The Product Manager's Playbook for AI Success in Regulated IndustriesWhat’s Happening: Week of Dec. 2, 2024ucode 7xm 。

Hyperautomation Market Size 2024: Global Share, Industry And Report Analysis By 2031 | Linde Material Handling GmbH Mitsubishi Logisnext Co., Ltd. Motrec International Inc.Will ‘Yellowstone’ Fulfill ‘1883’ Prophecy & 6 More Burning Questions We Need Answered

Yelp chief product officer Craig Saldanha sells $38,050 in stockNone

Putin apologizes for crash but stops short of saying Azerbaijani plane was shot down

Secrets behind £1.6bn Harry Potter TV series – & why Hollywood is backing JK Rowling after trans row

Peter Anholt tried to keep things light as he emerged from one of the elevators at Canada’s hotel. The temperature had been turned way up on the veteran hockey executive and the country’s under-20 program after a stunning upset some 12 hours earlier. “You only want to talk to me when things are bad, eh?” Anholt joked to reporters Saturday morning. “Is that how this works?” That is indeed what happens when a powerhouse with a record 20 gold medals expected to roll over an opponent suffers one of its worst all-time defeats at the tournament. Canada was embarrassed on home soil 3-2 by Latvia — a country it had thumped by a combined 41-4 score across four previous meetings — in a shocking shootout Friday. Coming off a disastrous fifth-place finish last year in Sweden and having talked a lot about upping their compete level and preparation, the Canadians looked disjointed for long stretches against the plucky, hard-working Latvians. The power play finally clicked late in the third period, but stands at 1-for-7 through two games, while the top line of Easton Cowan, Calum Ritchie and Bradly Nadeau has yet to translate its pre-tournament chemistry into success in the spotlight. “We’re certainly trying to problem solve, but not throw the baby out with the bath water,” said Anholt, who heads the world junior setup. “We’ve got to be really careful.” Canada, which picked up a solid 4-0 victory over Finland to open its tournament Thursday, had plenty of offensive zone time and directed 57 shots at Latvian goaltender Linards Feldbergs. Included in that total, however, were far too many one-and-done efforts from the perimeter with little traffic in front. There were, of course, desperate spurts — especially late in regulation and in 3-on-3 overtime — but not nearly enough for a roster peppered with first-round NHL draft picks and top prospects. “We played really, really hard,” Anholt said in defending his players. “We controlled the puck lots. We created some chances. Their goalie was really good and they defended really good ... 99 times out of 100 we win that game.” Hoping for a big response Sunday against Germany before meeting the United States on New Year’s Eve to tie a bow on round-robin action in Group A, Canada will have to push ahead minus one of its best players. Star defenceman Matthew Schaefer was injured Friday and is done for the tournament after he slammed into Latvia’s net and skated off favouring his left shoulder area. “Tough blow for the kid,” Anholt said. “The way he plays the game, he plays it at such a high speed.” Cowan, a Toronto Maple Leafs first-round selection, said Canada remains confident despite Friday’s ugly result in the nation’s capital. “We’re good,” said the 19-year-old from Mount Brydges, Ont. “Everyone’s lost a hockey game before.” But not like that — or to that opponent on that stage. “Bit of a (crappy) feeling,” said Nadeau, a Carolina Hurricanes prospect from St-Francois-de-Madawaska, N.B. “We all know what this group is capable of. Losing that game is not our standard. “We’ll bounce back.” Some corners of social media exploded following the Latvian debacle, with heavy criticism directed at head coach Dave Cameron and the team’s overall roster construction. “We’re not really worried about it,” defenceman and Ottawa native Oliver Book, who like Cowan is back from last year’s team, said of the outside noise. “We know we didn’t play well.” Canada appears poised to mix things up against the Germans. Vancouver Canucks prospect Sawyer Mynio of Kamloops, B.C., is set draw in for Schaefer, while Anholt indicated there’s a good chance forward Carson Rehkopf will get his first crack at the 2025 tournament as a returnee. The 19-year-old Seattle Kraken second-round pick from Vaughan, Ont., has scored a combined 78 goals over his last 97 regular-season and playoff games in the Ontario Hockey League. “Great player,” Cowan said. “He finds ways.” Anholt said taking a big-picture approach is key in challenging moments. “Let’s not panic,” he said. “The world hasn’t fallen in. It’s hard, but we’ll learn from it.” It’s something Canada will have to do under intense scrutiny. “People are gonna love you and people are gonna hate you,” said Cowan, who has a goal an assist through two games. “Gotta keep doing you.” Anholt, who was also at the helm 12 months ago when Canada never got in gear, isn’t getting 2024 vibes from this year’s group. “Not even in any way, shape or form,” he said. “We’ve just got to take care of business.” They get a first shot at redemption Sunday.

The Native American Media Alliance (NAMA) has announced the class of fellows for the 6th Annual Native American Animation Lab. This program was created to support Native Americans pursuing careers in the animation field as well as to highlight more accurate portrayals of Indigenous communities in television and film. “The Native American Animation Lab is a transformative experience that empowers Indigenous artists to bring their unique visions to life,” announced Ian Skorodin (Choctaw), director of strategy for the Native American Media Alliance. ”This lab has uplifted several Native American artists who want to bring their unique stories to life.” The five-day curriculum for the Native American Animation Lab includes meetings with industry executives from companies such as Netflix , Dreamworks Animation , MTV , Sony Pictures Animation and more. The program is also tailored around mentoring opportunities, group sessions and initiatives to help participants build relationships with professionals in animation. The program concludes with a pitch series for participants to receive feedback from executives. This year’s fellows include Andrew Luna, Anthony Chee Emerson, Daveishena D. Redhouse, Esai Alvarez, Kelsey Foote, Nick Alan Foote and Sonny Brava. Monday, Dec. 2 Following Roe v. Wade being overturned in 2022 and a politically turbulent national election, the documentary “ Zurawski v Texas ” will be screened at a two-night benefit screening as part of the Napa Valley Film Festival on Dec. 8 and 9. Executive produced by Hillary Clinton , Chelsea Clinton and Jennifer Lawrence , this documentary follows the historic 2023 case where 43 women stood up for their rights in Texas to access abortions in the case of life-threatening pregnancies. The post-screening Q&As will feature lead plaintiff Amanda Zurawski, lead attorneys Molly Duane and Jamie Levitt and director Maisie Crow. Proceeds from the two screenings will be donated to Planned Parenthood of Northern California and The SexEd Justice Project , two local organizations dedicated to preserving reproductive rights. Tickets for the event can be purchased online . The documentary previously screened at the Telluride Film Festival and AFI Fest.[Warning: The following contains MAJOR spoilers for Yellowstone Season 5 Part 2.] Yellowstone has almost killed off one character per episode in what’s presumed to be its final season. Out of four episodes released so far (and just two more to go), three have featured a major character death. The first was John Dutton’s, brought about by Kevin Costner’s shocking exit from the series. Viewers assumed the Dutton patriarch would be killed off to explain Costner’s absence from Season 5 Part 2. But the subsequent deaths have been more shocking. Sarah Atwood’s (Dawn Olivieri) murder made sense for the story, given the hit she ordered on John didn’t go as planned in the aftermath. But the death of Denim Richards ‘ Colby in Episode 12 was entirely unnecessary, if you ask us. Not only because the story didn’t need it, but also because it took time away from addressing the burning questions we still need answered before the show closes up shop ( if Season 5 really is the end — the show is certainly keeping viewers on their toes ). Here, we lay out the remaining burning questions we need answered before Yellowstone Season 5 Part 2 comes to a close, in no particular order. The biggest one is the one we’ve already addressed: When will Rip ( Cole Hauser ) find out what Jamie ( Wes Bentley ) did to Beth ( Kelly Reilly ), and will Kayce ( Luke Grimes ) find out? We lay out those possibilities here , but below, find our other lingering questions. 1. Where is Jamie’s son? Wes Bentley as Jamie and Katherine Cunningham as Christine in Yellowstone (Paramount Network) The last viewers heard about Jamie’s son was in Season 5 Part 1, when Jamie was driving Beth home from her overnight prison stint. Beth lashed out in rage at the sight of the car seat in the backseat, which revealed that Jamie was a parent. Learning that the child is a boy named after him made Beth even more angry. She threatened to take Jamie’s son from him like he took her ability to have children. The threat didn’t seem to be against the baby’s life, but rather that she would take his son and kill Jamie. The attorney has had bigger issues to tackle this season thus far, like trying to renew the airport lease his father canceled, launch a campaign to be elected governor in the special election prompted by John’s death, and of course deal with the fallout of Sarah being killed by the hitmen agency she hired to take out John (an investigation in which he’s now a primary suspect). But still, where is his son? Viewers have heard nary a peep about the kid in Part 2. Will Episode 13 bring him back into the plot, along with his mother, Christine ( Katherine Cunningham )? Perhaps part of Beth’s revenge on Jamie over his involvement in John’s death will entail finding the boy. That would be one way to get Jamie back under her thumb. 2. Will Beth kill Jamie instead of Rip? Beth has long threatened that Rip would kill Jamie once he finds out that he had Beth forcibly sterilized as a teen. As much as Rip coming in to kill an enemy has made for some of the show’s more memorable moments (like the snake in the cooler), it does feel a little too obvious at this point to just have Rip involved in Jamie’s potential demise. It would be more intriguing and cathartic to see Beth do it herself or with Rip’s help — she’s certainly more emboldened to take the reins since she’s been convinced that Jamie planned their father’s murder (he didn’t, but it was his idea and she’ll never believe he isn’t responsible). Beth is one of the few members of her family who hasn’t committed murder on Yellowstone . And in fact, she’s one of the only ones who is appalled by the tradition of taking enemies “to the train station” (she was kept in the dark about this until the Season 5 Part 1 finale). Beth would save her first kill for Jamie. But at this point, given the excessive deaths we’ve seen this season, we could also see the series going for the tragic shock value of flipping the switch on Beth and having her killed by Jamie in the end. That does seem less likely, as Yellowstone almost always only kills its villains. And Jamie has long been painted as a villain, but one with the potential to be redeemed. There’s hardly any time left for a redemption arc, though. Paramount Network 3. Will Jamie take the fall for John’s death? We’d be OK with Jamie and Beth both ending the series alive, but only if Jamie is in prison. He’s been on such a downward spiral and rejecting every opportunity to do the right thing for so long, becoming the fall guy for his dad’s homicide would be a twisted poetic justice. With Sarah dead too, he and the hitmen are the only people who could be held legally accountable for the murder. While Kayce has physically threatened Jamie in recent episodes, he’s clearly struggling with conflicting feelings of love for his big brother. What if the season ends with Kayce stopping Beth from killing Jamie, but helping her put him in prison for life to avenge John? 4. Will Kayce become his father? Paramount Network In this context, that wouldn’t be a good thing. We’ve seen Kayce slowly descend into a darker mental state in the episodes since John’s murder. Every revelation about the death makes Kayce more and more lethal. In Episode 12, he held a child at gunpoint to threaten Grant Horton ( Matt Gerald ), the man who runs the agency that carried out the hit on John. Costner’s character could justify just about anything to defend his family’s legacy and ownership of the ranch; he spent decades killing foes in secret to help on this front. The lengths to which John would go to protect the ranch used to make Kayce and Monica ( Kelsey Asbille ) rebel against the family; it was only in recent years that this relationship was mended and Kayce and Monica felt comfortable associating themselves with them again. That comfort has transformed into full-blown support, and Kayce’s in a dark mindset as he attempts to avenge his father. How does the veteran come back from holding a child at gunpoint? Is he becoming the violent man who can defend any detestable action that he once feared? And moreover, how will Monica react if/when she finds out that Kayce threatened to kill a kid? We can’t imagine that she would be OK with that, but she’s also shown great concern for Kayce’s mental well-being in Season 5 Part 2. She may take the threat against that child and her father as a sign for her to step in and bring Kayce back from the edge. 5. Will the Duttons lose the ranch, or at least part of it? Related How to Watch New Episodes of 'Yellowstone' on Streaming Beth and Rip were selling off the horses and cattle in Episode 12 in an attempt to raise the money needed to keep the ranch’s land instead of selling off a piece of it. Beth revealed in talks with Thomas Rainwater ( Gil Birmingham ) that she has resigned herself to losing at least some of the family’s acreage that they’ve owned for a century. While the plan to undo John’s actions as governor that protected the land and canceled Market Equities’ airport lease doesn’t seem likely to succeed — especially not with Senator Lynelle Perry ( Wendy Moniz ) and Clara ( Lilli Kay ) determined to thwart Jamie’s efforts — the walls still are closing in on the Duttons. The show has said that selling some of the land is inevitable, but hopefully whatever they end up selling (if they sell) is given to Rainwater and the reservation or perhaps made into a national park. 6. What’s up with Rainwater? Speaking of Rainwater, why does he have so little to do this season? He seems primed to compromise with the Duttons after an entire series of fighting to get the land that once belonged to his people back. That leads us to our next and final question... 7. Will Tate inherit the ranch, as potentially foreshadowed in 1883 ? In 1883 , Spotted Eagle ( Graham Greene ) told James Dutton ( Tim McGraw ) that his people would rise up and regain control of the Yellowstone ranch’s land in seven generations. Earlier on Yellowstone , Kayce said he saw “the end of us” in a vision and, in Season 5 Part 2, added that that “end” will be a choice. Kayce told Tate ( Brecken Merrill ) that if it’s his dream to run the ranch one day, he would make the ranch his life to preserve it for his son. But Tate more so envisions living a simpler life on the family’s land while someone else runs it, although he still wants to keep the land in the family. Every Yellowstone spinoff has questioned if the Duttons can maintain control of the ranch’s land. If Spotted Eagle’s prophecy wasn’t meant to be a true foreshadowing for the Dutton’s fate and Yellowstone ‘s ending, then it would just be a pointless throwaway line. The 1883 prophecy and Kayce’s vision would easily combine by having Tate inherit the ranch. Kayce knows that his son doesn’t fully desire running the family business himself, and perhaps knowing that but having him inherit the ranch anyway is the choice the vision foresaw. Our ideal Yellowstone ending is the indigenous people getting their land back. Perhaps Tate will inherit it and then give it to his community on the reservation while still living on the grounds, bringing everything full circle. This would open things up to keep the current ranchers employed for a while longer as well (their fates are also still up in the air as control of the ranch hangs in the balance). Do you have other burning questions? Let us know in the comments, below. Yellowstone , Sundays, 8/7c, Paramount Network More Headlines: Will ‘Yellowstone’ Fulfill ‘1883’ Prophecy & 6 More Burning Questions We Need Answered ‘Today’: Hoda Kotb Reveals Former Boss Told Her to ‘Get on The Treadmill’ (VIDEO) ‘Based on a True Story’s Melissa Fumero on Breaking Bad in Peacock’s Killer Comedy Is ‘SNL’ New This Weekend? Here’s Everything to Know ‘The Price Is Right’ Fans Want Big Change to Game After Contestant’s ‘Depressing’ DisasterSeahawks have taken a bumpy path to first place in the NFC West

Galaxy Ball Reviews: Scam or Legit? (2025)

The measure must clear the full Senate in the first week of January to reach Gov. JB Pritzker’s desk, otherwise it must go through the entire legislative process again after a new General Assembly convenes Jan. 8. The bill, House Bill 5164, would eliminate an existing requirement to publish name changes with a local newspaper. It would also reduce the state residency requirement of people wanting to change their name from six months to three months. “There are residents in our state who do not feel safe when they are an adoptee; they’re transgender; they’re an immigrant; they’re a survivor of domestic violence, survivor of sexual exploitation and human trafficking,” Sen. Ram Villivalam, the bill’s sponsor and a Chicago Democrat, said in an interview. “So they would like to change their name, and in doing so, we need to remove as many barriers as we can to ensure their health and safety.” The goal of the bill is to decrease threats to people who have endured domestic abuse, discrimination and other threats to their safety. Villivalam said 24 states have already eased this requirement. Planned Parenthood, Equality Illinois and Brave Space Alliance are pushing for the change. But the Senate’s top Republican, Sen. John Curran, R-Downers Grove, pushed back against the bill. He argued that impounding the records, meaning restricting access to them, should have a higher threshold. Individuals are allowed to petition the court to impound records if they believe public disclosure would put them in harm’s way. That process allows individuals to self-attest to hardships and says they may — but are not required to — submit documentation. “Why make it permissive, rather than a requirement, to attach relevant documents to the petition,” Curran said during a November committee meeting. But Mike Ziri, the director of public policy at Equality Illinois, said impounded records don’t disappear from court records and are not sealed, but rather are selectively available to the involved parties. “So it's not a complete sealing. There will still be access to parties and by the clerk, as well,” Ziri said. “In my experience, working with communities, folks who say they've experiencing hardship and heartache, they're not making that up, and they want protection for very good reasons.” The Republicans who hold a minority in the state senate questioned whether noncitizens with a criminal record could change their names to evade legal consequences as a result of the lowered requirements for a name change. “Is this creating a loophole for people who are here, who are criminals and part of things involved in the trafficking, involved in all of these nefarious activities that we've been reading about?” Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, said. Ziri said that the self-attestation was for impounding the court records of name changes, not to get the name change itself. Illinois law states that people on the sex offender registry, arsonists and people on the murderer and violent offender against youth list are barred from seeking name changes. The exceptions are marriage, religious reasons, human trafficking or gender identity. He also said a name change still requires the signature of a judge, and the process can take months. “Changing your name does not allow you to escape the criminal record. That was legislation that was passed two years ago,” Ziri said. “That's on top of the other requirement state police already have to check the criminal records with the name change granted months later.” Villivalam said this bill takes Illinois “another step forward” in ensuring the health and safety of residents. “Now, more than ever — given the rise in hate and discrimination across the board — people you know feel targeted. So the legislative work that we can do to reassure them on their safety and health is part of our job,” Villivalam said in an interview. “As people continue to feel the hate, feel the discrimination, get targeted, we need to continue to take these steps to make sure they feel healthy and safe.”

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — Workers pushing for an end to smoking in Atlantic City casinos say the main employee union has been won over by tobacco companies seeking allies in the fight against smoking restrictions. An official of a union involved in the anti-smoking push on Monday called for the head of the Atlantic City casino workers' union, Donna DeCaprio, to resign for failing to protect her members from the dangers of secondhand smoke. DeCaprio is president of Local 54 of the Unite Here union, which opposes a smoking ban on the grounds that so much business would be lost by smokers taking their money elsewhere that it could cause one or more casinos to shut down, costing thousands of workers their jobs. “She should be ashamed of herself,” said Ray Jensen, assistant director of United Auto Workers Region 9, which represents dealers at three Atlantic City casinos and is part of a lawsuit seeking to have the courts force an end to smoking in the gambling halls. “She should hand in her union card.” DeCaprio said her union supports the health and safety of its members, adding improvements to the workplace environment need to be made. “A balance needs to be reached that will both protect worker health and preserve good jobs,” she said. “We are protecting our members against multiple casino closures and job losses. The UAW is eager to sacrifice the entire casino industry and put 25,000 good jobs with benefits at risk.” DeCaprio said between 50% and 72% of all in-person casino revenue in Atlantic City comes from smoking sections, which occupy only 25% of the casino floor. She said her union “and the vast majority of the labor movement” support a proposal that would improve ventilation in casinos and prevent any employee from being assigned to work in a smoking section against their will. Whether to ban smoking is one of the most controversial issues not only in Atlantic City casinos but in other states where workers have expressed concern about secondhand smoke. They are waging similar campaigns in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Kansas and Virginia. Workers have been pushing for four years to end an exemption in New Jersey’s clean air law that allows smoking inside the nine casinos. They say they or their co-workers are becoming ill with cancer, heart disease and other conditions related to exposure to second-hand smoke. Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, has said he will sign a bill to end casino smoking if it reaches his desk. The casinos, joined by Local 54, oppose that effort, saying it will cost Atlantic City thousands of jobs and lead to decreased tax revenue for state programs for senior citizens and the disabled. On Monday, the workers group that calls itself CEASE (Casino Employees Against Smoking’s Effects) filed an appeal of a court ruling in August that allowed smoking to continue in the nine casinos. The Casino Association of New Jersey declined to comment Monday. Attorney Nancy Erika Smith said as far back as 1993, tobacco companies targeted labor unions in the hospitality industry as potential allies to work against smoking bans in the restaurant and hospitality industries. That effort included the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, a precursor of the Unite Here union. “HERE and the related AFL-CIO affiliates are critical allies which should be cultivated as supporters of the effort to prevent smoking bans,” a public relations firm wrote in a memo to Philip Morris Companies that was made public during several states' litigation against tobacco companies. The memo said having HERE “as an ally in this effort would be a very powerful voice.” As far back as 2001, HERE was part of a 12-member coalition including labor unions advocating for improved indoor ventilation instead of government-imposed smoking bans, according to another document cited in Monday's appeal. The anti-smoking campaigners cite a 2022 report by Las Vegas-based C3 Gaming, a consulting firm, showing that casinos that went smoke-free "appear to be performing better than their counterparts that continue to allow smoking.” Follow Wayne Parry on X at www.twitter.com/WayneParryACSubsplash Acquires Pulpit AI, an Innovative Platform Leveraging AI to Help Streamline Content Creation & Boost Sermon Engagement for Churches

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An online spat between factions of Donald Trump’s supporters over immigration and the tech industry has thrown internal divisions in his political movement into public display, previewing the fissures and contradictory views his coalition could bring to the White House. The rift laid bare the tensions between the newest flank of Trump’s movement — wealthy members of the tech world including billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and their call for more highly skilled workers in their industry — and people in Trump’s Make America Great Again base who championed his hardline immigration policies. The debate touched off this week when Laura Loomer, a right-wing provocateur with a history of racist and conspiratorial comments, criticized Trump’s selection of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence policy in his coming administration. Krishnan favors the ability to bring more skilled immigrants into the U.S. Loomer declared the stance to be “not America First policy” and said the tech executives who have aligned themselves with Trump were doing so to enrich themselves. Much of the debate played out on the social media network X, which Musk owns. Loomer’s comments sparked a back-and-forth with venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks, whom Trump has tapped to be the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar.” Musk and Ramaswamy, whom Trump has tasked with finding ways to cut the federal government, weighed in, defending the tech industry’s need to bring in foreign workers. It bloomed into a larger debate with more figures from the hard-right weighing in about the need to hire U.S. workers, whether values in American culture can produce the best engineers, free speech on the internet, the newfound influence tech figures have in Trump’s world and what his political movement stands for. Trump has not yet weighed in on the rift. His presidential transition team did not respond to questions about positions on visas for highly skilled workers or the debate between his supporters online. Instead, his team instead sent a link to a post on X by longtime adviser and immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller that was a transcript of a speech Trump gave in 2020 at Mount Rushmore in which he praised figures and moments from American history. Musk, the world’s richest man who has grown remarkably close to the president-elect, was a central figure in the debate, not only for his stature in Trump’s movement but his stance on the tech industry’s hiring of foreign workers. Technology companies say H-1B visas for skilled workers, used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, are critical for hard-to-fill positions. But critics have said they undercut U.S. citizens who could take those jobs. Some on the right have called for the program to be eliminated, not expanded. Born in South Africa, Musk was once on an a H-1B visa himself and defended the industry’s need to bring in foreign workers. “There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent,” he said in a post. “It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley.” Trump’s own positions over the years have reflected the divide in his movement. His tough immigration policies, including his pledge for a mass deportation, were central to his winning presidential campaign. He has focused on immigrants who come into the U.S. illegally but he has also sought curbs on legal immigration, including family-based visas. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump called the H-1B visa program “very bad” and “unfair” for U.S. workers. After he became president, Trump in 2017 issued a “Buy American and Hire American” executive order, which directed Cabinet members to suggest changes to ensure H-1B visas were awarded to the highest-paid or most-skilled applicants to protect American workers. Trump’s businesses, however, have hired foreign workers, including waiters and cooks at his Mar-a-Lago club, and his social media company behind his Truth Social app has used the the H-1B program for highly skilled workers. During his 2024 campaign for president, as he made immigration his signature issue, Trump said immigrants in the country illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country” and promised to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. But in a sharp departure from his usual alarmist message around immigration generally, Trump told a podcast this year that he wants to give automatic green cards to foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges. “I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country,” he told the “All-In” podcast with people from the venture capital and technology world. Those comments came on the cusp of Trump’s budding alliance with tech industry figures, but he did not make the idea a regular part of his campaign message or detail any plans to pursue such changes.WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump is telling the Supreme Court that he can make a deal that will resolve the national security dispute over TikTok and preserve the video site for 170 million Americans. All the justices need to do, he says, is to stand aside and suspend a pending law that could shut down TikTok on Jan. 19, the day before Trump takes office again. “President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform,” his attorney said in a friend-of-the court brief filed Friday night. His plan might work, at least to buy more time. The justices had agreed to make a fast-track decision on the potentially momentous issue involving social media and free speech. “I think the court is likely to see great benefit in issuing a stay and little downside,” said UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “The case poses a novel and very difficult 1st Amendment issue. Never before has the government tried to ban a medium of communication, but there also is a history of judicial deference to national security claims.” Prior to Trump’s intervention, TikTok appeared to face a difficult fight in the court. The House and Senate had passed legislation by large bipartisan majorities requiring the platform to separate itself from its Chinese owner or to shut down in this country. President Biden signed the bill into law in April. And by its terms, it was due to take effect in 270 days. Although the justices are not shy about striking down federal regulations, they are wary of overturning an act of Congress, particularly one that is based on threats to national security. The U.S. appeals court in Washington cited national security when it upheld the law earlier this month. In a 3-0 decision, the judges said the law did not target speech or expression. Rather, lawmakers were convinced the Chinese parent company could gather personal data on millions of Americans, the judges said. If the law took effect on Jan. 19, Apple, Oracle and other U.S. companies could have faced large civil fines if they continued to work with TikTok. Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief that differed in tone and substance from all the others. Rather than weigh in on the 1st Amendment question the justices had agreed to decide , he explained why Trump was better-suited to decide it. “Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans — including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok,” he wrote. “Moreover, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history.” Noting that Trump has 14.7 million followers on TikTok, Sauer argued that the president-elect is well-positioned “to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.” He also wrote that as the founder of another social-media platform, Truth Social, Trump has “an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary government power attempted to be exercised in this case — the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of millions of Americans.” “In light of these interests — including, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy — President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.” In 2020, Trump had voiced alarm over TikTok because of its Chinese ownership. Lawmakers later heard classified briefings that convinced them the foreign ownership posed a danger. But by the time the law won approval, Trump had switched sides. He said he believed TikTok helped him win the support of young voters. “TikTok had an impact, so we’re taking a look at it,” he told reporters two weeks ago. “I have a little warm spot in my heart.” A year ago, his attorney Sauer drew criticism from some legal experts for boldly asserting that Trump as a former president had an absolute immunity from criminal charges for his official acts while in office. But in July, he won a 6-3 ruling from the Supreme Court that gave him and Trump what he had sought. Sauer is now set to represent Trump and his administration before the Supreme Court as U.S. solicitor general. He did not say precisely what the court should do now, only that it “should consider staying the statutory deadline to grant more breathing space” to the incoming administration and that one provision in the law allowed for a 90-day extension before it took effect. The court asked for responses to the competing briefs by next Friday. It scheduled two hours of argument for Jan. 10. It’s not certain the justices will readily comply with Trump’s request. Two weeks ago, former Trump attorney Noel Francisco filed an appeal on TikTok’s behalf urging the justices to put the law on hold for a brief period. But the justices brushed aside that suggestion and said they would decide whether divestiture law violated the 1st Amendment. “I am skeptical Trump’s intervention will make a difference,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor who has written about the pending law. He noted that the Supreme Court denied TikTok’s request to stay the law because it did not think TikTok could meet the requirements for a stay: a reasonable chance of winning on the merits. “Trump’s argument does not change that,” he said. “It may be bad luck for TikTok (and Trump) that the law goes into effect the day before inauguration, but such is life.”

Illinois bill aims to reduce state requirements for name changes (copy)

Another stowaway caught on Delta flight raises major concerns about airport safety