Nonee power sports 。

QF’s PUE signs leadership skill development deal with MCE

The J. M. Smucker Company Announces Pricing for Cash Tender OffersAmazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks in Las Vegas on June 6, 2019. John Locher/The Associated Press In a string of visits, dinners, calls, monetary pledges and social media overtures, big tech chiefs – including Apple’s AAPL-Q Tim Cook, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Meta’s META-Q Mark Zuckerberg, SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son and Amazon’s AMZN-Q Jeff Bezos – have joined a parade of business and world leaders in trying to improve their standing with President-elect Donald Trump before he takes office in January. “The first term, everybody was fighting me,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “In this term, everybody wants to be my friend.” Tech companies and leaders have now poured millions into his inauguration fund, a sharp increase – in most cases – from past pledges to incoming presidents. But what does the tech industry expect to gain out of their renewed relationships with Trump? A clue to what the industry is looking for came just days before the election when Microsoft MSFT-Q executives – who’ve largely tried to show a neutral or bipartisan stance – joined with a close Trump ally, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, to publish a blog post outlining their approach to artificial intelligence policy. “Regulation should be implemented only if its benefits outweigh its costs,” said the document signed by Andreessen, his business partner Ben Horowitz, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and the company’s president, Brad Smith. They also urged the government to back off on any attempt to strengthen copyright laws that would make it harder for companies to use publicly available data to train their AI systems. And they said, “the government should examine its procurement practices to enable more startups to sell technology to the government.” Trump has pledged to rescind President Joe Biden’s sweeping AI executive order, which sought to protect people’s rights and safety without stifling innovation. He hasn’t specified what he would do in its place, but his campaign said AI development should be “rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing.” Trump’s choice to head the Interior Department, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, has spoken openly about the need to boost electricity production to meet increased demand from data centres and artificial intelligence. “The AI battle affects everything from defence to health care to education to productivity as a country,′′ Burgum said on Nov. 15, referring to artificial intelligence. “And the AI that’s coming in the next 18 months is going to be revolutionary. So there’s just a sense of urgency and a sense of understanding in the Trump administration′′ to address it. Demand for data centres ballooned in recent years due to the rapid growth of cloud computing and AI, and local governments are competing for lucrative deals with big tech companies. But as data centres begin to consume more resources, some residents are pushing back against the world’s most powerful corporations over concerns about the economic, social and environmental health of their communities. “Maybe Big Tech should buy a copy of ‘The Art of The Deal’ to figure out how to best negotiate with this administration,” suggested Paul Swanson, an antitrust attorney for the law firm Holland & Hart. “I won’t be surprised if they find ways to reach some accommodations and we end up seeing more negotiated resolutions and consent decrees.” Although federal regulators began cracking down on Google and Facebook during Trump’s first term as president – and flourished under Biden – most experts expect his second administration to ease up on antitrust enforcement and be more receptive to business mergers. Google may benefit from Trump’s return after he made comments on the campaign trail suggesting a breakup of the company isn’t in the U.S. national interest, after a judge declared its search engine an illegal monopoly. But recent nominations put forward by his transition team have favoured those who have been critical of Big Tech companies, suggesting Google won’t be entirely off the hook. Cook’s notoriously rocky relationship with the EU can be traced back to a 2016 ruling from Brussels in a tax case targeting Apple. Cook slammed the bloc’s order for Apple to pay back up to €13 billion ($13.7 billion) in Irish back taxes as “total political crap.” Trump, then in his first term as president, piled on, referring to the European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who was spearheading a campaign on special tax deals and a crackdown on Big Tech companies, as someone who “really hates the U.S.” Brussels was eventually vindicated after the bloc’s top court rejected Apple’s appeal this year, though it didn’t stop Cook from calling Trump to complain, Trump recounted in a podcast in October. Altman, Amazon and Meta all pledged to donate $1 million each to Trump’s inaugural fund. During his first term, Trump criticized Amazon and railed against the political coverage at The Washington Post, which billionaire Bezos owns. Meanwhile, Bezos had criticized some of Trump’s past rhetoric. In 2019, Amazon also argued in a court case that Trump’s bias against the company harmed its chances of winning a $10 billion Pentagon contract. More recently, Bezos has struck a more conciliatory tone. He recently said at The New York Times’ DealBook Summit in New York that he was “optimistic” about Trump’s second term, while also endorsing president-elect’s plans to cut regulations. The donation from Meta came just weeks after Zuckerberg met with Trump privately at Mar-a-Lago. During the 2024 campaign, Zuckerberg did not endorse a candidate for president, but voiced a more positive stance toward Trump. Earlier this year, he praised Trump’s response to his first assassination attempt. Still, Trump in recent months had continued to attack Zuckerberg publicly. And Altman, who is in a legal dispute with AI rival Elon Musk, has said he is “not that worried” about the Tesla CEO’s influence in the incoming administration. Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the company earlier this year alleging that the maker of ChatGPT betrayed its founding aims of benefiting the public good rather than pursuing profits. “We have two multi-billionaires, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are tasked with cutting what they’re saying will be multiple trillions of dollars from the federal budget, reducing the civil service, the work force,” said Rob Lalka, a business professor at Tulane University. Musk, he said, has a level of access to the White House that very few others have had – access that allows him to potentially influence multiple policy areas, including foreign policy, automotive and energy policy through EVs, and tech policy on artificial intelligence. “Elon Musk walked into Twitter’s headquarters with a sink and then posted, ‘let that sink in,‘” he said. “Elon Musk then posted a status update on X, a picture of himself with a sink in the Oval Office and said, ’Let that sink in.′”

A compromise version of Mayor Eric Adams’ zoning overhaul aimed at easing the city’s dire housing crisis squeaked through the City Council on Thursday, clearing its final hurdle to become law. The mayor’s “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” plan, a suite of proposals that promises to allow for “a little more housing in every neighborhood,” passed the 51-member chamber by a slim 31-20 votes on Dec. 5. The city estimates the plan will spur the construction of 82,000 new housing units over the next 15 years, down from the 109,000 homes it was projected to produce before the council’s modifications were made. All that remains is for Adams to sign what will likely be his greatest signature accomplishment as mayor thus far into law. Adams, during a City Hall rally on the heels of the vote, compared his administration to the 1986 Mets team that won the World Series. “We’re gonna argue in the locker room, we’re gonna get in debates, we’re going to do all sorts of things, but you know what? We’re gonna bring home the championship ring,” Adams said. “That’s what we did...You’re seeing the most comprehensive housing reform in the history of the city.” City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, following several council members’ impassioned speeches for and against the plan, said the body “cannot do nothing” about the city’s dire housing crisis. She also emphasized that the modified version of the zoning text amendment hashed out by the council is far better than what the mayor initially proposed. “This council cannot be the body that says ‘no’ to people that need a place to live,” Speaker Adams said in an emotional speech. “This cannot be the council that turns their back on homeless; this cannot be the council that continues to say ‘scrap it, let’s move ahead and do something else,’ because I tell you that will never happen.” The plan consists of a series of updates to city zoning rules that have not been changed in over half a century. It’s designed to expand the amount of housing that can be built in parts of the Big Apple that typically do not see much development. The zoning changes only narrowly passed the city legislature even after they were altered last month to assuage many council members’ concerns about them potentially altering the character of the neighborhoods they represent. The final deal between City Hall and the council also includes a $5 billion commitment from Adams’ office and Gov. Kathy Hochul to fund affordable housing construction, housing affordability programs, infrastructure improvements, and more staff for city housing agencies. Several council members acknowledged that the modifications addressed their concerns and got them to a “yes.” Why they voted ‘no’ The lawmakers who voted against the City of Yes included every member of the chamber’s conservative Common Sense Caucus, some Democratic members representing low-rise outer-borough neighborhoods, and one progressive who saw the plan as a giveaway to developers. City Council Member Joann Ariola (R-Queens) said her “no” vote was driven by her constituents’ concerns that City of Yes would change the character of their neighborhoods. She also expressed concerns that the infrastructure in her district, which covers coastal areas in the Rockaways, will not be able to support the added housing that would come with the plan. “The city of yes will only add to the heavy burden that residents face every day,” Ariola said. “We don’t have the infrastructure and I know the mayor has promised money for infrastructure. But why are we putting the cart before the horse? Why are we putting the housing up and then worrying about the infrastructure?” David Carr, a Republican council member representing Staten Island, who also voted “no,” said he believes the plan is “incredibly vulnerable to legal action” and “will not survive” such action, which could be forthcoming. Progressive Council Member Christopher Marte (D-Manhattan) said he voted against the plan because it is a “yes to only the real estate developers.” ‘The real controversy’ On the other hand, Council Member Crystal Hudson (D-Brooklyn) said the proposal rightfully forces areas that have never built much housing to begin doing their part. She pointed out that areas like the South Bronx have borne the brunt of new development for far too many years. “The reality is that some communities are doing their part to address the housing crisis and others are not, and that’s the real controversy,” Hudson said. “This first-of-its-kind citywide text amendment does the bare minimum to create opportunities to build housing.” The original plan included proposals such as eliminating a mandate that new projects include a certain number of off-street parking spots, allowing new units to be built next to or within existing homes—known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—and clearing the way for 3-to-5-story construction near train stations and on top of storefronts. Other provisions in the scheme would permit developers to build at least 20% more housing in their projects as long as it is affordable and allow construction on large open areas owned by organizations like houses of worship. However, several of those measures were altered in response to council members’ concerns. Therefore, the amended version of the plan will not completely eliminate parking mandates. Instead, it will split the city into three zones where the requirement will be lifted, reduced, or kept in place. Furthermore, ADUs on ground floors and in basements will not be permitted in flood zones, and those in backyards will be barred from some areas, including historic districts. The provisions allowing for three-to-five-story construction near train stations and above storefronts—known as transit-oriented development and town-center zoning, respectively—were also modified. One of the changes will require developers who build 50 units or more in either type of project to make at least 20% of the units affordable at 80% of the area median income. The $5 billion secured by the council includes $2 billion specifically for affordable housing construction and renovation. Another $2 billion will go toward improving the infrastructure of the areas that could see more housing production under the plan, including sewer upgrades, stormwater drainage improvements, and flood mitigation. Other funding in the deal goes toward homeownership programs, tenant protections, city-funded housing vouchers, and increased housing agency staffing levels.

The best books of 2024Trump Deputy AG Pick Todd Blanche Seen Having Lunch With Kaitlan Collins, Elon M...Head-To-Head Review: Greif (NYSE:GEF) and JBDI Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (NASDAQ:JBDI)

New Delhi: The government has cautioned OTT platforms of further regulatory scrutiny if they are found streaming content that inadvertently promotes, glamourises or glorifies the use of drugs through the main protagonist and other actors without disclaimers or user warnings. In an advisory to OTT platforms, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said, “Such a portrayal has serious repercussions, particularly regarding the potential influence on young and impressionable viewers.” Citing the Code of Ethics for OTT platforms, the advisory asked them to exercise due diligence in content review and issue disclaimers or user warning for any programming that contains depiction of drug use. “OTT platforms are requested to voluntarily conform to these guidelines in the larger public interest. Non-compliance may result in further regulatory scrutiny, especially in the light of the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985,” the advisory said. The Code of Ethics for OTT platforms provides that a publisher shall not transmit, publish or exhibit any content prohibited under any law for the time being in force or by any court of competent jurisdiction. The advisory has also been shared with the self-regulatory bodies of OTT platforms.