None

House approves $895B defense bill with military pay raise, ban on transgender care for minors

Global Mountain And Snow Tourism Market Set For 6.5% Growth, Reaching $6.19 Billion By 2028

Revolutionary Single-Layer Film Eliminates Helmet Changes, Enhancing Driver Safety and Performance LAS VEGAS , Dec. 11, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Racing Optics®, the global leader in high-performance tearoff visor film technology, proudly unveils its latest innovation: the Twilight Tearoff . This groundbreaking single-layer tearoff is engineered to elevate driver visibility during late-afternoon and early-evening races, providing superior glare reduction and contrast enhancement. The Twilight Tearoff redefines race-day performance by allowing drivers to maintain focus and adapt seamlessly to changing light conditions, eliminating the need for disruptive helmet changes. This innovation represents a significant leap forward in racing vision technology, delivering immediate and measurable benefits to professional drivers and teams alike. "The Twilight Tearoff solves one of racing's most persistent challenges—ensuring optimal visibility as lighting transitions rapidly during twilight races," said Chris Colton , Chief Applications Engineer at Racing Optics . "Our dedication to driver safety and performance drives every innovation, and the Twilight Tearoff is no exception." Transforming Racing at Twilight Racing teams are already embracing the Twilight Tearoff as a game-changing solution for twilight and low-light racing conditions. One racing team manager shared their experience: "In a recent twilight race, the Twilight Tearoff gave our drivers unmatched visual clarity. Transitioning from glaring sunlight to artificial lighting without pausing to change helmets was a decisive advantage that kept us competitive." By streamlining the driver experience, the Twilight Tearoff enhances safety and helps maintain uninterrupted race momentum—a critical edge in the high-stakes world of motorsports. Exclusive Debut at PRI Show 2024 The Twilight Tearoff will make its debut at the Performance Racing Industry (PRI) Show , held December 12–14, 2024, in Indianapolis, Indiana . This highly anticipated event marks Racing Optics' 25th anniversary , celebrating a legacy of trailblazing innovations in motorsports safety and performance. Availability The Twilight Tearoff is now available for purchase at RacingOptics.com and through authorized dealers. Teams and drivers looking to gain a competitive edge are encouraged to explore this latest advancement. About Racing Optics For 25 years, Racing Optics has led the field in racing vision technology, delivering innovative solutions that enhance safety and performance. With a commitment to collaboration and innovation, the company continues to push the boundaries of motorsports protective equipment. For additional information, please visit RacingOptics.com . Logo - https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2577485/Racing_Optics_Logo.jpg View original content: https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/racing-optics-introduces-game-changing-twilight-tearoff-to-enhance-visibility-in-low-light-racing-conditions-302329569.htmlGM to close robotaxi division after losing billions

This story was published as part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’ Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here . Let’s get the news out of the way: on Monday (Nov. 24) Drake initiated legal action against Universal Music Group — the parent company of his record label — and Spotify over allegations that the two companies conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.” This, he says, was done through a variety of allegedly illegal promotional methods, like UMG — which also is the parent company to Kendrick’s label — accepting a royalty reduction in exchange for boosting streams; payola via independent radio promotions; and paid but undisclosed influencer campaigns. (For their part, Universal called these claims “ offensive and untrue .”) Longtime readers of Machine Learnings know that most of the topics presented in Drake’s case are ones we’ve covered extensively in this newsletter. I don’t take the issues of streaming fraud and shady digital marketing tactics lightly, and if these allegations are true, it would be a bombshell that one of the world’s biggest artists called out the world’s largest music company for partaking in it. (And trust me, I’d be all over reporting that!) But while Drake’s allegations could still hold some merit, this particular court document seems to be backed up with questionable evidence and — it seems — some level of misunderstanding about the way music promotion works today. So let’s break it down. Here are a few key quotes from Monday’s court document, with commentary. “In his memo to staff reflecting on the highlights of 2021, the CEO of UMG, Lucian Grainge, remarked on it being ‘harder than ever for artists to break through the noise: sixty thousand songs are added to Spotify every day. ’” Maybe I’m splitting hairs by pointing this out, but I find this to be a strange way to begin laying out these allegations. Why are they citing highlights from 2021 when we get updates every year about how many songs are added to Spotify on a daily basis? It would have been far more effective to start by including the 2023 stat: 120,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify each day, according to Luminate. Or, if they want to keep the quote from Grainge in, why not tack that current number on to the end? Throughout this document, it seems like Drake’s team is missing key, up-to-date information on the ways songs are released and marketed today. This is surprising, given Drake is one of the most successful artists in the world and one who often makes savvy marketing and business decisions. One of those marketing tactics that immediately comes to mind is when Drake graced the cover of a ton of Spotify playlists during the release of his album Scorpion in 2018 to raise awareness, and streams, for the project. It was so over the top that Billboard reported at the time that some fans were calling for Spotify to provide refunds because they were seeing too much Drake. “On information and belief, UMG charged Spotify licensing rates 30 percent lower than its usual licensing rates for “Not Like Us” in exchange for Spotify affirmatively recommending the Song to users who are searching for other unrelated songs and artists. Neither UMG nor Spotify disclosed that Spotify had received compensation of any kind in exchange for recommending the Song.” Rather than some nefarious back room deal, this sounds like Drake’s lawyers are referring to Spotify’s Discovery Mode feature , which is used by a wide array of labels and artists and is practically never disclosed. According to an article from Spotify’s support team, artists who want a song to receive an additional algorithmic boost on the platform can opt in to Discovery Mode which “doesn’t require an upfront budget” and instead takes a “30% commission... to recording royalties generated from all streams of selected songs in Discovery Mode contexts.” When Spotify debuted this feature in November 2020, it immediately drew controversy. In June 2021 , Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Hank Johnson Jr. (D-GA) sent a letter to Spotify’s CEO/founder Daniel Ek voicing worries that the feature “may set in motion a ‘race to the bottom’ in which artists and labels feel compelled to accept lower royalties as a necessary way to break through an extremely crowded and competitive music environment.” Again, in March 2022 , Reps. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Judy Chu (D-CA) and Tony Cardenas (D-CA) — co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Multicultural Media — expressed concerns that Discovery Mode “lack[ed] transparency” for both artists and consumers. The representatives then asked the company to publish “on a monthly basis the name of every track enrolled in the program” and the agreed-upon discounted royalty rate for each, calling Discovery Mode “a serious risk for musicians.” That said, it’s not clear if “Not Like Us” was part of Spotify’s Discovery Mode program, and historically, Universal Music Group has not been known to use the feature for any of its frontline releases — including any Kendrick Lamar or Drake songs. “UMG, directly or through Interscope, also conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of ‘Not Like Us’ and deceive consumers into believing the Song was more popular than it was in reality... One individual unknown to Petitioner revealed publicly on a popular podcast that Mr. Kendrick Lamar Duckworth’s ‘label’ (i.e., Interscope) paid him via third parties to use ‘bots’ to achieve 30,000,000 streams on Spotify in the first days of the release of ‘Not Like Us’” If this is true, this is streaming fraud and would be a serious offense. Just a few months ago, a man named Michael Anthony Smith was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy for allegedly using bots to boost the streams of his catalog and to help him siphon $10 million out of the royalty pool. But the evidence here is sketchy. Drake’s lawyers admit that the “individual” who was allegedly solicited to artificially drive up Kendrick’s streams is “unknown to [Drake]” but that this anonymous person went on DJ Akademiks ’ podcast to talk about this alleged scheme. DJ Akademiks is a podcaster who is known to be close with Drake, and he has played a significant role in backing up Drake during the beef earlier this year . Even if this ended up being true, which seems like a stretch, it feels quite biased. “While historically payola has been thought of in terms of paying radio stations to play songs, in February 2020, the Federal Trade Commission released guidance stating that ‘by paying an influencer to pretend that their endorsement or review is untainted by a financial relationship, this is illegal payola.’ On information and belief, UMG employed a similar scheme by paying social media influencers to promote and endorse the Song and Video. For example, Petitioner understands that UMG paid the popular NFR Podcast — which has nearly 300,000 subscribers on YouTube and over 330,000 followers on X — to promote ‘Not Like Us’” Drake’s team is citing a quote from February 2020 by the FTC that has been removed from the agency’s website. I do not know if that means it is no longer their current rule, or if there was another reason. What I do know is that just a few months ago, I wrote a story on the topic of influencers receiving undisclosed payments to play songs in the background of TikTok videos. I went into the reporting believing, as Drake’s team seems to, that this was definitely against FTC guidelines, but the FTC told me that wasn’t necessarily the case. “While we can’t comment on any particular example, that practice seems somewhat analogous to a product placement,” the FTC told me. “When there are songs playing in the backgrounds of videos, there are no objective claims made about the songs. The video creator may be communicating implicitly that they like the song, but viewers can judge the song themselves when they listen to it playing in the video. For these reasons, it may not be necessary for a video to disclose that the content creator was compensated for using a particular song in the background in the video.” Some of the examples from NFR that Drake cites here are not exactly the same type of pay-to-play content I researched for my story, but I could see these examples being acceptable by the FTC based on what they told me. One example of UMG’s alleged influencer payola cited by Drake’s lawyers was a tweet by NFR that says that Kendrick Lamar’s new music video was released. Another was NFR saying “Kids rapping Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ word for word at a birthday party.” Another: “Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ becomes the FASTEST rap song to reach 300M Spotify streams.” All three of these examples are objective statements about one of the biggest artists in the world. Referring back to the statement I got from the FTC, “There are no objective claims made about the songs...viewers can judge the songs themselves.” (I say all this while also acknowledging that some of the other examples listed might be in more of a gray area with the FTC). The practice of paying influencers to post about new songs is nothing new, and one major label marketer told me he estimated “75% of popular songs on TikTok started with a creator marketing campaign.” According to digital marketing experts, influencer campaigns have been the go-to marketing strategy at every major label since TikTok took off in 2020. With that in mind, it is hard for me to imagine that Drake’s team has never run a similar campaign for any of his own viral hits, which would undermine his entire argument. “Streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game. Every time a song ‘breaks through,’ it means another artist does not. UMG’s choice to saturate the music market with ‘Not Like Us’ comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake. As Drake is Petitioner’s sole owner, and Petitioner owns the copyright to Drake’s entire catalogue, Petitioner suffered economic harm as a result of UMG’s scheme.” I find this to be a strange claim — that if Kendrick’s song streams well it directly takes away from Drake or other artists. It feels like a stretch to blame Kendrick for other artists not succeeding with their songs at the same time. I imagine Drake faced more “economic harm” from the reputational damage this song did to him (by calling him a “pedophile”) than it did by being a “zero-sum” streaming game. Plus, with UMG the parent company distributing both artists — and thus making money from their success — it makes no business sense for them to be deliberately harming his career and prospects. This zero-sum claim seems to be what he’s getting at in his second legal filing , released Tuesday (Nov. 26). In it, he claims UMG should have stopped Kendrick from releasing a song with “false” claims that defamed his character. “UMG ... could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write in the court document. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.” By saying this, Drake is essentially advocating for labels to censor their artists, which is a very slippery slope — I’d wager most people would find it troublesome if a billion-dollar corporation started preemptively censoring art. Not to mention, Drake has levied plenty of his own unsubstantiated claims against Kendrick this year, most notably on also-UMG-released diss track “Family Matters.” The hip-hop industry has fought for years to remind the judicial system in the U.S. that not everything a rapper says in a song is a cold hard fact, and it should not be used as evidence against a rapper in a criminal sense. As top music attorney Dina Lapolt once put it to Variety , “[these] attempts to put all rap lyrics into the categories of historical fact and fiction [are] failing to understand that hip-hop, like most art, is more complex than that... lyrics are not to be taken literally.”

Passengers were complaining that the new MyWay+ ticketing system had caused them delays and simply hadn't worked on its first morning. Black Friday Sale Subscribe Now! Login or signup to continue reading All articles from our website & app The digital version of Today's Paper Breaking news alerts direct to your inbox Interactive Crosswords, Sudoku and Trivia All articles from the other regional websites in your area Continue "No-one had a physical card on my bus but some people had a QR code on their phone which wouldn't scan, and others tried to pay with a credit card on their phone which also didn't scan," said one passenger on the R4 from Macquarie to Civic. "The bus driver didn't know how to help people so he just waved us on." Another passenger told The Canberra Times that he assumed the paper had been "flooded with reports of people unable to use their MyWay+ accounts and being waved on my bus drivers. If not, I'm one in that situation as was everybody else boarding with me". It wasn't clear on other buses whether the new system had worked. Credit cards did click on the reader but no money was taken out of their account. That may be a delay in processing or it may have ben a glitch. Transport Canberra was not commenting on the reports but it is known that they expected what they called "teething trouble". The problems came as transport minister Chris Steel prepared to talk to reporters about the start of the new system. On the eve of the launch - on Tuesday - the official in charge of devising and implementing the system was confident that it would work. Ben McHugh, deputy director-general, Transport Canberra and business services, in charge of the MyWay ticketing changes. Picture by Karleen Minney "We are as our extensive testing has shown that the system will operate as expected," Ben McHugh, deputy director-general, Transport Canberra and Business Services, said. He accepted that the new system would take some learning. "We are really pleased with the way MyWay+ is going but we are very aware that the community will take some time to get familiar with the change." Free transport on buses and trams on Fridays was due to start next week. It wasn't clear if the initial glitches would delay that start. It has also emerged that around $9.5 million is sitting unclaimed in old MyWay ticketing accounts as the ACT's bus and tram system transits to the new method of payment on Wednesday. Only $450,000 has been transferred from the old system as MyWay switches to MyWay+ . That leaves the rest of the $10 million which was unclaimed in the old accounts still there. The ACT government had appealed repeatedly for people to go into their old MyWay accounts and transfer their own money out - but that appeal seemed to have fallen on deaf ears or been heard by people who found it too complicated to reclaim their money. It was not clear what would happen to the unused money if the people who put it there didn't reclaim it. As MyWay+ started, Transport Canberra said that 28,600 new accounts had been created. That compares with an estimated 450,000 accounts under the previous MyWay system. Those figures were true as of 2018, the last year for which figures were discoverable. It seems unlikely to have fallen since. The new MyWay+ app had been downloaded 59,600 times. About a hundred buses will still offer free transport when the new system starts, but they will be gradually reduced in number. Some older buses will not have the new ticketing machines installed because they are to be replaced over 2025 by 90 electric buses which have been bought at a cost of just under a million dollars each. Other buses have not had the ticketing machines installed but that will be done over the next week or so. It will not be possible to tell which buses are free from the outside. Passengers will only be able to see whether the new machine is on board when they themselves are onboard or about to get onboard. Transport Canberra has put in arrangements for people who might find the new system difficult. Registered pensioners, for example, who do not have phones will still be able to show their old concession card to the driver and be waved on. Transport Canberra said it had also made great effort to make sure shops were adequately stocked with the new MyWay+ cards. Earlier in the week, some retailers said they had run out of cards on Saturday after being allocated only 200 each on the Friday. "We are meeting retailers daily to make sure that they have enough stock to meet demands," Mr McHugh said. Share Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Email Copy Steve Evans Reporter Steve Evans is a reporter on The Canberra Times. He's been a BBC correspondent in New York, London, Berlin and Seoul and the sole reporter/photographer/paper deliverer on The Glen Innes Examiner in country New South Wales. "All the jobs have been fascinating - and so it continues." Steve Evans is a reporter on The Canberra Times. He's been a BBC correspondent in New York, London, Berlin and Seoul and the sole reporter/photographer/paper deliverer on The Glen Innes Examiner in country New South Wales. "All the jobs have been fascinating - and so it continues." More from Canberra 'Flooded with reports': Glitches as new ticketing system starts with a bump 20m ago President 'relaxed' about protest speech at Canberra Liberals meeting These rushed electoral law changes are one kick in the pants after another No comment s $9.5m unclaimed by passengers as 'Fare Free Friday' start date locked in No comment s Big fines for major supermarkets a step closer No comment s How a Canberra Times story created the chance to race a world champion up Black Mountain No comment s Newsletters & Alerts View all DAILY Your morning news Today's top stories curated by our news team. Also includes evening update. Loading... WEEKDAYS The lunch break Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. Loading... DAILY Sport The latest news, results & expert analysis. Loading... WEEKDAYS The evening wrap Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. Loading... WEEKLY Note from the Editor Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. Loading... WEEKLY FootyHQ Love footy? We've got all the action covered. Loading... DAILY Early Look At David Pope Your exclusive preview of David Pope's latest cartoon. Loading... AS IT HAPPENS Public Service News Don't miss updates on news about the Public Service. Loading... WEEKLY Explore Travel Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. Loading... WEEKLY Property Get the latest property and development news here. Loading... WEEKLY What's On Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. Loading... WEEKLY Weekend Reads We've selected the best reading for your weekend. Loading... WEEKLY Times Reader's Panel Join our weekly poll for Canberra Times readers. Loading... WEEKDAYS The Echidna Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. Loading... TWICE WEEKLY The Informer Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. Loading... WEEKLY Motoring Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. Loading... TWICE WEEKLY Voice of Real Australia Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. Loading... AS IT HAPPENS Breaking news alert Be the first to know when news breaks. Loading... DAILY Today's Paper Alert Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! Loading... DAILY Your favourite puzzles Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Loading...Landlord admits she overcharged her tenants for a heartwarming reason... but some people aren't buying it A woman revealed her mom has been overcharging her tenants purposely She said it was to help them save to help their children - but users are divided READ MORE: America's great rental divide - how far does your rent stretch? By EMILY LEFROY FOR DAILYMAIL.COM Published: 17:20 EST, 27 December 2024 | Updated: 17:39 EST, 27 December 2024 e-mail View comments 'Tis the season to... generously overcharge your tenants rent in the form of forced savings. A now-viral online post has infuriated people all across the web, after a user revealed that her mother has been purposely making her tenants pay a higher rent. The user, named Chantale, explained that her mom did it for a heartwarming reason - because she planned to give them the extra money back when they moved out to use towards their daughter's school. However, social media users fumed over the act of forced-saving, and argued that it was never her money to take. 'My mom’s tenants don’t even know that for the past seven years they’ve been renting from us we’ve been setting a portion aside to give both their daughters for school when they move out,' Chantale, who posts under the username @trapezoidmouth, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter . 'One of them is destined to cure cancer , the other one is special needs and has exceeded every expectation we’ve had I’ve never seen such diligent and hard working kids in my life they deserve everything,' she added in a comment. The post quickly went viral, dividing users over whether or not the act was charitable or extremely condescending. 'If some of the pay is going back to the tenants when they leave (so they say) then they are overcharging. They are also being patronizing,' one user argued. An X user has sparked a debate after she revealed that her mom was overcharged her tenants with their rent but planned to give the extra money back to them after they moved out She said her mom hoped that the money could be used for their daughter's schooling 'She’s stealing their money for 10 years with no legal guarantee it is going back to the tenants,' another pointed out. 'They have no idea they aren’t ONLY PAYING RENT. She isn’t overcharging she’s lying to the IRS to pay less in taxes, if this was a kind gesture shed have to report savings interest too.' 'Her mom is being a greedy landlord and assuming she can manage her tenants money better than they can. Her mother is overcharging and returning this families own money, giving her $0.00 of her own funds,' chimed in another. 'She didn't say we've been overcharging our tenants for seven years so we could put a portion aside to give them back at a later date. Maybe they are charging market rates and some people are just good, you know?' someone else tried to reason. A different user simply wrote: 'Overcharging your tenants and acting like its for their own benefit is a little sketchy.' 'They’re charging the standard and sacrificing a portion of their rightfully hard earned money to help this family,' some else argued. 'Shame on all you roaches for trying to spin the narrative all so you can get a reaction you people are what’s wrong with a functioning society.' Chantale didn't specify what city her mom was renting the property in. The post quickly went viral, dividing users over whether or not the act was charitable or extremely condescending READ MORE: Americans are giving up their mortgages to rent larger homes - as experts warn of terrible downsides A recent study revealed the gaping differences between rental prices in various cities in the United States. The typical national monthly rent of $1,700 gets a 1,996 square-feet apartment in Memphis - but only 211 square-feet in an area of Manhattan, says a report by RentCafe. That is almost 10 times smaller. Southern and Midwestern cities - particularly Memphis, Tennessee, and Oklahoma City - have the most spacious apartments. New York City, on the other hand, is home to 36 neighborhoods where you get the least amount of space for your money - including nine of the top ten in Manhattan. New York's 10013 zip code, which is in downtown Manhattan, affords the smallest amount of space for $1,700, according to the study. At 211 square-feet on average, renters are likely looking at a tiny studio space. Rental prices in the city, which is known for its sky-high rental prices and famously compact living conditions, have fallen slightly in recent months. Amid a boom in vacancies, landlords are increasingly offering concessions to lure in renters - but average monthly rent is still a huge $4,000. Outside of New York, the study found that the most expensive areas for renters were Boston, San Francisco and Oakland, California. Share or comment on this article: Landlord admits she overcharged her tenants for a heartwarming reason... but some people aren't buying it e-mail Add commentJanet Yellen tells Congress US could hit debt limit in mid-January

Witnesses told police that James McIntyre, 33, of Chicago, shook Mace's hand in an “exaggerated, aggressive” manner after approaching the South Carolina Republican in the Rayburn House Office Building on Tuesday evening, according to a police affidavit. Mace, who is identified only by her initials in a court filing, posted a string of social media messages about the incident. She said she was “physically accosted” at the Capitol, and she thanked President-elect Donald Trump for calling her Wednesday morning to check on her condition. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts “I’m going to be fine just as soon as the pain and soreness subside,” Mace wrote. Mace declined to be treated by a paramedic after her encounter with McIntyre, who was arrested Tuesday by the Capitol Police, the affidavit says. Mace told police that McIntyre said, “Trans youth serve advocacy,” while shaking her hand. Last month, Mace proposed a resolution that would prohibit any lawmakers and House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” Mace said the bill is aimed specifically at Delaware Democrat Sarah McBride — the first transgender person to be elected to Congress. A magistrate judge ordered McIntyre’s release after an arraignment in Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Efforts to reach an attorney for McIntyre weren't immediately successful.

Everest Group Ltd. stock underperforms Tuesday when compared to competitors

By MEAD GRUVER and AMY BETH HANSON, Associated Press A judge on Monday rejected a request to block a San Jose State women’s volleyball team member from playing in a conference tournament on grounds that she is transgender. Monday’s ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews in Denver will allow the player, who has played all season, to continue competing in the Mountain West Conference women’s championship scheduled for later this week in Las Vegas. The ruling comes after a lawsuit was filed by nine current players who are suing the Mountain West Conference to challenge the league’s policies for allowing transgender players to participate. The players argued that letting her compete was a safety risk and unfair. While some media have reported those and other details, neither San Jose State nor the forfeiting teams have confirmed the school has a trans women’s volleyball player. The Associated Press is withholding the player’s name because she has not publicly commented on her gender identity. School officials also have declined an interview request with the player. Judge Crews referred to the athlete as an “alleged transgender” player in his ruling and noted that no defendant disputed that San Jose State rosters a transgender woman volleyball player. He said the players who filed the complaint could have sought relief much earlier, noting that the individual universities had acknowledged that not playing their games against San Jose State this season would result in a forfeit in league standings. He also said injunctions are meant to preserve the status quo. The conference policy regarding forfeiting for refusing to play against a team with a transgender player had been in effect since 2022 and the San Jose State player has been on the roster since 2022 – making that the status quo. The player competed at the college level three previous seasons, including two for San Jose State, drawing little attention. This season’s awareness of her identity led to an uproar among some players, pundits, parents and politicians in a political campaign year. The tournament starts Wednesday and continues Friday and Saturday. San Jose State is seeded second. The judge’s order maintains the seedings and pairings for the tournament. Several teams refused to play against San Jose State during the season, earning losses in the official standings. Boise State and Wyoming each had two forfeits while Utah State and Nevada both had one. Southern Utah, a member of the Western Athletic Conference, was first to cancel against San Jose State this year. Nevada’s players stated they “refuse to participate in any match that advances injustice against female athletes,” without providing further details. Crews served as a magistrate judge in Colorado’s U.S. District Court for more than five years before President Joe Biden appointed him to serve as a federal judge in January of this year. Gruver reported from Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Hanson from Helena, Montana.No. 23 Texas A&M aims to hand Oregon first loss at Players Era

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said her agency will need to start taking “extraordinary measures,” or special accounting maneuvers intended to prevent the nation from hitting the debt ceiling , as early as January 14, in a letter sent to congressional leaders Friday afternoon. "Treasury expects to hit the statutory debt ceiling between January 14 and January 23," she wrote in a letter addressed to House and Senate leadership, at which point extraordinary measures would be used to prevent the government from breaching the nation's debt ceiling — which was suspended until Jan. 1, 2025. The department in the past deployed what are known as “extraordinary measures” or accounting maneuvers to keep the government operating. Once those measures run out, the government risks defaulting on its debt unless lawmakers and the president agree to lift the limit on the U.S. government’s ability to borrow. "I respectfully urge Congress to act to protect the full faith and credit of the United States," Yellen said. FILE - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks during a visit to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in Vienna, Va., on Jan. 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) The news came after Democratic President Joe Biden signed a bill into law last week that averted a government shutdown but did not include Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s core debt demand to raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit. Congress approved the bill only after a fierce internal debate among Republicans over how to handle Trump's demand. “Anything else is a betrayal of our country,” Trump said in a statement. After a protracted debate in the summer of 2023 over how to fund the government, policymakers crafted the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which included suspending the nation's $31.4 trillion borrowing authority until Jan. 1, 2025. Notably however, Yellen said, on Jan. 2 the debt is projected to temporarily decrease due to a scheduled redemption of nonmarketable securities held by a federal trust fund associated with Medicare payments. As a result, “Treasury does not expect that it will be necessary to start taking extraordinary measures on January 2 to prevent the United States from defaulting on its obligations," she said. The federal debt stands at about $36 trillion — after ballooning across both Republican and Democratic administrations. The spike in inflation after the COVID-19 pandemic pushed up government borrowing costs such that debt service next year will exceed spending on national security. Republicans, who will have full control of the White House, House and Senate in the new year, have big plans to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts and other priorities but are debating over how to pay for them. Many consumers may remember receiving their first credit card, either years ago in a plain envelope, or months ago from a smartphone app. Still other consumers may remember their newest card, maybe because it's the credit card they're now using exclusively to maximize cash back rewards or airline miles. But for most consumers, there's also a murky in-between where they add, drop and generally accumulate credit cards over time. Over the years, consumers may close some credit card accounts or leave some of their credit cards dormant as a backup form of payment, or perhaps left forgotten in a desk drawer. In the data below, Experian reveals the changes in consumers wallets in recent years. U.S. consumers, on average, carry fewer cards today than they did in 2017, when the typical wallet held 4.2 active credit cards. As of the third quarter (Q3) of 2023, consumers carried 3.9 cards on average. This average is up slightly since the early days of the pandemic, when consumers reduced their average credit card debt and number of accounts as the economy slowed. As Experian revealed earlier this year, credit card balances are still climbing, despite (and partially because of) higher interest rates. And while average balances are increasing, they are spread across fewer accounts than in recent years. Alternative financing—including buy now, pay later plans for purchases—may account for at least some of this discrepancy, as consumers gravitate toward these newer financing methods. In general, residents of higher-population states tend to carry more credit cards than those who live in states with fewer and smaller population centers. Nonetheless, the difference between the states is relatively small. Considering that the national average is around four credit cards per consumer, the four states with the fewest cards per consumer (Alaska, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) aren't appreciably different, with "only" about 3.3 credit cards per consumer. Similarly, the four states on the higher end of the scale where consumers have 4.2 or more credit cards are Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The disparity in average credit card counts is more apparent when the population is segmented by age, thanks in part to Generation Z, many of whom have yet to receive their first credit card. The average number of credit cards for these consumers was two, less than half of what older generations keep on hand. The average number of credit cards held by each generation follows the familiar pattern seen in credit card balances, which tend to increase in a consumer's middle age. It's not surprising that the number of credit card accounts follows a similar climb throughout young adulthood and middle age, then drops off in the retirement years. No matter how many credit cards you may have at the moment, keep in mind that the number of accounts has little if any bearing on one's FICO Score. Far more important is how consumers manage those accounts. This is easily demonstrable by quickly stepping through some of the factors that affect your credit scores . Longer credit histories do tend to have a positive effect on a consumer's credit score, but it's not something you can rush. Adhering to on-time payments and managing amounts owed will go far in improving credit scores, even absent a lengthy credit history. While accounts closed in good standing remain on your credit report for 10 years, canceling your oldest credit card account still has the potential to shorten your credit history when it is eventually removed. The impact of its removal depends on any other active credit cards in your credit file. Ultimately, the number of cards a particular individual carries is a personal decision. Justifications can be found for carrying a travel rewards card, a cash back card, a balance transfer card, a card for business transactions and other types of credit cards that other consumers may not have either the need or qualifications for. However, keeping track of numerous credit cards, whether or not a consumer is actively using all of them, can be a mentally taxing exercise. Not only that, credit card fees can add up and dull the benefit of carrying several credit cards. Organized consumers can benefit greatly from a wallet full of specialized cards, but for those seeking a more zen-like financial future, some judicial pruning may be in order. Methodology: The analysis results provided are based on an Experian-created statistically relevant aggregate sampling of our consumer credit database that may include use of the FICO Score 8 version. Different sampling parameters may generate different findings compared with other similar analysis. Analyzed credit data did not contain personal identification information. Metro areas group counties and cities into specific geographic areas for population censuses and compilations of related statistical data. This story was produced by Experian and reviewed and distributed by Stacker Media. Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.

Recent storms have served as a reminder of how vulnerable communities are from slippage of coal tips, a Welsh politician has said. Joel James MS, the shadow social partnership minister, was speaking in response to the Welsh Government's announcement that more than £100m will be invested into coal tip safety this Senedd term to expediate work on disused tips across the country and that a Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill will establish a Disused Tips Authority for Wales. Mr James said: “In addition to the weather there is a very real risk from scrambler bikes and 4x4 offroad vehicles that use the tips as a playground, ripping up the surface and destabilising them.” “The Welsh Conservatives welcome the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill that is being introduced and will be looking to ensure that more is done to stop damage from scramblers and 4x4 offroad vehicles, communities are involved in the decision-making process of making safe coal tips and that biodiversity is protected.” His comments come after the landslip in Cwmtillery after Storm Bert.