register 90jili

register 90jili How right-wing media is like improv theaterPep Guardiola has said he “loves” fighting Manchester City’s corner against allegations of financial breaches and his belief in the club influenced the decision to sign a new two-year contract. City’s most successful manager ended uncertainty over his future this week when extending his reign until 2027 . The 53-year-old claimed the deal was agreed during a two-hour meeting with the City hierarchy, including the chief executive, Ferran Soriano, and outgoing director of football Txiki Begiristain, and he signed for two years to avoid another round of speculation over his future in 12 months’ time. Guardiola appeared galvanised by the agreement when previewing Tottenham’s visit to the Etihad Stadium on Saturday, having suffered four straight defeats in all competitions, the worst run of his illustrious managerial career. He reiterated that he would remain City manager even if the club were relegated to the “Conference” – a punishment he claimed 75% of Premier League rivals wanted – should they be found guilty of breaching Premier League rules. The 130 charges, with the hearing currently under way , and City’s dispute with the Premier League over associated party transactions (APT) rules have cast a shadow over the success of Guardiola’s team. But the City manager insisted they merely strengthen his resolve to lead the club through this controversial period. “I don’t enjoy it, I prefer not to be in that position, but once it’s there I love it,” said Guardiola about defending City against various off-field matters. “Because you believe in your club and the people there. I believe what they say to me and the reasons why. I said, ‘OK, let’s see.’ I cannot say [any more] yet because we’re awaiting the sentence in February or March – I don’t know when – but, at the same time, I like it.” Sixteen clubs fell behind the Premier League’s proposed changes to APT rules on Friday, with only four backing the wider challenge that City favoured. Guardiola claimed most top-flight clubs would also like to see the champions relegated in the event of being found guilty of breaching financial rules. City deny any wrongdoing. “I read something about the situation and how we need to be relegated immediately. Seventy-five per cent of the clubs want it, because I know what they do behind the scenes,” Guardiola said. “But I don’t live with it. I live with the four defeats, what I have to do. There are lawyers on both sides. I don’t think about it.” The City manager confirmed he would not leave in the seismic event of the champions being relegated from the Premier League. “I said that six months or one year ago,” he added. “It’s not because I extend the contract that I pretend to be ‘oh how nice is Pep?’ What happens if we get relegated? I will be here. Next year we will come up, I don’t know, if we are in the Conference [National League] we are going to come up and come back to the Premier League. I knew it then and I feel it now.” Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Guardiola gave a wry smile when asked to confirm he decided to stay in response to losing four successive games. But he admitted harbouring some doubts over whether to commit earlier this season. “Time,” he said. “At the time we started really well, we won the Community Shield – one title again this season. We started top of the league and we dropped points for what I would say were obvious reasons. But I had no doubts about the players. If I had doubts [about them], I would not extend. I love working with them still and know how they behave in these moments. It happened yesterday, every time I sit down for a new contract – they love you.” Guardiola’s great Premier League adversary, Jürgen Klopp, cited tiredness as reason to step down after nine seasons with Liverpool earlier this year. “I am tired,” said Guardiola, who is in his ninth season with City. “Sometimes it is, ‘oh, another game’. The difference that helped me? Win, win, win. Life is better when you win. It helps to continue.”

YouTube is no stranger to implementing new features and experimenting with the platform, and one powerful new tool could change how viewers engage with content forever. Back in October, YouTube announced that it was expanding its AI video summaries to more users after a limited trial in 2023 with more viewers getting a chance to try it out in the weeks ahead. These summaries use AI to create short outlines of entire YouTube videos, which the company says is intended to provide users with a “quick glimpse” of what it’s about and are designed to complement descriptions. Now, more users have begun to see these summaries when checking out videos, but viewers have mixed feelings about the feature, especially its potential impact on smaller creators. YouTube users say new feature could reduce views In a post shared on social media, a user noted how they had clicked on a video, but instead of watching, they opted to just read the summary again. “Nice idea to reduce views,” they wrote. “I was about to click but then I saw the summary so I just read.” Many in the comments were positive about the tool, with some noting how it could be useful for longer videos or to, as one user hoped, “identify scams.” “Google is so obsessed with AI that they are now using it to decrease views and thus decrease ad revenue for them,” one joked, referring to the overbearing influx of ads taking over the app. “It’s a great feature on paper. But it does ruin a lot of discoverability for smaller YouTubers, that makes informational videos,” another argued. Related: Some were completely down the middle. One explained how, although the AI descriptions had some pros, it could ultimately “screw over” good creators. “This is the best thing to happen to YouTube. Clickbait content won’t get views because people can just read the summary. Quality content will get views. Quality will increase,” someone else noted. This feature comes as more and more YouTube Premium subscribers have expressed concern about rising costs, especially with recent hikes having some paying a whopping $500 per year . YouTube is also facing new competition. Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, for example, said the platform was ready to “take on” YouTube after its election night streaming coverage broke records and eclipsed Kick’s peak viewer total.

Philadelphia Eagles close on play-off spot with win over Carolina Panthers

A judge on Monday rejected a request to block a San Jose State women's volleyball team member from playing in a conference tournament on grounds that she is transgender. The ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews in Denver will allow the player, who has played all season, to compete in the Mountain West Conference women's championship opening this week in Las Vegas. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by nine current players against the Mountain West Conference challenging the league's policies for allowing transgender players to participate. The players argued that letting her compete was a safety risk and unfair. While some media have reported those and other details, neither San Jose State nor the forfeiting teams have confirmed the school has a trans woman volleyball player. The Associated Press is withholding the player's name because she has not commented publicly on her gender identity. School officials also have declined an interview request with the player. Crews' ruling referred to the athlete as an "alleged transgender" player and noted that no defendant disputed that the San Jose State roster includes a transgender woman player. San Jose State will "continue to support its student-athletes and reject discrimination in all forms," the university said in a statement, confirming that all its student-athletes are eligible to participate under NCAA and conference rules. "We are gratified that the Court rejected an eleventh-hour attempt to change those rules. Our team looks forward to competing in the Mountain West volleyball tournament this week." The conference did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The players filed a notice for emergency appeal with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Crews said the players who filed the complaint could have sought relief much earlier, noting the individual universities had acknowledged that not playing their games against San Jose State this season would result in a loss in league standings. He also refused a request to re-seed the tournament without the forfeited losses. The judge said injunctions are meant to preserve the status quo. The conference policy regarding forfeiting for refusing to play against a team with a transgender player had been in effect since 2022 and the San Jose State player has been on the roster since 2022 — making that the status quo. The player competed at the college level three previous seasons, including two for San Jose State, drawing little attention. This season's awareness of her reported identity led to an uproar among some players, pundits, parents and politicians in a major election year. Crews' ruling also said injunctions are meant to prevent harm, but in this case, he argued, the harm has already occurred. The games have been forfeited, the tournament has been seeded, the teams have made travel plans and the participants have confirmed they're playing. The tournament starts Wednesday and continues Friday and Saturday. Colorado State is seeded first and San Jose State, second. The teams split their regular-season matches and both get byes into Friday's semifinals. San Jose State will play the winner of Wednesday's match between Utah State and Boise State — teams that both forfeited matches to SJSU during the regular season. The conference tournament winner gets an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. San Jose State coach Todd Kress, whose team has not competed in the national tournament since 2001, has said his team has been getting "messages of hate" and that has taken a toll on his players. Several teams refused to play against San Jose State during the season, earning losses in the official conference standings. Boise State and Wyoming each had two forfeits while Utah State and Nevada both had one. Southern Utah, a member of the Western Athletic Conference, was first to cancel against San Jose State this year. Nevada's players stated they "refuse to participate in any match that advances injustice against female athletes," without elaborating. Nevada did not qualify for the conference tournament. The nine current players and others now suing the Mountain West Conference, the California State University Board of Trustees and others include San Jose State senior setter and co-captain Brooke Slusser. The teammate Slusser says is transgender hits the volleyball with more force than others on the team, raising fear during practices of suffering concussions from a head hit, the complaint says. The Independent Council on Women's Sports is funding a separate lawsuit against the NCAA for allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports. Both lawsuits claim the landmark 1972 federal antidiscrimination law known as Title IX prohibits transgender women in women's sports. Title IX prohibits sexual discrimination in federally funded education; Slusser is a plaintiff in both lawsuits. Several circuit courts have used a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to conclude that discriminating against someone based on their transgender status or sexual orientation is sex-based discrimination, Crews wrote. That means case law does not prove the "likelihood of success" needed to grant an injunction. An NCAA policy that subjects transgender participation to the rules of sports governing bodies took effect this academic year. USA Volleyball says a trans woman must suppress testosterone for 12 months before competing. The NCAA has not flagged any issues with San Jose State. The Republican governors of Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming have made public statements in support of the team cancellations, citing fairness in women's sports. President-elect Donald Trump likewise has spoken out against allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports. Crews was a magistrate judge in Colorado's U.S. District Court for more than five years before President Joe Biden appointed him as a federal judge in January. Get local news delivered to your inbox!Albanese ‘weakest PM’ in 16 years as new poll rocks Labor months from election

Ambitions, bills and grudges: Reasons DeSantis for defense secretary may never happenThese holiday gifts change the game when building fires, printing photos, watching birds and more

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 25, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Visa Inc. (NYSE: V) publicly traded securities between November 16, 2023 and September 23, 2024, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), have until January 21, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Visa class action lawsuit. Captioned Cai v. Visa Inc. , No. 24-cv-08220 (N.D. Cal.), the Visa class action lawsuit charges Visa as well as certain of Visa’s top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Visa class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-visa-inc-class-action-lawsuit-v.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com . CASE ALLEGATIONS : Visa operates as a payment technology company. The Visa class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Visa was not in compliance with federal antitrust laws and did not have effective internal programs and policies to assess and control compliance with federal antitrust laws; and (ii) Visa was in violation of federal antitrust law, and therefore likely to be subject to lawsuits and penalties by federal agencies. The Visa class action lawsuit further alleges that on September 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Visa in federal court for monopolizing the debit card payment processing market. On this news, the price of Visa stock fell more than 5%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS : The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Visa publicly traded securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Visa class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Visa class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Visa class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Visa class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER : Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the world and the Firm’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.comComfort food: East Huntingdon man provides meals for fellow patients at Unity cancer centerBUFFALO, N.Y. — A plan to change insurance coverage for anesthesia that concerned doctors is no longer happening. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield said Thursday afternoon it was canceling the policy change. This came after backlash from policy holders, doctors, and politicians. Sometimes surgery takes longer than expected, and Anthem proposed that for claims processed after Feb. 1, 2025 , surgeries with times longer than what the company said were OK would be denied in certain places, including New York. Last month, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that starting in February, it would no longer cover the cost of anesthesia if the surgery went longer than a specific time limit for people insured by the company in New York, Connecticut, and Missouri. The only exclusions would be for people under 22 and maternity-related care. But late Thursday afternoon, a spokesperson for Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield sent 2 On Your Side a statement saying, "There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change. To be clear, it never was and never will be the policy of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield to not pay for medically necessary anesthesia services. The proposed update to the policy was only designed to clarify the appropriateness of anesthesia consistent with well-established clinical guidelines." Before it was canceled, the President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Donald Arnold , called the proposed move "a cynical money grab by Anthem, designed to take advantage of the commitment anesthesiologists make thousands of times each day to provide their patients with expert, complete and safe anesthesia care." Chair of the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committee on Economics Dr. Jonathan Gal also had major concerns and says his group met with Anthem about two weeks ago, which led to more questions than answers. 2 On Your Side interviewed him before Anthem announced it would not be changing anything. "In talking with Anthem, this seemed like a blatant money grab on their behalf. Anthem just wants to pad their annual $6-billion profits while passing costs onto patients and their physicians," said Dr. Jonathan Gal, Chair of the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committee on Economics. This story unfolded quickly. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul weighed-in on the issue Wednesday, posting on social media that she's going to make sure New Yorkers are protected and called the proposal outrageous. Early Thursday afternoon, our sister station in Hartford, Connecticut reported that after hearing from lots of people who were upset, the Connecticut State Comptroller announced he spoke with Anthem and the insurance company told him it would no longer be implementing the coverage limit in Connecticut. Then, around 3:30 p.m., Anthem sent 2 On Your Side a statement saying it wasn't going through with the policy change. We also need to point out that this has nothing to do with Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield. Thursday afternoon, a spokesperson for Highmark told 2 On Your Side that Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield does not have any policies in place that restrict its members' anesthesia coverage based on duration.