Tesco shoppers rush to buy ‘bargain’ Grinch products scanning at just £5 instead of £25Where to Watch Kentucky vs. Texas on TV or Streaming Live – Nov. 23

KYIV, Ukraine — NATO and Ukraine will hold emergency talks Tuesday after Russia attacked a central city with an experimental, hypersonic ballistic missile. escalating the nearly 33-month-old war. The conflict is “entering a decisive phase,” Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday, and “taking on very dramatic dimensions.” Ukraine’s parliament canceled a session as security was tightened following Thursday’s Russian strike on a military facility in the city of Dnipro. In a stark warning to the West, President Vladimir Putin said in a nationally televised speech the attack with the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was in retaliation for Kyiv’s use of U.S. and British longer-range missiles capable of striking deeper into Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks Friday during a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense, representatives of the military-industrial complex and developers of missile systems at the Kremlin in Moscow. Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik Putin said Western air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile. Ukrainian military officials said the missile that hit Dnipro reached a speed of Mach 11 and carried six nonnuclear warheads, each releasing six submunitions. Speaking Friday to military and weapons industries officials, Putin said Russia will launch production of the Oreshnik. “No one in the world has such weapons,” he said. “Sooner or later, other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are under development. “We have this system now,” he added. “And this is important.” Putin said that while it isn’t an intercontinental missile, it’s so powerful that the use of several of them fitted with conventional warheads in one attack could be as devastating as a strike with strategic — or nuclear — weapons. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, said the Oreshnik could reach targets across Europe and be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads, echoing Putin’s claim that even with conventional warheads, “the massive use of the weapon would be comparable in effect to the use of nuclear weapons.” In this photo taken from a video released Friday, a Russian serviceman operates at an undisclosed location in Ukraine. Russian Defense Ministry Press Service Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov kept up Russia's bellicose tone on Friday, blaming “the reckless decisions and actions of Western countries” in supplying weapons to Ukraine to strike Russia. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts "The Russian side has clearly demonstrated its capabilities, and the contours of further retaliatory actions in the event that our concerns were not taken into account have also been quite clearly outlined," he said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely seen as having the warmest relations with the Kremlin in the European Union, echoed Moscow’s talking points, suggesting the use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Ukraine likely requires direct American involvement. “These are rockets that are fired and then guided to a target via an electronic system, which requires the world’s most advanced technology and satellite communications capability,” Orbán said on state radio. “There is a strong assumption ... that these missiles cannot be guided without the assistance of American personnel.” Orbán cautioned against underestimating Russia’s responses, emphasizing that the country’s recent modifications to its nuclear deployment doctrine should not be dismissed as a “bluff.” “It’s not a trick ... there will be consequences,” he said. Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky speaks to journalists Friday during a joint news conference with Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andriiy Sybiha in Kyiv, Ukraine. Evgeniy Maloletka, Associated Press Separately in Kyiv, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský called Thursday’s missile strike an “escalatory step and an attempt of the Russian dictator to scare the population of Ukraine and to scare the population of Europe.” At a news conference with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Lipavský also expressed his full support for delivering the necessary additional air defense systems to protect Ukrainian civilians from the “heinous attacks.” He said the Czech Republic will impose no limits on the use of its weapons and equipment given to Ukraine. Three lawmakers from Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, confirmed that Friday's previously scheduled session was called off due to the ongoing threat of Russian missiles targeting government buildings in central Kyiv. In addition, there also was a recommendation to limit the work of all commercial offices and nongovernmental organizations "in that perimeter, and local residents were warned of the increased threat,” said lawmaker Mykyta Poturaiev, who said it's not the first time such a threat has been received. Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate said the Oreshnik missile was fired from the Kapustin Yar 4th Missile Test Range in Russia’s Astrakhan region and flew 15 minutes before striking Dnipro. Test launches of a similar missile were conducted in October 2023 and June 2024, the directorate said. The Pentagon confirmed the missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate-range missile based on its RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. Thursday's attack struck the Pivdenmash plant that built ICBMs when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The military facility is located about 4 miles southwest of the center of Dnipro, a city of about 1 million that is Ukraine’s fourth-largest and a key hub for military supplies and humanitarian aid, and is home to one of the country’s largest hospitals for treating wounded soldiers from the front before their transfer to Kyiv or abroad. We're all going to die someday. Still, how it happens—and when—can point to a historical moment defined by the scientific advancements and public health programs available at the time to contain disease and prevent accidents. In the early 1900s, America's efforts to improve sanitation, hygiene, and routine vaccinations were still in their infancy. Maternal and infant mortality rates were high, as were contagious diseases that spread between people and animals. Combined with the devastation of two World Wars—and the Spanish Flu pandemic in between—the leading causes of death changed significantly after this period. So, too, did the way we diagnose and control the spread of disease. Starting with reforms as part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, massive-scale, federal interventions in the U.S. eventually helped stave off disease transmission. It took comprehensive government programs and the establishment of state and local health agencies to educate the public on preventing disease transmission. Seemingly simple behavioral shifts, such as handwashing, were critical in thwarting the spread of germs, much like discoveries in medicine, such as vaccines, and increased access to deliver them across geographies. Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 56% and is estimated to keep increasing slightly, according to an annual summary of vital statistics published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000. Death Records examined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to see how the leading causes of death in America have evolved over time and to pinpoint how some major mortality trends have dropped off. Smith Collection/Gado // Getty Images According to a report published in the journal Annual Review of Public Health in 2000, pneumonia was the leading cause of death in the early 1900s, accounting for nearly 1 in 4 deaths. By the time World War I ended in 1918, during which people and animals were housed together for long periods, a new virus emerged: the Spanish Flu. Originating in a bird before spreading to humans, the virus killed 10 times as many Americans as the war. Many died of secondary pneumonia after the initial infection. Pneumonia deaths eventually plummeted throughout the century, partly prevented by increased flu vaccine uptake rates in high-risk groups, particularly older people. Per the CDC, tuberculosis was a close second leading cause of death, killing 194 of every 10,000 people in 1900, mainly concentrated in dense urban areas where the infection could more easily spread. Eventually, public health interventions led to drastic declines in mortality from the disease, such as public education, reducing crowded housing, quarantining people with active disease, improving hygiene, and using antibiotics. Once the death rates lagged, so did the public health infrastructure built to control the disease, leading to a resurgence in the mid-1980s. Diarrhea was the third leading cause of death in 1900, surging every summer among children before the impacts of the pathogen died out in 1930. Adopting water filtration, better nutrition, and improved refrigeration were all associated with its decline. In the 1940s and 1950s, polio outbreaks killed or paralyzed upward of half a million people worldwide every year. Even at its peak, polio wasn't a leading cause of death, it was a much-feared one, particularly among parents of young children, some of whom kept them from crowded public places and interacting with other children. By 1955, when Jonah Salk discovered the polio vaccine, the U.S. had ended the "golden age of medicine." During this period, the causes of mortality shifted dramatically as scientists worldwide began to collaborate on infectious disease control, surgical techniques, vaccines, and other drugs. Death Records From the 1950s onward, once quick-spreading deadly contagions weren't prematurely killing American residents en masse, scientists also began to understand better how to diagnose and treat these diseases. As a result, Americans were living longer lives and instead succumbing to noncommunicable diseases, or NCDs. The risk of chronic diseases increased with age and, in some cases, was exacerbated by unhealthy lifestyles. Cancer and heart disease shot up across the century, increasing 90-fold from 1900 to 1998, according to CDC data. Following the post-Spanish Flu years, heart disease killed more Americans than any other cause, peaking in the 1960s and contributing to 1 in 3 deaths. Cigarette smoking rates peaked at the same time, a major risk factor for heart disease. Obesity rates also rose, creating another risk factor for heart disease and many types of cancers. This coincides with the introduction of ultra-processed foods into diets, which plays a more significant role in larger waistlines than the increasing predominance of sedentary work and lifestyles. In the early 1970s, deaths from heart disease began to fall as more Americans prevented and managed their risk factors, like quitting smoking or taking blood pressure medicine. However, the disease remains the biggest killer of Americans. Cancer remains the second leading cause of death and rates still indicate an upward trajectory over time. Only a few types of cancer are detected early by screening, and some treatments for aggressive cancers like glioblastoma—the most common type of brain cancer—have also stalled, unable to improve prognosis much over time. In recent years, early-onset cancers, those diagnosed before age 50 or sometimes even earlier, have seen a drastic rise among younger Americans. While highly processed foods and sedentary lifestyles may contribute to rising rates, a spike in cancer rates among otherwise healthy young individuals has baffled some medical professionals. This follows the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. At its peak, high transmission rates made the virus the third leading cause of death in America. It's often compared to the Spanish Flu of 1918, though COVID-19 had a far larger global impact, spurring international collaborations among scientists who developed a vaccine in an unprecedented time. Public policy around issues of safety and access also influences causes of death, particularly—and tragically—among young Americans. Gun control measures in the U.S. are far less stringent than in peer nations; compared to other nations, however, the U.S. leads in gun violence. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens (around 2 in 3 are homicides, and 1 in 3 are suicides), and deaths from opioids remain a leading cause of death among younger people. Globally, the leading causes of death mirror differences in social and geographic factors. NCDs are primarily associated with socio-economic status and comprise 7 out of 10 leading causes of death, 85% of those occurring in low- and middle-income countries, according to the World Health Organization. However, one of the best health measures is life expectancy at birth. People in the U.S. have been living longer lives since 2000, except for a slight dip in longevity due to COVID-19. According to the most recent CDC estimates, Americans' life expectancy is 77.5 years on average and is expected to increase slightly in the coming decades. Story editing by Alizah Salario. Additional editing by Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick. This story originally appeared on Death Records and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio. Canva

University of Kashmir’s (KU) performance in the 2024 National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) shows concerning trends that merit serious attention from policymakers and educational administrators. Over the past five years, KU has struggled to maintain its competitive edge despite substantial financial resources. While KU secured the 14th position in the newly introduced ‘Top 50 State Public Universities’ category in NIRF 2024, there is more to this achievement than meets the eye. The university has slipped 11 positions in the Overall Ranking and 12 spots in the Top 100 University category compared to the previous year. This decline is particularly worrying for an institution with a 76-year legacy and substantial financial resources. KU’s teaching metrics show modest progress, with a 0.5-point overall gain in Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR). Two factors drove this improvement: Faculty-Student Ratio rose by 0.78 points, while Faculty Quality and Experience increased by 0.14 points. These gains likely reflect recent recruitment efforts, which expanded the teaching staff from 552 to 644 between 2021 and 2024. Despite these positive developments, KU lost ground in other areas: (FRU) sub-parameter. Perhaps the most striking finding is what might be termed the “efficiency gap” in KU’s resource utilization. With an annual FRU of approximately ₹375 crore, KU outspends several better-performing institutions. Yet, this financial advantage has not resulted in proportional improvements in key performance metrics. While KU’s operational expenditure increased by 21.80% over three years (from ₹276 crores to ₹337 crores), its academic expenditure saw only a modest 6.80% rise (from ₹35 crores to ₹37 crores). This disparity raises questions about the institution’s spending priorities and efficiency in resource allocation. The NIRF measures FRU using two main factors: These calculations exclude hostel maintenance and related services. Over the last three years (2020-2023), KU’s spending per student has grown by 23% to ₹3.85 lakh. While day-to-day operational costs per student jumped by nearly 23% to ₹3.46 lakh, academic investments saw a modest 9.31% rise to ₹39,000 per student. But here is the catch: despite spending more overall, KU’s FRU score actually dropped by 1.89 points this year. This drop may reflect reduced spending across several key areas. The numbers become even more concerning when looking at academic spending. As student enrolment grew from 9,380 to 9,730 between 2021 to 2023, academic expenditure per student unexpectedly fell from ₹39,628 to ₹38,970 – a 1.66% decline. This raises important questions about resource allocation: shouldn’t adding 350 more students lead to increased academic investment, not less? KU’s Research and Professional Practice (RPP) score increased by 4.32 points year-over-year. However, this improvement is primarily due to the new Sustainable Developments Goals (SDG) sub-parameter, which inflated the score to 31.25 points. When considering only the original four sub-parameters, KU’s performance actually declined by 0.09 points to 26.84, indicating that the overall increase does not reflect genuine improvement in core research practices. Despite a 1.2-point increase in Publication score, KU’s Quality of Publication score dropped by 0.93 points. Given NIRF’s strong emphasis on RPP scores and its reliance on Scopus and Web of Science databases, KU should incentivize its faculty to publish in these indexed journals rather than predatory ones. A 2021 found that about two-thirds of KU’s social sciences publications appeared in predatory journals, which do not contribute to RPP scores. The focus should shift from quantity to quality in research output. KU scored just 0.50 points in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for 2024. While this, perhaps, reflects a patent from Dr. Shabir Ahmad Parah and his team from the Department of Electronics and Instrumentation Technology, recent patents for and is expected to improve KU’s IPR score in the next NIRF ranking, as these fall outside the current three-year assessment period (2020-2022). KU’s Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice (FPPP) score dropped 0.37 points this year, reflecting sharp declines in both funding and consultancy. Research funding at KU has plummeted by 68% – from ₹40.91 crore for 82 projects in FY 2020-21 to ₹13.25 crore for 84 projects in FY 2022-23. Consultancy projects have seen an even steeper decline of 79%. These figures suggest a significant weakening of the university’s research ecosystem. This decline has broader implications since funded research, which help generate new empirical data, often leads to high-quality publications in prestigious journals. To improve its Research and Professional Practice score, KU must actively pursue diverse funding sources beyond ICSSR to retain intellectual property rights and data usage and focus on converting research projects into impactful publications. The placement figures paint a troubling picture at KU. With less than 15% of its students securing jobs through campus recruitment, KU lags far behind its peer institutions. Anna University, Panjab University, University of Kerala, and Jadavpur University all boast placement rates above 40% – nearly triple KU’s performance. This falls drastically short of UGC’s 2018 ‘Quality Mandate’ target of 50% placement. What makes this even more concerning is that KU ranks second highest in faculty-student ratio among these institutions (excluding PhD scholars), and third highest when including doctoral students. Despite this advantage in teaching resources, the university’s placement outcomes remain disappointingly low. Anna University, operating on about half of KU’s FRU (₹23,000 per student), achieves a 60% placement rate for postgraduates. Even more impressive is Jadavpur University, which manages 68% placement despite spending just ₹20,000 per student – less than half of KU’s investment. Despite higher spending per student, KU’s placement record raises serious questions about how effectively these resources are being used to prepare students for the job market. In a region already grappling with 18% unemployment – more than double the all-India average of 8% – KU’s placement struggles are particularly concerning. While the valley’s limited private sector poses challenges, this alone does not explain the full picture. Other universities in moderately industrialized states, like Odisha, have managed to secure jobs for over 80% of their postgraduates. KU’s low placement rates may be contributing to J&K’s growing educated unemployment crisis. For a premier institution in the region, this calls for an urgent rethinking of how academic programs align with employment opportunities. KU reputation among employers and academics remains a major concern. Scoring just 30.53 out of 100 in perception ratings, KU lags far behind its peers – Panjab University (69.13) and Jadavpur University (86.62). This score, based on feedback from a large category of employers, professionals and academic peers, represents a critical area for improvement if KU aims to climb the rankings. To improve its Perception score KU needs to strategically focusing on key areas. To enhance visibility among employers, KU can strengthen collaboration with industry through partnerships with leading private organizations. Introducing ‘Industry PhD program’ can help aligning doctoral research with industry needs. This will allow KU attract partnerships with companies, offering students valuable industry exposure and improving their job prospects. Regular and deeper interactions with employers and recruiters, regular feedback sessions, and tailored training programs for students can help in aligning KU’s curriculum with industry needs, thereby improving employer and peer perception of KU. Effective communication and branding, including a strong online presence and media engagement, are crucial to positively influence perception of KU among the stakeholders. Lovely Professional University (LPU), established just 18 years ago, has shown remarkable progress in NIRF rankings, jumping from 78th position in 2020 to 27th in 2024. Similarly, SRM Institute of Science & Technology has climbed from 35th to 12th place. Meanwhile, KU’s advancement has been minimal, improving by only three positions over five years before its recent decline. Money does not seem to be the issue. KU’s ₹375 crore budget actually exceeds LPU’s ₹367 crore. The message is clear: it is not about how much you spend, but how effectively you use those resources. As competition within the higher education sector intensifies, KU must not only improve its absolute performance but also keep pace with the rapid advancements of newer, more agile institutions. This requires innovative approaches to education delivery, research output, and stakeholder engagement to reverse the current negative trend in rankings. Despite impressive credentials – 644 experienced faculty members, 1,160 full-time PhD students, and over 540 PhD graduates in three years – Kashmir University’s research standing falls short of expectations. The university’s absence from NIRF’s ‘Top 50 Research Institutions’ list stands in stark contrast to peer institutions like Panjab University, Jadavpur University, and Anna University. This underperformance extends to specific departments. The 50-year-old Law Department fails to crack the ‘Top 30 in Law’, while the 33-year-old School of Business remains outside the Top 100 in Management, lagging behind even relatively new business school at LPU. The research quality at KU’s Law Department and School of Business raises serious concerns. A telling example: The Business School’s publication list on its website consists entirely of works from Notion Press, a self-publishing company. Similarly, three out of four books listed on the Law Department’s website are self-published through the same platform. This reliance on vanity publishing, rather than peer-reviewed academic outlets, not only hurts KU’s NIRF rankings but also damages the academic reputation of these departments. It raises serious questions about research standards and academic rigor at these flagship departments. Strong rankings boost prestige and appeal, while poor performance risks decreased interest, reduced funding (in some cases), and a weakened reputation. This makes the university’s competitiveness and growth contingent on its ranking. Therefore, KU must adopt a strategic approach to improve its rankings and fulfil its potential. First and foremost, KU must develop a ‘comprehensive strategic document’ to guide the university toward academic excellence. It is not merely about increasing spending, but about making targeted investments in priority areas, identifying where immediate interventions are needed, and ensuring that these investments yield optimal outcomes. Without strategic planning, efficient resource utilization, and a culture of academic excellence, even well-funded institutions risk falling behind in the increasingly competitive higher education landscape. KU stands at a critical crossroads. As newer institutions demonstrate remarkable agility in climbing the NIRF rankings, KU must move beyond merely increasing expenditure to implementing strategic reforms. The success of private institutions offers valuable lessons in adaptation and innovation. The performance of private institutions in the NIRF rankings raises some questions. What strategies are these newer institutions employing to achieve such significant improvements? How can provincial universities like KU adapt to the competitive tertiary education landscape? What other factors, apart from financial resources, are contributing to these ranking disparities? For KU, although located in a specific regional and political context, these trends signal an urgent need for strategic planning. The university must identify areas where it lags behind its competitors within SPU category and accordingly frame and implement targeted initiatives to improve its performance across key NIRF parameters. To this end, the following recommendations are crucial: The path forward requires more than incremental changes. KU must transform its approach to education delivery, research output, and stakeholder engagement. In today’s competitive academic landscape, maintaining the status quo is not an option. The university needs decisive action to reverse its ranking decline and ensure sustained progress in academic excellence. This strategic overhaul is challenging but essential for KU to reclaim its position as a leading institution of higher learning.

‘Babygirl’ director defends age gap in Nicole Kidman erotic thriller: ‘It should completely be normalized’

Islanders take losing streak into matchup with the SabresLots of folks are enjoying their new holiday gifts right now — but some might not love that new sweater. The week following Christmas is the biggest week of returns in the U.S., and this year, some major retailers are making some major changes to their return policies. Outlets including Amazon, REI, and Target are changing who can return items and how they return them. It's to combat fraud, which has cost retailers tens of billions of dollars each year. And while you might not be trying to game the system, the changes will affect you nonetheless. In June, Amazon added processing fees for high-return items. That charge varies, since it's based on an item's popularity and how often it's returned. But shoes and apparel are excepted due to sizing issues — so you can still get rid of those reindeer socks without a penalty. Outdoor retailer REI also announced it could refuse a return — but that's limited to frequent returners. The company says the changes will affect only 0.02% of members who show a pattern of policy abuse. Similar changes are at Target, which announced it reserves the right to also refuse refunds suspected of fraud. RELATED STORY | Get ready for the post-Christmas return frenzy The changes come as cases of fraud have increased in recent years. The National Retail Federation estimates return scams cost retailers over $100 billion in 2023 alone. That's after $743 billion in items were returned. By the end of 2024, the group estimates that number will rise to nearly $900 billion. Online shopping it where most returns occur. According to the software company Elite Extra, the cost of handling a return is roughly 17% of the purchase cost. So for every $100 in accepted returns, a company loses $17. You can thank the "wardrobers" out there who return used items, or the folks who fake receipts for stolen goods. Or those who switch high-value items with knockoffs. And don't forget to thank Dear Aunt Sally for the sweatshirt. She meant well.Seongnam City to Participate in CES 2025, Paving the Way as a Global Innovation Hub

Donald Trump transfers £3 billion of Trump Media shares to trustCochlear implants make a useful addition to sign language | Letters