Wilder World Unveils Official Gameplay Trailer Ahead of 2025 LaunchIn the digital age, information flows at speeds and scales that are unprecedented in human history. Social media platforms, digital news outlets, and personal devices collectively serve as both mirrors and engines of cultural discourse. Within this vast ecosystem, a new frontier has emerged: synthetic media or AI-generated media. And with its advanced outpacing our ability to corral its impact, we are headed for trouble. Synthetic media encompasses anything from deepfakes—highly convincing audio-visual fabrications—to seemingly benign AI-driven marketing campaigns. Although synthetic media hold transformative potential for creative expression, storytelling, and other constructive uses, they also possess the capacity to disrupt factual consensus, exploit cognitive biases, and further polarize social and political communities. This risk is compounded by lagging regulations and an under-informed public. Deepfakes, in particular, have transitioned from obscure internet novelty to a major concern for politicians, corporations, and everyday people. These manipulations often appear so authentic that viewers can be easily misled into believing false narratives or malicious content. Beyond the realm of video, AI systems can create deceptive audio and text that masquerade as human-generated. As large language models continue to evolve, the line between human and machine authorship becomes increasingly blurred, raising ethical and legal questions about authenticity, accountability, and transparency. The consequences of failing to regulate and label AI-generated media can be dramatic. Consider how misleading content might alter electoral outcomes, stoke social conflicts, damage reputations, or lead to fraudulent activities. These risks are not hypothetical; examples have already surfaced globally, with high-profile incidents where political leaders were impersonated or where “evidence” of events that never occurred went viral. Urgent calls to regulate AI-generated media are therefore not alarmist—they reflect a pragmatic response to a rapidly escalating threat landscape. One crucial reason for the urgency in regulating AI-generated media is rooted in our cognitive wiring. Humans evolved to process visual and auditory cues quickly, relying on these cues for survival. Our ancestors formed snap judgments about threats or opportunities in part because of the speed at which they could interpret sensory data. This evolutionary trait endures in modern times: we tend to believe our eyes and ears, and this trust in our sensory perception underpins the credibility we accord to photographs, videos, or audio recordings. Deepfakes exploit this trust. A well-crafted synthetic video or audio clip triggers the same cognitive mechanisms that authenticate what we see or hear in everyday life. Moreover, because technology increasingly blurs the boundary between what is computer-generated and what is real footage, people lack the inherent “cognitive safe-guards” or “skepticism filters” that would otherwise protect them. This vulnerability is especially pronounced when we are emotionally invested in the content—such as a purported leaked video supporting our political beliefs or exposing the misdeeds of a public figure we may already distrust. Beyond the broader evolutionary tendency to trust our senses, deepfakes and other forms of AI-generated content can exploit a variety of cognitive biases: : We naturally gravitate toward information that aligns with our preexisting beliefs. AI-generated content that confirms our worldview—whether it is a faked video showing a rival politician in a compromising position or marketing material suggesting our lifestyle is superior—reinforces that belief. This is especially problematic in online echo chambers and algorithmic social media, where such content can spread unchecked. : We often judge the likelihood of events by how easily examples come to mind. If deepfakes featuring a specific type of scandal become widespread, we are more likely to assume that such scandals are common and, consequently, believe them more readily. : Early impressions matter. The first piece of information we see about a topic often becomes the benchmark against which subsequent information is compared. A viral AI-manipulated video that spreads quickly can set a narrative “anchor” in the public’s mind, making corrections or denials less persuasive later. At the heart of many disinformation campaigns lies the “illusory truth effect,” a well-documented psychological phenomenon in which repeated exposure to a statement increases the likelihood of individuals accepting it as true. Even if the content is labeled as false or is obviously misleading upon careful inspection, frequent repetition can transform falsehoods into something that “feels” true. Deepfakes and AI-generated texts can be replicated or disseminated easily, enabling bad actors to harness this effect at scale. For instance, a deepfake might be briefly posted on social media—enough to generate initial traction and headlines—and then taken down or debunked. The image or snippet of the fake can continue circulating in people’s memories or reappear elsewhere, fortifying the original false impression. Without clear, consistent labeling mechanisms to counteract this cyclical exposure, the illusion can become a self-reinforcing loop in the public sphere. The introduction of malicious deepfakes into the public discourse raises the specter of heightened political polarization. As misinformation spreads, groups on different sides of the ideological spectrum may become entrenched in opposing “realities,” each bolstered by fabricated evidence that appears legitimate. This polarized environment fosters a climate of hostility and erodes the possibility of reasoned debate or consensus-based decision-making. Moreover, polarizing content tends to garner more clicks, shares, and comments—a phenomenon that social media algorithms can inadvertently amplify. When platform engagement metrics favor content that triggers strong emotional reactions, deepfakes that evoke outrage or support particular biases become hot commodities in the information marketplace, spiraling ever outward and forming a vicious cycle of mistrust. AI-manipulated media also risks reinforcing societal biases in more insidious ways. Deepfakes can be used to stage events that validate racial, gender, or cultural stereotypes. For example, an unscrupulous individual might distribute a manipulated video that portrays certain ethnic or religious groups in a negative light, fueling xenophobic or racist sentiments. Even if the content is later revealed as inauthentic, the initial exposure can have lasting effects. People who already harbor prejudices may use the deepfake as retroactive “proof” of their biases, while those previously neutral might become more susceptible to persuasion. This cycle not only marginalizes vulnerable communities but may also stoke social and political unrest. The ultimate casualty in an environment saturated with unmarked AI-generated media is a collectively agreed-upon reality. Democracy and social cohesion hinge upon the ability to arrive at shared facts—from the outcome of elections to scientific data on public health. When any piece of evidence can be digitally fabricated or manipulated, skepticism escalates and conspiratorial thinking can flourish. : Grassroots movements often rely on viral videos or audio clips to disseminate evidence of social injustices or to call for political change. If the authenticity of such evidence is routinely called into question, activism may lose its momentum. Conversely, maliciously designed deepfakes could falsely implicate activists in wrongdoing, discrediting their causes. : Ordinary citizens are inundated with content daily, from social media posts to streaming services. Without clear cues, it becomes harder for them to filter real events from artificial fabrications. As trust diminishes, a general malaise or cynicism can set in, dissuading people from civic engagement or even basic media consumption. : Communities lacking media literacy or robust digital infrastructure may be even more vulnerable to deepfake-driven manipulation. In regions with limited access to fact-checking resources or high barriers to digital literacy, malicious content can gain traction rapidly. Similarly, older adults may be more prone to believing doctored videos, given they grew up in an era where the public generally trusted film or television footage as verifiable proof. The rapid evolution of AI outpaces the slower, methodical processes of legislative bodies. While lawmakers debate and study the implications, new algorithms make the creation of deepfakes more efficient and convincing. The cost barrier is dropping; what once required a well-funded lab can now be done on a laptop with open-source tools. Malicious actors—be they private trolls, political propagandists, or even foreign adversaries—are quick to exploit this. Delayed responses grant these actors a substantial head start. They can shape public perceptions in ways that are difficult to reverse, especially when global events—elections, international conflicts, or public health crises—hang in the balance. Lessons from prior disinformation campaigns show that once a narrative takes root, it can persist long after fact-checks and retractions. : In 2020, a manipulated video of a prominent politician slurring words circulated widely, causing uproar among opponents and concern among supporters. Although debunked days later, the initial impact on public opinion had already been registered in poll data. : CEOs and CFOs have been impersonated via AI-generated voice technology, instructing subordinates to transfer funds or provide sensitive company information. In several known cases, companies lost millions of dollars before realizing the voice messages were fabricated. : Faked videos purporting to show atrocities committed by one side in a regional conflict have the capacity to incite violence. When these videos go viral and are further amplified by local media, the risk of escalation grows dramatically. Regulatory measures and explicit labeling protocols must adopt a preemptive, rather than reactive, stance. Instead of waiting for catastrophic misuse to illustrate just how damaging deepfakes can be, policymakers and technology companies can collaborate on robust frameworks to identify, label, and remove malicious content. By setting a strong precedent early, societies can minimize the risk of normalizing deception. : One of the simplest methods to label synthetic media involves text overlays within the video or image. For instance, the corners of a video could carry watermarks stating “AI-Generated” or “Digitally Altered.” While watermarks can be removed by a sophisticated manipulator, a standardized approach across platforms would help consumers quickly identify legitimate versus suspicious content. : Beyond visible overlays, invisible digital watermarks embedded in the file’s data can serve as a more tamper-resistant form of labeling. Any attempt to alter the file or remove the watermark would ideally degrade the quality or otherwise be detectable by specialized tools. : When AI-generated media is played—whether it is a video or an audio clip—platforms could require a brief disclaimer that states: “The following content has been identified as AI-generated.” This approach, similar to content warnings, can preempt potential misunderstandings and encourage viewers or listeners to approach the material with a critical eye. Social media platforms, streaming services, and other digital outlets are at the vanguard of content distribution. Their role in combating synthetic disinformation is critical: : Platforms can invest in AI-driven detection algorithms that continually scan uploaded content for known markers of manipulation (e.g., inconsistencies in lighting or facial movement). Although detection algorithms are in a cat-and-mouse game with deepfake generation, continued innovation and real-time updates can mitigate large-scale malicious dissemination. : Just as users can report spam or hate speech, platforms could introduce specialized reporting categories for suspected deepfakes. Advanced user communities, such as professional fact-checkers and journalists, can further support the verification process. : Clear guidelines are needed so that moderators know how to handle suspected deepfakes. This includes removal timelines, appeals processes, and transparency reports that show how many pieces of deepfake content were flagged and removed. The arms race between deepfake creators and detection tools is well underway. Several promising methods focus on subtle artifacts or “fingerprints” left by generative models—for example, unnatural blinking patterns, inconsistencies in lighting, or abnormal facial muscle movements. As generative models become more advanced, detection approaches must keep pace by training on the latest synthetic data. Machine learning experts emphasize that no single detection method is a silver bullet; a multi-layered approach is best. For instance, a platform might combine digital watermark checks, physiological feature analysis, and blockchain-based content provenance tracking to create a robust defense system. While detection alone cannot stop all malicious activity, it serves as a foundational pillar in the overall strategy to combat synthetic manipulation. Even the most sophisticated detection technologies will falter if the general public remains unaware of the threat. Education campaigns—run by governments, NGOs, and tech companies—can teach people how to spot potential deepfakes. These initiatives might include: One of the most frequent objections to regulating and labeling AI-generated media pertains to free speech. Critics argue that mandatory labeling could impede creative expression, from artists experimenting with generative art to filmmakers using AI for special effects. They worry that an overly broad or poorly defined regulatory framework may chill innovation and hamper the legitimate uses of synthetic media. However, these concerns can be addressed through nuanced policies. For instance, requiring an “AI-Generated” watermark does not necessarily stifle the creative process; it merely informs the audience about the content’s origin. The difference between legitimate creativity and malicious manipulation lies in transparency and intent. If creators are upfront about their manipulations, they still retain the freedom to innovate while respecting the public’s right to be informed. Another valid concern is that legislation aiming to curb malicious deepfakes could become a vehicle for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on free speech. Leaders could exploit the label of “synthetic media” to discredit genuine evidence of human rights abuses, or to justify mass censorship. This underscores the need for international standards accompanied by oversight mechanisms that ensure labeling requirements and takedown policies are not abused. To prevent overreach, any law targeting synthetic media should be transparent, narrowly tailored, and subject to judicial review. Multi-stakeholder input—from civil liberties groups, academic experts, industry representatives, and everyday citizens—can help craft legislation that balances public protection with fundamental human rights. Regulation in the realm of AI-generated media sits at the intersection of civil liberties and public welfare. The dilemma is not dissimilar to debates around hate speech or misinformation. While societies must preserve the right to free expression, they also have an obligation to protect citizens from harm. AI-generated media, when weaponized, can be as harmful as defamatory propaganda or incitement of violence, meriting its own set of safeguards. A measured approach ensures that policies serve their intended purpose—helping citizens distinguish truth from fabrication—without morphing into tools of repression. A transparent labeling requirement, combined with a legal framework that penalizes malicious intent, can maintain this balance. In effect, it draws a line between permissible creative uses of AI and the reckless endangerment of public trust. Regulations and labeling initiatives that work in one cultural or linguistic context may not translate seamlessly elsewhere. For instance, text overlays in English may fail to inform audiences in countries where English is not widely spoken. Additionally, cultural norms around privacy, free speech, and state authority vary widely. A labeling system that is accepted in one area might be viewed skeptically in regions with stronger censorship regimes or different legal traditions. Moreover, the very concept of “free speech” is not uniform across the globe. Some countries already have strong hate speech or misinformation laws, while others may lack the legal infrastructure to implement new regulations. Therefore, any international effort to standardize labeling must incorporate local adaptations, ensuring that the underlying principle of transparency remains intact, but is delivered in culturally and linguistically appropriate forms. Despite these variations, certain universal principles can guide the global approach to regulating AI-generated media: : Whether through text overlays, digital watermarks, or disclaimers, the public must be made aware when they are viewing synthetic media. The precise methods for delivering this information can be adapted locally, but the underlying principle should remain consistent. : Creators and distributors of synthetic media have a responsibility to ensure that viewers or listeners have enough information to make informed judgments about content authenticity and its context relative to reality. This is especially crucial when real human images, voices, or personal data are manipulated. : Governments, platform operators, and creators should be held accountable for failing to meet established guidelines. Where malicious intent is proven, legal mechanisms must be in place to enforce sanctions. Where ignorance or technical limitations lead to unintentional violations, a tiered system of penalties or corrective measures might be more appropriate. Deepfake technology is not confined to national borders; malicious actors often operate on a global scale. Consequently, international collaboration is essential. Just as nations have come together to form treaties on cybercrime, chemical weapons, and other cross-border threats, a similar multilateral framework could address the proliferation of AI-generated disinformation. A global body—potentially an offshoot of organizations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)—could help establish best practices, offering guidance on policy, detection tools, and public education. While enforcement would likely remain at the national level, international oversight could encourage consistency, reduce regulatory loopholes, and mobilize resources for less technologically advanced nations. AI-generated media is a double-edged sword. It opens possibilities for unprecedented creative applications, from hyper-realistic film productions to empathetic storytelling experiences that place audiences in different worlds or historical eras. Education could become more immersive, activism more compelling, and art more provocative. Yet these constructive ends are overshadowed by the grave potential for harm—sowing social discord, undermining electoral processes, discrediting legitimate reporting, and exacerbating societal biases. The psychological underpinnings that make deepfakes so effective—our inherent trust in sensory data, coupled with cognitive biases like the illusory truth effect—underscore the urgency of swift action. Without explicit labeling, accountability frameworks, and educational programs, AI-manipulated content will further erode public consensus on reality. In communities already rife with political or ideological fault lines, the infiltration of advanced deepfakes could tip the balance toward conflict or, at the very least, deepen existing fractures. Regulation and labeling standards stand as our first line of defense. Text overlays, digital watermarks, platform-based disclaimers, and multi-layered detection systems can help restore at least a measure of trust. Legislation, if carefully crafted, can deter malicious actors by raising the legal and moral stakes. Global collaboration and cultural sensitivity will be necessary to ensure that these measures neither hamper legitimate creativity nor become tools for repression. In many ways, the fight against unregulated synthetic media is part of the broader struggle to preserve truth, accountability, and informed democratic governance in a digital world. Failing to act immediately risks normalizing an environment where fabricated evidence permeates public discourse, institutions lose credibility, and citizens retreat into isolated echo chambers of misaligned “facts.” By contrast, a robust system of labeling, legislation, and public awareness can provide the bulwark we need against a future where the line between truth and fabrication is hopelessly blurred. It is now, at this critical juncture, that we must institute comprehensive and enforceable regulations for AI-generated media. In doing so, we safeguard not only our political systems, social cohesion, and individual reputations, but also the very concept of shared reality. If we respond adequately and swiftly, we may harness the wonders of AI-driven creativity while ensuring that the cornerstone of civil society—our trust in what we see and hear—remains intact. Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.niceph bet 。

Cooper, Batcho lead Louisiana Tech past Richmond 65-62

Miley Cyrus isn't jaded when it comes to collaborating with her loved ones. The "Flowers" singer got candid about how her relationship with her ex-husband Liam Hemsworth —who she finalized her divorce from in January 2020—has impacted her perspective on joining forces with her boyfriend of more than two years Maxx Morando for her forthcoming album Something Beautiful . In fact, Miley partially credited falling in love with Liam on set of the 2010 Nicholas Sparks film The Last Song as a reason why it felt natural for her to work alongside Maxx—who produced several songs on the record, set to be released in 2025. “I worked with my dad forever," Miley told Harper's Bazaar in an interview published Nov. 20. "That’s how me and my ex-husband met each other. I’ve always worked with the people that I love. And Maxx just inspires me so much." And the 32-year-old was able to explore an even deeper well of creativity by teaming up with Maxx, 26, who also plays drums in the band Lilly . In fact, Miley insisted Something Beautiful , which will be accompanied by a visual album, has a more experimental sound than her past work, describing it as "hypnotizing and glamorous." "It’s a concept album that’s an attempt to medicate somewhat of a sick culture through music," she explained. "The visual component of this is driving the sound. It was important for me that every song has these healing sound properties." And while Miley's romance with Liam—who she tied the knot with in 2018 after dating on and off for nearly a decade—didn't work out in the end, she has previously shared that she still looks back fondly on meeting the Hunger Games alum, who has been dating model Gabriella Brooks since 2019, on set of The Last Song . "I think one of the elements that made that movie feel so special," she shared on TikTok in September 2023, "was it was watching two very young people fall in love with each other, which was happening in real time and real life." The Grammy winner added, "So, the chemistry was undeniable, and that was the beginning of a long, 10-year relationship." To revisit everything Miley's said about her love story with Liam, read on... Despite the split, Miley acknowledged the spark they felt while filming the 2010 movie The Last Song. "I think one of the elements that made that movie feel so special," she shared on TikTok in September 2023, "was it was watching two very young people fall in love with each other, which was happening in real time and real life." Miley added, "So the chemistry was undeniable, and that was the beginning of a long, 10-year relationship." Miley revealed in September 2023 that she knew their marriage was over at the 2019 Glastonbury music festival. She said in a TikTok video, "So Glastonbury was in June which was when the decision had been made that me and Liam's commitment to be married just really came from—a place of love first, because we've been together for 10 years—but also from a place of trauma and just trying to rebuild as quickly as we could." Miley added, "The day of the show was the day that I had decided that it was no longer going to work in my life to be in that relationship." Miley has noted the irony of critics who thinks she's too out there and provocative with the reality: that she married her first love ( and first other stuff ) after a very long engagement. "I didn't go all the way with a dude...I was 16," she said on an August 2020 episode of Barstool Sports' Call Your Daddy podcast, reflecting on her first hook-up. "I ended up marrying the guy, so that's pretty crazy." Asked to confirm that the guy she married was the first guy she hooked up with, Miley admitted, "Yeah, which I lied and said that he wasn't the first, so I didn't seem like a loser." After years of proving they were in no rush to get married, Miley and Liam surprised everyone by actually saying "I do" on Dec. 23, 2018, about six weeks after their Malibu home burned down amid a surge of wild fires in Southern California. The fire "removed me from what no longer was serving its purpose," Miley reflected to Rolling Stone . "And then as you drown, you reach for that lifesaver and you want to save yourself. I think that's really what, ultimately, getting married was for me. One last attempt to save myself." Similarly, she told Howard Stern in a December 2020 interview about how she went from losing a houseful of possessions to gaining a husband, "Me being an intense person and not wanting to sit with it and not wanting to go, you know, 'What could be purposeful about this?' I just clung to what I had left of that house, which was me and him. And I really do and did love him very, very, very much and still do, always will." Miley wrote the breakup dirge "Slide Away" at the Malibu house, before the relationship actually ended, but in hindsight she couldn't really tell whether the chicken or the egg came first. "Does art imitate life or life imitate art? Or do you speak it into existence?" she wondered to RS . "Am I that powerful that when I write something, I become it?" She continued, "I think of making music sometimes as a sacrifice because you end up writing songs that can hurt people, that can hurt one person but make you feel less alone. It's like, is it worth it? Is it worth writing music that's so honest? Dolly [ Parton , her godmother] said there's two sides to every story. When you're telling your side of the story, is it fair? You don't make songs to hurt somebody, but they do. Songs like 'Angels Like You,' it's not easy for someone to listen to when they know it's about them. 'You're going to wish we never met on the day I leave.' Music can be a sacrifice." Miley's sense of humor remained intact, such as when she came across a TikTok video featuring a couple kissing and dancing to "Plastic Hearts," the pair vowing on their post, "if miley cyrus comments we will get married." TBD, but Miley did leave a comment , writing, "Hope it goes better for you two than it did for me. Congrats." Despite the constant vibe that Miley and Liam did not have one of those dramatic relationships behind the scenes, toward the end at least it became more apparent that they weren't meant to be together forever after all. There was "too much conflict" eventually, she said on The Howard Stern Show . "When I come home, I want to be anchored by someone. I don't get off on drama or fighting." "A couple of years ago, it looked like I was living some fairy tale. It really wasn't," the "Midnight Sky" singer told Rolling Stone in November 2020 of what turned out to be the tail end of her relationship with Liam. "At that time, my experimentation with drugs and booze and the circle of people around me was not fulfilling or sustainable or ever going to get me to my fullest potential and purpose." Miley acknowledged the old assumption that someone's life is going great so long as they're in a happy-looking relationship. "'She's got a man. She's living in a house playing wife,'" she mock-quoted her observers. "Dude, I was way more off my path at that time than any of the times before where my sanity was being questioned. I don't like ever saying anything in a very solid concrete way, but right now I have been focusing on sobriety as I wanted to wake up 100 percent, 100 percent of the time. If I've ever learned to balance myself and to not take it too far, I would. But so far any time I've messed with that, it hasn't gotten me what I want." "In a way, I didn't spend too much time crying over it, and it wasn't because I was cold or trying to avoid feeling something, but it was just because it wasn't going to change it," Miley said of the aftermath of her divorce in a remote Nov. 2 appearance on the Scandinavian show Skavlan . "I tried to just continue to be active in what I can control, otherwise you just start feeling like you're trapped." And just as women tend to be left with the accusatory question marks over their heads when they don't appear interested in sticking with something forever, so too, Miley believes, is there judgment when a gal isn't demonstrably devastated by the end of a relationship. "I would say that there's a stigma of coldness for a woman who actually, really moves on," she observed. Miley, who had already embarked on a whirlwind romance with Brody Jenner 's ex Kaitlynn Carter as the news of her and Liam's split broke and then proceeded to date Cody Simpson for 10 months, has acknowledged that romance has had its difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic, but she's been up for it . "I heal through traveling and meeting new people," Miley explained on Skavlan . "As you lose one person, another person comes into your life." Experiencing a trauma like that fire really did give her the nudge she needed in the direction of marriage, because otherwise, Miley was pretty meh on the subject of settling down. "Not really, I never really cared that much," she said in August on SiriusXM's The Morning Mash-Up when asked if she herself getting married again or having kids one day. "I am sure that my fans are going to pull up me at 12 saying, 'Oh I want to have kids,' but like I don't, as a 27-year-old woman that would have a little bit more of a realistic idea of what they want. That has never been kind of my priority." There's a difference between doing whatever the hell you want when you're single and when you're in a relationship, and Miley is only a practitioner of the former—despite what some people may think. "I can accept that the life I've chosen means I must live completely open and transparent with my fans who I love, and the public, 100% of the time," Miley tweeted Aug. 22, 2019, to nip speculation that she'd cheated on Liam in the bud . "What I cannot accept is being told I'm lying to cover up a crime I haven't committed. I have nothing to hide." Yes, her behavior seemed wild at times, and sometimes it really was. "But the truth is," she insisted, "once Liam and I reconciled, I meant it, and I was committed. There are NO secrets to uncover here. I've learned from every experience in my life. I'm not perfect, I don't want to be, it's boring. I've grown up in front of you, but the bottom line is, I HAVE GROWN UP. I can admit to a lot of things but I refuse to admit that my marriage ended because of cheating. Liam and I have been together for a decade. I've said it before & it remains true, I love Liam and always will." While she admittedly enjoys dating and other romantic entanglements, Miley intended for her marriage to be her last stop on the always-need-to-be-with-someone train. In a delightfully outspoken sit-down on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast released in September 2020, she acknowledged her "tendency to to need someone in my life at all times." Referring to Liam, she explained, "I called the love of mine, who I was with and we got divorced, it was almost like a pacifier. Like, he was that thing I just needed." Miley said on the Call Your Daddy podcast that, frankly, she was a logical person more prone to stoically analyze what went wrong in a situation than freak out about it. Which, she acknowledged, isn't necessarily something you can tell about her just by looking. "I had a very, very public, very big breakup that was over a 10-year span of a relationship," she explained. "Sitting with me now, I would hope you find me to be somewhat this way—which is not the public perception—is I'm very logical. I'm very organized and very kind of center. And so, I love lists. Lists keep my whole f--king world on track." Relationship postmortems are no different. "And so, with heartbreak, I tried to not get lost in the emotion," Miley continued. The end of a relationship can be a devastating loss, but "to not get lost in emotion, to focus on the logic, is to make a list of what you were gaining and what you were losing, what they were contributing to your life and what they were subtracting and to value each of these things by one through 10, and then you add them all up. "And if the person was adding more to your life, then you know what is expected for your next relationship and, what they were subtracting, you know what you will not accept ever again." The girl had "freedom" tattooed across her right knuckles, for Pete's sake. 'Nuff said. (Though she did elaborate , telling Apple Music's Zane Lowe in August 2020, " I just feel this sense of freedom, and I think that's a word I've probably used pretty consistently.")Lewis and Clark County Commissioners have given conditional approval to a preliminary plat application for a five-lot subdivision near Green Meadow and Lincoln roads. The proposal for the Wade Minor Subdivision included 18 conditions of approval, which took commissioners nearly 1 1/2 hours to get through. The applicant has three years to meet the conditions of approval, officials said at the commissioners’ Dec. 17 meeting. Wade Minor is 6.75 acres in an area north of Helena that is residential with some commercial uses, county officials said. The property is now developed with a single-family residence, a county report states. Four of the 1-acre lots at 7373 Green Meadow Road would be for single-family homes and one lot would be for a 2.75-acre storage facility. The developer also sought three variances from subdivision regulations related to safety, transportation and fire protection issues. All sites are proposed to be served by individual wells, individual on-site wastewater treatment systems and utilities. And it will have an internal access road. Applicant Kim Smith said it matches and uses the current zoning, so he thinks "it’s a good fit.” He said it will have paved roads and improves the area. There was a letter of support in the commissioners’ packet from Wyatt Duthie, who lives across the street from the proposed project. "As it sits now, barren with overgrown weeds, it is an inefficient use of land," he wrote. "Meanwhile, Helena's greatest challenge is housing shortage. I believe we must promote and incentivize efficient use of lands throughout the county. The development of this unused land is a step in the right direction." "In all honesty, this particular spot in the valley is not the Taj Mahal by any means .... There is is a Junkyard, a solar farm and outdoor storage facility within a quarter mile of (its) proposed location. Any improvement to the proposed site would be greatly appreciated and welcomed from your neighbor across the street." There was also a letter against the subdivision application signed by 36 neighboring residents. "The subdivision will pose a direct threat to the groundwater quality and especially to the well water used by people that reside downgradient of the dense subdivision parcels,” the letter states. “The subdivision proposes development at near urban density in an otherwise rural neighborhood,” the residents said. “Continued approval of subdivisions having small lot sizes changes the rural character of the North Helena Valley to the detriment of current residents through increased burden of infrastructure on services such as roads, schools, law enforcement and fire protection." Commissioner Tom Rolfe asked Smith to address the concerns of nearby residents who had argued against the proposal, saying they feared sewage from the project would get into their groundwater. Smith said the sanitary improvements were reviewed by the Department of Environmental Quality, which found they met their criteria, so he believed it was appropriate. The commissioners gave conditional approval for the preliminary plat application. Commissioner Andy Hunthausen reminded commissioners to be sure to include the word “conditionally” in their motion, adding there were going to be several conditions of approval attached.

Hillenbrand Inc. stock rises Wednesday, still underperforms market

Brighton frustrated in goalless draw with BrentfordHojlund scores twice for Manchester United to beat Viktoria Plzen 2-1 in Europa League

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is buying up shares of internet domain services provider A Altogether, Berkshire Hathaway owns 13.2 million shares of the company, worth about $2.7 billion. That makes Berkshire Hathaway the largest shareholder of the internet company, which was founded in 1995. Shares of VeriSign rose nearly 2% on Friday to hit their highest level since late January, before giving up those gains and trading about flat amid Berkshire Hathaway is quite familiar with VeriSign, as they first purchased shares of the company over a decade ago, in the fourth quarter of 2012. One reason that could be fueling Berkshire Hathaway's decision to add more exposure to VeriSign is its high-profit margin. According to financial data as of the third quarter, the company is ranked fifth in the for the highest profit margin, at about 56%, tied with Nvidia. For operating margin, VeriSign is ranked third, and for gross margin, it's ranked 13th. Business Insider reached out to Berkshire Hathaway for comment but did not immediately hear back. Shares of VeriSign are down about 2% year-to-date, completely sitting out this year's stock market rally, with the S&P 500 up about 25%. The stock is down about 21% from its record high reached in December 2021. Read the original article on

Diverse virus populations coexist on single strains of gut bacteria

NoneNone

Australia has joined more than 150 countries at the United Nations to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza and to support the mandate of humanitarian relief agency UNRWA. The vote to back an immediate, permanent ceasefire in Gaza and call for a reversal of Israel’s decision to ban the main UN aid agency operating in the war-torn Gaza Strip was opposed by the US but backed by Canberra’s other Five Eyes allies, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. The Emergency Special Session of the New York-based assembly also urged the release of remaining Israeli hostages who were seized by Hamas on October 7, 2023, the upholding of international humanitarian law to protect civilians and a push towards peace and a two-state solution. The two votes did not change the Australian government’s long held positions on calling for a ceasefire, backing the humanitarian work of UNRWA, and advocating for a two-state solution. But it comes at a time of increased tensions in Australia over accusations that the Government has acted too slowly to tackle a rise in anti-Semitism, and amid intensified scrutiny of Australia’s position on the Middle East. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last weekend tied Labor’s “anti-Israel attitude” to the firebombing of a Melbourne synagogue – an accusation the Government vehemently rejects. His comments followed a recent UN vote where Australia joined 156 other countries to demand Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Government has also previously come under fire for its support of UNRWA after it was revealed that at least nine of its employees took part in the October 7 attacks on Israel. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the Government’s approach to the latest votes following a visit to the Sydney Jewish Museum on Wednesday to announce an $8.5 million fund for upgrades. “There’s no change to Australia’s position. Australia’s position is we support a two-state solution..The right of Israel to exist in secure borders,” he said, underscoring the need for all hostages to be released. “There’s no role for Hamas in any future Palestinian state. But over a period of time along with a range of other countries, the United States has been attempting to advance the issue of a long-term solution that would involve the engagement of states in the region as well, all recognising Israel.” Asked about the reason for the Government’s support of the resolutions on ABC Radio National Breakfast, Anne Aly, Minister for Youth, said: “We need to find a resolution and a pathway to peace in the Middle East, and particularly in Israel and Gaza, for the safety of Palestinians and for the safety and the security and the future of Israelis as well.” But shadow minister for home affairs James Paterson accused the Prime Minister of “gas lighting” the Australian Jewish Community. “One of the reasons why this is important is not just because our foreign policy is important, not just because standing with our allies and friends like the United States is important, but because we know that anti-Semites in Australia conflate Israel with Jews” he told Sky News. “We had another powerful demonstration of that this week in Sydney where cars in an area populated by the Jewish community were set on fire and graffiti targeted Israel. They don’t draw any distinction between Israel and Jews,” he said. “So when the Australian government abandons or even worse, vilifies Israel, anti-Semites take encouragement from that and that gives them license and that’s why it’s a serious problem.”

Shaq Barrett goes unclaimed on waivers, can now sign and play with any teamWilder World Unveils Official Gameplay Trailer Ahead of 2025 LaunchThe City Council will provide “unconditional” direct cash assistance to 161 expectant mothers who are homeless or on the verge of homelessness over the next three years under a new initiative launched on Wednesday. The pilot initiative will be administered by the guaranteed income nonprofit The Bridge Project , and aims to combat the financial and health risks expectant mothers without a stable home face. Those risks include being pushed into the city’s shelter system and diminished mental and physical health both during and after pregnancy. City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, during a Wednesday press conference unveiling the pilot program, said it marks the first time city taxpayer dollars have been used to fund guaranteed income payments. “As a city and nation, we have the resources to improve maternal health, reduce child poverty, and ensure that every child and family has the opportunity to lead a healthy life,” Speaker Adams said. “Investments like this, into our city’s mothers and children, have a generational impact, lasting far beyond the confines of this program.” Under the program, according to City Council Member Crystal Hudson (D-Brooklyn), the Bridge Project will give the expectant mothers a $2,500 upfront stipend, followed by $1,000 each month over the first 15 months, and then $500 a month for the remaining 21 months. The monthly payments can be used for necessities such as paying rent, purchasing food or affording pre-natal health care. “The bridge project’s groundbreaking initiative both addresses child poverty and promotes the long-term wellbering of New Yorkers,” Hudson said. “It will ensure expectant mothers have consistent income that can be used for anything including housing or quality pre-natal care and that’s the beauty of this program, that this is all up to the mother’s discretion, and they have a right to make their own financial decisions.” The scheme was authorized by council legislation, sponsored by Hudson, passed in 2023 allowing the city to fund guaranteed income pilot programs and is backed by $1.5 million included in the current city budget. Laura Clancy, executive director of The Bridge Project, said mothers who have already gone through the organization’s program have reported “significant improvements” in their financial stability and that they are able to spend more time with their young babies. “They have been able to keep up with bills, move into stable housing and make long-term investments in their career and their education,” Clancy said. “These are not just statistics. They are stories of hope and resilience.”

None

EFFINGHAM — Effingham High School announced junior Alyssa Martin as the November Girls Athlete of the Month and senior Kaiden Stewart as the November Boys Athlete of the Month. "Alyssa has led us to a 5-0 start and the championship of the Newton (Bob Kerans Thanksgiving Basketball Tournament), where she was named to the all-tournament team. She is averaging 12.5 points per game and five rebounds," said head girls basketball coach Jeff Schafer of Martin. "Alyssa is a dream to coach. The intensity that she plays with is unmatched. She is also very coachable and always trying to improve her game. She is also awesome in the classroom." "Kaiden is a team captain this year and is 3-1 so far," said head wrestling coach Bryan McMillan of Stewart. "He is closing in on his 100th career win in the next few weeks." The Effingham High School Athletic Department nominates an Athlete of the Month monthly. Head coaches nominate athletes based on the following criteria: • Stats • Accomplishments • Character • Coachability • Leadership • Sportsmanship Nominations are then sent to ALL high school coaches to vote on a winner. We have one male and one female winner each month. Winners receive a Treign Athlete of the Month shirt and get recognition via announcements and local media.

DALLAS (AP) — More than 60 years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated , conspiracy theories still swirl and any new glimpse into the fateful day of Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas continues to fascinate . President-elect Donald Trump promised during his reelection campaign that he would declassify all of the remaining government records surrounding the assassination if he returned to office. He made a similar pledge during his first term, but ultimately bended to appeals from the CIA and FBI to keep some documents withheld. At this point, only a few thousand of the millions of governmental records related to the assassination have yet to be fully released, and those who have studied the records released so far say that even if the remaining files are declassified, the public shouldn't anticipate any earth-shattering revelations. “Anybody waiting for a smoking gun that’s going to turn this case upside down will be sorely disappointed,” said Gerald Posner, author of “Case Closed,” which concludes that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Friday's 61st anniversary is expected to be marked with a moment of silence at 12:30 p.m. in Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy's motorcade was passing through when he was fatally shot. And throughout this week there have been events marking the anniversary. When Air Force One carrying Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy touched down in Dallas , they were greeted by a clear sky and enthusiastic crowds. With a reelection campaign on the horizon the next year, they had gone to Texas on political fence-mending trip. But as the motorcade was finishing its parade route downtown, shots rang out from the Texas School Book Depository building. Police arrested 24-year-old Oswald and, two days later, nightclub owner Jack Ruby fatally shot Oswald during a jail transfer. A year after the assassination, the Warren Commission, which President Lyndon B. Johnson established to investigate the assassination, concluded that Oswald acted alone and there was no evidence of a conspiracy. But that hasn't quelled a web of alternative theories over the decades. In the early 1990s, the federal government mandated that all assassination-related documents be housed in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration. The collection of over 5 million records was required to be opened by 2017, barring any exemptions designated by the president. Trump, who took office for his first term in 2017, had boasted that he'd allow the release of all of the remaining records but ended up holding some back because of what he called the potential harm to national security. And while files have continued to be released during President Joe Biden's administration, some still remain unseen. The documents released over the last few years offer details on the way intelligence services operated at the time, and include CIA cables and memos discussing visits by Oswald to the Soviet and Cuban embassies during a trip to Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. The former Marine had previously defected to the Soviet Union before returning home to Texas. Mark S. Zaid, a national security attorney in Washington, said what's been released so far has contributed to the understanding of the time period, giving “a great picture” of what was happening during the Cold War and the activities of the CIA. Posner estimates that there are still about 3,000 to 4,000 documents in the collection that haven’t yet been fully released. Of those documents, some are still completely redacted while others just have small redactions, like someone's Social Security number. There are about 500 documents where all the information is redacted, Posner said, and those include Oswald's and Ruby’s tax returns. “If you have been following it, as I have and others have, you sort of are zeroed in on the pages you think might provide some additional information for history,” Posner said. Trump's transition team hasn’t responded to questions this week about his plans when he takes office. From the start, there were those who believed there had to be more to the story than just Oswald acting alone, said Stephen Fagin, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, which tells the story of the assassination from the building where Oswald made his sniper's perch. “People want to make sense of this and they want to find the solution that fits the crime," said Fagin, who said that while there are lingering questions, law enforcement made “a pretty compelling case” against Oswald. Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said his interest in the assassination dates back to the event itself, when he was a child. “It just seemed so fantastical that one very disturbed individual could end up pulling off the crime of the century," Sabato said. “But the more I studied it, the more I realized that is a very possible, maybe even probable in my view, hypothesis.” Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.Two missed extra points and a Dallas kickoff-return TD prove costly for Washington.

United Australia Party leader Ralph Babet will take the Commonwealth to the High Court over what chairman Clive Palmer says are “unconstitutional” election laws prohibiting the party’s sole senator running under the UAP banner. Mr Palmer, a billionaire businessman and former UAP leader, accused the federal government of attempting to “rig” the 2025 election by supporting “draconian” laws governing when deregistered parties can contest an election. The UAP, which claims to be the nation’s largest in terms of membership, was deregistered in September 2022 by Mr Babet due to “administrative reasons”, though Mr Babet at the time said they would still contest the 2025 ballot. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, a deregistered party cannot contest an election until the general election after next following the deregistration, meaning Mr Babet could not run as a member of the UAP until at least 2028. Mr Palmer said the provisions were not “conducive to running a free and fair election” as demanded by the constitution, and said he expected the High Court to handle the challenge with “urgency” ahead of next year’s vote. “Our party name, the United Australia Party, is already a trademark and has been through the legal process that we have exclusive use of it, so we think that’s just been put in the Act to be a negative detriment,” he said. Mr Palmer went on to add: “The Australian constitution is very clear. It states the Commonwealth parliament has the power to make laws in respect of elections. But, surely elections must be fair and free elections. “Surely all Australians, regardless of their political persuasion, should be allowed to stand for elections, as should all political parties. “It’s very, very dangerous for the government to have the power by legislation to stop people participating in our democracy. “That’s why we’ve commenced those proceedings.” A writ of summons, filed with the High Court of Australia in Brisbane, claimed the inclusion of a party name and logo was “a significant advantage which is only available to candidates for election who are endorsed by a registered political party”. It claimed Section 135(3) of the Act was invalid because it “it impermissibly excludes or impedes receipt by electors of information relevant to the making of an informed choice”, and discriminated against unregistered parties. As first plaintiff, Mr Babet is seeking, according to the document, for the provision to be found to be invalid, or for a declaration that it is “inoperative and of no effect to the extent it would render a party ineligible for registration for the next general election”. Mr Palmer said the provisions would stop Mr Babet being able to stand at the next election and that the UAP intended to call for candidates in all seats of the House of Representatives, as well as in the country’s Senate. The former MP said cost of living pressures were a “warning sign” for the government, and that minor parties looking to contest the next federal election would be looking at the outcome of the UAP’s High Court bid. “We look forward to our case with the High Court, where we hope we can stand as an example for the Australian people that they can participate in the elections, that we do have freedom of speech to the life in this country and the freedom of the press, and we respect the people’s right to know,” he said. “We’ve seen what happens in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where they restrict democracy and who can and who can’t contest elections. Naturally, if I’m in power, I might want to stop other people standing against me. But that’s not the basis of the Western democracy. It’s not the basis that protects Australian rights. “So it’s a very important thing to be challenged, because this legislation bans our political party, even if we are registered, from contesting the election. So we’ve got to protest about that, not just for ourselves, but for all Australians.” Mr Babet was elected to the Senate for Victoria in the 2022 election, having taken over the reigns of the UAP from Craig Kelly. Of the $100m Mr Palmer spent on the campaign, he was the sole representative to get elected in their race. Of the High Court challenge, Mr Babet said the UAP had 82,000 members who he said were “being denied the right to vote for who they wanted”. “Labor is running scared. There will be a third force in the next election and it will be well supported. I am calling for all parties to join together to kick out the uni-party of Labor (and) Liberals which has destroyed our country,” Mr Palmer said. Originally published as Not ‘Putin’s Russia’: Palmer slams ‘unconstitutional’ election laws amid court bid to be included