big fish casino platforms
big fish casino platforms
The Department of Financial Services (DFS) has directed banks to adopt advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), to safeguard customers from fraudsters. The decision was taken during a high-level meeting chaired by the Secretary of DFS with representatives from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), public sector banks, private banks, and payment banks. “Banks were directed to adopt advanced technologies, including AI/ML solutions, for real-time detection of mule accounts, training & upskilling bank staff on fraud detection & prevention, greater advocacy & awareness for common citizen for not to fall prey to the fraudsters,” Department of Financial Services in a social media post said. Advertisement At the meeting, the secretary of the Department of Financial Services, emphasised the need for proactive measures to protect citizens’ hard-earned money, and highlighted the importance of leveraging cutting-edge tools and practices to combat these challenges effectively. The secretary also emphasised the importance of spreading awareness among customers about common fraud tactics, urging citizens to stay vigilant and not fall prey to fraudsters. Apart from this, banks were instructed to prioritise the training and upskilling of their staff in fraud detection and prevention. The banks were encouraged to explore MuleHunter.AI, an AI/ML-driven solution developed by the RBI, which offers enhanced capabilities in detecting fraudulent activities and tracking suspicious accounts. Notably, last week, RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das said that the RBI Innovation Hub is making progress in combating financial fraud by promoting the use of MuleHunter.AI, an advanced artificial intelligence tool. This technology specialises in detecting and flagging mule accounts, which are often exploited for money laundering activities. Advertisement
American ski racer Lindsey Vonn is picking up speed in her comeback bid at 40 years oldATLANTA — As she checked into a recent flight to Mexico for vacation, Teja Smith chuckled at the idea of joining another Women’s March on Washington. As a Black woman, she just couldn’t see herself helping to replicate the largest act of resistance against then-President Donald Trump’s first term in January 2017. Even in an election this year during which Trump questioned his opponent’s race, held rallies featuring racist insults and falsely claimed Black migrants in Ohio were eating residents’ pets, he didn’t just win a second term. He also became the first Republican in two decades to clinch the popular vote, although by a small margin. “It’s like the people have spoken and this is what America looks like,” said Smith, the Los Angeles-based founder of the advocacy social media agency Get Social. “And there’s not too much more fighting that you’re going to be able to do without losing your own sanity.” After Trump was declared the winner over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, many politically engaged Black women said they were so dismayed by the outcome that they were reassessing — but not completely abandoning — their enthusiasm for electoral politics and movement organizing. Black women often carry much of the work of getting out the vote in their communities. They had vigorously supported the historic candidacy of Harris, who would have been the first woman of Black and South Asian descent to win the presidency. Harris’ loss spurred a wave of Black women across social media resolving to prioritize themselves before giving so much to a country that over and over has shown its indifference to their concerns. AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 voters, found that 6 in 10 Black women said the future of democracy in the United States was the single most important factor for their vote this year, a higher share than for other demographic groups. But now, with Trump set to return to office in two months, some Black women are renewing calls to emphasize rest, focus on mental health and be more selective about what fight they lend their organizing power to. “America is going to have to save herself,” said LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of the national voting rights group Black Voters Matter. She compared Black women’s presence in social justice movements as “core strategists and core organizers” to the North Star, a dependably fixed point in the sky. People can rely on Black women to lead change, Brown said, but the next four years will look different. “That’s not a herculean task that’s for us. We don’t want that title. ... I have no goals to be a martyr for a nation that cares nothing about me,” she said. AP VoteCast paints a clear picture of Black women’s concerns. Black female voters were most likely to say that democracy was the single most important factor for their vote, compared to other motivators such as high prices or abortion. More than 7 in 10 Black female voters said they were “very concerned” that electing Trump would lead the nation toward authoritarianism, while only about 2 in 10 said this about Harris. About 9 in 10 Black female voters supported Harris in 2024, according to AP VoteCast, similar to the share that backed Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Trump received support from more than half of white voters, who made up the vast majority of his coalition in both years. Like voters overall, Black women were most likely to say the economy and jobs were the most important issues facing the country, with about one-third saying that. But they were more likely than many other groups to say that abortion and racism were the top issues, and much less likely than other groups to say immigration was the top issue. Despite those concerns, which were well voiced by Black women throughout the campaign, increased support from young men of color and white women helped expand Trump’s lead and secured his victory. Politically engaged Black women said they don’t plan to continue positioning themselves as the vertebrae in the backbone of America’s democracy. The growing withdrawal of Black is a shift from history, where they are often present and at the forefront of political and social change. One of the earliest examples is the women’s suffrage movement that led to ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution , giving women the right to vote. Black women, however, were prevented from voting for decades afterward because of Jim Crow-era literacy tests, poll taxes and laws that blocked the grandchildren of slaves from voting. Most Black women couldn’t vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Black women were among the organizers and counted among the marchers brutalized on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama, during the historic march in 1965 from Selma to Montgomery that preceded federal legislation. Decades later, Black women were prominent organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police and vigilantes. In his 2024 campaign, Trump called for leveraging federal money to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs in government programs and discussions of race, gender or sexual orientation in schools. His rhetoric on immigration, including false claims that Black Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs, drove support for his plan to deport millions of people. Tenita Taylor, a Black resident of Atlanta who supported Trump this year, said she was initially excited about Harris’ candidacy. But after thinking about how high her grocery bills have been, she feels that voting for Trump in hopes of finally getting lower prices was a form of self-prioritization. “People say, ‘Well, that’s selfish, it was gonna be better for the greater good,’’’ she said. “I’m a mother of five kids. ... The things that [Democrats] do either affect the rich or the poor.” Some of Trump’s plans affect people in Olivia Gordon’s immediate community, which is why she struggled to get behind the “Black women rest” wave. Gordon, a New York-based lawyer who supported the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s presidential nominee, Claudia de la Cruz, worries about who may be left behind if the 92% of Black women voters who backed Harris simply stopped advocating. “We’re talking millions of Black women here. If millions of Black women take a step back, it absolutely leaves holes, but for other Black women,” she said. “I think we sometimes are in the bubble of ‘if it’s not in your immediate circle, maybe it doesn’t apply to you.’ And I truly implore people to understand that it does.” Nicole Lewis, an Alabama-based therapist who specializes in treating Black women’s stress, said she’s aware that Black women withdrawing from social impact movements could have a fallout. But she also hopes that it forces a reckoning for the nation to understand the consequences of not standing in solidarity with Black women. “It could impact things negatively because there isn’t that voice from the most empathetic group,” she said. “I also think it’s going to give other groups an opportunity to step up. ... My hope is that they do show up for themselves and everyone else.” Brown said a reckoning might be exactly what the country needs, but it’s a reckoning for everyone else. Black women, she said, did their job when they supported Harris in droves in hopes they could thwart the massive changes expected under Trump. “This ain’t our reckoning,” she said. “I don’t feel no guilt.” Hunter writes for the Associated Press. AP polling editor Amelia Thomson DeVeaux and writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.AfD call for return to Nazi term for Remembrance DayCorrection: Election 2024-North Carolina-Governor story
Saquon Barkley: "Pretty cool" to set Eagles single-season rushing record
MetLife Investment Management LLC raised its position in VSE Co. ( NASDAQ:VSEC – Free Report ) by 17.2% during the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 9,054 shares of the construction company’s stock after buying an additional 1,330 shares during the period. MetLife Investment Management LLC’s holdings in VSE were worth $749,000 as of its most recent SEC filing. Several other large investors have also recently added to or reduced their stakes in the company. Innealta Capital LLC acquired a new position in shares of VSE in the 2nd quarter worth approximately $42,000. US Bancorp DE raised its position in VSE by 1,180.2% in the 3rd quarter. US Bancorp DE now owns 2,586 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $214,000 after purchasing an additional 2,384 shares during the last quarter. Archer Investment Corp acquired a new position in VSE in the second quarter worth $247,000. BNP Paribas Financial Markets grew its holdings in shares of VSE by 4.2% during the third quarter. BNP Paribas Financial Markets now owns 3,310 shares of the construction company’s stock worth $274,000 after purchasing an additional 134 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Park Avenue Securities LLC increased its stake in shares of VSE by 13.8% in the third quarter. Park Avenue Securities LLC now owns 3,818 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $316,000 after buying an additional 464 shares in the last quarter. 91.54% of the stock is owned by institutional investors. VSE Trading Up 3.6 % VSEC opened at $118.63 on Friday. VSE Co. has a fifty-two week low of $57.10 and a fifty-two week high of $123.92. The company has a market cap of $2.42 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 35.97 and a beta of 1.57. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.53, a current ratio of 3.69 and a quick ratio of 1.15. The firm has a 50 day simple moving average of $105.46 and a 200 day simple moving average of $92.70. Analysts Set New Price Targets Several brokerages recently issued reports on VSEC. StockNews.com upgraded shares of VSE to a “sell” rating in a research report on Thursday, November 7th. B. Riley upped their target price on shares of VSE from $120.00 to $132.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research report on Thursday, November 7th. Royal Bank of Canada raised their price target on shares of VSE from $125.00 to $135.00 and gave the company an “outperform” rating in a report on Friday. Truist Financial upped their price objective on VSE from $115.00 to $133.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a report on Thursday, November 7th. Finally, Jefferies Financial Group lifted their target price on VSE from $100.00 to $110.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research note on Thursday, October 17th. One analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating and six have issued a buy rating to the stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, VSE currently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus price target of $118.50. View Our Latest Report on VSEC VSE Profile ( Free Report ) VSE Corporation operates as a diversified aftermarket products and services company in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Aviation and Fleet. The Aviation segment provides aftermarket parts supply and distribution; maintenance, repair, and overhaul services for components and engine accessories supporting commercial, business, and general aviation operators. Featured Stories Want to see what other hedge funds are holding VSEC? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for VSE Co. ( NASDAQ:VSEC – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for VSE Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for VSE and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
The chief executive of healthcare technology firm Harrison.ai has moved to dismiss privacy concerns about his start-up, describing them as a misunderstanding as it plots an expansion into the lucrative US market. Harrison.ai gives radiologists and pathologists access to AI technology so they can more efficiently and accurately scan X-rays for cancers and illnesses. The Sydney start-up has already raised more than $150 million to pursue its stated goal of saving a million lives a day by 2025. Dimitry (left) and Aengus Tran. Credit: Louie Douvis An investigation by online publication Crikey has alleged that Harrison.ai trained its flagship product, Annalise.ai, using scans of potentially hundreds of thousands of Australians obtained by radiology provider I-MED seemingly without express consent from patients. Speaking in an interview with this masthead, Aengus Tran, who founded the company in 2018 with his brother Dimitry, said those concerns were a “misunderstanding” and that his start-up anonymises patient data to the extent it cannot be re-identified. “I think, from the outside, maybe people made an assumption that we are processing personal information,” Aengus Tran said. “A picture of your face is very different to a chest X-ray and a diagnostic report that has been anonymised and de-identified. We have a really robust anonymisation and data-protection pipeline, where data is completely stripped of personal information, and [we have] gone through quite great lengths to ensure that it cannot be re-identified. “That helps us meet the requirement of the Privacy Act and therefore enables our use of data to be fully permissible within the bounds of that act. The Privacy Act actually makes it very clear that if you thoroughly anonymise and de-identify the patient, data is no longer considered personal information.” I-MED has also published a statement calling the reports “inaccurate”. “I-MED de-identified data using best practice frameworks developed by the CSIRO and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,” it said. Anxiety and discussion around how artificial intelligence technologies treat customer privacy has spiked since Australia’s privacy commissioner, Carly Kind, found that retailer Bunnings had breached privacy laws with facial recognition systems that it used to combat crime. Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind has launched a preliminary inquiry into I-MED. Credit: Dion Georgopoulos Kind has launched preliminary inquiries to determine if I-MED complied with the Privacy Act through its partnership with Harrison.ai. A patient’s medical scans are among the most sensitive data types. At the core of the issue is whether scans from I-MED were truly “de-identified” when they were used for training Harrison.ai’s models. Aengus Tran says they were. A spokeswoman for the privacy commissioner’s office said its preliminary inquiries were ongoing. “I-MED has been co-operative, and we are reviewing information received from the company,” she said. “One of the key issues we are considering is whether or not personal information was de-identified,” the spokeswoman said. “Generally speaking, entities should be aware that de-identification is context-dependent and may be difficult to achieve. In addition, entities seeking to use de-identified information to train generative AI models should be aware that de-identifying personal information is a use of the personal information for a secondary purpose.” Aengus Tran said that Harrison.ai’s technology is in 131 British hospitals and now used by one in two radiologists in Australia. The start-up has grown by 300 per cent year-on-year, and Tran said the time is right to enter the US market. Harrison.ai co-founders Dimitry and Aengus Tran have done deals with Virtus Health and I-MED. Credit: George Fetting “We’ve been waiting for the right opportunity to do that,” he said. “And recently that opportunity arrived.” In October, Harrison.ai was awarded Medicare reimbursement by CMS, the US federal agency that administers the Medicare program. It means US hospitals will be paid up to $US240 a scan processed by Harrison.ai’s technology. “Alongside our 12 FDA clearances that we’ve had in the last 18 months, we feel this is the right time for an Australian company punching well above its weight to crack the American market,” Tran said. “We very much believe in keeping the centre of gravity, especially on the development side, in Australia, but we know we need to grow internationally to make the global impact we need to make. “The United States is about 50 per cent of the world’s radiology market, by volume, so we’ve established ourselves as a clear winner in the rest of the world, and we now see a doubling of our total opportunities.” Loading Aengus’ brother Dimitry, who is Harrison.ai’s other co-founder and its deputy chief executive, has moved to Seattle to establish the start-up’s US base. The pair originally migrated to Australia from Vietnam for high school. “The US is half of the global radiology market,” Dimitry Tran said. “Building on our customer momentum in the UK, Asia and Australia, we’re in a great position to bring our technology to the US and win the market. “Relocating to the US signifies how important the market is to us ... The timing is perfect, as we make the most of our recently awarded Medicare reimbursement – our first for the US market.” Aengus said that 2025 was expected to include a significant capital raising, likely north of $100 million. The company previously raised $29 million in late 2019, and another $129 million two years later. The start-up’s backers include Blackbird Ventures, Hong Kong’s Horizons Ventures, Scott Farquhar and Kim Jackson’s Skip Capital and ASX-listed hospitals giant Ramsay Health Care. Pathology giant Sonic Healthcare and radiology provider I-MED are also investors, and Tesla chair Robyn Denholm sits on its board. “Up to this point, we’ve been building our AI technology in the radiology domain, and to add to that, next year we’ll be launching our AI technology in pathology,” Tran said. “This has been the result of our collaboration with Sonic Healthcare, and next year we’ll start launching products and commercialising that for the first time. “It’s very exciting. Radiology is very large, and there’s a road map of products that we are looking to develop across CT [scans of] chest, abdomen, pelvis and X-rays of the musculoskeletal system. So, essentially, trying to complete our AI portfolio across radiology. “The nice thing about this is that we have a proven formula. You could say that we’ve built the espresso-making machines, and we make a nice cup of coffee, and now the plan is to put more beans in and finish the job.” The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning . Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. License this article Start-ups Privacy For subscribers David Swan is the technology editor for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. He was previously technology editor for The Australian newspaper. Connect via Twitter or email . Most Viewed in Technology Loading
As a deaf researcher focused on language deprivation among deaf individuals, I am often asked about cochlear implants and their role in the lives of deaf children ( The cochlear question: as the parent of a deaf baby, should I give her an implant to help her hear?, 11 December ). While cochlear implants are a technological tool that provides access to sound, the critical issue is not the implant itself, but the decision to exclude signed languages from a deaf child’s upbringing. Language is a fundamental human right and the foundation of cognitive, social and emotional development. For deaf children, access to a visual language – such as American Sign Language or British Sign Language (BSL) – is essential, particularly in the early years when the brain is most receptive to language acquisition. Without this access, many deaf children can face significant delays in language development, which leads to lifelong challenges in education, employment and mental health. Cochlear implants are not guaranteed to provide complete access to spoken language, and outcomes can vary significantly based on factors such as the child’s age at implantation, the quality of auditory training, and individual differences in how the brain processes sound. Even when cochlear implants are successful, it does not create effortless acquisition of language and they should not replace a robust foundation in a signed language. Research shows that bilingualism in both a signed and spoken language enhances cognitive flexibility, academic achievement and social integration. Introducing a signed language does not hinder spoken language development; rather, it does the opposite, while also providing a safety net that ensures the child always has a fully accessible language. Parents face complex decisions, but they should not be pressured to choose between cochlear implants or a signed language. Both can coexist, offering a holistic approach that respects the child’s potential and humanity. My hope is for families and professionals to prioritise the child’s linguistic rights and wellbeing, fostering a world where no deaf child experiences language deprivation. Dr Wyatte Hall Assistant professor of public health sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, US Thank you for Abi Stephenson’s article on cochlear implants. My wife and I are proud parents to four children, the eldest three who were born profoundly deaf. Our local hospital, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, was amazing in the support we were given as parents and the support our children received. We were set on the cochlear implant (CI) route when they were infants and all three were implanted before their fourth birthdays. It was a difficult decision given the thinning of the skull surgery required for the computer element and the invasive surgery that went with the insertion of the implant itself. We agonised over the decision. Would our older children resent our choices for their lives? The internet was in its infancy and of little comfort. Opposition to CI was vociferous, from the US especially. We figured, as the article states, that we were providing optional doors in later life for our infant children, which they could choose to open or close as adults. Two decades later, our children are all successful in their lives. They all sign. They all speak. They all access the hearing world but enjoy and thrive in their deaf communities. My eldest daughter has passed her level 6 BSL course and my youngest daughter, who was born hearing, is finishing her degree this year as a speech and language therapist. So many parents of deaf children have to go through hoops unimaginable for most parents: the lack of invitations to birthday parties in primary years; the Sat exams not entered for; the lack of ambition from careers advisers; and the aiming-low mentality of many. The loneliness of deaf children at times is heartbreaking. Did we make the right decisions? Our children’s lives suggest so, but after all these years my wife and I still have many moments of guilt. Simon Gair Steeple Bumpstead, Essex Abi Stephenson fully understood the difficulty of choosing whether a young child should be given a cochlear implant. Essentially, the issue of choosing for her to be Deaf (those who use signing and identify with the Deaf community) or deaf (those with a hearing impairment who communicate orally). I recognise and respect those who choose to be Deaf and recognise the richness and value of sign languages. As a deaf person, I received a great deal of support that allowed me to undertake full‐time education as an older adult in a creative career, allowing me an equal experience. I received a cochlear implant as an older adult. I had worked and lived among hearing people with increasing levels of deafness for years. From my own experience, I found it possible to live a full and fulfilled life in the hearing world but it needed a good deal of effort and adaptation from both myself and those I worked and lived with. Even with support it was exhausting. One issue that is rarely highlighted is the primary effect of deafness on engagement and relationships with others. It is my relationships with other people, hearing or deaf, at every level, that have been revolutionised by my cochlear implant, not just my ability to hear music (the most difficult) and to hear surrounding noise. Ruth Holt Halesworth, Suffolk Abi Stephenson’s article was a compelling long read, and I am glad her daughter is thriving with her implant. Since 1980, I have been involved in the Deaf scene with a son who lost his hearing to meningitis at five months. In the 1980s, cochlear implants were in their infancy. An ENT consultant confirmed the deafness, suspected by an astute young nurse on the isolation ward, and said Tom would go on a list to be one of the first to receive one in 10 years’ time. Sounded good to us, naive as we were. Without the peripatetic teacher of the Deaf assigned to us, we would have been left floundering. Signing was suggested and Tom’s language became the delight it remains to this day. He could play his rightful part alongside his brothers in a hearing family and our local community. As a teenager, Tom requested an implant, which took years and much pressurising of the NHS to be fitted just before his GCSEs. Many of the sometimes contentious points Abi describes are ones I considered for his biography. Generations of deaf families hand down Deaf culture and their beautiful BSL within the Deaf community – but his sudden deafness did not mean our son inherited that world. I agree with Tom Bertling’s warning in his A Child Sacrificed to the Deaf Culture that “parents should cast a cautious eye towards anyone wanting to sacrifice a deaf child towards preserving a culture”. Our son embraces both worlds and his three hearing children are bilingual – which says it all. Jenny Froude Author of Making Sense in Sign: A Lifeline for a Deaf Child Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
