ReportWire

Tag: Wall Street Journal

  • NVIDIA is still planning to make a ‘huge’ investment in OpenAI, CEO says

    [ad_1]

    NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang told reporters that the company will “invest a great deal of money” in OpenAI’s latest funding round, according to Bloomberg, after The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that the two companies were rethinking a previous $100 billion deal that hasn’t “progressed beyond the early stages” of negotiations. Speaking to reporters in Taipei this weekend, Huang reportedly said it could be “the largest investment we’ve ever made.”

    NVIDIA and OpenAI jointly announced in September that NVIDIA would be investing up to $100 billion in OpenAI to build 10 gigawatts of AI data centers. The companies said then that they were targeting the second half of 2026 for the first phase of the project to go online. Citing sources familiar with the discussions, The Wall Street Journal reported that Huang has highlighted privately that the agreement was nonbinding and has criticized OpenAI’s business approach as lacking discipline.

    According to Bloomberg, however, Huang called the report’s claims “nonsense,” and told reporters on Saturday, “I believe in OpenAI. The work that they do is incredible. They’re one of the most consequential companies of our time.” But, Bloomberg reports, he said NVIDIA’s investment in this funding round wouldn’t come near $100 billion.

    [ad_2]

    Cheyenne MacDonald

    Source link

  • Pentagon will reportedly award SpaceX a $2 billion contract to help develop the ‘Golden Dome’

    [ad_1]

    SpaceX will reportedly receive a $2 billion contract to develop satellites for the US government, according to the . The WSJ‘s report detailed that SpaceX will be tasked with developing up to 600 satellites that can track missiles and aircraft and will be used for President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” project.

    in May, the president introduced a project to build an anti-missile defense system that would intercept missile attacks before reaching their target. The Golden Dome is reminiscent of Israel’s system, but the Pentagon has yet to reveal concrete details about the project. Considering the scale of the project, it’s worth noting that SpaceX’s reported $2 billion contract could be one of many associated with the Golden Dome. According to the report, companies like Anduril Industries and Palantir Technologies could also be involved with the development, which the Trump administration wants to complete before the end of his presidential term.

    Beyond the Golden Dome, the WSJ reported that the Pentagon is planning to use SpaceX’s extensive satellite network for other purposes, including military communications and vehicle tracking. While the numbers are constantly fluctuating, SpaceX currently has more than 8,000 satellites for its Starlink service.

    [ad_2]

    Jackson Chen

    Source link

  • Alphabet will pay $22 million to settle President Trump’s YouTube lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Alphabet President Donald Trump $22 million as part of a settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against the company over the suspension of various YouTube accounts following the January 6 riot at the US capital, as first reported by the . The suit includes other plaintiffs whose YouTube channels were banned that will split an additional $2.5 million in settlement payouts.

    Trump in 2021, alongside lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook over similar suspensions, claiming they infringed on his first amendment rights. Twitter, now known as X since its acquisition and rebrand by Elon Musk, paid President Trump roughly $10 million to settle that suit. Meta also with the president over his suspension from the platform for $25 million earlier this year.

    This settlement comes shortly after Alphabet to the House Judiciary Committee lambasting government pressure to moderate content on its platforms. The company also shared that YouTube would be offering a path to reinstatement for accounts previously banned for COVID-19 or election integrity related misinformation.

    The settlement from Alphabet will be paid to the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit partner of the National Park Service, and will be earmarked for construction of the that President Trump is building at The White House. The monies from the Meta settlement were similarly earmarked.

    This summer Paramount, parent company of CBS, brought by the president over claims that the network intended to “confuse, deceive and mislead the public” by editing an interview with Kamala Harris. The media company paid $16 million to settle the president’s suit. Three weeks later the the $8 billion acquisition of Paramount by Skydance.

    [ad_2]

    Andre Revilla

    Source link

  • Lindsey Halligan is already making mistakes prosecuting James Comey

    [ad_1]

    Lindsey Halligan’s debut as a federal prosecutor has drawn close scrutiny after a series of early errors surfaced in court filings related to the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.

    Halligan, previously known as a private attorney and one of Donald Trump’s personal lawyers, assumed the role of U.S. Attorney only recently and has never prosecuted a case before.

    Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.

    Why It Matters

    The missteps go beyond clerical slips: they test the strength and fairness of the government’s case and the credibility of the Justice Department itself.

    Procedural errors can delay or weaken a prosecution, giving defense lawyers leverage to argue overreach. They also risk reinforcing criticism that this politically charged indictment—announced soon after Donald Trump publicly urged charges against political opponents—is more about pressure than law.

    How Halligan recovers from these mistakes could shape not just the outcome of the Comey case but public trust in the department’s independence and competence.

    What To Know

    Problems in Halligan’s initial filings, including duplicate case numbers and clerical errors such as misspellings in official documents have been flagged.

    A widely shared social media post on X noted she “doesn’t know the difference between a bedrock principle and a bedrock ‘principal’.”

    The difference between the two is about word meaning—and in legal writing, it’s important:

    • Principle (with “le” at the end) means a fundamental truth, rule, or concept.
      Example: “Due process is a bedrock principle of American law.”
    • Principal (with “al” at the end) means a leader or main person (like a school principal) or can mean “main” or “primary.”
      Example: “The principal reason for dismissal was lack of evidence.”

    So “bedrock principle” is correct when you mean a foundational idea or standard. “Bedrock principal” would incorrectly suggest a foundational person or primary figure, which doesn’t make sense in legal filings.

    While U.S. Magistrate Judge Vaala was also described on X September 28, 2025, as “trying to untangle Lindsey Halligan’s first adventure in indicting someone.”

    Some social media commentary veered into personal territory—mentioning Halligan’s past role as Donald Trump’s lawyer—but the concerns raised publicly are framed around prosecutorial competence and case management.

    Questions about Halligan’s preparedness intensified when The Washington Post reported she “presented the Comey indictment all by herself to the grand jury,” citing people familiar with the matter.

    Legal Debate Over The Charges

    The case accuses Comey of misleading investigators about authorizing leaks during his tenure at the FBI.

    The prosecution’s path will not be straightforward. To convict under 18 U.S.C. §1001(a) (2), prosecutors must prove the statements were false, that Comey knew they were false when made, and that they were material to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry. Proving intent—showing deliberate deception rather than mistake or faulty memory—has historically been difficult with senior officials and complex testimony.

    And the legal theory behind the indictment is contested, including by some who have criticized Comey previously.

    Fox News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said on Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street that the charges appear weak. “Well, I don’t think there’s a case,” McCarthy told Bartiromo on September 26.

    He said the indictment seems “premised on something that’s not true, which is that [Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. … McCabe said that he directed the leak, and he told Comey about it after the fact. So, it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OK’ing it before it happened. So, I don’t see how they can make that case.”

    McCarthy also noted: “If you were talking about the information that was provided to the FISA court … that’s not what this case is about,” underscoring that the indictment focuses narrowly on a single disclosure.

    Not The First DOJ Misstep — But Unusual At This Level

    Filing mistakes are not unheard of in federal litigation, but they rarely surface repeatedly in a high-profile case led by a U.S. Attorney.

    In 2017, the Justice Department briefly misspelled then–acting Attorney General Sally Yates’s name in a filing, and in 2020 a DOJ motion in the Michael Flynn case cited the wrong date for a judge’s order; both were corrected quickly and drew little attention.

    Halligan, 36, the newly installed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—one of the most consequential federal prosecutorial offices in the country—spent most of her career in Florida insurance litigation before joining Trump’s legal team during the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation.

    Court records indicate she has participated in only three federal cases prior to this appointment.

    What stands out with Halligan’s early work is the combination of multiple procedural errors—including duplicate case numbers and the “principle/principal” slip — and her lack of prior prosecutorial experience while serving in one of the department’s most senior roles.

    What People Are Saying

    Carol Leonnig and Vaughn Hillyard added September 26, on X that “Lindsey Halligan, the newly installed U.S. Attorney who has never prosecuted a case, presented the Comey indictment all by herself to the grand jury … She may have a problem finding a prosecutor in office to work on the case.”

    What Happens Next

    The case now moves into pretrial motions, where Comey’s lawyers will challenge the charges and cite early filing errors. Halligan can correct those mistakes and may add experienced prosecutors, though support is uncertain.

    If the case survives, discovery will test the evidence that Comey authorized leaks as political scrutiny grows. Judges often allow technical fixes, but repeated missteps could damage the prosecution’s credibility and shape views of Halligan’s leadership.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s TikTok deal will give control to a group of US investors, report says

    [ad_1]

    The plan to “save” TikTok is starting to come into focus. On Tuesday The Wall Street Journal reported more details about a deal between the US and China as the two sides are apparently “finalizing” specifics of the arrangement.

    According to the report, TikTok’s US business will be owned primarily by a group of US investors, which will have a “roughly” 80 percent stake in the entity. The group includes longtime TikTok partner Oracle, as well as Silicon Valley VC firm Andreesen Horowitz and the private equity firm Silver Lake. Chinese shareholders will have a minority stake that keeps their ownership under the 20 percent threshold required by law. The US government will also reportedly get to choose one board member for the “American-dominated” body.

    Reports about such an arrangement have been swirling for months, with President Donald Trump saying that a deal could be “about two weeks” away. It seems that Chinese officials have finally signed off on the new arrangement, with a Chinese regulator saying earlier this week that the new US version of TikTok to use the Chinese algorithm.

    Now, The Wall Street Journal reports that “TikTok engineers will re-create” the app’s algorithm for a brand new TikTok app using technology licensed from ByteDance. The company is reportedly testing the new app. Oracle will oversee US user data for the operation; TikTok and Oracle have partnered on data security following previous negotiations between the company and the US government.

    Even though a final deal is apparently close, it could still take some time before it’s finalized. In the meantime, Trump extended the deadline that would have banned the current version of the app in the US . On Tuesday he told reporters at the White House he planned to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday “to confirm everything.”

    [ad_2]

    Karissa Bell

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk railed against transgender rights. His killing has further fueled the fight

    [ad_1]

    America’s already roiling debate around transgender rights sharply escalated in recent days after Charlie Kirk — one of the nation’s most prominent anti-transgender voices — was fatally shot by a suspect whose life and social circles have been meticulously scrutinized for any connection to the transgender community.

    Taking over Kirk’s podcast Monday, top Trump administration officials suggested they are gearing up to avenge Kirk by waging war on left-leaning organizations broadly, despite law enforcement statements that the shooter is believed to have acted alone. Queer organizations took that as a direct threat.

    Kirk railed against transgender rights in life, and just prior to being shot on a Utah college campus last week was answering a question about the alleged prevalence of transgender people among the nation’s mass shooters — an idea he had personally stoked, despite pushback from statistical researchers.

    Those circumstances seemed to prime the resulting outrage among his conservative base to be hyper-focused on any transgender connection.

    The connection was further stoked when the Wall Street Journal reported on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report that suggested — seemingly erroneously — that etchings on bullet casings found with the rifle suspected as being used in the shooting included transgender “ideology.”

    It was further inflamed when Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said that suspect Tyler Robinson’s roommate and romantic partner — who he said was “shocked” by the shooting and cooperating with authorities — is currently transitioning.

    Leading conservative influencers, some with the ear of President Trump, have openly called for a retribution campaign against transgender people and the LGBTQ+ community more broadly. Laura Loomer called transgender people a “national security threat,” said their “movement needs to be classified as a terrorist organization IMMEDIATELY,” and said that Trump should make transitioning illegal.

    LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, meanwhile, have condemned such generalizations and attacks on the community and warned that such rhetoric only increases the likelihood of more political violence — particularly against transgender people and others who have been demonized for years, including by Kirk.

    “The obsession with tying trans people to shootings is vile & dangerous,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), one of California’s leading LGBTQ+ voices, wrote on social media. “First they try to say the shooter might be trans & WSJ amplifies that lie. Once that fell apart, they pivot to ‘he lived with a trans person.’ Even if true, who cares? It’s McCarthyism & truly disgusting.”

    Many political leaders have called for calm, and for people to wait for the investigation into the suspect’s motivations before jumping to conclusions or casting blame. Cox has said that Robinson’s political ideology, different from that of his conservative family, appeared to be “part of” what drove him to shoot Kirk, but that the exact motivations for the crime remained unclear.

    “We’re all drawing lots of conclusions on how someone like this could be radicalized,” Cox said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “Those are important questions for us to ask and important questions for us to answer.”

    Searching for a connection

    Officials were expected to release charging documents against Robinson on Tuesday that could contain more information about a motive. However, the debate has hardly waited.

    Both the political right and left have searched for evidence connecting Robinson to their opposing political camp.

    One of the first pieces of information to catch fire was the ATF reporting on the bullet etchings including transgender “ideology” — which turned out to be untrue, according to Cox’s later description of those etchings. That reporting immediately inspired condemnations of the entire transgender community.

    “Seems like per capita the radical transgender movement has to be the most violent movement anywhere in the world,” the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. said in a Rumble livestream Thursday.

    On Friday morning, President Trump said “vicious and horrible” people on the left were the only ones to blame for the political violence. “They want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone,” he said on “Fox & Friends.”

    Trump was asked Monday afternoon if he thought the suspect acted alone.

    “I can tell you he didn’t work alone on the internet because it seems that he became radicalized on the internet,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “And he was radicalized on the left, he is a left. A lot of problems with the left and they get protected and they shouldn’t be protected.”

    The ATF declined to comment on the leaked report. The Wall Street Journal published an editor’s note walking back its reporting, noting that Cox’s description of the etchings included no references to the transgender community.

    The Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group, responded to the uproar by criticizing the Wall Street Journal for publishing unsubstantiated claims that fueled hateful rhetoric toward the transgender community.

    “This reporting was reckless and irresponsible, and it led to a wave of threats against the trans community from right-wing influencers — and a resulting wave of terror for a community that is already living in fear,” the group said.

    Spreading the narrative

    The debate has heightened existing tensions around transgender rights, which Trump campaigned against and targeted with one of his first official acts — an executive order that said his administration would recognize only “two genders, male and female.”

    He and his administration have since banned transgender people from military service, blocked the issuance of U.S. passports with the gender-neutral X marker, threatened medical providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and sued California for allowing transgender athletes to compete in youth sports.

    In September, the Department of Justice also reportedly began weighing a rule that would restrict transgender individuals from owning firearms — a move that came after a shooter who identified as transgender killed two children and injured 18 others at a Catholic school in Minneapolis.

    That shooting led prominent conservatives, including senior Trump administration officials, to link gender identity to violence. National security advisor Sebastian Gorka claimed that an “inordinately high” number of attacks have been linked to “individuals who are confused about their gender” — a trend he claimed stretched back to at least 2023, when a transgender suspect shot and killed three children and three adults at a Nashville Christian school.

    After that shooting, Trump Jr. had said that “rather than talking about guns, we should be talking about lunatics pushing their gender-affirming bull— on our kids,” and Vice President JD Vance, then a senator, had said that “giving in” to ideas on transgender identities was “dangerous.”

    After it was reported that Robinson’s partner is transitioning, Matt Walsh, a right-wing political commentator, wrote on X that “trans militants” pose a “very serious” threat to the country. Billionaire Elon Musk agreed, saying it was a “massive problem.”

    Many in the LGBTQ+ community have strenuously pushed back against such claims, noting research showing most shootings are committed by cisgender men.

    The Violence Prevention Project at Hamline University has found that the majority of shootings where four or more people were wounded in public were by men, and less than 1% of such shootings in the last decade were by transgender people.

    An analysis by PolitiFact found that data do not show claims that transgender people are more prone to violence, and that “trans people are more likely to be victims of violence than their cisgender peers.”

    A legacy amplified

    Kirk espoused a Christian nationalist worldview and opposed LGBTQ+ rights broadly, including same-sex marriage. He called transgender people “perverted,” the acknowledgment of transgender identities “one of the most destructive social contagions in human history,” and gender-affirming care for young people an “unimaginable evil.”

    Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk had said that “too many” transgender people were involved in shootings.

    It was not the first time Kirk had addressed the issue.

    Days after the 2023 shooting in Nashville, Kirk went after then-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for unrelated comments denouncing a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in state houses and saying the transgender community was “under attack.”

    “It is the first shooting ever that I’ve seen where the shooter and the murderers get more sympathy than the actual victims,” he said, appearing to blame all transgender people for the attack.

    The idea that liberals generally or members of the LGBTQ+ community specifically should be held accountable for Kirk’s killing has gained momentum in the days since. Vance and Trump advisor Stephen Miller seemed to allude to reprisals against left-leaning groups on Kirk’s podcast Monday, with Miller saying federal agencies will be rooting out a “domestic terror movement” on the left in Kirk’s name.

    LGBTQ+ advocates called such rhetoric alarming — and said they worry it will be used as a pretext for the administration to ramp up its assault on LGBTQ+ rights.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Paramount reportedly wants to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, antitrust law be damned

    [ad_1]

    Paramount Skydance, apparently now in a state of permanent merger, plans to make a bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, . The company was recently formed following of Paramount for $8 billion. Newly anointed Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison was able to afford the acquisition thanks to , Larry Ellison.

    Despite Warner Bros. Discovery’s to split back into , “the bid will be for the entire company, including its cable networks and movie studio,” the report says. A successful acquisition of the company will likely be very pricey. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Warner Bros.’s nearly $33 billion market cap is more than double that of Paramount Skydance.”

    Further consolidation in the entertainment industry will likely lead to less varied and interesting film and television, but a merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery could also concentrate even more power in the hands of the federal government.

    Prior to the deal going through, to settle a lawsuit with Trump, which may have affected the President’s stance towards the acquisition. Skydance’s commitment to abandon DEI programs at CBS and make the television network “embody a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum” was also cited as justification for the FCC approving the acquisition. Following the deal, Paramount appointed Kenneth Weinstein as an Ombudsman to “review editorial questions and concerns from outside entities and employees.” Weinstein previously served as an advisor to the Trump administration, Variety reports.

    Fusing two giant Hollywood studios obviously impacts competition. The question now is how the FCC will respond to this possible acquisition, with even more money and power on the line.

    [ad_2]

    Ian Carlos Campbell

    Source link

  • OpenAI tech to be used to in a full-length animated film

    [ad_1]

    OpenAI is throwing its resources behind a mostly AI-generated animated film that was the brainchild of one of the company’s employees. As first reported by the , the film will be called Critterz and will follow forest creatures who go on an adventure after their village is disrupted by a stranger. Chad Nelson, a creative specialist at OpenAI, started designing the characters three years ago with the intention of making a short film using OpenAI’s .

    The goal of the film is, in part, to show that animated films can be made for less money and in less time with AI. The team behind the film has set a budget of less than $30 million and a production schedule of only nine months. Both are a fraction of what it takes to produce a typical Hollywood animated picture. According to Nelson, OpenAI is hoping that if Critterz is successful, it might pave the way for adoption of more AI in the industry.

    London-based Vertigo Films will produce the film along with Native Foreign, a studio in Los Angeles that specializes in using AI alongside more traditional video production methods. Native Foreign previously produced a faux Planet Earth-style , also titled Critterz, written and directed by Nelson. It used DALL-E to create all the visuals for the short, which Native Foreign then brought to life with (limited) animation.

    The production team will hire human voice actors for the film’s characters and will hire artists to draw sketches that will then be fed into OpenAI’s chat and . The script for Critterz was penned by some of the same writers behind Paddington in Peru. The team aims to premiere the film at next year’s Cannes Film Festival in May.

    Over the last few years, many Hollywood workers have fought to protect their livelihoods against AI encroachment. In 2023, after a protracted strike, SAG-AFTRA that would require “informed consent and compensation” should a studio wish to use AI-generated likenesses of any current or deceased SAG-AFTRA members. All of this comes against the backdrop of enormous by creatives alike.

    [ad_2]

    Andre Revilla

    Source link

  • Rafia Ansari’s House of Terror premieres, highlighting Nigerian baby factories

    [ad_1]

    Atlanta-based filmmaker and Hartford native Rafia Ansari debuted her short film House of Terror at the Urban Film Festival in Miami on Saturday, marking the world premiere of a project that has been nearly a decade in the making.

    The film screened at Silver Spot Cinemas in downtown Miami. Inspired by Nollywood, House of Terror explores the issue of baby factories in Nigeria and highlights the power of prayer. Ansari wrote, directed, acted in and produced the film.

    SUBMITTED PHOTO

    “I do not believe in the word can’t,” Ansari said. “It was instilled in me as a child by my great-grandmother, Ella Little Cromwell. She always said, ‘You can do anything you put your mind to.’”

    Ansari began developing the project in 2017 after moving to Atlanta in 2013 to pursue a career in film. Two earlier attempts to complete the film stalled, but in 2024 she connected with Josh Broaden, a video engineer for the Wall Street Journal and a filmmaker. With Broaden as director of photography, House of Terrorwrapped production in September 2024.

    Her inspiration for the project dates back to childhood. Cromwell frequently traveled to Africa and returned with artifacts and stories, which sparked Ansari’s interest. She also participated in African dance programs and cultural activities in her hometown of Hartford. A high school assignment led her to research Nigeria, where she first learned about baby factories and sex trafficking — subjects that became central to her film.

    House of Terror is currently on the festival circuit. Ansari said she has additional screenplays in development and is working on her next production through her company Write on Rafia, which she founded in 2020.

    [ad_2]

    Staff Report

    Source link

  • The US government drops its CHIPS Act requirements for Intel

    [ad_1]

    Intel no longer has to fulfill certain requirements or meet milestones that it was originally supposed to under the CHIPS Act, now that the government is taking a stake in the company. According to the Wall Street Journal, Intel said in a filing that it can now receive funding from the government, as long as it can show that it has already spent $7.9 billion on projects that it agreed to take on under a deal with the Commerce Department last year. Reuters notes that Intel has already spent $7.87 billion on eligible CHIPS Act-funded projects.

    In addition, the company doesn’t have to share a percentage of the total cumulative cash flow it gets from each project with the Commerce Department anymore. It doesn’t have to adhere to some of the CHIPS Act’s workflow policy requirements and most other restrictions, as well. However, it still can’t use the funds it gets from the government for dividends and to repurchase shares.

    If you’ll recall, the government recently decided to take a 10 percent stake in Intel instead of proceeding with their original CHIPS Act deal. President Donald Trump previously called for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign, prompting a meeting between them that led to the new agreement. “He walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us 10 billion dollars for the United States,” Trump said. “So we picked up 10 billion.” Intel eventually announced that the US government will “make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock.” The purchase will be made up of the $5.7 billion previously earmarked for Intel as part of the CHIPS act, while the rest ($3.2 billion) will be awarded as part of the Secure Enclave program.

    Intel CEO David Zinser recently revealed that the company already received $5.7 billion from the government on Wednesday night. The government also previously awarded Intel $2.2 billion in grants under the CHIPS Act, bringing the government’s total involvement with the company to $11.1 billion.

    [ad_2]

    Mariella Moon

    Source link

  • Gideon Sa’ar to WSJ: ‘Israel fighting multi-front war on front lines, political arena’

    [ad_1]

    He told the American newspaper that he rejoined the Netanyahu government because he believes that differences in Israeli politics will be insignificant in the future.

    Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar told the Wall Street Journal in a Tuesday interview that Israel is facing a multi-front war on the battle lines and in the political arena.

    “Today, the challenges are not only military. They are also political, and those who worked to impose a military siege on Israel are now working to impose a political siege,” he told the WSJ.

    He told the American newspaper that he rejoined the Netanyahu government because he believes that differences in Israeli politics will be insignificant in the future.

    “The differences between Israel’s Zionist parties today will be viewed historically as insignificant and marginal in comparison to the challenges we are facing,” Sa’ar said, adding that he came to this realization after October 7.

    He is now aiming to try and “change things from the inside” and rejoined the Likud party this month.

    Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar at a briefing with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. (credit: Ohad Kav)

    “I’m still in the government, even when I sometimes have disputes,” he said.

    He went on to discuss how several European nations’ pending recognition of a Palestinian state affected negotiations and the IDF’s Gaza City Operation.

    “When Hamas praises you, as it did with [Emmanuel] Macron, it speaks for itself,” he said, adding that he didn’t understand why the need to recognize a Palestinian state suddenly arose.

    “In the beginning, it was supposed to be under certain conditions,” such as recognizing Israel and making peace. Now, Sa’ar says he thinks that “all conditions were forgotten.”

    He sees this as a victory for Hamas.

    “Hamas said recognition is the fruit of October 7,” Saar noted.

    Europe “cannot understand that the Palestinians—all the factions—their ideology is to eliminate the Jewish state,” Saar said.

    Talking about ‘two-state solution’

    “It’s a nice term, ‘two-state solution.’ First of all, you have a solution. But when you ask, ‘Do you want a terror state?’ it becomes a different conversation.”

    He added that the growing Muslim communities in Europe affected the calls to recognize a Palestinian state.

    “Europe today has huge Muslim communities. There are already cells of radical Islam there. It has an effect.”

    The minister goes on to discuss the Gaza Strip, saying that “the real aid situation has improved dramatically.” Describing the aid being given to Gazans as not “humanitarian,” but “political.”

    The minister also says that Israel’s global reputation in regards to its strength was restored since October 7, saying that “we changed the entire strategic equation in the Middle East.”

    Also regarding Israel’s global image, Sa’ar said that the country will not “risk real interests for a temporary period of quiet and better PR.

    “We need to survive first. After that, there comes popularity and how much we can convince others around the world.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Perplexity has cooked up a new way to pay publishers for their content

    [ad_1]

    Perplexity is launching a new revenue-sharing plan for publishers that will pay them every time its AI assistants use an article to answer a question, The Wall Street Journal reports. Perplexity is launching the plan (and partially paying for it) with a new Comet Plus subscription that gives subscribers access “to premium content from a group of trusted publishers and journalists.”

    Comet Plus costs $5 per month, and based on Perplexity’s description, it’s primarily designed to account for the actions its Comet Agent (included in the Comet browser) takes on websites, which aren’t considered in existing publisher deals. “When you ask Perplexity to synthesize recent coverage of an industry trend, that’s indexed traffic,” the company writes. “When Comet Assistant scans your calendar and suggests articles relevant to your day’s meetings, that’s agent traffic.”

    The company’s existing Publisher Program, which counts publications like TIME and Fortune as participants, shares ad revenue based on the traffic a Perplexity search is stealing away by providing a summary of an article. The money shared through Comet Plus will presumably account for what’s lost when an AI agent visits a webpage on your behalf, zooming past ads you’d normally see or hear.

    Publishers will get 80 percent of the revenue of Comet Plus, according to Perplexity, with the remaining 20 percent allocated to “compute.” The Wall Street Journal writes that Perplexity will initially pay participating publishers out of a “$42.5 million revenue pool” that will expand over time, presumably as sign-ups grow for Comet Plus, and the Comet web browser becomes available to more people. That starting sum likely takes into account Perplexity’s existing Pro and Max subscribers, who will receive Comet Plus as part of their subscriptions and are paying into the revenue-sharing scheme by default.

    It sounds generous on its face, and maybe with a large enough volume of subscribers it will be, but 80 percent of $5 is $4. That’s $4 that will presumably unlock unlimited access to a publication’s entire library of content. Most newspapers charge anywhere from $20 to $30 per month to access all of their articles. Why would they settle for less?

    It’s not clear if this plan replaces Perplexity’s existing Publisher Program, or will exist alongside it. It’s also hard to say if not paying for Comet Plus will change the quality of responses you receive in Comet or Perplexity. Engadget has contacted Perplexity for more information and will update this article if we hear back.

    Perplexity likely wouldn’t be exploring new revenue-sharing plans if it hadn’t already been caught plagiarizing articles in the first place. The company wants its agentic browser to be a success, and that ideally requires a certain amount of participation from the people who create the articles, images, and videos agents browse. It remains to be seen if Comet Plus is the kind of arrangement that will make publishers play ball.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pickleball’s ‘ultimate ambassador’ took $50 million from investors – who now say they were duped

    Pickleball’s ‘ultimate ambassador’ took $50 million from investors – who now say they were duped

    [ad_1]

    A man dubbed pickleball’s “ultimate ambassador” took nearly $50million from various investors, who now say they were duped out of the funds and are fighting to get some of their money returned.

    Rodney “Rocket” Grubbs, 68, is now in involuntary bankruptcy after admitting to owe $47.5million plus interest to the investors. He said he always intended to repay investors, who say the process has been slow – if it happens at all.

    “You just never would think he would do this,” Bob Zitnick told the Wall Street Journal. “And then you wonder: ‘Am I stupid?’”

    Zitnick, 64, and his wife lent Grubbs $300,000 in 2007 for real estate deals. They have gotten some of the money back, but repayments ended in 2018 and the couple now holds promissory notes from Grubbs totaling $3million.

    Rodney ‘Rocket’ Grubbs, 68, has been accused by business creditors of taking investments from them in the form of promissory notes and not paying them back (Facebook/Pickleball Rocks)

    Rodney ‘Rocket’ Grubbs, 68, has been accused by business creditors of taking investments from them in the form of promissory notes and not paying them back (Facebook/Pickleball Rocks)

    The couple is some of the 500 creditors across 30 states and countries that Grubbs owe money too. He took the money for pickleball and other investment ventures.

    Grubbs is well known — and previously loved — entity in the town of Brookville, approximately 40 miles northwest of Cincinnati. He coached tennis and ran a pickleball shop in the town. He began making a name for himself in the sport by traveling to tournaments all over the world and selling his merchandise through his company, Pickleball Rocks.

    Pickleball Rocks was, according to Grubbs, the “world’s most recognized pickleball apparel brand.”

    Like many other businesses, it requires investors to operate, and Grubbs allegedly collected those investors from people he knows in the pickleball community. He issued promissory notes — typically for $25,000 at 12 percent interest over 18 months — with the promise that they would join a small group of investors, and that the money would be used to buy inventory for the company’s apparel store, authorities said.

    Mr Grubbs said in court filings that he currently owes his investors a total of $47.5m, including interest.

    In January, the Indiana Secretary of State securities division sent Grubbs a cease and desist warning to stop offering promissory notes he used to collect investment funds. He has not been charged with a crime in connection to the investigation.

    Teri Siewert and her husband reportedly spent years trying to recoup the money they lent to Mr Grubbs, and realized that they might not be the only players to give the well-liked pickleballer their cash.

    Ms Siewert, 67, described him as being like “Barney Fife,” the bumbling but lovable deputy sheriff sidekick to Andy Taylor on the Andy Griffith Show.

    “He’s just this affable, you know, bumbling kind of character,” she told the paper. “And you wanted to help him.”

    She said she was told by Grubbs in 2017 that one of six of his investors has dropped out of the business, and that her and her husband could take their spot, but that it had to be a secret to protect his funding sources. They agreed to help him and gave him $25,000 in 2019.

    They tried to get their money back once in 2021, but he told them that the pandemic had left him unable to sell merchandise at tournaments, severely limiting the money he had on hand. They tried again in 2022, but he again said he couldn’t repay them. Siewert said that’s when she began to get suspicious that she was never going to see her money again.

    She eventually began a Facebook group called “From Pickleball Rocks to Prison Rocks,” where people who had outstanding loans with Grubbs could share their issues.

    Pickleball Rocks stopped operating this year after a group of his creditors forced him into involuntary bankruptcy. Grubbs has now stopped attending tournaments, and claimed assets of approximately $1.6m, far less than what court filings say he owes his creditors.

    Grubbs told the Wall Street Journal he never issued any loans that he didn’t intend to repay, but noted his business took a hit during the pandemic and never fully recovered.

    He began playing pickleball in 2008 and helped to build the sport’s base over the last 20 years. Grubbs visited tournaments in shirts that said “Pickleball Rocks — Ask Me How” which provided an in for courting potential customers and, possibly, potential investors.

    Now, his once-popular shirts are a reminder of all those who claim they’re owed money by the man.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Report: DOJ will sue Ticketmaster parent company Live Nation for antitrust violations

    Report: DOJ will sue Ticketmaster parent company Live Nation for antitrust violations

    [ad_1]

    No more surprises at checkout entertainment giants, Live Nation and Ticketmaster pledging to give us consumers the ability to see the full price of their tickets upfront. So you’ll know what you’re paying for before you get to the checkout page. This is an important start getting everyone at the table and getting their commitment to provide *** better market place for consumers which today is rigged against consumers is critical representatives for major companies including Live Nation Sea Geek, airbnb tick pick and others gathering at the White House Thursday. The announcement marking Biden’s latest effort to address economic issues that are top of mind for voters heading into the 2024 election. This is *** win for consumers in my view and proof that our crackdown on junk fees has real momentum. The entertainment industry has been under *** microscope in recent months. Following scenes like this, there are those who are in the business of grabbing up all the tickets at face value and sending them to *** secondary market where there’s multiple, multiple costs added. That’s what happened in the Taylor Swift situation while Thursday’s announcement may ease the shock factor at the end of your ticket purchase. Consumer advocates say the public won’t be protected until companies are faced with new laws. The problem is you can disclose everything, all the fees and all the costs and still take consumers to the cleaners. I’m Gloria Passino Reporting.

    Report: Justice Department will sue Ticketmaster parent company Live Nation for antitrust violations

    The Department of Justice is preparing to sue the country’s largest concert promoter and ticketing website Live Nation in the coming weeks for breaking America’s antitrust laws, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous sources familiar with the Justice Department’s plans.The lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, the parent company of Ticketmaster, will allege the ticketing company used its market-leading position to harm competition for live events, the Journal reported. But the paper wasn’t able to uncover specific details of the planned lawsuit.Shares of Live Nation dropped nearly 7% in premarket trading Tuesday. Live Nation and the Justice Department didn’t respond to request for comment about the Journal’s report.Ticketmaster drew the ire of U.S. government officials and fans after a system meltdown left millions of people unable to purchase tickets to Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tour in 2022.U.S. lawmakers grilled Live Nation executives at a hearing in January 2023, which, in a rare event, brought together Democrats and Republicans over the company’s industry dominance that critics argue is harming rivals, musicians and fans.Swift fans later sued Live Nation for “unlawful conduct” in the pop star’s chaotic tour sale, with the plaintiffs claiming that the ticketing giant violated antitrust laws.Joe Berchtold, president and CFO of Live Nation, has previously defended the company’s practices, saying at the 2023 hearing that that Ticketmaster does not set ticket prices, does not determine the number of tickets put up for sale and that “in most cases, venues set service and ticketing fees,” not Ticketmaster.He also rejected suggestions that its dominance has allowed for soaring fees, citing data from the market intelligence firm Pollstar showing that Live Nation controls about 200 out of approximately 4,000 venues in the United States, or about 5%.Rivals have previously spoken out, too: Jack Groetzinger, CEO of SeatGeek, alleged that many venue owners “fear losing Live Nation concerts if they don’t use Ticketmaster” and its services, and argued the company must be broken up.Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010, now billing itself as the “largest live entertainment company in the world.”

    The Department of Justice is preparing to sue the country’s largest concert promoter and ticketing website Live Nation in the coming weeks for breaking America’s antitrust laws, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous sources familiar with the Justice Department’s plans.

    The lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, the parent company of Ticketmaster, will allege the ticketing company used its market-leading position to harm competition for live events, the Journal reported. But the paper wasn’t able to uncover specific details of the planned lawsuit.

    Shares of Live Nation dropped nearly 7% in premarket trading Tuesday. Live Nation and the Justice Department didn’t respond to request for comment about the Journal’s report.

    Ticketmaster drew the ire of U.S. government officials and fans after a system meltdown left millions of people unable to purchase tickets to Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tour in 2022.

    U.S. lawmakers grilled Live Nation executives at a hearing in January 2023, which, in a rare event, brought together Democrats and Republicans over the company’s industry dominance that critics argue is harming rivals, musicians and fans.

    Swift fans later sued Live Nation for “unlawful conduct” in the pop star’s chaotic tour sale, with the plaintiffs claiming that the ticketing giant violated antitrust laws.

    Joe Berchtold, president and CFO of Live Nation, has previously defended the company’s practices, saying at the 2023 hearing that that Ticketmaster does not set ticket prices, does not determine the number of tickets put up for sale and that “in most cases, venues set service and ticketing fees,” not Ticketmaster.

    He also rejected suggestions that its dominance has allowed for soaring fees, citing data from the market intelligence firm Pollstar showing that Live Nation controls about 200 out of approximately 4,000 venues in the United States, or about 5%.

    Rivals have previously spoken out, too: Jack Groetzinger, CEO of SeatGeek, alleged that many venue owners “fear losing Live Nation concerts if they don’t use Ticketmaster” and its services, and argued the company must be broken up.

    Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010, now billing itself as the “largest live entertainment company in the world.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SpaceX Working on Hundreds of Swarming Spy Satellites for U.S. Intelligence Agency

    SpaceX Working on Hundreds of Swarming Spy Satellites for U.S. Intelligence Agency

    [ad_1]

    SpaceX is working with the National Reconnaissance Office to build a classified system of swarming spy satellites, according to a report published by Reuters. And while the $1.8 billion contract was reportedly signed in 2021, news of the program’s ties to NRO just leaked on Saturday—a great reminder that it’s entirely possible for some tech companies to do highly classified work for years without the public learning about it.

    The new satellite spy network is being built under SpaceX’s Starshield unit, which also manages Starlink satellite internet. The program is described by Reuters as consisting of, “hundreds of satellites bearing Earth-imaging capabilities that can operate as a swarm in low orbits.”

    The five sources of information on the new program aren’t named in the new Reuters article, though one anonymous source is quoted as saying that “no one can hide” from the new satellite system.

    From Reuters:

    The satellites can track targets on the ground and share that data with U.S. intelligence and military officials, the sources said. In principle, that would enable the U.S. government to quickly capture continuous imagery of activities on the ground nearly anywhere on the globe, aiding intelligence and military operations, they added.

    […]

    The Starshield network is part of intensifying competition between the U.S. and its rivals to become the dominant military power in space, in part by expanding spy satellite systems away from bulky, expensive spacecraft at higher orbits. Instead a vast, low-orbiting network can provide quicker and near-constant imaging of the Earth.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported on the existence of a new satellite program being developed by SpaceX in February, but Reuters was the first to provide new information about the customer for what sounds like an incredibly powerful new spy system.

    SpaceX and its founder Elon Musk have received criticism over the past two years as the billionaire has expressed skepticism that the U.S. should be involved in helping Ukraine during its fight against Russia’s invasion. The war started in Feb. 2022 and has killed tens of thousands on both sides, but Musk has become vocally opposed against the U.S. continuing to help its ally with intelligence and weapons. That would appear to be a big problem for the U.S. military establishment, since Ukraine is so dependent on Starlink satellite internet for command and control in the battlefield.

    Musk infamously denied Ukraine use of Starlink to mount a counterattack of Russian forces in Crimea, a story told by his biographer Walter Isaacson, that was awkwardly walked back at Musk’s insistence after the book was published. But whatever actually happened in Crimea, there appears to be nervousness within the Pentagon about how reliant the U.S. military has become on Musk. And the leak of this latest contract between SpaceX and NRO proves the public probably doesn’t know the half of it.

    As Reuters explained in the new report on Saturday:

    The network is also intended to greatly expand the U.S. government’s remote-sensing capabilities and will consist of large satellites with imaging sensors, as well as a greater number of relay satellites that pass the imaging data and other communications across the network using inter-satellite lasers, two of the sources said.

    NRO was formed in 1960 on the heels of some major failures by the U.S. Air Force to get a military satellite program up and running. The shoot down and capture of U-2 pilot Gary Powers by the Soviet Union in May 1960 was a highly embarrassing international incident for Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration, which made it obvious the U.S. needed to get some proper mechanical eyes in the sky that couldn’t be shot down by adversaries.

    The establishment of NRO in 1960 was an attempt to make the nation’s spy satellites an independent agency that could service U.S. military customers and U.S. intelligence agencies without causing turf wars. Giving an agency like CIA, for example, sole control of spy satellites could lead to unnecessary internal competition with other agencies. At least that’s the way Eisenhower’s science advisors thought about it at the time.

    While a system of swarming satellites deployed by U.S. intelligence may sound futuristic, it’s important to remember U.S. imaging capabilities are already incredibly advanced and frankly make the 1998 surveillance thriller Enemy of the State look like a documentary. As just one example, the existence of ARGUS-IS, a 1.8 gigapixel camera developed by Darpa and BAE Systems, was revealed in a January 2013 episode of the PBS documentary “Rise of the Drones.”

    The ARGUS-IS could provide images of an entire U.S. city, while allowing users to zoom in on any part and see enough detail to capture someone waving their arms. And it’s a pretty safe bet that the realities of U.S. spying capabilities in 2013 were much more advanced than what the public was allowed to see on PBS. The mind boggles to think what kind of resolution America’s eyes in the sky can get a decade later, to say nothing of how SpaceX’s swarming satellites might change the game in low Earth orbit.

    The new report from Reuters says roughly a dozen prototypes for this new swarming system have been launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets alongside other satellites presumably with civilian purposes. But that kind of thing is far from new. As Gizmodo reported back in 2017, NRO was intimately involved in the design of NASA’s Space Shuttle, even if we still don’t know many details about the payloads NRO was hitching a ride to get into space. Same as it ever was, it seems.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • Pro-Palestinian protesters swarm NY Times printing plant in Queens; no arrests

    Pro-Palestinian protesters swarm NY Times printing plant in Queens; no arrests

    [ad_1]

    COLLEGE POINT, Queens (WABC) — Pro-Palestinian protesters swarmed the New York Times printing facility in Queens, one of the largest facilities in the nation.

    Some popular newspapers will likely be delivered on a delay Thursday morning due to the commotion at the facility.

    Police say that at around 1 a.m. Thursday, protestors prevented tucks from accessing the 300,000-square-foot building by blocking the roads with debris.

    Many laid down in a chain, connecting to each other with tubes. They held signs that read, “Stop the presses. Free Palestine” and “Consent for genocide is manufactured here.”

    This facility is responsible for printing the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Newsday, and the New York Post. There are 27 printing facilities across the country.

    Law enforcement was called to clear the protesters. No arrests were made.

    The trucks eventually gained access to the building.

    ———-

    * Get Eyewitness News Delivered

    * Follow us on YouTube

    * More local news

    * Send us a news tip

    * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

    Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

    Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • The Grumpy Economy

    The Grumpy Economy

    [ad_1]

    What was the worst moment for the American economy in the past half century? You might think it was the last wheezing months of the 1970s, when oil prices more than doubled, inflation reached double digits, and the U.S. sank into its second recession of the decade. Or the 2008 financial collapse and Great Recession. Or perhaps it was when COVID hit and millions of people abruptly lost their job. All good guesses—and all wrong, if surveys of the American public are to be believed. According to the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, the most widely cited measure of consumer sentiment, that moment was actually June 2022.

    Inflation hit 9 percent that month, and no one knew if it would go higher still. A recession seemed imminent. Objectively, it’s hard to claim that the economy was in worse shape that month than it had been at those other cataclysmic times. But substantial pessimism was nonetheless explicable.

    Over the next 18 months, however, the economy improved rapidly, and in nearly every way: Inflation plummeted to near its pre-pandemic level, unemployment reached historic lows, GDP boomed, and wages rose. The turnaround, by most standard economic measures, was unprecedented. Yet the American people continued to give the economy the kind of approval ratings traditionally reserved for used-car salesmen. Last June, the White House launched a campaign to celebrate “Bidenomics”—­the administration’s strong job-creation record and big investments in manufacturing and clean energy. The effort flopped so badly that, within months, Democrats were begging the president to abandon it altogether.

    Some kind of irreconcilable difference seemed to have opened up between public opinion and traditional markers of economic health, as many op-eds and news reports noted. “The Economy Is Great. Why Are Americans in Such a Rotten Mood?The Wall Street Journal asked in early November. “What’s Causing ‘Bad Vibes’ in the Economy?The New York Times wondered a few weeks later. Terms like “vibecession” and “the great disconnect were coined and spread.

    More recently, consumer sentiment has improved. After falling for months, it suddenly rebounded in December and January, posting its largest two-month gain in more than 30 years—even though the economy itself barely changed at all. Yet as of this writing, sentiment remains low by historical standards—­nothing like the sunny outlook that prevailed before the pandemic.

    What’s going on? The question involves the psychology of money—and of politics. Its answer will shape the outcome of the presidential election
    in November.

    The toll of inflation on the American psyche is undoubtedly part of the story. That people hate high inflation is not a novel observation: The Federal Reserve has long been obsessed with preventing another ’70s-style inflationary spiral; its patron saint is Paul Volcker, the former Fed chair who famously broke that spiral by jacking up interest rates, which plunged the economy into a recession. But although experts and political leaders know that inflation matters, the way they understand the phenomenon is very different from how ordinary people experience it—and that alone may explain why sentiment stayed low for so long, and has only now begun to rise.

    When economists talk about inflation, they are often referring to an index of prices meant to represent the goods and services a typical household buys in a year. Each item in the index is weighted by how much is spent on it annually. So, for instance, because the average household spends about a third of its income on housing, the price of housing (an amalgam of rents and home prices) determines a third of the inflation rate. But the goods that people spend the most money on tend to be quite different from those that they pay the most attention to. Consumers are reminded of the price of food
    every time they visit a supermarket or restaurant, and the price of gas is plastered in giant numbers on every street corner. Also, the purchase of these items can’t be postponed. Things like a new couch or flatscreen TV, in contrast, are purchased so rarely that many people don’t even remember how much they paid for one, let alone how much they cost today.

    The irony is that consumers spend a lot more, on average, on expensive, big-ticket items than they do on groceries or takeout, which means the prices we pay the most attention to don’t contribute very much to overall inflation numbers. (Less than a tenth of the average consumer’s budget is spent at the super­market.) Some measures of inflation—“core” and “supercore” inflation among them—­exclude food and energy prices altogether. That is reasonable if you’re a Fed official focused on how to set interest rates, because energy and food prices are often extremely sensitive to temporary fluctuations (caused by, say, a drought that hurts grain harvests or an OPEC oil-­supply cut). But in practice, these measures overlook the prices that matter most to consumers.

    This dynamic alone goes a long way toward explaining the gap between “the economy” and Americans’ perception of it. Even as core inflation fell below 3 percent over the course of 2023, food prices increased by about 6 percent, twice as fast as they had grown over the previous 20 years. “I think that explains a huge part of the disconnect,” Paul Donovan, the chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, told me. “You won’t convince any consumer that inflation is under control when food prices are rising that fast.”

    Consumers say as much when you ask them. In a recent poll commissioned by The Atlantic, respondents were asked what factors they consider when deciding how the national economy is doing. The price of groceries led the list, and 60 percent of respondents placed it among their top three—more, even, than the share that chose “inflation.” This isn’t exactly a new development. In 2002, Donovan told me, Italian consumers were convinced that prices were soaring by nearly 20 percent even though actual inflation was a stable 2 percent. It turned out that people were basing their estimates on the cost of a cup of espresso, which had abruptly risen as coffee makers rounded their prices up after the introduction of the euro.

    What’s more, most people don’t care about the inflation rate so much as they care about prices themselves. If inflation runs at 10 percent for a year, and then suddenly shrinks to 2 percent, the damage of the past year has not been undone. Prices are still dramatically higher than they were. Overall, prices are nearly 20 percent higher now than they were before the pandemic (grocery prices are 25 percent higher). When asked in a survey last fall what improvement in the economy they would most like to see, 64 percent of respondents said “lower prices on goods, services, and gas.”

    What about wages? Even adjusted for inflation, they have been rising since June 2022, and recently surpassed their pre-pandemic levels, meaning that the typical American’s paycheck goes further than it did prior to the inflation spike. But wages haven’t increased faster than food prices. And most people think about wage and price increases very differently. A raise tends to feel like something we’ve earned, Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the University of Michigan, told me. Then we go to the grocery store, and “it feels like those just rewards are being unfairly taken away.”

    If inflation is in fact the main reason the American people have been so down on the economy—and its future—then the story is likely to have a happy ending, and soon. My great-grandmother loved to reminisce about the days when a can of Coke cost a nickel. She didn’t, however, believe that the country was on the verge of economic calamity because she now had to spend a dollar or more for the same beverage. Just as surely as people despise price increases, we also get used to them in the end. A recent analysis by Ryan Cummings and Neale Mahoney, two Stanford economists and former policy advisers in the Biden administration, found that it takes 18 to 24 months for lower inflation to fully show up in consumer sentiment. “People eventually adjust,” Mahoney told me. “They just don’t adjust at the rate that statistical agencies produce inflation data.”

    Mahoney and Cummings posted their study on December 4, 2023—18 months after inflation peaked in June 2022. As if on cue, consumer sentiment began surging that month. (Perhaps helping matters, food inflation had finally fallen below 3 percent in November 2023.)

    There is another story you can tell about consumer sentiment today, however, one that has less to do with what’s happening in grocery stores and more to do with the peculiarities of tribal identity.

    It’s well established that partisans on both sides become more negative about the economy when the other party controls the presidency, but this phenomenon is not symmetrical: In a November analysis, Mahoney and Cummings found that when a Democrat occupies the White House, Republicans’ economic outlook declines by more than twice as much as Democrats’ does when the situation is reversed. Consumer-­sentiment data from the polling firm Civiqs and the Pew Research Center show that Republicans’ view of the economy has barely budged since hitting an all-time low in the summer of 2022.

    Meanwhile, although sentiment among Democrats has recovered to nearly where it stood before inflation began to rise in 2021, it remains well below its level at the end of the Obama administration. It may never return to its previous heights. Over the past decade, the belief that the economy is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful has become central to progressive self-identity. Among Democrats ages 18 to 34, who tend to be more progressive than older Democrats, positive views of capitalism fell from 56 to 40 percent between 2010 and 2019, according to Gallup. Dim views of the broader economic system may be limiting how positively some Democrats feel about the economy, even when one of their own occupies the Oval Office. According to a CNN poll in late January, 63 percent of Democrats ages 45 and older believed that the economy was on the upswing—but only 35 percent of younger Democrats believed the same. To fully embrace the economy’s strength would be to sacrifice part of the modern progressive’s ideological sense of self.

    The media may be contributing to economic gloom for people of every political stripe. According to Mahoney, one possible explanation for Republicans’ disproportionate economic negativity when a Democrat is in office is the fact that the news sources many Republicans consume—namely, right-wing media like Fox News—tend to be more brazenly partisan than the sources Democrats consume, which tend to be a balance of mainstream and partisan media. But mainstream media have also gotten more negative about the economy in recent years, regardless of who’s held the presidency. According to a new analysis by the Brookings Institution, from 1988 to 2016, the “sentiment” of economic-news coverage in mainstream newspapers tracked closely with measures such as inflation, employment, and the stock market. Then, during Donald Trump’s presidency, coverage became more negative than the economic fundamentals would have predicted. After Joe Biden took office, the gap widened. Journalists have long focused more on surfacing problems than on highlighting successes—­bringing problems to light is an essential part of the job—but the more recent shift could be explained by the same economic pessimism afflicting many young liberals (many newspaper journalists, after all, are liberals themselves). In other words, the media’s negativity could be both a reflection and a source of today’s economic pessimism.

    What happens to consumer sentiment in the coming months will depend on how much it is still being dragged down by frustration with higher prices, which will likely dissipate, as opposed to how much it is being limited by a combination of Republican partisan­ship and Democratic pessimism, which are less likely to change.

    Will the place that it finally settles in come November matter to the election? How people say they are feeling about the economy in an election year—alongside more direct measures of economic health, such as GDP growth and disposable income—has in the past been a good predictor of whom voters choose as president; a healthy economy and good sentiment strongly favor the incumbent. Despite all the abnormalities of 2020—a pandemic, national protests, a uniquely polarizing president—economic models that factored in both economic fundamentals and sentiment predicted the result and margin of that year’s presidential election quite accurately (and much more so than polling), according to an analysis by the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck.

    It is of course possible that consumer sentiment is becoming a more performative metric than it used to be—a statement about who you are rather than how you really feel—and perhaps less reliable as a result. Still, the story that voters have in their heads about the economy clearly matters. If that story were influenced solely by the prices at the pump and the grocery store or the number of well-paying jobs, then—absent another crisis—we could expect the mood to be buoyant this fall, significantly helping Biden’s prospects for reelection. But the stories we tell ourselves are shaped by everything from the news we read to the political messages we hear to the identities we adopt. And, for better or worse, those stories have yet to be fully written.

    [ad_2]

    Rogé Karma

    Source link

  • Trump Is About to Steamroll Nikki Haley

    Trump Is About to Steamroll Nikki Haley

    [ad_1]

    If one word could sum up Nikki Haley’s ambivalent challenge to Donald Trump in the New Hampshire Republican primary, that word might be: if.

    If as used by New Hampshire’s Republican Governor Chris Sununu, Haley’s most prominent supporter in the state, when he concluded his energetic introduction of her at a large rally in Manchester on Friday night. “If you think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, don’t sit on your couch and not participate in democracy,” Sununu insisted. “You gotta go vote, right?”

    In that formulation, if served as more shield than sword. By framing his argument that way, Sununu clearly intended to appeal to the voters who do consider Trump a threat to democracy, but without endorsing that sentiment himself.

    That slight hesitation about fully confronting the GOP’s fearsome front-runner has been the consistent attitude of Haley’s campaign. Haley, the former South Carolina governor, has shown impressive political skills and steely discipline to outmaneuver a large field of men and emerge as the most viable remaining alternative to Trump. She has displayed fortitude in soldiering on against Trump as a procession of Republican elected officials has endorsed him for the nomination over the past few weeks. And beginning with her speech last Monday night after the Iowa caucus, Haley has turned up the volume on her own criticism of Trump, yoking him to Joe Biden as too old and divisive. “With me, you’ll get no drama, no vendettas, no vengeance,” she told the crowd on Friday night.

    But in this possibly decisive week of the GOP race, Haley has made clear that she will go so far and no further in criticizing or challenging Trump, just as Sununu did with his telltale if. Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary realistically represents the last chance for Haley to stop, or even slow, the former president’s march to his third consecutive GOP nomination. If Trump wins, especially by a big margin, he will be on a glide path to becoming the nominee. Nothing Haley has done this week reflects the gravity of that moment. “She’s got to swing for the fences, and so far she’s just throwing out bunts,” Mark McKinnon, who served as the chief media adviser to George W. Bush’s two presidential campaigns, told me.

    Many New Hampshire political leaders resistant to Trump fear that Haley has not done nearly enough to generate a surge of turnout among independent voters—known locally as “undeclared voters.” Mike Dennehy, a longtime GOP strategist in New Hampshire, says that Haley’s messaging to these undeclared voters has lacked enough urgency to generate the brushfire of excitement she needs among them. “In my opinion, she’s not doing what she needs to do to connect with independent voters,” Dennehy told me. Haley, he believes, should be framing the choice to New Hampshire voters much more starkly, telling them: “It’s the end of the road here; I’m your last chance to stop a Trump-Biden rematch.” Haley fleetingly raised that argument in her remarks following the Iowa caucus, but it has receded as she’s reverted toward her standard stump speech in New Hampshire.

    McKinnon and Dennehy know something about New Hampshire presidential campaigns that catch fire among independents. Dennehy was the New Hampshire campaign manager for then–Senator John McCain when he stunned George W. Bush, McKinnon’s candidate, in the 2000 New Hampshire primary. Bush arrived after a big win in the kickoff Iowa caucus and held a commanding lead in national polls. On the day of that New Hampshire primary, I had lunch with McKinnon; Matthew Dowd, the campaign’s voter-targeting guru; and Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strategist. They were relaxed, confident, and starting to kick around ideas for how they would contest the general election, while I scribbled in a notebook. Then, halfway through the lunch, Rove took a call, abruptly left the table, and never came back. The reason for his sudden summons back to campaign headquarters became apparent a few hours later: McCain that night beat Bush among independent voters by three to one, exit polls found, and won the state overall by nearly 20 percentage points.

    In retrospect, McKinnon said, the Bush campaign should have seen what was coming. “McCain was definitely on fire; you could feel it on the ground,” he told me. For months McCain had held lengthy town halls across the state, answering questions for hours and then driving to the next event on the “Straight Talk Express” campaign bus, taking questions from reporters for hours more. He was provocative, funny, unfiltered, and unafraid of challenging Republican orthodoxy. “He was entirely authentic, entirely accessible; he was campaigning like he was running for governor of New Hampshire, steely, granite-like,” McKinnon recalled.

    Like McCain, Haley has burrowed into New Hampshire with months of grassroots events. But the similarities stop there. Haley’s town halls are much more structured and controlled; sometimes she doesn’t even take questions from the audience. Her interactions with reporters are limited and often stilted. And she made a choice this week to reject debates by ABC and CNN unless Trump also participated, which forced the sponsors to cancel the sessions. Some Republican strategists are sympathetic to her decision not to appear again with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but more of the people I spoke with believe that by withdrawing, she forfeited the biggest platforms she would have had this week to drive a message to New Hampshire voters. “It’s about pulling as many independents out to vote as you can, and you can’t get to those independents if you don’t go on places like CNN and WMUR,” Dennehy said, referring to the powerful local New Hampshire television station that would have co-hosted one of the debates with ABC.

    Haley is pushing a tougher message against Trump than she was before Iowa. When a reporter this weekend asked her what her closing message was to New Hampshire voters, Haley replied, “Americans deserve better than what the options are. You’ve got Biden and Trump both distracted with investigations, both distracted with other things that aren’t about how to make Americans’ lives safer and better.” She says flatly that Trump is lying about her record and that America should not have to choose between two roughly 80-year-old candidates. After Trump at a Friday-night rally confused Haley with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during an extended monologue about the January 6 riot, Haley on Saturday responded by questioning his mental acuity: “When you’re dealing with the pressures of a presidency, we can’t have someone else that we question whether they’re mentally fit to do this.” And she’s been willing to differentiate from Trump on issues where she can reaffirm positions that were considered conservative in the Ronald Reagan–era GOP. That includes criticizing Trump for running up the federal deficit, not taking a tough enough stand against China, and playing “footsy,” as she termed it, with dictators such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

    But Haley has muffled her case against Trump by more often refusing to confront him or by even defending him. When asked by CNN’s Dana Bash last week about Trump being held liable for sexual abuse in the defamation case brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll, Haley implausibly replied, “I haven’t paid attention to his cases.” Last Friday, reporters asked Haley whether she saw racism in Trump’s multiplying jabs at her immigrant ancestry, which included reposting an inaccurate “birther”-like claim that she was ineligible to run because her parents had not been U.S. citizens when she was born. Her response could not have been more tepid: “I’ll let people decide what he means by his attacks.”

    Haley has also continued to insist that, if elected, she would pardon Trump should he be convicted in any of the cases against him. Hours before the Iowa caucuses last Monday, she told a Fox News anchor that she would vote for Trump over Biden “any day of the week.” She’s closing her New Hampshire campaign with an unusual three-minute ad centered on a testimonial to her compassion and commitment from the mother of Otto Warmbier, the American college student who died in North Korean captivity; but nowhere does the ad criticize Trump for his coziness with the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. In Haley’s stump speech to New Hampshire voters, she still declares that chaos “follows” Trump “rightly or wrongly,” as he if is potentially just an innocent bystander to all the firestorms that he ignites with his words and actions. (Haley does Olympic-level contortions to avoid expressing any value judgments about Trump.) On Saturday, she even tempered her criticism of Trump’s confusion the night before when she reassuringly told a Fox interviewer, “I’m not saying that this is a Joe Biden situation.” To truly threaten a front-runner as commanding as Trump, “you’ve just got to throw caution to the wind,” McKinnon said.  “And it’s the opposite with Haley: The wind throws caution to her.”

    The evidence from Iowa suggests that Haley’s cautious approach has left her with a coalition too narrow to make a strong stand. With Trump bashing her in ads and his stump speech as “liberal” and “weak,” particularly on issues relating to immigration, Haley predictably ran poorly in Iowa among the most conservative voters, according to the entrance poll conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations.

    But although she performed better among more moderate elements of the GOP coalition—particularly those with four-year college degrees—she failed to inspire enough of them to come out and vote on a cold night. In Iowa, Haley won her highest share of the vote in the most populous urban and suburban counties. But the total number of votes she won in the big counties was only a fraction of the total that had come out for Marco Rubio, a candidate who appealed to a similar coalition, in the 2016 GOP caucus. Max Rust, a data analyst at The Wall Street Journal, told me in an email that his unpublished analysis found that Iowa turnout fell more compared with 2016 in better educated and more affluent areas than in rural and blue-collar places. “I was really surprised how much Haley underperformed in the suburbs,” David Kochel, a longtime GOP strategist, told me.

    With Trump holding a steady double-digit lead over her in the New Hampshire tracking polls, Haley faces the prospect of a similar squeeze in Tuesday’s primary. Trump’s ferocious attacks on her from the right leave her with little opportunity to crack his support among staunch conservatives. And her much more carefully nuanced criticism of him leaves her facing long odds of catalyzing the massive turnout among independent voters she’d need to generate any momentum moving forward. The Suffolk University/Boston Globe/NBC-10 tracking poll released Saturday showed Haley only running even with Trump among undeclared voters, signaling that she’s failing to draw into the primary the large center-left contingent most hostile to the former president. (At the same time, Trump continued to lead her in the survey by two-to-one among Republicans.)

    “There’s always been this ambivalence that emanates from her about Trump,” Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, told me. Scala, the author of Stormy Weather, a book about the New Hampshire primary, said that he understands that Haley must maneuver carefully, because “ultimately, if you want to win the nomination of this party, you are going to have to win over voters who like Trump.” But, Scala added, “I have to think [her] ambivalence rubs off on voters” and may discourage many of those most critical of Trump from bothering to turn out. (Sununu hasn’t helped that problem by publicly insisting that Haley may be hoping only for a strong second-place finish, and repeatedly declaring that he would vote for Trump if he wins the nomination.)

    In my interactions with voters at a few Haley events here, she seems to inspire more respect than enthusiasm. Some are drawn to her contained and cerebral style, and to her message of generational change. “I was thinking if we give her a chance, we will get an opportunity to go in a new direction,” George Jobel, a marketing manager from Concord, told me after Haley’s Manchester rally. But for many others, Haley is simply the last option to register a vote of disapproval about Trump. Dan O’Donnell, a realtor and undeclared voter from Hollis, is planning to cast his ballot for the former South Carolina governor. But he told me that when friends ask him if he’s voting for Haley, “I tell them, ‘No, I’m going to vote against Trump.’” In the latest Suffolk tracking poll, most independent voters backing Haley likewise said that they were motivated primarily to vote against Trump, rather than for her.

    In fairness to Haley, it’s not like anyone else this year—or, for that matter, in 2016—cracked the code of beating Trump in a Republican primary. DeSantis tried the opposite of her strategy, by running to Trump’s right and hoping that moderates would eventually consolidate around him if he was the only alternative remaining; that approach has left DeSantis in an even weaker position than Haley, barely surviving in the race. And toppling a front-runner is never easy: Even after McCain’s New Hampshire upset in 2000, he won only a few more states, and Bush recovered to resoundingly win the nomination.

    But McCain at least went down swinging, indelibly imprinting a maverick image that allowed him to come back and win the GOP nomination eight years later. In his own way, even DeSantis seems liberated by the prospect of defeat, publicly declaring that Trump cares more about personal loyalty than the good of the country or even the party, and accurately complaining that Fox and other conservative media outlets function as a “Praetorian guard” suppressing criticism of the former president.

    Haley, by contrast, still seems here to be weighing every word, as if she expects she will eventually need to defend it from the witness box in some Stalin-esque future MAGA-loyalty trial. If Haley thought she had a better chance to win, maybe she and her allies would dispense with the word if when describing Trump’s potential threat to American democracy. But her reluctance to fully confront Trump probably betrays what she really thinks about the odds that she can wrest control of the party from him this year. In this break-the-glass moment for Trump’s Republican opponents, Haley has made clear she will do no more than tap lightly on the window.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Everything We Know About Elon Musk’s Drug Use

    Everything We Know About Elon Musk’s Drug Use

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk has once again found himself in hot water after The Wall Street Journal confirmed that the CEO often uses illegal drugs, including cocaine, LSD, magic mushrooms, ecstasy, and ketamine. Here is everything The Onion currently knows about the controversial billionaire’s recreational drug use.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Activision Sure Knows How To Bury A Story On A Friday Night

    Activision Sure Knows How To Bury A Story On A Friday Night

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Kevin Dietsch (Getty Images)

    Activision Blizzard has been the subject of scrutiny for several years now, due to its widely criticized “Boys’ Club” corporate culture of sleazy shenanigans. And now, late on a Friday evening just before the holiday season begins in earnest, The Wall Street Journal reports the embattled gaming company announced on December 15 that it will pay $50 million to settle a 2021 gender discrimination and harassment lawsuit—the same lawsuit that seemingly prompted Microsoft’s landmark $69 billion acquisition of the Call of Duty and Overwatch publisher that was finally greenlit after an 18-month legal battle in October of this year.

    California’s Civil Rights Department sued Activision back in 2021, claiming company leadership willfully ignored employee complaints regarding pay disparity, gender- and sexuality-based harassment, and discrimination.

    Activision has repeatedly denied these charges. Company representatives have also claimed that an internal investigation by its board of directors concluded that the allegations against the company were without merit. When the Microsoft acquisition closed earlier this year, longtime Activision CEO Bobby Kotick was “asked” to stay for another two months, through the end of 2023.

    According to the Journal, which broke the story regarding the settlement, the state of California had initially estimated Activision’s liability for a far greater amount than $50 million.

    The state in 2021 estimated Activision’s liability at nearly $1 billion to 2,500 employees who might have claims against the company, court documents show. Activision had around 13,000 employees as of the end of 2022.

    Citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter, the Journal goes on to claim that state agencies had “initially sought an amount much greater than the settlement Riot Games paid earlier this year to settle its lawsuit.” The Riot settlement in May 2023, which touched upon similar grievances relating to toxic workplace culture, resulted in a $100 million settlement for plaintiffs.

    [ad_2]

    Jen Glennon

    Source link