Latest News
See the latest news and get GPT analysis of articles
Debate heats up as Singapore prime minister says exclusive Taylor Swift deal isn't 'unfriendly' 2024-03-05 00:29:00+00:00 - Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Tuesday that a closed-door deal for Taylor Swift to perform in the city-state ensured she would not perform in other Southeast Asian countries during her Eras tour. "(Our) agencies negotiated an arrangement with her to come to Singapore and perform and to make Singapore her only stop in Southeast Asia," he said at a press conference at a regional summit in Melbourne, according to Reuters. The statement is the first confirmation from the city-state that the agreement for Swift to perform in Singapore contained exclusivity terms preventing her from performing in other countries. On Monday, Edwin Tong, Singapore's minister for culture, community and youth, declined to answer this question twice during a parliamentary session. He also did not reveal the size of the grant to Swift, but stated the amount is "not anywhere as high as speculated." watch now "Due to business confidentiality reasons, we cannot reveal the specific size of the grant or the conditions of the grant," he said. The issue gained prominence on Feb. 16 when Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin alleged Singapore gave Swift's team between $2 million and $3 million per show, in exchange for not performing in other regional cities, according to The Bangkok Post. A diplomatic thorn The payment of a grant to Swift's promoters has become a diplomatic thorn for Singapore, prompting criticism from neighboring countries for brokering a deal that shut them out from the highest-grossing tour of all time. Member of the Philippine House of Representatives Joey Salceda said this "isn't what good neighbors do" and added that such agreements are contrary to ASEAN principles, according to local media. Lee on Tuesday disputed this characterization, saying, "It has turned out to be a very successful arrangement. I don't see that as being unfriendly." Taylor Swift performs at Singapore's National Stadium on March 2, 2024. Singapore and Tokyo are the only stops Swift is making in Asia during her global Eras tour. Ashok Kumar/tas24 | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images Swift's six concerts in Singapore are expected to pump between $260 million and $372 million into the island's economy, assuming 70% of concertgoers come from overseas. During her first three concerts in Singapore, Swift asked her audience to applaud — first the locals, then those who had traveled from overseas to come to the show. In every instance, the applause of travelers was far louder. Average daily rates at hotels in Singapore rose from $256 to $400 this week, with bookings up 92% from travelers coming from Malaysia, 111% from Thailand and 189% from Indonesia, according to the travel software company RateGain. Swift's tour prior to Eras, her Reputation Stadium Tour in 2018, included only one stop in Asia — Tokyo. But her previous tours — Speak Now, Red and 1989 tours — included stops in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia. Shrewd or selfish? Singapore's agreement has sparked a debate on whether this is just smart dealmaking or greed. "It certainly was a bold, shrewd strategic move for Singapore," said Selena Oh, a Singapore-based communications director. But others say a winner-takes-all mentality harms regional tourism industries, which are still recovering from the pandemic, as well as fans who can't afford the steep travel prices to see Swift in person. "Slightly selfish with ONLY Singapore in mind and not the wider region. Clearly [Singapore authorities] aren't very caring for anyone other [than] themselves," said Christian de Boer, a Cambodia-based hotel managing director. You have to make your calculations and work out what's in Singapore and Singaporeans' best interest." Edwin Tong Singapore Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Some liken the deal to how cities vie to host major sports events, such as the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the World Cup. "Did anyone protest when F1 decided to come to Singapore? Is anyone pretending that there were no monetary or other material considerations?" said Irene Hoe, a Singapore-based editorial consultant. Concerts — which see artists traveling from city to city to reach their fans — haven't always been this competitive. But that may be changing as experience-led tourism pushes concerts into money-making juggernauts, with fans willing to travel across continents to see their favorite artists. A 'mean' deal?
Large number of 830,000 salmon fry die after released into California river 2024-03-05 00:18:00+00:00 - A large number of around 830,000 salmon fry released into Northern California’s Klamath River are believed to have died after they suffered gas bubble disease, state wildlife officials said Monday. The condition is caused by a severe change in pressure. It happened as the fish went through the Iron Gate Dam tunnel, the California Fish and Wildlife Department said. The tunnel and the dam of the same name will be removed later this year. The around 830,000 Chinook salmon fry were the first release from the Fall Creek Fish Hatchery, which was a $35 million project designed to support salmon populations in the Klamath River once it is fully undammed, the wildlife department, known as the CDFW, said in a statement. Juvenile Chinook salmon swim at Iron Fish Gate Hatchery in Siskiyou County, Calif., before their relocation to the Fall Creek facility in 2021. Travis VanZant / California Department of Fish and Wildlife The fish were released Feb. 26. How many of the around 830,000 fry died was not clear, a spokesperson for the department said, but it is being called a “high mortality rate.” There is no indication of water quality problems in the river, which is almost 270 miles long and travels from Oregon and through Northern California, and other healthy yearling coho and Chinook salmon came from downstream from the dam, the CDFW said. From now on until the dam and the tunnel are removed, any other releases will be carried out downstream of it, the department said. The Klamath River was once the third-largest salmon-producing river on the West Coast, and dams contributed to the decline since then, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The deaths of the fish are “yet another sad reminder of how the Klamath River dams have harmed salmon runs for generations,” the CDFW said.
AI boom in data centers has top tech companies spending more than major oil companies on capex 2024-03-05 00:04:00+00:00 - The race for new and upgraded data centers to handle the artificial-intelligence boom has the world’s top technology titans far outpacing major oil companies in capital expenditures, according to the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. Alphabet Inc. GOOG, -2.81% GOOGL, -2.76% , Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, -0.36% , Meta Platforms Inc. META, -0.82% and Microsoft Corp. MSFT, -0.14% — the four largest cloud infrastructure companies by market capitalization — have begun shelling out significantly more on capital expenditures than their counterparts in the oil industry since the pandemic erupted in 2020.
China EV shares are feeling the heat as price war concerns grow 2024-03-05 00:04:00+00:00 - New cars of the "Dolphin" model from Chinese car manufacturer BYD are in the harbor. Picture Alliance | Picture Alliance | Getty Images Chinese electric vehicle makers shares listed in Hong Kong fell on Tuesday as worries of price wars in the sector grew. China's EV market, the world's largest and most crowded, is seeing fierce competition from local players as well as U.S. giants like Tesla to win as much market share as possible through promotions and price cuts. "While across the board price cuts will put pressure on near-term earnings and margins, this could be offset by a boost in demand as EVs widen their appeal to a broader range of consumers," Yuqian Ding, head of China auto research at HSBC Qianhai told CNBC. While consumer interest is improving, the "wait for a better price" sentiment continues to constrain sales volumes for EV makers, Ding said. watch now At least 30% of China's entire auto market is made up of electric vehicles, with most of those EVs coming from homegrown brands. On Tuesday, most Chinese EVs continued to face pressure. Hong Kong-listed shares of Li Auto fell 3.9%, while Nio shares dropped 3.6% and Xpeng was down 1.8%. BYD shares were up 0.4%. Nio is set to report its December quarter earnings later in the day. A piece of China's EV pie Competition in the country's EV space has intensified, with local automakers pushing to outsell U.S. rival Tesla with fancy tech and competitive pricing. Tesla announced new incentives to lure consumers in China on Friday, including discounts in car insurance products, and preferential financing plans for a limited time only. Despite price cuts announced earlier, Tesla still lost market share in China in January, mainly in the large cities, according to Morgan Stanley. Li Auto launched a new EV called "Mega" — a multi purpose vehicle priced at 559,800 Chinese yuan ($77,756), and scheduled to start deliveries in March. The minivan comes equipped with a built-in refrigerator and sofa. Li Auto said last week it delivered 20,251 vehicles in February, up 21.8% from a year ago. However, month-over-month deliveries were down 35% from 31,165 vehicles in January. Stellantis -backed Leapmotor cut prices of its new EV version of the C10 SUV by nearly 20% compared with presale price, according to the South China Morning Post. "We have been reiterating that Leapmotor prices its vehicles based on production costs," SCMP reported, citing Leapmotor's founder and CEO Zhu Jiangming. Morgan Stanley research showed that Xpeng and Nio lost share across regions, while BYD saw gains in major cities but losses in less developed areas, where it saw increased competition from state-owned players. Analysts at the U.S. investment bank said Li Auto's market share waned in the last quarter of 2023, as investors continue to monitor if there will be a boost from the new model it launched last week. BYD well positioned BYD has been lowering prices of various EV models and launched a new version of its best-selling car on Monday. The company's Yuan Plus crossover, known overseas as the Atto 3, was priced lower than its discontinued predecessor, according to Reuters. "BYD has an unparalleled cost structure and product innovation ability, that stems from its high degree of vertical integration and will enable the company to thrive in the ongoing EV race in China and abroad," Bernstein analysts wrote in a client note. watch now
Target saw strong foot traffic in 2023 but a sharp dip in January, research says 2024-03-05 00:01:00+00:00 - Target Corp., which reports its fourth-quarter results on Tuesday morning, enjoyed strong foot traffic to its stores in 2023 before seeing a dip in January, according to data from analytics company Placer.ai. Visits to Target TGT, -3.09% during the fourth quarter of 2023 were up 1.6% year over year, according to Placer.ai, and also rose from the previous year in every quarter of 2023. Placer.ai’s research, which also analyzed foot traffic to big-box retailers Walmart Inc. WMT, +0.92% , Costco Wholesale Corp. COST, +1.30% , BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. BJ, -0.53% and Walmart subsidiary Sam’s Club, found that the superstore and wholesale space performed well across the board in 2023.
Target will report its earnings before the bell. Here's what to expect 2024-03-05 00:01:00+00:00 - The Target logo is seen on its store on 42nd Street in Times Square, New York City. Target will report its holiday-quarter results and year-ahead outlook on Tuesday. Here's what Wall Street analysts surveyed by LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv, are expecting for the company's fourth quarter: Earnings per share: $2.41 expected Revenue: $31.83 billion expected Target, which sells a lot of discretionary merchandise such as clothing and home goods, has posted declining comparable sales for two quarters in a row. The industry metric, also called same-store sales, takes out the effect of store openings, closures and renovations. The company previously said it anticipated that trend would continue, even during the holiday season. It said in November that it expected comparable sales to drop by around the mid-single-digits in the fiscal fourth quarter and adjusted earnings per share to range between $1.90 and $2.60. To attract value-focused shoppers, the cheap chic retailer has stressed low prices and higher-frequency categories, such as food and beauty. Over the holiday season, for example, the company emphasized a wide assortment of toys and gifts for under $25. Last month, it launched a new low-priced private brand called Dealworthy, including items such as socks, paper towels, laundry detergent and more, with most items costing under $10. Compared with big-box rival Walmart, Target has faced another challenge: Groceries make up a smaller part of its business. The category draws foot traffic and steadier sales, even as shoppers cut back in other areas. Grocery drives about 20% of Target's annual sales compared with nearly 60% of Walmart's annual sales in the U.S. Some of Target's stores are also losing a separate traffic driver: pharmacies. CVS Health said in January that it would close some locations in Target stores, as part of a broader plan by CVS to reduce its store count. CVS and Target declined to say how many of the pharmacies would be shuttered. Target will hold a financial meeting with investors on Tuesday in New York City. As of Monday's close, Target's shares are up nearly 6% so far this year. That falls short of the approximately 8% gains of the S&P 500 during the same period. Target's shares closed on Monday at $150.49 apiece, bringing the company's market value to nearly $70 billion. This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.
Opinion: Why is Elon Musk suing Open AI and Sam Altman? In a word: Microsoft. 2024-03-04 23:21:00+00:00 - In a striking turn of events, Elon Musk, Tesla’s TSLA, -7.16% CEO, has initiated legal action against OpenAI and its leadership, alleging that the organization he helped found has moved from its original altruistic mission toward a profit-driven approach, particularly after partnering with Microsoft MSFT, -0.14% . The lawsuit accentuates Musk’s deep-seated concerns that OpenAI has deviated from its foundational manifesto of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the betterment of humanity, choosing instead to prioritize financial gains. But is that really so, or is there something else at hand? Musk was deeply involved with OpenAI since its inception in 2015, as his concerns about AI’s potential risks and the vision to advance AI in a way that benefits humanity aligned with OpenAI’s original ethos as a non-profit organization. In 2018, however, Musk became disillusioned with OpenAI because, in his view, it no longer operated as a nonprofit and was building technology that took sides in political and social debates. The recent OpenAI drama that culminated with a series of significant changes in OpenAI’s structure and ethos, as well as a what can only be seen as Microsoft’s power grab, seems to have sparked Musk’s discontent. To understand his reasoning, it helps to remember that Microsoft is a company with a long history of litigation. Over the years, Microsoft has faced numerous high-profile legal battles related to its market practices. Here are some prominent cases to illustrate the issue: • In the United States v. Microsoft Corp. case, which began in 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Microsoft of holding a monopolistic position in the PC operating-systems market and taking actions to crush threats to that monopoly. In April 2000, the case resulted in a verdict that Microsoft had engaged in monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. • In Europe, Microsoft has faced significant fines for abusing its dominant market position. In 2004, the European Commission fined Microsoft 497.2 million euros, the largest sum it had ever imposed on a single company at the time. In 2008, Microsoft was fined an additional 899 million euros for failing to comply with the 2004 antitrust order. • In 2013, the European Commission levied a 561 million euro fine against Microsoft for failing to comply with a 2009 settlement agreement to offer Windows users a choice of internet browsers instead of defaulting to Internet Explorer. In light of these past litigations, it’s much easier to understand why OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman’s brief departure from the company and subsequent return late last year — which culminated in a significant shift in the organization’s governance and its relationship with Microsoft — was the straw that likely broke Musk’s back. After Altman was reinstated, Microsoft solidified its influence over OpenAI by securing a permanent position on its board. Furthermore, the restructuring of OpenAI’s board to include business-oriented members, rather than AI experts or ethicists, signaled a permanent shift in the organization’s priorities and marked a pivotal turn toward a profit-driven model underpinned by corporate governance. The consequences of this power grab are plain to see: Microsoft is already implementing various AI models designed by the company in its various products while none of the code is being released to the public. These models also include a specific political and ideological bias that makes them problematic from an ethical point of view. This too, is an issue that cannot be addressed due to the closed-source nature of AI models generated and shaped under the watchful eye of Microsoft. Musk’s own ventures, like xAI and Neuralink, suggest he’s still deeply invested in the AI space, albeit in a way he has more control over, presumably to ensure that the technology develops according to his vision for the future of humanity. On the other hand, proponents of Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI emphasize strategic and mutually-beneficial aspects. Microsoft’s $1 billion investment in OpenAI is viewed as a significant step in advancing artificial-intelligence technology as it allows OpenAI to utilize Microsoft’s Azure cloud services to train and run its AI software. Additionally, the collaboration is positioned as a way for Microsoft to stay competitive against other tech giants by integrating AI into its cloud services and developing more sophisticated AI models. Proponents say Microsoft’s involvement with OpenAI is a strategic business decision aimed at promoting Azure’s AI capabilities and securing a leading position in the industry. The partnership is framed as a move to democratize AI technology while ensuring AI safety, which aligns with broader industry goals of responsible and ethical AI development. It is also seen as a way for OpenAI to access necessary resources and expertise to further its research, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the partnership rather than a mere financial transaction. Hard truths and consequences While many point out that Musk winning the case is extremely unlikely, it’s still worth looking into potential consequences. Such a verdict could mandate that OpenAI returns to a non-profit status or open-source its technology, significantly impacting its business model, revenue generation and future collaborations. It could also affect Microsoft’s investment in OpenAI, particularly if the court determines that the latter has strayed from its founding mission, influencing the tech giant’s ability to protect its investment and realize expected returns. The lawsuit’s outcome might influence public and market perceptions of OpenAI and Microsoft, possibly affecting customer trust and market share, with Musk potentially seen as an advocate for ethical AI development. Additionally, the case could drive the direction of AI development, balancing between open-source and proprietary models, and possibly accelerating innovation while raising concerns about controlling and misusing advanced AI technologies. The scrutiny from this lawsuit might lead to more cautious approaches in contractual relationships within the tech sector, focusing on partnerships and intellectual property. Furthermore, the case could draw regulatory attention, possibly leading to increased oversight or regulation of AI companies, particularly concerning transparency, data privacy and ethical considerations in AI development. While Musk’s quest might seem like a longshot to some legal experts, the potential ramifications of this lawsuit extend far beyond the courtroom. More: Here’s what an AI chatbot thinks of Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman Also read: Microsoft hasn’t been worth this much more than Apple since 2003
Opinion: One reason for stock market’s rally: Expectations that AI will stay unregulated 2024-03-04 23:16:00+00:00 - There seems to be a bizarre disconnect between the surging U.S. stock market and the sad state of American politics. Winston Churchill supposedly quipped, “Americans always do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.” But in light of the impending rematch between incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump in this year’s U.S. presidential election, Churchill’s observation needs adjusting: Americans, apparently, do the right thing only after they have tried everything else twice. What explains this disconnect between the stock market’s buoyancy and the crisis facing American democracy? The market may simply believe that the president of the United States has limited influence over the domestic economy, at least in the short term. Or perhaps investors believe that artificial intelligence conquers all. But this interpretation overlooks the long-term consequences of possible policy decisions such as retreating from free trade (an area where Biden and Trump seem determined to outdo each other), urging the Federal Reserve to shift its focus away from inflation, and continuing on an unsustainable debt trajectory. When it comes to immigration, a top concern for voters, Trump’s restrictions would impede high-skilled immigration, while Biden’s open-border policy makes little sense. Alternatively, perhaps investors understand that the U.S. electorate has become so deeply divided that no president is likely to control both houses of Congress for more than a couple of years. With political gridlock becoming the norm in Washington, the Big Tech firms accounting for a large share of the stock market’s recent gains owing to an AI boom are less likely to face anti-monopoly regulation. To be sure, with Nvidia Corp. NVDA, +3.60% now rivaling Apple Inc.’s AAPL, -2.54% market capitalization, Biden has issued a sweeping executive order aimed at “managing the risks” posed by the rise of AI. But given the administration’s lackluster efforts to rein in the tech industry, it remains unclear how it intends to manage these risks. Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, one of the few people trying to revitalize U.S. antitrust policy, has been heavily scrutinized and criticized by the media, and her aggressive approach has produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court could soon strike down or limit state laws in Texas and Florida that seek to prevent social-media companies from making certain editorial judgments about the posts shared on their platforms. While most of the court seems wary of regulating online content, there is little doubt that unregulated social-media platforms and information echo chambers have exacerbated many of America’s problems, particularly political polarization and the mental-health crisis. Given that the risks posed by AI far exceed those associated with social media, we must not repeat the same mistake. While these emerging technologies hold the promise of improving our legal, ethical, economic and political systems, they could just as easily disrupt them in the absence of regulatory oversight. The evolution of financial regulation offers valuable insights into how to regulate AI without sacrificing innovation. Regulators, who tend to lag behind innovators, often struggle to balance efficiency and risk. Following the 2008 financial crisis, however, regulators managed to implement stringent measures that hampered market efficiency but also enabled banks to withstand the COVID-19 pandemic shock and subsequent inflationary pressures. The current stock-market rally is partly fueled by the expectation that AI will remain unregulated, despite the potential displacement of tens of millions of workers, the threat of political instability and the distortion of public discourse. The AI industry could eventually amass enough political power to quash any attempt to regulate it, mirroring the strategies used by banks before the global financial crisis and by social-media platforms today. Essentially, the market is operating under the assumption that AI companies will thrive, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. But a Trump victory would be bad for everyone. A second Trump term could trigger an escalation in the Sino-American trade war or lead to a U.S. withdrawal from NATO and a subsequent military conflict. Neither scenario is expected to benefit the domestic economy in the long term. Trump’s planned 10% tariff on almost all imported goods — which could prompt America’s trading partners to impose tariffs of their own — would undoubtedly make things worse. Moreover, Russia’s expansionist ambitions will not stop at Ukraine, and European countries will need years to shore up their military and technological capabilities, even if they manage to boost their defense spending to 2% of GDP this year. Allowing the world’s largest economy to be governed by Trump’s arbitrary and impulsive policies would weaken the institutions that underpin America’s economic strength. Conversely, the consequences of a Biden victory would be far more predictable, especially if the Democrats hold on to the Senate and retake control of the House of Representatives. Regrettably, this would likely result in significantly higher interest rates that constrain private demand, coupled with subtle pressures on the Fed to take greater risks with inflation. But given the challenges and uncertainties facing both the U.S. and global economies, it is difficult to see how the current stock-market boom can last — no matter who wins the presidential election in November. Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University and the recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics. He is the co-author (with Carmen M. Reinhart) of “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” (Princeton University Press, 2011) and the author of “The Curse of Cash” (Princeton University Press, 2016). This commentary was published with the permission of Project Syndicate — What’s Behind the US Stock-Market Disconnect? More: The last two scenarios when U.S. stocks went up this quickly? During the dot-com bubble and after recessions. Also read: Nvidia and other AI-fueled tech stocks are heading for a ‘magnificent exuberance’ bubble
Jason Kelce retirement video is a NFL masculinity master class 2024-03-04 23:12:29+00:00 - On Monday, Philadelphia Eagles center Jason Kelce tearfully announced his retirement from the NFL. At times becoming so emotional he could barely speak, Kelce said goodbye following a 13-year career that included seven Pro Bowl appearances, a Super Bowl win and the title of football’s best center in 2017, according to The Associated Press. There’s no reason to doubt that Kelce will be missed by his teammates, loyal Philadelphia fans and devoted NFL viewers who have spent more than a decade appreciating his unique style both on and off the field. (Long live Jason’s 2018 Super Bowl parade Mummer costume.) But Kelce’s brand of masculinity deserves praise, as well, and should be remembered as an indelible part of his special legacy. Kelce, with his barrel physique and full beard, looks like a walking stereotype of macho athletic invulnerability. Kelce, with his barrel physique and full beard, looks like a walking stereotype of macho athletic invulnerability. But the sensitivity and emotional intelligence he displayed Monday was a breath of fresh air. This was especially true when he talked about his wife of nearly six years, Kylie. Kelce arguably centered his wife throughout his farewell speech, crediting her — with a cracking voice and plenty of tears — for the joys of his career. “I still remember the moment she walked through the door,” Kelce recalled as he described in detail the night he met Kylie in 2014. “The first instance is burned into my retina — it was like she glided through the opening, an aura around her. Then she started talking and I thought: ‘Man, is this what love feels like?’ She was beautiful and smart, serious and playful. I knew right away. “I think it’s no coincidence that I have enjoyed my best years of my career with Kylie by my side,” he continued. “Every accolade I have ever received has come with her in my life. She has brought the best out of me with love, devotion, support, honesty, intelligence … and of course a swift kick in the a-- from time to time.” A successful man thanking the woman who maintained his home and cared for his children while he ascended to the highest echelon of his profession? It’s not exactly the highest bar. But it’s still worth celebrating, especially in the not-always progressive world of professional football, a career that isn’t necessarily conducive to an equitable share of domestic responsibilities. Indeed, the NFL has highlighted the sacrifices made by Jason’s mother, Donna, who supported not one but two sons on their all-encompassing quests to become professional athletes. Of course, this isn’t simply a product of the NFL. In one 2023 survey of 5,000 women across 10 countries, 37% of the women in heterosexual relationships said their partners’ careers take precedence. Other studies suggest men are more likely to receive all the credit for the work they’ve done alongside women, are more likely to tout their personal and professional abilities than women and are less likely to be grateful for what they have than women. Kelce is at least trying to challenge some of these patriarchal narratives. So is his younger brother, Travis. Jason Kelce and Travis Kelce in Baltimore on Jan. 28. Patrick Smith / Getty Images file In dating arguably the most powerful pop star on the planet, Travis Kelce has been lauded for what appears to be a refreshingly supportive relationship. When a former president of the United States tried to take credit for Taylor Swift’s success, Travis provided the antidote: public displays of affection and words of admiration from a man not afraid to be humble, publicly discuss his feelings and claim the title of Mr. Swift. This is the thread that connects the Kelce brothers: a masculinity that prioritizes affection over coldness, vulnerability over stoicism. Whether on the field after Super Bowl 58, in scene after scene captured throughout the brothers’ documentary (aptly named “Kelce”) or during Jason’s retirement speech — during which Travis was seen crying as his brother spoke — the tender, attentive closeness displayed between these two siblings is a reminder of what men can enjoy when they’re not held back by the confines of toxic masculinity. Jason Kelce's family — from left: his brother, Travis Kelce; his mother, Donna Kelce; his father, Ed Kelce; and his wife, Kylie McDevitt Kelce — listen as Kelce announces his retirement from the NFL in Philadelphia on Monday. Matt Rourke / AP Here, again, research is on the side of both equality and vulnerability. Studies suggest men living in the U.S. have fewer friends than women, are experiencing increasing rates of loneliness and may be less likely to seek out help — especially for mental health — than women. In other words, outdated ideas of masculinity that celebrate an emotionally stunted version of the alpha male prevent men from exploring and expressing their full humanity. As someone who has watched, at times reluctantly, the NFL for over 30 years, I will miss Jason Kelce and his stellar athleticism, as well as his shirtless, luchador mask-wearing antics. I will also miss his honesty, like when he called out his fellow players — including his brother — when they cross a line. But what I’ll remember the most, and what I hope Jason and his brother are helping to normalize, is a type of public masculinity that bucks the toxicity of traditional chauvinism. Jason Kelce knows that real men acknowledge the incredible contributions of their partners. And real men do cry.
Juli Lynne Charlot, Creator of the Poodle Skirt, Dies at 101 2024-03-04 23:08:37.232000+00:00 - What’s a nice Jewish viscountess to do when she has a title but no money, a party invitation but no clothes and a pair of scissors but no sewing skills? Invent the poodle skirt, of course. That, quite by accident, is what Juli Lynne Charlot did in late 1947, in the process creating a totem of midcentury material culture as evocative as the saddle shoe, the Hula-Hoop and the pink plastic lawn flamingo. Ms. Charlot, a New York native who died at her home in Tepoztlán, Mexico, on Sunday at 101, had been a Hollywood singer before her marriage in the mid-1940s to a viscount, or British nobleman. Fashion conscious but hopeless with a needle, she stumbled by necessity onto a pattern for a striking skirt that involved no sewing: Take a large swath of solid-colored felt, cut it into an expansive circle, adorn it with jaunty appliquéd figures in contrasting colors, snip a hole in the center and pop yourself in. The result, the embellished circle skirt, was ubiquitous throughout the 1950s, bought in droves by women and, in particular, adolescent girls. With its voluminous fabric that flared prettily when the wearer twirled, it was just the thing for a sock hop.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's Colorado ballot eligibility exposed more of its cracks 2024-03-04 22:55:11+00:00 - In reversing a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that disqualified former President Donald Trump from that state’s ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke with one voice on a matter of great legal and political importance — until it didn’t. This was the moment for the justices to demonstrate that they are not lawmakers pushing a policy agenda, but rather judges resolving disputes. However, despite their agreement on the outcome of this case — that individual states cannot kick Trump off their ballots — justices just couldn’t keep it together. These fracture lines do nothing to bolster the legitimacy of the court. The liberal justices issued a separate concurring opinion ultimately rebuking the conservative majority for going too far and answering legal questions that weren’t asked. These fracture lines do nothing to bolster the legitimacy of the court. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars previous officeholders who engaged in an insurrection from once again serving in certain government posts. It was designed to prevent public officials who’d fought for the Confederacy and tried to destroy our government from serving in our government. Section 3 took on a new significance in the wake of Jan. 6, 2021. Some states used that section to conclude that Trump, due to his involvement in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, cannot appear on their election ballot. On Monday morning, the Supreme Court resoundingly disapproved of those interpretations. The court issued its decision as a per curiam opinion, that is, one attributed to the entire court and not a specific justice. A separate opinion written by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor caused Justice Amy Coney Barrett to write her own concurring opinion. Barrett’s opinion both espoused agreement with the liberal justices that the majority went further than it needed to, but complained that because the liberal justices wrote separately, they fractured the court’s attempt at unanimity. Barrett’s concerns are well founded. The liberal justices couldn’t help but write a separate opinion to voice their disagreement with the breadth of the majority’s position. Presumably, the liberals, outnumbered on the court 3 to 6, couldn’t convince any conservative justice other than Barrett to draft a narrower opinion hewing specifically to the question presented. And their concurring opinion fell flat in clearly articulating why the majority was wrong to provide guidance as to how Section 3 can be implemented, and exactly how, in their view, the majority protects Trump from “future controversy.” If, as many of us suspect, the liberal justices’ fear is that this opinion will prevent Congress from declining to certify an Electoral College vote won by an insurrectionist, it should have said so specifically. This is a case that all Americans should be able to read and understand. In fairness, however, the conservative justices couldn’t pull themselves back from writing an opinion that was largely advisory. The bottom line is that the court missed an opportunity to show us that they can reach an agreement on the most consequential constitutional questions of our times. To explain why the court’s apparent agreement on this big constitutional question fell apart, we need to dive into the opinions. In the per curiam opinion, which is the controlling opinion, the court concluded that states cannot, on their own, enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump, a candidate for the presidency. The court concluded that “nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.” In other words: The states lack the power to kick federal officeholders or candidates off election ballots without more guidance from the federal government. The court missed an opportunity to show us that they can reach an agreement on the most consequential constitutional questions of our times. The opinion then went further. It found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress, not the states, the power to enforce that disqualification provision by passing a law. What kind of law? Essentially, the court found that before states can take any action under Section 3, Congress has to pass enabling legislation telling states exactly when they can and cannot disqualify federal candidates from election ballots. The court’s biggest concern about allowing states to go it alone in this area can be boiled down to one word: “patchwork.” The court worried, as the justices said during oral arguments, that leaving this decision to the states could lead to different conclusions about a presidential candidate’s eligibility in different states and that this, in turn, could lead to “chaos,” particularly for voters who would not know if their votes counted. The concurring opinion by the liberal justices wanted the per curiam opinion to stop at the top-line takeaway. They did not want the majority to opine "on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so.” For the liberal justices, there was no need for the majority to say that the only way to disqualify a federal candidate for engaging in an insurrection is for Congress to first pass “implementing legislation.” They argued that the per curiam opinion wrongly “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.” While it isn’t clear from their concurring opinion, my best guess is that the liberal justices are concerned that the per curiam opinion would hamstring Congress’ power in the wake of a presidential election. For instance, the three liberals are likely concerned that the majority’s decision would prevent Congress from refusing to certify the Electoral College vote if an insurrectionist wins at the ballot box. It is disappointing that the members of the court were unable to reconcile their differences. This is a court plagued by ethical scandals and questions of legitimacy, a court tearing through precedent and espousing a conservative vision of the law. This was the moment for the court to speak with one voice. The court understood that when it handed down its decision in Brown v. Board in 1954. It did not in Bush v. Gore, where a slim conservative majority of the court handed the presidential election to George W. Bush, over the objections of the liberal minority. This is a court that, fairly or not, could not sing with one voice for more than a stanza. The cracks showed. Justice Barrett’s takeaway is mine as well. “All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”
Ex-Twitter executives sue Elon Musk for $128m in unpaid severance 2024-03-04 22:45:00+00:00 - Elon Musk is facing a $128m lawsuit from four former Twitter executives who allege the billionaire tech mogul failed to pay them severance after buying the social network. The suit, filed on Monday in California, follows a separate legal complaint last year by rank-and-file employees seeking $500m in unpaid severance. “Because Musk decided he didn’t want to pay Plaintiffs’ severance benefits, he simply fired them without reason, then made up fake cause and appointed employees of his various companies to uphold his decision,” the suit alleges. The four plaintiffs in the case include Twitter’s former CEO Parag Agrawal, former CFO Ned Segal, former general counsel Sean Edgett and former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde. Musk fired all of them amid a string of mass layoffs after he acquired Twitter for $44bn in 2022, claiming at the time he did not need to pay the executives severance because they were terminated for cause. “‘Cause’ is not ‘board-approved business decisions that Musk dislikes’,” the complaint reads. “He claimed in his termination letters that each Plaintiff committed ‘gross negligence’ and ‘willful misconduct’ without citing a single fact in support of this claim.” Musk and X have not issued any public comments on the case. Musk’s frequent legal representative, the lawyer Alex Spiro, did not immediately return request for comment. The lawsuit is one of several legal actions related to Musk’s unwilling takeover of Twitter and subsequent operation of the platform, which he renamed X. The National Labor Relations Board also issued a complaint earlier this year alleging that Musk’s SpaceX rocket company illegally fired eight workers because they issued a letter criticizing his leadership. Musk laid off about 80% of Twitter staff after he took over the company, he told the BBC in an interview last year. The site has struggled in numerous ways since his acquisition, including facing declining ad revenues and researchers documenting a surge in hate speech as Musk rolled back content moderation efforts. He originally tried to back out of the acquisition, but Twitter sued to force its completion. Musk has blamed the decline of ad revenue on anti-hate monitoring groups that published reports detailing racist and extremist content on the platform. He launched suits against two of the organizations, Media Matters and the Center For Countering Digital Hate, which are currently ongoing. A California judge is expected to decide this week on whether to dismiss the suit against the Center For Countering Digital Hate.
Why Jason and Travis Kelce could be the next $100 million podcasters 2024-03-04 22:06:00+00:00 - Star offensive lineman Jason Kelce retired from the NFL on Monday after 13 seasons with the Philadelphia Eagles, but will continue his burgeoning career as a podcaster. Jason and his brother Travis Kelce’s “New Heights” podcast, which launched in September 2022, has routinely appeared at No. 1 on various podcast charts on Apple AAPL, -2.54% and Spotify SPOT, +2.37% , and is reportedly being shopped around to media brands, according to a report last week from Bloomberg News. A new deal for the “New Heights” show could be a massive one, as the market for the top podcasters has been robust in recent years. Last month, Spotify’s Joe Rogan renewed his deal with the streamer for an estimated $250 million and the “SmartLess” podcast moved from Amazon to SiriusXM LSXMK, +0.70% in a $100 million deal. “Companies want Jason and Travis Kelce’s podcast because of the deep relationship they have with their audiences,” Eric Silver, head of development at Multitude, a podcast collective studio and ad-sales provider, told MarketWatch. “That’s the most important thing in podcasting.” But with top podcasts getting multimillion-dollar deals, what type of payout could the “New Heights” crew expect? “I wouldn’t be surprised if it was around the same as ‘SmartLess.’ I wouldn’t be surprised if it was $100 million,” Silver said, while comparing the current market for podcasters to a free-agency period in sports. The podcast industry has moved away from exclusivity in recent years. For example, popular shows like “The Joe Rogan Experience” and “Call Her Daddy” were once available exclusively for Spotify subscribers, but now are available on all platforms. Although deals vary across the industry, a company that would pay the Kelces for “New Heights” would be most interested in the advertising money, Silver explained. Essentially a company like Amazon AMZN, -0.36% , or Spotify or iHeartMedia IHRT, -5.31% would pay a certain amount of money to the “New Heights” owners, $100 million for example, and in exchange would keep all or most of the money the show makes from its advertisements or future branding deals. The podcast, which was already a big hit among football fans, saw a boost when Travis Kelce began dating Taylor Swift last year, leading to more interest and listeners to their show. Jason Kelce, 36, has made $81.7 million in salary during his 13-year NFL playing career, and Travis Kelce, 34, has made $76.9 million in salary over his 10-year career with the Kansas City Chiefs. Those numbers exclude sponsorship and podcast money. Representatives for the Kelces did not respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment. See also: Caitlin Clark is turning pro. Why she could make more money staying in college one more year. The former Eagles lineman announced his retirement on Monday in a 45-minute press conference where he thanked the city of Philadelphia, his wife, Kylie, and former coach Andy Reid — who now coaches his brother on the Chiefs. Jason Kelce ended his career with 193 regular-season games played, seven Pro Bowl appearances and a Super Bowl championship. “It has always been a goal of mine to play my whole career in one city,” Jason Kelce said. “I couldn’t have dreamt a better one if I tried.”
Broncos cut star QB Russell Wilson after lackluster seasons following trade from Seahawks 2024-03-04 22:06:00+00:00 - The Denver Broncos said Monday they will release quarterback Russell Wilson after two seasons with the team. "We spoke to Russell Wilson today to inform him of his release after the start of the league year," which is March 13, the team said in a statement. The Broncos thanked Wilson, 35, for his contributions. The team continued, "We are focused on building the strongest team possible for the 2024 season and beyond." Wilson was part of a blockbuster trade-and-salary deal in 2022 that brought him on board from the Seattle Seahawks. Denver had signed Wilson to a five-year, $245 million extension, NBCSports.com reported. The deal wasn't as fruitful as the team wanted, the league's "Around the NFL" reported. The Broncos went 13-21 during Wilson's time, and late last season head coach Sean Payton benched Wilson and started Jarrett Stidham instead. Last season, Wilson completed 66.4% of his passes for 3,070 yards with 26 touchdowns and eight interceptions, according to NFL statistics. The timing of the release means the team can avoid paying a $37 million guarantee in 2025. It's still under contract to pay Wilson $39 million for 2024, NBCSports.com reported. By releasing Wilson after the start of the league year on March 13 but designating him as a post-June 1 release, the Broncos can also spread the payout committed to his contract over multiple seasons and soften its impact on the team's salary cap, according to NBCSports.com. Wilson's NFL career started in 2012 with a season on the Seahawks during which he matched Peyton Manning's record for most touchdown passes, 26, thrown by a rookie in a single season. Fans voted him the league's Rookie of the Year. Seattle head coach Pete Carroll drafted Wilson in the third round from the University of Wisconsin after he transferred from North Carolina State University. While he was playing for his high school team, Wilson attended the Manning Passing Academy founded by Manning, the former Indianapolis Colts and Broncos quarterback. Wilson said in a statement after Monday's announcement, "Broncos Country, Thank You!" “Tough times don’t last, but tough people do,” he said. “God’s got me. I’m excited for what’s next.”
Former Twitter execs say Elon Musk still owes them $128 million in severance 2024-03-04 21:48:13+00:00 - Four former Twitter execs, including ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, are suing Elon Musk over their severance. They are collectively asking for $128 million, according to the suit. Musk has previously said he fired the execs for cause and doesn't owe severance. NEW LOOK Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address Sign up By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . You can opt-out at any time. Advertisement Four former Twitter lieutenants who were fired following Elon Musk's 2022 takeover are now suing him, claiming unpaid severance. They are collectively asking for $128 million, according to the federal lawsuit filed Monday in California obtained by Business Insider. The plaintiffs in the suit are former CEO Parag Agrawal, former CFO Ned Segal, former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, and former general counsel Sean Edgett. The dispute has been ongoing for more than a year, according to The Wall Street Journal, after Musk said he fired the executives for cause and did not owe them severance. Advertisement "This is the Musk playbook: to keep the money he owes other people, and force them to sue him," the suit reads. "Even in defeat, Musk can impose delay, hassle, and expense on others less able to afford it." An attorney for Elon Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. A spokesperson for the plaintiffs had no further comment beyond what was described in the complaint. This isn't the only severance-related suit Musk and X have faced. Last month, settlement talks surrounding a $500 million proposed class action suit over unpaid severance failed to reach a resolution, Reuters reported at the time. Separately, six former senior managers are also suing the company for severance pay. Agrawal, Segal, and Gadde also sued Twitter in August for over $1 million, claiming the company owed them money for legal fees related to separation actions. Advertisement The $128 million suit filed Monday describes a scene from Musk's biography by Walter Isaacson, where the polarizing entrepreneur fast-tracks the closing of the acquisition precisely so he can fire Agrawal and other C-Suite execs for cause before their lucrative stock options vested. Agrawal bitterly feuded with Musk prior to his termination at the company over bots and other issues, while Segal, the former CFO, previously said navigating Musk's backtracking around the deal had "pulled on every mental muscle I've developed in 48 years."
Supreme Court temporarily blocks new Texas immigration enforcement law 2024-03-04 21:47:00+00:00 - WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a new Texas immigration law in response to a Biden administration request. In an order issued by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court froze a lower court decision that would have allowed the law to go into effect Sunday. The ruling is now blocked until March 13, giving all nine justices more time to determine what next steps to take. Alito also ordered Texas to respond to the Biden administration request by March 11. The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties.
Chick-fil-A asks customers to throw out Polynesian sauce packets over allergen concerns 2024-03-04 21:39:00+00:00 - Chick-fil-A is asking customers to throw out some Polynesian sauce packets purchased last month because they may pose a health risk. In a notice at the top of its homepage first posted last week, the fast food giant said the Polynesian "dipping cups" sold between February 14 through 27 may contain a different sauce that includes wheat and soy allergens. The recall does not apply to Polynesian sauces sold as squeeze bottles in stores. Customers with questions should call Chick-fil-A CARES at 1 (866)-232-2040.
United Airlines expects busiest spring break ever despite travelers' cost concerns 2024-03-04 21:33:00+00:00 - United Airlines expects its busiest spring break ever this year, even as travelers say they are concerned about rising costs. The carrier said Monday it expects to serve more than 21 million passengers between March 8 and April 21 — up nearly 10% compared with last year. That equates to more than 200,000 people per day on average during the period — about 15,000 more people flying per day than last year. United said it expects the busiest travel day to be Friday, March 22, when more than 500,000 passengers are slated to travel via the carrier. Likewise, the week of March 25 will be the busiest travel week, with about 480,000 people flying each day that week, on average. Travel group Expedia separately reported last month that the April 8 solar eclipse appears to be driving some of the biggest surges in bookings, with locations in Texas — the state with one of the largest exposures to the event — nearly doubling; searches for Dallas are up 95% year on year, Expedia said, while Austin searches are up 90%. United and Expedia both said traditional spring getaway locations like Florida, Cancun and Las Vegas remain at the top of this year's most-sought destinations list. According to the travel booking group Hopper, 90% of survey respondents traveling this spring said price and affordability are top of mind. Yet despite higher demand, prices are actually down this year, according to Hayley Berg, lead economist with Hopper. A "good deal" average price for someone who plans ahead for a spring break trip in the U.S. is down 2% from last year and 11% from 2019 to approximately $250, Hopper data show. In fact, the lower prices are helping drive demand, Berg said. Thanks to increased competition from low-cost carriers, increased seating capacity on planes, and a return to full-strength staffing, the price the average consumer is likely to encounter when booking is continuing to fall — a trend that had been occurring before the onset of Covid-19 in 2020. "It's been great for consumers," she said. "Pre-pandemic, prices were down consistently for years. It's something that's allowed the millennial generation to have travel be something they do a lot of."
Why Do Magic Mushrooms Bruise Blue? Science Solves The Mystery 2024-03-04 21:31:00+00:00 - Loading... Loading... This article was originally published on Psychedelic Spotlight and appears here with permission. Psilocybin mushrooms, commonly known as magic mushrooms, have fascinated both the scientific community and psychedelic enthusiasts for ages. One of the most intriguing aspects of these fungi is their tendency to turn blue when bruised or mishandled. This article dives deep into this phenomenon, exploring the science behind it, its impact on potency, and how it influences the way we handle and consume these mind-bending fungi. The Science Behind Shrooms' Blue Coloration The blue coloration of magic mushrooms is a chemical reaction triggered by damage or stress. This process, similar to how an apple turns brown when cut, is due to the oxidation of psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in these mushrooms. Source: © 2019 Claudius Lenz et al | Proposed reaction scheme for the conversion of psilocybin into blue pigments When the psychedelic mushroom's cell walls are broken, enzymes within it interact with psilocybin, converting it into psilocin. Once psilocin is exposed to air, it oxidizes and leaves deep blue spots where the bruising occurs. Other non-psychedelic mushrooms bruise blue, too, when the gyrocyanin or pulvinic acid inside them oxidizes, but this explanation didn’t fit the unique composition of psilocybin mushrooms. The following Reddit video illustrates how boletes mushrooms instantly turn blue when bruised. Claudius Lenz et al. set out to discover the composition of this blue pigment and its utility, publishing a paper with their findings in late 2019. The group found this blue pigment is actually a blend of compounds resulting from the breakdown of psilocybin. After isolating the compound with various analytical methods, they discovered that it is similar to indigo, the blue dye used for jeans. It originates from a cascade reaction where psilocybin is converted to psilocin, which then oxidizes and finally polymerizes, forming this blue pigment. The researchers theorized that psilocybin mushrooms produce this pigment to defend themselves from predators, as they are toxic to insects that may feed on the fruiting body. Is this pigment harmful to humans as well? Continue reading to find out. Are Bruised Magic Mushrooms Safe to Eat? If your mushrooms have bruised blue, don’t panic, as they are still safe for consumption. The blue color is merely an indicator of the psilocybin's exposure to air. However, don’t confuse blue bruises with black spots, which may indicate mold growth. If your mushrooms get moldy, you should discard them immediately. Ingesting mold could jeopardize your health and lead to hospitalization. Does Bruising Affect Psilocybin Mushrooms' Potency? Source: © 2019 Claudius Lenz et al Yes, it does. One of the most prevalent myths is that the bluer the mushroom, the more potent it is. However, this is far from the truth. In reality, the blue bruises indicate oxidation and, therefore, a decrease in its concentration of tryptamines. Understanding this and trying to prevent it is crucial for users who seek to maximize their psychedelic experience. Next, we’ll give you some valuable tips for storing your mushrooms properly and keeping them spotless. Loading... Loading... Maximizing Potency Through Proper Storage The key to preserving the potency of magic mushrooms lies in proper handling and storage. Drying the mushrooms correctly and storing them in a cool, dark, and dry place can help minimize oxidation. There are four main methods of drying your mushrooms, each being more or less involved or time-consuming. You can opt for air drying, fan drying, oven drying, or using a dehydrator. Whichever method you choose, you must ensure that your shrooms are cracker-dry, meaning they snap and crumble from light pressure. From there, you can store your dried mushrooms in a clean mason jar with an airtight lid. Always keep the container in a cool, dark, and dry place, and consider adding a desiccant pack to the jar if you live in a particularly humid place. If your mushrooms have already turned blue and you want to store them long-term, consider making blue honey. What Is Blue Honey? Blue honey, a mixture of bruised blue mushrooms and honey, is not only a method of preservation but also an innovative way of consuming psilocybin. This mixture extends the shelf life of the mushrooms and offers a different, more palatable way to experience their effects. Don’t let its name confuse you, as you can make blue honey with fresh, spotless mushrooms, but it may not develop a blue color once it’s ready for consumption. Conclusion While often misunderstood, the blueing of magic mushrooms is a natural and harmless chemical reaction, and understanding this phenomenon can enhance your experience. Remember that there’s no need to discard bruised mushrooms since they are safe to eat, but you should avoid this phenomenon from happening since it will reduce their potency. As with any psychedelic substance, it's crucial to approach their use with respect, knowledge, and caution. There’s a plethora of resources online that can help you demystify them and become an informed psychonaut. References Lenz, C., Wick, J., Braga, D., García-Altares, M., Lackner, G., Hertweck, C., Gressler, M., & Hoffmeister, D. (2020). Injury-Triggered Blueing Reactions of Psilocybe “Magic” Mushrooms. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 59(4), 1450-1454. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201910175 LEVINE, W. Formation of Blue Oxidation Product from Psilocybin. Nature 215, 1292–1293 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1038/2151292a0 This article is from an external unpaid contributor. It does not represent Benzinga's reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.
How major US stock indexes fared Monday, 3/4/2024 2024-03-04 21:13:53+00:00 - Stocks edged lower on Wall Street at the start of a busy week. The S&P 500 slipped 0.1% Monday, coming off its latest all-time high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.2%, and the Nasdaq composite fell 0.4%. Later this week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will speak before Congress. What he says could sway expectations for when the Fed will start cutting interest rates, now expected in June. The latest monthly jobs update will also arrive at the end of the week. In Japan, the Nikkei 225 topped 40,000 for the first time. Bitcoin also rose, while gold set a record. On Monday: The S&P 500 fell 6.13 points, or 0.1%, to 5,130.95. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 97.55 points, or 0.2%, to 39,989.83. The Nasdaq composite fell 67.43 points, or 0.4%, to 16,207.51. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 2.09 points, or 0.1%, to 2,074.31. For the year: The S&P 500 is up 361.12 points, or 7.6%. The Dow is up 1,300.29 points, or 3.5%. The Nasdaq is up 1,196.16 points, or 8%. The Russell 2000 is up 47.23 points, or 2.3%.