ResidentialBusiness

Ukrainian president is haunted by Russia’s frequent flouting of terms set under Minsk agreementsView the full article

What‘s shaking up the content marketing industry? Learn about the 11 most important content marketing and AI content trends in 2025. View the full article

Company says move will end ‘distractions’View the full article

French broadcaster posts higher revenue in first results since UK listing last year View the full article

Tesla rival says follow-on Hong Kong offering is the biggest in the global automotive sector in a decadeView the full article

Stifling dissent by dominating the room isn't just Oval Office politicsView the full article

We’re exposed to microplastics in myriad ways: Those tiny, degraded bits of plastic are in our soil, our water, even in our air. They then get into our bodies, lodging themselves in our organs—including our brains. An adult human brain can contain about a spoon’s worth of microplastics and nanoplastics, recent research found—not a spoonful, but the same weight as a disposable plastic spoon. That amount was higher—by seven to 30 times—than the amount of microplastics found in other organs, such as livers or kidneys. The concentrations were even higher (by three to five times) in individuals diagnosed with dementia. And even more concerning, experts say, is how these levels have increased over time: Between 2016 and 2024, the concentration of microplastics in human brains increased by about 50%. Those findings came from a study by University of New Mexico researchers that was recently published in the journal Nature Medicine. A new commentary, published today in the journal Brain Medicine, builds on that research by looking at a few big questions that arise when we learn we have lots of microplastics in our brains: How can we limit our exposure, and is there any way to remove these microplastics? How to reduce microplastics exposure The microplastics found in human brains included nanoplastics—particles smaller than 200 nanometers (a human hair, for contrast, is about 80,000 nanometers wide). They were also mostly made up of polyethylene, a commonly produced plastic used in everything from food packaging to drink bottles to plastic bags. That helps give an idea of what sorts of exposure could lead to these particles ending up in the brain, says Nicholas Fabiano ​​from the University of Ottawa’s psychiatry department, and lead author of the commentary; Fabiano’s research focuses on the overlap between mental and physical health. Bottled water is a particular source of these kinds of microplastics. Switching from that to filtered tap water could reduce your intake of microplastics from 90,000 particles per year to 4,000. (Though it’s not clear, the commentary authors note, if that would translate to a measurable drop in the amount of microplastics accumulated in our body tissues.) Plastic tea bags have also been found to release millions of microplastic particles when brewed, so avoiding those could also limit exposure. There are also microplastics in ultra-processed foods like chicken nuggets. Storing and heating food in plastic containers can release lots of micro- and nanoplastics. “Switching to glass or stainless steel might be safer,” Fabiano says. Canned soup could also be a source of exposure, as cans are often lined with plastic. The authors also noted a 2011 study that found that after five days of eating canned soup, participants saw the levels of BPA (a chemical used to make plastic) in their urine increase more than 1,000%. (There has since been a decline in cans with BPA in the lining, but some new linings instead contain polystyrene.) Because microplastics are even in our air—more than 60,000 such particles are inhaled by male adults per year, previous research has found—the authors also recommend using HEPA air filters. Can we remove microplastics that are already in our brain? The original study on microplastics in human brains had an interesting finding: There was no correlation between someone’s age and their microplastic levels. “That suggests people’s bodies are able to get rid of these microplastics in various different ways,” Fabiano says. (If there were a correlation, there would be a cumulative effect: The older someone is, the more microplastics in their brain.) How exactly that happens, though, we still don’t know. “Is it through sweat? Is it through feces? Is it through urine?” Fabiano says. Prior research has found BPA in people’s sweat, suggesting that induced sweating could potentially remove those particles, but more research needs to be done, he says. The commentary is a call for more research. For all the research identifying microplastics in the environment or in our bodies, there’s little on the health impacts of this debris. And what exists on that front focuses mostly on physical health. “If you have a spoon’s worth of plastic in your brain, surely there must be impact to your mental health,” Fabiano notes. The original Nature Medicine article was a “step in the right direction,” he adds, for even looking at dementia patients and shedding light on the possible connection for diagnoses and microplastics. But it also raises more questions that researchers need to answer—not just on the impacts, but also if scientists should establish microplastics-exposure limits, and how else we could reduce or remove the microplastics already inside us. “Right now, the microplastic-and-health research is still in its early days,” Fabiano says. “But so far, what the research has shown is that it’s certainly not a good thing to have microplastics.” The best thing for people to do in the meantime, he says, is to try to limit their exposure. View the full article

China and Canada retaliate as fears deepen over global trade warView the full article

Female streamers are being told to hire security after a spate of recent attacks. Popular Twitch stars Valkyrae, Cinna, and Emiru were out in public at the Santa Monica Pier on March 2 as part of their “sisathon” streaming marathon, when a man lunged toward them, saying, “I’ll kill you right now.” The streamers called for help from security as the man chased them before the stream turned off. He had tracked their location using the live broadcast and earlier had gotten down on one knee, proposed to the three streamers, and asked one for her phone number, which she refused. Issuing an update later that evening on X, Cinna posted, “Hey everyone we are safe. Unfortunately, we have to end the marathon and need time to process what happened as we shock at the moment.” hey everyone we are safe. unfortunately we have end the marathon and need time to process what happened as we shock at the moment. Thank you for all the love and support on the marathon. We love you all. — cinna (@cinnabrit) March 3, 2025 Other streamers have rallied around the Twitch stars, advocating for increased safety measures, particularly for women in the industry. Popular streamer xChocoBars, who has advocated for more action to be taken against stalkers targeting streamers, posted on X: “The police and security need to do more for women who get stalked. I’m sick and tired of this law where they can’t do anything until something HAPPENS.” QTCinderella also shared details for the security firm she employs while streaming in public. “There have been times where they have had to be with me 24/7. It could save your life, save their info,” she posted on X. That same night, another popular streamer experienced a harrowing incident in her home. Amouranth, whose real name is Kaitlyn Siragusa, posted on social media that she’d been robbed at gunpoint by thieves trying to steal her crypto funds. “I’m being too robbed at gunpoint. I believe I shot one of them. They wanted crypto is what they were yelling they pulled me out of bed,” Amouranth posted on her X account on March 2 at 11:55 p.m. The Kick streamer and adult content creator later explained why she posted to X instead of calling emergency services. “Was at gun point they gave me phone and said log in with gun to my head and I tweeted because calling would be a death sentence,” she wrote. The attack comes just months after Amouranth posted a screenshot of a Coinbase account showing in excess of $20 million in BTC and ETH, along with the message, “Do I sell or hold my BTC?” Private security firms, such as Fast Guard Service, have reported a recent surge in demand from influencers spanning various platforms. Creators are now experiencing a number of concerning side effects that come with online fame, including unwanted attention, harassment, and even physical threats. What used to be an occupational hazard reserved for Hollywood celebrities and high-profile politicians is now a growing reality for influencers and internet personalities. View the full article

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager. It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. Coworker asks someone to get him food from the cafeteria every day I work as a consultant for a company and have an older male colleague (in his late 40s) who has mobility issues due to his weight. He sits almost all day and arrives very early before anyone else arrives. He cannot walk more than a few feet without pain and asks me (or another colleague) to grab meals for him at the cafeteria almost daily. He gives people money for his food, which is always junk food, and is very apologetic and appreciative. Most people, including myself, bring packed meals and rarely eat in the cafeteria. It’s very awkward being put on the spot, especially since everyone is polite and usually willing to help anyone. I’m a classic “people pleaser”, which is something I really need to work on. My work crosses paths occasionally with this colleague so I don’t want any bad blood impacting my interactions with him. I don’t know him very well and he is not a “work friend.” Even if he were, it is still an uncomfortable situation. While I sympathize with his chronic pain issues, I’m fed up and not his personal assistant! His boss often travels overseas and is rarely in the office. Due to my role, I work for an outside vendor with an unrelated HR team. He’s not in a supervisory role over anyone here, including me. If he needs a disability accommodation, that’s between him and his manager. How do I handle this colleague tactfully and avoid being offensive? “Oh, I’m sorry — I’m not going to the cafeteria today!” That’s it. If he asks if you’d mind going anyway and you don’t want to, you can say, “I’m sorry, I can’t — I’m swamped.” He’s likely to stop asking pretty quickly. For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s an outrageous imposition that he asks people for help. There are probably people who don’t mind and who see it as a kindness they’re happy to offer, and it’s reasonable for anyone to say no if it’s too much of an inconvenience on any given day or in general. I think the issue here is more that you don’t feel comfortable saying no than that he’s asking in the first place! Kindly saying you can’t do it should take care of it. 2. New hire took the “fork in the road” and now we might not be able to hire a replacement I’m hoping to get a sanity check from you on a situation that just happened on my team. I know you generally say employees have to do what’s in their best interests, and sometimes burning a bridge is worth it, but this whole situation feels like more than just the “cost of doing business.” I work for a large federal agency in the D.C. area. Unlike many federal employees who are seeing their work slashed and burned, the team I lead has been launched from complete obscurity to being very high-visibility and is working incredibly hard. We used to be a strict 40-hour week team and now we routinely have team members staying past 8 or 9 pm to get all of our tasks done. During this time, we put out an internal job posting to hire a senior individual contributor position. We did interviews and selected someone who seemed pretty qualified, though not “knock it out of the park” qualified relative to the other candidates. He accepted and started working on the team recently. Within a couple of days after he started, our HR informed us this employee had taken the deferred resignation option, aka Elon Musks’s “fork in the road,” and his last day would be about two weeks after starting. The employee never informed us of any of this, and what makes me particularly peeved is that he sent in his deferred resignation several days before interviewing with us and accepting the position. All of this would fall under “not cool, but I guess we’ll just deal with it” except for one additional wrinkle: people who leave under the deferred resignation program can’t get their jobs backfilled. (Actually, my agency has to give up a billet for every single person that opted in, even if they don’t actually leave.) My supervisor is fighting to make the case that the unit he belonged to when he first resigned should be the one losing a billet, rather than our unit that he was in when he signed the final paperwork, but we don’t know how that’s going to turn out. We also don’t know, even if we can fill the position, whether we can just call up our second choice and make them an offer, or whether the rules will require us to go through a lengthy re-posting and re-interviewing process. And all the while, my team of junior employees are working their asses off without the help of a senior who could relieve some of the pressure. Either way, there’s nothing I can do, but am I off-base in thinking this was much more egregious than a standard situation of a new hire backing out? I feel that at least, the employee should have told us he opted in to the deferred resignation when he received the offer, so that we could have made an informed decision. Yeah, that’s pretty crappy. In fairness, it’s possible that he wasn’t confident that the deferred resignation email would be honored, since there’s still plenty of doubt about that. And he might have figured that at this point he doesn’t owe any particular courtesy to an employer that’s treated its workforce so disrespectfully (and … there’s something to that). But yeah, he screwed your team to get something for himself (which I wouldn’t say if he didn’t put you in a position where you might not be allowed to re-fill the job). However, it’s far, far more absurd that HR didn’t tell you before the hire was finalized! That’s relevant info that you should have been made aware of, and it’s either by extreme incompetence or deliberate design that they didn’t. 3. Should I tell my employees that someone assaulted me? I wish I did not have to ask this. I live in a very small community with a staff of about 10. I am a sexual assault survivor with CPTSD and anxiety disorder from that experience growing up. Unfortunately, this weekend I had a stranger break into my apartment and attempt to rape me. While the assailant was caught and arrested and I was able to fight them off (and I’m in therapy), I am understandably very shaken up and this has opened some new wounds. Is it appropriate for me to tell my employees what happened in general terms and ask them to be careful when approaching me, especially from behind over the next few weeks as this is very triggering for me? This was all over our local media and some of them already know, and I have taken the next few days off of work because of the event. How awful, I’m so sorry. Yes, you can absolutely share with your employees what happened in general terms so they have context for the requests you’re making (requests that will be completely understandable to anyone once they know why). “Broke in and attempted to attack me” will carry enough relevant information if you’re more comfortable with that wording. I hope you heal as quickly as possible. 4. The lack of clarity of “Sunday at midnight” I’ve always had a pet peeve as a student when I would get assignments that were due on, say, “Sunday night at midnight.” Does that mean you need my paper by Saturday night going into Sunday morning, or do you need my paper by Sunday night going into Monday morning? Because midnight is the start of the next day! I never asked because nobody else seemed to have an issue, but more importantly, it would only be a real issue if you weren’t completing your assignment in a timely manner. I always made a point to turn in my assignments at least 48 hours before a deadline anyway, so there was no reason to bring it up. Now, I’m a grad student who’s a teaching assistant for a professor, and I’m responsible for writing the homework assignments for his undergrads. I tell students, “Submit this assignment by Sunday at 11:59 pm.” I feel this is much clearer than “Sunday at midnight,” and if a student were to, say, procrastinate on a lab report, a 60-second difference will not matter. The professor, however, said that I should keep the “Sunday at midnight” vernacular because it’s industry standard (not just in our field, but in others). The actual amount of days given to complete the assignment was always correct, but I didn’t say anything because I feel like my concerns will be dismissed as mere semantics. It’s one of those weird little things where you feel silly for wanting to argue more for it, but you also feel frustrated because that means the other person is being equally silly for arguing against it. So then you just don’t argue to keep the peace but still have unresolved frustration. How common is “Sunday at midnight” in the working world? What should it mean? It’s incredibly common! And I am right there with you on it; you’re essentially giving a deadline that’s a day earlier than what you really mean and causing unnecessary confusion. The real deadline is Sunday at 11:59 pm. I think people are willing to live with it, though, because it’s not going to result in a student being late; if someone takes it literally, they’d be a day early instead. That’s still not particularly fair or clear … but if assignments were late as a result of it, they’d be more moved to change it. 5. Dealing with someone who’s in denial about their unreliable email A physician I see regularly is having problems with her email. I’m sure that the problems are on her end because (a) they happen repeatedly, (b) they happen with no one else in my contact list, and (c) other people (like my occupational therapist) also have problems with her email communications. Sometimes she doesn’t receive emails that I’ve sent her, but she also sometimes says she’s sent me an email that never arrived in my inbox. (I’ve checked for these emails thoroughly). I’m not sure if the problem is that she’s very loose in how she handles her email or if there’s some technical issue on her end. In any case, it’s causing me real problems from time to time. When I’ve brought this problem up, she’s been resistant to the possibility that the problem is on her end. She either shrugs off the missing email or implies that I somehow missed it or inadvertently deleted it — but I know, from ongoing exploration, as well as others’ communications with her, that the issue is definitely on her side. It feels quite rude to say to a professional, “I know that this problem might seem like a one-off, or like it might be a technical glitch on my end, but I have been tracking patterns for a while now, and I can tell you with confidence that some of your emails are not arriving and that you are often not getting the emails I send, and it is causing Big Problems. Could you fix it?” In some ways, I would prefer a simple workaround that acknowledged the situation without demanding that she address it: something like, “Since, as we’ve discussed, my emails don’t always make it to you, is there another way I could be corresponding just to make sure we’re communicating reliably? If I have a question, would you rather I call and leave a voice message with the question, or email you and then call to confirm receipt?” Does either of these seem likeliest to work, or most appropriate? Sure, that’s appropriate. But note at least for half the problem (the half where she misses your emails), you don’t even need to sort it out with her ahead of time. You can simply assume email isn’t a reliable method of reaching her and just switch to calling instead (or emailing and then calling to confirm receipt). The piece that you have a lot less control over is when she thinks she’s emailed you but hasn’t — so I’d focus on that piece of it. For example: “For whatever reason, your emails don’t reliably reach me. I don’t want to miss important messages from you, so can we switch to a different communication method, like texts or phone calls?” View the full article

S&P predicts higher bond issuance will push stock of long-term debt to $76.9tnView the full article

Generative AI is a tempting short-cut that can prevent those at university from gaining foundational skillsView the full article

Core voters in Georgia are keeping the faith as the US administration tears up the rule bookView the full article

Washington announces decision days after White House clash with Volodymyr ZelenskyyView the full article

Zoopla figures signal easing for tenants after prolonged squeeze on finances View the full article

Surge in grievances puts regulators under pressure ahead of crucial court case View the full article

China ‘more open’ to foreign business than the west, says executive vice-president Stella LiView the full article

After more than eight decades in operation, craft retailer Joann is going out of business, closing all 800 of its stores and laying off 19,000 employees. The news comes after the retailer’s restructuring plans failed and a liquidator opted to purchase its assets. Joann is far from the only retailer in its death throes these days. Recent data shows that the number of retail-store closures is expected to double during 2025, to roughly 15,000 from the 7,300 or so in 2024. Accordingly, Joann is in a similar boat to companies such as Red Lobster, Big Lots, and Party City, which have each announced plans to either completely close up shop or enact big restructuring in recent months. And a commonality between many of them? Private equity firms are playing a large role. Private equity has been in the spotlight in recent years as it relates to many large-scale business restructurings and closings. For instance, restaurant chains Red Lobster and TGI Fridays—both of which filed for bankruptcy last year—were backed by private equity firms. Critics say that private equity, often simply referred to as PE, tends to come in and strip a company for parts and eventually kill it off rather than trying to make an honest attempt at turning the business around and making it profitable. While poor stewardship on the part of private equity can certainly contribute to a company’s downfall, experts say what happened with Joann appears to be more nuanced. “Private equity doesn’t have a crystal ball” Joann’s situation is somewhat unusual as it relates to its current situation. Back when it was known as Jo-Ann Stores, the company was acquired by PE firm Leonard Green & Partners in 2011 for roughly $1.6 billion as part of a leveraged buyout, taking the company private. The deal effectively put Joann and its resources up as collateral, and after some rebranding and leadership changes, the retailer went public again in early 2021, during a stretch when it was getting a jolt from pandemic-era growth in crafting and other such at-home activities. But the past few years haven’t been so kind, and Joann again faltered. It found itself in the lurch with two bankruptcies over the past year as its leadership was unable to successfully capture the brief momentum it had experienced in 2020 and 2021. It’s hard to ignore that Joann is a specialty retail company with a huge geographic footprint, large-format stores, and thousands of employees: exactly the kind of retailer that has found it increasingly difficult to thrive in the decades since e-commerce companies like Amazon have entered the fray. So while Joann did have PE backing, prevailing market conditions may be the firm’s ultimate undoing, experts point out. “People forget the incredible role that market conditions play,” says Donna Hitscherich, a senior lecturer in discipline, finance, and economics and director of the Private Equity Program at Columbia Business School. She says PE firms know how to operate businesses and are “singularly focused” on turning a profit. “There’s little or no incentive for PE to come in and have a business fail, as in the case of Joann,” Hitscherich says. “That wasn’t their plan. Private equity doesn’t have a crystal ball.” Though Joann did receive a shot in the arm during the pandemic, when many people took up new hobbies and crowded into craft stores, the retailer has been trending downward for a while. If a private equity firm purchases a struggling retailer only to see that retailer go under, “they’re just giving away money,” Hitscherich says. Mixed incentives There are ways that PE firms do make money even if the company it purchased is circling the drain, however. “Because of the laws and regulations that surround the PE industry, firms are often incentivized to extract money rather than to try and make a company succeed or survive,” says Brendan Ballou, author of the book Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America, and former special counsel with the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division. “The issue is that PE firms also take fees from businesses, like management fees or transaction fees,” he says. In effect, PE firms may develop a sort of parasitic relationship with their portfolio companies, extracting money through fees even if it’s to the long-term detriment of the targets they acquire. This sometimes happens as part of a leveraged buyout, which may put target companies at a disadvantage, as they effectively receive a lifeline but go further into debt in order to secure it. Add in the fees on top of that, and companies that were already struggling to make money may find those struggles compounded. “The investors in the PE firm certainly want the business to succeed, but that’s not necessarily the case for the firm,” Ballou says. As such, there are mixed incentives at play. While some PE firms may end up speeding up the death of a portfolio company, rather than helping to resurrect it, supporters of private equity maintain that it plays an important role in the economy. A report from EY, provided to Fast Company by the American Investment Council, a PE-focused advocacy organization, found that the PE sector directly employed 12 million people during 2022, and a vast majority (85%) of the companies that PE firms back are small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So, while there is a role for private equity, there are also legitimate questions to be asked when a beloved company like Joann or Red Lobster hits the skids. For Ballou, it all comes back to the issue of crossed incentives: “Failure for Joann doesn’t necessarily mean failure for a PE firm.” View the full article

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. board of directors approved a proposal to roll back its 2024 merger policy, reinstating previous guidelines while charting a new policy toward bank combinations. View the full article

Google's John Mueller shares his thoughts on low-effort content that "looks good" The post Google On Low-Effort Content That Looks Good appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Traders had been expecting cartel to postpone its plan to boost outputView the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. The Pixel 9 is the latest series of the Google Pixel phone lineup. They were released late last summer with the 9 Pro and Pro XL getting released as well. But if you're OK with an already good camera and prefer to save some money, the 128 GB unlocked Pixel 9 is just $599 (originally $799) after a $200 discount, the lowest price it has been since its release, according to price-tracking tools. You can get it in obsidian, peony, or porcelain. Brand: Google, OS: Android 14, RAM: 12 GB, Storage: 128 GB, Screen Size: 6.3 Inches. Google Pixel 9 (Obsidian) $599.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $799.00 Save $200.00 Get Deal Get Deal $599.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $799.00 Save $200.00 Brand: Google, OS: Android 14, RAM: 12 GB, Storage: 128 GB, Screen Size: 6.3 Inches. Google Pixel 9 (Peony) $599.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $799.00 Save $200.00 Get Deal Get Deal $599.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $799.00 Save $200.00 Brand: Google, OS: Android 14, RAM: 12 GB, Storage: 128 GB, Screen Size: 6.3 Inches. Google Pixel 9 (Porcelain) $599.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $799.00 Save $200.00 Get Deal Get Deal $599.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $799.00 Save $200.00 SEE 0 MORE As most Pixel fans are probably aware, the budget Pixel 9a is expected to release sometime this month, which probably explains the new discount of the Pixel 9. If the pattern continues, you'll likely see the Pixel 9a come out for $500 during the pre-order sale. Also, if the trend of a-series phones continues, the Pixel 9 might still be a better value than the 9a. The Pixel 9 comes with 12GB of RAM, starts with 128GB of memory storage, a maximum 120 HZ refresh rate, and the Android 14 operating system. Lifehacker's associate tech editor Michelle Ehrhardt deemed the more premium Pixel 9 Pro's hardware as the best Google has made so far, but its AI features still had hiccups. However, AI features will keep improving over time; the most important thing to get right is the hardware. The battery life can last almost 12 hours, according to PCMag's "excellent" review. The main camera has a 50MP shooter, a 48MP ultra-wide camera with a 123-degree field of view, same as the Pro models, but it has a single-zone laser detect autofocus (LDAF) sensor (the pro has multi-zone LDAF). If you have the Pixel 8, you might not notice a huge upgrade in this version. However, if you're upgrading from an older version or doing a switch from a non-Pixel phone, the 9 has a lot to offer. One of my favorite things about Pixel phones is the ongoing support for many years. My Pixel 6A still gets all of the updates and tons of AI features that make the phone feel fresh many years later, with the latest ones dropping last month. With the Pixel 9, you'll be getting a quality phone with software updates for a while (as long as seven years). View the full article

Serena Williams is joining the ownership group of the WNBA’s first Canadian franchise, the Toronto Tempo, the team announced Monday. She will partner with Larry Tanenbaum, Chairman of Kilmer Sports Ventures for the Tempo, who will begin play in the 2026 season. “I am thrilled to announce my ownership role in the first Canadian WNBA team, the Toronto Tempo,” said Williams. “This moment is not just about basketball; it is about showcasing the true value and potential of female athletes — I have always said that women’s sports are an incredible investment opportunity. I am excited to partner with Larry and all of Canada in creating this new WNBA franchise and legacy.” Williams, one of the greatest tennis players in history, will play an active role in future jersey designs. She made her professional tennis debut at age 14 at a tournament in Canada in 1995, and her last event was the 2022 U.S. Open. Williams won 23 Grand Slam singles titles — the most by a woman in the sport’s Open era — plus another 14 major trophies in women’s doubles alongside her older sister, Venus. “Serena is a champion,” said Tempo President Teresa Resch. “She’s the greatest athlete of all time, and her impact on this team and this country is going to be incredible. She’s set the bar for women in sport, business and the world — and her commitment to using that success to create opportunities for other women is inspiring — we’re thrilled to be marking the lead-up to International Women’s Day with this announcement.” Williams is the latest former pro athlete to join a WNBA ownership group. Magic Johnson, Tom Brady, Dwyane Wade and Renee Montgomery already are owners. This isn’t the first ownership venture for Williams. She has a stake in the Angel City FC women’s soccer team. She also holds minority stakes in the Miami Dolphins as well as TGL’s Los Angeles Golf Club, the virtual golf league headed by PGA stars Tiger Williams and Rory McIlroy. Williams’ husband, Alexis Ohanian, donated millions of dollars to Virginia’s women’s basketball program last year. He graduated from the school. —Doug Feinberg, AP basketball writer View the full article

President Donald Trump said he would plow ahead with new tariffs on Canada and Mexico starting Tuesday, a broadside against the two biggest US trading partners that underscores his push to remake global trade. View the full article

A group representing U.S. airlines plans to urge federal aviation officials to permanently reduce helicopter traffic around Reagan National Airport outside Washington, D.C., following a January collision by an Army Black Hawk into an American Airlines regional jet that killed 67 people. Airlines for America, in written testimony prepared for a U.S. House of Representatives hearing on Tuesday, calls on the Federal Aviation Administration to permanently suspend some helicopter routes near the airport with limited exceptions for essential military or medical emergencies. The testimony, seen by Reuters, also calls for military aircraft to be required to use a key safety system known as ADS-B near large airports in which aircraft determine and broadcast their position using satellite navigation to avoid collisions. Airlines for America represents American, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines and other airlines. The FAA has temporarily barred most helicopters near the airport – located in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the U.S. capital – since the crash pending a preliminary report due out this month from the National Transportation Safety Board. The Black Hawk, carrying a crew of three, collided with the airliner, carrying 64 passengers and crew members, on the night of January 29, with the wreckage plunging into the river. There were no survivors. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said the Army helicopter was operating with its ADS-B turned off, which is permitted by the FAA for military aircraft. Airlines for America wants the FAA to evaluate whether any helicopter routes that could conflict with airplane flights at Reagan could be moved farther away from commercial traffic. The group also urged an immediate FAA review of air traffic near large airports. “The FAA should conduct an immediate review of identified potential hot spots of conflicting air traffic operating near large airports,” the group said in the testimony, adding that the agency should be able to “to suspend or eliminate traffic routes if unnecessary risk exists.” The FAA declined to comment on the testimony but noted that it is conducting a review of helicopter routes near other airports. The FAA is due to review the existing restrictions once the NTSB preliminary report is issued. The FAA is allowing only presidential transport and emergency police or medical helicopters near the airport and banning civilian flights whenever President Donald Trump’s helicopter is flying nearby. These restrictions have significantly impacted flights. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in a February 5 speech in Washington called for ending non-essential military helicopter flights near the airport. “If we have generals who are flying in helicopters for convenience through this airspace, that’s not acceptable. Get a damn Suburban (vehicle) and drive – you don’t need to take a helicopter,” Duffy said. —David Shepardson, Reuters View the full article