobuchar told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” ahead of the House’s expected vote this week on McCarthy’s bill to raise the debt limit. “But let me put an idea out there. The proposal that McCarthy has put forward, that belongs in the budget. … Our main goal right now is to make clear that we are going to avoid default.”

    “They should start those negotiations now,” the senator added.

    McCarthy introduced a proposal last week to raise the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt limit by an additional $1.5 trillion in exchange for cuts to domestic spending programs across the board.

    But Biden and his top advisers have said they will not negotiate a debt ceiling increase and will only accept a clean proposal to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

    The US hit its debt ceiling in January and can’t continue to borrow to meet its obligations unless Congress raises or suspends it. The Treasury Department is avoiding default – which would happen this summer or early fall – by using a combination of cash on hand and “extraordinary measures,” which should last at least until early June, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in January.

    A breach of the US debt ceiling risks sparking a 2008-style economic catastrophe that could wipe out millions of jobs and set America back for generations, Moody’s Analytics has warned.

    McCarthy said Sunday he believes he will secure the necessary votes to pass his debt limit bill, telling Fox News, “We will hold a vote this week, we will pass it and send it to the Senate.”

    The California Republican also repeatedly criticized Biden over his refusal to negotiate a debt limit plan. The White House has attacked the GOP debt limit proposal as a nonstarter and something that would take the country to a “totally irresponsible” debt default.

    “I’m beginning to wonder about the words that he says and the thoughts that he’s using, because the idea that he won’t even negotiate for more than 80 days, he is now putting the country in default. We are the only ones being responsible and sensible about this,” McCarthy said.

    Meanwhile, Klobuchar, in her interview Sunday, also addressed concerns regarding the continued absence of her Senate colleague Dianne Feinstein, who is recovering from shingles. The California Democrat’s absence has kept her party from advancing certain Biden judicial nominees out of the Judiciary Committee, on which she serves.

    “She has served our country well. She has said she’s coming back. And we await her return,” Klobuchar said when asked whether she agrees with Democrats who have called on Feinstein to resign.

    Feinstein’s return, Klobuchar said, would “resolve the problem” over the holdup in moving certain nominations through the Judiciary panel.

    Klobuchar added, however, that “at some point, when we have debt ceiling votes and the like, there may be another consideration that she will have to make with her family.”

    With Biden preparing to launch his reelection campaign this week, Klobuchar said the president will have an “incredibly strong record” to run on, ignoring concerns raised over his age.

    “He is a steady hand, when you look at what’s out there right now, with Donald Trump and what we’re hearing again. People don’t want that chaos back again,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter’s former CEO has a new app that looks a lot like Twitter | CNN Business

    Twitter’s former CEO has a new app that looks a lot like Twitter | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The buzzy new social media app of the moment looks so much like Twitter it’s almost hard to distinguish the two. The profiles, timelines and colors are nearly identical. Even the creator is the same.

    But under the hood, Bluesky, developed by Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey, is vastly different.

    The app, which launched in a closed beta on iOS in February and on Android this month, runs on a decentralized network which provides users with more control over how the service is run, data is stored, and content is moderated.

    In recent days, it’s gained traction among journalists, politicians and celebrities, from Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to model Chrissy Teigan and the 90s band Eve 6.

    Here’s what you should know:

    Bluesky calls itself “a new social network for microblogging.” With the app, users can post and follow short updates on a timeline, just as they would on Twitter, though with some differences. There are currently no hashtags – a central feature on Twitter – and no direct messages.

    Bluesky was formed independently of Twitter while Dorsey was serving as CEO but it was funded by the company until it became an independent organization in February 2022. In a tweet introducing the idea in 2019, Dorsey said it also plans to “build an open community around it, inclusive of companies & organizations, researchers, civil society leaders,” but warned “this isn’t going to happen overnight.”

    In a tweet last year, Dorsey said the “biggest issue and my biggest regret is that [Twitter] became a company.” He later clarified that if a service was a protocol it “can’t be owned by a state, or company.”

    If the idea of a decentralized social network sounds familiar, it’s likely because of Mastodon, another Twitter alternative that also gained attention late last year.

    Like Mastodon, Bluesky appeals to a number of Twitter users who are frustrated with the direction of the platform under owner Elon Musk. In the six months since Musk took over Twitter, he has made a number of controversial changes to its features and policies, including the removal of blue check marks from prominent users.

    Some of the same high-profile users now testing out Bluesky have also been openly critical of Musk’s moves at Twitter.

    According to data.ai, the company formerly known as App Annie, Bluesky has been downloaded more than 375,000 times from the Apple App Store and the waitlist continues to be flooded with signup requests. On the Google Play Store, Bluesky is described as having been downloaded more than 100,000 times. (By comparison, Twitter reported having more than 200 million monetizable daily active users last year before Musk completed his acquisition.)

    Bluesky did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    It’s unclear if Bluesky has staying power or will lose steam as Mastodon did. But Mark Bartholomew, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law who writes about online privacy, said the early shift toward Bluesky is a positive one, as it gives social media users more choice over where they spend their time.

    “Competition might actually help users find the product features they want, like greater privacy protection, portability, and more significant content moderation,” he said. “Social media platforms have features that users dislike but they still feel like they must accept them to just be in the online space where everyone else is.”

    All it took, he said, was Musk taking stepsto sabotage his own platform.”

    For now, Bluesky is invite-only as it ramps up support for the implementation of its network. Existing users get one invite code to share with someone for every two weeks they’re on the app. Not surprisingly, the sense of exclusivity has only added to the excitement of joining Bluesky.

    As Eve 6 wrote on Twitter: “Bluesky invite codes are the new blue check.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Snapchat’s new AI chatbot is already raising alarms among teens and parents | CNN Business

    Snapchat’s new AI chatbot is already raising alarms among teens and parents | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Less than a few hours after Snapchat rolled out its My AI chatbot to all users last week, Lyndsi Lee, a mother from East Prairie, Missouri, told her 13-year-old daughter to stay away from the feature.

    “It’s a temporary solution until I know more about it and can set some healthy boundaries and guidelines,” said Lee, who works at a software company. She worries about how My AI presents itself to young users like her daughter on Snapchat.

    The feature is powered by the viral AI chatbot tool ChatGPT – and like ChatGPT, it can offer recommendations, answer questions and converse with users. But Snapchat’s version has some key differences: Users can customize the chatbot’s name, design a custom Bitmoji avatar for it, and bring it into conversations with friends.

    The net effect is that conversing with Snapchat’s chatbot may feel less transactional than visiting ChatGPT’s website. It also may be less clear you’re talking to a computer.

    “I don’t think I’m prepared to know how to teach my kid how to emotionally separate humans and machines when they essentially look the same from her point of view,” Lee said. “I just think there is a really clear line [Snapchat] is crossing.”

    The new tool is facing backlash not only from parents but also from some Snapchat users who are bombarding the app with bad reviews in the app store and criticisms on social media over privacy concerns, “creepy” exchanges and an inability to remove the feature from their chat feed unless they pay for a premium subscription.

    While some may find value in the tool, the mixed reactions hint at the risks companies face in rolling out new generative AI technology to their products, and particularly in products like Snapchat, whose users skew younger.

    Snapchat was an early launch partner when OpenAI opened up access to ChatGPT to third-party businesses, with many more expected to follow. Almost overnight, Snapchat has forced some families and lawmakers to reckon with questions that may have seemed theoretical only months ago.

    In a letter to the CEOs of Snap and other tech companies last month, weeks after My AI was released to Snap’s subscription customers, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet raised concerns about the interactions the chatbot was having with younger users. In particular, he cited reports that it can provide kids with suggestions for how to lie to their parents.

    “These examples would be disturbing for any social media platform, but they are especially troubling for Snapchat, which almost 60 percent of American teenagers use,” Bennet wrote. “Although Snap concedes My AI is ‘experimental,’ it has nevertheless rushed to enroll American kids and adolescents in its social experiment.”

    In a blog post last week, the company said: “My AI is far from perfect but we’ve made a lot of progress.”

    In the days since its formal launch, Snapchat users have been vocal about their concerns. One user called his interaction “terrifying” after he said it lied about not knowing where the user was located. After the user lightened the conversation, he said the chatbot accurately revealed he lived in Colorado.

    In another TikTok video with more than 1.5 million views, a user named Ariel recorded a song with an intro, chorus and piano chords written by My AI about what it’s like to be a chatbot. When she sent the recorded song back, she said the chatbot denied its involvement with the reply: “I’m sorry, but as an AI language model, I don’t write songs.” Ariel called the exchange “creepy.”

    Other users shared concerns about how the tool understands, interacts with and collects information from photos. “I snapped a picture … and it said ‘nice shoes’ and asked who the people [were] in the photo,” a Snapchat user wrote on Facebook.

    Snapchat told CNN it continues to improve My AI based on community feedback and is working to establish more guardrails to keep its users safe. The company also said that similar to its other tools, users don’t have to interact with My AI if they don’t want to.

    It’s not possible to remove My AI from chat feeds, however, unless a user subscribes to its monthly premium service, Snapchat+. Some teens say they have opted to pay the $3.99 Snapchat+ fee to turn off the tool before promptly canceling the service.

    But not all users dislike the feature.

    One user wrote on Facebook that she’s been asking My AI for homework help. “It gets all of the questions right.” Another noted she’s leaned on it for comfort and advice. “I love my little pocket, bestie!” she wrote. “You can change the Bitmoji [avatar] for it and surprisingly it offers really great advice to some real life situations. … I love the support it gives.”

    ChatGPT, which is trained on vast troves of data online, has previously come under fire for spreading inaccurate information, responding to users in ways they might find inappropriate and enabling students to cheat. But Snapchat’s integration of the tool risks heightening some of these issues, and adding new ones.

    Alexandra Hamlet, a clinical psychologist in New York City, said the parents of some of her patients have expressed concern about how their teenager could interact with Snapchat’s tool. There’s also concern around chatbots giving advice and about mental health because AI tools can reinforce someone’s confirmation bias, making it easier for users to seek out interactions that confirm their unhelpful beliefs.

    “If a teen is in a negative mood and does not have the awareness desire to feel better, they may seek out a conversation with a chatbot that they know will make them feel worse,” she said. “Over time, having interactions like these can erode a teens’ sense of worth, despite their knowing that they are really talking to a bot. In an emotional state of mind, it becomes less possible for an individual to consider this type of logic.”

    For now, the onus is on parents to start meaningful conversations with their teens about best practices for communicating with AI, especially as the tools start to show up in more popular apps and services.

    Sinead Bovell, the founder of WAYE, a startup that helps prepare youth for future with advanced technologies, said parents need to make it very clear “chatbots are not your friend.”

    “They’re also not your therapists or a trusted adviser, and anyone interacting with them needs to be very cautious, especially teenagers who may be more susceptible to believing what they say,” she said.

    “Parents should be talking to their kids now about how they shouldn’t share anything personal with a chatbot that they would a friend – even though from a user design perspective, the chatbot exists in the same corner of Snapchat.”

    She added that federal regulation that would require companies to abide by specific protocols is also needed to keep up the rapid pace of AI advancement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US senator introduces bill to create a federal agency to regulate AI | CNN Business

    US senator introduces bill to create a federal agency to regulate AI | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Days after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testified in front of Congress and proposed creating a new federal agency to regulate artificial intelligence, a US senator has introduced a bill to do just that.

    On Thursday, Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet unveiled an updated version of legislation he introduced last year that would establish a Federal Digital Platform Commission.

    The updated bill, which was reviewed by CNN, makes numerous changes to more explicitly cover AI products, including by amending the definition of a digital platform to include companies that offer “content primarily generated by algorithmic processes.”

    “There’s no reason that the biggest tech companies on Earth should face less regulation than Colorado’s small businesses – especially as we see technology corrode our democracy and harm our kids’ mental health with virtually no oversight,” Bennet said in a statement. “Technology is moving quicker than Congress could ever hope to keep up with. We need an expert federal agency that can stand up for the American people and ensure AI tools and digital platforms operate in the public interest.”

    The revised bill expands on the definition of an algorithmic process, clarifying that the proposed commission would have jurisdiction over the use of personal data to generate content or to make a decision — two key applications associated with generative AI, the technology behind popular tools such as OpenAI’s viral chatbot, ChatGPT.

    And for the most significant platforms — companies the bill calls “systemically important” — the bill would create requirements for algorithmic audits and public risk assessments of the harms their tools could cause.

    The bill retains existing language mandating that the commission ensure platform algorithms are “fair, transparent, and safe.” And under the bill, the commission would continue to have broad oversight authority over social media sites, search engines and other online platforms.

    But the added emphasis on AI highlights how Congress is rapidly gearing up for policymaking on a cutting-edge technology it is scrambling to understand. The debate over whether the US government should establish a separate federal agency to police AI tools may become a significant focus of those efforts following Altman’s testimony this week.

    Altman suggested in a Senate hearing on Tuesday that such an agency could restrict how AI is developed through licenses or credentialing for AI companies. Some lawmakers appeared receptive to the idea, with Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy even asking Altman whether he would be open to serving as its chair.

    “I love my current job,” Altman demurred, to laughter from the audience.

    Thursday’s bill does not explicitly provide for such a licensing program, though it directs the would-be commission to design rules appropriate for overseeing the industry, according to a Bennet aide. Bennet’s office did not consult with OpenAI on either the original bill or Thursday’s revised version.

    But even as some lawmakers have embraced the concept of a specialized regulator for internet companies — which could conflict with existing cops on the beat at agencies including the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission — others have warned of the potential risks of creating a whole new bureaucracy.

    Gary Marcus, a New York University professor and self-described critic of AI “hype,” told lawmakers at Tuesday’s hearing that a separate agency could fall victim to “regulatory capture,” a term that describes when industries gain dominating influence over the government agencies created to hold them accountable.

    Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a former state attorney general who has prosecuted consumer protection cases, said no agency can be effective without proper support.

    “I’ve been doing this stuff for a while,” Blumenthal said. “You can create 10 new agencies, but if you don’t give them the resources — and I’m not just talking about dollars, I’m talking about scientific expertise — [industry] will run circles around them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Senior US general ordered Twitter announcement of drone strike on al Qaeda leader that may have instead killed civilian | CNN Politics

    Exclusive: Senior US general ordered Twitter announcement of drone strike on al Qaeda leader that may have instead killed civilian | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The senior general in charge of US forces in the Middle East ordered that his command announce on Twitter that a senior al Qaeda leader had been targeted by an American drone strike in Syria earlier this month – despite not yet having confirmation of who was actually killed in the strike, according to multiple defense officials.

    Nearly three weeks later, US Central Command still does not know whether a civilian died instead, officials said. CENTCOM did not open a review of the incident, officially known as a civilian-casualty credibility assessment report, until May 15 – twelve days after the strike. That review is ongoing.

    One defense official with direct knowledge of the situation told CNN that some of CENTCOM Commander Gen. Erik Kurilla’s subordinates urged him to hold off on the tweet until there was more clarity on who was actually killed.

    Two other officials denied that, and said they were not aware of any staffers voicing consternation or disagreement with the announcement.

    Either way, the statement ultimately posted to Twitter from the official CENTCOM Twitter account did not identify the supposed senior al Qaeda leader, raising more questions about what had occurred.

    “At 11:42 am local Syrian time on 3 May, US Central Command Forces conducted a unilateral strike in Northwest Syria targeting a senior Al Qaeda leader,” the tweet read. “We will provide more information as operational details become available.”

    The tweet has not been taken down and CENTCOM has not tweeted about the strike again.

    The episode raises questions about how thoroughly CENTCOM has implemented the military’s civilian harm mitigation policy – a process for preventing, mitigating and responding to civilian casualties caused by US military operations.

    The policy was developed in 2022 after a botched US drone strike in Kabul killed 10 civilians in August 2021.

    Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said on Tuesday that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is “absolutely” confident in the Defense Department’s civilian harm mitigation efforts.

    “In terms of CENTCOM’s strike, as you know, they conducted that strike on the third of May. They are investigating the allegations of civilian casualties,” Ryder said at a Pentagon news briefing. “So, you know, I think our record speaks for itself in terms of how seriously we take these. Very few countries around the world do that. The secretary has complete confidence that we will continue to abide by the policies that we put into place.”

    CENTCOM acknowledged last week following a Washington Post report questioning the strike that the operation may have resulted in a civilian casualty and said in a statement that it was “investigating” the incident. The civilian casualty review was not launched until a week after the Post began presenting information to CENTCOM suggesting that the strike had killed a civilian.

    CENTCOM still has not opened a formal investigation into the strike, known as a 15-6 investigation, defense officials told CNN. The officials said the civilian casualty review first needs to determine that a noncombatant was indeed killed in the strike. Then, a commander needs to decide that there are other unanswered questions remaining about the operation that require a more thorough investigation. A 15-6 investigation was launched less than a week after the errant Kabul strike.

    Defense officials told CNN that in the immediate aftermath of the strike, Kurilla and his staff had high confidence that they had killed the senior al-Qaeda leader, though they declined to say why they were so convinced. But they also knew it would likely take a few days to confirm the person’s identity definitively. The US has no military footprint in northwest Syria, an area still recovering from the effects of a devastating earthquake.

    But as the days passed, CENTCOM still could not determine the identity of who they had killed. Some defense officials considered that a red flag, they told CNN.

    By May 8, CENTCOM still had not confirmed the person’s identity, and began receiving information from the Washington Post that raised questions about whether a civilian had been killed, defense officials said. The Post’s information led CENTCOM to open a review into the strike, and whether it had killed a civilian, on May 15.

    There is still some disagreement within the administration about the identity of the person killed, defense officials told CNN. Some intelligence officials continue to believe that the target of the strike was a member of al-Qaeda, even if he wasn’t a senior leader. But there is a growing belief inside the Pentagon that the man – identified by his family as Loutfi Hassan Mesto, a 56-year-old father of ten – was a farmer with no ties to terrorism.

    Mesto’s family told CNN that he had been out grazing his sheep when he was killed. Loutfi never left his village during the Syrian uprisings and did not support any political faction, his brother said.

    Mohamed Sajee, a distant relative living in Qurqaniya, also told CNN that Loutfi was never known to be in favor or against the Syrian regime.

    “It’s impossible that he was with al Qaeda, he doesn’t even have a beard,” he said.

    The Syrian Civil Defense, also known as the White Helmets, told CNN they arrived on the scene of the strike after being contacted on their local emergency number.

    “The team noticed only one crater caused by the missile, which was next to the man’s body,” the White Helmets said, also confirming that the man had been grazing his sheep.

    “When the team arrived, his wife, neighbors, and other people were at the location,” the group added.

    The White Helmets tweeted on May 3 that they had recovered the body of Mesto, who they described as “a civilian aged 60” who was killed in a missile strike while grazing sheep. CENTCOM was aware of the White Helmets’ tweet, officials said, but the group’s information was not considered solid enough yet to open a review.

    The May 3 incident bears a stunning similarity to another CENTCOM operation: a US drone strike in Kabul during the closing days of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which killed 10 Afghan civilians, including 7 children. The Pentagon initially claimed it had eliminated an ISIS-K threat and defended the operation for weeks, with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley going as far as to call it a “righteous” strike in a Pentagon briefing two days later.

    A suicide bombing at Kabul’s international airport three days earlier, which killed 13 US service members, had added pressure on CENTCOM to act against any potential threats, and officials believed at the time that another attack was imminent.

    Austin ultimately decided no one would be punished over the botched operation, even as he instructed Central Command and Special Operations Command to improve policies and procedures to prevent civilian harm more effectively.

    Austin committed to adjusting Defense Department policies to better protect civilians, even establishing a civilian protection center of excellence in 2022.

    “Leaders in this department should be held to account for high standards of conduct and leadership,” Austin said at the time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft leaps into the AI regulation debate, calling for a new US agency and executive order | CNN Business

    Microsoft leaps into the AI regulation debate, calling for a new US agency and executive order | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Microsoft joined a sprawling global debate on the regulation of artificial intelligence Thursday, echoing calls for a new federal agency to control the technology’s development and urging the Biden administration to approve new restrictions on how the US government uses AI tools.

    In a speech in Washington attended by multiple members of Congress and civil society groups, Microsoft President Brad Smith described AI regulation as the challenge of the 21st century, outlining a five-point plan for how democratic nations could address the risks of AI while promoting a liberal vision for the technology that could rival competing efforts from countries such as China.

    The remarks highlight how one of the largest companies in the AI industry hopes to influence the fast-moving push by governments, particularly in Europe and the United States, to rein in AI before it causes major disruptions to society and the economy.

    In a roughly hour-long appearance that was equal parts product pitch and policy proposal, Smith compared AI to the printing press and described how it could streamline policymaking and lawmakers’ constituent outreach, before calling for “the rule of law” to govern AI at every part of its lifecycle and supply chain.

    Regulations should apply to everything from the data centers that train large language models to the end users such as banks, hospitals and others that may apply the technology toward making life-altering decisions, Smith said.

    For decades, “the rule of law and a commitment to democracy has kept technology in its proper place,” Smith said. “We’ve done it before; we can do it again.”

    In his remarks, Smith joined calls made last week by OpenAI — the company behind ChatGPT and that Microsoft has invested billions in — for the creation of a new government regulator that can oversee a licensing system for cutting-edge AI development, combined with testing and safety standards as well as government-mandated disclosure rules.

    Whether a new federal regulator is needed to police AI is quickly emerging as a focal point of the debate in Washington; opponents such as IBM have argued, including in an op-ed Thursday, that AI regulation should be baked into every existing federal agency because of their understanding of the sectors they oversee and how AI may be most likely to transform them.

    Smith also called for President Joe Biden to develop and sign an executive order requiring federal agencies that procure AI tools to implement a risk management framework developed and published this year by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. That framework, which Congress first ordered with legislation in 2020, covers ways that companies can use AI responsibly and ethically.

    Such an order would leverage the US government’s immense purchasing power to shape the AI industry and encourage the voluntary adoption of best practices, Smith said.

    Microsoft itself plans to implement the NIST framework “across all of our services,” Smith added, a commitment he described as the direct outgrowth of a recent White House meeting with AI CEOs in Washington. Smith also pledged to publish an annual AI transparency report.

    As part of Microsoft’s proposal, Smith said any new rules for AI should include revamped export controls tailor-made for the AI age to prevent the technology from being abused by sanctioned entities.

    And, he said, the government should mandate redundant AI circuit breakers that would allow algorithms to be shut off by critical infrastructure providers or from within the data centers they depend on.

    Smith’s remarks, and a related policy paper, come a week after Google released its own proposals calling for global cooperation and common standards for artificial intelligence.

    “AI is too important not to regulate, and too important not to regulate well,” Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said in a blog post unveiling the company’s plan.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Silicon Valley escalates the battle over returning to the office | CNN Business

    Silicon Valley escalates the battle over returning to the office | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three years after Silicon Valley companies led the charge for embracing remote work in the early days of the pandemic, the tech industry is now escalating the fight to bring employees back into the office -— and igniting tensions with staff in the process.

    Google, which has long been a bellwether for workplace policies in the tech industry and beyond, frustrated some employees this week by announcing plans to begin more strictly enforcing its policy that requires workers in-office at least three days a week. The updated policy includes tracking office badge attendance and possibly factoring it into performance reviews, according to CNBC, citing internal memos.

    “Overnight, workers’ professionalism has been disregarded in favor of ambiguous attendance tracking practices tied to our performance evaluations,” Chris Schmidt, a software engineer at Google and member of the grassroots Alphabet Workers Union, told CNN in a statement. “The practical application of this new policy will be needless confusion amongst workers and a disregard for our various life circumstances.”

    In a statement, Ryan Lamont, a Google spokesperson, told CNN that its policy of working in the office three days a week is “going well, and we want to see Googlers connecting and collaborating in-person, so we’re limiting remote work to exception only.”

    Lamont said that company leaders can see reports showing how their teams are adopting the hybrid work model, including “aggregated data” on badge swipes. He added that now that the company is more than a year into its hybrid model, “we’re formally integrating this approach into all of our workplace policies.”

    Google isn’t alone in facing pushback from employees. Other tech companies are also grappling with how best to compel workers to come into the office after they’ve grown accustomed to greater flexibility. The tug-of-war is compounded by the fact that tech companies have laid off tens of thousands of employees over the past year, leveling a major blow to employee morale.

    At Amazon, tensions boiled over last week as hundreds of office workers staged a walkout to call attention to their grievances, including the three-day return-to-office mandate that was implemented in May.

    A current Amazon worker who spoke at the walkout said that she started an internal Slack channel called “remote advocacy” because she wanted a space where workers could discuss how the new return-to-office policy would impact their lives.

    “Before I realized what was happening, that channel had 33,000 people in it,” the worker, who identified only as Pamela, said to the crowd at the event. Pamela called the Slack channel advocating for remote work “the largest concrete expression of employee dissatisfaction in our entire company history.”

    But the employee criticism isn’t stopping tech companies, who have spent billions on sprawling campuses over the years and often preach the value of serendipitous workplace interactions, from moving forward with their return to office policies.

    In response to the walkout, Amazon previously told CNN it may “take time” for some workers to adjust to being in the office more days. But the company also said it’s “happy with how the first month of having more people back in the office has been” and touted the extra “energy, collaboration, and connections happening” in the office.

    Facebook-parent Meta similarly doubled down last week on its push to get workers in the office, warning that employees currently assigned to an office must return to in-person work three days a week starting this September. (A Meta spokesperson told CNN the updated policy was not set in stone, and employees designated as remote workers will be allowed to keep their remote status).

    At least one tech company is taking a gentler approach.

    Salesforce is trying to lure staff into offices by offering to donate $10 to a local charity for each day an employee comes in from June 12 to June 23, according to an internal Slack message reported on by Fortune.

    A Salesforce spokesperson told CNN: “Giving back is deeply embedded in everything we do, and we’re proud to introduce Connect for Good to encourage employees to help us raise $1 Million+ for local nonprofits.”

    But it might take more than temporary charitable contributions to convince some workers it’s worthwhile to return. Schmidt, the software engineer at Google, said that even if you go into the office, there’s no guarantee you’ll have people on your team to work with or even a desk to sit at.

    “Many teams are distributed, and for some of us there may not be anyone to collaborate with in our physical office locations,” Schmidt said. “Currently, New York City workers do not even have enough desks and conference rooms for workers to use comfortably.”

    “A one size fits all policy does not address these circumstances,” he added. “We deserve a voice in shaping the policies that impact our lives to establish clear, transparent and fair working conditions for all of us.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US judge temporarily blocks Microsoft acquisition of Activision | CNN Business

    US judge temporarily blocks Microsoft acquisition of Activision | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A US judge late on Tuesday granted the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) request to temporarily block Microsoft Corp’s acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard and set a hearing next week.

    US District Judge Edward Davila scheduled a two-day evidentiary hearing on the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction for June 22-23 in San Francisco. Without a court order, Microsoft could have closed on the $69 billion deal as early as Friday.

    The FTC, which enforces antitrust law, asked an administrative judge to block the transaction in early December. An evidential hearing in the administrative proceeding is set to begin Aug. 2.

    Based on the late-June hearing, the federal court will decide whether a preliminary injunction — which would last during the administrative review of the case — is necessary. The FTC sought the temporary block on Monday.

    Davila said the temporary restraining order issued on Tuesday “is necessary to maintain the status quo while the complaint is pending (and) preserve this court’s ability to order effective relief in the event it determines a preliminary injunction is warranted and preserve the FTC’s ability to obtain an effective permanent remedy in the event that it prevails in its pending administrative proceeding.”

    Microsoft

    (MSFT)
    and Activision

    (ATVI)
    must submit legal arguments opposing a preliminary injunction by June 16; the FTC must reply on June 20.

    Activision, which said Monday the FTC decision to seek a federal court order was “a welcome update and one that accelerates the legal process,” declined to comment Tuesday.

    Microsoft said Tuesday “accelerating the legal process in the U.S will ultimately bring more choice and competition to the gaming market. A temporary restraining order makes sense until we can receive a decision from the court, which is moving swiftly.”

    The FTC declined to comment.

    Davila said the bar on closing will remain in place until at least five days after the court rules on the preliminary injunction request.

    The FTC has argued the transaction would give Microsoft’s video game console Xbox exclusive access to Activision games, leaving Nintendo consoles and Sony Group Corp’s PlayStation out in the cold.

    Microsoft’s bid to acquire the “Call of Duty” video game maker was approved by the EU in May, but British competition authorities blocked the takeover in April.

    Microsoft has said the deal would benefit gamers and gaming companies alike, and has offered to sign a legally binding consent decree with the FTC to provide “Call of Duty” games to rivals including Sony for a decade.

    The case reflects the muscular approach to antitrust enforcement taken by the administration of US President Joe Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU officials accuse Google of antitrust violations in its ad tech business | CNN Business

    EU officials accuse Google of antitrust violations in its ad tech business | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Google’s advertising business should be broken up, European Union officials said Wednesday, alleging that the tech giant’s involvement in multiple parts of the digital advertising supply chain creates “inherent conflicts of interest” that risk harming competition.

    The formal accusations mark the latest antitrust challenge to Google over its sprawling ad tech business, following a lawsuit by the US Justice Department in January that also called for a breakup of the company.

    The EU Commission has submitted its allegations to Google in writing, officials said, kicking off a legal process that could potentially end in billions of dollars in fines in addition to a possible breakup that could impact part of its core advertising business.

    The commission alleges that since 2014, Google has unfairly boosted its own proprietary ad exchange — the online auction house known as AdX that matches advertisers and publishers — through its simultaneous ownership of some of the most popular ad tools for publishers and advertisers.

    For example, the commission claims, advertisers who used Google’s ad buying tools frequently had their purchases routed to AdX instead of to rival ad exchanges.

    Meanwhile, Google’s publisher-facing tools unfairly gave AdX a leg up over rival ad exchanges, the commission alleged, because Google’s publisher tools gave AdX competitive bidding information that the exchange could use to help advertisers win an auction.

    One proposed solution by the commission would spin off Google’s ad exchange and publisher tools from the ad-buying tools it provides to advertisers.

    “@Google controls both sides of the #adtech market: sell & buy,” tweeted Margrethe Vestager, the commission’s top competition official. “We are concerned that it may have abused its dominance to favour its own #AdX platform. If confirmed, this is illegal.”

    In a statement, Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, said the EU’s probe “focuses on a narrow aspect of our advertising business,” that the company opposes the commission’s preliminary conclusions and that Google plans to “respond accordingly.”

    “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers. Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector,” Taylor said.

    A Google spokesperson told CNN Wednesday that the company has only just received the commission’s complaint and that it will take time to review the commission’s claims. Google also added that it will oppose calls for a breakup.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Senators press Google, Meta and Twitter on whether their layoffs could imperil 2024 election | CNN Business

    First on CNN: Senators press Google, Meta and Twitter on whether their layoffs could imperil 2024 election | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three US senators are pressing Facebook-parent Meta, Google-parent Alphabet and Twitter about whether their layoffs may have hindered the companies’ ability to fight the spread of misinformation ahead of the 2024 elections.

    In a letter to the companies dated Tuesday, the lawmakers warned that reported staff cuts to content moderation and other teams could make it harder for the companies to fulfill their commitments to election integrity.

    “This is particularly troubling given the emerging use of artificial intelligence to mislead voters,” wrote Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Vermont Democratic Sen. Peter Welch and Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by CNN.

    Since purchasing Twitter in October, Elon Musk has slashed headcount by more than 80%, in some cases eliminating entire teams.

    Alphabet announced plans to cut roughly 12,000 workers across product areas and regions earlier this year. And Meta has previously said it would eliminate about 21,000 jobs over two rounds of layoffs, hitting across teams devoted to policy, user experience and well-being, among others.

    “We remain focused on advancing our industry-leading integrity efforts and continue to invest in teams and technologies to protect our community – including our efforts to prepare for elections around the world,” Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Meta, said in a statement to CNN about the letter.

    Alphabet and Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The pullback at those companies has coincided with a broader industry retrenchment in the face of economic headwinds. Peers such as Microsoft and Amazon have also trimmed their workforces, while others have announced hiring freezes.

    But the social media companies are coming under greater scrutiny now in part due to their role facilitating the US electoral process.

    Tuesday’s letter asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino how each company is preparing for the 2024 elections and for mis- and disinformation surrounding the campaigns.

    To illustrate their concerns, the lawmakers pointed to recent changes at Alphabet-owned YouTube to allow the sharing of false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, along with what they described as content moderation “challenges” at Twitter since the layoffs.

    The letter, which seeks responses by July 10, also asked whether the companies may hire more content moderation employees or contractors ahead of the election, and how the platforms may be specifically preparing for the rise of AI-generated deepfakes in politics.

    Already, candidates such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis appear to have used fake, AI-generated images to attack their opponents, raising questions about the risks that artificial intelligence could pose for democracy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Apple is now worth $3 trillion, boosted by the Nasdaq’s best start in 40 years | CNN Business

    Apple is now worth $3 trillion, boosted by the Nasdaq’s best start in 40 years | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Apple’s stock ended trading Friday valued at $3 trillion, the only company ever to reach that milestone. It has been riding a Big Tech stock wave that has given the Nasdaq its best first half gain in 40 years.

    Shares of Apple rose more than 2% Friday at a record $193.97. With 15.7 billion shares outstanding, that stock price pushed Apple to its historic market value.

    Apple has been here once before: On January 3, 2022, Apple hit the $3 trillion mark during intraday trading, but it failed to close there.

    The company’s stock closed Thursday at a record high share price for the third-straight day, but it merely budged 0.2% higher. Apple easily surpassed the $190.73 level it needed to break $3 trillion at Friday’s market open.

    The sky-high valuation for the tech giant comes on the heels of its risky launch of the Apple Vision Pro earlier this month and a stronger-than-expected quarterly earnings report in May – even though sales and profit slumped.

    The Vision Pro, which will go on sale next year, impressed tech journalists who got an early preview of the augmented reality device. But it is entering a nascent market with little mainstream consumer adoption. Apple plans to charge a hefty $3,499 for its headset, which currently has limited apps and experiences, and requires users to stay tethered to a battery pack the size of an iPhone.

    Apple’s

    (AAPL)
    stock has skyrocketed 49% this year, boosted by a broader surge in Big Tech stocks as investors have jumped onto the AI bandwagon. Nvidia

    (NVDA)
    leads the S&P 500 with a 190% jump this year, followed by Meta

    (META)
    at 138%.

    The Nasdaq grew by 31.7% in the first half of the year, notching its largest first half percentage gain since 1983.

    This year’s stock market success for Apple comes in sharp contrast to 2022. At the start of 2023, Apple’s market cap fell below $2 trillion in trading for the first time since early 2021.

    Wall Street ended the first half of 2023 on a positive note as the tech rally led markets to close higher for both the month and second quarter of the year.

    The S&P 500 gained 6.5% in June, its best monthly performance since January. It also notched its third consecutive quarter of growth, up 8.3% in the second quarter. The S&P 500 is about 15.9% higher so far this year, its best half since 2019.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AI is already linked to layoffs in the industry that created it | CNN Business

    AI is already linked to layoffs in the industry that created it | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Many have raised alarms about the potential for artificial intelligence to displace jobs in the years ahead, but it’s already causing upheaval in one industry where workers once seemed invincible: tech.

    A small but growing number of tech firms have cited AI as a reason for laying off workers and rethinking new hires in recent months, as Silicon Valley races to adapt to rapid advances in the technology being developed in its own backyard.

    Chegg, an education technology company, disclosed in a regulatory filing last month that it was cutting 4% of its workforce, or about 80 employees, “to better position the Company to execute against its AI strategy and to create long-term, sustainable value for its students and investors.”

    IBM CEO Arvind Krishna said in an interview with Bloomberg in May that the company expects to pause hiring for roles it thinks could be replaced with AI in the coming years. (In a subsequent interview with Barrons, however, Krishna said that he felt his earlier comments were taken out of context and stressed that “AI is going to create more jobs than it takes away.”)

    And in late April, file-storage service Dropbox said that it was cutting about 16% of its workforce, or about 500 people, also citing AI.

    In its most-recent layoffs report, outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said 3,900 people were laid off in May due to AI, marking its first time breaking out job cuts based on that factor. All of those cuts occurred in the tech sector, according to the firm.

    With these moves, Silicon Valley may not only be leading the charge in developing AI but also offering an early glimpse into how businesses may adapt to those tools. Rather than render entire skill sets obsolete overnight, as some might fear, the more immediate impact of a new crop of AI tools appears to be forcing companies to shift resources to better take advantage of the technology — and placing a premium on workers with AI expertise.

    “Over the last few months, AI has captured the world’s collective imagination, expanding the potential market for our next generation of AI-powered products more rapidly than any of us could have anticipated,” Dropbox CEO Drew Houston wrote in a note to staff announcing the job cuts. “Our next stage of growth requires a different mix of skill sets, particularly in AI and early-stage product development.”

    In response to a request for comment on how its realignment around AI is playing out, Dropbox directed CNN to its careers page, where it is currently hiring for multiple roles focused on “New AI Initiatives.”

    Dan Wang, a professor at Columbia Business School, told CNN that AI “will cause organizations to restructure,” but also doesn’t see it playing out as machines replacing humans just yet.

    “AI, as far as I see it, doesn’t necessarily replace humans, but rather enhances the work of humans,” Wang said. “I think that the kind of competition that we all should be thinking more about is that human specialists will be replaced by human specialists who can take advantage of AI tools.”

    The AI-driven tech layoffs come amid broader cuts in the industry. Many tech companies have been readjusting to an uncertain economic environment and waning levels of demand for digital services more than three years into the pandemic.

    Some 212,294 workers in the tech industry have been laid off in 2023 alone, according to data tracked by Layoffs.fyi, already surpassing the 164,709 recorded in 2022.

    But in the shadow of those mass layoffs, the tech industry has also been gripped by an AI fervor and invested heavily in AI talent and tech.

    In January, just days after Microsoft announced plans to lay off 10,000 employees as part of broader cost-cutting measures, the company also confirmed it was making a “multibillion dollar” investment into OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. And in March, in the same letter to staff Mark Zuckerberg used to announce plans to lay off another 10,000 workers (after cutting 11,000 positions last November), the Meta CEO also outlined plans for investing heavily in AI.

    Even software engineers in Silicon Valley who once seemed uniquely in demand now appear to be at risk of losing their jobs, or losing out on salary gains to those with more AI expertise.

    Roger Lee, a startup founder who has been tracking tech industry layoffs via his website Layoffs.fyi, also runs Comprehensive.io, which examines job listings and compensation data across some 3,000 tech companies.

    Lee told CNN that a recent analysis of data from Comprehensive.io shows the average salary for a senior software engineer specializing in artificial intelligence or machine learning is 12% higher than for those who don’t specialize in that area, a data point he dubs “the AI premium.” The average salary for a senior software engineer specializing in AI or machine learning has also increased by some 4% since the beginning of the year, whereas the average salary for senior software engineers as a whole has stayed flat, he said.

    Lee noted Dropbox as an example of a company offering notably high pay for AI roles, citing a base salary listing of $276,300 to $373,800 for a Principal Machine Learning Engineer role. (By comparison, Comprehensive.io’s data puts the current average salary for a senior software engineer at $171,895.)

    Those looking to thrive in the tech industry and beyond may need to brush up on their AI skills.

    Wang, the professor at Columbia Business School, told CNN that starting this past spring semester, he began requiring his students to familiarize themselves with the new crop of generative AI tools on the market. “That type of exposure I think is absolutely critical for setting themselves up for success and once they graduate,” Wang said.

    It’s not that everyone needs to become AI specialists, Wang added, but rather that workers should know how to use AI tools to become more efficient at whatever they’re doing.

    “That’s where the kind of a battleground for talent is really shifting,” Wang said, “as differentiation in terms of talent comes from creative and effective ways to integrate AI into daily tasks.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link