NANO

The Rising Star for Sustainability is Jean-Philippe Bahuaud, who is CEO of Renault subsidiary The Future Is Neutral. Automotive News Europe honors the winners of the 2023 Rising Stars awards. We will showcase a winner each day through July 11. The Rising Star for Sustainability is Jean-Philippe Bahuaud, who is CEO of Renault subsidiary The Future Is Neutral. For his full profile click here. The 2023 Rising Stars winners were honored in Paris at a gala dinner on June 13. To qualify, candidates should have a minimum of 10 years of work experience, have multiple language skills and be 45 years or younger. Nominations are accepted from carmakers, suppliers, automotive service and mobility providers and retail/aftersales businesses. The prestigious Automotive News Europe Rising Stars awards are jointly presented with our exclusive lead sponsor, Capgemini, as well as our partner, MU. https://europe.autonews.com/europe-rising-stars/renault-jean-philippe-bahuaud-rising-star-2023

The rising cost of living has impacted the participation of the disabled community in playing sports. The Annual Disability and Activity Survey 2022-2023 indicated that financial barriers impacted disabled people’s activity levels, with four in 10 (37%) reporting the cost-of-living crisis affected how active they were compared to three in 10 (32%) of non-disabled people. For the record, 2,000 disabled and non-disabled individuals aged 16 and above were surveyed. The responses also showed that disabled people’s mental health and wellbeing were being disproportionately affected. Disabled people were nearly three times more likely than non-disabled people to feel lonely always or often (23% versus 8%). There were also worrying signs of an increase in loneliness for disabled people over the last four years compared to decreasing levels of loneliness for non-disabled people. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, disabled people were more likely to feel isolated (54% versus 30%), yet nearly two-thirds of disabled people who felt lonely agreed that being active could help them feel less lonely (65%). Nearly two-thirds of disabled people (64%) said the the UK government should focus on making activities affordable to help more people to be active. Following was the report Annual Disability and Activity Survey 2022-23 Activity Alliance releases its fourth Annual Disability and Activity Survey report for 2022-23. The survey is the primary source of insight for organisations working to achieve fairness for disabled people in sport and activity. This year’s results show we are not seeing enough positive trends in disabled people’s perceptions and experiences of being active. Greater effort is needed to tackle inequalities that affect disabled people, especially to reduce loneliness and the impact of the rising cost of living. The survey was conducted by IFF Research. 998 disabled people and 976 non-disabled people aged 16+ took part. 28 disabled people also took part in a series of online workshops to discuss the findings and explore ideas for action. This survey complements Sport England’s Active Lives Adult Survey. It provides greater detail on issues of importance to disabled people. The report findings are split into seven themes. These were developed based on discussion with disabled people, and feedback from organisations that deliver and promote activity. Each theme outlines Activity Alliance’s commitment and our ask to the sport and activity sector. The themes are: Participation and experience Physical health and healthcare professionals The rising cost-of-living Mental health and wellbeing Representation Co-production and influence Outdoor spaces and active travel. Key findings: Disabled people were more likely to say they wanted to be more active compared to non-disabled people (77% vs 54%). This “activity gap” has remained consistent in previous years, showing an ongoing unmet need. Four in ten disabled people (37%) said the cost-of-living crisis has affected how active they are, versus three in ten non-disabled people (32%). Six in ten disabled people (60%) also reported that the increase in cost of living has reduced how much they socialise. There is a clear spending gap for what disabled people are spending and want to spend on physical activity. Disabled people reported spending an average of £13.40 less than non-disabled people in being active each month. Disabled people want to spend more than non-disabled people on being active (34% vs 27%), whereas non-disabled people were more likely to want to spend less (27% vs 19%). However – many disabled people fear that being more active will result in their benefits or financial assistance being removed (37%). Almost two-thirds (64%) of disabled people said the government should focus on making activities affordable to help more people to be active. Disabled people are nearly three times more likely than non-disabled people to feel lonely always or often (23% vs 8%). Over the last four years, there has been an upward trend in disabled people feeling lonelier, while non-disabled people reported steady or decreasing levels of loneliness. Since the start of the pandemic, disabled people were more likely to feel isolated (54% vs 30%). Nearly two-thirds of disabled people who felt lonely agreed that being active could help them feel less lonely (65%). Disabled people were also significantly less likely to report high satisfaction with their life (5% vs 17%). Younger disabled people and people with five or more impairments were most likely to say the cost-of-living crisis has reduced how active they are (58% and 56%) and how much they socialise (74% and 75%). https://www.sportanddev.org/latest/news/disabled-people-missing-out-sports-due-rising-cost

According to Varun Rattan, co-founder, The Body Science Academy, Noida, deadlifts can help children develop good posture, which can make them appear taller. It can also help them build muscle, which can make them stronger and healthier. An eight-year-old’s video of weightlifting like a pro went viral recently. In the videos, Arshia Goswami from Haryana’s Panchkula can be seen deadlifting 60kgs. In 2021, she made it to the India Book of Records for lifting 45 kgs. As such, a natural question to ask is whether it is safe for children to do deadlifts or lift any kind of weight. Here’s what experts told us. “Deadlifting for kids is a safe and effective way to improve their health, fitness, and overall well-being,” said Varun Rattan, co-founder, The Body Science Academy, Noida. Here’s what to consider Lifting doesn’t stunt growth One of the biggest myths surrounding deadlifting for children is that it stunts their growth. However, this is not true. Dr Ayyappan V Nair, Consultant – Shoulder Surgery, Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy, Manipal Hospital Whitefield, Sarjapur, and Jayanagar, Bangalore said it doesn’t affect growth. “At the same time, it’ll help in sport growth because whenever you’re loading, better growth is noted. The only catch is if you suffer from an injury, like a growth plate injury from a deadlift, then, you can have growth affection. Otherwise, it helps in the growth of the child,” said Dr Nair. According to Rattan, deadlifts can help children develop good posture, which can make them appear taller. “It can also help them build muscle, which can make them stronger and healthier,” said Rattan. “Lifting weights is also good for children’s mental health, builds confidence, reduces stress levels and improves their self-esteem. It can also help them develop a positive body image and a healthy relationship with their bodies,” said Rattan. Deadlift is safer than contact sports We don’t worry too much about child’s safety in contact sports like football or hockey even though the former can lead to injuries like concussions, broken bones and sprains. “Deadlifting, on the other hand, is much safer. When done correctly, the deadlift is a low-impact exercise that can help children build strength and fitness without putting them at risk for injury,” Rattan elaborated. When is the recommended age to weightlift? Dr Nair said that the recommended age to start deadlifting is around 12 or 13 years of age. “The main reason is that the brain development of a child is complete only by around 12 years. Below that age, the child does not have proprioception (sense of self-movement, force and body position), as well as other functions of the brain are not properly developed. On average, a male can lift 1.6 times their body weight, while a female can lift 1.5 times their body weight,” said Dr Nair. What to keep in mind when introducing your child to deadlifting First, it’s important to start slow and gradually increase the weight and intensity of their workouts. “It’s also important to make sure that your child is using proper form and technique to avoid injury,” stressed Rattan. “You should also make sure that your child is using the appropriate weight and repetitions for their age and skill level. Finally, it’s important to make sure that your child enjoys deadlifts and doesn’t feel pressured to participate if they don’t want to,” added Rattan. Proper form and technique for deadlifting Deadlifting targets the muscles in the back, legs and glutes. Rattan detailed the steps. “To perform a deadlift, your child should stand with their feet shoulder-width apart and grip the bar with their hands. They should then lift the bar off the ground using their legs and back muscles, keeping their back neutral and their core engaged.” Additional strength training exercises for children In addition to deadlifting, there are many other strength training exercises that can benefit children. “These include squats, lunges, push-ups and pull-ups. These exercises can help children build strength, improve their balance and coordination, and reduce their risk of injury,” said Rattan. https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/fitness/safe-children-deadlift-weightlifting-benefits-growth-8640824/

The BBC has obtained evidence casting doubt on the Greek coastguard's account of Wednesday's migrant shipwreck in which hundreds are feared to have died. Analysis of the movement of other ships in the area suggests the overcrowded fishing vessel was not moving for at least seven hours before it capsized. The coastguard still claims that during these hours the boat was on a course to Italy and not in need of rescue. Greek authorities have not yet responded to the BBC's findings. At least 78 people are known to have died, but the UN says up to 500 are still missing. The UN has called for an investigation into Greece's handling of the disaster, amid claims more action should have been taken earlier to initiate a full-scale rescue attempt. Greek officials maintain those on board said they did not want help and were not in danger until just before their boat sank. The BBC has obtained a computer animation of tracking data provided by MarineTraffic, a maritime analytics platform. Their data shows hours of activity focused on a small, specific area where the migrant boat later sank, casting doubt on the official claim it had no problems with its navigation. The fishing boat had no tracker so is not shown on the map. Neither are coastguard and military vessels which do not have to share their location Timeline of official coastguard account challenged Frontex, the EU's border force, says it first spotted the migrant boat at around 08:00 GMT on Tuesday and informed the Greek authorities. Alarm Phone, an emergency hotline for migrants in trouble at sea, say they received a call at 12:17 GMT saying the boat was in distress. We have used video and photographs authenticated by BBC Verify, as well as court records and shipping logs, to analyse the movement of vessels in the area in the following hours. The Marine Traffic animation shows a ship called the Lucky Sailor abruptly turning north at 15:00 GMT. The owner of the Lucky Sailor gave the BBC their timeline of events and confirmed it had been asked by the Coastguard to approach the migrant boat and give food and water. About half-an-hour later at 15:35 GMT, the coastguard helicopter found the migrant boat. Authorities have continued to claim it was on a steady course at the time. But two-and-a-half hours later at around 18:00 GMT, another vessel, the Faithful Warrior, travelled to the same area and also gave supplies to the boat. The owners of Faithful Warrior referred us to the investigating authorities. Video has emerged - reportedly shot from the Faithful Warrior - claiming to show supplies being delivered to the migrant ship via a rope in the water. No other ships can be seen. BBC Verify checked it and found the vessel - which is not moving in the footage - matched the shape of the migrant ship seen in photos and the weather conditions were a match for those reported at the time. It's not know exactly when this video was filmed. Between 19:40 until 22:40, Greek officials originally claimed the boat was keeping a "steady course and speed". Their initial statement claimed they observed from a discreet distance, but a close-up image they later published - from this time-period - suggests the migrant boat is not going anywhere. A government spokesperson later said the coastguard had attempted to board the boat to assess the danger but that those on board removed a rope that had been attached and did not want help. All of the shipping activity of the previous seven hours was focused around one specific spot, suggesting the migrant boat had hardly moved. The scale of the animated map suggests it travelled less than a few nautical miles, which may be expected of a stricken vessel buffeted by the wind and the waves in the deepest part of the Mediterranean Sea. The actions of people in distress, rocking the vessel, would also have contributed any movement. During this time period, Greek officials have insisted it was not in trouble and was instead safely on its way to Italy and so the coastguard didn't attempt a rescue. At 23:00, the boat sank with hundreds on board and the tracking animation shows a frenzy of ships coming to help. This included the Celebrity Beyond from which footage of the aftermath of the disaster was filmed and later sent to the BBC. A luxury yacht, the Mayan Queen, is then instructed to help take some of the 104 survivors ashore. Those rescued reached the safety at the port of Kalamata but left behind a series of troubling questions about the whole Greek response. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65942426

Hello Omar, We are really happy to see you here , but for becoming the moderator you have to be active and responsible and for that you need to join at least Two projects. Which Responsibilty you had? Which Categories are you active on? Other than tour server you have to be more active in forums... Clear your answers you have time. Waiting for your answer....

When World War I ended in 1918, the last thing people wanted was an even greater conflict. So why did the world return to combat just two decades later to fight World War II? Granted, Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 triggered declarations of war from France and the United Kingdom, formally starting World War II. But that event was only the final straw in a series of events. Various other economic and political challenges had been building up tension for years. This resource examines the era between World Wars I and II—also known as the interwar period—breaking down those issues that set the stage for the world’s second and far deadlier global conflict. The Treaty of Versailles In 1919, representatives from more than two dozen countries gathered in France to draft peace treaties that would set the terms for the end of World War I. However, in a break with tradition, those on the losing end of the conflict were excluded from the conference. This particularly stirred resentment in Germany, the largest and most powerful defeated country. Without German input, the victors—led by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom—decided what peace would look like after the conflict. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson wanted to structure peace according to his framework for preventing future global conflicts. This framework, known as the Fourteen Points, advocated for the establishment of an international organization called the League of Nations, which would be staked on the idea of collective security, meaning the invasion of one country would be treated like a threat to the entire group. Wilson’s Fourteen Points also called for arms reductions and free trade and helped lay the groundwork for the principle of self-determination—the concept that groups of people united by common characteristics should be able to determine their political future. Meanwhile, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, fearing a resurgent Germany on France’s border, pushed for a deal that seemed to some more punishment than peace. Negotiations dragged on for months, but in the end, the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to accept blame for the conflict, give up its overseas colonies and 13 percent of its European territory, limit the size of its army and navy, and pay reparations (financial damages) to the war’s winners. Back home, Germans were incensed and staged protests over what they saw as harsh and humiliating terms. In 1923, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler said the treaty was designed “to bring twenty million Germans to their deaths and to ruin the German nation.” One of the central tenets of the Nazi party was to undo the deal, and campaign promises like those helped the group gain followers. The exact role of the peace agreement in dooming the world to another war is still hotly contested. But some observers at the time had doubts it would ensure an end to hostilities. Economist John Maynard Keynes quit his post with the British delegation to Versailles over the treaty, which he argued was too punitive and would lead to catastrophe in Europe. One French military leader predicted with alarming accuracy that the treaty did not represent peace but rather an “armistice for twenty years.” The aftermath of World War I revealed that the way leaders make peace can be used as kindling for the future fires of war. The Failed League of Nations The League of Nations emerged from the Treaty of Versailles with thirty-two member countries, including most of the victors of World War I, and eventually expanded to include Germany and the other defeated nations. (Despite President Wilson’s ardent campaigning, the U.S. Senate rejected membership.) Under the organization’s founding agreement, these countries promised not to resort to war again. The League was premised on the idea that security threats to one member demanded responses from all members. But when it came time to respond to those threats, the organization largely failed. The League’s department for settling international disputes required unanimous agreement before taking action, which severely limited its ability to act. For example, after Japan invaded the Chinese region of Manchuria in 1931, the League was unable to compel Japan to leave given the country’s veto power. In 1935, Italy invaded Abyssinia (now Ethiopia), and, once again, the League’s response was minimal. In an urgent address to the organization, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie asked, “What have become of the promises made to me?” The unrealistic optimism that helped doom the League also plagued international relations more widely at the time. For example, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact obligated its signatories to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence. However, the pact was effectively meaningless, as countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan blew through international agreements meant to prohibit aggression and expansionism and countries such as France and the United Kingdom refused to act to preserve the balance of power. Traumatized and weakened from the First World War, the League’s great powers proved not only unable to respond to these security threats but uninterested in addressing them. As a result, the group’s toothless response to blatant aggression only encouraged more invasions. By the onset of World War II, the League had been effectively sidelined from international politics. Many experts believe its lack of U.S. membership doomed the organization from the start. Meanwhile, the withdrawal of other countries—Germany, Italy, and Japan had all left by 1937—also undermined the group’s credibility. Though the League ultimately failed to prevent World War II, the organization made critical inroads on issues such as global health and arms control. Many of the group’s agencies and ideals carried over to its successor organization, the United Nations. But the challenges associated with collective security remain. Even amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations has struggled to take action due to disagreements among powerful member countries. The Rise of Hitler Germany’s road to the Second World War began near the end of the first, when it signed an armistice in November 1918. Although leaders on the frontlines saw the war was unwinnable, others refused to accept defeat. A myth began to take hold that Germany could have won the war had it not been for unrest at home. This myth, promoted by conservatives and the military, falsely accused Jewish people and left-wing activists of stabbing the country’s war effort in the back. Some called members of the Weimar Republic—Germany’s new, democratic government—the “November criminals” and blamed them for Germany’s loss in World War I. Then, back-to-back crises hit the German economy. In the early 1920s, the country experienced hyperinflation, a situation in which prices skyrocketed so quickly that German currency lost much of its value. Savings were suddenly worthless, and by 1923, buying bread required a wheelbarrow for carrying bills. After a period of economic recovery—and a moment in which it seemed democracy could take hold in Germany—the Great Depression kicked off a new era of financial and political turmoil. Between 1929 and 1932, German unemployment skyrocketed nearly fivefold, eventually affecting a quarter of the labor force. Against this backdrop, po[CENSORED]r support for the Nazi party surged. Between parliamentary elections in 1928 and 1933, the party went from winning 3 percent of the vote to 44 percent. The Nazis promised to tear up the Treaty of Versailles, resurrect the economy, and restore German honor. They also sought to create a much larger, racially pure Germany. Under Nazi ideology, Germans were racially superior and entitled to greater territory or lebensraum (living space) in the east. When they ascended to power, the Nazis persecuted those they saw as inferior, including Jewish, Slavic, Black, and Roma people. In 1933, German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor of the government. Many of the political elite thought they could control him. Instead, Hitler quickly seized the reins of the country, centralizing power and suspending civil liberties. Germany’s short-lived experiment with democracy had failed. As Germany’s absolute ruler, or führer, Hitler reintroduced conscription, or mandatory military service; rebuilt the country’s armed forces; ordered the genocide of millions; and invaded countries across Europe. Three-quarters of a century after his death, Hitler’s rise to power and Germany’s fall from democracy into fascism serve as frightening reminders of the dangers of racism and extremism in politics. Japanese Imperialism Japan’s 1941 aerial bombardment of the Pearl Harbor naval base in Hawaii brought the United States back into another global conflict. Though U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the strike a surprise attack, it did not come out of nowhere; rather, it grew from Japan’s ambitions for imperial power. Frustrations had been building for decades in Japan over the country’s role in the world. In 1919, representatives from the country pushed for a statement affirming racial equality to be included in the Treaty of Versailles but were rejected. Discriminatory laws in several Western countries targeted Japanese immigration. And to many in Japan, the international system that emerged after World War I seemed designed to privilege Westerners’ access to wealth and resources. Japan had long sought to accumulate imperial power. Taiwan became Japan’s first colony in 1895, and more territory followed. In 1931, Japan invaded China’s Manchuria region, which provided a geographic buffer against Soviet communism as well as abundant natural resources that the island nation desperately lacked. After provoking a war in 1937, the Japanese invaded huge parts of China to the south of Manchuria. The invasion of Manchuria arguably marks the first salvo of the Second World War. Over the next decade, conflict escalated into outright war between Japan and China. During the war, Japanese forces massacred military prisoners and civilians and committed widespread sexual violence. Up to twenty million Chinese people are estimated to have died between 1937 and 1945. Despite these tactics and global outrage over atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing, years passed before Japan’s aggression provoked international retaliation. But Japan’s ascendancy and the conflict in Europe concerned Roosevelt. He instituted an embargo cutting Japan off from U.S. oil in response to the country’s expansionism. Japan’s navy had only about six months of oil in reserve. The country decided it was time for an offensive strategy toward Western targets, including at Pearl Harbor. The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, one day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. On December 11, Germany and Italy (allies with Japan under the 1940 Tripartite Pact) retaliated by declaring war on the United States. U.S. Isolationism The United States of the 1920s and 1930s had, in many ways, turned inward. The mood back home was dour in the aftermath of the First World War, which had taken so many lives, and the Great Depression, which had ruined many of those who survived. Though the country continued to play an active international role, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, it stayed mostly aloof from the armed conflicts unfolding across Europe and Asia. Against this backdrop, Congress enacted high, protectionist tariffs intended to shield American businesses from competition, which damaged relations between the United States and its trading partners. It also passed several neutrality acts aimed at ensuring the United States avoided foreign conflicts. (The Senate had rejected U.S. membership in the League of Nations in 1919 for similar reasons.) Meanwhile, domestic resistance to President Roosevelt’s moves to support the Allies in the 1930s revealed to Germany and Japan that aggression had few downsides. At the start of the 1940s, isolationism had strong support from a political organization called the America First Committee. The group had about eight hundred thousand members and a famous proponent—Charles Lindbergh, the first pilot to cross the Atlantic Ocean solo. The organization’s stated aim was to keep the United States out of the war, which began in Europe in 1939, but the group also served as a platform for racism and anti-Semitism. A public opinion poll from May 1940 showed 93 percent of Americans surveyed were against the United States declaring war on Germany. But on December 7, 1941, the argument over whether to join the fighting became moot. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, the United States was ready for war both in Europe and the Pacific. https://world101.cfr.org/historical-context/world-war/why-did-world-war-ii-happen

During the lockdown, it has become vital for everyday activities. It often is the only way we can contact and care for close friends and family. In some instances, it even has become the only way to say goodbye to loved ones quarantined in hospital. Yet, online access is also necessary during non-emergencies for fair opportunities to work, study, to engage with government, and to exercise our political freedoms. We thus have weighty reasons to accept a right to Internet access. If we doubted this before, few will doubt this now. I suggest such a right should be part of means-tested welfare benefits. It would have to cover the costs of basic online access as well as adequate technical equipment for those who are unable to afford it. There is currently no such right in the UK. According to Ofcom’s Access and Inclusion Report 2018, about 10 percent of British households had no Internet access in their homes. And 9 percent of those responsible for paying for their household’s communication services say they had experienced difficulties paying for services in the past year. The Covid-19 crisis emphatically demonstrates that this is no longer acceptable. When lockdowns were imposed to contain the spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, education provision moved online. The government recognised that this posed a problem for those who had no Internet access. It responded to this ‘digital poverty’ by promising provision of Internet access through local authorities via G4 WiFi hotspots and digital devices for disadvantaged pupils. Universities also moved teaching and tutoring online, which created problems for those students without any or adequate Internet access. In lockdown, most people are only able to work if they can do so online. Those without online access are not even able to apply for positions that would allow them to work via the Internet. The government’s recent message to ‘go back to work if you can’t work from home’ means that those who cannot work online, have to leave their houses to work and will be more at risk of catching Covid 19. Moreover, in quarantine, exercising political rights such as free speech and free assembly are only possible virtually. So is accessing politically relevant information, such as scientific studies and other information that allows citizens to form their own views about the government’s handling of the pandemic. These examples show that the Internet provides the vital infrastructure for engaging in many essential activities in the current pandemic. In such a situation, not having adequate online access undermines individual freedoms and is thus a particularly grave social problem. Focus on the pandemic should not lead us to overlook how essential the Internet has become all the time. Applicants to the Universal Credit scheme, for instance, are expected to apply for these essential benefits online. In order to apply, an email address is required. Although a telephone helpline does exist for those who cannot use digital services at all, the expectation of online applications creates obstacles for those unable to afford Internet access – who are likely to be precisely the people in need of financial support. Citizens without online access also cannot take part in the UK Parliament’s online petition process. While free Internet access is often available in public libraries, the number of these has decreased due to cuts to local council funding. And accessing the ones that still exist is difficult for many, for instance those with limited mobility or suffering other incapacities. More generally, compared to people who have secure online access, those without always have more limited opportunities for exercising their political freedoms in a digital world, including free speech, free assembly, or accessing information freely. If we take seriously that democratic equality entails that all citizens must have comparable opportunities to make use of their political rights, this suggests that Internet access has become a condition of political equality and inclusion. For most of us, online access has become routine. We use the Internet every day for more and less important activities. Most of us could not imagine how we would work, shop, and connect with loved ones without it. For a significant number of people this is not the case. A claimable entitlement to basic online access would make a significant difference to their lives. Providing the means to access the Internet to enable studying and working or to access government information is not only (but especially) important during an emergency - particularly emergencies that limit our normal ways of caring and communicating with elderly and sick loved ones. According to Ofcom, those without Internet access no longer have equal opportunities to participate fully in society. Accordingly, the UK government should regard Internet access as a basic right. Digital exclusion is a form of social and political exclusion that no society should tolerate. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2020/internet-access-is-a-necessity-not-a-luxury-it-should-be-a-basic-right

The report from McKinsey comes as a debate rages over the potential economic effects of A.I.-powered chatbots on labor and the economy. “Generative artificial intelligence” is set to add up to $4.4 trillion of value to the global economy annually, according to a report from McKinsey Global Institute, in what is one of the rosier predictions about the economic effects of the rapidly evolving technology. Generative A.I., which includes chatbots such as ChatGPT that can generate text in response to prompts, can potentially boost productivity by saving 60 to 70 percent of workers’ time through automation of their work, according to the 68-page report, which was published early Wednesday. Half of all work will be automated between 2030 and 2060, the report said. McKinsey had previously predicted that A.I. would automate half of all work between 2035 and 2075, but the power of generative A.I. tools — which exploded onto the tech scene late last year — accelerated the company’s forecast. “Generative A.I. has the potential to change the anatomy of work, augmenting the capabilities of individual workers by automating some of their individual activities,” the report said. McKinsey’s report is one of the few so far to quantify the long-term impact of generative A.I. on the economy. The report arrives as Silicon Valley has been gripped by a fervor over generative A.I. tools like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard, with tech companies and venture capitalists investing billions of dollars in the technology. The tools — some of which can also generate images and video, and carry on a conversation — have started a debate over how they will affect jobs and the world economy. Some experts have predicted that the A.I. will displace people from their work, while others have said the tools can augment individual productivity. Last week, Goldman Sachs released a report warning that A.I. could lead to worker disruption and that some companies would benefit more from the technology than others. In April, a Stanford researcher and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study showing that generative A.I. could boost the productivity of inexperienced call center operators by 35 percent. Any conclusions about the technology’s effects may be premature. David Autor, a professor of economics at M.I.T. cautioned that generative A.I. was “not going to be as miraculous as people claim.” “We are really, really in the early stage,” he added. For the most part, economic studies of generative A.I. do not take into account other risks from the technology, such as whether it might spread misinformation and eventually escape the realm of human control. Editors’ Picks Not Your Dad’s Dad Food In Milan, Putting an A.I. Travel Adviser to the Test To Truly Understand the Past, Pick Up an Old Magazine The vast majority of generative A.I.’s economic value will most likely come from helping workers automate tasks in customer operations, sales, software engineering, and research and development, according to McKinsey’s report. Generative A.I. can create “superpowers” for high-skilled workers, said Lareina Yee, a McKinsey partner and an author of the report, because the technology can summarize and edit content. “The most profound change we are going to see is the change to people, and that’s going to require far more innovation and leadership than the technology,” she said. The report also outlined challenges that industry leaders and regulators would need to address with A.I., including concerns that the content generated by the tools can be misleading and inaccurate. Ms. Yee acknowledged that the report was making prognostications about A.I.’s effects, but that “if you could capture even a third” of what the technology’s potential is, “it is pretty remarkable over the next five to 10 years.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/technology/generative-ai-global-economy.html

A two-week-old kitten has escaped being crushed after venturing into a recycling container packed full of cardboard. The curious puss, named Biff, was rescued after an "extraordinary" two-day operation, the RSPCA said. Staff at Makro on Britonwood Trading Estate in Liverpool called the charity after hearing meowing coming from inside the container. They then worked day and night to reach the trapped moggy. It is thought the kitten had been stuck for several days after its mother went inside the container to give birth. Both then became trapped as the space was packed full of more cardboard The RSPCA arrived on 30 May to see the face of the adult cat peeking out of a tiny hole at one end of the container. Biff the kitten's faint meowing could be heard behind her. A compactor which dropped the cardboard in and flattened it with a metal plate was separated from the back of the container, and inspector Vicki Brooks joined Makro staff to spend five hours removing pieces of cardboard by hand. Given the size of the task, work had to resume again the following morning before Biff was pulled to safety - but it appeared his mother had made her own way out. Ms Brooks said: "It was the most extraordinary rescue I have taken part in, in 21 years with the RSPCA. I don't know how the cats managed to survive. "There was tons of cardboard packed tightly up to the ceiling of the container and no room for them to move. "It was incredibly hot and there would have been limited air." The charity thanked Makro staff for their "incredible support" and said it would keep working to try to ensure the mother cat was safe. Biff is now said to be putting on weight and doing well at the RSPCA's Wirral and Chester branch in Wallasey. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65648403

Toyota shareholders rejected a resolution urging greater disclosure on climate lobbying activity on Wednesday, voting down the first investor proposal to come before the automaker's annual general meeting in almost two decades. Investors also backed all 10 members of the board, including Chairman Akio Toyoda, despite concerns about board independence raised by prominent U.S. proxy advisers. The breakdowns of both votes will not be released until Thursday. The climate resolution was submitted by Danish pension fund AkademikerPension and two other European asset managers and sought to make Toyota release more details about its lobbying activities related to climate change. It was widely expected to fail after Toyota's board recommended shareholders vote against it. The automaker's management typically enjoys strong support from shareholders, which include some of its group companies and suppliers. Still, the proposal sharpened focus on Toyota's electric-vehicle strategy and governance ahead of the meeting, the first under new CEO Koji Sato. Green investors and activists have said Toyota has been too slow to capitalize on the surging po[CENSORED]rity of battery electric cars. Some influential U.S. funds, including top public pension CalPERS, had come out in favor of the climate resolution and against the re-election of board members including Toyoda. Toyoda, the grandson of the company's founder, was re-elected with 96 percent support last year. The shareholder meeting came just a day after the world's top-selling automaker unveiled an ambitious roadmap for EVs involving solid-state batteries and radical production changes, the strongest signal yet of an intention to capture a big slice of EV market share. "I believe that Toyota today can manage its business with a sense of speed," Sato told shareholders. Toyota shares rose 6.3 percent on Wednesday after adding to another sharp rise a day earlier and logging their best two-day performance in a little over three years. Different approach Toyota says EVs are just one element in its multi-pathway approach to carbon neutrality that includes gasoline-electric hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells. The automaker says its approach is more effective to reduce carbon emissions and more practical because consumer needs, EV infrastructure and clean energy supply differ by country. Its top scientist, Gill Pratt, told shareholders the best way to reduce carbon as much as possible and as soon as possible is to have diverse solutions. The roadmap showed that under new CEO Koji Sato, who succeeded Toyoda - the founder's grandson who became chair in April - Toyota has adopted much of a revamp that engineers and planners have been developing for months. The automaker said it was developing an EV platform to reduce costs including an assembly line that would do away with the conveyor belt system that has defined auto production for over 100 years. It also said it would use Giga presses pioneered by EV rival Tesla, in which massive, aluminum casting machines eliminate welding to reduce vehicle complexity and cost. Toyota aims to sell 3.5 million EVs annually by 2030. In April, it sold 8,584 EVs, including under its Lexus brand, making up over 1 percent of global sales in a single month for the first time. The automaker says its board meets governance standards set by the Tokyo Stock Exchange and has said Toyoda had been re-nominated because he would push the transformation to a company that provides a range of mobility services. "Japanese people like Toyota and I think they support Akio," said 61-year-old Tadashi Imai, an individual shareholder who said he has held stock in the company for around a decade. He said the previous day's share price rise on news of the roadmap was "really impressive." Proxy adviser Glass Lewis recommended shareholders vote against Toyoda, citing what it said was his responsibility for a lack of sufficient board independence. Japanese companies face more pressure from investors, especially on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Shareholders have made a record number of proposals at annual meetings this year. One shareholder, 67-year-old Hiroshi Ii said he has owned Toyota shares for 14 years and travelled to the meeting in Toyota City central Japan from Tokyo. He voted against the climate resolution and for the board he said, saying he hoped Toyoda could help new CEO Sato. "For the stability of management, it would be good if Chairman Toyoda can support him in the background." https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/toyota-annual-meeting-backs-board-supports-akio-toyoda

A sports complex set to be built on a Gloucester playing field will bring "health and wellbeing" benefits to the community, a councillor insists. Gloucester City Council's has been criticised for approving the development on Blackbridge playing fields, Podsmead, last week despite local opposition. More than 600 residents signed a petition to block the scheme. But councillor Stephanie Chambers said the plans would be good for the city. Ms Chambers, a cabinet member whose remit covers planning and housing strategy, said she understood residents' concerns over road safety issues and a loss of green space. Speaking after the planning committee gave the development the green light, she said: "I do understand the concerns of the residents living nearby the scheme. "However, the planning conditions implemented on the scheme will limit any disruption to the immediate neighbours. "On balance this is a great scheme for the whole of the Gloucester community bringing health and welling benefits to so many people in our city." The proposals were developed by the Blackbridge Charitable Community Benefit Society and includes a community and sports hub housing changing rooms, a fitness studio and viewing areas. It will also have an all-weather pitch with flood lights, car parking, new vehicular access, and a play area. But residents fear it will lead to an increase in traffic and road safety issues and a loss of green open space, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Those opposed to the plans previously described it as a "concrete jungle" and fear it will lead to the loss of wildlife and increase noise, air and light pollution. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-65893995

Dubai, United Arab Emirates – Emaar Properties celebrated the launch of The Oasis by Emaar, its latest waterfront luxury lifestyle destination, with a gala event held last night at the Armani Hotel in Burj Khalifa, Downtown Dubai. The exclusive VIP event was attended by Emaar Properties customers and top properties agents. The evening's highlight was the presence of the event's guest of honour, international superstar Shahrukh Khan, who welcomed the ceremony's guests and expressed his admiration for the new launch that joins the portfolio of renowned Emaar destinations, saying: "Whenever Emaar presents us with an urban marvel, it immediately follows it with another new destination that is a masterpiece in and of itself, such as The Oasis by Emaar, which we are celebrating tonight. This is not unusual for Dubai, a great metropolis that has become one of the world's most famous, elegant, and advanced cities." Emaar Properties' newest lifestyle destination, The Oasis by Emaar, is one of the largest and most prestigious developments in Dubai, covering a total land area of more than 100 million square feet (9.4 million square meters). With a total development value of USD 20 billion, the development boasts exceptional architectural design by the world's most famous architects, with interiors created by prominent international designers. Adhering to Emaar's commitment to delivering exceptional quality, The Oasis offers over 7,000 residential units focusing on large mansions and villas with spacious plots, providing residents with stunning views of water canals, lakes, and parks. Aiming to provide a prestigious and upscale living experience in Dubai's real estate landscape, the development is designed to create a resort-style lifestyle, with 25% of the land dedicated to lakes, water canals, parks, jogging tracks, green spaces, and various luxury amenities. This emphasis on recreational spaces allows residents to enjoy a high-quality living environment and engage in an active and healthy lifestyle. The Oasis by Emaar is situated in a prime location within Dubai, surrounded by high-end developments. It offers proximity to four international golf courses, allowing residents to indulge in their passion for golf. The development is conveniently located just a 20-minute-drive from downtown Dubai, providing easy access to the city's vibrant attractions. The Oasis by Emaar will also feature an expansive 1.5 million square feet retail area, hosting a wide array of lifestyle brands and offering residents access to superior shopping options. Moreover, there will be a variety of food and beverage outlets, ensuring a diverse culinary scene to cater to different preferences. Commenting on the new development, the founder of Emaar, Mohamed Alabbar, said, "In each of its destinations, Emaar strives to meet the needs of our discriminating clientele. Our primary objective is to design one-of-a-kind destinations that complement our clients' opulent way of life while providing unmatched comfort and luxury. Our most recent integrated project, The Oasis by Emaar, is poised to complement the urban landscape of Dubai and redefine the future of luxurious living amidst nature and water, blending harmonious architecture and exceptional amenities." -Ends- About Emaar Properties Emaar Properties PJSC, listed on the Dubai Financial Market, is a global property developer and provider of premium lifestyles, with a significant presence in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. One of the world’s largest real estate companies, Emaar has a land bank of 1.7 billion sq. ft. in the UAE and key international markets. With a proven track-record in delivery, Emaar has delivered over 94,000 residential units in Dubai and other global markets since 2002. Emaar has strong recurring revenue-generating assets with over 1,300,000 square meters of leasing revenue-generating assets and 37 hotels and resorts with 8,134 rooms (includes owned as well as managed hotels). Today, 37 percent of Emaar’s revenue is from its shopping malls & retail, hospitality & leisure and international subsidiaries. Burj Khalifa, a global icon, The Dubai Mall, the world's most-visited retail and lifestyle destination, and The Dubai Fountain, the world’s largest performing fountain, are among Emaar’s trophy destinations. https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/companies-news/emaar-unveils-the-oasis-by-emaar-a-20bln-luxurious-lifestyle-destination-mt4yyaib

Afghans fleeing the Taliban are being kidnapped and tortured by gangs as they try to cross the border between Iran and Turkey on their way to Europe, a BBC investigation has found. The gangs then send videos of the abuse to the families of migrants being held hostage, demanding a ransom for their release. Warning: this article contains descriptions of violence and sexual assault that some readers may find disturbing Shackled together on a mountain-top with padlocks around their necks, a group of Afghan migrants beg for their release. "Whoever watches this video, I was kidnapped yesterday, they are demanding $4,000 (£3,200) for each one of us. They beat us day and night non-stop," says one man, with a bloodied lip, his face caked in dust. Another video shows a group of men fully naked, crawling in the snow as someone whips them from behind. "I have family, don't do this to me; I have a wife and children, have mercy, please," one man cries in another, shortly before he is filmed being sexually abused at knifepoint by one of the gangs. These disturbing videos are evidence of a growing criminal enterprise, in which gangs in Iran kidnap mainly Afghan migrants trying to make their way to Europe. The migration route from Afghanistan to Iran, then across the border into Turkey and onto the rest of Europe, has been used for decades. In fact, I took part of the same journey myself 12 years ago when fleeing Iran for the UK, where I was granted asylum. But the route is now more dangerous than ever. Those trying to cross from Iran into Turkey walk for hours over dry, mountainous terrain with no trees to provide shade, making it harder to avoid security forces who patrol the area. As hundreds of thousands have fled Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in August 2021, gangs have seen an opportunity to profit from the huge increase in the number of people making the journey. Often in collaboration with the smugglers, they are kidnapping people on the Iranian side of the border, extorting money from vulnerable groups who have often already paid large sums in order to ensure safe passage. The BBC team heard stories of torture from at least 10 locations along the border. One activist who has been documenting the abuse for the past three years told us he received as many as two or three videos of torture a day at its peak. In an apartment in Turkey's commercial capital Istanbul, we meet Amina. She had a successful career as a police officer in Afghanistan, but fled the country when she realised the Taliban were going to retake power, having received threats before from the group. Softly-spoken and wearing a purple headscarf, she told me about her experience on the border when she and her family were taken hostage by a gang. "I was very scared, I was terrified, because I was pregnant and there was no doctor. We had heard many stories of young boys being raped." Her father Haji told us the gang sent him a video showing the torture of an unknown Afghan man after they had kidnapped Amina and other members of his family. "This was the situation I was in. By sending these videos they were warning me. If you don't pay the ransom we will kill your daughters and your son-in-law," he says. Haji sold his house in Afghanistan to pay the gang and get his family released. They then tried again to get into Turkey, this time successfully. But the eight-day ordeal on the border was too much for Amina. She lost her baby. Aside from the gangs, Amina and others face another major obstacle along their route: The wall. Snaking more than half the length of the Turkish-Iranian border, it stands three metres high and is fortified with barbed wire and electronic sensors, as well as watch-towers funded by the European Union (EU). Turkey began building the wall in 2017 in order to stop migrants crossing into the country, but they are still coming. Amina and several others told us they fell into the hands of violent gangs on the Iranian side after Turkish authorities had pushed them back over the border at night, allegations which have also been documented by international rights groups. Mahmut Kagan, a Turkish human rights lawyer who represents asylum seekers, insists this practice, which is illegal under international law, is helping the gangs to exploit people. "It's very much related to the pushbacks - those violations - because it creates a fragile group open to all forms of abuses," he says. Turkish authorities did not respond to the BBC's request for comment about these allegations. But in the face of similar accusations from human rights groups the government has denied pushbacks, saying any activities to prevent illegal entry into Turkey are carried out within the scope of border management. Before the wall was built, many locals used to make a living by smuggling goods across the border. That trade has largely vanished now, meaning some have switched to kidnapping or trafficking migrants instead. In Van, the closest Turkish city to the Iranian border and a hub for migrant trafficking, we met a young Afghan man called Ahmed in a stable repurposed as a safehouse, as he negotiated the next leg of his journey with smugglers. Ahmed's brother was kidnapped on the Iranian side of the border with his extended family when they tried to flee the Taliban last year. It was Ahmed, then still in Afghanistan, who received the calls from the gang demanding a ransom. "I said we don't have money, the kidnapper was beating my brother. We could hear it down the line," he says. Ahmed sold his family's belongings to pay for their release. But the experience wasn't enough to stop him trying the same journey himself six months later, desperate to make a living after the economic crisis that followed the Taliban takeover. In the Afghan capital Kabul, we met Said, back where he started after six failed attempts to escape Afghanistan and make it to Turkey. He had been promised a fake document that would allow him to cross to Turkey. Instead he says he was betrayed by his contact and sold to a gang, who tortured him and demanded a $10,000 (£7,990) ransom. "I was very scared. They could do anything to me. Take out my eyes, sell my kidneys, take out my heart," he says. But he told us it was his dignity that he feared losing the most, after he overheard the gang discussing how they could rape him and send the video to his family back home. Eventually, he escaped after paying $500 (£400). We asked the Iranian government what was being done to crack down on the gangs' activities along the border, but we did not receive a response. The BBC is banned from reporting inside Iran, so we were not able to cross the border to investigate further. Weeks after our interview, Said contacted us to tell us that he was back on the move and had reached Tehran again. That was eight months ago - and we have not heard from him since. Others we met who did make it to Turkey, like Amina, are trying to look to the future with optimism. "I won't give up. I know I'll become a mother," she says. "I know I'll be strong." We have changed the names of some interviewees in this report for their security. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65749889

CONTRA!!!! Non serious

The government has conceded that lingering political instability, import controls and tight monetary policies caused the country’s prevailing economic downfall, taking the blame for the turmoil it has largely pinned on the usual suspects: the PTI and the floods. However, the coalition government expects that political stability would help put the country towards economic recovery and growth path. This is one of the key themes of the economic review of the current fiscal year to be rolled out on Thursday (today) as part of the Pakistan Economic Survey 2022-23 by the coalition governments’ economic team led by Finance Minister Ishaq Dar. It will be followed by the budget announcement on Friday. The broad overview of the macroeconomic performance was shared with the National Economic Council (NEC) on Wednesday, along with targets for the next fiscal year. The government is forecasting the economic outlook for the next year as positive, with a growth target of 3.5pc. “The revival of growth hinges upon political stability, external account, and macroeconomic stability amid expected fall in global oil and commodity prices,” the document says. “With falling global inflation, domestic inflation is expected to gradually reduce next year but will remain in double digits.” All three major sectors of the economy — agriculture, industry and services — saw broad-based failures as the gross domestic product (GDP) grew by just 0.3pc against the target of 5pc during the current fiscal year. The government has blamed the previous government and accused it of leaving behind an economy “marred with huge macroeconomic imbalances including highest ever public debt, dwindling foreign exchange reserves, about 11pc currency depreciation, a massive circular debt and high fiscal and current account deficits”, fuelled by highest ever import burden of $84.5bn. But then it concedes that “lingering political instability, delay in the resumption of the IMF programme and bleak prospects of global growth shattered investors’ confidence”. The State Bank of Pakistan, it says, had to adopt a tight monetary policy throughout the year due to high inflation and this impeded economic activity. Because of the inherited external sector vulnerabilities, “the present government was compelled to take a hard decision of import compression to prevent the haemorrhage of dwindling foreign exchange reserves. Consequently, the current account deficit (CAD) fell 76pc and provided much-needed space to avert sovereign default”. It argues that the economic fundamentals that pushed the economic growth in 2021-22 were not sustainable and thus the real GDP was projected to shave off some growth momentum. The government advocates that agriculture was badly affected by floods and the “industrial sector faced double jeopardy as breaks in the supply chain of raw materials caused by floods were complemented by import restrictions”. The service sector was adversely affected by the outcome in the commodity-producing sectors. Against this backdrop, the economy grew by just 0.3pc against the 5pc target due to lower-than-projected growth of 1.5pc in the agriculture sector against the 3.9pc target; 0.9pc growth in the service sector against the targeted 5.1pc; and a contraction of 2.9pc in the industrial sector against the 5.9pc growth target. It said flood-induced supply shock severely affected industry and service sectors besides damaging critical transport infrastructure like roads and railway tracks. The industrial sector also faced pressures as import restrictions made it difficult to import essential raw materials, intermediate goods and machinery. “Resultantly, many factories either closed temporarily or operated below capacity. Moreover, increase in energy prices, higher cost of imported input due to currency depreciation, increased cost of working capital due to substantial increase in interest rates and political uncertainty adversely affected the industrial sector,” the official document concedes. It said large-scale manufacturing shrank 8pc this year compared to a 10.6pc growth last year. The mining and quarrying sub-sector also contracted 4.4pc against the target of 3pc due to a decline in natural gas, crude oil, other minerals and exploration services. Besides, the construction sector contracted 5.5pc, apparently due to less spending by public enterprises and an increase in the prices of construction materials. So, the fall in mining, large-scale manufacturing and construction led to a contraction of 2.9pc in the industrial sector. The investment-to-GDP ratio dropped from 15.7pc in 2021-22 to 13.6pc in 2022-23, with a decrease in both public and private investment-to-GDP ratios. Investment grew by 10.2pc in nominal terms, but it decreased by 15.4pc in real terms due to high inflation. Moreover, credit off-take by private businesses decreased to Rs158 billion during July-April as against Rs.1.1tr a year ago. The credit for working capital decreased to Rs170bn from Rs576bn, whereas credit for fixed investment fell to Rs182bn from Rs350bn in the year-ago period. In the first nine months (July to March) of the current fiscal year, the fiscal deficit stood at 3.6pc of GDP compared to 3.9pc a year ago. Total revenue grew 18.1pc, but the tax-to-GDP ratio decreased from 7.2pc to 6.6pc. Total expenditure grew by 18.7pc during July-March, mainly due to 25.3pc growth in current expenditure. The fiscal deficit primarily originated from the growth of current expenditure with a major share of markup payments (54.2pc) in federal current expenditure and its growth of 69.1pc. The stock of gross public debt increased 20.3pc to Rs59.2tr (88.9pc of GDP) by the end of March from Rs49.2 trillion (73.9pc of GDP) by the end of June last year. Domestic debt grew by 12.8pc from Rs31.1tr to Rs35.1tr, while external debt increased by 33.1pc from Rs18.2tr to Rs24.2tr from July to March. During July-April, the SBP increased the policy rate from 13.75pc to 21pc to tame inflation and achieve price stability. Average inflation came at 28.2pc in July-April compared to 11pc a year ago. It was mainly contributed by food inflation which remained higher at 37.6pc compared to 11.7pc last year, whereas non-food inflation rose to 21.4pc compared to 10.6pc a year ago. Domestic energy prices (gas, electricity, and fuel) were increased by reversing unsustainable fuel and electricity subsidies as part of a stabilisation programme, which also stoked up inflation, both directly and indirectly. Higher transport costs also fuelled inflation as petrol prices rose after the petroleum levy was reintroduced. Imports during the 10 months through April stood at $45.2bn, down 23pc from $58.5bn a year ago, primarily because of the government’s restrictions on opening letters of credit, uncertainty surrounding foreign exchange availability and political instability. https://www.dawn.com/news/1758580/govt-shoulders-some-blame-for-economic-woes

A dog expert has warned pet owners of exactly how long they should leave their pets home alone for. While you think your dog will be just fine at home all day, an expert canine behaviourist is urging pet owners not to leave their pets at home alone all day with just a bowl of water and a bed to keep them occupied. Dogs need mental and physical stimulation, as well as food and regular toilet breaks, and they'd simply get lonely without any company or interaction. Canine behaviourist Adem Fehmi has shared his advice on how long you can actually leave your dog unoccupied, and it’s not as long as you think. When addressing the length of time dogs should be left alone, Fehmi said: “Ideally, we should look to leave our adult dogs alone no more than four hours at a time "For younger dogs, they might only manage between an hour and two hours. "Not only will your dog likely need to go to the toilet after this length of time, dogs are social mammals and need company as well as mental and physical stimulation throughout the day." Fehmi also issued advice to owners who have plans to be out of the house for a long time. He told the Mirror: "If you don't have any trusted family members or friends to help care for and keep your dog company in your absence, using a dog walker or pet sitter can be a good option. "If your dog has separation anxiety, a home sitter can be a good alternative. "Some individual care providers might also be able to take your dog on a 1-2-1 basis at their own home if this is something your dog is able to cope with. "Doggy day care is of course another option, which might suit some dogs over others. "When deciding on a dog sitter, walker or day care facility, it is important to consider your dog's individual character, temperament and needs." Issuing guidance around keeping your dogs entertained at home, Fehmi said food dispensing toys are a “must” to keep them occupied. “It is useful to ensure that the food you are offering in a food dispensing toy is valued by your dog” he said. "If your dog is a fussier eater, it can be helpful to save special “high value scent” treats such as fish, meat or wet food to use.” https://www.gbnews.com/news/animals/dog-owners-warned-of-maximum-length-time-pets-can-be-left-alone-at-home

“Volvo will not sell a single car that is not full-electric after 2030, regardless of market,” the brand’s chief commercial officer, Björn Annwall, said on the sidelines of a launch event here for its newest EV. “There’s no ifs, no buts.” But that all-in strategy could cost Volvo sales in markets such as the United States, which remains skeptical of battery-powered vehicles because of range anxiety and inadequate charging infrastructure. Last year, EVs accounted for just 5.8 percent of new-car sales in the U.S., according to Guidehouse Insights. The consulting firm expects that share to grow to at least 27 percent by 2030. “There might be a few markets where we lose a little bit of sales,” Annwall conceded. But focusing financial and human resources on a single powertrain technology gives Volvo the best shot at producing the most compelling EV products, he said. “We would give up a lot of growth if we didn’t focus on battery” vehicles, Annwall said. “Last time I looked, that’s a very strong growing market, and ICE is a shrinking market.” “To be successful, you should focus on the growing part of the market.” https://worldnewsera.com/automobile/volvo-will-go-fully-electric-globally-by-2030-no-no-ifs-no-buts/

Kevin De Bruyne may be a hero to Manchester City fans – but he is no longer the star man in his own home. De Bruyne's three children – Mason, Rome and Suri - idolise their father, but he has been overtaken as their favourite player by City goal machine Erling Haaland. Seven-year-old Mason, in particular, is a huge Haaland fan, wearing a shirt with the name of City's No.9 on the back and even growing his hair in the same style as the prolific forward. Mason had a kick around with Haaland on the pitch at the Etihad Stadium after City clinched the title a fortnight ago, with his father relaxed about no longer being his eldest's football idol. "It's not a problem,” said a smiling De Bruyne. “All three children have long hair. Erling is a superstar. “I see that with the kids at my son's school too. They all have hair like that. It's funny. My children have all become interested in football this year. They attend more games. “They're also starting to play football themselves. My eldest, in particular, is starting to realize a little more what's going on. He wants to come to games more. He came to see Bayern. He begins to experience and enjoy it more. As long as they like it, it's okay." The Champions League is the one trophy missing from De Bruyne's hugely successful time at City, but the 31-year-old refuses to get hung up about being able to add it. When asked whether his biggest relief would be winning the Champions League or no longer having to field questions about whether his career would complete without it, De Bruyne grinned and said: “One hundred percent the question. De Bruyne can complete the set by winning the Champions League on Saturday night “But we’ve still not won it yet. I’ve been here eight years and it’s been incredible. Could I come here and think about all the amount of games and trophies we would win in eight years? Probably not. “But we try to win every game possible, every trophy and I think, in the end, we've had a pretty impressive career at City. But it's something we haven't won yet and it's something that we want to win. Hopefully it will be Saturday. “I think, eventually, when my career is over, there will be times when I look back on things that have been accomplished. Now I don't have time to think about it. Now I have to get ready to play football well on Saturday. That's all that's on my mind right now." Despite his enduring brilliance and influence for City, there have been times this season when Pep Guardiola has criticised De Bruyne, in a bid to get the very best out of his chief playmaker. "It's not a problem for me,” said De Bruyne. “I think occasionally more is made of players or coaches saying something. It's never personal. In the end, everyone always wants to get the best out of each other. "That's the same as with the discussion we had during the game against Real Madrid [when De Bruyne told Guardiola to 'Shut Up!]. “So much is written about that, but here we never talk about it again. Those are moments between competitive people. I don't see a problem with that. Everyone just wants to win.” https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-city-debruyne-erling-haaland-30186826

When it comes to ageing, many people think of wrinkles, grey hair, and a slower metabolism. However, the decline in muscle mass that occurs with age is equally important, and is often overlooked. American physician Dr Frank Lipman says maintaining muscle mass is crucial for overall health and longevity, and calls it “muscle currency”. As we age, we naturally lose muscle mass and strength. This process can begin as early as age 30 and accelerates after 50. The rate of muscle loss varies from person to person, but on an average, people can lose 3-8 per cent of their muscle mass each decade. This loss of muscle mass can lead to a number of negative health outcomes, including decreased mobility, increased risk of falls, and a reduced ability to perform everyday tasks. Muscle currency and longevity So why is muscle currency so important for longevity? For one, muscle mass is closely tied to metabolism. Muscle tissue is metabolically active, meaning it requires energy to maintain itself. This energy requirement, in turn, increases overall calorie burn and helps prevent weight gain and obesity. Additionally, muscle tissue helps regulate blood sugar levels and insulin sensitivity, which is important for preventing Type 2 diabetes. Muscle currency also plays a critical role in maintaining overall physical function and independence. Strong muscles are necessary for performing basic daily activities, like walking, climbing stairs and lifting objects. Muscle mass is also associated with improved balance and coordination, which can help prevent falls and injuries. Another key benefit of muscle currency is its impact on bone health. Muscle tissue is responsible for applying force and stress to bones during movement, which helps stimulate bone growth and maintenance. In fact, regular weight-bearing exercise has been shown to improve bone density and reduce the risk of fractures in older adults. Muscle currency is important for overall longevity because it helps protect against chronic diseases. Studies have shown that individuals with higher muscle mass have a reduced risk of a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. This may be because muscle tissue produces a number of beneficial hormones and cytokines that have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. Maintaining muscle currency So how can you maintain muscle currency as you age? The most effective way is through regular strength training and resistance exercise. These types of exercises are specifically designed to build and maintain muscle mass and strength, and can be done with free weights, resistance bands, or even bodyweight exercises. Additionally, it’s important to consume a diet that is rich in protein, which is essential for muscle growth and repair. Either way, if you are a plant-based eater or an animal protein eater, protein provides us the building blocks to grow and maintain new muscle tissue. Aim to include protein with every meal, and choose lean sources like chicken, fish, tofu, and legumes. But most importantly, don’t forget about the importance of rest and recovery. Adequate sleep, hydration and stretching are all important for maintaining healthy muscles, and preventing injury. Muscle currency is a critical component of overall health and longevity. Maintaining muscle mass and strength through regular exercise and a healthy diet can help prevent age-related decline in physical function, reduce the risk of chronic diseases, and promote a long and healthy life. No matter your age today, it is time to start looking at how you want to be feeling and living in your later years. https://www.khaleejtimes.com/lifestyle/health/why-muscle-is-the-currency-for-longevity

It was a surreal moment. On Tuesday night during his live TV show, Pakistani anchor Kashif Abbasi was talking about a legal petition filed by a lawyer against former prime minister Imran Khan. Mr Abbasi says his name, then stops himself: "He filed an application under article six against Imran Khan… I apologise, against the chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaf." We tried to speak to Mr Abbasi, but he did not get back to us. Over the last week, you will have struggled to hear Imran Khan's name or see his picture on Pakistan's media. His arrest a month ago on corruption charges is the backdrop to this crackdown. When Mr Khan was taken from a court complex in Islamabad on 9 May, protests were sparked around the country. Some protested peacefully, but there was also violence. Military buildings including the home of the most senior military commander in Lahore were attacked. The police arrested thousands of Khan supporters and the military have said they intend to try the alleged perpetrators of the attacks in military courts, something human rights groups including Amnesty International have said is against international law. On 31 May, Pakistan's media regulator Pemra sent out a directive to Pakistan's news channels. After mentioning the events of 9 May, the directive reminds media channels that they must refrain from providing airtime to individuals who propagate hate speech. There is no mention of Imran Khan's name in the directive, but we have spoken to several individuals at different TV stations who told us that the message had been conveyed in clear terms to their channels. Imran Khan's name should not be mentioned, his picture not shown, his voice not heard, even a mention on the channels' ticker tapes was not allowed, they told us. If there was any need to mention him, Mr Khan should only be referred to by his title, the chairman of his party, the PTI. Two sources told the BBC that they had spoken directly to the owners of the TV channels they work for. They say the owners had been called into a meeting with senior officials from the military and intelligence services who told the channels in clear terms what was expected. "They were told you will not run any news that bears his name and if you do you will be responsible," says one source who works in Pakistan TV. All contributors from the media spoke to us on condition of anonymity. The BBC has approached the army for a response, but has not yet heard back from them. Pemra's director general confirmed that they had issued the directive but said that no instruction was given to news channels to stop mentioning Imran Khan. It's not the first time that a politician has been subject to a ban; during Imran Khan's time in power, his political opponent Nawaz Sharif's speeches were banned. "Censorship has always been there in some way or another in Pakistan," one journalist told me. "I used to get calls from the ISPR [the military's press wing] saying there would be consequences about talking critically about Imran Khan. "Back then we struggled to find opposition leaders to speak to because they were in jail. Now we struggle to have someone on from the PTI. The major difference between Khan's tenure and now is that now they have this justification of the 9 May violence." Those in the media spoke to us about how this policy could affect their channels. "The top channels here said: 'How are you going to manage this?' The fear is that the channels will lose credibility sooner rather than later if they are not showing any news about the PTI and pushing government press conferences. "A very large number of people also watch TV because they want to get news about Imran Khan. The day he was arrested, the viewership was incredibly high." After being arrested then released, many of the PTI's senior leadership announced they were leaving the party. The limits on the media are just the latest attempt to reduce Imran Khan's influence before an election due later this year. There are some who disagree with the way that this has been portrayed. "It's been twisted for political gains, saying that his name is banned," says Faisal Vawda, former PTI leader and previously a close Khan aide. He left the party in late 2022. "It [the Pemra directive] doesn't say officially anywhere in terms of law that this is about him. "Anyone involved in terrorism, any kind of violence will not be allowed on media, that's the basic law of the country. "Technically he [Khan] fits into that scenario because he was the one who was commanding it. All the witnesses say that they got the instructions from him." That's something that Mr Khan disputes, saying the violence was encouraged by the intelligence services, although he has not provided proof of this. Those involved in the media that we spoke to have found it frustrating. "It is farcical," says one regular contributor to TV news channels. He takes part in discussions about 9 May, but is not allowed to name Imran Khan. "When you arrive, they ask you not to talk about the establishment's interference in politics as they worry this will get them into trouble. Even if you mention his name, because of the time delay they will just beep you out. It's just an environment of fear, it's like we are living under martial law." The establishment is the short-hand term for Pakistan's powerful military and intelligence agencies that many analysts believe are behind the recent crackdown. Despite there being precedent for limits on Pakistan's media - it is currently ranked 150 out of 180 on press freedom by the Reporters without Borders index - there are concerns that recent weeks have made a lasting impact on free speech. "I think [that since 9 May] we've lost the space that we had since Musharraf era. We lost that freedom of speech," one journalist told me. "In the past year, the way military was criticised on TV channels and papers - I've never seen that. "Now I think it will take us years, if not a decade, to recapture that space." "This is an unprecedented level," says another. "It's the self-censorship that is actually the worst. It makes me second-guess myself, my team second-guess themselves. They come to me scared they will get something wrong, some header, inviting a particular guest because they might mention Imran Khan or be sympathetic towards what is happening to the party. "You never know who can be picked up. We are really under pressure." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65831780

Osama bin Laden was the object of a targeted killing in Pakistan in 2011. Targeted killing has been variously defined. Here I provide, in summarized form, a definition set forth and defended in detail elsewhere.[1] By definition, targeted killing is the premeditated, freely performed, intentional killing of a uniquely identified individual person. Moreover, at the time of the killing the person in question does not pose an imminent threat to life or limb. Further, the killing takes place in the overall context of an armed conflict in which both the target and the person targeted are participants. The protagonists in the armed conflicts in question are the armed forces of political entities Osama bin Laden was killed by US Special Forces outside a theater of war in a well-ordered, urban setting in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011. While Pakistan was, and remains, an ally of the United States, for some reason it was not enforcing its own laws in respect of bin Laden. This presented the United States with a dilemma. On the one hand, bin Laden was a terrorist responsible, directly or indirectly, for murdering thousands of US citizens. On the other hand, it would be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty to enter Pakistan territory without permission and kill or capture bin Laden. Elsewhere I have argued that the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden was probably not morally permissible by the lights of just war theory. Here I am bracketing just war theory and simply considering the moral permissibility of killing bin Laden independently of just war theory. And, indeed, my conclusion is different; for my argument here, supposing it is sound, shows that the killing of bin Laden was probably morally permissible. Naturally, I will need to help myself in passing to some of the principles constitutive of just war theory, and I also briefly summarize some of the arguments canvassed by myself and others elsewhere. However, my intention is to present a novel and more complex argument to my conclusion, albeit one that takes off from earlier arguments. In short, I seek to extend the deliberative process for and against the killing of bid Laden with a view to bringing it to a conclusion, at least from the perspective of the application of moral theory. I do so in the knowledge that unforeseen empirical consequences have the potential to undermine any such conclusion thought to be definitive. Let me summarize the basic arguments in play. The basic moral perspectives in play are retrospective and prospective, and procedural and substantive. At the risk of oversimplification, those who regard the killing of bin Laden as morally permissible tend to offer considerations of retrospective and substantive justice, and these considerations coalesce around a principle of retribution. Given that he murdered numerous US and other citizens, so the argument goes, he deserved to die. On the other hand, those who disagree tend to offer proceduralist considerations, especially of a legalistic kind. Some argue that even though Pakistan was evidently unwilling to hand over bin Laden to the United States, it was an unacceptable violation of its sovereignty to enter Pakistan without permission to kill or capture him. Others have recourse to the criminal law; procedural justice requires arrest and a fair trial, and, evidently, bin Laden could have been captured and tried. By contrast with retrospective, proceduralist, and substantive moral considerations, prospective considerations evidently cut both ways. Hence both the pro-kill bin Laden and the anti-kill bin Laden groups help themselves to these, albeit to different ones. Thus the anti-kill group argues that violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and killing bin Laden will simply inflame anti-US sentiment and exacerbate the problem of terrorism both for Pakistan and the United States. By contrast, the pro-kill group emphasizes considerations of deterrence: “others will think twice about murdering US citizens.” Further arguments in play include (on the pro-kill view) that procedural justice is merely a means to realize substantive justice, and that in the case of bin Laden there was not the same need for a formal evidential process as in standard criminal justice cases—after all, there could be no reasonable doubt among the authorities or the general public that bin Laden was culpable. Moreover, a due process of sorts was followed in that the killing was authorized at the highest level and only after appropriate weighing of relevant considerations, including, presumably, legal considerations. This is, of course, not to say that existing institutional arrangements in the United States in respect of targeted killings are adequate. Here there are three elements in play: (1) the decision maker and the decision-making process (e.g., the president of the United States on advice from military personnel and legal advisors); (2) the criteria used in the decisions themselves, including, crucially, moral criteria such as the principles of necessity, discrimination, and proportionality; and (3) oversight of this process (e.g., by an independent judicial entity). However, if these arrangements are not adequate, there does not seem to be any in-principle reason why they could not be renovated in a manner that rendered them adequate. Another argument invokes the principle of necessity, as it applies in law enforcement contexts. For it might be claimed that bin Laden resisted arrest, and deadly force can be justifiably used against those resisting arrest for very serious offenses, such as murder, if it is necessary to do so. One problem with the “procedure as a means to substantive justice” claim is that such exceptionalism may well undermine the integrity of criminal justice processes. A problem with the “due process” claim is that, arguably, the institutional process actually operative in the bin Laden killing was not adequate, notwithstanding that it could be renovated. A problem with the necessity claim is that bin Laden was apparently unarmed when cornered, and it therefore seems unlikely that the use of lethal force was necessary. Moreover, if the intention was actually to capture bin Laden, and lethal force was only used when he resisted in a manner that removed all nonlethal options, then killing him was not in fact a case of targeted killing, as we are using that term. What are we to make of these various arguments, some in favor of killing bin Laden, others against it? I suggest that, weighing one set against the other, they are inconclusive, that they fail to be decisive one way or another. My response is twofold. First, the issue needs to be framed in terms of the conflict between the law enforcement model and the military combat model. Essentially, as already argued, neither model can be straightforwardly applied, but both remain relevant. The military combat model cannot be straightforwardly applied because Abbottabad was not a theater of war; it was a well-ordered jurisdiction. But neither can the law enforcement model be straightforwardly applied, because it was not a jurisdiction in which the laws against terrorists, specifically bin Laden, were being effectively applied. Second, in the context of framing the issue in this manner, I suggest a further argument that is capable of breaking the deadlock. This is based on a notion of collective self-defense. What is meant by collective self-defense in this context? (What is not meant is the legal idea of multiple nation-states acting collectively, as opposed to unilaterally.) Evidently, killing bin Laden was not an act of individual self-defense. As already noted, it is highly unlikely that the US Special Forces personnel killed bin Laden because he constituted an imminent threat to their lives. Therefore, the principle of necessity operative in law enforcement contexts is probably not relevant. Similarly, the principle of proportionality, as it applies in law enforcement contexts, is not relevant. Notwithstanding that killing bin Laden was not an act of individual self-defense against an imminent threat, it could well have been an act done in collective self-defense. Arguably, the United States—a collective entity—was defending itself against another collective entity, al-Qaeda, in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. Here I need to invoke the differences between collective self-defense in the context of an ongoing armed conflict between collective entities and the use of lethal force by police officers in discrete, self-contained encounters with criminals; more specifically, the differences with respect to the application of the principles of necessity and proportionality. In the case of collective self-defense, but not individual self-defense, the ends in play are medium and long-term (military) collective ends, and the principles of necessity and proportionality apply at this collective level. So the appropriate set of questions to be asked in relation to bin Laden were: (1) Is he an active member of the enemy organization (al-Qaeda)? (2) Would killing him be disproportionate in terms of foreseeable loss of civilian life? (3) Is killing him a necessary means to a medium or long-term collective end in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda? Question 1 must obviously receive an affirmative answer. But what of questions 2 and 3? Question 2 is ambiguous insofar as it could apply to a theater of war or to an area outside a theater of war. Clearly, in the case of the bin Laden killing, it is the latter that is relevant. Abbottabad is a well-ordered jurisdiction, albeit one in which the laws against the terrorist, bin Laden, were, for whatever reason, not being enforced effectively. Accordingly, the argument from collective self-defense faces a serious obstacle. What of question 3? If bin Laden was encountered on a battlefield in Afghanistan rather than in Abbottabad, then it would have been fairly obviously morally permissible to kill him, assuming doing so did not put innocent civilians at a disproportionate risk of harm; in short, the principles of military necessity and proportionality would straightforwardly apply and, hence, the argument from collective self-defense would be decisive. However, this was not the case. So while the answer to question 3 is affirmative, compliance with the principle of necessity nevertheless remains problematic, given he was killed outside a theater of war. My response to this conundrum is to construct a further argument that is derivable from the argument from collective self-defense. This argument seeks to make the best of the moral considerations constitutive of both the law enforcement model and the military combat model in a context in which neither can be straightforwardly applied. According to this argument, collective self-defense would justify the killing of bin Laden in a well-ordered jurisdiction under three conditions: (1) the laws against terrorism were ineffective—the default law enforcement model was not available; (2) the lives of innocent civilians were not put at serious risk—the principle of discrimination as it applies in law enforcement contexts rather than the more permissive one applicable in military combat contexts was applied; and (3) bin Laden was a high value target—so the fact that it would have been morally permissible to kill bin Laden in a theater of war merely on the grounds of being a member of al-Qaeda is not in itself sufficient to justify killing him in a well-ordered jurisdiction, even one in which the laws against terrorism are not effectively enforced. Evidently, conditions 1 and 2 obtained, what of 3? I take it that the US strategy in relation to al-Qaeda consists in large part in degrading its capability by “neutralizing” “high value” targets, notably by killing them. Assuming this strategy is rationally defensible in the context of the collective military ends of the United States, the question to be asked is whether or not bin Laden is or, at least, was a high-value target at the time he was killed. I suggest that the answer is in the affirmative. How so? Presumably, bin Laden continued to be useful to al-Qaeda in an advisory role. However, his importance to al-Qaeda at the time of his death was principally symbolic; he is the person the world most associates with al-Qaeda and 9/11 and, apparently, he had got away scot-free. Moreover, symbolism is far from being inconsequential to terrorists and, therefore, to those engaged in counterterrorism. Consider, for example, the symbolic importance to al-Qaeda of its successful attack on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. Accordingly, in the context of the ongoing armed conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda, the United States is diminished, and al-Qaeda is corresponding enhanced, so long as bin Laden has neither been killed nor captured. For this reason, bin Laden was a very high-value target. It follows that killing bin Laden was a significant symbolic victory for the United States and its allies in the overall context of their counterterrorist campaign of collective self-defense. I conclude that, other things being equal, the killing of bin Laden was justified on the basis of the argument from collective self-defense appropriately adjusted (as described above). But are other things equal? As we saw above, there are a number of retrospective (especially retribution), proceduralist, and prospective moral considerations in play. However, it was concluded that these were not decisive one way or another; there was a deadlock. It seems, therefore, that the (adjusted) argument from collective self-defense breaks the deadlock. I conclude that killing bin Laden was morally permissible, at least by the lights of the moral considerations canvassed here. Naturally, from this it does not follow that, all things considered, killing bin Laden was morally permissible. To arrive at that conclusion one would have to authoritatively weigh up a number of consequentialist moral considerations (taking collective self-defense to be a deontological consideration), including ones mentioned above. However, I do not have the relevant expertise to assess these. Here I simply reiterate that while some of these weighed against killing him (e.g., the negative impact on US-Pakistan relations and an upsurge in anti-US sentiment in Pakistan), others weighed in favor of killing him (e.g., if incarcerated for a lengthy period, bin Laden may well have continued to serve as an important rallying point for pro-terrorist activity. https://counterterrorismethics.tudelft.nl/the-targeted-killing-of-osama-bin-laden/

On May 1, 2011, American soldiers killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at his compound near Islamabad, Pakistan. Intelligence officials believe bin Laden was responsible for many deadly acts of terrorism, including the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. He had been on the FBI’s “most wanted” list for more than a decade. Osama bin Laden: Early Life Osama bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1957 or 1958. He was the 17th of 52 children born to Mohammed bin Laden, a Yemeni immigrant who owned the largest construction company in the Saudi kingdom. Young Osama had a privileged, cosseted upbringing. His siblings were educated in the West and went to work for his father’s company (by then an enormous conglomerate that distributed consumer goods like Volkswagen cars and Snapple beverages across the Middle East), but Osama bin Laden stayed close to home. He went to school in Jiddah, married young and, like many Saudi men, joined the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. Did you know? Bin Laden’s body was evacuated from the Abbottabad compound by helicopter and flown to an American aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. The corpse was buried at sea. Osama bin Laden: The Pan-Islamist Idea For bin Laden, Islam was more than just a religion: It shaped his political beliefs and influenced every decision he made. While he was at college in the late 1970s, he became a follower of the radical pan-Islamist scholar Abdullah Azzam, who believed that all Muslims should rise up in jihad, or holy war, to create a single Islamic state. This idea appealed to the young bin Laden, who resented what he saw as a growing Western influence on Middle Eastern life. In 1979, Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan; soon afterward, Azzam and bin Laden traveled to Peshawar, a Pakistani city on the border with Afghanistan, to join the resistance. They did not become fighters themselves, but they used their extensive connections to win financial and moral support for the mujahideen (the Afghan rebels). They also encouraged young men to come from all over the Middle East to be a part of the Afghan jihad. Their organization, called the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) served as a global recruitment network–it had offices in places as far away as Brooklyn and Tucson, Arizona–and provided the migrant soldiers, known as “Afghan Arabs,” with training and supplies. Most importantly, it showed bin Laden and his associates that it was possible to put pan-Islamism into practice. Osama Bin Laden: Building Al Qaeda In 1988, bin Laden created a new group, called al Qaeda (“the base”) that would focus on symbolic acts of terrorism instead of military campaigns. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia to step up fundraising for this new and more complicated mission. However, the comparatively pro-Western Saudi royal family feared that bin Laden’s fiery pan-Islamist rhetoric might cause trouble in the kingdom, and so they tried to keep him as quiet as they could. They took away his passport and spurned his offer to send “Afghan Arabs” to guard the border after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Then, adding insult to injury, they sought help from the “infidel” U.S. instead. Furious about being snubbed, bin Laden vowed that it was al Qaeda, and not the Americans, who would one day prove to be “master of this world.” Early the next year, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for the more militantly Islamist Sudan. After one more year of preparation, al Qaeda struck for the first time: A bomb exploded in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, that had housed American troops on their way to a peacekeeping mission in Somalia. (No Americans died in the blast, but two Austrian tourists did.) Osama bin Laden: Worldwide Jihad Emboldened, bin Laden and his associates embraced violent jihad in earnest. For example, they trained and armed the Somali rebels who killed 18 American servicemen in Mogadishu in 1993. They were also linked to the 1993 bombing of New York’s World Trade Center; the attempted assassination of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarek in 1995; the bombing of a U.S. National Guard training center in Riyadh that same year; and the truck bomb that destroyed the Khobar Towers, an American military residence in Dharan, in 1996. Osama bin Laden: “Public Enemy #1″ In an attempt to protect himself from arrest and win even more recruits to al Qaeda’s deadly cause, bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Meanwhile, the scale of al Qaeda’s attacks continued to increase. On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded simultaneously at the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, where 213 people were killed and 4,500 were injured, and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, where 11 people were killed and 85 were injured. Al Qaeda took credit for the bombings. Then, on October 12, 2000, a small boat loaded with explosives plowed into the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, an American naval destroyer docked off the coast of Yemen. 17 sailors were killed and 38 were injured. Bin Laden took credit for that incident as well. A federal grand jury in the United States indicted bin Laden on charges related to the embassy bombings, but with no defendant there could be no trial. Meanwhile, al Qaeda operatives were busy planning the biggest attack of all: the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even in the frenzy of the post-September 11 “global war on terror,” bin Laden eluded capture. For almost ten years, he remained in hiding, issuing fatwas and taunts over radio and television, recruiting enthusiastic young jihadis to his cause and plotting new attacks. Meanwhile, the CIA and other intelligence officials searched in vain for his hiding place. Finally, in August 2010, they traced bin Laden to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, about 35 miles from Islamabad. For months, CIA agents watched the house while drones photographed it from the sky. Finally, it was time to move. On May 2, 2011 (May 1 in the United States), a team of Navy SEALs burst into the compound. They found the al Qaeda leader in an upstairs bedroom with a pistol and an assault rifle nearby and shot him in the head and chest, killing him instantly. “Justice,” said President Obama in a televised address to the nation that night, “has been done.” Bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, became leader of al Qaeda after bin Laden's death. On July 31, 2022, he was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, ending a two decade-long manhunt. In 2019, bin Laden's son, Hamza bin Laden, who had been viewed as a potential successor to the al Qaeda leader, was killed in a U.S. counterterrorism operation. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/osama-bin-laden