fruit roulette poppo

fruit roulette poppo A GOGGLEBOX star is unrecognisable as she returned from uni to reunite with her famous sister. The star was catapulted to fame when she was just a young child thanks to the Channel 4 show. But she's been off screens for nearly a decade as her celebrity sister appeared on I'm A Celebrity. Scarlett Moffatt took to social media to reveal her younger sister Ava had returned home for the holidays. Sharing a video of them both shopping, Scarlett told fans: "Love that my sis is back from uni for Christmas." Now all grown up, Eva could be seen laughing with Scarlett, 34, as they spent quality time together. Scarlett appeared on Gogglebox between 2014 and 2016, with Eva and their parents Betty and Mark also leaving too. The Sun recently told how Scarlett's ITV2 dating show Love Bites had been axed after just one series . Speaking about its cancellation, she told us: “I get so many people talking about Love Bites, that was a show that we did during Covid. "We did around 30 episodes, we just did bulk episodes because it was easy and something that could be filmed during Covid but obviously they still needed new shows. “It was never meant to be a long thing, it was just meant to be something for Covid and loads of people are always asking ‘when is Love Bites back?’. “I feel like if ever I was to do my own show, I’d want to bring Love Bites back, simply because loads of people always say that they love it. “Whenever you flick through, it’s on. It’s a good one to have in the background, where you can dip in and out of it.” These are the celebrity pairings that are taking part in the special for Stand Up To Cancer.Murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO ignites online fury over health insurance industry

A 7-year-old rivalry between tech leaders Elon Musk and Sam Altman over who should run OpenAI and prevent an artificial intelligence "dictatorship" is now heading to a federal judge as Musk seeks to halt the ChatGPT maker's ongoing shift into a for-profit company. Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the artificial intelligence company earlier this year alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good rather than pursuing profits. Musk has since escalated the dispute, adding new claims and asking for a court order that would stop OpenAI’s plans to convert itself into a for-profit business more fully. The world's richest man, whose companies include Tesla, SpaceX and social media platform X, last year started his own rival AI company, xAI. Musk says it faces unfair competition from OpenAI and its close business partner Microsoft, which has supplied the huge computing resources needed to build AI systems such as ChatGPT. “OpenAI and Microsoft together exploiting Musk’s donations so they can build a for-profit monopoly, one now specifically targeting xAI, is just too much,” says Musk's filing that alleges the companies are violating the terms of Musk’s foundational contributions to the charity. OpenAI is filing a response Friday opposing Musk’s requested order, saying it would cripple OpenAI’s business and mission to the advantage of Musk and his own AI company. A hearing is set for January before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. At the heart of the dispute is a 2017 internal power struggle at the fledgling startup that led to Altman becoming OpenAI's CEO. Musk also wanted the job, according to emails revealed as part of the court case, but grew frustrated after two other OpenAI co-founders said he would hold too much power as a major shareholder and chief executive if the startup succeeded in its goal to achieve better-than-human AI known as artificial general intelligence , or AGI. Musk has long voiced concerns about how advanced forms of AI could threaten humanity. “The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI," said a 2017 email to Musk from co-founders Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman. “You stated that you don't want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you.” In the same email, titled “Honest Thoughts,” Sutskever and Brockman also voiced concerns about Altman's desire to be CEO and whether he was motivated by “political goals.” Altman eventually succeeded in becoming CEO, and has remained so except for a period last year when he was fired and then reinstated days later after the board that ousted him was replaced. OpenAI published the messages Friday in a blog post meant to show its side of the story, particularly Musk's early support for the idea of making OpenAI a for-profit business so it could raise money for the hardware and computer power that AI needs. It was Musk, through his wealth manager Jared Birchall, who first registered “Open Artificial Technologies Technologies, Inc.”, a public benefit corporation, in September 2017. Then came the “Honest Thoughts” email that Musk described as the “final straw.” “Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit,” Musk wrote back. OpenAI said Musk later proposed merging the startup into Tesla before resigning as the co-chair of OpenAI's board in early 2018. Musk didn't immediately respond to emailed requests for comment sent to his companies Friday. Asked about his frayed relationship with Musk at a New York Times conference last week, Altman said he felt “tremendously sad” but also characterized Musk’s legal fight as one about business competition. “He’s a competitor and we’re doing well,” Altman said. He also said at the conference that he is “not that worried” about the Tesla CEO’s influence with President-elect Donald Trump. OpenAI said Friday that Altman plans to make a $1 million personal donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, joining a number of tech companies and executives who are working to improve their relationships with the incoming administration. —————————— The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement allowing OpenAI access to part of the AP’s text archives.

Shoppers have been left bemused after spotting Easter eggs on supermarket shelves before New Year’s Eve. With Easter Sunday falling on April 20 next year, customers shared their confusion on social media after finding chocolate eggs and hot cross buns already for sale in shops including Morrisons, Tesco and Asda. One user, @Jingle1991, shared an image of Malteser Bunnies in Sainsbury’s on Christmas Eve and pointed out: “Jesus hasn’t even been born yet.” Meanwhile, Gary Evans from Margate shared a shot of Creme Eggs on display in Morrisons in Margate on Boxing Day. “I just think its crazy that everything is so superficial and meaninglessly commercial... (there’s) something quite frantic about it,” the 66-year-old told the PA news agency. No Shame.Morrisons.Easter eggs.Boxing Day. December 26th.Peace on Earth — Gary Evans (@GaryEva04679693) Joseph Robinson found Easter confectionary including Cadbury Mini Eggs, and themed Kit-Kat and Kinder Surprise products at his local Morrisons in Stoke-on-Trent on Friday evening. “It’s funny, as they’ve not even managed to shift the Christmas chocolates off the shelves yet and they’re already stocking for Easter,” the 35-year-old admin support worker told PA. “I wish that Supermarkets weren’t so blatantly consumerist-driven and would actually allow customers and staff a time to decompress during the Christmas period.” It's not even a full 2025 and you're already stocking for easter.Kindly get in the bin — Joseph (@stokegoblin) Asked if he was tempted to make a purchase, Mr Robinson added: “As a vegan it holds no appeal to me!” Mike Chalmers, a devout Christian from Chippenham, Wiltshire, was slightly less critical after spotting a display entitled: “Celebrate this Easter with Cadbury.” Easter is for life, not just for Christmas(Photo today in Morrisons!) — Mike Chalmers (@realMChalmers) “Christmas and Easter are the two centrepoints of the Christian good news story so it’s no bad thing to see the connections,” the 44-year-old said. “It’s about more than shapes of chocolate though!” Marketing consultant Andrew Wallis admitted he was surprised to see Easter eggs in the Co-op in Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire, but added it also illustrates “forward-thinking” from big businesses. Christmas isn’t even over, and Easter eggs are already on the shelves. Say what you want about it—but big brands don’t wait. They plan ahead and act fast. Are you doing the same? Your future self will thank you — andrewwallis (@andrewwallis) “It made me reflect on how big brands are always thinking ahead and planning early,” the 54-year-old from the Isle of Man, who provides marketing advice to the fitness industry, told PA. “My message to retailers would be: while planning ahead is important, it’s also essential to be mindful of consumer sentiment. “Some might feel it’s too early for seasonal products like this but others might see it as a sign of forward-thinking. “Striking the right balance is key to keeping customers happy.”Nitin Gadkari visits Andamans to review highway projects

Laced Bakes Launches the Dank Decadence Cookie Cake: The Ultimate Luxury Treat That Delivers

( MENAFN - EIN Presswire) NEW YORK, Dec. 28, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Zeta Global Holdings Corp. (NYSE: ZETA) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Zeta, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting . Investors have until January 21, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Zeta securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Davoodi v. Zeta Global Holdings Corp., et al., No. 24-cv-08961. What is the Lawsuit About? Zeta is a cloud-based technology company that provides a marketing platform to assist marketers in acquiring customers. The complaint alleges that Zeta represented that its marketing platform was powered by the industry's largest opted-in data set. On November 13, 2024, prominent investment research firm Culper Research published a report titled:“Zeta Global Holdings Corp (ZETA): Shams, Scams, and Spam.” Based on Culper's investigation that included proprietary interviews with industry experts and former Zeta employees, the research firm found that Zeta's data set had been generated from a network of“consent farms” – i.e., sham websites designed to gather consumer data under false pretenses or awards that did not exist. Culper Research further wrote that these consent farms drove almost the entirety of Zeta's growth over the past 2+ years, representing 56% of its Adjusted EBITDA, and could result in devastating regulatory action. The news caused a significant decline in the price of Zeta stock. On November 13, 2024, the price of the company's stock fell 37%, from a closing price of $28.22 per share on November 12, 2024, to $17.76 per share on November 13, 2024. Click here for more information: . What Can You Do? If you invested in Zeta you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ... 212-789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit . Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above. MENAFN28122024003118003196ID1109037489 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.Key Takeaways This week's tragic shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York has raised concern about the security of corporate leaders. CNN says , "UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing shows why companies spend millions to protect their top executives." A Forbes columnist predicts that "after the shooting... security personnel will be in demand." And, according to this Wall Street Journal report , his killing "prompted an immediate re-evaluation of longstanding security practices across corporate America," and "dozens" of security chiefs from large U.S. companies convened together on a call to discuss the situation. "The environment is explosive right now," a former Boston police commissioner who now (no surprise) consults with large companies on mitigating security risks told the Journal. "The threats are evolving and getting more violent." Okay, let's calm down, shall we? Related: Unsolved Murder of UnitedHeathcare Exec Causes Panicked Health Insurance Companies to Take Down Website Leadership Pages Of course, there's reason behind this concern. Corporate executives are not only more in the spotlight than ever before, but they are also not too hard to find. They attend public events, shareholder meetings and social functions all over the world. Often, companies make their schedules public or publish press releases noting where they'll be. Getting hold of their home addresses is a few steps online. Digging into their personal relationships takes minutes, thanks to LinkedIn, X and Facebook. If you're a corporate executive, you can easily be targeted by someone who, say, wants to right a wrong or impersonate a social justice warrior for 15 minutes of fame. But this is not a new thing, is it? Uber's former CEO, Travis Kalanick, was egged in Taiwan in 2017. Bill Gates was hit with a pie in the face during an overseas visit in 1998. Rubert Murdoch and the CEOs of Qantas Airlines and the now defunct Enron Corporation also got pie-ed. Frankly, lots of business leaders and celebrities have been "involuntarily" pied over the years. But the murder of a CEO is, obviously, much more serious. Thankfully, these situations have not only been few and far between but almost non-existent. An advertising executive was murdered in New Jersey in 1994, but that turned out to be the Unabomber's doing. A Microsoft executive was shot and killed in Florida in 2022, but the culprit turned out to be his ex-wife's husband. George Tiller, who owned a women's health clinic in Kansas, was murdered by an anti-abortion extremist at a church service (his clinic was the target of "multiple attacks" previously). I don't want to downplay or trivialize the gravity of what happened to Thompson. But I've searched Google and various chatbots like Perplexity and ChatGPT for examples of other CEOs who have met the same fate and come up short. There are currently 55,000 publicly held companies in the world, and the U.S. has more than six million employee-owned businesses alone. These companies are led not only by CEOs and business owners but by teams of senior executives who would all make enticing targets for the attention seeker. And yet, there are very, very few incidents like this. Senior executives seem more at risk of succumbing to a skiing accident or going down in a plane crash than some random person shooting them point blank on a busy New York City street. Which is why we should all calm down for a minute. The media loves to exploit the worst of our fears and anxieties to get clicks. So they write things like "security will be in demand" and "the environment is explosive." Posts like these from irresponsible "journalists" certainly do not help either. It's a great marketing moment for security firms. But should corporations be making knee-jerk decisions to all-of-the-sudden start spending significant sums for security over what seems to be an isolated incident? If your CEO is Mark Zuckerberg, a celebrity, I get it. But for all others? I'm not so sure. Related: Here's How Entrepreneurs Can Protect Their Company From Cyberattacks Why? Because people don't go around shooting other people. Our systems — while they don't catch everyone — are pretty good at isolating those with criminal histories or who need watching. Guns can be obtained both legally and illegally, but pulling off a shooting requires patience, skill and planning. Of course, people in public positions need to be careful in today's world. CEOs who get political or involved in social issues or support certain controversial causes are increasing their risk of assault from a tiny fraction of lunatics that oppose them. Executives who run firms that are involved in life and death matters, such as healthcare, also need to be careful. All leaders have to be aware of their surroundings. If they receive threats — as Thompson allegedly did — they must take them seriously. Those are the situations where added security measures are needed, be it provided by local police or through private firms. But as you can see from the numbers, these situations are few and far between. So, no one should be panicking. Corporations don't need to surround their CEOs with secret service-type agents in sunglasses. Some do, and they pay millions for the privilege. But for the vast majority of corporate executives, they can take heart that we haven't gotten to that point. And I don't think we will ever get to that point — at least not in the foreseeable future. Thompson's shooting was tragic. But it was a rare event. An anomaly. We should mourn for this man. But, with apologies to the security industry, we shouldn't be overreacting.