jili vip casino
The Tesla Ethicist: Musk, X, & Feeding Voter Indifference About The Climate CrisisEnfusion's COO Neal Pawar sells $190,721 in stock
WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It's been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It's not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it's possible, it's a bad idea. Here's a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: What Trump has said about birthright citizenship During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” What does the law say? In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn't always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn't until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it's less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. So what could Trump do and would it be successful? Trump wasn't clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he'd use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action." He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade," Nowrasteh said. "He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens." Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
It’s hard being a nerd, but yes, I interviewed an AI Bot to learn more about how it “thinks” and how to better work with it, especially as it relates to patents. Human: How does a Large Language Model (LLM) determine higher frequency phrases? Bot: An LLM like myself determines higher frequency phrases through several steps in its training and operation: 1. Training Data Analysis: During training, the model is exposed to vast amounts of text, counting occurrences of words and phrases. 2. Tokenization: Text is broken down into tokens, which helps identify frequently occurring sequences. 3. Frequency Counting: The model tracks how often specific sequences (n-grams) appear. 4. Statistical Models: It uses these counts to predict phrase likelihood based on context. 5. Contextual Understanding: Modern LLMs consider context to understand relevance. 6. Embedding Space: Frequent phrases have more robust representations. 7. Post-Processing: Additional algorithms ensure common phrases are used appropriately. Human: That is very helpful. Does it mean that if a single occurrence of a concept occurs among thousands of other, higher frequency concepts, then this single occurrence may be overlooked by the AI algorithm? Or at least have a high likelihood of being overlooked? Bot: Yes, that’s correct. A single occurrence among thousands of higher frequency concepts has a high likelihood of being overlooked or given less importance due to frequency bias, lack of contextual relevance, overfitting prevention, and statistical significance. However, LLMs can still capture some long-tail data, and with continuous learning, recognition might improve over time. Human: Great. And is it fair to say that the output of the AI engine uses more equivocal language to describe concepts that it is not as sure of (ostensibly because they are lower frequency than other concepts)? For example, the AI bot says things like “it seems that ...” or “it may be that ...” indicating it thinks so, but it is not as sure. Bot: Yes, that’s a fair observation. When dealing with less certain or lower frequency concepts, the output might use more equivocal language like “it seems that” or “it may be that” to express uncertainty, reflect lower confidence, avoid overconfidence, encourage interaction, and adhere to ethical AI practices. Human: Thank you, great. Now does this also mean that seeding the AI Bot with too many or spurious documents may dilute the accuracy of the output? Bot: Yes, seeding an AI model with too many or spurious documents can indeed dilute the accuracy of its output. Here’s why: • Noise Introduction: Spurious documents or irrelevant data can introduce noise into the training set. This noise can skew the model’s understanding of language patterns, making it less accurate in its predictions or responses. • Overfitting to Noise: If the model is trained on a dataset where a significant portion is irrelevant or low quality, it might overfit to this noise, learning patterns that are not representative of the language or the task at hand. This reduces generalization to new, relevant data. • Dilution of Relevant Information: High-quality, relevant data gets diluted when mixed with a large volume of low-quality or irrelevant data. This can lead to the model not learning the key concepts or patterns as effectively because they are less prominent in the overall dataset. • Resource Allocation: Training models require computational resources. If a large portion of these resources is spent on processing and learning from irrelevant data, the efficiency of the training process decreases, potentially leading to suboptimal performance. • Bias and Misinformation: If spurious documents contain biases or misinformation, these can be incorporated into the model’s knowledge, leading to biased or incorrect outputs. • Contextual Misalignment: When the AI is exposed to too much varied or off-topic data, it might struggle to maintain context or relevance in its responses, especially when dealing with specific queries or tasks. To mitigate these issues, careful curation of training data is crucial. Data scientists often use techniques like: • Data Cleaning: Removing or correcting spurious entries. • Relevance Scoring: Assigning weights or filtering based on relevance to the task. • Quality Control: Ensuring the dataset is of high quality before training. • Continuous Monitoring: Regularly updating and refining the dataset based on performance feedback. So, while a diverse dataset can be beneficial, the quality and relevance of the documents are paramount to maintaining or improving the AI’s accuracy. Human: In the world of patents, sometimes the patents are drafted with similar, but not identical terms referring to the same things but using different etymology. Is that a potential source of error? Bot: Yes, using similar but not identical terms with different etymology when drafting patents can indeed be a potential source of error. This practice can lead to several issues: • Ambiguity: Different terms, even if they refer to the same thing, might introduce ambiguity. This can make it challenging for patent examiners, courts, or other parties to interpret the scope of the patent accurately. Ambiguity can result in disputes over what exactly is protected by the patent. • Claim Construction: During litigation, the construction of patent claims becomes crucial. If terms with different etymological roots are used, it might complicate the process of defining what the claim covers, potentially leading to broader or narrower interpretations than intended. • Prior Art Analysis: When searching for prior art, using different terms might lead to missing relevant patents or publications because databases might not recognize these terms as synonyms. This could result in overlooking existing technology, which might affect the novelty or non-obviousness of the invention. • Prosecution History: The use of different terms can complicate the prosecution history of a patent. If an applicant uses one term during prosecution but another in the final claims, this could be seen as an attempt to broaden or narrow the claim scope post-hoc, which might be scrutinized by examiners or courts. • International Filings: When filing patents internationally, different terms might not translate well or might have different legal or technical meanings in other languages, leading to inconsistencies in protection across jurisdictions. To mitigate these risks, patent drafters may use a glossary within the patent to define terms clearly or stick to standardized terminology within the field to increase clarity and precision. Human: How do LLM AI bots treat patent images and patent drawings? Bot: LLM AI bots have varying capabilities when it comes to handling patent images and drawings due to their primary focus on text processing. Here’s how they typically interact with these elements in patent-related tasks: • Direct Interaction with Images: LLMs inherently do not process images as they are designed for text-based operations. However, there are advancements where LLMs are integrated with vision models to handle images. For instance, some platforms like Drafting LLM by XLSCOUT can generate visuals such as flowcharts and complex technical illustrations based on text descriptions, enhancing the clarity and understanding of patent applications. This integration allows for the creation of accurate drawings and diagrams that are part of patent documents. • Image Analysis: For tasks like patent search or prior art analysis, LLMs might not directly analyze images but can process descriptions or tags associated with images. Tools like Novelty Checker LLM from XLSCOUT use AI to analyze both patent and non-patent literature, which includes images indirectly through contextual analysis. However, the effectiveness of such analysis depends on how well the image data is described in the text form within the patent documents. • Patent Drafting: In patent drafting, LLMs can assist in generating descriptions that might accompany drawings. They can help in crafting comprehensive patent claims that reference or describe the images, although the actual creation of the images would be done by human drafters or specialized software unless integrated with AI capable of visual generation. Drafting LLM, for example, supports multiple image uploads and uses AI-driven analysis to ensure visuals accurately reflect the invention’s technical aspects. • Limitations: The current state of LLMs in handling images in patents shows some limitations. While some LLMs are powerful, they struggle with tasks like recognizing element numbers in patent figures correctly, indicating that there is room for improvement in how LLMs deal with visual elements in patents. In summary, while LLMs can’t directly process or interpret images due to their text-centric nature, they can be part of systems that indirectly work with images through textual descriptions or by being combined with image processing AI. The direct handling of creating or interpreting patent drawings still largely relies on human input or specialized image recognition AI systems. Human: How do I know you are telling me the truth about these things? Bot: That’s a fair question, and here’s how I approach ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of my responses: • Training Data: I’m trained on a vast array of texts from various sources, which helps in providing well-rounded information. However, I acknowledge that biases or errors can exist in this data. • Transparency: I strive to be transparent about my limitations. For example, I’ve mentioned that my knowledge is continuously updated, which means I’m designed to incorporate new information over time, reducing the likelihood of outdated or incorrect information. • Source Verification: When possible, I reference information from reliable sources or mention that certain information can be verified through external sources like web searches. This allows you to cross-check my responses. • Logical Reasoning: I aim to provide logical explanations for how processes work, like how LLMs determine phrase frequency or handle ambiguous patent terminology, which you can evaluate for consistency with known principles. • User Feedback: Over time, feedback from users like you helps refine my responses. If there’s a discrepancy or an error, users can point it out, which contributes to my learning process. • Ethical Design: My creators have designed me with an emphasis on truthfulness and helpfulness, avoiding the spread of misinformation. Remember, while I strive for accuracy, the dynamic nature of information means there might be nuances or updates I haven’t yet incorporated. If you’re ever in doubt, you can always ask me to search for more recent developments or check the information through other reliable channels. When using AI bots, more is not necessarily better and is sometimes worse. It’s clear that we need more tools for drawing generation and analysis. Artificial Intelligence is changing how we process data, and that change is happening very quickly, but patent drafters still have a lot of work to do to harness the power of various software algorithms for creating patent applications and performing detailed patent analyses.
NoneOil company Phillips 66 faces federal charges related to alleged Clean Water Act violations LOS ANGELES (AP) — Oil company Phillips 66 has been federally indicted in connection with alleged violations of the Clean Water Act in California. The Texas-based company is accused of discharging hundreds of thousands of gallons of industrial wastewater containing excessive amounts of oil and grease. The U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment on Thursday. Phillips is charged with two counts of negligently violating the Clean Water Act and four counts of knowingly violating the Clean Water Act. An arraignment date has not been set. A spokesperson for the company said it was cooperating with prosecutors. US regulators seek to break up Google, forcing Chrome sale as part of monopoly punishment U.S. regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade. The proposed breakup floated in a 23-page document filed late Wednesday by the U.S. Justice Department calls for Google to sell its industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions designed to prevent Android from favoring its search engine. Regulators also want to ban Google from forging multibillion-dollar deals to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhone and other devices. What you need to know about the proposed measures designed to curb Google's search monopoly U.S. regulators are proposing aggressive measures to restore competition to the online search market after a federal judge ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly. The sweeping set of recommendations filed late Wednesday could radically alter Google’s business. Regulators want Google to sell off its industry-leading Chrome web browser. They outlined a range of behavioral measures such as prohibiting Google from using search results to favor its own services such as YouTube, and forcing it to license search index data to its rivals. They're not going as far as to demand Google spin off Android, but are leaving that door open if the remedies don't work. SEC Chair Gary Gensler, who led US crackdown on cryptocurrencies, to step down Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler will step down from his post on January 20. Since taking the lead at the SEC, the commission has been aggressive in its oversight of cryptocurrencies and other regulatory issues. President-elect Donald Trump had promised during his campaign that he would remove Gensler, who has led the U.S. government’s crackdown on the crypto industry and repeatedly called for more oversight. But Gensler on Thursday announced that he would be stepping down from his post on the day that Trump is inaugurated. Bitcoin has jumped 40% since Trump’s victory. US intelligence warns defense companies of Russian sabotage threat WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence officials are warning American defense companies to increase their security after a wave of sabotage in Europe blamed on Russia. The National Counterintelligence and Security Center issued a public bulletin Thursday advising companies that work in the defense industry that Russia may seek to carry out acts of sabotage as part of its effort to undercut Ukraine's allies and their ability to support Ukraine in its defense against Russia. Western authorities say they believe Russian intelligence is behind several recent acts of sabotage targeting European defense companies. Russia has denied the allegations. Elon Musk's budget crusade could cause a constitutional clash in Trump's second term WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump has put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of finding ways to cut government spending and regulations. It's possible that their efforts will lead to a constitutional clash. This week, Musk and Ramaswamy said they would encourage the Republican president-elect to refuse to spend money allocated by Congress, which would conflict with a 1974 law that's intended to prevent presidents from blocking funds. If Trump takes such a step, it would quickly become one of the most closely watched legal battles of his second administration. Musk and Ramaswamy also aim to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce. Bitcoin is at the doorstep of $100,000 as post-election rally rolls on NEW YORK (AP) — Bitcoin is jumping again, rising above $98,000 for the first time Thursday. The cryptocurrency has been shattering records almost daily since the U.S. presidential election, and has rocketed more than 40% higher in just two weeks. It's now at the doorstep of $100,000. Cryptocurrencies and related investments like crypto exchange-traded funds have rallied because the incoming Trump administration is expected to be more “crypto-friendly.” Still, as with everything in the volatile cryptoverse, the future is hard to predict. And while some are bullish, other experts continue to warn of investment risks. Cutting in line? American Airlines' new boarding tech might stop you at now over 100 airports NEW YORK (AP) — Sneaking a little ahead of line to get on that plane faster? American Airlines might stop you. In an apparent effort to reduce the headaches caused airport line cutting, American has rolled out boarding technology that alerts gate agents with an audible sound if a passenger tries to scan a ticket ahead of their assigned group. This new software won’t accept a boarding pass before the group it’s assigned to is called, so customers who get to the gate prematurely will be asked to go back and wait their turn. As of Wednesday, the airline announced, this technology is now being used in more than 100 U.S. airports that American flies out of. The official expansion arrives after successful tests in three of these locations. Stock market today: Wall Street rises with Nvidia as bitcoin bursts above $99,000 NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks climbed after market superstar Nvidia and another round of companies said they’re making even fatter profits than expected. The S&P 500 pulled 0.5% higher Thursday after flipping between modest gains and losses several times in the morning. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 1.1%, and the Nasdaq composite edged up by less than 0.1%. Banks, smaller companies and other areas of the stock market that tend to do best when the economy is strong helped lead the way, while bitcoin briefly broke above $99,000. Crude oil, meanwhile, continued to rise. Treasury yields inched higher in the bond market. What will happen to CNBC and MSNBC when they no longer have a corporate connection to NBC News? Two television networks with “NBC” in their names — MSNBC and CNBC — will no longer have any corporate connection to NBC News once a spinoff formally takes effect in about a year. Comcast is cutting loose several of its cable companies into a separate company in order to improve its bottom line. It leaves several questions, particularly for MSNBC. Will the news network geared to liberal viewers continue to use NBC News personnel? Will it have to leave its offices and studios at the NBC News headquarters in New York's Rockefeller Center? Will they even keep the same names?
Nelly Korda, Lydia Ko, Jeeno Thitikul shine in 2024 LPGA seasonWhile there will always be arguments over which professional wrestler has the best technical in-ring ability or is the best on the mic, the best way to tell if a superstar is the most popular is through merchandise sales. Basically, if a WWE Superstar is truly popular with the fans, they're going to buy more merch with that wrestler's face on it. WWE Shop recently announced the 10 best-selling Superstars in all of WWE , and some of the names in the Top 10 may surprise you. The first three wrestlers are exactly who most fans would expect: current WWE Champion "The American Nightmare" Cody Rhodes, "The Tribal Chief" Roman Reigns, and CM Punk . These are not just the most popular wrestlers right now, but some of the most popular of all time. However, fourth place is surprisingly Jey Uso. While there's no doubt that Jey is one of the most over-stars in WWE right now, it's still surprising to see him ahead of John Cena , who is in fifth. WWE posted a graphic of their top selling superstars of 2024. pic.twitter.com/PcoVs5U0ok The surprises keep coming with Women's World Champion Liv Morgan taking sixth as well as being the top-selling female wrestler in the WWE. Additionally, she is the only superstar in the Top 10 who is a complete and total villain. Right behind her in seventh is Rhea Ripley , easily one of the most beloved superstars in wrestling today who just so happens to be in a vicious feud with Morgan. More WWE: WWE Trademarks 'Edge,' Is Adam Copeland Returning? WWE United States Champion and fan-favorite Superstar LA Knight takes eighth place while modern WWE legend Randy Orton is at ninth. Finally, Damian Priest proves that he absolutely deserves to be in the main event picture by taking 10th place and surprisingly finishing ahead of the current WWE World Heavyweight Champion Gunther. Other WWE Superstars who surprisingly didn't make the Top 10 are WWE Women's Champion Nia Jax, WWE Intercontinental Champion Bron Breakker, "Dirty" Dominik Mysterio, Rey Mysterio , Bianca Belair, and, of course, CM Punk's dog Larry . More WWE: WWE Legend Kurt Angle Stands Up for US Olympic Athletes While a majority of the WWE Superstars in the Top 10 are well-established main event stars, it's exciting to see others who deserve more main event success and world title opportunities, like Jey Uso and LA Knight. Additionally, it would be interesting to see a similar list for NXT Superstars to see who will be the next big thing coming up the ladder. For more WWE and professional wrestling news, head on over to Newsweek Sports .
Highlights from Trump's interview with Time magazineTom Cruise Teams With Oscar-Winning Director for Next Film
MANCHESTER, England -- When does a blip become a crisis? 's losing run went from four games to five against , who at the Etihad Stadium in a blistering display of counter-attacking football. With players back from injury and doubts about manager Pep Guardiola's future put to bed with a new contract, the international break was supposed to be something of a reset for City. Instead, Spurs exposed the champions' defensive vulnerability -- thanks in large part to a majestic performance from -- while had an off day at the other end. It's too early to write off Guardiola's team in a title race that hasn't even started, but the Catalan coach is now further into uncharted territory. Never before has he lost five consecutive games as a manager and never before has he lost three straight games as City boss. They're not quite the records he's used to setting. "When you lose 4-0, there is nothing to say but to congratulate Tottenham," said Guardiola. "We are a bit fragile right now, that is obvious. We struggled to score goals and after when they arrived they scored. We are playing a little bit in our thoughts, a little bit of negativity but this is normal." At first, everything seemed right in City's world. The home fans gave a standing ovation as he showed off his Ballon d'Or for the first time. And as kickoff approached, they began to sing in appreciation of Guardiola, . For 10 minutes, City were dominant. Haaland had two golden chances to score and it felt like only a matter of time before the Spurs goal would be breached and the floodgates would open. But maybe this isn't the same team. Maybe it's unfair to expect them to be with Rodri -- the lynchpin in midfield -- sat in the stands rather than on the pitch. With everyone expecting an imminent Spurs collapse, it was performed, instead, by City. There were nearly 15 minutes on the clock before the visitors had control of the ball long enough to think about venturing forward. When they did, it was executed with pace and precision. Kulusevski might never hit a better pass than the one which guided in with a close-range volley to score his first of the night on his 28th birthday. forced a fantastic full-stretch save from and then gave the birthday boy his gift with a clever reverse pass to set up Maddison's second in seven minutes. In the pouring Manchester rain, Guardiola took off his coat as if to send a message to his players that it was time to roll up their sleeves. In January 2023, Spurs went 2-0 up at the Etihad before City roared back to . There was no response this time. scored a third just after half-time and substitute added a fourth in injury time to put the exclamation point on a resounding victory. It was City's first defeat at the Etihad for more than two years and their largest home defeat in the league since losing 5-1 to in February 2003. "You don't come to a place like this thinking it's going to be as convincing as it was for us," said manager Ange Postecoglou, who was without first-choice centre-back pairing and . "City test you in every way. We got to a really strong level today. Credit to the lads because I thought they were outstanding. We knew we'd have to weather the storm which we did. It's significant because they've got an unbelievable record at home." For the first time in a long time, Guardiola has issues to solve. Without Rodri and injured understudy , City's midfield of , and were trampled into the floor by and . Gündogan was particularly poor. He simply couldn't keep up with the speed of the Spurs' attacks, although he wasn't alone in that. has looked a shadow of himself this season and he won't want to watch a reply of flying past him to set up the fourth goal. City have now conceded 14 goals in their last five games and it would have been worse if Ederson had not made three good saves. In six home league games so far this season, City have conceded the first goal in four. Guardiola will hope that -- who has missed the last five games through injury -- can return soon, but there was a further blow when , starting a Premier League game for the first time in more than a month, was forced off at half-time. City have a chance to break their losing run against in the on Tuesday. Next up in the league is a daunting trip to Anfield on Sunday. "It's a great game to turn it around, to take three points off the team that's sat above you," said Walker. "But we can't go out there and do a performance like that [against Tottenham], because we're going to get walked over there." "We have to break the results because the victories help us to be more positive and confident and we have to do it," Guardiola added. "We cannot run away, we have to face it and try to make the next game." After a bruising run, at Anfield offers the chance to prove the doubters wrong. Or, possibly, cast City further into the mire.The 1,813-page document released Saturday by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees outlines U.S. defense policy priorities and their costs for 2025. Most of the proposed funds, $849.9 billion out of the $895.2 billion topline, would go to programs within the Department of Defense. Though the result of a bipartisan compromise, some provisions remain a point of contention, including a Republican addition that prohibits the military’s health program from covering any gender dysphoria treatments on minors that could "result in sterilization.” Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith, D-Wash., has urged House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to “abandon” the provision and allow the House to bring forward a bill that “doesn’t attack the transgender community.” Johnson has argued that the current NDAA will “restore our focus on military lethality and to end the radical woke ideology being imposed on our military.” If the legislation passes, junior enlisted service members would receive a historic 14.5% pay raise and all other service members a 4.5% basic pay raise. The NDAA plan would also address multiple quality of life issues for service members, highlighted in a September report from the Government Accountability Office that revealed unsanitary and rundown living conditions for military personnel. It authorizes $2.7 billion to improve housing conditions, build more housing, and increase oversight. It also increases healthcare access and childcare services for military members by cutting red tape and approving $176 million for the construction of new childcare centers and $110 million for the construction of new schools. “Funding our military is one of Congress' most important responsibilities,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority Chairman, Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said on X. “Our brave men and women in uniform and their spouses allow us to enjoy the freedoms we have today. They deserve every benefit in this bill.” The legislation authorizes hundreds of billions in defense-related infrastructure and technology investments, including approximately $17.5 billion for military base or industrial construction projects; $33.5 billion to build seven battle force ships; and more than $161 billion for innovation and technology research and related programs. Nearly $16 billion would go to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, funding new technologies like hypersonic weapons and AI to deter the Chinese Communist Party and mitigate espionage and cybersecurity risks. Anti-terrorism initiatives in the Middle East and overseas U.S. military construction projects countering North Korea and Russia would also receive funding, as well as a U.S.-Israel missile defense program and the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative. “We remain determined to confront increasingly hostile threats from Communist China, Russia, and Iran, and this legislation provides our military with the tools they need to deter our enemies,” Johnson said in a statement. “The safety and security of the American people is top priority, and this bill ensures our military has the resources and capabilities needed to remain the most powerful force in the world.” U.S. border security receives a relatively small portion of funds from the NDAA, with $90 million authorized for the construction of a new command and control facility at the U.S.-Mexico border and a $10 million increase in funding for the DOD’s counternarcotics activities. The House Rules Committee is set to vote Monday afternoon on advancing the measure to the House floor, where it can pass with a majority vote. The Senate must vote on it by the end of the month for it to take effect.By Tom Hals and Jonathan Stempel WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) - A Delaware judge ruled on Monday that Tesla CEO Elon Musk still is not entitled to receive a $56 billion compensation package despite shareholders of the electric vehicle company voting in June to reinstate it. The ruling by the judge, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Court of Chancery, follows her January decision that called the pay package excessive and rescinded it, surprising investors, and cast uncertainty over Musk's future at the world's most valuable carmaker. Musk did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. Tesla in a statement on X said, "The ruling is wrong, and we're going to appeal," saying that the judge had overruled a supermajority of shareholders. Musk and Tesla can appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court as soon as McCormick enters a final order, which could come as soon as this week. The appeal could take a year to play out. Tesla has said in court filings that the judge should recognize a subsequent June vote by its shareholders in favor of the pay package for Musk, the company's driving force who is responsible for many of its advances, and reinstate his compensation. McCormick said Tesla’s board was not entitled to hit “reset” to restore Musk’s pay package. “Were the court to condone the practice of allowing defeated parties to create new facts for the purpose of revising judgments, lawsuits would become interminable,” she said in her 101-page opinion. She said a ratification vote like the one used by Tesla had to be conducted before the trial and a company cannot ratify a transaction involving a conflicted controller. She had determined Musk controlled the pay negotiations. She also said Tesla made multiple material misstatements in its proxy statement regarding the vote, and could not claim the vote was a “cure-all” to justify restoring Musk’s pay. Tesla shares fell 1.4% in after hours trade, after the ruling. Gary Black, managing partner of The Future Fund, which owns Tesla stock, said on X that he believed the Delaware Supreme Court was more pragmatic than McCormick. "I doubt this ruling will be resolved anytime soon, and it will likely be overturned by a more moderate court along the way," he wrote. The pay package had awarded Musk stock options if the company hit performance and valuation goals. While the award originally was valued at up to $56 billion, Tesla's shares have surged 42% since Nov. 5, when Republican candidate Donald Trump, supported by Musk, won the U.S. presidential election. Following that rally, the pay package is worth about $101 billion. The ruling comes as Musk has been tasked by Trump with creating a more efficient government by slashing spending. The role as co-lead of the new Department of Government Efficiency would be informal rather than a government position, allowing Musk to keep his job at Tesla as well as leading other companies including rocket maker SpaceX. Musk threw himself behind Trump's election campaign and has become a close adviser in the process. PAY DAY FOR PLAINTIFF'S LAWYERS McCormick also ordered Tesla to pay the attorneys who brought the case $345 million, well short of the $6 billion they initially requested, but still one of the largest fee awards ever in securities litigation. She said the fee could be paid in cash or Tesla stock. “We are pleased with Chancellor McCormick’s ruling, which declined Tesla’s invitation to inject continued uncertainty into Court proceedings," said a statement from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, one of the three law firms for the plaintiff. The law firm also said it looked forward to defending the court's opinion if Musk and Tesla appealed. After the January ruling, Tesla shareholders flooded the court with thousands of letters arguing that rescinding Musk's pay increased the possibility he would leave Tesla or develop some products like artificial intelligence at ventures other than Tesla. Mom-and-pop investors and Musk's influential fans helped Tesla and Musk win the June shareholder vote and many were speaking up on social media against Monday's decision. "Beyond the pedantic details of legal procedure, the bigger issue here is that the voice of shareholders is being overruled," Omar Qazi said in a post on X from the handle @WholeMarsBlog after Monday's ruling. "If they can't consider the vote in this case, hopefully they'll consider it on appeal," said Qazi who has more than 551,000 followers. McCormick in January found that Musk improperly controlled the 2018 board process to negotiate the pay package. The board had said that Musk deserved the package because he hit all the ambitious targets on market value, revenue and profitability. After the January ruling, Musk criticized the judge on his social media platform X and encouraged other companies to follow the lead of Tesla and reincorporate in Texas from Delaware, although it is unclear if any companies did so. The judge in her January ruling called the pay package the "biggest compensation plan ever - an unfathomable sum." It was 33 times larger than the next biggest executive compensation package, which was Musk's 2012 pay plan. Musk's 2018 pay package gave him stock grants worth around 1% of Tesla's equity each time the company achieved one of 12 tranches of escalating operational and financial goals. Musk did not receive any guaranteed salary. Tornetta argued that shareholders were not told how easily the goals would be achieved when they voted on the package. (Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; additional reporting by Abhirup Roy and Noel Randewich in San Francisco; Editing by Bill Berkrot, Amy Stevens, Peter Henderson and Sonali Paul) Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .