50jili tv

50jili tv Gold price ahead of the Thanksgiving weekend

Robert Wickens moving up to IMSA GTD series in 2025 thanks to new Bosch hand controlsThe Latest: Police believe gunman who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO has left New York City

NoneBridge Defense Announces Strategic Investment in Federated ITHow to Watch Top 25 Women’s College Basketball Games – Thursday, November 28

Meta Pushes Ahead on AI Development Despite Risks

No. 1 South Carolina women stunned by fifth-ranked UCLA 77-62, ending Gamecocks' 43-game win streakCubs predicted to dump $35 million Gold Glover to make way for top prospect | Sporting News

Commerce Bank Sells 168 Shares of Genuine Parts (NYSE:GPC)

Miami's Cavinder twins join Caitlin Clark on Forbes 30 Under 30 list. Here’s who else made listChrome is one of those browsers that is synonymous with the Google brand identity, which means you see its footprint everywhere across the company's products. If history has taught us anything, it's that such close association on a Big Tech platform only means bad news for the competition , and the average user, by that extension. The U.S. Department of Justice wants Google to break Chrome into a separate business because of competition concerns and how it was helping create a monopoly in the search and advertising business. The latest legal tussle involving Google has experts scurrying to find similarities with the landmark Microsoft antitrust case over two decades ago. The lengthy United States vs. Microsoft antitrust battle, which had Internet Explorer at the center of it , is a close example. However, the internet has matured dramatically since the heyday of Internet Explorer, as browsers are no longer just about visiting the web. They are the center point of a deeper web that binds together user activity tracking and targeted advertising. It is, therefore, no wonder that Chrome could go for as much as $20 billion if Google is forced to sell the browser business. Now, a final ruling is only expected to arrive in the latter half of 2025, but August 2024 has already made it clear that Google is viewed as a monopoly in the online search and advertising market. So, even if a sale doesn't materialize, we can expect some big changes in how Google moves ahead with Chrome and the ecosystem built around it. Chrome's value is worth billions of dollars on its own, and on top of that, it offers unhindered access to Google's search engine. Spending to the tune of an estimated $20 billion for Chrome — which is arguably the most advanced browser out there on both mobile and desktop platforms — would mean the buyer could theoretically look for a fast way to reap a return on their fat investment. There are only a few ways to do that at scale. The first one is to put a premium on accessing Chrome, which would dramatically diminish its appeal as Google has offered it free so far. Another option is to somehow monetize it, a web that inevitably entangles Chrome once again with Google Search, the biggest search engine out there by an overwhelming majority. In the hands of another company, Chrome's convenient access to Google Search or its ad network could either get technically hobbled or pushed behind a premium. In either case, there are going to be overhead costs, and recovering that won't be easy for any company spending billions of dollars to buy Chrome. So, we're back to square one. Finally, there's the challenge of technical development. Google is in a uniquely advantageous position to keep innovating Chrome. A buyer likely won't play by the same rules. "Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do," notes Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Google. Selling off Chrome would pose an existential threat. Curiously, it once again harkens back to the "browser wars" era, when Microsoft launched Internet Explorer as a free tool, crushing Netscape and forcing the monumental open-source release of the latter's code. From the ashes rose Mozilla, which eventually spawned the Firefox browser as we know it today. Notably, the very survival of Firefox depends on the money it gets from Google, despite being a Chrome competitor. That's because Google reportedly pays Mozilla to the tune of half a billion dollars each year to keep Google Search as the default search engine. A team of researchers highlighted the same conundrum in a research paper discussing the unique antitrust paradox of Chrome. "The precedent set by Mozilla's financial dependence on Google highlights potential challenges for Chrome in maintaining its operations without similar support," says the research paper . The paper also makes a case for the reverse scenario, arguing that Chrome definitely offers enough incentive for Google to keep investing billions of dollars into its development, which means a buyer(s) would likely pour money to extract the benefits. But the buyer has to be a deep-pocket entity, preferably from the Big Tech pool. However, such an exchange of hands would again raise antitrust alarms. Google, on the other hand, already has an eponymous app that offers browsing perks. It won't take the company too much time to make it the next avenue for accessing its search engine and other services. Whoever ends up snagging Chrome, the biggest challenge would be to keep it competitive in terms of convenience as well as functionality. Right now, Chrome acts as a direct window to not just Google Search but also to other Google services ranging from the Gemini chatbot and the AI-fied search answers to Gmail, Map, and the entire Workspace suite. Decoupling the Google productivity suite from Chrome and its seamless interplay could deter buyers. All these services come as a default to users, and consumer psychology tends to stick with the defaults unless there is a strong incentive to look elsewhere. The court's ruling in the antitrust case has a whole section dedicated to "The Power of Defaults," citing a massive proportion of search queries originating from default access points, such as Chrome and Android OS . Even if Google is forced to sell Chrome, the open-source Chromium project that underpins it — and a host of other browsers such as Microsoft's Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi — would still rely on Google's development work. "If they're really just saying, 'Give up Chrome,' that would be very weird because Google would still control all the underlying technology and they could just tank anyone who would try to do stuff with it, including anyone who ends up owning Chrome," notes Christo Wilson, a professor of computer science at Northeastern University. Then there's the question of making money from the hefty Chrome investment. A focus on returns would also mean lower margins for development and functional downgrades for users, at least in the short term. Assuming the DOJ's push for spinning Chrome out of Google's conglomerate is successful, the biggest beneficiary (or loser) would be Google Search. Some of the testimonies in the antitrust offer a clear look at how the company built a wall around Google Search and what the outcome could be. "When the court asked why Google pays billions in revenue share when it already has the best search engine, he answered that the payments "provide an incredibly strong incentive for the ecosystem to not do anything"; they "effectively make the ecosystem exceptionally resist[ant] to change"; and their "net effect . [is to] basically freeze the ecosystem in place[.]" wrote U.S. judge Amit Mehta, citing a testimony provided by Dr. Sridhar Ramaswamy, a Google Search veteran and former Senior Vice President of Ads and Commerce at Google. To fix the problematic conduct, the DOJ has requested that Google start sharing ad data at no cost with competitors and do something similar for user data as well as access to the Search Index, including data listed on Google-owned platforms such as YouTube. The remedy seeks to share the data with "suitable security and privacy safeguards" in tow. Google argues that doing so would open the doors for "major privacy and security risks," citing how AOL unintentionally exposed the search data of over half a million users. Targeted harassment, doxxing, surveillance, aggressive ad targeting by third parties, and profiling are just some of the possible outcomes if the search and ad data fall into the wrong hands.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Londynn Jones scored 15 points, making all five of her 3-pointers, and fifth-ranked UCLA stunned No. 1 South Carolina 77-62 on Sunday, ending the Gamecocks’ overall 43-game winning streak and their run of 33 consecutive road victories. The Gamecocks (5-1) lost for the first time since April 2023, when Caitlin Clark and Iowa beat them in the NCAA Tournament national semifinals. Te-Hina Paopao scored 18 points and Tessa Johnson scored 14 for the Gamecocks, whose road winning streak was third-longest in Division I history. It was the first time UCLA took down a No. 1 team in school history, having been 0-20 in such games. The program's previous best wins were over a couple of No. 2s — Oregon in 2019 and Stanford in 2008. Elina Aarnisalo added 13 points as one of five Bruins in double figures. UCLA (5-0) dominated from start to finish, with the Bruins' suffocating defense preventing the Gamecocks from making any sustained scoring runs. South Carolina: The Gamecocks trailed by double-digits at halftime for the first time since Dec. 21, 2021, against Stanford, according to ESPN. Chloe Kitts, who averages a team-leading 14 points, finished the game with 2 points on 1 of 7 shooting. UCLA: The Bruins led 43-22 at halftime. Eight different players scored and contributed to 11-0 and 7-0 runs in the first and second quarters as they shot 52% from the field. The first quarter set the tone for a game in which the Gamecocks never led. They missed their first nine shots and were 4 of 18 from the floor in the quarter. UCLA ran off 11 straight points to take a 20-10 lead into the second quarter. The Bruins dominated the boards, 41-34, and held the Gamecocks well under their scoring average of 80.2 points. South Carolina travels to Florida to meet Iowa State in the Fort Myers Tipoff on Thanksgiving. UCLA travels to the Rainbow Wahine Showdown in Hawaii to play UT Martin on Friday. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 all season. Sign up here. AP college basketball: and

With the 47th Parliament now in its final sitting week of 2024, the government is aiming to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 - laws core to Australian democracy, as they regulate House and Senate elections and call for members of Parliament to be "directly chosen by the people". or signup to continue reading Following the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' inquiry into the 2022 election, the government chose to focus on some of the Committee's recommendations - including introducing gift caps, expedited disclosure of gifts and reducing the 'disclosure threshold' to $1000. While on their face these measures improve some aspects of our democracy, they also happen to further strengthen the major parties' advantage over the smaller parties and independents in running election campaigns. This is because of potential loopholes, including exemptions for what constitutes a gift, the $90 million major party expenditure limit, the $11 million expenditure cap for associated entities like the ACTU or Advance, and the $30,000 administration fund for each MP. ACT Senator David Pocock has queried these loopholes and the haste in which the government is attempting to rush them through Parliament without further scrutiny. Bolstering the major parties with initiatives of this sort is part of why many electors are cynical about the party system producing good policy. The need for electoral reform is clear but the government has prioritised maintaining structures that embed major party domination in Australia's Parliament rather than ensuring fair processes for all candidates. It is not that the major party system is inherently problematic - it's the way the major parties exercise power that is causing concern - and may indeed be one of the reasons why, as Bill Shorten noted in his valedictory speech last week, that young people currently feel that politics disenfranchises, disengages and dismisses them. It's not only young people. At a November 15 press conference, Don Farrell, Minister of State responsible for the Electoral Act amendments said: "What these changes will do is take big money out of Australian politics. It will strengthen our democracy. The Westminster system has served Australia federally very well for the last 125 years." But has the Westminster system served well over the last 125 years? If we look at the composition of the 47th Parliament, we still do not have equal numbers of women and there are many other spheres in which our Parliament is far from representative. Importantly, the demands of parliamentary life, its pressure-cooker existence and lengthy sittings in Canberra, mostly away from those near and dear, is not conducive to representatives leading healthy balanced lives or to a healthy democracy. There is little evidence that the culture of Parliament has improved. In the first Parliamentary Workplace Support Service there were 339 complaints between October 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024 with 30 of them of serious wrongdoing, including rape, sexual assault and harassment. One way, and not the only way, to improve the quality of our democracy and the quality of Parliament as a workplace, is to embrace the initiative of Lucy Bradlow and Bronwen Bock who are running as a job-share Senate candidate for Victoria at the next federal election. A job-share candidature enables people who would not otherwise consider running for politics because of its full-time demands to share the role with another person of similar skills and capacity and with whom they share similar values and work style. In Lucy and Bronwen's case, two highly capable women, one a finance professional, governance expert and gender equality consultant and mother of three, the other a lawyer and communications specialist who has worked in Parliament House, propose to share the role by working one week on, one week off, but other job sharers could determine completely different arrangements. Their trail-blazing initiative has the potential to model a new form of representation and thus diversify the range of people present in Parliament and help to regenerate our democracy. It would help to take ego out of representation and would provide a working example of teaming together to provide the best outcome for those represented. For the job sharers, it would allow them to be both a representative and also to tend to their other commitments of family, health and wellbeing, and living a more rounded, balanced life. It would thus strengthen our democracy. While the Electoral Commission has publicly announced it does not see such a nomination as valid, the ACT Women's Legal Service and I will be acting on the job-sharing candidate's behalf, to argue that it is currently allowed under the Electoral Act and that it would be unconstitutional to not allow "the people" to choose to vote for them. Ultimately, the job-sharing candidate must convince the voters they are the best candidate as their single candidate, exercising only one vote, and sharing the power as a single representative in Parliament. Indeed, perhaps someone like Gavin Pearce, retiring Braddon Liberal MHR from Tasmania, may have considered not retiring at the end of this 47th Parliament if he had been able to find someone with whom he could job-share, and convince his voters that together, each of them part-time, could best represent the electorate. It could also have been an excellent way for Gavin to mentor a colleague in the process. For Gavin Pearce is . That is the reason he is quitting politics, so he can spend more time with his family. It's time now, to enable those who have initiatives to improve the quality of our democracy, to take job-sharing representation to the people - for their choice - and to ensure that the Westminster system benefits all the people, not just the present incumbents of major parties continuing to do things their way and only their way. Advertisement Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date. We care about the protection of your data. Read our . AdvertisementUS stocks mostly rose Friday after a report showed a healthy jobs market, and Paris rallied as President Emmanuel Macron vowed to serve out his full term and end France's political crisis. Oil fell on concerns of oversupply and Bitcoin held at a level over $100,000 after hitting records Thursday. The world's biggest economy gained 227,000 jobs in November, more than analysts expected and up from a revised 36,000 in October, said the US Department of Labor. "The US jobs market has emphatically rebounded following October's disappointing data," said Neal Keane, head of global sales trading at ADSS. October's figures had been depressed by hurricanes and workers' strikes, while November's increases may have been exaggerated by the end of a strike at Boeing in particular -- and by retail hiring ahead of the holiday season. US stocks mostly closed higher, with the broad-based S&P 500 and tech-focused Nasdaq both hitting fresh records, although the Dow retreated slightly. Investors are mostly betting that November's jobs numbers, while comforting, are probably not strong enough to deter the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates again this month. "Investors needed a reassuring jobs report and that's exactly what they got," said eToro analyst Bret Kenwell. "The market still favors a rate cut from the Fed later this month and this report may not change that expectation." The Paris stock market closed up 1.3 percent on "hope that President Emmanuel Macron will serve out his term and that a (French) budget can be passed in the coming weeks," noted Derren Nathan, head of equity research at Hargreaves Lansdown. Macron on Friday was holding talks with French political leaders on the left and right as he seeks to quickly name a new prime minister after Michel Barnier's government was ousted in a historic no-confidence vote. Macron adopted a defiant tone in an address to the nation Thursday evening, just 24 hours after parliament voted out Barnier over his 2025 budget plan, which included unpopular austerity measures forced through without a vote using special powers. The luxury sector benefitted also from hopes of a pickup in Chinese demand. Gucci owner Kering topped the Paris CAC 40 as its shares gained more than six percent, while LVMH rose more than three percent. French video game company Ubisoft jumped 13 percent on takeover speculation. Frankfurt closed slightly higher, other continental markets were mixed, and London slid. In Asia, shares in Seoul sank more than one percent and the won weakened to about 1,420 per dollar as lawmakers prepared to hold an impeachment vote Saturday after President Yoon Suk Yeol's dramatic, short-lived imposition of martial law this week. While analysts said the economic fallout from the crisis would likely be limited, a political storm is ongoing. Hong Kong and Shanghai rallied as investors grew hopeful of fresh stimulus when top Chinese leaders including President Xi Jinping meet to discuss economic policy next week. Bitcoin hovered above $100,000 after having blasted to the historic peak of $103,800 Thursday on news that US President-elect Donald Trump had picked crypto proponent Paul Atkins to head the nation's markets regulator. New York - Dow: DOWN 0.3 percent at 44,642.52 points (close) New York - S&P 500: UP 0.3 percent at 6,090.27 (close) New York - Nasdaq Composite: UP 0.8 percent at 19,859.77 (close) Paris - CAC 40: UP 1.3 percent at 7,426.88 (close) Frankfurt - DAX: UP 0.1 percent at 20,384.61 (close) London - FTSE 100: DOWN 0.5 percent at 8,308.61 (close) Tokyo - Nikkei 225: DOWN 0.8 percent at 39,091.17 (close) Hong Kong - Hang Seng Index: UP 1.6 percent at 19,865.85 (close) Shanghai - Composite: UP 1.1 percent at 3,404.08 (close) Euro/dollar: DOWN at $1.0566 from $1.0591 on Thursday Pound/dollar: DOWN at $1.2740 from $1.2760 Dollar/yen: DOWN at 149.97 yen from 150.09 yen Euro/pound: DOWN at 82.93 from 82.97 pence West Texas Intermediate: DOWN 1.6 percent at $67.20 per barrel Brent North Sea Crude: DOWN 1.4 percent at $71.12 per barrel gv/rl/bys/aha

The clock may have finally wound down for TikTok after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Friday that Congress has the power to ban the popular social media app if it fails to shed its Chinese ownership. The judges dismissed the First Amendment challenge that was brought by TikTok and many of its highest-profile users, who argued the ban was unconstitutional. "The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States. Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary's ability to gather data on people in the United States," wrote Judge Douglas Ginsburg. Sell-or-Ban—No Other Option The sell-or-ban law was signed by President Joe Biden in April, after receiving bipartisan support from lawmakers—including many who received classified briefings from the U.S. intelligence community. Critics of Friday's ruling were quick to call for the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals ruling. "This law threatens the free speech rights of our client and millions of other Americans who use TikTok to share and hear political ideas," said Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center, which filed a lawsuit to challenge the TikTok ban in June. "To protect their rights, we'll ask the court to stay its decision until we seek Supreme Court review and receive a final decision," Huerbert added. Not Over Until It's Over While the company has until January 19, 2025, to either be sold or be banned—there are still possible lifelines available for TikTok. "One is the Supreme Court, which doesn't have to accept the case but could," explained social media analyst Greg Sterling, co-founder of Near Media. It is a long shot, as the high court may opt not to hear the case. Yet, even if the case is heard, it doesn't mean SCOTUS would rule in favor of TikTok, especially as lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum have pushed for the ban. "It's unlikely to say that the First Amendment outweighs U.S. national security interests, especially in the wake of the recent Chinese 'Salt Typhoon' hacking incident ," said Sterling, who added the other lifeline could come from the incoming administration. During his first term, President-elect Donald Trump had actually tried to ban TikTok, only to see the Biden administration overturn it. It is possible the same could play out again, just with the roles reversed. Trump has said he no longer supports a ban . "Although the ban is scheduled to take effect before he's inaugurated, Trump could push Congress to repeal the ban," added Sterling. "It's not clear whether that would be successful because of divisions within the Republican Party on TikTok." Are The Security Concerns Valid? Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have warned of the potential danger that the app presents as it could share user data with China, yet, some critics of the law say TikTok is just part of a much larger and more serious issue of how social media companies have access to the personal data of users. "The U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on TikTok highlights critical issues in mobile app security, API vulnerabilities, and the overarching role of big technology companies in app ecosystems dominated by Apple and Google," said Ted Morocco, CEO of cybersecurity provider Approov. "While the TikTok ban focuses on national security risks due to foreign ownership, the conversation must expand to address systemic flaws in app distribution and privacy regulation," Morocco added. "The lack of a federal data privacy framework in the U.S. exacerbates the issue, allowing platform owners to set their opaque policies." The cybersecurity expert added that the current policies enable practices that prioritize profit over user protection, including permissive data harvesting and inadequate penalties for privacy violations. "A clear, enforceable policy would mitigate these risks, especially for minors, who are disproportionately targeted by app-based surveillance and manipulative algorithms," explained Morocco, who said similar scrutiny should apply to all apps, regardless of their origin. TikTok's ban is largely justified by concerns over data flowing to a foreign adversary, even as American companies don't operate all that differently in how they gather customer data. "U.S.-based companies like Meta and Amazon have also faced allegations of privacy abuses," said Morocco. "A robust framework would ensure equal accountability and provide mechanisms for imposing meaningful penalties globally." TikTok's case simply serves as a microcosm of broader issues within cybersecurity, and how users are largely oblivious to how their data may be used. This ruling could address some national security concerns, but Morocco said a more comprehensive and transparent approach is needed to tackle the structural problems of app ecosystems. "Only by prioritizing security, transparency, and accountability, can the U.S. safeguard its citizens," he continued. Where Does This Leave TikTok Users? There is now less than a month and a half until TikTok could be banned in the U.S., and those who have large followings may need to look to other platforms . "If TikTok is shut down, which would be highly disruptive for many creators and users, Instagram is the most likely place that both groups would turn," said Sterling. "Instagram Reels is essentially a TikTok clone. But they could move to other networks as well. Bluesky is a possibility but I would be surprised if people moved over there vs. Instagram."Far-right streamer and influencer Nick Fuentes has been accused of battery after allegedly spraying a woman with pepper spray when she appeared at his front door in Illinois last month as his refrain “Your body, my choice” was going viral. Marla Rose, 57, told police that she went to record Fuentes’ home on Nov. 10 after she saw his controversial social media post and that he pepper-sprayed her, pushed her onto the concrete and broke her phone outside his Chicago-area home in Berwyn, Illinois. According to a police report, which was filed Nov. 11, the woman did not have any visible physical injuries but her eyes were “watery.” Fuentes was arrested late last month and released the same day. He is set to appear in court on Dec. 19. Fuentes did not respond to requests for comment Friday. He posted pictures Friday of his mugshots on X and wrote , “Free me n----”. Rose also took to social media, posting on Facebook : “It. Is. On. 🔥🔥🔥 PS — Civil case pending.” Rose could not be reached for comment Friday. Fuentes was doxxed and his address posted on social media after he went viral for an X post that has been viewed more than 99.6 million times since he posted it on Election Day , in which he wrote “Your body, my choice. Forever,” referring to abortion policies. He told police that since he “posted a political joke online,” he has faced death threats and “people showing up to his house unannounced” and had been “in fear for his life,” the report stated. Another woman who had driven by Fuentes’ house called police to report that she had seen a woman shoved by a man outside the home, according to the police report. Rose was still at the house when police arrived, but she and Fuentes were separated while they spoke to officers, the report stated. Police said Fuentes “became uncooperative” with the resource officer on scene and would not answer any additional questions about the alleged altercation with Rose, according to the report. After his Election Day post, Fuentes’ personal information began circulating online, with many on social media posting his address and pictures of his house, writing, “Your house, our choice.” In a now-deleted Facebook post, Rose had said that she was prompted to appear at Fuentes’ door given the views he shared online. In her post, she also disclosed Fuentes’ home address several times. This story first appeared on NBCNews.com . More from NBC News:Why Dell Technologies Stock Crashed 11% Today