pg slot demo
The Poundland buy that stops carrots going mouldy & keeps the veg fresh for monthsElon Musk accused of censorship after H1B migrant controversy deepensTech billionaire Elon Musk spent at least $270 million to help Donald Trump win the US presidency, according to new federal filings, making him the country's biggest political donor. SpaceX and Tesla CEO Musk, the world's richest person, was an ardent supporter of Trump's White House campaign -- funneling money into door knocking operations and speaking at his rallies. His financial backing, which has earned him a cost-cutting advisory role in Trump's incoming government, surpassed spending by any single political donor since at least 2010, according to data from nonprofit OpenSecrets. The Washington Post reported that Musk spent more this election cycle than Trump backer Tim Mellon, who gave nearly $200 million and was previously the Republican's top donor. Musk donated $238 million to America PAC, a political action committee that he founded to support Trump, filings late Thursday with the Federal Election Commission showed. An additional $20 million went to the RBG PAC, a group that used advertising to soften Trump's hardline reputation on the key voter issue of abortion. Musk has been an ever-present sidekick for Trump since his election victory in November, inviting him to watch a rocket launch in Texas by his SpaceX company. Trump has selected the South African-born tycoon and fellow ally Vivek Ramaswamy to head the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, through which the pair have promised to deliver billions of dollars of cuts in federal spending. However, with Musk's businesses all having varying degrees of interactions with US and foreign governments, his new position also raises concerns about conflict of interest. The president-elect has nominated several people close to Musk for roles in his administration, including investor David Sacks as the so-called AI and crypto czar. Meanwhile, billionaire astronaut Jared Isaacman, who has collaborated with Musk's SpaceX, was named the head of US space agency NASA. pgf-bjt/acbTOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” A small problem, but wide support for a fix Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. Why the courts rejected the Kansas citizenship rule After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” Would the Kansas law stand today? The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Born in Illinois but unable to register in Kansas Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” ___ Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report. John Hanna, The Associated Press
In eight days, another Nebraska football season will be over and answers will be had. Sure, the team may make a bowl game, but the outcome of that contest won't change much — not as much as the next two games. In their slide from 5-1 to 5-5, the Huskers have failed to answer a lot of questions. "Is this team really improving?" "Will they make a bowl game?" "What is holding Nebraska back?" Follow us on Facebook Fingers have been pointed at many people during Nebraska's stretch of disappointing seasons, including this one, but they should now be directed solely at the players, at least for these next couple of games. Another 5-7 finish would be disastrous after the strong first half, and losses to rivals in Wisconsin and Iowa won't settle a perturbed fanbase at all. There's more pressure in the form of a current four-game skid, a 10-game losing streak to Wisconsin and a seven-year bowl drought, and Nebraska's new offensive coordinator is apparently adding more. “He’s putting a lot of pressure on the guys to make the plays,” head coach Matt Rhule said of Dana Holgorsen. Pressure is good. If this program ends up regaining its form, it will find itself in big games, which naturally come with pressure. First, though, the players need to learn to handle it. The best teams are filled with players unshaken by intense heat and pressure, who turn into diamonds and shine in those conditions. The Huskers are still crumbling. “It’s been such a unique season. We’ve had some really, really great moments, and I don’t know if you’ll ever be able to recapture the felling of beating Colorado, the pick-six in that game," Rhule said. "And then to now be in the tough spot that we’re in, you’re just kinda looking for everybody to rally together and push us through.” The good news is the Huskers are still pushing and fighting to break through, but it's now time for it to happen. There's no time for sugarcoating or moral victories, they have to do it. Related: Huskers OC Holgorsen gives blunt assessment of offense, praises Raiola “(Holgorsen) was very direct and he’s been very direct with them," Rhule said. "If they want to win, they’re gonna have to go make plays. They’re gonna have to catch balls, break tackles, make long runs, make big blocks against an excellent defense, score touchdowns in the red zone, and it’s not the plays that do it, it’s the players that do it.” The head coach noted earlier this week that it can be frustrating to repeatedly come up short, but it can also be energizing when you focus on how close the team is. That may be true, but that energy will be zapped if Nebraska finishes 5-7, and it's up to the players to avoid that. “(Marcus Satterfield) was saying it to them but all the noise was ‘it’s Sat’s fault’ so the players can sometimes be like, ‘Well, I wish Sat did a better job.’ No, Dana comes in and he’s saying the same exact thing,” Rhule said. If they didn't listen to Satterfield, who took the brunt of the fans' blame, they better listen to Rhule and Holgorsen now because there's nobody else to blame. The pressure is on the guys on the field, and if they don't break through, the focus this offseason can shift to finding the right players to win. “I think that’s good, that’s the way we want to empower our players. We want our players to believe that players win games," Rhule said. "I think Dana’s juice and energy and intensity, and the fact that (the players) have nowhere to turn except to turn to themselves. I want us to go win the game and I want our players to walk off proud knowing that they won the game. Coach Rhule didn’t win the game, Dana didn’t win the game, Tony didn’t win the game, I want the players to go win the game, and so I think he’s helped get that message across.” Related: 'It'll be, definitely, very emotional' — Huskers hope to honor seniors with win on Saturday For the seniors, these next two games will be their last ones wearing the Scarlet and Cream. For everyone else, they should be a chance to prove they belong at this level and can help this program take the next step. “We’re in the same spot as last year," Rhule admitted. "You’ve got to break through so that there’s something new next year that you’re going for. So that’s what the end of the year is to me, it’s not about optics, it’s not about hope, it’s about action, it’s about doing things.” It's do or die time. Will the Huskers start to shine or continue to crumble? Either way, we'll have a lot of answers about this team in eight days. Dylan Widger-Imagn Images
Your drawer full of old cables is worth more than you think
We're closing in on the end of the year, so it's time to look back at 2024. We've seen some great products (as the many newcomers in our list can attest), some real innovations... and some proper duff moves. So which brands impressed over the last 12 months? And which have some serious work to do in 2025? Let's see... Loser: Sonos app blunder was costly If Sonos is multi-room royalty, then 2024 was very much its annus horribilis. It started the year with such promise, with the and still riding high and a strong soundbar game to its name. Sonos had barely put a foot wrong for years. But then came the spring, and the missteps began... First up was the , its highly anticipated debut in the wireless headphone market. But they felt rushed, with so-so sound quality and features missing at launch, and were accompanied by an that is up there with the Amazon Fire Phone as one of the worst tech decisions in recent memory. The app update introduced numerous bugs and removed some much-loved features – an impressive double whammy, akin to scoring an own goal while shooting yourself in the foot. , before backtracking and setting out a . The Sonos board also agreed to forego its annual bonus "unless the company succeeds in improving the quality of the app experience and rebuilding customer trust". Which is a bit like me deciding whether I've earned another mince pie or not (and you know what? I definitely have). It also released the . With only minor improvements over the original and no bump in sound quality, it scored a disappointing three out of five stars in our expert review team's review. Sonos did, however, end the year on a more positive note. The soundbar landed in November and scored a perfect five-star in our new review, prompting us to call it "a huge upgrade on the still-very-good original ". In light of the newcomer's arrival, the original Arc has also dropped to a record-low price to shift final stock. Let's hope Sonos continues this upward trend into the new year. Its is rumoured to be on the horizon. Winner: LG OLEDs are back on top LG's mid-series OLED TV for 2023, the was fairly disappointing. For years we had extolled the popular TV model as the ideal premium telly for its class-leading picture quality and reasonable pricing, but last year's C3 was a black mark on its track record. It offered minimal improvements over the and a higher price, opening the door for the to saunter in and claim the mid-price OLED crown. Thankfully this black mark turned out to be a minor blemish rather than a permanent stain, as this year's was very good indeed. In fact, our TV editor was . A rich, engaging picture, a full suite of streaming apps and unrivalled gaming specs (plus a more reasonable price than its predecessor) helped it win three What Hi-Fi? Awards and five-star ratings across the sizes we tested ( , and ). The step-up model was another winner. While it didn't pick up any Awards, it did score five out of five, with its second-generation -equipped screen proving a step up on 2023's already excellent . In what is a hugely competitive premium TV market, 2024 saw a welcome return to form for LG. Winner: Sony wireless headphones continue their form Sony's wireless headphones once again dominated the market this year – the brand won five out of seven What Hi-Fi? Awards in the ever-popular product category. The noise-cancelling earbuds once again picked up Product of the Year, while the brand-new proved to be the best budget earbuds around. Both Sony's flagship XM5 earbuds and over-ears won for another year, as did its mid-ranging over-ears. Despite having another stellar year, Sony wasn't as dominant as it was last year when it pulled off a clean sweep in the wireless headphones category. That's not down to Sony doing anything wrong exactly; the competition just upped their ante. The wireless over-ears and premium earbuds are phenomenal headphones and squeezed in around the various Sony pairs. Winner: Bose silences the competition Sticking with headphones, Bose refreshed an old classic, the . Bose's entry-level pair of wireless noise-cancelling earbuds scored the full five-star set for their compelling ANC, entertaining sound and very good price. Despite only launching recently, they have already had a price cut, making them worthy competitors to the flagship (though ageing) . It just shows the rate of progress that only a couple of years after a flagship pair launched, another brand's mid-range model can give them a run for their money. And it's a sign that Bose's buds remain ones to be reckoned with. Winner: Apple pulls off ANC without eartips launched in two varieties – one with active noise-cancelling, one without. But even the retains the eartip-less design of the standard AirPods, making them the first earbuds to offer with such an 'open' design. Cue . But it works. By focusing its noise-cancelling energies on low-end frequencies, Apple has proven that you don't need to plug up your ears to achieve a decent standard of sound isolation. Sure, the effect isn't as isolating as that delivered by Bose's traditional flagship , but then it is more comfortable over long listening sessions. Here we have a case of Apple living up to its classic 'Think different' slogan. Loser: Earfun fails to recapture its former glory (again) Oh, Earfun. What happened? How bright the future must have seemed when, four years ago, the budget wireless earbuds came out of nowhere to score five stars and a What Hi-Fi? Award. Never before had we given such eminently affordable earbuds such a glowing review. The big brands have duly followed, targeting the entry-level end of the wireless earbuds space, but Earfun was there first, redefining what was possible at such a scandalously low price. Good on it. But now? Well, the present hasn't actually turned out so bright. The followed hot on their heels and added ANC to the mix to achieve another five-star review, but the more recently released and only notched up three stars apiece, as did this year's and . We're hoping the brand can return to its former glory, but going on its recent form that is looking less and less likely. Loser: Spotify fails to move with the times And still we wait. The three-year delay of lossless tier has become such a joke in the industry that we're considering creating an Award in its honour, to hand out every year until Spotify finally launches the blasted thing. It's been close to a decade since Spotify first a lossless streaming tier. This prompted us to re-evaluate the world's most popular music streaming service this year. With 's paid service now costing more than rivals' (most of whom offer lossless streaming), we had no choice but to dock Spotify a star when updating our review. The service still has plenty going for it, including a genuinely free tier, an intuitive app and Spotify Wrapped. But it's not enough for the sound quality-conscious listener. Winner? Loser? The jury's out... McIntosh is brought into the Bose family Shockwaves were sent around the technology industry when the announcement reached it that , owner of audiophile brands McIntosh, Sonus Faber and Sumiko Phono Cartridges. This caused much consternation among audiophiles that the specialist brands would be diluted – and the quality compromised – by such a mass-market tech owner. But for now, . Bose has been in the audio game for a long time and has deep pockets that could prove beneficial to the legacy hi-fi brands. Doesn't that make for a better home than McIntosh's previous owner, a private equity firm? As my esteemed colleague Becky Roberts pointed out: "I'm confident that this ownership will last longer than the previous one – and that the new owners are likely far more interested in growing the brands rather than simply turning a quick profit." It also opens some exciting possibilities for in-car audio. Bose has kitted out cars made by Porsche, Chevrolet, Honda and Mazda, while McIntosh and Sonus Faber have had systems installed in cars at the higher end of the market, Jeep, Maserati and Lamborghini, to name but three. Plenty of potential, then. Whether the brands' hardcore fans see it that way is another matter...
