haha777 orig

haha777 orig Special counsel moves to drop federal cases against TrumpNoneIs DocuSign Stock a Buy or Sell Ahead of Q3 Earnings?

Wicked defeats Gladiator II in theatres as 'Glicked' dominates the pre-Thanksgiving weekend box office

NoneShane O’Connor was not receiving 24-hour one-to-one supervision in hospital before suicide, inquest hears

Over the holiday season, we're republishing some of the best articles from Nintendo Life writers and contributors as part of our Best of 2024 series. Enjoy! Soapbox features enable our individual writers and contributors to voice their opinions on hot topics and random stuff they've been chewing over. Today, Ollie reflects on just some of the eventful episodes from his days working in video game retail... When news hit that GAME, the UK’s last remaining video game retailer (not counting the many wonderful independent stores left standing), would be bringing an end to trade-ins and pre-owned products from 16th February 2024, I felt a potent mix of thoughts and emotions. On one hand, I couldn’t quite comprehend why the firm would come to such a decision; I worked there for the best part of a decade, and three key initiatives were consistently promoted to both staff and customers: reward cards, pre-orders, and trade-ins. For the latter, 100% of the money made from pre-owned sales went directly into GAME’s pockets, whereas new games would yield a comparatively much smaller profit. You could see why the firm wanted to push trade-ins. But on the flip side, when you consider the rapidly rising popularity of digital games in conjunction with GAME’s decision to turn the vast majority of its standalone retail spaces into Sports Direct concession stores, it does make sense that the company would want to bring an end to trade-ins. According to GAME’s filings for the 12 months up to April 29th, 2023 , the gross transactional value (GTV - full retail value excluding VAT, savings schemes, and publisher deductions) for pre-owned products totalled 16,478. This is down from 25,894 over the same period the previous year, so there’s no denying that the demand for trade-ins and pre-owned products is decreasing rapidly. With all that said, I will miss trade-ins when the practice eventually goes the way of the dodo in the coming months. As a customer, it’s a great way to knock a bit of money off new releases by getting rid of a few older titles, and to pick up secondhand bargains for older games. As an ex-employee, however, dealing with trade-ins for ten years (give or take) has resulted in a bevy of memories both good and bad, and I’d like to share just a few of them with you, dear reader. So make yourselves comfortable as we take a trip into the not-too-distant past and see just what GAME employees have had to put up with... That One Time We Had *All* The Skylanders Remember Skylanders ? Oh boy, I sure do. I’ve practically had nightmares about them. As someone who was never particularly into the whole toys-to-life genre (I rarely even buy amiibo unless it's for a series that I’m really keen on), I wasn’t really clued up on the characters beyond that totally botched version of Spyro . Disney Infinity wasn’t so bad because I instantly recognised a lot of characters. But with Skylanders, I’m truly sorry, but I couldn’t tell you the difference between Boomer, Chill, Countdown, Cynder, or any of them, and I frankly wasn’t paid enough to swot up. This wasn’t an issue for the most part: people would pick what they wanted from the shelves, make the transaction, and be on their way. The problems arose when folks wanted to trade them in. It doesn’t matter what it was — whether a bunch of handheld consoles, accessories, games, or figures — when a customer came walking into the store hauling a gigantic cardboard box with an expectant grin on their face, my heart sank. 99% of the time, it meant they had a heap of bits and bobs to trade and I would have to drop whatever I was doing and spend the next hour sorting it all out. During the height of the toys-to-life craze, a woman came into the store with her two sons, and all three were carrying massive boxes. I thought they’d be full of games, which would have been fine, but when they got to the counter and opened them, Skylanders. Three boxes full to the brim with Skylanders. Our inventory process for this was to consult a binder that contained a full list of every Skylander, including their names, their till code, and a small, slightly blurry image of the figure. I spent the better part of three hours grabbing one figure at a time, carefully consulting the binder to match the figure with its blurry image, inputting the code, and moving on to the next one. And the worst part? The poor woman and her sons stayed in the store the entire time and when it came to tallying up, I don’t think we even broke £50. I felt terrible knowing that we were offering a fraction of what she’d get on eBay, but she didn’t care. Fair enough, then. By the end of the day, I was ready to launch the figures into the ocean. There aren’t many instances where I’m glad to see a game series end, but if Skylanders ever comes back, I’m off to Mars. That One Time I Got Attacked For a decade, I met many, many interesting characters working at GAME. Thankfully, the vast majority of them were friendly, pleasant people who I was honoured to serve. The remaining were either rude, dismissive, angry, deceitful, or violent. Well... There’s only been one truly violent customer. During my time at GAME, we not only dealt with video games, hardware, and accessories but also secondhand mobile devices. We were trying to muscle in on CEX’s territory and, to be fair, we didn’t do a bad job at it. We stocked a good range of mobiles, and we were meticulous when it came to ensuring they were of good, saleable quality. One afternoon, I was taking my lunch in the upstairs office when a colleague came up to inform me that a customer had wanted to bring his mobile in and wasn’t handling the rejection very well due to the device's lack of quality. I was a Senior Sales Assistant so I was occasionally left in charge of the store. As such, whether we took this phone in was ultimately down to me. I followed my colleague downstairs and glanced at the customer and the phone in question. It was a Blackberry (gosh, remember those ?) and it was in terrible condition. The SIM card tray was battered beyond repair, the screen was scratched to hell, and there was no charger or accompanying box. Naturally, I said, 'No.' After a bit of back and forth with the customer, I put my foot down and said, “I’m sorry, but there’s no way we’re taking this phone.” Immediately, he launched into a rage, trying to grab me over the counter, missing, and proceeding to pick up whatever he could find to hurl at me, all the while shouting expletives. Eventually, he picked up a particularly heavy charity box and aimed for my head. I raised my arm to block my face and the box caught my elbow, resulting in a nasty cut. The customer lumbered out of the store, running his hands across the shelves to knock off as much as he could on his way. We called the police, showcased the CCTV footage, and that was that. I didn’t need any medical attention, but I was quite shaken up. The guy had the gall to come back days later to look at our mobile phone stock! He was soon arrested and went to prison. That One Time Those Countless Times I Refused Scratched 360 Discs Ah, the beloved Xbox 360. It was such a great console, but my goodness, did it have some problems. The one that everyone is more or less aware of is the ‘Red Ring of Death’; a fault in which three of the red lights encircling the power button would light up signifying General Hardware Failure. Less infamous, however, was the 360's other issue, which had to do with the console being moved while it was turned on (and sometimes even when it was stationary); the apparatus inside could cut a perfect circular scratch into the spinning disc, often rendering it completely unsalvageable. That didn’t stop people trying to trade them in, though. All the bloody time . It was always parents, too, who would bring in Little Timmy’s game collection and apparently weren’t made aware that they were mostly useless. So, of course, they’d argue, even though the evidence was staring them right in the face. “We were told they all work fine.” Well yes, I’m sure an eight-year-old looking to get a new game is being completely honest, right? We did have a little machine that would buff up scratched game discs, and it often worked wonders, but when you've got one of those circular scratches from the 360, pretty much nothing's going to solve it. Hmm... Maybe Microsoft should go all-digital , after all? Nah. That One Time I Got A GBA SP For Free In addition to regular customers looking to trade in their personal belongings, we'd often get owners of independent game stores coming in to shore off some of their stock via trade-in. It was a perfectly legitimate way for them to get rid of games or accessories that weren't shifting and swap them for products that they could sell. So I was always happy to help out. One chap came in quite frequently — so much so that his daughter wound up getting a job at the store and proved to be one of the most efficient team members — and we built up quite a friendship over the years, right up until my GAME branch closed in 2017. He'd often come in with boxes to trade, but it was never a hassle; he was always on top of what they should be worth, so I never felt our time was being wasted. One day, he came into the store in the run-up to Christmas and simply handed me a Game Boy Advance SP in perfect condition with an accompanying charger. "You know we don't take these for trade-in anymore, right?" I asked. "I know. It's yours," he said. He knew that having got rid of my GBA many years prior, I had always wanted to get another one. As a thank you for dealing with him for so long, he took a near-mint SP from his own stock and gifted it to me, no questions asked. I wasn't quite sure what to say. I know the consoles weren't worth a great deal of money — at least they weren't at the time! — but for him to remember that I wanted one in the first place was enough to nearly bring a tear to my eye. I'll never forget him, and I hope his own store is flourishing. So that's it! Hopefully, you've had as much fun reading these tales as I had writing about them. It's been a fair few years since I worked at GAME and it's safe to say that the company has changed quite a bit in the time since. Despite its issues, I'll always remember my time there fondly — the ups, the downs, the laughs, the frustrations. Mostly, I'll remember my colleagues, though; folks who, despite what the internet might have you believe, loved video games through and through. Even if they couldn't name all the Skylanders.ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Google, already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine , is fighting to beat back another attack by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging monopolistic conduct, this time over technology that puts online advertising in front of consumers. The Justice Department and Google made closing arguments Monday in a trial alleging Google's advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, will decide the case and is expected to issue a written ruling by the end of the year. If Brinkema finds Google has engaged in illegal, monopolistic conduct, she will then hold further hearings to explore what remedies should be imposed. The Justice Department, along with a coalition of states, has already said it believes Google should be forced to sell off parts of its ad tech business, which generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Mountain View, California-based company. After roughly a month of trial testimony earlier this year, the arguments in the case remain the same. During three hours of arguments Monday, Brinkema, who sometimes tips her hand during legal arguments, did little to indicate how she might rule. She did, though, question the applicability of a key antitrust case Google cites in its defense. The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page when one browses websites. Google dominates all facets of the market. A technology called DoubleClick is used pervasively by news sites and other online publishers, while Google Ads maintains a cache of advertisers large and small looking to place their ads on the right webpage in front of the right consumer. In between is another Google product, AdExchange, that conducts nearly instantaneous auctions matching advertisers to publishers. In court papers, Justice Department lawyers say Google “is more concerned with acquiring and preserving its trifecta of monopolies than serving its own publisher and advertiser customers or winning on the merits.” As a result, content providers and news organizations have never been able to generate the online revenue they should due to Google’s excessive fees for brokering transactions between advertisers and publishers, the government says. Google argues the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow niche of online advertising. If one looks more broadly at online advertising to include social media, streaming TV services, and app-based advertising, Google says it controls as little as 10% of the market, a share that is dwindling as it faces increased and evolving competition. Google alleges in court papers that the government’s lawsuit “boil(s) down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers.” Google also says it has invested billions in technology that facilitates the efficient match of advertisers to interested consumers and it should not be forced to share its technology and success with competitors. “Requiring a company to do further engineering work to make its technology and customers accessible by all of its competitors on their preferred terms has never been compelled by U.S. antitrust law,” the company wrote. Brinkema, during Monday's arguments, also sought clarity on Google’s market share, a number the two sides dispute, depending on how broadly the market is defined. Historically, courts have been unwilling to declare an illegal monopoly in markets in which a company holds less than a 70% market share. Google says that when online display advertising is viewed as a whole, it holds only a 10% market share, and dwindling. The Justice Department contends, though, that when focusing on open-web display advertising, Google controls 91% of the market for publisher ad servers and 87% of the market for advertiser ad networks. Google says that the “open web display advertising” market is gerrymandered by the Justice Department to make Google look bad, and that nobody in the industry looks at that category of ads without considering the ability of advertisers to switch to other forms of advertising, like in mobile apps. The Justice Department also contends that the public is harmed by the excessive rates Google charges to facilitate ad purchases, saying the company takes 36 cents on the dollar when it facilitates the transaction end to end. Google says its “take rate” has dropped to 31% and continues to decrease, and it says that rate is lower than that of its competitors. “When you have an integrated system, one of the benefits is lower prices," Google lawyer Karen Dunn said Monday. The Virginia case is separate from an ongoing lawsuit brought against Google in the District of Columbia over its namesake search engine. In that case, the judge determined it constitutes an illegal monopoly but has not decided what remedy to impose. The Justice Department said last week it will seek to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser , among a host of other penalties. Google has said the department's request is overkill and unhinged from legitimate regulation. In Monday's arguments, Justice Department lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum cited the search engine case when he highlighted an email from a Google executive, David Rosenblatt, who said in a 2009 email that Google’s goal was to “do to display what Google did to search," which Teitelbaum said showed the company's intent to achieve market dominance. “Google did not achieve its trifecta of monopolies by accident,” Teitelbaum said.Special Counsel Jack Smith on Monday moved to dismiss the federal cases against US President-elect Donald Trump -- including one for election subversion -- citing an official policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. Trump, 78, was accused of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden and mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House, but neither case ever came to trial. Smith, in a filing with the district judge in Washington presiding over the election case, said it should be dropped in light of the long-standing Justice Department policy of not indicting or prosecuting a sitting president. He cited the same reasoning in withdrawing his appeal of a ruling by a district judge, a Trump appointee, who dismissed the classified documents case earlier this year. Smith asked District Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss the election interference case "without prejudice" -- leaving open the possibility it could be revived after Trump leaves office four years from now. The special counsel paused the election interference case this month after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 presidential election. "The Government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed," Smith said in the filing with Chutkan. "But the circumstances have." "It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President," Smith said. "As a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated." In a separate filing, Smith said he was withdrawing his appeal of the dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump but pursuing the case against his two co-defendants, Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. Trump's communications director Steven Cheung welcomed the move to dismiss the election interference case, calling it a "major victory for the rule of law." "The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country," Cheung said in a statement. Trump is accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding -- the session of Congress called to certify Biden's win, which was violently attacked on January 6, 2021, by a mob of the then-president's supporters. Trump is also accused of seeking to disenfranchise US voters with his false claims that he won the 2020 election. The former and incoming president also faces two state cases -- in New York and Georgia. He was convicted in New York in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election to stop her from revealing an alleged 2006 sexual encounter. Judge Juan Merchan has postponed sentencing while he considers a request from Trump's lawyers that the conviction be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court ruling in July that an ex-president has broad immunity from prosecution. In Georgia, Trump faces racketeering charges over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results in the southern state, but that case will likely be frozen while he is in office. cl/bgs

India’s demolition of Australia in Perth was no outlier, but simply an extreme example of the dominance the subcontinental giants have enjoyed down under for seven years. The Indians have won three of their past four Tests in Australia, drawing the other. Further, they have only lost two of their past nine on these shores, winning five and drawing two. Going back to the 2018-19 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, when India won in Australia for the first time, the touring batters have comfortably had their hosts covered, averaging 31.31 against just 25. Logically, it’s similar dominance on the bowling front – India’s attack averaging 26.01 to Australia’s 33.27. Virat Kohli celebrates reaching his century – just one area that highlights India’s dominance. Picture: Getty Remarkably, they’ve scored eight centuries across those nine games, to just two from the Australians – one to each of Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne in the 2020/21 series. Unsurprisingly, Jasprit Bumrah has been the standout bowler in that period, taking 40 wickets at 18.80. Pat Cummins is the next highest wicket-taker with 38, but with an average of 25.34. Among bowlers with more than 10 wickets in Australia in Border-Gavaskar Test since India began its winning run, Ravindra Jadeja boasts the next best average – 21.78. The fact Jadeja didn’t even play in Perth epitomises one of Australia’s biggest worries heading into the second Test. Ravindra Jadeja (L) talks with India head coach Gautam Gambhir. Picture: Getty India won in Perth by 295 runs and that was without either of Rohit Sharma or Shubman Gill. Sharma was back home for the birth of his second child, but was in the nets in Perth on Monday, while Gill is expected to return for the second Test. They’re two instant upgrades on rookie duo Devdutt Padikkal and Dhruv Jurel. All-time greats Jadeja and Ravichandran Ashwin will also be pushing for selection after a so-so game from Washington Sundar (4 and 29, 0-1 and 2-48). “I think there will be two changes for sure, both Rohit Sharma and Shubman Gill coming back into the 11,” Indian legend Sunil Gavaskar told Channel 7. “My feeling is that the batting order will change – where Rohit Sharma will replace Rahul, Shubman Gill will bat at three, Padikkal and Jurel will go out of the team, Rahul will bat at six. “One other change that could happen is that Jadeja comes in in place of Washington Sundar.” Stand-in captain Bumrah also hinted Mohammed Shami could be back in time for the Adelaide Test. If fit, Shami will take India’s attack to the next level, forming a daunting pace triumvirate with Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj. More Coverage Fairytale endings put under the knife by Indian drubbing Ben Horne Skipper’s perfect 10 as Aussies’ dismal Test laid bare Daniel Cherny and Ben Horne Originally published as The undeniable numbers that prove India has Australia’s number – and why worst is still to come Sport Don't miss out on the headlines from Sport. Followed categories will be added to My News. Join the conversation Add your comment to this story To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout More related stories NRL Hunt joins NRL powerhouse in boom signing Ben Hunt has finally made up his mind on his NRL future, joining one of the league’s biggest clubs in a blockbuster move. Read more AFL Saddest detail of Swans coach bombshell The Sydney Swans have confirmed John Longmire has quit as coach with sad details emerging about the shock news. Read more

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Formula 1 on Monday at last said it will expand its grid in 2026 to make room for an American team that is partnered with General Motors. “As the pinnacle of motorsports, F1 demands boundary-pushing innovation and excellence. It’s an honor for General Motors and Cadillac to join the world’s premier racing series, and we’re committed to competing with passion and integrity to elevate the sport for race fans around the world,” GM President Mark Reuss said. “This is a global stage for us to demonstrate GM’s engineering expertise and technology leadership at an entirely new level.” The approval ends years of wrangling that launched a U.S. Justice Department investigation into why Colorado-based Liberty Media, the commercial rights holder of F1, would not approve the team initially started by Michael Andretti. Andretti in September stepped aside from leading his namesake organization, so the 11th team will be called Cadillac F1 and be run by new Andretti Global majority owners Dan Towriss and Mark Walter. The team will use Ferrari engines its first two years until GM has a Cadillac engine built for competition in time for the 2028 season. Towriss is the the CEO and president of Group 1001 and entered motorsports via Andretti’s IndyCar team when he signed on financial savings platform Gainbridge as a sponsor. Towriss is now a major part of the motorsports scene with ownership stakes in both Spire Motorsports’ NASCAR team and Wayne Taylor Racing’s sports car team. Walter is the chief executive of financial services firm Guggenheim Partners and the controlling owner of both the World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers and Premier League club Chelsea. “We’re excited to partner with General Motors in bringing a dynamic presence to Formula 1,” Towriss said. “Together, we’re assembling a world-class team that will embody American innovation and deliver unforgettable moments to race fans around the world.’’ Mario Andretti, the 1978 F1 world champion, will have an ambassador role with Cadillac F1. But his son, Michael, will have no official position with the organization now that he has scaled back his involvement with Andretti Global. The approval has been in works for weeks but was held until after last weekend’s Las Vegas Grand Prix to not overshadow the showcase event of the Liberty Media portfolio. Max Verstappen won his fourth consecutive championship in Saturday night’s race, the third and final stop in the United States for the top motorsports series in the world. Grid expansion in F1 is both infrequent and often unsuccessful. Four teams were granted entries in 2010 that should have pushed the grid to 13 teams and 26 cars for the first time since 1995. One team never made it to the grid and the other three had vanished by 2017. There is only one American team on the current F1 grid — owned by California businessman Gene Haas — but it is not particularly competitive and does not field American drivers. Andretti’s dream was to field a truly American team with American drivers. The fight to add this team has been going on for three-plus years and F1 initially denied the application despite approval from F1 sanctioning body FIA . The existing 10 teams, who have no voice in the matter, also largely opposed expansion because of the dilution in prize money and the billions of dollars they’ve already invested in the series. Andretti in 2020 tried and failed to buy the existing Sauber team. From there, he applied for grid expansion and partnered with GM, the top-selling manufacturer in the United States. The inclusion of GM was championed by the FIA and president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who said Michael Andretti’s application was the only one of seven applicants to meet all required criteria to expand F1’s current grid. “General Motors is a huge global brand and powerhouse in the OEM world and is working with impressive partners,” Ben Sulayem said Monday. “I am fully supportive of the efforts made by the FIA, Formula 1, GM and the team to maintain dialogue and work towards this outcome of an agreement in principle to progress this application.” Despite the FIA’s acceptance of Andretti and General Motors from the start, F1 wasn’t interested in Andretti — but did want GM. At one point, F1 asked GM to find another team to partner with besides Andretti. GM refused and F1 said it would revisit the Andretti application if and when Cadillac had an engine ready to compete. “Formula 1 has maintained a dialogue with General Motors, and its partners at TWG Global, regarding the viability of an entry following the commercial assessment and decision made by Formula 1 in January 2024,” F1 said in a statement. “Over the course of this year, they have achieved operational milestones and made clear their commitment to brand the 11th team GM/Cadillac, and that GM will enter as an engine supplier at a later time. Formula 1 is therefore pleased to move forward with this application process.” Yet another major shift in the debate over grid expansion occurred earlier this month with the announced resignation of Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei, who was largely believed to be one of the biggest opponents of the Andretti entry. “With Formula 1’s continued growth plans in the US, we have always believed that welcoming an impressive US brand like GM/Cadillac to the grid and GM as a future power unit supplier could bring additional value and interest to the sport,” Maffei said. “We credit the leadership of General Motors and their partners with significant progress in their readiness to enter Formula 1.”

Israel launches new airstrikes on Lebanon as leaders draw closer to ceasefire with HezbollahSt. John's 58, Stony Brook 34

Watch: Roy Keane involved in row with Ipswich fan after Man Utd drawUCLA women’s basketball earns first-ever No. 1 ranking in weekly AP poll