ReportWire

Tag: Safety

  • How location precision enhances safety and reduces response times in emergencies 

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    In emergencies, time is the most valuable resource–and it’s often the one in shortest supply. Whether a medical crisis, fire, or security threat, the difference between a quick response and a delayed one can significantly shape outcomes. While training, communication, and coordination are all essential to emergency preparedness, one foundational element is often underestimated: accurate campus mapping.

    At its core, effective emergency response depends on knowing how to get to the right place at the right time and with the right resources. Digital maps turn abstract safety plans into operational reality. When someone needs help, having location specifics, building layouts, and safety assets clearly visualized and shared enables responders to move with confidence rather than hesitation–and that clarity saves time.

    From static plans to real-time awareness

    Many organizations still rely on static floor plans or paper diagrams for their emergency planning. While these may meet compliance requirements, they often fall short when it matters most. Facilities are constantly evolving: Rooms are repurposed, walls are added and removed, equipment is relocated, and temporary changes are made. A map that was accurate six months ago may already be outdated and unhelpful in an emergency response.

    Modern safety preparedness calls for a shift from static maps to living, digital representations of space. Dynamic maps enable organizations to update changes as they happen, ensuring that responders are working from current information. In a crisis, eliminating uncertainty about entrances, exits, room layouts, or asset locations can shave critical minutes off response times.

    Location is the first question and the hardest one to answer

    Ask any emergency responder what information matters most when a call comes in, and the answer is almost always the same: location. Not just the address, but the precise spot within a building or campus where help is needed. Large or multi-building or multi-floor environments, such as schools and hospitals, add layers of complexity that make a street address alone insufficient. According to recent data, nearly 60 percent of school safety incidents happen outside of the classroom. Knowing exactly where an incident is happening is key to getting help on scene fast. 

    Indoor location is especially challenging when emergencies are reported through mobile devices. While Next Generation 911 standards aim to support sub-addressing–down to the building, floor, or even room–broad adoption and consistent implementation are still emerging. Currently, responders are often dispatched with limited spatial detail, forcing them to spend precious minutes on gathering crucial information after arrival, rather than en route.

    The NIH defines Emergency Medical Services (EMS) rapid response as under five minutes. Nationally, average response time varies between seven and 10 minutes, but in rural and historically low-income areas, EMS or fire response can take up to 20 minutes more than average. Police response times can take even longer.

    Mapping addresses the challenge of keeping response times to under five minutes, by providing visual context that traditional dispatch data often lacks. When responders can see the incident location in relation to stairwells, access points, evacuation routes, and nearby safety equipment, they can plan before they arrive. This reduces time spent searching, backtracking, or waiting for clarification once on site.

    Making safety assets visible before they’re needed

    Emergency preparedness is not only about people; it’s also about tools. Automated external defibrillators (AED), fire extinguishers, drug overdose reversal kits, first-aid kits, utility shut-offs, and alarm panels are only effective if responders can find them quickly. In high-stress situations, even familiar environments can become disorienting.

    Mapping plays a critical role by allowing responders to plan before they arrive on the scene, not after. When the locations of life-saving assets are visible in advance – in addition to routes, access points, and building layouts – responders can make decisions on the way: which entrance to use, which equipment to get first, and how to sequence their actions upon arrival. This shifts response from reactive to deliberate, compressing the timeline between arrival and intervention.

    The impact of saved time is especially clear in medical emergencies: in sudden cardiac arrest incidents, every extra minute of response time can lead to a 6% decrease in the likelihood of survival. If EMS is delayed due to distance, traffic, or call time, knowing exactly where an AED is located– and how to reach it the fastest– can make all the difference.

    That’s why mapping safety assets into a shared visual system helps ensure that these resources are visible and easy to locate. The ability to see safety asset locations in real time also supports daily readiness by enabling facilities teams to track inspections, maintenance, and compliance more efficiently. Over time, this creates a feedback loop where preparedness improves not just during emergencies, but through ongoing operations.

    Improving coordination across roles and agencies

    One of the less visible benefits of digital mapping is its impact on coordination. Emergencies rarely involve a single responder or department. Administrators, facilities teams, security staff, medical personnel, and external first responders all work together, often under intense pressure.

    When everyone involved is referencing the same map, misunderstandings decrease, and decision-making accelerates. Clear visuals help align actions, reduce redundant communication–or miscommunication–and most importantly, reduce response time.

    Training, drills, and a culture of readiness

    Preparedness must be built over time through planning, training, and repetition. Incorporating maps into drills helps administrators and leadership internalize layouts, routes, and procedures before they are tested in real life. That way, they’re not only ready with what they know but prepared to pivot and support EMS response if anything changes.

    This familiarity fosters a culture of readiness. When people understand their environment and their role within it, they are more likely to act decisively and calmly. Over time, mapping becomes more than a technical tool; it becomes a shared language for safety.

    Planning for what’s next

    Mapping sits at the intersection of planning and action. It connects people, places, and resources in a way that supports faster response and better outcomes. By investing in thoughtful mapping practices today, organizations can reduce uncertainty tomorrow. And in emergencies, reducing uncertainty is one of the most powerful ways to save time and improve outcomes. 

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Peter Crosbie, CENTEGIX

    Source link

  • Waymo’s cheaper robotaxi tech could help expand rides fast

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    If you live in cities like San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Austin or Atlanta, you may have already seen or even taken a ride in a driverless Waymo operating without a human behind the wheel. In newer markets like Miami, service is rolling out, while other cities, including Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Orlando, are part of Waymo’s expansion plans.

    For everyone else, not so much. At least not yet. For most of us, that still feels like something happening somewhere else, not something that pulls up when you request a ride.

    However, that could start to change very soon. Waymo just unveiled its sixth-generation Waymo Driver hardware, and the headline is simple: it costs less and fits into more vehicles. That combination could help driverless rides reach a lot more cities, faster than you and I might expect.

    THE ROBOTAXI PRICE WAR HAS STARTED. HERE’S EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW.

    Waymo’s new sixth-generation hardware will first roll out in the Zeekr-built Ojai minivan before expanding to more vehicles and cities. (Waymo)

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter     

    Why Waymo’s cheaper robotaxi hardware changes the game

    Until recently, if you spotted a Waymo on the road, it was usually a Jaguar I-Pace. Nice car. Not exactly built for a massive robotaxi rollout. The sixth-generation system changes that. The first vehicle to carry the new hardware is the Zeekr-built Ojai electric minivan. Zeekr is owned by Geely. Waymo employees in Los Angeles and San Francisco will begin fully autonomous rides in it soon, with public access expected to follow. In these new deployments, Waymo says the vehicles will operate without safety drivers behind the wheel. After that, the hardware will also power versions of the Hyundai Ioniq 5.

    Here is where this really matters. When Waymo can install the same system across multiple vehicle types and produce it at a lower cost, expansion becomes much easier. The company says it plans to move into 20 additional cities this year and is ramping up its Metro Phoenix facility to build tens of thousands of Driver kits annually.

    Waymo says it has shifted more processing power into its own custom silicon chips, allowing it to use fewer cameras while improving performance and reducing overall system cost. More vehicles and lower costs mean one thing: a better chance that driverless rides show up in your city sooner rather than later.

    How the Waymo Driver actually sees the road

    If you have never been in a robotaxi, this is the part you are probably wondering about. The sixth-generation Waymo Driver uses 16 high-resolution 17 megapixel cameras, short-range lidar, radar and external audio receivers. Waymo says the updated cameras offer improved dynamic range compared to the previous 29-camera setup. That helps the vehicle perform better at night and in bright glare.

    Short-range lidar delivers centimeter-level accuracy to detect pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Radar adds another layer of awareness. Waymo says its upgraded imaging radar can track distance, speed and object size even in rain or snow, giving the system more time to react. External audio receivers can detect sirens or trains by sound.

    Unlike Tesla, which has emphasized camera-based systems, Waymo relies on multiple overlapping technologies. If one sensor struggles, another can support it. There is also a cleaning system for key sensors. Snow, dirt, or road spray should not easily block visibility.

    Waymo says this version is designed to operate in more extreme weather, including heavy winter conditions, which could open the door to colder U.S. cities that were previously harder to support.

    Waymo’s new sixth-generation interior

    The Waymo Driver blends high-resolution cameras, lidar and radar to create a 360-degree view of the road, even at night or in bad weather. (Waymo)

    Why you probably haven’t seen a Waymo robotaxi yet

    Right now, Waymo has about 1,500 vehicles on the road. That sounds like a lot until you compare it to the millions of cars in the U.S. The company wants to grow that number to around 3,500 this year and eventually into the tens of thousands. Still, service is limited to certain parts of certain cities. If you do not live in one of those areas, you are simply not going to see one.

    That is why this new hardware matters. When the system costs less and fits into more vehicles, Waymo can put more cars on the road in more places. This is not about adding flashy features or cool upgrades. It is about getting from a small footprint to something that feels normal in everyday life.

    What about safety and past incidents?

    Whenever driverless cars expand, safety questions come right with them. Waymo says its system is built with multiple layers of redundancy. The sixth-generation Driver combines cameras, lidar, radar and audio detection so the vehicle is not relying on a single sensor. That layered setup is designed to reduce risk if one system has trouble. The company says this latest system builds on nearly 200 million fully autonomous miles driven across more than 10 major cities, including dense urban cores and freeways.

    Even so, incidents have happened. Earlier this year, a Waymo vehicle was involved in an accident that injured a child, which raised fresh concerns about how autonomous vehicles respond in complex real-world situations. Regulators continue to monitor autonomous vehicle performance closely, especially in states like California, where reporting requirements are strict.

    WAYMO UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AFTER CHILD STRUCK

    Waymo has also released data suggesting its vehicles experience fewer injury-causing crashes per mile compared to human drivers in similar areas. Supporters argue that reducing human error could improve road safety over time. Critics say expanding too quickly could introduce new risks.

    Both things can be true. The technology is advancing, but public trust will depend on transparency, accountability and long-term safety performance.

    What this means to you

    If Waymo expands into your city, you may soon open a rideshare app and see a new option. No driver. No conversation. Just a vehicle that navigates using software and sensors.

    More vehicles could mean shorter wait times in busy areas. Increased competition may also affect pricing in the rideshare market. At the same time, comfort levels vary. Many riders may hesitate before stepping into a car with an empty front seat. This shift is about more than technology. It changes how people commute, travel and move around urban areas.

    Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?

    Waymo’s new sixth-generation interior

    With lower costs and broader vehicle compatibility, Waymo hopes to put many more driverless cars on real city streets soon. (Waymo)

    Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com       

    Kurt’s key takeaways

    Waymo’s sixth-generation Driver is really about one thing: getting more driverless cars on the road, in more cities, at a lower cost. When the hardware becomes cheaper and easier to install in different vehicles, expansion gets easier. That does not automatically mean everyone will be comfortable hopping in. For many people, sitting in a car with no driver might still feel a bit scary. The technology is moving forward whether we are ready or not. The bigger question is simple: will we feel confident enough to get in?

    If you had to choose today, would you book the driverless ride or wait for a human behind the wheel? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter 

    Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The robotaxi price war has started. Here’s everything you need to know.

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Right now, in several American cities, you can open an app, and a car with no driver pulls up and takes you wherever you want to go. No small talk. No wrong turns. No tip. No perfume covering up the cigarette smells.

    A driverless Waymo ride in San Francisco averages $8.17. A human Uber in the same city? $17.25. The robotaxi price war is here.

    CONGRESS MOVES TO SET NATIONAL RULES FOR SELF-DRIVING CARS, OVERRIDING STATES

    I live in Phoenix most of the time, and I see Waymos everywhere. At the grocery store. On the freeway. Sitting at red lights with nobody behind the wheel, just vibing. I still haven’t gotten in one. But I’m giving myself two weeks.

    If I survive, I’ll share the ride. Mostly kidding.

    A Waymo drives across Congress Avenue on 8th Street in front of the Capitol Building as rain arrives in the Austin area on Friday, Jan. 23, 2025 ahead of anticipated drops in temperature and freezing rain over the weekend.  (Sara Diggins/The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

    Who’s on the road?

    Waymo (owned by Google’s parent Alphabet) is the clear leader. It gave 15 million driverless rides in 2025, and today, it’s about 400,000 per week. Valued at $126 billion. Available in Phoenix, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta and Miami. Coming in 2026: Dallas, Denver, DC, London, Tokyo and more.

    WOULD YOU BUY THE WORLD’S FIRST PERSONAL ROBOCAR?

    Tesla launched in Austin last June but is way behind. Roughly 31 cars. One tester took 42 trips, and every single one still had a safety monitor on board. So supervised.

    Zoox (owned by Amazon) is the wild card. Their pod has no steering wheel and drives in both directions. Rides are free in Vegas and San Francisco while they wait for approval to charge.

    cruise av

    A Cruise vehicle in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Wednesday Feb. 2, 2022. Cruise LLC, the self-driving car startup that is majority owned by General Motors Co., said its offering free rides to non-employees in San Francisco for the first time, a move that triggers another $1.35 billion from investor SoftBank Vision Fund. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    How do these things ‘see’?

    Waymo uses cameras, lidar (laser radar that builds a 3D map around the car) and traditional radar. It works in total darkness and heavy rain. Tesla uses cameras only. Eight of them, no lidar. Cheaper, which is how they offer rides at $1.99 per kilometer. 

    Now, are they safe? 

    WAYMO UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AFTER CHILD STRUCK

    Tesla has reported seven crash incidents to regulators since launching. Waymo says it has 80% fewer injury crashes than human drivers. But NHTSA has logged 1,429 Waymo incidents since 2021, 117 injuries, two fatalities. Three software recalls, including one last December for passing stopped school buses. 

    A friend of mine took a Waymo, and it dropped her off a full mile from where she was going. No way to change it. No human to flag down. Just a robot car that said, “You have arrived.” 

    She had not. So yeah. I’m curious. But I’m also cautious.

    Tesla's robotaxi driving on the street in Texas

    A Tesla Inc. robotaxi on Oltorf Street in Austin, Texas, on Sunday, June 22, 2025. The launch of Tesla Inc.’s driverless taxi service Sunday is set to begin modestly, with a handful of vehicles in limited areas of the city.  (Tim Goessman/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Here’s where it gets spicy

    When a robotaxi gets confused, a human in a remote center sees through the car’s cameras and draws a path for it. At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Feb. 4, Waymo admitted some of those helpers are in the Philippines. Senators were not amused. I wasn’t either.

    Your car sits parked 95% of the time. Robotaxis run 15+ hours a day. When a driverless ride costs less than gas and insurance, owning a car feels like a gym membership you never use.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP    

    The future of driving is nobody driving. Steering us in a whole new direction.

    Know someone who still thinks self-driving cars are science fiction? Forward this. They’re in for a ride.

    Copyright 2026, WestStar Multimedia Entertainment. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A smarter way to modernize aging school facilities

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    School buildings quietly shape everything that happens inside them. When systems work as intended, learning moves forward uninterrupted. When they fail, instruction, safety, and trust can unravel quickly. Across the country, education leaders are grappling with facilities built decades ago that have not kept pace with today’s expectations for safety, accessibility, and resilience. Federal data shows that many public schools report building conditions in need of major repair or replacement–a challenge that continues to grow as maintenance is deferred.

    Many districts face the same tension. Budgets are finite, buildings are aging, and the list of needs feels endless. Roofs leak. Fire and life-safety systems lag behind code. HVAC equipment strains to meet indoor air quality standards. Accessibility upgrades remain incomplete. Waiting for a crisis to force action often leads to rushed decisions and higher costs. A more effective approach starts with a clear framework for prioritizing infrastructure investments before disruption occurs.

    1. Start with the building envelope

    The building envelope is the first line of defense against water intrusion, heat loss, and environmental damage. Roofs, exterior walls, windows, and foundations tend to be overlooked until failure is visible. By that point, moisture may already be present inside walls or ceilings, creating conditions for mold and long-term structural issues.

    Facility teams should routinely assess roof age, drainage patterns, sealants, and exterior penetrations. Even small breaches can allow water into spaces that are difficult to inspect. Addressing envelope weaknesses early often prevents larger remediation projects later and reduces unplanned classroom closures.

    2. Address water risks before they become health risks

    Water damage is one of the most disruptive issues schools face. Plumbing failures, roof leaks, and flooding events can shut down entire wings of a campus. Beyond visible damage, lingering moisture increases the risk of mold growth and poor indoor air quality, both of which directly affect student and staff health.

    A proactive water management strategy includes mapping shutoff valves, upgrading aging plumbing, and installing moisture-resistant materials in vulnerable areas. Restrooms, kitchens, locker rooms, and mechanical spaces deserve special attention. When water incidents occur, a fast and informed response can make the difference between a short interruption and months of repairs.

    3. Make indoor air quality a standing priority

    Indoor air quality has become a central concern for education leaders, and for good reason. Research and guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency connect poor indoor air quality in schools to health issues that can affect attendance, comfort, and concentration. In older buildings, outdated HVAC systems often struggle to manage ventilation, filtration, and humidity levels consistently throughout the day.

    Modernization plans should evaluate whether HVAC systems are properly sized, regularly maintained, and capable of meeting current standards. Incremental upgrades such as improved filtration, better controls, and consistent maintenance schedules can significantly improve air quality without requiring full system replacement.

    4. Review fire and life-safety systems for today’s standards

    Fire alarms, suppression systems, and emergency lighting are critical to occupant safety, yet many school facilities still rely on systems installed decades ago. Codes evolve, and systems that were once compliant may no longer meet current requirements.

    Regular audits of fire and life-safety systems help identify gaps before inspections or emergencies reveal them. Upgrades should be coordinated with local authorities and scheduled to minimize disruption to learning. Safety systems are foundational, and deferring them introduces unnecessary risk.

    5. Treat accessibility as an essential upgrade

    Accessibility improvements are sometimes viewed as secondary projects, but they are central to equitable education. Entrances, restrooms, classrooms, and common areas should support students, staff, and visitors with diverse needs.

    Modernization efforts provide an opportunity to address barriers that may have existed since a building opened. Improving accessibility strengthens compliance and fosters an inclusive environment where everyone can move through campus safely and independently.

    6. Prioritize projects using risk and impact

    With limited capital funds, prioritization matters. A practical approach weighs both the likelihood of failure and the potential impact on safety and continuity. Projects that address high-risk systems serving large populations should rise to the top of the list.

    Creating a transparent scoring system helps leaders explain decisions to boards, staff, and communities. It also supports long-term capital planning by aligning investments with safety, resilience, and instructional continuity rather than reacting to the loudest problem of the moment.

    7. Build disaster preparedness into capital planning

    Disaster preparedness should not live in a separate binder on a shelf. It belongs in capital plans, renovation scopes, and vendor conversations. Schools often serve as community hubs during emergencies, which increases the importance of reliable power, water, and structural integrity.

    Planning for resilience includes identifying backup power needs, protecting critical equipment, and understanding how quickly spaces can be restored after an event. These considerations are far easier to address during planned upgrades than during an emergency response.

    8. Work with contractors experienced in active learning environments

    Construction and restoration work in schools requires a different mindset. Campuses are occupied, schedules are tight, and safety expectations are high. Contractors who understand how to work around students and staff help reduce disruptions and maintain trust.

    Early collaboration with qualified partners also improves outcomes. Contractors with restoration expertise can flag design choices or materials that may complicate future recovery efforts. Their insight helps schools invest in solutions that support faster reopening if incidents occur.

    Moving from reactive to resilient

    Modernizing school infrastructure is not about chasing the newest trend or tackling everything at once. It is about making informed, safety-focused decisions that strengthen buildings over time. When leaders adopt a structured approach to assessing risk, prioritizing upgrades, and planning for resilience, facilities become assets rather than liabilities.

    Schools that invest thoughtfully in their physical environments protect learning, support health, and build confidence within their communities. The path forward starts with seeing infrastructure as a strategic priority and treating preparedness as part of everyday leadership.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Brett Taylor, Mooring USA

    Source link

  • ‘I’m deeply uncomfortable’: Anthropic CEO warns that a cadre of AI leaders, including himself, should not be in charge of the technology’s future | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei doesn’t think he should be the one calling the shots on the guardrails surrounding AI.

    In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CBS News’ 60 Minutes that aired in November 2025, the CEO said AI should be more heavily regulated, with fewer decisions about the future of the technology left to just the heads of Big Tech companies.

    “I think I’m deeply uncomfortable with these decisions being made by a few companies, by a few people,” Amodei said. “And this is one reason why I’ve always advocated for responsible and thoughtful regulation of the technology.”

    “Who elected you and Sam Altman?” Cooper asked.

    “No one. Honestly, no one,” Amodei replied.

    Anthropic has adopted the philosophy of being transparent about the limitations—and dangers—of AI as it continues to develop, he added. Ahead of the interview’s publication, the company said it thwarted “the first documented case of a large-scale AI cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention.” 

    Anthropic said last week it donated $20 million to Public First Action, a super PAC focused on AI safety and regulation—and one that directly opposed super PACs backed by rival OpenAI’s investors.

    “AI safety continues to be the highest-level focus,” Amodei told Fortune in a January cover story. “Businesses value trust and reliability,” he says.

    There are no federal regulations outlining any prohibitions on AI or surrounding the safety of the technology. While all 50 states have introduced AI-related legislation this year and 38 have adopted or enacted transparency and safety measures, tech industry experts have urged AI companies to approach cybersecurity with a sense of urgency.

    Earlier last year, cybersecurity expert and Mandiant CEO Kevin Mandia warned of the first AI-agent cybersecurity attack happening in the next 12-18 months—meaning Anthropic’s disclosure about the thwarted attack was months ahead of Mandia’s predicted schedule.

    Amodei has outlined short-, medium-, and long-term risks associated with unrestricted AI: The technology will first present bias and misinformation, as it does now. Next, it will generate harmful information using enhanced knowledge of science and engineering, before finally presenting an existential threat by removing human agency, potentially becoming too autonomous and locking humans out of systems.

    The concerns mirror those of “godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton, who has warned AI will have the ability to outsmart and control humans, perhaps in the next decade. 

    Greater AI scrutiny and safeguards were at the foundation of Anthropic’s 2021 founding. Amodei was previously the vice president of research at Sam Altman’s OpenAI. He left the company over differences in opinion on AI safety concerns. (So far, Amodei’s efforts to compete with Altman have appeared effective: Anthropic said this month it is now valued at $380 billion. OpenAI is valued at an estimated $500 billion.)

    “There was a group of us within OpenAI, that in the wake of making GPT-2 and GPT-3, had a kind of very strong focus belief in two things,” Amodei told Fortune in 2023. “One was the idea that if you pour more compute into these models, they’ll get better and better and that there’s almost no end to this… And the second was the idea that you needed something in addition to just scaling the models up, which is alignment or safety.”

    Anthropic’s transparency efforts

    As Anthropic continues to expand its data center investments, it has published some of its efforts in addressing the shortcomings and threats of AI. In a May 2025 safety report, Anthropic reported some versions of its Opus model threatened blackmail, such as revealing an engineer was having an affair, to avoid shutting down. The company also said the AI model complied with dangerous requests if given harmful prompts like how to plan a terrorist attack, which it said it has since fixed.

    Last November, the company said in a blog post that its chatbot Claude scored a 94% political even-handedness” rating, outperforming or matching competitors on neutrality.

    In addition to Anthropic’s own research efforts to combat corruption of the technology, Amodei has called for greater legislative efforts to address the risks of AI. In a New York Times op-ed in June 2025, he criticized the Senate’s decision to include a provision in President Donald Trump’s policy bill that would put a 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI.

    “AI is advancing too head-spinningly fast,” Amodei said. “I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off.”

    Criticisms of Anthropic

    Anthropic’s practice of calling out its own lapses and efforts to address them has drawn criticism. In response to Anthropic sounding the alarm on the AI-powered cybersecurity attack, Meta’s chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun, said the warning was a way to manipulate legislators into limiting the use of open-source models. 

    “You’re being played by people who want regulatory capture,” LeCun said in an X post in response to Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy’s post expressing concern about the attack. “They are scaring everyone with dubious studies so that open source models are regulated out of existence.” 

    Others have said Anthropic’s strategy is one of “safety theater” that amounts to good branding, but no promises about actually implementing safeguards on technology.

    Even some of Anthropic’s own personnel appear to have doubts about a tech company’s ability to regulate itself. Earlier last week, Anthropic AI safety researcher Mrinank Sharma announced he resigned from the company, saying “the world is in peril.”

    “Throughout my time here, I’ve repeatedly seen how hard it is to truly let our values govern our actions,” Sharma wrote in his resignation letter. “I’ve seen this within myself, within the organization, where we constantly face pressures to set aside what matters most, and throughout broader society too.”

    Anthropic did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

    Amodei denied to Cooper that Anthropic was taking part in “safety theater,” but admitted in an episode of the Dwarkesh Podcast last week that the company sometimes struggles to balance safety and profits.

    “We’re under an incredible amount of commercial pressure and make it even harder for ourselves because we have all this safety stuff we do that I think we do more than other companies,” he said.

    A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on Nov. 17, 2025.

    More on AI regulation:

    [ad_2]

    Sasha Rogelberg

    Source link

  • Big Tech execs playing ‘Russian roulette’ in the AI arms race could risk human extinction, warns top researcher | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    The global competition to dominate artificial intelligence has reached a fever pitch, but one of the world’s leading computer scientists warned that Big Tech is recklessly gambling with the future of the human species. 

    The loudest voices in AI often fall into two camps: those who praise the technology as world-changing, and those who urge restraint—or even containment—before it becomes a runaway threat. Stuart Russell, a pioneering AI researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, firmly belongs to the latter group. One of his chief concerns is that governments and regulators are struggling to keep pace with the technology’s rapid rollout, leaving the private sector locked in a race to the finish that risks devolving into the kind of perilous competition not seen since the height of the Cold War.

    “For governments to allow private entities to essentially play Russian roulette with every human being on earth is, in my view, a total dereliction of duty,” Russell told AFP from the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, India.

    While tech CEOs are locked in an “arms race” to develop the next and best AI model, a goal the industry maintains will eventually herald enormous advancements in medicinal research and productivity many ignore or gloss over the risks, according to Russell. In a worst case scenario, he believes the breakneck speed of innovation without regulation could lead to the extinction of the human race.

    Russell should know about the existential risks underlying AI’s rapid deployment. The British-born computer scientist has been studying AI for over 40 years, and published one of the most authoritative textbooks on the subject as far back as 1995. In 2016, he founded a research center at Berkeley focusing on AI safety, which advocates “provably beneficial” AI systems for humanity.

    In New Delhi, Russell remarked on how far off the mark companies and governments seem to be on that goal. Russell’s critique centered on the rapid development of systems that could eventually overpower their creators, leaving human civilization as “collateral damage in that process.”

    The heads of major AI firms are aware of these existential dangers, but find themselves trapped regardless by market forces. “Each of the CEOs of the main AI companies, I believe, wants to disarm,” Russell said, but they cannot do so “unilaterally” because their position would quickly be usurped by competitors and would face immediate ousting by their investors.

    The new Cold War

    Talk of existential risk and humanity’s potential extinction was once reserved for the specter of runaway nuclear proliferation during the Cold War, when great powers stockpiled weapons out of fear that rivals would surpass them. But skeptics like Stuart Russell increasingly apply that same framework to the age of artificial intelligence. The competition between the U.S. and China is often described as an AI “arms race,” complete with the secrecy, urgency, and high stakes that defined the nuclear rivalry between Washington and Moscow in the latter half of the 20th century.

    Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, captured the enormous stakes succinctly nearly a decade ago: “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world,” he said in a 2017 address

    While the current arms race cannot be measured in warheads, the scale of it is captured in the staggering amounts of capital being deployed. Countries and corporations are currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars on energy-intensive data centers to train and run AI.In the U.S. alone, analysts expect capital expenditure on AI to exceed $600 billion this year.

    But aggressive corporate action has yet to be matched by restraint through regulatory action, Russell said. “It really helps if each of the governments understand this issue. And so that’s why I’m here,” he said, referring to the India summit.

    China and the EU are among the AI-developing powers that have taken a harder stance on regulating the technology. Elsewhere, the reality has been more hands-off. In India, the government has opted for a largely deregulatory approach. In the U.S., meanwhile, the Trump administration has championed pro-market ideals for AI, and sought to scrap most state-level regulations to give companies free rein.

    [ad_2]

    Tristan Bove

    Source link

  • Two residents displaced from house fire on Drumlin Road

    [ad_1]

    IPSWICH — A fire damaged a 2-½ story home on Drumlin Road in Ipswich on Monday night.

    At 11:35 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 16, the Ipswich Fire Department responded to a report of smoke coming from the home at 10 Drumlin Road. While firefighters were en route, a police officer arrived on scene and reported fire showing from the house.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmp7E6C 4@?7:C>:?8 2 H@C<:?8 7:C6 @? E96 D64@?5 7=@@C @7 E96 9@>6[ 5:DA2E49 C6BF6DE65 #@H=6J AF>A[ %@AD7:6=5 AF>A[ 2?5 tDD6I =2556C E@ E96 D46?6] &A@? 2CC:G2=[ 7:C67:89E6CD 3682? 2? 288C6DD:G6 :?E6C:@C 2EE24< 3J DEC6E49:?8 2? 2EE24< =:?6 E@ E96 D64@?5 7=@@C]k^Am

    kAm%96 |2?496DE6C u:C6 s6A2CE>6?E H2D C6BF6DE65 E@ E96 D46?6 7@C 255:E:@?2= DE277:?8 H9:=6 v6@C86E@H? 2?5 v=@F46DE6C 6?8:?6 4@>A2?:6D 4@G6C65 E96 DE2E:@? 2?5 92?5=65 2 D:>F=E2?6@FD >65:42= 42==]k^Am

    kAm%96 7:C6 H2D :56?E:7:65 E@ 36 😕 E96 @77:46^365C@@> @? E96 7C@?E 4@C?6C @7 E96 9@FD6[ 2D H6== 2D E96 2EE:4] %96 >2:? 3@5J @7 E96 7:C6 H2D :?FE6D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ xADH:49 u:C6]k^Am

    kAm%96 EH@ 9@>6@H?6CD H6C6 6G2=F2E65 7@C D>@<6 :?92=2E:@? 3FE H6C6 ?@E E2<6? E@ E96 9@DA:E2=] %96J H6C6 E6>A@C2C:=J 5:DA=2465 7C@> E96 C6D:56?46] }@ @E96C :?;FC:6D H6C6 C6A@CE65]k^Am

    kAm%96 42FD6 @7 E96 7:C6 😀 DE:== F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@? 3J E96 56A2CE>6?E]k^Am

    kAm|:4926= |4wF89 42? 36 4@?E24E65 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i>>49F89o?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qm>>49F89o?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2m @C 2E fg`fhhda_ak^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Michael McHugh | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • State police: Man hits cruiser in Salisbury, injures trooper

    [ad_1]

    SALISBURY — A state trooper was seriously injured when his cruiser was struck by a vehicle on Interstate 95, state police said.

    Josue Levi Cuevas Santana of Lawrence was issued a criminal summons for negligent operation, speeding, using a mobile device while driving and failure to move over for an emergency vehicle after the crash Saturday in Salisbury, state police said.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmp EC@@A6C 7C@> E96 }6H3FCJ 32CC246C86?4J =:89ED @? ;FDE 367@C6 x?E6CDE2E6 chd 23@FE ai`d A]>] E@ C6>@G6 2 =2556C 7C@> E96 =67E EC2G6= =2?6]k^Am

    kAmp7E6C C6>@G:?8 E96 =2556C[ E96 EC@@A6C C6EFC?65 E@ 9:D 4CF:D6C 2?5 72DE6?65 9:D D62E36=E] |@>6?ED =2E6C[ H:E9@FE H2C?:?8[ 2?@E96C G69:4=6 DECF4< E96 4CF:D6C[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 DE2E6 A@=:46 C6A@CE]k^Am

    kAm%C@@A6CD 7C@> E96 }6H3FCJ 32CC24>65:2E6 2:5 E@ E96 EC@@A6C[ H9@ DF776C65 D6C:@FD :?;FC:6D] w6 H2D EC2?DA@CE65 E@ !@CED>@FE9 #68:@?2= w@DA:E2= 😕 }6H w2>AD9:C6]k^Am

    kAm%96 :?;FC65 EC@@A6C H2D ?@E :56?E:7:65 3J DE2E6 A@=:46]k^Am

    kAmrF6G2D $2?E2?2 H2D E2<6? E@ {2HC6?46 v6?6C2= w@DA:E2= 7@C EC62E>6?E]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED s6A2CE>6?E @7 %C2?DA@CE2E:@? @77:4:2=D C6DA@?565 E@ E96 244:56?E E@ D64FC6 E96 =2556C 2?5 4=62C 563C:D 7C@> E96 9:89H2J[ DE2E6 A@=:46 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$E2E6 A@=:46 r@=] v6@77C6J }@3=6 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E[ “x? E96 52JD 2?5 H66DE2?46D @7 E9:D 4C2D9[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 24E:@?D @7 E96 5C:G6C 2D H6== 2D E96 =2556C 😕 E96 C@25H2J E92E AC@>AE65 E96 EC@@A6C E@ DE@A 😕 E96 7:CDE A=246] (6 5@ D@ H9:=6 <66A:?8 @FC 7@4FD @? @FC :?;FC65 4@==628F6[ H9@ 92D E96 7F== DFAA@CE @7 E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E6 !@=:46 2D 96 C64@G6CD 7C@> D6G6C2= D6C:@FD :?;FC:6D]”k^Am

    kAm“%9:D :?4:56?E 2=D@ F?56CD4@C6D 2 3C@256C[ @?8@:?8 4@?46C? 7@C E96 D276EJ @7 E9@D6 H9@ H@C< @? @FC 9:89H2JD[” }@3=6 25565] “u2C E@@ @7E6?[ 5C:G6CD 72:= 😕 E96:C C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ E@ D=@H 5@H? 2?5 >@G6 @G6C H96? 2AAC@249:?8 6>6C86?4J G69:4=6D 5:DA=2J:?8 E96:C =:89ED] %9:D =2H 6I:DED E@ AC@E64E =:G6D] x7 ?@E 7@C E9:D EC@@A6C’D 564:D:@? E@ H62C 9:D D62E36=E[ E96 @FE4@>6 4@F=5 92G6 366? 6G6? >@C6 EC28:4]”k^Am

    kAmu@==@H DE277 C6A@CE6C y:== w2C>24:?D<: @? %H:EE6C^) ot28=6%C:3y:== 2?5 %9C625D 2E ;:==J92C>2]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Jill Harmacinski | jharmacinski@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • State police: Lawrence man hits cruiser, injures trooper

    [ad_1]

    SALISBURY — A state trooper was seriously injured when his cruiser was struck by a vehicle driven by a Lawrence man, state police said.

    Josue Levi Cuevas Santana was issued a criminal summons for negligent operation, speeding, using a mobile device while driving and failure to move over for an emergency vehicle after the crash Saturday on Interstate 95 in Salisbury, state police said.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmp EC@@A6C 7C@> E96 }6H3FCJ 32CC246C86?4J =:89ED @? ;FDE 367@C6 x?E6CDE2E6 chd 23@FE ai`d A]>] E@ C6>@G6 2 =2556C 7C@> E96 =67E EC2G6= =2?6]k^Am

    kAmp7E6C C6>@G:?8 E96 =2556C[ E96 EC@@A6C C6EFC?65 E@ 9:D 4CF:D6C 2?5 72DE6?65 9:D D62E36=E] |@>6?ED =2E6C[ H:E9@FE H2C?:?8[ 2?@E96C G69:4=6 DECF4< E96 4CF:D6C[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 DE2E6 A@=:46 C6A@CE]k^Am

    kAm%C@@A6CD 7C@> E96 }6H3FCJ 32CC24>65:2E6 2:5 E@ E96 EC@@A6C[ H9@ DF776C65 D6C:@FD :?;FC:6D] w6 H2D EC2?DA@CE65 E@ !@CED>@FE9 #68:@?2= w@DA:E2= 😕 }6H w2>AD9:C6]k^Am

    kAm%96 :?;FC65 EC@@A6C H2D ?@E :56?E:7:65 3J DE2E6 A@=:46]k^Am

    kAmrF6G2D $2?E2?2 H2D E2<6? E@ {2HC6?46 v6?6C2= w@DA:E2= 7@C EC62E>6?E]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED s6A2CE>6?E @7 %C2?DA@CE2E:@? @77:4:2=D C6DA@?565 E@ E96 244:56?E E@ D64FC6 E96 =2556C 2?5 4=62C 563C:D 7C@> E96 9:89H2J[ DE2E6 A@=:46 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$E2E6 A@=:46 r@=] v6@77C6J }@3=6 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E[ “x? E96 52JD 2?5 H66DE2?46D @7 E9:D 4C2D9[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 24E:@?D @7 E96 5C:G6C 2D H6== 2D E96 =2556C 😕 E96 C@25H2J E92E AC@>AE65 E96 EC@@A6C E@ DE@A 😕 E96 7:CDE A=246] (6 5@ D@ H9:=6 <66A:?8 @FC 7@4FD @? @FC :?;FC65 4@==628F6[ H9@ 92D E96 7F== DFAA@CE @7 E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E6 !@=:46 2D 96 C64@G6CD 7C@> D6G6C2= D6C:@FD :?;FC:6D]”k^Am

    kAm“%9:D :?4:56?E 2=D@ F?56CD4@C6D 2 3C@256C[ @?8@:?8 4@?46C? 7@C E96 D276EJ @7 E9@D6 H9@ H@C< @? @FC 9:89H2JD[” }@3=6 25565] “u2C E@@ @7E6?[ 5C:G6CD 72:= 😕 E96:C C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ E@ D=@H 5@H? 2?5 >@G6 @G6C H96? 2AAC@249:?8 6>6C86?4J G69:4=6D 5:DA=2J:?8 E96:C =:89ED] %9:D =2H 6I:DED E@ AC@E64E =:G6D] x7 ?@E 7@C E9:D EC@@A6C’D 564:D:@? E@ H62C 9:D D62E36=E[ E96 @FE4@>6 4@F=5 92G6 366? 6G6? >@C6 EC28:4]”k^Am

    kAmu@==@H DE277 C6A@CE6C y:== w2C>24:?D<: @? %H:EE6C^) ot28=6%C:3y:== 2?5 %9C625D 2E ;:==J92C>2]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Jill Harmacinski | jharmacinski@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • ‘Don’t trust the staff’: Woman checks into Tennessee Best Western. Then someone starts ‘body slamming’ against her door at 11pm

    [ad_1]

    A woman staying at a Franklin, Tennessee, Best Western had an unsettling experience when someone started “slamming” into her hotel door late at night. 

    TikToker DraperDestinations (@draperdestinations) booked a hotel for her family as part of a relaxing vacation, describing the incident in a video with over 131,000 views.

    The very first night they stayed there, they heard someone urgently trying to enter their room. The Mary Sue has previously reported on two different incidents where guests at varying hotel chains had employees try to enter their rooms while they were inside. But, in this situation, hotel staff may have actually stolen money from the family.

    Later, their room was cleaned without their explicit permission. Someone had rummaged through the files the family brought with them. Eventually, they saw a charge for a $2,000 withdrawal on their bank account that they did not make. 

    What happened at this Best Western stay?

    Everything about the family’s stay at the Best Western was normal at first. The staff were friendly and asked straightforward questions, and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. 

    But, later in the evening, during the first night of their stay, the family heard someone physically slamming their body into their door. 

    “ Somebody started shaking our door pretty aggressively and body slamming against it,” DraperDestinations said. “We had all of the door locked… so it didn’t affect us, but it scared us.”

    The next morning, the family went to the front desk to tell a manager what had happened. They asked staff at the hotel to pull the cameras, giving someone working the front desk their room number. 

    The front desk clerk agreed, stating that the hotel would pull the cameras and see who was working that night for the family. The family left, satisfied with how the conversation panned out, and went to do activities in town. When they returned to the hotel at around 7 p.m., another manager was working the front desk. When they asked about their previous inquiry, they immediately received flak. 

    “ He was really shifty and shady about that option or us even needing to have the cameras pulled,” DraperDestinations told her audience. “He acted like it was a non-issue, stating that there was no reason to call 9-1-1.”

    The manager stated that if something happened in the future, they should just call the front desk. This bothered DraperDestinations, who felt as if her concerns weren’t considered seriously.

    Still, the family went upstairs to stay a second night in the hotel. 

    The family checks out the room and realizes someone cleaned it

    When they returned to their hotel room, they decided to do a “door lock test.” They fidgeted with the door handle for their room to see how it unlocked and turned. 

    “ The only time the doorknob turned was if you inserted a key for that room,” DraperDestinations said. “If you didn’t put a key in the doorknob on, the backside did not move.” 

    They then realized the room had been reset by someone with a key. Someone had straightened the pillows, restocked the towels, and replenished toiletries in the room. 

    DraperDestinations saw that a folder that was zipped up in a duffel bag was strangely “out.” She realized that someone who entered their room may have rummaged through their belongings, fishing out the folder and placing it out. 

    Within a short period, they got a notification that someone had withdrawn $2,000 from their banking account. DraperDestinations mentioned that the folder being placed out and the withdrawal happened too close together to be a coincidence. For that reason, she implied that a hotel staff member may have stolen their personal information. 

    In the TikTok’s comments section, viewers told DraperDestinations that she needed to call law enforcement as soon as possible. 

    Identity theft and fraud cases should be reported as soon as possible. It can generally help law enforcement narrow down suspects and aid in the case’s development. It can also help prevent additional credit hits due to heavy withdrawals or purchases on unaccounted cards. 

    “I would had called 911 when I saw the folder moved. I would not left until you knew who cleaned the room,” said one commenter. “We carry guns when we travel.”

    It’s unclear whether or not DraperDestinations called the police later on, although she did not do so while staying at the hotel. She barred the door to the room instead

    Viewers questioned why she didn’t immediately tell the front desk or call law enforcement, and Draper Destinations stated, “Honestly, I don’t know. I am such a diplomatic person that I try to think of all the possibilities and not go straight to thinking something bad. But today when our bank was hacked I realized I wasn’t crazy and it was an actual issue.”

    @draperdestinations Not every smile behind a front desk means you’re in safe hands. Hotels are businesses, and not everyone working there has your best interest at heart. Staff come and go, background checks aren’t always as thorough as you’d think, and access to master keys, guest information, and personal belongings is part of the job. That’s a lot of trust to hand over to strangers you just met. Rooms get entered when you’re not there. Personal items are left out. Credit cards are swiped. Luggage is handled by people you don’t know. Most employees are honest and hardworking, but it only takes one bad apple to turn a relaxing trip into a nightmare. Lock your valuables up. Use the deadbolt. Keep your important items with you. Being polite is good but being cautious is smarter. Trust is earned, not automatically given just because someone is wearing a name tag. #bestwestern #hotelstaff #trafficking #identitytheft #draperdestinations ♬ J 無音 – J

    The family has made no subsequent updates regarding the situation. We’ve reached out to DraperDestinations via TikTok direct message for comment. We’ve also contacted Best Western’s press team via email.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Rachel Thomas

    Rachel Thomas

    Rachel Joy Thomas is a music journalist, freelance writer, and hopeful author who resides in Los Angeles, CA. You can email her at [email protected].

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Thomas

    Source link

  • Officials: Danvers home in deadly fire didn’t have working smoke alarms

    [ad_1]

    DANVERS — Fire officials are reminding residents to check their fire alarms after it was determined there were no working alarms in the Danvers home of a man killed in a blaze last week.

    The fire broke out in a single-family home at 36 MacArthur Blvd. around noon on Jan. 27.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmxE 😀 E96 E9:C5 72E2= 7:C6 😕 E96 DE2E6 E9:D J62C 😕 2 3F:=5:?8 H96C6 ?@ H@C<:?8 7:C6 2=2C>D H6C6 7@F?5[ E96 s2?G6CD u:C6 s6A2CE>6?E D2:5 😕 2 ;@:?E DE2E6>6?E H:E9 E96 |2DD249FD6EED s6A2CE>6?E @7 u:C6 $6CG:46D]k^Am

    kAm&A@? 2CC:G:?8 2E E96 D46?6[ 7:C67:89E6CD H6C6 2=6CE65 3J 2 ?6:893@C E92E 2 C6D:56?E H2D =:<6=J DE:== :?D:56] p7E6C DECF88=:?8 E@ >2?6FG6C 2C@F?5 E96 9@>6 5F6 E@ 2 9@=6 😕 E96 7=@@C 2?5 6I46DD:G6 4=FEE6C 2?5 D>@<6[ 4C6HD 7@F?5 E96 9@>6’D D@=6 C6D:56?E[ egJ62C@=5 |2C< ~=:G6C[ 2?5 3C@F89E 9:> @FED:56]k^Am

    kAm~=:G6C H2D AC@?@F?465 5625 2E E96 D46?6]k^Am

    kAm“~FC 962CED 8@ @FE E@ |C] ~=:G6C’D 72>:=J 2?5 =@G65 @?6D[” s2?G6CD 7:C6 r9:67 qC:2? q2CCJ D2:5 😕 E96 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm“%C28:42==J[ H6 7@F?5 ?@ H@C<:?8 D>@<6 2=2C>D 😕 E96 9@>6] x H2?E E@ C6>:?5 2== @FC C6D:56?ED E92E D>@<6 2?5 42C3@? >@?@I:56 2=2C>D 2C6 G:E2= 9@>6 D276EJ E@@=D] x7 J@F ?665 96=A :?DE2==:?8[ >2:?E2:?:?8[ @C C6A=24:?8 J@FC 2=2C>D[ A=62D6 42== FD[” q2CCJ D2:5]k^Am

    kAmu:C6 2=2C>D D9@F=5 36 E6DE65 @?46 2 >@?E9 E@ 36 DFC6 E96J’C6 H@C<:?8 AC@A6C=J[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAmp=<2=:?6 32EE6C:6D 😕 E96 56G:46D D9@F=5 36 492?865 EH:46 2 J62C[ H96? C6D:56?ED 492?86 E96:C 4=@46]k^Am

    kAm|@C6 E92? h_T @7 |2DD249FD6EED 7:C6 562E9D @44FCC65 😕 9@>6D =2DE J62C[ 2?5 92=7 @7 E9@D6 562E9D H6C6 A6@A=6 2865 ed @C @=56C[ $E2E6 u:C6 |2CD92= y@? s2G:?6 D2:5 😕 E96 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 42FD6 @7 E96 7:C6 C6>2:?D F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@?]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Waymo under federal investigation after child struck

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Federal safety regulators are once again taking a hard look at self-driving cars after a serious incident involving Waymo, the autonomous vehicle company owned by Alphabet.

    This time, the investigation centers on a Waymo vehicle that struck a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica, California, during morning drop-off hours. The crash happened Jan. 23 and raised immediate questions about how autonomous vehicles behave around children, school zones and unpredictable pedestrian movement.

    On Jan. 29, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirmed it had opened a new preliminary investigation into Waymo’s automated driving system.

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    TESLA’S SELF-DRIVING CARS UNDER FIRE AGAIN

    Waymo operates Level 4 self-driving vehicles in select U.S. cities, where the car controls all driving tasks without a human behind the wheel. (AP Photo/Terry Chea, File)

    What happened near the Santa Monica school?

    According to documents posted by NHTSA, the crash occurred within two blocks of an elementary school during normal drop-off hours. The area was busy. There were multiple children present, a crossing guard on duty and several vehicles double-parked along the street.

    Investigators say the child ran into the roadway from behind a double-parked SUV while heading toward the school. The Waymo vehicle struck the child, who suffered minor injuries. No safety operator was inside the vehicle at the time.

    NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation is now examining whether the autonomous system exercised appropriate caution given its proximity to a school zone and the presence of young pedestrians.

    AI TRUCK SYSTEM MATCHES TOP HUMAN DRIVERS IN MASSIVE SAFETY SHOWDOWN WITH PERFECT SCORES

    A Waymo taxi sensor

    Federal investigators are now examining whether Waymo’s automated system exercised enough caution near a school zone during morning drop-off hours. (Waymo)

    Why federal investigators stepped in

    The NHTSA says the investigation will focus on how Waymo’s automated driving system is designed to behave in and around school zones, especially during peak pickup and drop-off times.

    That includes whether the vehicle followed posted speed limits, how it responded to visual cues like crossing guards and parked vehicles and whether its post-crash response met federal safety expectations. The agency is also reviewing how Waymo handled the incident after it occurred.

    Waymo said it voluntarily contacted regulators the same day as the crash and plans to cooperate fully with the investigation. In a statement, the company said it remains committed to improving road safety for riders and everyone sharing the road.

    Waymo responds to the federal investigation

    We reached out to Waymo for comment, and the company provided the following statement:

    “At Waymo, we are committed to improving road safety, both for our riders and all those with whom we share the road. Part of that commitment is being transparent when incidents occur, which is why we are sharing details regarding an event in Santa Monica, California, on Friday, January 23, where one of our vehicles made contact with a young pedestrian. Following the event, we voluntarily contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that same day. NHTSA has indicated to us that they intend to open an investigation into this incident, and we will cooperate fully with them throughout the process. 

    “The event occurred when the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle’s path. Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle. The Waymo Driver braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made. 

    “To put this in perspective, our peer-reviewed model shows that a fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph. This significant reduction in impact speed and severity is a demonstration of the material safety benefit of the Waymo Driver.

    “Following contact, the pedestrian stood up immediately, walked to the sidewalk and we called 911. The vehicle remained stopped, moved to the side of the road and stayed there until law enforcement cleared the vehicle to leave the scene. 

    This event demonstrates the critical value of our safety systems. We remain committed to improving road safety where we operate as we continue on our mission to be the world’s most trusted driver.”

    Understanding Waymo’s autonomy level

    Waymo vehicles fall under Level 4 autonomy on NHTSA’s six-level scale.

    At Level 4, the vehicle handles all driving tasks within specific service areas. A human driver is not required to intervene, and no safety operator needs to be present inside the car. However, these systems do not operate everywhere and are currently limited to ride-hailing services in select cities.

    The NHTSA has been clear that Level 4 vehicles are not available for consumer purchase, even though passengers may ride inside them.

    This is not Waymo’s first federal probe

    This latest investigation follows a previous NHTSA evaluation that opened in May 2024. That earlier probe examined reports of Waymo vehicles colliding with stationary objects like gates, chains and parked cars. Regulators also reviewed incidents in which the vehicles appeared to disobey traffic control devices.

    That investigation was closed in July 2025 after regulators reviewed the data and Waymo’s responses. Safety advocates say the new incident highlights unresolved concerns.

    UBER UNVEILS A NEW ROBOTAXI WITH NO DRIVER BEHIND THE WHEEL

    View of a Waymo Jaguar driver seat

    No safety operator was inside the vehicle at the time of the crash, raising fresh questions about how autonomous cars handle unpredictable situations involving children. (Waymo)

    What this means for you

    If you live in a city where self-driving cars operate, this investigation matters more than it might seem. School zones are already high-risk areas, even for attentive human drivers. Autonomous vehicles must be able to detect unpredictable behavior, anticipate sudden movement and respond instantly when children are present.

    This case will likely influence how regulators set expectations for autonomous driving systems near schools, playgrounds and other areas with vulnerable pedestrians. It could also shape future rules around local oversight, data reporting and operational limits for self-driving fleets.

    For parents, commuters and riders, the outcome may affect where and when autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate.

    Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?

    Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP    

    Kurt’s key takeaways

    Self-driving technology promises safer roads, fewer crashes and less human error. But moments like this remind us that the hardest driving scenarios often involve human unpredictability, especially when children are involved. Federal investigators now face a crucial question: Did the system act as cautiously as it should have in one of the most sensitive driving environments possible? How they answer that question could help define the next phase of autonomous vehicle regulation in the United States.

    Do you feel comfortable sharing the road with self-driving cars near schools, or is that a line technology should not cross yet? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter. 

    Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China is leading the fight against hidden car door handles | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    One of the design features that became synonymous with Tesla has been banned in China.

    Under new safety rules published Monday by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, cars sold in the country must have mechanical releases on their door handles. The new rules, which go in effect January 1, 2027, will prohibit the hidden, electronically actuated door handles popularized by Tesla — and now found on numerous other electric vehicles in China.

    The new rule dictates that each door (excluding the tailgate) should be equipped with a mechanically released external door handle. Vehicles must also have a mechanical release on the interior of the vehicle. Bloomberg previously reported on the new safety policy.

    Numerous high-profile fatal incidents, in which occupants have become trapped in their vehicles, have raised concerns among safety regulators and advocates globally. China is the first country to issue a ban.

    An investigation by Bloomberg last September uncovered problems with the concealed door handles on Tesla vehicles, citing several crashes in which first responders or occupants were unable to open the doors because the electronic door locks weren’t getting enough power from the vehicle’s battery system to work properly. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration then opened a defect investigation into certain Tesla Model Y and Model 3 door handles. While Tesla does have manual releases inside its vehicles, federal investigators noted that the releases can be hard for children to access, and many owners are unaware of their existence. Some U.S. lawmakers have proposed regulation requiring manual door releases in all new vehicles.

    Fatal incidents in China, including a crash involving a Xiaomi SU7 electric sedan, prompted regulators there to propose changes to EV door handles last year.

    The Chinese government began the process in May 2025 with more than 40 domestic vehicle manufacturers, parts suppliers, and testing institutions participating in the initial research. More than 100 industry experts held multiple rounds of discussions to determine the standard framework and form a draft standard of what would become the Safety Technical Requirements for Automobile Door Handles rule, according to the Chinese government’s standards agency.

    Techcrunch event

    Boston, MA
    |
    June 23, 2026

    That included dozens of automakers, including Chinese companies such as BYD, Geely Holdings, SAIC, and Xiaomi as well as foreign automakers including General Motors, Ford, Hyundai, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen. Tesla, however, was not listed as an official “drafter,” according to information posted on the standards agency’s website.

    [ad_2]

    Kirsten Korosec

    Source link

  • When seconds matter: Why in-building coverage is a lifeline for school safety

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    During a school emergency, every minute that passes is crucial, but in those moments, a reliable connection can mean the difference between confusion and coordinated response. Yet, across the country, there is an unseen danger confronting school staff, students, and emergency personnel. This is inadequate communication connectivity within school buildings.

    For years, schools have implemented fortified doors, cameras, and lockdown exercises. This is because communication is the unseen link that connects each safety measure. However, communication can weaken once someone enters a structure composed of concrete, steel, and reinforced glass. This is unacceptable during a time when almost every call to 9-1-1 is generated by a cell phone.

    The changing face of emergency response

    More than 75 percent of emergency calls now come from wireless phones, according to the Federal Communications Commission. When something goes wrong in a classroom or gym, the first instinct isn’t to reach for a landline–it’s to pull out a smartphone.

    But what happens when that signal can’t get out?

    This problem becomes even more pressing as the nation moves toward Next-Generation 9-1-1 (NG911), a major upgrade that allows dispatchers to receive text messages, images, and even live video. These new capabilities give first responders eyes and ears inside the building before they arrive–but only if the network works indoors.

    At the same time, new laws are raising the bar. Alyssa’s Law, named after Alyssa Alhadeff, a student killed in the 2018 Parkland school shooting, requires schools in several states to install silent panic alarms directly linked to law enforcement. Similar legislation is spreading nationwide. These systems rely on strong, reliable indoor wireless coverage–the very thing many older buildings lack.

    When walls become barriers

    School buildings weren’t designed for today’s communications reality. Thick concrete walls, metal framing, energy-efficient glass, and sprawling multi-story layouts often block or weaken wireless signals. During an active-shooter event or a tornado warning, students may shelter in basements, cafeterias, or interior hallways–places where signal strength is weakest.

    After several high-profile incidents, post-incident reports have revealed the same pattern: first responders losing radio contact as they entered, dispatchers unable to locate or communicate with callers, and delays caused by poor in-building connectivity. These breakdowns aren’t just technical–they’re human. They affect how quickly students are found, how fast responders can coordinate, and how well lives can be protected.

    Technology that saves seconds–and lives

    Fortunately, there are solutions available, and they are becoming more accessible.

    The Emergency Responder Radio Coverage Systems (ERRCS) can also be referred to as Distributed Antennas Systems (DAS) within a public safety setting. The technology is responsible for extending radio communication coverage within building infrastructures. ERRCS are required within schools due to measures put into place within fire regulations.

    For communication and safety needs, cellular DAS, also known as small cells, are required to expand cellular coverage on a campus. These enable students, faculty, and staff to make calls, send texts, and exchange vital multimedia messages to 9-1-1 dispatchers, which is crucial during the NG911 era.

    Despite such technologies, smaller schools on more limited budgets can still leverage signal boosters and repeaters to fill coverage gaps within gyms, cafeterias, and other similar areas. At the same time, newer managed Wi-Fi solutions that offer E911 functionality can serve as a backup safety net that can transmit multimedia messages over secure Internet communications when cellular connectivity is no longer available.

    Best practices for schools

    Start with a coverage assessment. A comparison of where signals are dropping, not only for public safety communications but generally across each of the main cellular providers, will provide school administration with information on where to make improvements.

    Schools should then coordinate with the fire departments, the office of emergency management, and wireless service providers prior to implementing any system. This will ensure that they comply with local regulations and interoperability with first responders.

    Finally, maintenance and functionality are just as important as final installation. Communication systems should receive periodic tests, preferably during safety drills to verify that they work well under stress.

    Bridging the funding gap

    Improving in-building communications infrastructure can sound costly, but several funding pathways exist. Some states offer school-safety grants or federal assistance programs that cover technology investments tied to life safety. Districts can also explore partnerships with local governments or leverage E-rate-style funding for eligible network upgrades.

    Beyond compliance or funding, though, this is an equity issue. Every student, teacher, and responder deserves the same chance to communicate in a crisis–whether in a small-town elementary school or a large urban high school.

    A call to action

    A school is more than its classrooms and hallways, it is also a community of individuals each relying on others during times of fear and uncertainty. Perhaps one of the most straightforward ways to make this community more resilient is to provide a strong indoor building communication environment, both for public safety communications and cellular devices.

    The time has come to make connectivity a vital safety component rather than a luxury, because silence is simply not an option when seconds are at stake.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Payam Maveddat, Wilson Connectivity

    Source link

  • FAA Could Have Prevented Fatal D.C. Plane Collision, Investigation Finds

    [ad_1]

    A National Transportation Safety Board review of the mid-air collision between an Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet in January 2025 found that the Federal Aviation Administration was plagued by systemic safety issues in the lead-up to the accident that killed 67 people.

    “The Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization had multiple opportunities to identify the risk of a mid-air collision between airplanes and helicopters at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. However, their data analysis, safety assurance, and risk assessment processes failed to recognize and mitigate that risk,” the board shared in findings.

    The investigation suggests that the helicopter route was dangerously close to the path taken by civilian aircraft. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said that the FAA was supposed to conduct annual safety reviews of helicopter routes, but the board was unable to find evidence of such reviews taking place.

    The NTSB also notified the FAA of 15,214 close-proximity events, 85 of which were serious. The investigators said at a hearing on Tuesday that reviews of such near-collisions were done on a case-by-case basis.

    “The data was in their own systems,” Homendy told reporters. “This was 100% preventable.”

    There wasn’t a positive safety culture at the FAA’s operational arm, Air Traffic Organization, NTSB investigators said, with some employees reporting facing retaliation for raising safety concerns.

    Although safety concerns were raised over mid-air collisions in the D.C. airspace, investigators said, the Air Traffic Organization failed to respond to these concerns. Tower personnel also put together their own helicopter working group to “repeatedly” raise concerns and submit recommendations, Homendy said.

    At the hearing, Homendy also said that there were “some concerns with an overreliance on AI by the FAA,” but stopped short of making any connection between the incident and AI use.

    “They’ve got to be careful on the use of AI to pick up trends, to make sure it doesn’t discount some reports,” Homendy said. According to NTSB’s chief data scientist Loren Groff, the FAA has been using AI to sort through large volumes of pilot reports.

    “There really does need to be a human understanding of what all of these things mean together,” Groff said.

    The chair also signaled that the FAA has yet to learn from its mistakes.

    “Commercial airlines have called me to say the next mid-air is going to be in Burbank, and nobody at the FAA is paying attention to us,” Homendy said.

    The investigators said that the FAA still does not have a standardized definition of what constitutes a close-proximity event.

    On top of inadequate safety measures by the FAA, the Army’s aviation safety system was also riddled with failures, the report found. The army failed to allocate adequate resources to aviation safety management for D.C. area helicopter operations and also lacked a positive safety culture, according to investigators.

    The close call issue in aviation is something that the NTSB has been ringing alarm bells over for years. Back in 2023, Homendy told a U.S. Senate panel that there was an increase in serious near-miss aviation incidents, and it was a symptom of a strained aviation system.

    “We cannot wait until a fatal accident forces action,” Homendy said at the time.

    What happened on Jan. 29?

    On January 29th, 2025, over the Potomac River in Washington D.C., an Army Black Hawk helicopter crashed into an American Airlines regional flight from Wichita, Kansas, as it was about to land in Washington D.C.’s Ronald Reagan National Airport. The incident has been deemed the deadliest plane crash in the country since 2001.

    The tower at Ronald Reagan National Airport was managing both helicopter and flight traffic simultaneously. The tower was understaffed at the time, but the Board found that there were still enough personnel to separate the control positions. The decision was up to the operations supervisor, who had been working a really long shift and investigators believe that the “lack of mandatory relief periods for supervisory air traffic control personnel” could have led to poor performance.

    “Keeping the helicopter control and local control positions continuously combined on the night of the accident increased the local control controller’s workload and negatively impacted his performance and situation awareness,” the report found

    The controllers notified the helicopter of the passenger plane approaching, but failed to warn the flight crew of the helicopter. The pilots could not see the helicopter coming, and the airplane lacked airborne collision avoidance systems that could have alerted the pilots to the risk posed by the helicopter.

    When warned, the helicopter crew said they had eyes on the incoming flight, but had likely confused the aircraft with another, because the controller had not specified direction or distance.

    The helicopter was also flying roughly 100 feet above its maximum altitude, and it’s possible that the crew saw a wrong altitude reading. According to the NTSB’s findings, the FAA and the Army failed to identify “incompatibility” between the error tolerances of barometric altimeters in the helicopters and the helicopter route, which meant that helicopters were “regularly” flying higher than they should and even potentially crossing into airplane paths.

    “It is possible that incorrect settings may be present on other aircraft used throughout the Department of War armed services,” the board concluded.

    [ad_2]

    Ece Yildirim

    Source link

  • Police/Fire

    [ad_1]

    In news taken from the logs of Cape Ann’s police and fire departments:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Police/Fire

    [ad_1]

    In news taken from the logs of Cape Ann’s police and fire departments:

    Manchester-by-the-Sea

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmkDEC@?8m|@?52J[ y2?] `hk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mei`a A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p7E6C 2 >@E@C G69:4=6 DE@A @? E96 D@FE93@F?5 =2?6D @7 #@FE6 `ag ?62C $49@@= $EC66E[ 2 G6C32= H2C?:?8 H2D :DDF65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mcibh A]>]ik^DEC@?8m pDD:DE2?46 H2D AC@G:565 E@ 2 A6CD@? @? &?:@? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mcibe A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p7E6C 2 A@=:46 2=2C> H2D C6A@CE65[ 2 AC@A6CEJ @? {:?4@=? $EC66E H2D 4964<65 2?5 D64FC65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mai_h A]>]ik^DEC@?8m pDD:DE2?46 H2D AC@G:565 E@ A6CD@? =@4<65 @FE @7 9:D @C 96C 42C @? qC@@< $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`ia` A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p 7:C6 2=2C> C6A@CE65 @? !C@4E@C $EC66E H2D =2E6C 56E6C>:?65 E@ 36 72=D6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`aid_ A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p FE:=:EJ :DDF6 2E E96 :?E6CD64E:@? @7 qC:586 2?5 w2C3@C DEC66ED H2D C6A@CE65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“i_c 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p H6=72C6 4964< H2D 4@?5F4E65 @? r6?EC2= $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$FDA:4:@FD 24E:G:EJk^DEC@?8m H2D C6A@CE65 @? r6?EC2= $EC66E 2E cicd 2]>] 2?5 @? $F>>6C $EC66E 2E `_idd 2]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_ 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE 5@H?65 7:C6 H:C6D @? r6?EC2= $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$F?52J[ y2?] `gk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8meibc A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p7E6C 2 >@E@C G69:4=6 DE@A @? $F>>6C $EC66E[ 2 G6C32= H2C?:?8 H2D :DDF65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m&E:=:EJ :DDF6Dk^DEC@?8mi #6BF6DED 7@C 2DD:DE2?46 H6C6 >256 @? r6?EC2= $EC66E 2E hiac 2]>] 2?5 eiag A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mai_h A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p A6CD@? =@4<65 @FE @7 9:D @C 96C 9@FD6 @? !:? $EC66E H2D 2DD:DE65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8maid` 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p7E6C 2 C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE DFDA:4:@FD 24E:G:EJ[ 2 AC@A6CEJ @? q6249 $EC66E H2D 4964<65 2?5 D64FC65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$2EFC52J[ y2?] `fk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m%C277:4 DE@ADik^DEC@?8m (C:EE6? H2C?:?8D H6C6 :DDF65 @? $49@@= $EC66E 2E hiad 2]>][ 2E E96 :?E6CD64E:@? @7 $49@@= $EC66E 2?5 pEH2E6C pG6?F6 2E hid_ 2]>][ 2?5 @? {:?4@=? $EC66E 2E `ia` A]>] ‘6C32= H2C?:?8D H6C6 :DDF65 2E E96 :?E6CD64E:@?D @7 rC@@<65 {2?6 2?5 #@4] 2?5 $49@@= $EC66E 2?5 w:556? {6586 #@25 2E hib` A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgid` A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p 7:C6 2=2C> C6A@CE65 @? (@@59@=> r:C4=6 H2D =2E6C 56E6C>:?65 E@ 36 72=D6]k^Am

    k9bmtDD6Ik^9bm

    kAmkDEC@?8m|@?52J[ y2?] `hk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mfiah 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE DFDA:4:@FD 24E:G:EJ @? $@FE96C? pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mcidh 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m $@>6@?6 H2D C6A@CE65=J DA@<6? 23@FE 2 C6A@CE @7 2 E9C62E >256 @? xD=2?5 #@25[ ]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`aidc 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p AC@A6CEJ @? y@9? (:D6 pG6?F6 H2D 4964<65 2?5 D64FC65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$F?52J[ y2?] `gk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mx?5:G:5F2=D H6C6 2DD:DE65k^DEC@?8m @? y@9? (:D6 pG6?F6 2E gicb 2?5 `_i`_ 2]>][ 2?5 @? $E@CJ $EC66E 2E “ic_ A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhibf A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE 2 >@E@C G69:4=6 4C2D9 @? y@9? (:D6 pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8meibg 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p? 2>3F=2?46 EC2?DA@CE H2D C67FD65 @? t2DE6C? pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mbi_d 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE 2 >@E@C G69:4=6 4C2D9 @? $@FE96C? pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`ai_c 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p AC@A6CEJ @? $E@CJ $EC66E H2D 4964<65 2?5 D64FC65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$2EFC52J[ y2?] `fk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgiag A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE E96 6CC2E:4 @A6C2E:@? @7 2 >@E@C G69:4=6 2E E96 :?E6CD64E:@? @7 $@FE96C? pG6?F6 2?5 pAA=6 $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mbibg A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE 2? 2==6865 7C2F5^D42> @? |2A=6 $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`icg A]>]ik^DEC@?8m p C6A@CE H2D >256 23@FE 2 FE:=:EJ :DDF6 @? y@9? (:D6 pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgia_ 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m p AC@A6CEJ @? !:4<6C:?8 $EC66E H2D 4964<65 2?5 D64FC65]k^Am

    k9bmv=@F46DE6Ck^9bm

    kAmkDEC@?8m(65?6D52J[ y2?] `ck^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgi`e 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi %96 p46 w2C5H2C6 3F:=5:?8 @? v=@F46DE6C rC@DD:?8 rC@DD:?8 #@25 H2D 4964<65 27E6C 24E:G2E:@? @7 2 9@=5FA 2=2C>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgi`_ 2]>]ik^DEC@?8m !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 27E6C 2 3FC8=2C 2=2C> 24E:G2E:@? 2E E96 v=@F46DE6C !F3=:4 $49@@=D 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2?5 AC6<:?56C82CE6? 3F:=5:?8 @? q=24<3FC? sC:G6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m|65:42= 6>6C86?4:6Dk^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 AC@G:565 @? r92E62F w6:89ED 2E ei_g 2]>] 2?5 @? u6CCJ $EC66E 2E fidc 2]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mfi_e 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 7@==@HFA :?G6DE:82E:@? H2D 4@?5F4E65 @? pCE9FC $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`aib_ 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 4@>A=2:?E 23@FE ?@:D6 @? r@>>@?H62=E9 pG6?F6 2E (6==D $EC66E ?66565 ?@ 24E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m%F6D52J[ y2? `bk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhiaa A]>k^DEC@?8m]i p 4:E2E:@?^H2C?:?8 H2D :DDF65 2E 2 EC277:4 DE@A @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E 2E {FA:?6 {2?6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m&?H6=4@>6 8F6DEDk^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 2E %96 rC@H’D }6DE @? |2:? $EC66E 2E di`d A]>] 2?5 2E (2=8C66?D @? |2:? $EC66E 2E h A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8ms:DEFC32?46Dk^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 @? !:?6 $EC66E 2E giaa 2]>] p C6A@CE @7 A2C6?ED 2C8F:?8 2E 2 32D<6E32== 82>6 @? {6D=:6 ~] y@9?D@? #@25 2E fidc A]>] H2D F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m|65:42= 6>6C86?4:6Dk^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 AC@G:565 @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E 2E aiad 2]>] p A6CD@? H2D E2<6? E@ 2 9@DA:E2= 7C@> w:89 $EC66E 2E gibb 2]>] }@ 4CF:D6C H2D 2G2:=23=6 E@ 8@ {:?4@=? !2C< 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 2 DEC@?8 @5@C @7 82D 2E ei_b A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mdi`_ A]>]k^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 27E6C A@=:46 >256 2 H6==36:?8 4964< @? pD9=2?5 !=246]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mrC2D96D H:E9 @?=J AC@A6CEJ 52>286 C6A@CE65k^DEC@?8mi p 4C2D9 C6A@CE65 2E r@==:?D p6C@DA246^$2?5J $6CG:46 |249:?6 @? s@CJ #@25 4@F=5 ?@E 36 7@F?5] H2D AC@G:565 2E 2 4C2D9 2E E96 #@D6 q2<6C $6?:@C r6?E6C @? |2?F6= u] {6H:D $EC66E 2E di_` A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mcida A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 7@==@HFA :?G6DE:82E:@? H2D 4@?5F4E65 2E $F3H2J @? #2:=C@25 pG6?F6] t>A=@J66D 925 C6A@CE65 y2?] a E96:C E:A >@?6J H2D DE@=6?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mcib_ A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p >:DD:?8 A6CD@? @? ~C492C5 $EC66E ?66565 ?@ 24E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mbibg A]>]k^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 @? {:? 24E:G2E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mp?:>2= r@?EC@=k^DEC@?8m 4@?5F4E65 2? :?G6DE:82E:@? @? t=> $EC66E 2E gic_ 2]>] 2?5 AC@G:565 D6CG:46 @? q2DD pG6?F6 2E aidh A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$FDA:4:@FD 24E:G:EJk^DEC@?8mi }@ 24E:@? H2D ?66565 @? w:89 #@4< %6CC246 2E `ai_` A]>] $6CG:46 H2D AC@G:565 @? |2A=6H@@5 pG6?F6 2E r=6G6=2?5 $EC66E 2E aiad A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m!2C<:?8 4@>A=2:?EDk^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46 H2D C6?56C65 @? |2D@? $EC66E 2E fi`c 2]>] %96 :DDF6 2E E96 uC:6?5 $EC66E !=2J8C@F?5 =@E 4@F=5 ?@E 36 =@42E65 2E `aidd A]>] }@ 24E:@? H2D ?66565 2E #:88D 2?5 |:55=6 DEC66ED 2E `idc A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“ibh 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6A@CE @7 E9C62ED >256 @? ~2<6D pG6?F6 H2D F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“i_g 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46 H2D AC@G:565 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 7C2F5 @? #6G6C6 $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“i_b 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 27E6C AC@A6CEJ @? }2@>: sC:G6 2E {@?8 q6249 #@25 H2D 4964<65]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m$F>>@?D6D E@ 4@FCEk^DEC@?8m 4@F=5 ?@E 36 D6CG65 @? |@F?E ‘6C?@? $EC66E 2E gidh @C hi“ 2]>][ @C @? r6?E6??:2= pG6?F6 2E `_icc 2]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`_ibf 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46 H2D 8:G6? 7@C 2 C6A@CE @7 =@DE^7@F?5 AC@A6CEJ @? t=> $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mgiag 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi %96 DF3;64E @7 2 H6==36:?8 C6BF6DE 4@F=5 ?@E 36 7@F?5 @? tDD6I pG6?F6]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m|@?52J[ y2?] `ak^DEC@?8mk^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8ms:DEFC32?46Dk^DEC@?8mi !6246 H2D C6DE@C65 @? u=F>6 #@25 2E ei`g A]>] p A6CD@? C67FD65 2>3F=2?46 D6CG:46D @? w:89=2?5 $EC66E 2E hi`d A]>] $6CG:46D H6C6 AC@G:565 @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E 2E `_idb 2?5 “ibh A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhi_h A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 4:E2E:@?^H2C?:?8 H2D :DDF65 2E EC277:4 DE@A @? $49@@= w@FD6 #@25] %96 =@8 C676CD E@ 2? 2CC6DE]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m|65:42= 6>6C86?4:6Dk^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46D H6C6 AC@G:565 2E |2C<6E q2D<6E @? v=@F46DE6C rC@DD:?8 #@25 2E `ida A]>] 2?5 @? uC:6?5 $EC66E 2E `idb A]>] r2==D 7C@> p424:2 $EC66E 2E `aibh A]>][ (966=6C $EC66E 2E di`d A]>][ 2?5 tDD6I pG6?F6 2E fi_g A]>] H6C6 C676CC65 E@ 2?@E96C 286?4J] x?5:G:5F2=D H6C6 E2<6? E@ 2 9@DA:E2= 7C@> #J2? #@25 2E hidf 2]>][ (6DE !2C:D9 t=6>6?E2CJ $49@@= @? r@?4@C5 $EC66E 2E “i_f 2]>][ E96 p4E:@? x?4] D96=E6C @? |2:? $EC66E 2E diba A]>] 2?5 7C@> |2C<6E q2D<6E @? v=@F46DE6C rC@DD:?8 #@25 2E fibg A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8meic_ A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6BF6DE 7@C 2DD:DE2?46 @? vC66? $EC66E H2D C676CC65 E@ 2?@E96C 286?4J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mrC2D96D H:E9 @?=J AC@A6CEJ 52>286 C6A@CE65k^DEC@?8mi p 4C2D9 C6A@CE65 @? E96 p] !:2EE p?5C6H qC:586^#@FE6 `ag D@FE93@F?5 4@F=5 ?@E 36 =@42E65] $6CG:46D H6C6 AC@G:565 @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E 2E vC2?E r:C4=6 2E biab A]>][ 2?5 @? q=24<3FC? r:C4=6 2E ei_g A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mx?5:G:5F2=D H6C6 2DD:DE65k^DEC@?8m @? (:==@H@@5 sC:G6 2E “iba 2]>][ 2E |2E96D@? v2D @? vC@G6 $EC66E 2E “icf 2]>] H96? A6246 H2D C6DE@C65[ v=@F46DE6C u:C6 w625BF2CE6CD @? $49@@= $EC66E 2E d A]>]] 2?5 @? $E2C]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mci_a A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6BF6DE E@ 2DD:DE 2?@E96C 286?4J 2E |4!96CD@? !2C< @? !C@DA64E $EC66E 2E ci_a A]>] C6BF:C65 ?@ 24E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m(6==36:?8 4964] r964][ 2E $9665J !2C< @? !=62D2?E $EC66E 2E `ica A]>] 2?5 @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E 😕 E96 2C62 @7 s:2>@?5 r@G6 |FD:4 2E biaf A]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8maib_ A]>]k^DEC@?8mi p C6A@CE @7 =@DE^7@F?5 AC@A6CEJ 2E r@C=:DD pG6?F6 2?5 (966=6C $EC66E ?66565 ?@ 24E:@?]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mpDD:DE E96 u:C6 s6A2CE>6?Ek^DEC@?8mi }@ 4CF:D6C H2D 2G2:=23=6 E@ 8@ E@ |28?@=:2 pG6?F6 2E hibf 2]>] p 42== 2E `i`h A]>] 2E E96 (6DE v=@F46DE6C (2E6C %C62E>6?E !=2?E @? |28?@=:2 pG6?F6 H2D C6=2J65 E@ 2?@E96C 286?4J]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m`aiad A]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46 7@C 2 4@>A=2:?E 23@FE A2C<:?8 2E $49@@= 2?5 |:55=6 DEC66ED H2D AC@G:565]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m“icb 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi p 7@==@HFA :?G6DE:82E:@? H2D 4@?5F4E65 @? (2D9:?8E@? $EC66E]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mp?:>2= r@?EC@=k^DEC@?8m AC@G:565 D6CG:46 @? (:==@H $EC66E 2E “i“ 2]>] 2?5 :?G6DE:82E65 2 42== E96C6 2E “iad 2]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8m~E96C 286?4:6Dk^DEC@?8m H6C6 2DD:DE65 2E E96 A@=:46 DE2E:@?^4@FCE9@FD6 4@>A=6I @? |2:? $EC66E 2E hicf 2]>] 2?5 @? (:==@H $EC66E 2E `_ice 2]>]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8mhiad 2]>]k^DEC@?8mi $6CG:46 H2D AC@G:565 7@C 2 3FC8=2C 2=2C> 24E:G2E:@? @? pE=2?E:4 #@25]k^Am

    kAmkDEC@?8muC:52J[ y2?] hk^DEC@?8mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Police search for suspect in the shooting of an Indiana judge and his wife

    [ad_1]

    An Indiana state court judge and his wife were in stable condition Monday as authorities continued to search for suspects who shot the couple the day before at their Lafayette home.Steven Meyer, a Tippecanoe Superior Court judge, suffered an injury to his arm, and his wife, Kimberly Meyer, had a hip injury from the attack, authorities said.Officers responded Sunday afternoon to a report of a shooting in the residential area about 60 miles northwest of Indianapolis to find the couple injured. They were treated for their wounds, and officers recovered shell casings from the scene.Lafayette Police said the investigation remains active and involves local, state and federal agencies. They have not released a motive or suspect description.Mayor Tony Roswarski assured the community that every available resource was being used to apprehend the person or people responsible for what he called “this senseless, unacceptable act of violence.”Kimberly Meyer said in a statement Monday that she has “great confidence” in investigators and is grateful to the officers and medical professionals who helped her and her husband.The shooting had other Indiana judges worried for their safety, with state Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush urging them to “please remain vigilant in your own security.”“I worry about the safety of all our judges,” she wrote in a letter to the state’s judges. “As you work to peacefully resolve more than 1 million cases a year, you must not only feel safe, you must also be safe. Any violence against a judge or a judge’s family is completely unacceptable.”

    An Indiana state court judge and his wife were in stable condition Monday as authorities continued to search for suspects who shot the couple the day before at their Lafayette home.

    Steven Meyer, a Tippecanoe Superior Court judge, suffered an injury to his arm, and his wife, Kimberly Meyer, had a hip injury from the attack, authorities said.

    Officers responded Sunday afternoon to a report of a shooting in the residential area about 60 miles northwest of Indianapolis to find the couple injured. They were treated for their wounds, and officers recovered shell casings from the scene.

    Lafayette Police said the investigation remains active and involves local, state and federal agencies. They have not released a motive or suspect description.

    Mayor Tony Roswarski assured the community that every available resource was being used to apprehend the person or people responsible for what he called “this senseless, unacceptable act of violence.”

    Kimberly Meyer said in a statement Monday that she has “great confidence” in investigators and is grateful to the officers and medical professionals who helped her and her husband.

    The shooting had other Indiana judges worried for their safety, with state Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush urging them to “please remain vigilant in your own security.”

    “I worry about the safety of all our judges,” she wrote in a letter to the state’s judges. “As you work to peacefully resolve more than 1 million cases a year, you must not only feel safe, you must also be safe. Any violence against a judge or a judge’s family is completely unacceptable.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Glenwood South shooting renews push for public safety in downtown Raleigh

    [ad_1]

    A weekend shooting along Glenwood South has renewed calls for public safety.

    Raleigh police responded to a shooting on Glenwood South just before 2:30 a.m. Sunday. According to RPD’s preliminary investigation, a woman went to the hospital with minor injuries after she was shot in the crossfire of a fight.

    As a result, 26-year-old Stephan Jordan Bryant, 25-year-old Keyshawn Jamaal Bryant and 26-year-old Jayden Lee Draughn were arrested and charged with inciting a riot. Stephan Bryan was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm in city limits.

    Raleigh police confirmed that both Bryants are brothers.

    “It’s affected the way that we exist as a community. In fact, some people have left, and some are leaving because we don’t feel safe in the area,” said Roy Attride, who’s lived in the Glenwood South neighborhood for 25 years.

    Attride’s public safety concerns have grown as the population has. On any given weekend, 10,000 people descend into the social district.

    >>Raleigh night cap: New nightime noise limits for local businesses now in place

    Neighbors in Glenwood South meet biweekly with Raleigh Police to share concerns and discuss initiatives. Attride said neighbors have also started installing security cameras and proposed a neighborhood watch.

    “Raleigh police have been great to work with, but we know they’re understaffed,” Attride said.

    Over the past two years, Raleigh police have barricaded vehicles from the social district during peak hours and stepped up their presence in the area.

    Businesses like Smash Social Club have also added their own security.

    “We do have security here on Friday and Saturday nights after 9 o’clock, so we feel really safe out here,” said Jess Wallace, an events manager at Smash.

    The weekend shooting is the most recent case of crime downtown.

    In November, at least two people were shot in a similar situation. In July, there were three separate shootings off Glenwood in a single night.

    According to recent Raleigh statistics, violent crime in the downtown district has remained relatively steady in 2025 compared to 2024, though most property crimes are down.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Police/Fire: Burning season open though May 1

    [ad_1]

    STOW — Massachusetts fire and environmental leaders are reminding residents to use caution, care, and common sense if they plan to burn certain agricultural waste during open burning season, which began Thursday and runs until May 1.

    State Fire Marshal Jon M. Davine, Commissioner Bonnie Heiple of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Chief Fire Warden David Celino of the Department of Conservation and Recreation said restrictions on open burning are imposed at the state and local levels.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“~A6? 3FC?:?8 D62D@? 2AA=:6D @?=J E@ DA64:7:4 EJA6D @7 7F6= 2?5 😀 2=H2JD =:>:E65 32D65 @? E96 52:=J 7:C6 92K2C5[ 6?G:C@?>6?E2= 4@?46C?D[ 2?5 =@42E:@?[” s2G:?6 D2:5] “tG6? H96C6 3FC?:?8 😀 2FE9@C:K65[ J@F >FDE 92G6 2 A6C>:E 7C@> J@FC =@42= 7:C6 56A2CE>6?E 2?5 J@F >FDE 36 23=6 E@ 6IE:?8F:D9 E96 7:C6 @? 2 >@>6?E’D ?@E:46] !=62D6 >2<6 D276EJ J@FC AC:@C:EJ H96? 3FC?:?8]”k^Am

    kAmx>AC@A6C @A6? 3FC?:?8 4C62E6D D276EJ C:D 2:C BF2=:EJ[ w6:A=6 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“~?=J 3FC?:?8 2AAC@G65 ?2EFC2= >2E6C:2=D — =:<6 5C:7EH@@5 2?5 ACF?:?8D — 2?5 3FC?:?8 @? ‘8@@5 2:C 52JD’ H96? A@==FE:@? =6G6=D 2C6 =@H 2?5 2:C 4:C4F=2E6D H6==[ 6?DFC6D E96D6 7:C6D 42? 36 >2?2865 D276=J[” D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAmr6=:?@ D2:5 C6D:56?ED 92G6 D66? 9@H BF:4<=J @FE5@@C 7:C6D 42? 8C@H @FE @7 4@?EC@=]k^Am

    kAm“(6 6?4@FC286 6G6CJ@?6 E@ 6I6C4:D6 42FE:@? – 5@?’E C:D< 2 7:C6 E92E AFED J@F[ J@FC 9@>6 @C J@FC 4@>>F?:EJ 2E C:D<] qFC? @?=J 2AAC@G65 >2E6C:2=D[ 2=H2JD 86E 2 A6C>:E 7C@> J@FC =@42= 7:C6 56A2CE>6?E[ 2?5 6?DFC6 E92E 2?J 7:C6 😀 6IE:?8F:D965 AC@A6C=J 2?5 4@>A=6E6=J]”k^Am

    kAm%96D6 C6DEC:4E:@?D 2C6 2FE9@C:K65 3J DE2E6 =2H[ H9:49 D6ED 32D6=:?6 C6BF:C6>6?ED 32D65 @? 2:C BF2=:EJ 2?5 2==@HD 7@C “?@ 3FC?” 52JD]k^Am

    kAm~? r2A6 p??[ @A6? 3FC?:?8 😀 A6C>:EE65 H:E9 E96 7@==@H:?8 =:>:E2E:@?D] {@42= 7:C6 56A2CE>6?ED >2J 56?J 2 A6C>:E @C D6E 255:E:@?2= =:>:E2E:@?D :7 4:C4F>DE2?46D >2<6 @A6? 3FC?:?8 92K2C5@FD]k^Am

    kAm~?=J 46CE2:? 28C:4F=EFC2= H2DE6 >2J 36 3FC?65] %9:D :?4=F56D 3CFD9[ 42?6[ 5C:7EH@@5[ C6D:56?E:2= 7@C6DECJ 563C:D[ 7CF:E EC66 2?5 3FD9 ACF?:?8D[ C2DA36CCJ DE2= 28C:4F=EFC2= =2?5 4=62C:?8[ 2?5 7F?8FD:?764E65 6=> H@@5 :7 ?@ @E96C 2446AE23=6 >62?D @7 5:DA@D2= 😀 2G2:=23=6] xE 😀 F?=2H7F= E@ 3FC? =62G6D[ 8C2DD[ 92J[ DEF>AD[ E:C6D[ 9@FD69@=5 EC2D9[ 4@?DECF4E:@? >2E6C:2=D[ 56>@=:E:@? 563C:D[ @C 3CFD9[ EC66D[ 42?6[ @C 5C:7EH@@5 7C@> 4@>>6C4:2= @C :?5FDEC:2= =2?5 4=62C:?8]k^Am

    kAm~A6? 3FC?:?8 >2J @?=J 36 4@?5F4E65ik^Am

    kAm— (:E9 2 A6C>:E :DDF65 😕 25G2?46 3J E96 =@42= 7:C6 56A2CE>6?E]k^Am

    kAm— q6EH66? `_ 2]>] 2?5 c A]>]k^Am

    kAm— pE =62DE fd 766E 7C@> 2== 5H6==:?8D 2?5 H:E9@FE 42FD:?8 2 ?F:D2?46]k^Am

    kAm— pD 4=@D6 2D A@DD:3=6 E@ E96 D@FC46 @7 >2E6C:2= 36:?8 3FC?65]k^Am

    kAm— (96? :E H:== ?@E 42FD6 @C 4@?EC:3FE6 E@ 2 4@?5:E:@? @7 2:C A@==FE:@?]k^Am

    kAm!6CD@?D H9@ 3FC? F?=2H7F==J @C 2==@H 2 7:C6 E@ 8C@H @FE @7 4@?EC@= 4@F=5 36 96=5 =:23=6 7@C 7:C67:89E:?8 4@DED @C 7246 7:?6D @C 6G6? ;2:= E:>6]k^Am

    kAmu@C AA6? 3FC?:?8 D276EJik^Am

    kAm— p? 25F=E D9@F=5 E6?5 E@ E96 7:C6 2E 2== E:>6D 2?5 <66A E@@=D E@ 6IE:?8F:D9 :E 4=@D6 3J]k^Am

    kAm— qFC? D>2== 2>@F?ED 2E 2 E:>6]k^Am

    kAm— }6G6C FD6 82D@=:?6[ <6C@D6?6[ @C @E96C 2446=6C2?ED E@ DE2CE E96 7:C6]k^Am

    kAm— s@?’E H2:E 7@C E96 7:C6 56A2CE>6?E E@ E6== J@F E92E :E 92D 364@>6 F?D276 E@ 3FC?i AFE E96 7:C6 @FE :7 H:?5D A:4< FA @C E96 H62E96C 492?86D] |@DE 7:C6D 86E @FE @7 4@?EC@= 5FC:?8 DF556? H:?5 492?86D]k^Am

    kAm— x7 E96 7:C6 86ED @FE @7 4@?EC@=[ 42== E96 =@42= 7:C6 56A2CE>6?E C:89E 2H2J]k^Am

    kAmL6>N— %:>6D $E277k^Am

    kAmx? @E96C ?6HD E2<6? 7C@> E96 =@8D @7 r2A6 p??’D A@=:46 2?5 7:C6 56A2CE>6?EDik^Am

    [ad_2]

    Source link