Wednesday, September 17, 2025

 
Home Blog Page 15

Rep. Ilhan Omar Suggests Trump’s America is Worse Than Somalia: ‘I Don’t Remember Ever Witnessing Anything Like That’ – Omar Fled Somalia in a Plane When Their Compound Was Attacked by 20 Men | The Gateway Pundit

TheGatewayPundit
-
0
Rep. Ilhan Omar Suggests Trump’s America is Worse Than Somalia: ‘I Don’t Remember Ever Witnessing Anything Like That’ – Omar Fled Somalia in a Plane When Their Compound Was Attacked by 20 Men | The Gateway Pundit


Far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar has insisted that her home country of Somalia were not as bad America is under President Trump.

The Minnesota Congresswoman made the comments during an appearance this weekend on the YouTube channel Democracy Now!, where she complained about the Trump administration’s policy of mass deportations and restoring law and order to cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago.

She explained:

Armed men who are in plainclothes that are snatching people off the streets, unwilling to identify themselves. You have the military being deployed in our streets. My God, this is America. You have states’ rights being disregarded. You know, the constitutional crisis that’s being created in front of our eyes.

And the same week where we have a president who has deployed the military, who are trained to kill our enemies, not Americans, but our enemies, are in our streets. It’s the same week that we are going to have a military parade. Can you imagine that image that is going to be coming out of our country?

I mean, I grew up in a dictatorship. And I don’t even remember ever witnessing anything like that. To have a democracy, a beacon of hope for the world, to now be turned into one of the worst countries where the military are in our streets without any regard for people’s constitutional rights.

While our president is spending millions of dollars prompting himself up like a failed dictator with a military parade. It is really shocking and it should be a wake-up call for all Americans to say this is not the country we were born in, this is not the country we believe in, this is not the country our founding fathers imagined, and this is not the country that is supported by our constitution, our ideals, our values.

We should all collectively be out in the streets rejecting what is taking place this week.

Watch the clip below:

When Omar and her family arrived in the U.S. in 1995, Somalia was already a failed state.

The central government had been overthrown years earlier, leaving the country carved up by rival warlords and militias who terrorized civilians with violence, extortion, and checkpoints.

Law and order had completely disintegrated, and famine and disease had already killed hundreds of thousands.

That same year, the United Nations abandoned its failed peacekeeping mission, pulling out after years of bloodshed and humiliation.

Somalia was left a stateless wasteland where survival depended on clan loyalties and the barrel of a gun.

Radical Democrat Ilhan Omar and her privileged family fled Somalia in a plane after a gang of 20 armed men attacked their private compound.

Flashback: Ilhan Omar’s Father was Top Propaganda Official in Genocidal Somalian Barre Regime – Then He Changed His and Her Name and Entered US Illegally

The country’s situation has not improved much since. It is widely considered the most dangerous country on earth, with the U.S. State Department urging Americans not to travel there under any circumstances.




This story originally appeared on TheGateWayPundit

'Violence, hooliganism, fraud: Far-right populist Nigel Farage regards Tommy Robinson as too fringe'

France24
-
0
'Violence, hooliganism, fraud: Far-right populist Nigel Farage regards Tommy Robinson as too fringe'

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Sunday Britain would not tolerate people feeling intimidated “because of their background or the colour of their skin” after a large far-right protest was marked by battles with police. In his first comments on Saturday’s rally organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson and attended by up to 150,000 people, according to police, Starmer also condemned attacks on police on officers. For in-depth analysis and a deeper perspective, Eve Irvine welcomes Renaud Foucart, Economist and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at Lancaster University Management School. 


This story originally appeared on France24

Vet says changing how often you feed dog could have benefits

Express.co.uk
-
0
Vet says changing how often you feed dog could have benefits


Every dog owner wants to do right by their beloved pet – and this includes ensuring their emotional and physical needs are properly met.

However, some owners have found themselves in heated debates over whether you should feed your dog once, twice or three times a day – with countless owners sharing their feeding routines across social media platforms.

On Reddit, one user said: “I read that feeding your dogs once a day is more beneficial but my dogs are used to eating twice a day, though they don’t eat their breakfast most of the time.”

In response, one user said: “Dogs who are fed once a day are more likely to bloat. Personally, my dogs throw up if their stomachs are empty, and feeding twice a day prevents this.”

Another user chimed in: “Twice a day for mine. Mine gets the hunger pukes if he doesn’t eat his breakfast, so one meal a day doesn’t work for him.”

A third user added: “Thrice. I have older dogs and many dogs develop acid reflux and other issues when older. The third time helps keep them from getting nauseous overnight and eating grass to vomit in the morning.”

Putting the debate to rest once and for all, experts at VAC Animal Hospitals recommend feeding your dog at least two meals per day – and trying to feed your dog at the same time every day.

A statement explains: “Feeding your dog does not have to be mysterious. By recognising a few key concepts and attributes of dogs we can create a very reasonable feeding plan for them.

“The most common recommendation is to feed your dog at least two meals per day and there are a few reasons for this.

“Dogs are creatures of habit. We can use this fact to our advantage by creating a regular feeding schedule and sticking to it.

“A regular feeding schedule helps with house training puppies, as well as adult rescue dogs who have not been taught household manners.”

By providing meals for your pet at consistent times each day, you’re establishing a “concrete event” and building routine into their daily life.

Moreover, you’ll be able to detect any problems they might be facing through their dietary behaviour.

The statement continues: “A disruption in eating patterns can serve as a warning sign of illness. When dogs consume food on a regular schedule, that habit becomes strong. It is easy to see if all the food from a meal is consumed.

“If food is left, whether all or part of a meal, that is an important signal that something is wrong, and it is time to schedule a veterinary appointment.”

Nevertheless, some dogs are less driven by food and would flourish equally well on a single meal per day – suggesting the guideline isn’t absolute.

“In an ideal world, at least two meals per day is best, based on the reasons described above,” the statement continues. “Some dogs are less food-motivated and do fine with one meal per day.

“Others may need more frequent meals, such as dogs that only eat small volumes of food at a time or dogs with medical conditions like gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), who are prone to reflux if their stomach is empty for too long.

“A third meal can be added as a ‘lunch’ or a bedtime snack, depending on the needs of the individual.”



This story originally appeared on Express.co.uk

How to Spot a Real Day Trading Mentor (and Avoid Pretenders)

Entrepreneur
-
0
How to Spot a Real Day Trading Mentor (and Avoid Pretenders)


Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

There is no shortage of people who talk a really impressive game about how they’re rich, have the whole “day trading” thing dialed in, and are willing to teach you how easy it can be to follow in their footsteps to become the next great day trader.

I’m not one of them.

Yes, I day trade for a living, and I’ve done OK. But I’m first in line to tell you that day trading is not easy. It takes dedicated effort over time to start becoming solid at day trading. Then it takes even more time and work to turn it into a profession.

You have two main choices when it comes to learning day trading: You can learn by doing, or get a teacher. Teaching yourself — in other words, making all the mistakes yourself — is a really costly way to do it, in time, money, and stress. I recommend that you stand on someone else’s shoulders and at least avoid many of the mistakes they made.

Because this is not a sales pitch to stand on my shoulders, I will describe five things to look for in a day trading teacher. You can then apply those tests to whichever teachers you find.

Related: Before You Start Day Trading, Know These Stages

1. You want someone who’s seen it all

How long ago did they begin to day trade? You don’t want someone who claims to have done great in the last few months or maybe a year, and now feels bulletproof. The strongest teachers will have traded and survived through great markets, but also sideways markets and downright terrible ones.

You also don’t want someone who claims to be “a natural” at day trading; in fact, you should hope they have lots of figurative scars, which often accompany lessons thoroughly learned.

2. They need to be currently in the game

Michael Phelps may have hung up his competitive swimsuit years ago, but he could be a great swimming coach for decades to come. Not too much changes in competitive swimming, other than younger people regularly breaking records.

Not so with day trading. The markets constantly change in terms of which stocks are listed, regulations being updated and technology continually improving.

Your teacher should be trading every week and preferably every day. Day trading is difficult enough; you shouldn’t make it even more difficult by working with someone who’s been a spectator for too long.

3. They must be able to explain and remember

We’ve all known some people who are great at what they do, but terrible at explaining it to others. Maybe they’re not very articulate, or they speak so fast you can’t follow them.

When I say “able to remember,” I mean that experts can easily forget what it was like to be a beginner. After making literally 25,000 trades in my career, I can glance at four monitors filled with hundreds of bits of data, and it all seems so clear to me. But I do remember the feeling of confusion and even despair while looking at just a fraction of this firehose for the first time.

Look for someone who’s clear, patient and willing to explain — sometimes again and again — until the topic makes sense to you. Day trading is all about near-instantaneous judgments, but your questioning and learning zone should be judgment-free.

Related: Want to Be a Stronger Mentor? Start With These 4 Questions

4. Seek a specialist

If you have a heart condition and need surgery, do you want to go to a surgeon who’s worked on a few hearts, done some tennis elbows and is a fairly good plastic surgeon, too?

You want the person with deep experience. The kind who could write a 500-page book that’s an “Introduction to…” instead of the 50-page pamphlet that’s “The complete guide” to something. Although many day trading principles indeed apply to commodities, cryptocurrency and other investments, I have yet to meet someone who’s equally expert at all those types of investments. I certainly am not.

It may be true that you don’t yet know what specific investments you want to focus on. That’s cool; shop around! But at some point, when you decide the investment type you want to bear down on, look for a teacher who’s done the same thing.

5. Insist on a truth teller

Of course, you want a teacher to make it as easy as possible, but day trading is not easy. It’s not even easy for me at my stage, because every day I must earn any reward, and am quickly punished for forgetting key principles. Stay well away from anyone who gives you the impression that day trading can be picked up without much difficulty.

Also, it’s incredibly important that you find a teacher who shows you ALL of their trades — the fabulous ones, the okay ones, and the “what were you thinking” terrible trades. I can’t say much about day trading with absolute certainty, but I’m certain about this: Every trader on the planet continues to have green days and red days. Every trader loses occasionally.

The only difference is how much they’ve lost, and what they do about it. The smart, surviving traders check themselves into what I call “trader rehab.” This allows them to return to the basics, rebuild their confidence, and get back in the game. Anyone who’s not showing you these scars is not being straight with you, and they should not have your trust.

Social media is full of people who say they took up day trading and scored. More power to them; I do believe in beginner’s luck and once had it myself. You don’t need a teacher at all to have beginner’s luck. But if you want to continue in this profession — not if but when that beginner’s luck runs out — that truth-telling teacher will be the best trade you take.

There is no shortage of people who talk a really impressive game about how they’re rich, have the whole “day trading” thing dialed in, and are willing to teach you how easy it can be to follow in their footsteps to become the next great day trader.

I’m not one of them.

Yes, I day trade for a living, and I’ve done OK. But I’m first in line to tell you that day trading is not easy. It takes dedicated effort over time to start becoming solid at day trading. Then it takes even more time and work to turn it into a profession.

The rest of this article is locked.

Join Entrepreneur+ today for access.



This story originally appeared on Entrepreneur

Google scraps Gmail ‘blacklist’ that labeled GOP fundraiser emails ‘dangerous’

NYPost
-
0
Google scraps Gmail ‘blacklist’ that labeled GOP fundraiser emails ‘dangerous’

Google has scrapped Gmail’s controversial use of a “blacklist” that had been flagging Republican fundraising emails as “dangerous” — and sending them directly to spam, The Post has learned.

As The Post exclusively reported last month, the GOP consulting firm Targeted Victory warned clients that Gmail was improperly flagging emails with links to the GOP fundraising platform WinRed – blocking them from inboxes and tagging them with a scary, red warning label that said “seems dangerous”.

At the same time, fundraising pitches from ActBlue, a platform for Democrats, were delivered untouched, according to Targeted Victory.

Targeted Victory said Google flags GOP fundraising emails as “dangerous.” Targeted Victory

Republicans have accused Google of suppressing their fundraising emails for years, claiming it’s part of broader anti-conservative bias at the tech giant. In July, the Missouri attorney general sent letters to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and other Big Tech companies demanding to know whether their AI chatbots were skewed against President Trump.

A 2022 study by researchers at North Carolina State University found that Gmail flagged 59% more Republican fundraising emails as spam than Democratic ones during the leadup to the 2020 presidential election.

In WinRed’s case, the GOP-boosting group learned that its emails were being flagged due to Google’s reliance on Netherlands-based SURBL BV, a self-titled “intelligence and reputation services” firm, sources close to the situation said.

SURBL maintains datasets that are widely used to scan and block emails suspected of containing spam, adding them to a “blacklist” that prevents them from being delivered.

WinRed reached out to SURBL directly about the apparent bias, and on Aug. 20 the Dutch firm responded that it would remove WinRed from its blacklist, according to an email reviewed by The Post. The email, however, stopped short of explaining why WinRed was blocked in the first place.

Previous complaints accusing Google of bias in its spam filter have been rejected. AP

After The Post reached out for its previous report on Aug. 13, Google stopped using SURBL’s data in Gmail’s filtering, the search giant confirmed.

“After a review found that our own advanced protections are the most effective way to protect users, we stopped incorporating SURBL as a signal,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda said in a statement.

Gmail’s spam filtering is applied to everyone equally regardless of political affiliation, the spokesperson insisted.

Targeted Victory first flagged the issue of GOP fundraising emails going to spam earlier this summer. Tada Images – stock.adobe.com

“Gmail uses hundreds of signals to ensure we catch spammy emails, primarily Gmail users marking or reporting particular emails,” Castañeda added. “SURBL was one signal: it’s an industry-recognized list of abusive websites that is used by dozens of American ISPs, cybersecurity companies and email providers.”

SURBL BV did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

WinRed CEO Ryan Lyk said an overseas firm should never have been in a position to affect American political campaigns in the first place.

“It’s outrageous that Google relies on a foreign entity to limit US speech during elections,” Lyk said in a statement. “That’s foreign interference, plain and simple.”

In SURBL’s emailed response to WinRed, the Dutch firm advised the GOP booster to “be sure that best practices are followed.” WinRed officials were stumped, however, by links to several “references” that included the details of a Canadian anti-spam law that doesn’t apply to US companies.

SURBL maintains a “blacklist” that email accounts thought to be responsible for spam. SURBL

Targeted Victory — whose clients include the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rep. Steve Scalise and Sen. Marsha Blackburn among others — first informed Google of the Gmail spam problem on June 30.

But it was only after weeks of back-and-forth that Google’s support team finally confirmed that WinRed links were being flagged as “suspicious” within its system.

“This should alarm every campaign and committee that relies on email to connect with voters,” Targeted Victory’s memo said.

Earlier this year, billionaire Republican donor Elon Musk alleged that Google interfered “to help Democrats thousands of times every election season” through instances of political bias. Last fall, the Missouri AG launched a probe into whether Google was “manipulating search results” to interfere with the 2024 election.

Google said it is no longer relying on SURBL’s data in its spam filtering. NurPhoto via Getty Images

Nevertheless, Google has vehemently denied exhibiting any political bias, and efforts by Republicans so far to force changes have fallen short.

Last year, a federal judge tossed a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee that complained of biased email filtering. In 2023, the Federal Election Commission dismissed an RNC complaint alleging discrimination in Gmail’s spam filters.



This story originally appeared on NYPost

Stop private foundations from ‘partnering’ to fund deadly government criminal-justice policies

NYPost
-
0
Stop private foundations from ‘partnering’ to fund deadly government criminal-justice policies

Why was Decarlos Brown Jr. — with a long and violent rap sheet, not to mention severe mental illness — free to stab Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light-rail train last month?

Soft-on-crime judges, district attorneys and politicians are part of the problem, but they have not acted alone.

Private foundations have encouraged and funded dangerous policies, working hand in hand with government.  

The MacArthur Foundation contributed $1 million in 2020 to the Safety and Justice Challenge in Mecklenburg County, NC — where Brown was arrested multiple times — “to continue safely reducing the jail population.” The group gave another $350,000 in 2022.

The Soros Foundation has been instrumental in electing district attorneys who want to defund the police and get rid of cash bail and refuse to prosecute drug crimes.

And Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom solicited half a million dollars from the James Irvine Foundation to help migrants evade federal immigration authorities.

Decarlos Brown Jr stands over Iryna Zarutska after stabbing the Ukrainian refugee aboard a Charlotte, NC, light-rail train Aug. 22.

It’s long past time to break up these “public-private partnerships.”

And maybe fundraisers are coming to that conclusion themselves.

“It is unknown what the interdependencies are going to be between philanthropy and government in the future,” Council on Foundations President Kathleen Enright told The Chronicle of Philanthropy this year, reflecting on COVID-era coordination.

The pandemic is over, she said, and we must reset the relationship between polities and nonprofits.

The co-dependency began in earnest with the 1960s creation of numerous federal programs, from Medicaid to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, that made funds available to private organizations carrying out quasi-governmental functions. 

It accelerated in the ensuing decades as these programs’ budgets expanded and Congress established yet more in education, the environment, energy and other areas.

Private foundations encouraged grantees to seek government funding to free up their own funds for new enterprises, which in turn would go to the feds themselves. 

An Urban Institute study concluded that in 2024 governments at all levels (though primarily the federal government) gave $300 billion in grants to nonprofit organizations, making up between 20% and 30% of their budgets. 

That’s about three times the amount — $110 billion — private foundations give to the same groups. 

(The rest comes from private donors and services that make nonprofits, well, profits. Your local YMCA charges people to join the swim team, for instance.)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom solicited half a million dollars to help migrants evade federal immigration authorities. REUTERS

Today’s charitable sector is far more dependent on government funds than on foundation grants.

The same study concluded roughly one-third of nonprofit organizations across the country received grants from one or another level of government.    

These groups may have no choice but to change their arrangement with government.

The Trump administration is cracking down on unconstitutional diversity-equity-inclusion programs many large foundations have been funding.

And it’s been cutting international-aid programs that have traditionally created partnerships with private donors.

But this realignment couldn’t come at a better time. Thanks to yet another booming year in the stock market, charity coffers are overflowing.

FoundationMark recently reported foundation investments reached a record $1.62 trillion at the end of 2024, 15% higher than at 2023’s end.

Even if groups continue giving the same percentage of their income, donation amounts will go up significantly.

It is time for these large independent organizations to start acting independently.

Billionaire investor George Soros has donated tens of millions of dollars to ultra-progressive causes — with a special focus on elections for local prosecutors. AP

The drumbeat for the philanthropic sector to give more is growing louder.

In this year’s “Meet the Moment” campaign, funders pledge to make up the Trump administration’s cuts to nonprofits.

Led by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, it includes heavyweights like the MacArthur Foundation, which upped its giving to 6% of endowment earnings from the legally required 5%.

“We don’t all share the same beliefs or priorities. Neither do our donors or the communities we serve. But as charitable giving institutions we are united behind our First Amendment right to give as an expression of our own distinct values,” the Council on Foundations says.

That’s great news, of course. It shouldn’t have had to come to something as significant as the Trump administration’s cuts for government and philanthropy to put some distance between themselves.

Foundations should stop expecting that their every successful pilot program should be “replicated” with government funds.

Turning every project into a public-private partnership has certainly seemed beneficial for all parties involved, with government having to spend less taxpayer money on certain efforts and private parties getting to help guide public policy.

But there have been many downsides too. From private-led efforts to subsidize electric vehicles to university area-studies departments, agencies like the National Endowment for the Arts and the Environmental Protection Agency have thrown good money after bad.

The disorder foundations have encouraged in our streets against victims like Iryna Zarutska should be the last straw.

James Piereson is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Naomi Schaefer Riley is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow.



This story originally appeared on NYPost

This juicy investment trust offers a 6.7% dividend yield

Motley Fool
-
0
This juicy investment trust offers a 6.7% dividend yield


Image source: Getty Images

Investment trusts can be an easy way for an investor to tap into professional money managers. The ability to buy any amount of stock in the trust means that it’s a cheap way to allocate some money to different strategies managed by experts. As part of a hunt for income stocks, here’s one trust I spotted with a generous dividend.

A yield double the FTSE 100 average

I’m talking about Invesco Bond Income Plus (LSE:BIPS). As the name suggests, it invests predominantly in high-yield bonds, plus some fixed interest securities more broadly. It may also hold bonds that are similar to stocks, known as convertible securities, which can flip into stock if certain conditions are met over the lifetime of the bond.

Due to the types of bonds being traded, the coupon payments are often higher than those of normal bonds. This is because they carry a higher level of risk. The income from these coupons is a major source of the fund’s revenue, which is then used to pay out to shareholders as a dividend. That’s why the dividend yield of 6.7% is basically double the FTSE 100 average.

This higher level of risk might put some people off. However, this is where the expertise of the managers comes in. For sure, I wouldn’t feel comfortable constructing this portfolio by myself. However, the team conducts credit analysis to select bonds that offer a sufficient yield for their risk. They avoid (or limit exposure to) issuers with weak fundamentals unless the risk relative to the return looks attractive. Invesco, as a brand, has a long (and strong) track record in this asset class.

A sustainable dividend

Unlike bond coupons, dividends aren’t guaranteed. However, I believe the dividend is sustainable as most of the revenue comes from the bonds. If an issuer stops paying the coupons, it effectively defaults on the bond, with serious ramifications. Therefore, this should only happen in rare circumstances.

Further, like stock investors try to do, the trust is diversified. This means the fund is not overly dependent on any single bond, sector, or geography. That reduces the volatility of income and the risk of big unexpected losses. For example, the current largest holding is in Lloyds Banking Group via corporate bonds. However, this position only makes up 1.93% of the overall portfolio. It’s not exposed in a large way to any single company.

Another element of the dividend yield is the share price. Over the past year, the stock is up 1%. The stock should closely track the net asset value of the portfolio. One risk is the fact that bond prices can fluctuate. So the share price can be volatile if we see large moves in the underlying assets in the portfolio. However, even with normal stocks bought for income, volatility in the share price can’t be avoided.

On balance, I believe the trust is a good way to get exposure to the bond market and to provide a good source of income. As a result, I think it’s a stock for investors to consider.



This story originally appeared on Motley Fool

Why the EU’s AI talent strategy needs a reality check 

Fortune
-
0
Why the EU’s AI talent strategy needs a reality check 

A raft of recent policy changes in the U.S. touching trade, immigration, education, and public spending has sparked upheaval in research communities around the globe. The American economy, once the dream destination for the most talented, suddenly looks like it could lose its allure for the world’s brightest scholars. The sudden crisis of faith in the American innovation ecosystem has also sparked a fresh debate: Can the European Union seize the moment to attract disenchanted researchers and strengthen its own innovation ecosystem? 

The opportunity is real for Brussels, and the stakes are high, as the EU continues to trail the U.S. on virtually every cutting-edge technology—including artificial intelligence. A recent BCG Henderson Institute report shows that that stricter immigration rules and deep funding cuts for academic research in the U.S. raise the possibility that top AI researchers, a large share of whom are not U.S.-born, could look to take their talents elsewhere. Repatriating those top European academics is an important step for European policymakers, but to catch up, the EU must also be able to attract talent beyond the European diaspora, which is only a small fraction of the globally mobile AI talent base.

To remake itself into a tech talent magnet, Europe needs to build an academic ecosystem more closely integrated with its industries, a necessary step to provide the career pathways and information flows needed to turn academic discoveries and inventions into business value. The cost of this transformation will be considerable, as publicly discussed in, for instance, the Draghi report. Only then can the EU’s investments in academia help generate longstanding economic and geopolitical returns for the bloc.

The opportunity for Europe must not be overstated 

The EU recently announced a €500 million allocation over the next two years to help attract foreign researchers. Member states have also launched their own initiatives, including France’s €100 million commitment to its “Choose France for Science” platform to attract international researchers, and Spain’s €45 million pledge to help lure scientists “despised or undervalued by the Trump administration.” 

If these investments are made with the sole aim of repatriating European AI talent in the U.S., they risk falling short. The U.S. is home to roughly 60% of the top 2,000 AI researchers in the world, only one-fifth of whom are originally from continental Europe. Even an exodus of historical proportions would cover only half of the current gap between the EU and U.S. shares of the top AI researchers. 

At top GenAI labs, such as OpenAI and Anthropic, only a very small fraction of AI specialists (less than 1 percentage point of the 25% of workers who have completed their undergraduate degree outside of the U.S.) completed their bachelor’s degree in the EU. The future pipeline of AI talent is no different: In 2023, the top 10 contributing countries of foreign-born PhD recipients in computer science and mathematics to the U.S. accounted for 80% of the total. But not one of those countries is in continental Europe.

The U.S. AI research ecosystem is overwhelmingly supported by talent from Asia, not Europe: 85% of U.S.-based foreign nationals in technical AI jobs at leading American labs hail from China or India. So do 60% of all U.S. computer science and math Ph.D graduates in the U.S. Iran, Bangladesh and Taiwan account for most of the rest. If the EU is serious about becoming a vibrant hub for global AI research talent, it needs to look eastward.

But current (and prospective) AI researchers often don’t see Europe as a top destination. BCG’s Talent Tracker shows that Germany does best among European countries, ranking 5th globally as a “dream destination” for highly skilled talent, followed by France (9th), Spain (10th), and the Netherlands (16th). The EU is not just less attractive than the U.S. (2nd), but also Canada (3rd), the UK (4th), and Australia (1st), and roughly on par with the UAE (11th). European countries are by no means the only nations committed to boosting their own talent bases.

Part of the challenge is the lack of large EU academic institutions with strong AI credentials compared to other regions. None of the top 50 AI institutions worldwide (as ranked by Google Scholar’s H5 journal impact index) are in the EU. A strong institutional base for leading AI labs is essential to create the work environment capable of attracting the best and brightest. 

The EU needs to invest in its universities to improve its standing, but it must also look beyond academia to improve its entire innovation ecosystem. Nearly a third of non-U.S. AI specialists go to the U.S. because of its extensive opportunities for career growth, including entrepreneurial endeavors, a BHI survey of top tech talent recruiters found.

The need for a concerted strategy across academia and industry

To get started, European countries must improve academic compensation in critical fields related to AI, and technology more broadly. In Europe, even when adjusting for purchasing power parity, salaries at the associate professor level are half of those paid at top U.S. institutions. Europe also needs to increase grant availability for research. Public research grants for computer science and informatics at leading American AI institutions are double those available in Europe. Europe may get a boost however, if the U.S. goes through with proposed cuts to the National Science Foundation’s budget.

It’s well known that incentives for innovation matter. In the 2000s, a few European countries reformed their academic patenting laws to follow the U.S. model, where American universities hold patent rights and share commercialization profits with professors. But the reforms were not well tailored to the European context and led to a significant decrease in academic patenting (between 17% and 50% depending on the country).  

Furthermore, only about a third of patented inventions from EU universities and research institutions ever get exploited, largely due to their weak integration into innovation clusters that drive commercialization. Even the best EU innovation clusters, once again, fall outside the top 10 globally, with the U.S. accounting for four spots, and China three. To change that, it’s essential for European policymakers to help build stronger bridges between academia and industry to ensure that foundational research effectively fuels economic value creation.

That includes strengthening the startup and innovation ecosystem around universities themselves. The ultimate aim of attracting top AI researchers is not to simply catch up, but to skip ahead and produce the next IP breakthrough, which will only rise in importance as more AI models become commoditized. Coming up with the next big thing, however, requires an investment environment capable of supporting ambitious bets on potential breakthroughs coming out of academia. Countries like Canada and the U.K. serve as cautionary tales of AI research hotspots that have often struggled to translate academic breakthroughs into commercial successes, a leap successfully undertaken by large U.S. tech companies.

Many of the usual items in the European reform menu will also bolster the AI talent and innovation ecosystem. As the 2024 Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness noted, the integration of EU capital markets is vital, as is the removal of internal trade barriers that hamper early-stage startups’ growth. Between 2019 and 2024, AI venture capital investment in the EU was just a tenth of that in the U.S. It is no wonder then that nearly a third of European “unicorns” founded between 2008 and 2021 relocated elsewhere—usually to the U.S. 

But crucially, the list of reforms must also include strong incentives for AI adoption. At present, EU companies lag their U.S. counterparts in generative AI adoption by between 45% and 70%. Closing that gap will simultaneously help fuel European demand for specialized AI talent and create the economic opportunities beyond academia that are critical to attracting the world’s best and brightest.

Overconfidence could set back the EU 

The EU is right to want to lure researchers into its academic institutions that have historically pushed the frontier of AI. This will require revamping the academic ecosystem and more systematically translating academic breakthroughs into long-term economic and strategic leadership. 

But it would be wrong for European policymakers to assume that the erosion of U.S. attractiveness will organically lead to a talent windfall, predicated on their belief that Europe is the inevitable “next best” option. That will only be true if the region acts decisively to build its own, integrated, AI ecosystem capable of attracting the brightest minds from China, India, and beyond. In the AI race, as on many other fronts, the EU bears the risk of being too confident in its belief that it is entrenched in third place. That kind of complacency could very well accelerate the EU’s descent into the minor leagues of global innovation.

***

Read other Fortune columns by François Candelon.

François Candelon is a partner at private equity firm Seven2 and the former global director of the BCG Henderson Institute. 

Etienne Cavin is a consultant at Boston Consulting Group and a former ambassador at the BCG Henderson Institute.

David Zuluaga Martínez is senior director at Boston Consulting Group’s Henderson Institute.

Some of the companies mentioned in this column are past or present clients of the authors’ employers.



This story originally appeared on Fortune

Conor McGregor announces he is withdrawing from Irish presidency race | World News

SkyNews
-
0
Conor McGregor announces he is withdrawing from Irish presidency race | World News

Former MMA fighter Conor McGregor has announced he is withdrawing from the race for the Irish presidency.

“Following careful reflection, and after consulting with my family, I am withdrawing my candidacy from this presidential race,” he wrote in a post on social media.

“This was not an easy decision, but it is the right one at this moment in time.”

McGregor announced his intention to join the race to become Ireland’s president in September last year.

He had been due to address meetings later on Monday of Dublin City Council and Kildare County Council in an attempt to get onto the ballot paper for October’s election.

He would have needed to be nominated either by 20 members of the Irish parliament or four local authorities.

McGregor said he had been “sincere and genuine” about his intentions to contest the election and had been “truly humbled” by the “support and encouragement” he received.

He went on to claim the election eligibility rules in Ireland’s “outdated constitution” were a “straitjacket” that prevented a “true democratic presidential election being contested”.

He claimed the constitution ensured the election was “fixed to ensure only Establishment approved candidates may be selected on the ballot”.

“This democratic deficit against the will of the Irish people has now been successfully magnified by my expression of interest,” he added.

“This is not the end, but the beginning of my political journey,” he wrote.

“I am driven by a commitment to improve lives, defend rights, and serve the Irish people with dedication and integrity. I will continue to serve my people on the global stage lobbying for Ireland’s best interest’s socially and economically – of that there is no doubt.

“This is a marathon. Not a sprint!”

Last year McGregor lost a civil case against a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her. He was ordered to pay nearly €250,000 (£215,000) in damages after a jury at Dublin’s High Court found he was civilly liable for assaulting Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel in 2018.

In July three judges rejected his appeal against the decision.



This story originally appeared on Skynews

Australia approves chlamydia vaccine for koalas : NPR

NPR
-
0
Australia approves chlamydia vaccine for koalas : NPR


A koala and joey climb a tree in bushland located near central Brisbane on Dec. 14, 2024.

David Gray/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

David Gray/AFP via Getty Images

A vaccine has been approved to help protect koalas against chlamydia, a measure researchers are hailing as a world-first in fighting the disease that is a leading cause of death for the beloved marsupials.

Researchers at the University of the Sunshine Coast (UniSC) in Australia said Wednesday it took more than 10 years to develop a single-dose vaccine that does not require a booster that it hopes will aid in “reducing the rapid, devastating spread of this disease.”

“Some individual colonies are edging closer to local extinction every day, particularly in South East Queensland and New South Wales, where infection rates within populations are often around 50 percent and in some cases can reach as high as 70 percent,” Peter Timms, a microbiology professor at the university who led the research team, said in a statement.

In Australia, scientists begin vaccinating koalas against chlamydia

Chlamydia in koalas can cause blindness and lead them to starve to death because they cannot locate trees to climb for food, according to Koala Conservation Australia. It can also cause infertility and damage a koala’s bladder to the point where the inner wall becomes inflamed and the marsupial passes blood, the organization said.

The disease occurs in koalas multiple ways, including through mating, infected discharges and at birth. Baby koalas, known as joeys, can also catch chlamydia by eating pap, a substance produced by a mother that’s similar to feces, if their mother is infected.

Antibiotics have been used to treat the disease but it is not always effective and does not prevent future infections, according to the university. Antibiotics can also lead to gastrointestinal side effects that could hinder koalas’ ability to digest eucalyptus leaves, which are the animals’ main food source. Depending on the severity of the chlamydia and if it has progressed too far, euthanasia may be an only option.

That’s why scientists are optimistic about the vaccine.

Sam Phillips, a senior researcher at the UniSC, said the vaccine has been tested on hundreds of wild koalas and koalas in captivity.

“It’s based on Chlamydia pecorum’s major outer membrane protein (MOMP), and offers three levels of protection – reducing infection, preventing progression to clinical disease and, in some cases, reversing existing symptoms,” Phillips said in a statement.

The study led by Phillips that published last year found that the vaccine reduced signs of chlamydia during a koala’s breeding age and decreased death from the disease by 64%.

The university said the vaccine has been approved for production and widespread use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).

The agency told NPR it approved a permit authorizing use of the vaccine in koalas in June that runs through June 2027.



This story originally appeared on NPR

1...141516...2,448Page 15 of 2,448

EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Pagegoo.com serves as a news aggregator website. We provide the top trending news online. Our website exercises third-party content for information purpose only and are not liable for any web content related to or denoted to from these pages. All news, images & videos associated to content are hosted on third-party sites or users. We also often used third-party links.

Contact us: Info@Pagegoo.com

FOLLOW US

© 2025 Pagegoo.com. All Rights Reserved.