vr poker game

vr poker game Space X CEO Elon Musk is considering cutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of his drastic government remaking under his new entity the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), The Washington Post reported Wednesday. President-elect Donald Trump promised Musk he could start a government agency to cut government agencies. While it hasn't yet been approved, Musk has already threatened government workers on his social media site, X, which has led to online bullying. Now he's talking about targeting the agency that enforces laws that protect Americans from banks, mortgage lenders and other financial markets. “Delete CFPB,” Musk said in a post on X. He claimed that "there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies." ALSO READ: How an economic crash could line Trump's pockets The idea drew harsh criticism from some who claimed it's an agency that works . One person suggested it was akin to defunding the corporate police . The bureau is among the few agencies that bring money into the government. Since its founding, the bureau " secured more than $19 billion in consumer relief , while penalizing large financial institutions and technology firms for allegedly mishandling Americans’ money," the Post reported. "Its oversight often has stoked the ire of the nation’s biggest banks, credit card companies and other lenders, which have sued the bureau repeatedly over charges of regulatory overreach." Musk's opposition appears to come from Silicon Valley venture capitalist and Donald Trump supporter Marc Andreessen, who accused the agency of “terrorizing financial institutions.” Andreessen’s firm has financially supported financial technology companies that have fallen under the watchful eye of the CFPB for misleading customers. In particular, LendUp Loans issued short-term, high-interest-rate loans while overcharging military service members. When the CFPB went after LendUp Loans, it mentioned that Andreessen's firm backed the company. Killing a government agency created by an act of Congress is more difficult than Musk might think. Doing so would also require an act of Congress. The one person who helped build the agency, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), holds a seat in the U.S. Senate and, in particular, on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as well as the Committee on Finance. The mere threat of a filibuster stops legislation from moving through the Senate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a former and potentially future president, Donald Trump hailed what would become Project 2025 as a road map for “exactly what our movement will do” with another crack at the White House. As the blueprint for a hard-right turn in America became a liability during the 2024 campaign, Trump pulled an about-face . He denied knowing anything about the “ridiculous and abysmal” plans written in part by his first-term aides and allies. Now, after being elected the 47th president on Nov. 5, Trump is stocking his second administration with key players in the detailed effort he temporarily shunned. Most notably, Trump has tapped Russell Vought for an encore as director of the Office of Management and Budget; Tom Homan, his former immigration chief, as “border czar;” and immigration hardliner Stephen Miller as deputy chief of policy . Those moves have accelerated criticisms from Democrats who warn that Trump's election hands government reins to movement conservatives who spent years envisioning how to concentrate power in the West Wing and impose a starkly rightward shift across the U.S. government and society. Trump and his aides maintain that he won a mandate to overhaul Washington. But they maintain the specifics are his alone. “President Trump never had anything to do with Project 2025,” said Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt in a statement. “All of President Trumps' Cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump's agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.” Here is a look at what some of Trump's choices portend for his second presidency. The Office of Management and Budget director, a role Vought held under Trump previously and requires Senate confirmation, prepares a president's proposed budget and is generally responsible for implementing the administration's agenda across agencies. The job is influential but Vought made clear as author of a Project 2025 chapter on presidential authority that he wants the post to wield more direct power. “The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind,” Vought wrote. The OMB, he wrote, “is a President’s air-traffic control system” and should be “involved in all aspects of the White House policy process,” becoming “powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies.” Trump did not go into such details when naming Vought but implicitly endorsed aggressive action. Vought, the president-elect said, “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State” — Trump’s catch-all for federal bureaucracy — and would help “restore fiscal sanity.” In June, speaking on former Trump aide Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vought relished the potential tension: “We’re not going to save our country without a little confrontation.” The strategy of further concentrating federal authority in the presidency permeates Project 2025's and Trump's campaign proposals. Vought's vision is especially striking when paired with Trump's proposals to dramatically expand the president's control over federal workers and government purse strings — ideas intertwined with the president-elect tapping mega-billionaire Elon Musk and venture capitalist Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a “Department of Government Efficiency.” Trump in his first term sought to remake the federal civil service by reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers — who have job protection through changes in administration — as political appointees, making them easier to fire and replace with loyalists. Currently, only about 4,000 of the federal government's roughly 2 million workers are political appointees. President Joe Biden rescinded Trump's changes. Trump can now reinstate them. Meanwhile, Musk's and Ramaswamy's sweeping “efficiency” mandates from Trump could turn on an old, defunct constitutional theory that the president — not Congress — is the real gatekeeper of federal spending. In his “Agenda 47,” Trump endorsed so-called “impoundment,” which holds that when lawmakers pass appropriations bills, they simply set a spending ceiling, but not a floor. The president, the theory holds, can simply decide not to spend money on anything he deems unnecessary. Vought did not venture into impoundment in his Project 2025 chapter. But, he wrote, “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.” Trump's choice immediately sparked backlash. “Russ Vought is a far-right ideologue who has tried to break the law to give President Trump unilateral authority he does not possess to override the spending decisions of Congress (and) who has and will again fight to give Trump the ability to summarily fire tens of thousands of civil servants,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat and outgoing Senate Appropriations chairwoman. Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, leading Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said Vought wants to “dismantle the expert federal workforce” to the detriment of Americans who depend on everything from veterans' health care to Social Security benefits. “Pain itself is the agenda,” they said. Trump’s protests about Project 2025 always glossed over overlaps in the two agendas . Both want to reimpose Trump-era immigration limits. Project 2025 includes a litany of detailed proposals for various U.S. immigration statutes, executive branch rules and agreements with other countries — reducing the number of refugees, work visa recipients and asylum seekers, for example. Miller is one of Trump's longest-serving advisers and architect of his immigration ideas, including his promise of the largest deportation force in U.S. history. As deputy policy chief, which is not subject to Senate confirmation, Miller would remain in Trump's West Wing inner circle. “America is for Americans and Americans only,” Miller said at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Oct. 27. “America First Legal,” Miller’s organization founded as an ideological counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, was listed as an advisory group to Project 2025 until Miller asked that the name be removed because of negative attention. Homan, a Project 2025 named contributor, was an acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director during Trump’s first presidency, playing a key role in what became known as Trump's “family separation policy.” Previewing Trump 2.0 earlier this year, Homan said: “No one’s off the table. If you’re here illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.” John Ratcliffe, Trump's pick to lead the CIA , was previously one of Trump's directors of national intelligence. He is a Project 2025 contributor. The document's chapter on U.S. intelligence was written by Dustin Carmack, Ratcliffe's chief of staff in the first Trump administration. Reflecting Ratcliffe's and Trump's approach, Carmack declared the intelligence establishment too cautious. Ratcliffe, like the chapter attributed to Carmack, is hawkish toward China. Throughout the Project 2025 document, Beijing is framed as a U.S. adversary that cannot be trusted. Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, wrote Project 2025's FCC chapter and is now Trump's pick to chair the panel. Carr wrote that the FCC chairman “is empowered with significant authority that is not shared” with other FCC members. He called for the FCC to address “threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market,” specifically “Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square.” He called for more stringent transparency rules for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube and “empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.” Carr and Ratcliffe would require Senate confirmation for their posts.Canada 'already past due' on NATO defence spending target: U.S. House intelligence committee chair Mike Turner

Macquarie Increases Trade Desk (NASDAQ:TTD) Price Target to $150.00Trump picks son-in-law’s dad, Charles Kushner to be ambassador to France

Alabama and Mississippi tumbled out of the top 10 of The Associated Press Top 25 poll Sunday and Miami and SMU moved in following a chaotic weekend in the SEC and across college football in general. Oregon is No. 1 for the sixth straight week and Ohio State, Texas and Penn State held their places behind the Ducks, who are the last unbeaten team. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

Peter Dutton will use a private Coalition meeting to calm MPs fearful that Labor’s teen social media ban is a Trojan Horse for government control of the internet, ahead of a sitting week in which the major parties plan to ram the legislation through parliament. On Friday Coalition MPs were called to a Monday morning gathering in Canberra, party sources said, where Dutton and communications spokesman David Coleman planned to field questions about Labor’s proposed law to ban children under 16 from platforms such as TikTok and Instagram. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and communications spokesman David Coleman will face concerned MPs. Credit: Louise Kennerley Right-wing Coalition senators Matt Canavan and Alex Antic have been sharply critical of the bill’s potential to require Australians to give tech giants their IDs and the power it would give the eSafety Commission, which is a federal agency that will be charged with overseeing the ban. But doubts about the bill, which was only released last week, have expanded from the pair to more mainstream Coalition MPs, setting up the meeting as a test of the opposition leader’s authority after he hauled his party room into line on abortion earlier this month. On Sunday night, the MPs were informed Monday’s meeting was cancelled, with the conversation to take place on Tuesday as part of the Coalition’s party room meeting. The Coalition leadership remains confident of overwhelming support for the bill inside the party, according to several opposition sources speaking anonymously about internal dynamics. Dutton, whose office declined to comment, plans to hear out his concerned colleagues but ultimately expects the party to back the bill, allowing it to pass parliament this week. The opposition rode a wave of conservative and libertarian campaigning against Labor’s misinformation bill in recent months before the government dropped its plan to crack down on falsehoods online on Sunday. Some of the groups and people behind that campaign, including One Nation, the Libertarian Party and former Coalition MPs George Christensen and Craig Kelly, have launched an email crusade about the social media age barrier that has resulted in complaints flooding into MPs inboxes. They endorse the view of X owner Elon Musk, who wrote on the platform last month that the ban “seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians” because it could require users to prove their identities before accessing major online services. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland was asked about the need to hand over ID in a Labor caucus meeting last week and said her laws would not force people to give ID documents to social media giants, dismissing the prospect as a right-wing scare campaign. However, the government has not announced the technology that would be used to prove a user’s age. ‘A red flag’ LNP MP Garth Hamilton said Labor had rushed the legislation and sent mixed signals about details such as which platforms would be included. The Wiggles successfully lobbied to allow YouTube to remain while Snapchat will be banned, though both apps now also have a TikTok-style feed of clips. “The tests for this bill are that it should not be a proxy for digital ID [to be required to access the internet] and that it actually responds to parents’ needs,” Hamilton said.“I fully agree with Peter Dutton’s concerns about the impacts of social media, and they are long-held. But Labor has had a long time to get details right [and] the utter confusion on the detail is a red flag.” Coleman, who first proposed a teen ban in an April interview with this masthead at a time when Labor opposed such a change , told opposition MPs last week that the government could use a “double-blind tokenised approach” suggested by the eSafety Commission last year. That would allow a third party to verify a user’s age on a social media platform without revealing the identity information used to do so, while another option could force companies that operate app stores, such as Google and Apple, to take on the role. Labor announced the ban early this month after years of claims that social media was harming children’s mental health, much of which is disputed by the technology giants, and argued that it would bolster parents’ ability to reject pestering from kids to go online. But detractors including Ben Thompson, the boss of major Australian tech firm Employment Hero, said on X that bill would make it harder for children with special needs to make friends online. “Not to mention that it’s a Trojan Horse for digital ID and further censorship,” he said. On Sunday, Greens communications spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young called advocates for the ban well-intentioned, but said the bill was rushed compared to the government’s halting approach to gambling reform. “The government and the opposition are ramming through a ban on social media that was introduced on Thursday,” she said on ABC’s Insiders . “We’ve got a joke of a Senate inquiry for three days tomorrow. But they can’t do gambling ... Talk about priorities.” Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter .

None

On Sunday of Week 12, the wackiest game of the 1 P.M. window was easily the NFC East divisional rivalry matchup between the Washington Commanders and Dallas Cowboys. Dallas' 34-26 victory over Washington featured more twists than an M. Night Shyamalan movie, most via the special teams variety. Special teams in the Dallas vs. Washington game today has had a blocked field goal, a blocked punt, three missed field goals, two missed extra points, a 99-yard kickoff return, and an onside kickoff return touchdown. WHAT IN THE WORLD. https://t.co/5UUbcItPl8 The first half was a low-scoring affair, with both teams going into the break tied at three. It could have seen more points on the board had the two teams not combined for three missed field goals, though. That was only the warmup act. After the Cowboys went ahead 20-9 late in the fourth quarter, things truly went off the rails. Zach Ertz caught a late touchdown, and following a successful two-point conversion attempt, Washington was within three and needed to hold Dallas to a punt to have a chance to tie or take the lead. Instead, the Commanders allowed a KaVontae Turpin kickoff return touchdown to find themselves down 27-17. Still, the game was far from over. Washington quickly got within field goal range to get back within one score, then forced a Dallas three-and-out following an onside kick attempt and received the ball needing a touchdown with no timeouts and less than a minute to play. They got it on the first play from scrimmage on an 86-yard Terry McLaurin catch and run ... just for Austin Seibert to miss the extra point. Even still , there was more. The Cowboys took the next onside kick attempt to the house, which was ironically the best possible outcome for the Commanders, who got the ball back one more time hoping for some more Hail Mary magic . This time, though, it was not to be found and the Cowboys won 34-26. All in all, the game was a comedy of errors on special teams, mostly on Washington's side. That ended up being what made the difference, and instead of improving to 8-4, the Commanders lose their third straight and drop to a record of 7-5.WASHINGTON (AP) — As a former and potentially future president, Donald Trump hailed what would become Project 2025 as a road map for “exactly what our movement will do” with another crack at the White House. As the blueprint for a hard-right turn in America became a liability during the 2024 campaign, Trump pulled an about-face . He denied knowing anything about the “ridiculous and abysmal” plans written in part by his first-term aides and allies. Now, after being elected the 47th president on Nov. 5, Trump is stocking his second administration with key players in the detailed effort he temporarily shunned. Most notably, Trump has tapped Russell Vought for an encore as director of the Office of Management and Budget; Tom Homan, his former immigration chief, as “border czar;” and immigration hardliner Stephen Miller as deputy chief of policy . Those moves have accelerated criticisms from Democrats who warn that Trump's election hands government reins to movement conservatives who spent years envisioning how to concentrate power in the West Wing and impose a starkly rightward shift across the U.S. government and society. Trump and his aides maintain that he won a mandate to overhaul Washington. But they maintain the specifics are his alone. “President Trump never had anything to do with Project 2025,” said Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt in a statement. “All of President Trumps' Cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump's agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.” Here is a look at what some of Trump's choices portend for his second presidency. The Office of Management and Budget director, a role Vought held under Trump previously and requires Senate confirmation, prepares a president's proposed budget and is generally responsible for implementing the administration's agenda across agencies. The job is influential but Vought made clear as author of a Project 2025 chapter on presidential authority that he wants the post to wield more direct power. “The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind,” Vought wrote. The OMB, he wrote, “is a President’s air-traffic control system” and should be “involved in all aspects of the White House policy process,” becoming “powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies.” Trump did not go into such details when naming Vought but implicitly endorsed aggressive action. Vought, the president-elect said, “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State” — Trump’s catch-all for federal bureaucracy — and would help “restore fiscal sanity.” In June, speaking on former Trump aide Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vought relished the potential tension: “We’re not going to save our country without a little confrontation.” The strategy of further concentrating federal authority in the presidency permeates Project 2025's and Trump's campaign proposals. Vought's vision is especially striking when paired with Trump's proposals to dramatically expand the president's control over federal workers and government purse strings — ideas intertwined with the president-elect tapping mega-billionaire Elon Musk and venture capitalist Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a “Department of Government Efficiency.” Trump in his first term sought to remake the federal civil service by reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers — who have job protection through changes in administration — as political appointees, making them easier to fire and replace with loyalists. Currently, only about 4,000 of the federal government's roughly 2 million workers are political appointees. President Joe Biden rescinded Trump's changes. Trump can now reinstate them. Meanwhile, Musk's and Ramaswamy's sweeping “efficiency” mandates from Trump could turn on an old, defunct constitutional theory that the president — not Congress — is the real gatekeeper of federal spending. In his “Agenda 47,” Trump endorsed so-called “impoundment,” which holds that when lawmakers pass appropriations bills, they simply set a spending ceiling, but not a floor. The president, the theory holds, can simply decide not to spend money on anything he deems unnecessary. Vought did not venture into impoundment in his Project 2025 chapter. But, he wrote, “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.” Trump's choice immediately sparked backlash. “Russ Vought is a far-right ideologue who has tried to break the law to give President Trump unilateral authority he does not possess to override the spending decisions of Congress (and) who has and will again fight to give Trump the ability to summarily fire tens of thousands of civil servants,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat and outgoing Senate Appropriations chairwoman. Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, leading Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said Vought wants to “dismantle the expert federal workforce” to the detriment of Americans who depend on everything from veterans' health care to Social Security benefits. “Pain itself is the agenda,” they said. Trump’s protests about Project 2025 always glossed over overlaps in the two agendas . Both want to reimpose Trump-era immigration limits. Project 2025 includes a litany of detailed proposals for various U.S. immigration statutes, executive branch rules and agreements with other countries — reducing the number of refugees, work visa recipients and asylum seekers, for example. Miller is one of Trump's longest-serving advisers and architect of his immigration ideas, including his promise of the largest deportation force in U.S. history. As deputy policy chief, which is not subject to Senate confirmation, Miller would remain in Trump's West Wing inner circle. “America is for Americans and Americans only,” Miller said at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Oct. 27. “America First Legal,” Miller’s organization founded as an ideological counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, was listed as an advisory group to Project 2025 until Miller asked that the name be removed because of negative attention. Homan, a Project 2025 named contributor, was an acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director during Trump’s first presidency, playing a key role in what became known as Trump's “family separation policy.” Previewing Trump 2.0 earlier this year, Homan said: “No one’s off the table. If you’re here illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.” John Ratcliffe, Trump's pick to lead the CIA , was previously one of Trump's directors of national intelligence. He is a Project 2025 contributor. The document's chapter on U.S. intelligence was written by Dustin Carmack, Ratcliffe's chief of staff in the first Trump administration. Reflecting Ratcliffe's and Trump's approach, Carmack declared the intelligence establishment too cautious. Ratcliffe, like the chapter attributed to Carmack, is hawkish toward China. Throughout the Project 2025 document, Beijing is framed as a U.S. adversary that cannot be trusted. Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, wrote Project 2025's FCC chapter and is now Trump's pick to chair the panel. Carr wrote that the FCC chairman “is empowered with significant authority that is not shared” with other FCC members. He called for the FCC to address “threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market,” specifically “Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square.” He called for more stringent transparency rules for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube and “empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.” Carr and Ratcliffe would require Senate confirmation for their posts.

On Monday I got a call about Dr Yang Hengjun’s worsening health and the latest humiliating mistreatment of him in prison. We hoped that it would be raised at the Xi-Albanese meeting early Tuesday morning Australian time. Given last week’s odd praise for PM Albanese by the state-owned outlet China Daily, we had to make sure there was no fear of loss of face by bringing up something contentious, and which highlighted our differences. It was out of character for China Daily to praise a Western leader, and sweet talk from the government mouthpiece should make one suspicious. Was it a sophisticated insult ("high-class tar" as Chinese slang goes) to divide and conquer our political landscape, or to soften Australia into giving up something at the G20 summit? We hope our prime minister leveraged China’s "goodwill" to press hard on helping Dr Yang. As someone who was locked up in the same place as Dr Yang, I know the weight of each word that comes out of incarceration, especially regarding hunger, health, deprivation. The words of suffering are distilled and compressed, and sometimes it feels like throwing stones into a valley and hoping for a small echo. As someone who also had no voice and was helped by journalists, media outlets, politicians and ordinary people, I am duty-bound to speak up for Dr Yang. In his July 21 letter to family obtained and translated by Sky News Australia, Dr Yang tells of his difficult transition to jail life - saying he still prefers the scorching sun to the "comfort" of air-conditioned detention. It is heartbreaking to read that "in February 2024, when I was taken to the Beijing Intermediate Court for sentencing, both my experience and the judgment of experienced lawyers indicated that I would be sentenced to at most five years". "But the result was (suspended) death sentence with reprieve. When I returned to the detention centre, I told my cellmates, and they thought I was joking, but I just walked around for two hours without reading a book, which convinced them," the letter continues. "Because for the past five years, unless I was following the rules (sitting on the wooden plank bed and doing nothing else) or eating or exercising, I had never spent ten minutes without reading." When the footage of China bundling British journalists away from the Starmer-Xi meeting at the G20 summit came out this week, I had a sense of déjà vu. Just like when I was blocked from the cameras during Chinese premier Li Qiang’s visit. It's that same disregard of journalists as if swatting flies away, the same indifference to how it looks in the world media, because none of this will show up in the alternate universe created by the Great Firewall of China. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong democracy sentencings also hit close to home. My friend Kevin Yam, who has a $1 million HK dollar bounty on his head, laments that it could just as well be him behind bars instead of the others. Gordon Ng, an Australian citizen, who went to Waverley Secondary and then UNSW, was sentenced to seven years and three months for helping to publicise Hong Kong's primary elections, for believing in free and fair elections to counterbalance tyranny. Would he be forgotten by the Australian government because he has dual citizenship? Forgotten by the Australian people because he doesn't have an ocker personality? If we are to balance Australia’s interests with our values, we should fairly and openly call out behaviours breaching our standards just as often as we talk up our trading relationship with China – or can we? Are our values worth $320 billion? While Xi told Biden on November 16 about the uncrossable four red lines – "the Taiwan question, democracy and human rights, China’s path and system, China’s development right", there were more random hate crimes out of China. Another car ramming – this time at a primary school in Hunan, coming on top of last week’s horrific rampage at a sports centre in Zhuhai. Plus a disgruntled tech school graduate stabbing fellow students in Jiangsu province. It adds to a tragic list and has come to be known as the "Xianzhong" phenomenon, in reference to a Ming dynasty. The nightmarish footage of blood being pressure-hosed in Zhuhai reminded me of a recent seminar I went to. Wang Dan, 1989 Tiananmen protest leader, spoke on China’s current mood, and pointed to a song called ‘Big Dream’ which had gone viral in China for capturing the zeitgeist. It is a melancholic song that goes through a Chinese person’s life from the age of 6 to 88 - the refrain "so what do I do?" echoing the helplessness and desperation many feel in the face of unemployment, lack of housing, difficulty in finding a partner and unaffordable healthcare. So far the song hasn’t been censored because it doesn’t openly criticise the regime, but the title does cock an ironic brow at president Xi’s "China Dream". Given the strains of government finances, the faint drummings of war (both military and trade), a decidedly challenging future with an ageing population and underfunded social welfare, state controls have become tighter on expression of simmering discontent, even at the risk of ruptures that we are seeing. On Saturday I took my kids to see a performance at the Melbourne Arts Centre called 'Made in China 2.0', it is brilliant, moving, entertaining and thought-provoking. But the creator, who is Chinese, asked everyone not to share online what the show is about – because what has happened to me may happen to him. The next day I met him and exiled Chinese writer Murong Xuecun. Our discussion turned to "How to prepare for Chinese incarceration" which entails everything from fattening up to having multiple copies of signed power of attorney for human rights lawyers and drafted statements to be released at each stage of the judicial process. It is darkly funny but also a serious necessity for anyone critical of the Chinese regime in China. For those of us who don’t have to fear incarceration, if we don’t speak up, we are wasting our freedom of speech.Trump threatens 100% tariff on BRICS nations if they act to undermine U.S. dollarAs of Thursday, McCormick led by about 16,000 votes out of almost 7 million ballots counted. That was well within the 0.5% margin threshold to trigger an automatic statewide recount under Pennsylvania law.

World News | What to Know About Pam Bondi, Trump's New Pick for Attorney General

New York, NY, Dec. 26, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NorthView Acquisition Corporation (Nasdaq: NVAC) (the "Company”) announced that it has received a notice (the "Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("Nasdaq”) indicating that (i) the Staff has determined that the Company's securities will be delisted from The Nasdaq Stock Market; (ii) trading of the Company's Common Stock, Rights, and Warrants will be suspended at the opening of business on December 27, 2024; and (iii) a Form 25-NSE will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC”), which will remove the Company's securities from listing on The Nasdaq Stock Market. Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule IM-5101-2, a special purpose acquisition company must complete one or more business combinations within 36 months of the effectiveness of its IPO registration statement. Since the Company failed to complete its initial business combination by December 20, 2024, the Company did not comply with IM-5101-2, and its securities are now subject to delisting. The Company will not appeal Nasdaq's determination to delist the Company's securities and accordingly, the Company's securities will be suspended from trading on Nasdaq at the opening of business on December 27, 2024. The Company intends to apply for the listing of its securities on the OTC market under the same ticker symbols after they are delisted from Nasdaq. The delisting from Nasdaq does not affect the Company's previously announced business combination with Profusa Inc., as both parties continue to work to effectuate the closing of the business combination. The merged entity will apply for listing of its securities on the Nasdaq Stock Market in connection with the closing of the business combination. The Company will remain a reporting entity under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with respect to continued disclosure of financial and operational information. About NorthView Acquisition Corporation NorthView Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company incorporated in Delaware for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. Forward Looking Statements This press release contains statements that constitute "forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous conditions, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including those set forth in the Risk Factors section of the Company's registration statement and final prospectus for the offering filed with the SEC. Copies are available on the SEC's website, www.sec.gov . The Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release, except as required by law. Company Contacts: Fred Knechtel [email protected] (631) 987-8921

AP News Summary at 5:58 p.m. ESTMutual of America Capital Management LLC Increases Stake in Teradyne, Inc. (NASDAQ:TER)

NoneLOS ANGELES — He’d been battered for weeks, lingering on the turf in pain at various points in previous wins over Nebraska and UCLA, always game enough to return a few players later after gingerly limping off. But running back Woody Marks, long USC’s Iron Man at running back, couldn’t return after another blow Saturday against Notre Dame. After a first-quarter handoff for nine yards, Marks laid on the turf for a few beats before stumbling to his feet, appearing slightly disoriented as he entered a medical tent on USC’s sideline. He eventually returned to the sideline as redshirt freshman Quinten Joyner took his place, but walked off into the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum tunnel at the two-minute mark of the first half as the CBS broadcast reported he’d be out for the rest of the afternoon . It was a massive loss for USC’s offense, and could’ve served as the end of Marks’ time in a Trojans jersey depending on his bowl-game decision. If so, what a run it has been for the Mississippi State transfer: finishing with 1,133 yards on the ground in 12 games, putting together one of the more complete seasons by any USC running back in recent memory. They came marching one by one down the barrel of the Coliseum, adorned with wreaths of honor, USC’s Easton Mascarenas-Arnold and Jaylin Smith and Woody Marks all exchanging hugs with Lincoln Riley as an early crowd erupted in claps for its program pillars. It was a moment of levity, USC honoring beloved seniors Saturday afternoon on the final day of its regular season. It was also, however, a sobering reality. With Mascarenas-Arnold, Smith and Marks went 138 combined tackles and four interceptions and 1,421 yards from scrimmage; with left guard Emmanuel Pregnon and center Jonah Monheim went two crucial pieces of a much-improved Trojans offensive line. Walking out from the tunnel on Senior Day, certainly, doesn’t provide an end-all, be-all on players’ futures. But it gave a hint, certainly, that several names who still carried eligibility – Mascarenas-Arnold, Smith, wide receiver Kyron Hudson – could be moving on come the winter. “We’ll have a few guys, obviously, who will have some decisions to make on if they go pro or if they stay and play another year,” Riley said Tuesday, when asked how he might adjust USC’s offensive personnel in the offseason. “Not a ton, but we’ve got a couple guys that have those decisions. We’ll just see. We’re going to try to get the right talent in here.” USC will be hard-pressed to add that talent, certainly, as eyes turn ahead to a bowl-game slot and the 2025 season. If every player honored on USC’s announced Senior Day graphic moves on , either via the NFL draft or the transfer portal, USC stands to lose 17 players from its offense, defense and special teams who started Saturday against Notre Dame. Here’s the breakdown: Offense: WR Kyle Ford, TE Lake McRee, RB Woody Marks, C Jonah Monheim, LG Emmanuel Pregnon, RT Mason Murphy, WR Kyron Hudson Defense: S Akili Arnold, LB Easton Mascarenas-Arnold, LB Mason Cobb, CB Jacobe Covington, DT Nate Clifton, DT Gavin Meyer, CB Jaylin Smith, CB Greedy Vance Jr. Special teams: P Eddie Czaplicki, K Michael Lantz It’s still probable, as Riley mentioned, that a few of those names elect to stay at USC for another season. McRee, Murphy and Hudson, in particular, are redshirt juniors and would likely see their draft stock elevated by a return for a prominent senior year at USC. Still, the Trojans will have major work to do in the transfer portal and with depth development this offseason, particularly at center, replacing Monheim, and cornerback. Related Articles Not a day after the NFL’s Chicago Bears canned head coach Matt Eberflus following a 23-20 loss to the Detroit Lions , former star quarterback and No. 1 overall draft pick Caleb Williams was back at the Coliseum on for his USC jersey-retirement ceremony in a palate cleanser of a Saturday afternoon. Williams, the Heisman Trophy winner who conquered opposing defenses and NIL riches in his time at USC, took a moment to thank the Coliseum crowd upon leading the Trojans out of the tunnel Saturday. “Number 13 is back,” Williams announced over the PA, speaking in a microphone to wide cheers. “And not only – is in the rafters now, because of all of you.”