777pub+register

777pub+register Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, who heads the Cabinet sub-committee on Rythu Bharosa, on Sunday said that the Congress government has allocated Rs 72,659 crore for agriculture and allied sectors in the Budget and was committed to providing financial assistance to farmers despite financial constraints. He was chairing a meeting with committee members, ministers Tummala Nageswara Rao, D. Sridhar Babu, and Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy, at the secretariat to discuss issues concerning farmers. The members took stock of the procedures that had to be finalised for seamless implementation of the scheme for the upcoming yasangi crop. They reviewed opinions and the requests of farmers received during the sub-committee's tour of the state. Bhatti said that Rs 21,000 crore had been deposited in the bank accounts of farmers within two months under the scheme to waive farmer loans of up to Rs 2 lakh. An agriculture commission has been set up to work for the welfare of the farmers to make agriculture a profitable proposition. Bhatti said that it has been decided to bring farmer forums built by the previous government into full use. The government has taken up the Rythu Nestham programme to modernise farmer forums, he said and added that this was taken up to solve the problems of farmers by connecting farmer forums with video conferencing. He explained that the state government had released Rythu Bharosa funds to all farmers as investment assistance for the yasangi crop in its first year in power. He pointed out that Rs 7,625 crore were deposited in the accounts of farmers.The Houston Texans (7-4) take on a familiar opponent (and best bets are available) when they host the Tennessee Titans (2-8) on Sunday, November 24, 2024 at NRG Stadium in an AFC South showdown. BetMGM is one of the most trusted Sportsbooks in the nation. Start with as little as $1 and place your bets today . Don’t miss a touchdown this NFL season. Catch every score with NFL RedZone on Fubo. What is Fubo? Fubo is a streaming service that gives you access to your favorite live sports and shows on demand. Start your risk free trial today and watch seven hours of commercial-free football from every NFL game every Sunday. Think you know who will win the game? Sign up at BetMGM and place your bet today. Want to bet on this game’s spread? Head to BetMGM and place your wager today. Want to bet on the over/under in this matchup? Make your wager at BetMGM . Not all offers available in all states, please visit BetMGM for the latest promotions for your area. Must be 21+ to gamble, please wager responsibly. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, contact 1-800-GAMBLER .Sorber scores 22 as Georgetown beats Coppin State 83-53

ATLANTA (AP) — Jalen Johnson scored 28 points and the Atlanta Hawks closed out a four-game homestand, winning a third straight contest, 120-110 over the Miami Heat on Saturday. Trae Young added his 22nd double-double of the season, with 11 point and 15 assist, and De'Andre Hunter scored 26 points in his 14th consecutive game with at least 15 points coming off the bench. Tyler Herro scored 28 points and dished out 10 assists and Bam Adebayo added 17 points and 10 rebounds. It was the Heat's fourth game in a row without star Jimmy Butler , who sat out for what the team called “return to competition reconditioning.” Heat: Miami lost despite five players finishing with double-digit point totals. The Heat shot 44.4% from the field, but it wasn't enough to overcome a Hawks team that hit over half of its shots, 51.2% from the field. Hawks: Johnson has been on an offensive tear in his last two games. He finished two points shy of his single-game career high of 30 points, set in his last game, on Thursday against the Chicago Bulls. Hunter also finished just one point shy of his single-game career high of 27 points. After a close first half that featured nine lead changes, Atlanta seized control early in the second half. With five minutes to go in the third quarter, Atlanta’s Garrison Mathews and Hunter hit back-to-back 3s to give Atlanta an 81-72 lead, their biggest of the night, and forcing a Miami timeout. Young finished one assist shy of a franchise single-game record for assists against the Miami Heat, set by Mookie Blaylock in 1993. The Hawks begin a six-game road trip in Toronto on Sunday, while the Heat visits the Rockets on Sunday. AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/NBAOn Saturday night, Donald Trump announced he intends to appoint Kash Patel as director of the FBI. The news sparked an immediate frenzy from establishment figures across media and politics. Legal and national security “experts” were deployed to the Sunday morning news shows to characterize the move as evidence that Trump intends to politicize the FBI and use it as a weapon against his many political opponents. The political establishment’s concerns about what a Trump FBI could do mirror a lot of what we’ve heard from the right in recent years as they found themselves in the Bureau’s crosshairs. But almost all of these complaints and warnings have operated under the assumption that—with maybe the exception of a few bad episodes in the 1960s—the FBI has long been an essential crime-fighting force that has only recently become—or threatens to become—corrupted by politics. In truth, the FBI has always been used as a weapon against political movements and rivals of the established political class. That’s the reason it was created. At the end of the 1800s, left-wing anarchists were attacking heads of state all across Europe. In a few short years, the king of Italy, the prime minister of Spain, the empress of Austria, and the president of France were all assassinated by anarchists. While no communist or anarchist movement had yet to take over a country, the tenacity of these activists and revolutionaries was seriously concerning those in power in the United States. Then, in 1901, President William McKinley was shot and killed by an anarchist while attending a meet-and-greet in Buffalo, New York, which brought his vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, into office. It was President Roosevelt who tapped his Attorney General Charles Bonaparte—the grandnephew of Napoleon—to create the FBI. The AG was required by law to get congressional approval before creating this new “investigative” service of special agents within the Department of Justice. In the spring of 1908, Bonaparte officially requested the money and authority to create the FBI. Congress came back with an emphatic no. Members of the House saw through the innocuous language of the request and figured out exactly what the president and AG were doing—creating a secret police force that was answerable only to them. House Democrats like Joseph Swagar and John J. Fitzgerald and Republicans like Walter I. Smith and George Waldo all loudly condemned the proposal, saying it called for a “system of espionage” comparable to the Tsar’s secret police in Russia that stood in stark contrast to the very principles at the heart of the American system. Congress explicitly forbade the AG from creating this new Bureau. So what did Bonaparte do? He waited for Congress to break for the summer and then went ahead and created the FBI anyway. Congress was only notified about the new federal police force half a year later when Bonaparte included a quick throw-away line at the end of his annual report: “It became necessary for the department to organize a small force of special agents of its own.” So, the FBI was not created in response to out-of-control crime; its creation was a crime. Immediately, the new Bureau was unleashed on anyone and everyone who was perceived as a threat to those in power. That started with left-wing anarchists but quickly expanded to include many antiwar activists as President Wilson pulled the country into World War I. From the outset, the FBI operated primarily as a domestic intelligence agency—recruiting spies within groups they were targeting and breaking into offices and homes, intercepting mail, and tapping the phones of anyone they considered a threat. As the years wore on—like most other executive agencies—the Bureau evolved away from serving the direct interests of whoever happened to sit in the Oval Office to instead serve its own interest and the interest of the broader entrenched, permanent power structure in Washington. In the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, the FBI conducted covert operations aimed at inciting violence between domestic groups, breaking up political organizations it disapproved of, and, perhaps most famously, collecting blackmail on Martin Luther King Jr. that they then tried to use to drive him to commit suicide. Related Articles Commentary | A new Legislative session: Time for pocketbook pragmatism Commentary | Climate activists should pivot from costly pipe dreams to realistic solutions Commentary | Privacy agency oversteps authority, jeopardizes California’s opportunity to lead in AI Commentary | Newsom’s wrongheaded special session is a misuse of gubernatorial power Commentary | Scott Horton: Can Trump actually fend off the war hawks and bring peace? Although today’s FBI acknowledges and publicly disavows these past activities, they are still carrying out egregious operations that always seem to benefit the political class. The Bureau has taken up a kind of sting operation where, over and over again, agents find isolated, gullible, often mentally-handicapped young men, pretend to be political radicals or higher-ups in a terrorist organization, and then convince the young men to plan and carry out a terrorist attack with FBI-funds and resources. Agents then step in at the end and act like they heroically stopped a real plot. The FBI did this relentlessly with young Muslim men after 9/11. The arrests helped prolong the perception that the global war on terror and extreme measures like the Patriot Act were necessary. In recent years, the FBI has conducted a number of similar schemes with right-wing groups—advancing the establishment’s narrative that Donald Trump is radicalizing “uneducated” middle Americans and turning them into violent insurrectionists. And then there are, of course, all the ways the FBI directly tried to undermine and hinder Trump’s first term. Right-wingers are correctly deriding the establishment for panicking about Trump’s FBI doing to them what they have tried to do to him. But many—on both sides—go wrong when they present the Bureau as only recently, or imminently, being corrupted into serving the interests of those in power. That’s been its role since the beginning. Connor O’Keeffe ( @ConnorMOKeeffe ) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. This commentary is republished from the Mises Institute.

Smokers who quit for a week could save a day of their life, experts say

Two students wounded and gunman dead after shooting at Northern California elementary school

'A BEACON OF HOPE': Bear Lake Memorial Hospital holds grand opening of new clinic in Garden CityAP News in Brief at 6:04 p.m. EST

None

Bonnie Ryan calls 2024 one of the ‘hardest’ years of her life in emotional post

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Taylor Swift once raved about the sweet potato casserole served at a New York City restaurant and now that recipe pops up every now and again at Thanksgiving. The holidays encourage many of us to try new recipes. Social media right now is flooded with recipes for appetizers, side dishes and desserts. Anyone making that cornbread casserole from TikTok? While we might not get to share a Thanksgiving feast with Swift — is your name Blake Lively? — or other celebrities beloved by Kansas City, we can eat like them. So here’s the recipe for that casserole Swift loved so much, and favorite family side dish recipes from Donna Kelce and Eric Stonestreet. Enjoy. People are also reading... Travis Kelce's mother, Donna Kelce, seen here last year at her son's music festival, dined on a cheesesteak made by actor Bradley Cooper at QVC festivities in Las Vegas this week. (Emily Curiel/Kansas City Star/TNS) If we tried to guess how many holiday dinner rolls Travis Kelce and his brother, Jason Kelce, have scarfed over the years, would it be in the hundreds? Thousands? Their mom has spoken often about the batches of holiday crescent rolls she has baked over the years. Based on the recipe that won the 1969 Pillsbury Bake-Off, Pillsbury’s Magic Marshmallow Crescent Puffs , they’re now known as Mama Kelce’s Dinner Rolls. They blend the crescent roll pastry with marshmallows, cinnamon and sugar. Dinner roll or dessert? We bet they didn’t last long enough in front of Travis and Jason for that debate. Ingredients Rolls •1/4 cup granulated sugar •2 tablespoons Pillsbury Best all-purpose flour •1 teaspoon ground cinnamon •2 (8-ounce) cans refrigerated Pillsbury Original Crescent Rolls (8 Count) •16 large marshmallows •1/4 cup butter or margarine, melted Glaze •1/2 cup powdered sugar •1/2 teaspoon vanilla •2-3 teaspoons milk •1/4 cup chopped nuts Directions Make the rolls 1. Preheat oven to 375°F. Spray 16 medium muffin cups with nonstick baking spray. 2. In a small bowl, mix the granulated sugar, flour and cinnamon. 3. Separate the dough into 16 triangles. For each roll, dip 1 marshmallow into melted butter; roll in the sugar mixture. Place marshmallow on the shortest side of a triangle. Roll up, starting at shortest side and rolling to opposite point. Completely cover the marshmallow with the dough; firmly pinch edges to seal. Dip 1 end in remaining butter; place butter side down in muffin cup. 4. Bake for 12 to 15 minutes or until golden brown. 5. When done, remove from the oven and let the puffs cool in the pan for 1 minute. Remove rolls from muffin cups; place on cooling racks set over waxed paper. Make the glaze and assemble In a small bowl, mix the powdered sugar, vanilla and enough milk for desired drizzling consistency. Drizzle glaze over warm rolls. Sprinkle with nuts. Serve warm. Eric Stonestreet attends 'Eric Stonestreet visits The SiriusXM Hollywood Studios in Los Angeles' at SiriusXM Studios on Oct. 8, 2019, in Los Angeles. (Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for SiriusXM/TNS) Thanksgiving is one of the “Modern Family” star’s favorite holidays. Three years ago, as part of a campaign honoring hometown heroes , he shared one of his favorite recipe with McCormick Spices: Roasted Brussels Sprouts with Bacon and Butternut Squash . This recipe serves eight. Ingredients •1 pound Brussels sprouts, trimmed and halved •1 pound butternut squash, peeled and cut into bite-size cubes •1 tablespoon olive oil •1/2 teaspoon garlic powder •1/2 teaspoon thyme leaves •1/2 teaspoon salt •1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper •5 slices bacon, chopped •1 shallot, finely chopped •1/2 cup dried cranberries •1/4 cup balsamic vinegar •1 teaspoon whole grain mustard •1/2 cup chopped pecans, toasted (optional) •1/3 cup crumbled blue cheese, (optional) Directions 1. Preheat oven to 475°F. Spray large shallow baking pan with no stick cooking spray; set aside. Place Brussels sprouts and squash in large bowl. Drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle with garlic powder, thyme, salt and pepper; toss to coat evenly. Spread in single layer on prepared pan. 2. Roast 16 to 18 minutes or until tender and lightly browned, stirring halfway through cooking. 3. Meanwhile, cook bacon in medium skillet on medium heat about 6 minutes or until crispy. Remove using slotted spoon and place on paper towels to drain. Add shallot to same skillet; cook and stir 2 minutes until softened and lightly browned. Stir in cranberries, vinegar and mustard until well blended. Transfer mixture to small bowl; set aside. 4. Arrange roasted Brussels sprouts and squash on serving platter. Drizzle with cranberry balsamic glaze and toss gently to coat. Sprinkle with cooked bacon, toasted pecans, and crumbled blue cheese, if desired. Serve immediately. Donna Kelce, left, mother of Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce watched the game with pop superstar Taylor Swift, center, during the first-half on Sunday, Sept. 24, 2023, at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City. (Tammy Ljungblad/Kansas City Star/TNS) Swift gushed about the sweet potato casserole served at Del Frisco’s Grille in New York City, a dish crowned with a crunchy candied pecan and oatmeal crumble. “I’ve never enjoyed anything with the word casserole in it ever before, but it’s basically sweet potatoes with this brown sugary crust,” she told InStyle. ”Oh my God, it’s amazing.” The media rushed to find the recipe, which Parade has published this Thanksgiving season . “Similar to T. Swift herself, we think this recipe is a mastermind, especially if you’ve been asked to bring the sweet potato side dish to this year’s Thanksgiving feast. It seriously begs the question: who needs pumpkin pie?” the magazine writes. Ingredients •4 lbs sweet potatoes •1⁄3 cup oats •12 oz unsalted butter, divided •1⁄2 cup packed brown sugar •1⁄2 cup toasted pecans •1⁄2 cup granulated sugar •1 tsp kosher salt •2 tsp vanilla extract •4 large eggs, beaten Directions Preheat oven to 375°F. 1. Scrub sweet potatoes. Pierce each several times with a fork and wrap tightly in foil. Place on a sheet pan. Bake 90 minutes or until tender. Set aside until cool enough to handle. 2. Meanwhile, place oats in a food processor; process 1 minute. Add 4 oz butter, brown sugar and pecans; pulse five times to combine. Spread mixture on a baking sheet; bake 10 minutes. Remove from oven, crumble. Bake 5 minutes or until golden brown. 3. Melt remaining 8 oz butter. Remove skin from cooled sweet potatoes. In a large bowl, whisk sweet potatoes, melted butter, granulated sugar and remaining ingredients until slightly lumpy. Transfer to a greased baking dish, smoothing surface evenly. Top with oat mixture. Bake 12 minutes or until heated through. Make-ahead tips •Sweet potato filling can be made up to 2 days in advance. Prepare the sweet potato filling, cool, place in a casserole dish and keep refrigerated. •Oat-pecan crust can also be made up to 2 days ahead. Make the crust according to recipe directions, cool and store in an airtight container at room temperature. Sprinkle over the sweet potato filling just before baking. Holiday party recipe: How to make a showstopper antipasti platter Dressing or stuffing? No matter what you call it, these 3 recipes will be your new favorites 7 recipes that will add a new twist to your Thanksgiving dinner With our weekly newsletter packed with the latest in everything food.

McGhie scores 27, UC San Diego downs La Salle 72-67Las Vegas Grand Prix Puts Luxury on Overdrive and Delivers High-Octane Hospitality

BBC Strictly Come Dancing fans in 'mourning' as Montell Douglas reveals 'best gift'

Sorber scores 22 as Georgetown beats Coppin State 83-53Fruit Pomace Global Market Report 2024: Exploring Prominent Trends and High-Growth Market SegmentsAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape industries and become integrated in everyday life, the question of how to effectively govern the risks associated with AI technologies has become an urgent legal issue. AI is increasingly integrated into products and services that consumers are interacting with – ranging from autonomous vehicles to medical devices to smart home technologies – raising significant concerns about the potential for harm. As AI systems become more sophisticated in the quest to achieve artificial general intelligence, they rely on multi-layered neural networks to process unstructured data, seek hidden patterns, and engage in unsupervised learning. The AI systems’ autonomy and its ability to learn, as well as the complexity of the models, makes their decision-making processes opaque and difficult to trace. This complexity, combined with the lack of human supervision over the decision-making process as well as the processing of enormous volumes of data, increases the risk that AI-driven decisions may cause personal injury, property damage, or financial losses; yet these factors also make it more challenging to pinpoint the exact cause of harm and hold any party accountable. Given that AI systems evolve autonomously and may learn from vast datasets in ways that are difficult to predict, the traditional frameworks of product liability will need to adapt to the new reality. Product liability laws are designed to determine responsibility when a product causes harm, but they were not originally crafted with AI in mind. AI presents unforeseen challenges to manufacturers and regulators. This has led to growing concerns among regulators worldwide, including in the European Union (EU), the United States, and Canada, about whether the existing legal frameworks are obsolete and can no longer deal with this emerging technology, and whether new regulations should be created to address the specific challenges AI presents. The emerging consensus in many jurisdictions is that organizations should be held liable for damages caused by their AI systems. However, several complex questions remain: How should liability be attributed when an AI system is autonomous and capable of evolving its decision-making over time? How can causation be traced when the outputs of AI systems may be unpredictable? What level of responsibility should be placed on AI developers and deployers to mitigate risks without stifling innovation? These questions underscore the need for legal frameworks that balance consumer protection with technological advancement. Understanding the EU Proposed Directives on Artificial Intelligence The EU has taken a significant step toward addressing these challenges with two key legal proposals introduced in September 2022. The first is a reform of the 1985 Product Liability Directive, which expands the scope of regulated products to include AI systems, software, and digital products. Under this reform, a strict liability regime would apply, meaning that victims only need to prove that the AI product was defective, that they suffered damage (such as injury, property damage, or data corruption), and that the defect directly caused the damages. The directive notably will have extraterritorial application, meaning that victims harmed by AI systems developed outside the EU can still seek compensation within the EU. Another key aspect of this reform is the imposition of ongoing responsibilities on developers to monitor and maintain AI systems after deployment, ensuring their safety and continued functionality as they evolve and learn. The second proposal is the AI Liability Directive, which focuses on fault-based liability and introduces measures designed to simplify the legal process for victims seeking compensation for AI-induced harm. One of the most significant provisions of this directive is the presumption of causality, which allows courts to assume a causal link between noncompliance with an applicable law and harm caused by AI systems, shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant. Thus, for example, if an organization fails to comply with the provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (discussed below), courts would presume that the organization is liable for any harm caused, and the defendant would need to prove otherwise. Additionally, the directive empowers courts to compel the disclosure of technical information about high-risk AI systems, including development data, compliance documentation, and testing results, which could provide crucial evidence in legal proceedings. These two proposals, currently under negotiation, aim to create a more transparent and accountable legal framework for AI, seeking to provide possible victims of AI-related damages with clear pathways to redress. By operating in parallel, the two directives provide complementary routes for addressing AI risks along the traditional strict liability and fault-based regimes. EU AI Act: A Risk-Based Approach to Governance In terms of a substantive law regulating AI (which can be the basis of the causality presumption under the proposed AI Liability Directive), the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) entered into force on August 1, 2024, becoming the first comprehensive legal framework for AI globally. The AI Act applies to providers and developers of AI systems that are marketed or used within the EU (including free-to-use AI technology), regardless of whether those providers or developers are established in the EU or a separate country. The EU AI Act sets forth requirements and obligations for developers and deployers of AI systems in accordance with risk-based classification system and a tiered approach to governance, which are two of the most innovative features of the AI Act. The Act classifies AI applications into four risk categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal or no risk. AI systems deemed to pose an unacceptable risk, such as those that violate fundamental rights, are outright banned. Examples are social scoring when used by governments, categorizing persons based on biometric data to make inferences about attributes, or use of internet or CCTV footage for facial recognition purposes. High-risk AI systems, which include areas such as health care, law enforcement, and critical infrastructure, will face stricter regulatory scrutiny and must comply with rigorous transparency, data governance, and safety protocols. The transparency requirement means that the providers must clearly communicate how their AI operates, including its purpose, decision-making processes, and data sources. Furthermore, users must be informed when they are interacting with an AI system. The goal is to create a sense of accountability, particularly for applications that significantly impact people's lives, such as AI-driven hiring tools or autonomous decision-making systems in public services. One of the most significant aspects of the new directives is the emphasis on ethical AI use. Developers and businesses must ensure that their AI systems respect fundamental rights, adhere to nondiscrimination policies and protect personal data. The EU is prioritizing the concept of human-centric AI, meaning systems should support and enhance human capabilities rather than replace or undermine them. General purpose AI systems, or GPAI, are designed to perform a wide variety of tasks, multi-task, scale to address more complex or more specific challenges, transfer learning, and automate a range of tasks traditionally requiring human input. An example of such systems is OpenAI’s GPT series. GPAI is contrasted with narrow artificial intelligence, which may be used to address one narrow task, such as a voice assistant or an obstacle avoidance system. The AI Act imposes transparency obligations and certain restrictions on the use of GPAI models. For example, systems intended to directly interact with humans must be clearly marked as such, unless this is obvious under the circumstances. Providers of all GPAI models will be required to: Maintain technical documentation of the model and training results, including training and testing process and evaluation results Draw up instructions for third-party use, i.e., information and documentation to supply to downstream providers that intend to integrate the model into their own AI systems Establish policies to comply with EU copyright laws and specifically text and data mining opt-outs Provide to the AI Office a detailed summary about the content used for training the GPAI model. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must conduct model evaluations, perform adversarial testing, track and report serious incidents, and ensure cybersecurity protections. GPAI models present systemic risks when they have “high impact capabilities,” i.e., where the cumulative amount of compute used for its training is greater than 1025 floating point operations (FLOPs). Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright laws and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All GPAI model providers may demonstrate compliance with their obligations if they voluntarily adhere to a code of practice until European harmonized standards are published, compliance with which will lead to a presumption of conformity. Providers that do not adhere to codes of practice must demonstrate alternative adequate means of compliance for European Commission approval. Organizations will have approximately two years to adjust to these new regulations, with some provisions taking effect earlier: 6 months for prohibitions; 12 months for the governance rules and the obligations for general-purpose AI models; and 36 months for the rules for AI systems embedded into regulated products. In the summer of 2024, the European Commission also launched a consultation on a Code of Practice for providers of GPAI models that will address the requirements for transparency, copyright-related rules, and risk management. The Code of Practice is expected to be finalized by April 2025. Additionally, in early 2024, the European Commission established the new AI Office, endowed with exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the AI Act’s provisions related to GPAI and the power to request technical documentation to assess compliance with the law. The AI Office also oversees the AI Act’s enforcement and implementation with the member states. The extraterritorial application of the AI Act and the proposed AI Liability Directive and the reform of the 1985 Product Liability Directive will have widespread implications for American businesses operating in Europe. Given that these laws apply not only within the EU but also to businesses outside its borders – such as American firms that sell or use products using AI in Europe – compliance will necessitate significant operational and legal adjustments for U.S. companies that will touch on several key areas, including product development, data management, corporate governance, and transparency, with the goal of reducing risk, ensuring compliance, and protecting both consumers and organizations from potential liabilities. While the new regulations are strict, the regulators emphasize that they are not designed to stifle innovation. The EU has introduced several initiatives to support research and development within the AI space, including regulatory “sandboxes” that provide companies with a controlled environment to test new AI technologies before full-scale deployment, while ensuring compliance with EU regulations. In the forthcoming installment of the Product Liability Advocate , we will address the U.S. approach to regulating AI.

Las Vegas Grand Prix Puts Luxury on Overdrive and Delivers High-Octane HospitalityNone

None

Public trust in Japan’s largest financial institutions is faltering after recent scandals involving employees accused of criminal behaviour that jeopardised customers’ wealth and safety. Major firms including MUFG Bank and Nomura Securities are scrambling to repair their reputations as the government pushes for a shift from savings to investments to prepare citizens for retirement. Japan’s largest bank, MUFG Bank, a unit of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, apologised on December 16 following allegations that a former employee stole billions of yen in cash and valuables from customers’ safe deposit boxes. The employee, tasked with managing safes and spare keys at two branches in Tokyo, allegedly used her position to carry out the thefts between April 2020 and November 2023, affecting about 60 customers, Nikkei reported. MUFG Bank President Junichi Hanzawa said the incident “has undermined the customers’ trust and confidence, and shaken the very foundation of our banking business.” In response, the bank has centralised the storage of spare keys at its headquarters, tightened internal procedures, and enhanced employee monitoring. Nomura Securities faced public outrage after a former employee was charged in November with robbery and attempted murder. Authorities said the employee visited a client’s home in Hiroshima in July, drugged a woman, stole 17.87 million yen ($113,515) in cash, and set the house on fire. Nomura announced a series of countermeasures, including stricter supervision of employees, mandatory ethics training, and enhanced compliance protocols. Employees in direct contact with clients must now take annual consolidated leave, during which all client interactions are prohibited. “We take this matter very seriously. An incident like this must never happen at a financial institution entrusted with looking after its clients’ assets,” Nomura said in a December 3 press release. Ten executives, including President Kentaro Okuda, will return part of their salaries in response to the scandal. The recent incidents at MUFG Bank and Nomura Securities fit into a broader pattern of misconductr. Allegations of insider trading have surfaced involving employees at the Financial Services Agency, Tokyo Stock Exchange, and Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank. “The distortion of the old economy is beginning to reveal itself,” Nikkei quoted Chisa Kobayashi, an equity strategist at UBS SuMi Trust Wealth Management, as saying. She noted that outdated corporate practices and slow digitisation contributed to the lack of transparency in Japan’s financial sector. The scandals come as Japan’s government promotes the Nippon Individual Savings Account (NISA) program, aimed at encouraging citizens to invest rather than rely on low-yielding savings accounts. Japan’s low-wage, low-interest environment has left many citizens struggling to save for retirement, with estimates suggesting individuals need more than 30 million yen in addition to pensions. Mutual fund subscriptions under the program tripled in the first half of 2023, reaching 6 trillion yen.