The UK government on Sunday hailed what it said was its biggest trade deal since Brexit, as it formally signed a treaty to...

#tmp-load{position: fixed; top: -1px; left: -1px; opacity: 0; width: 1px; height: 1px;}#tmp-load img{width: 100%;}function updateButtons(){let e=document.querySelectorAll(".buy-button span");for(let t=0;tIn no particular order, this is what I purchased in the throes of lockdown: at least six sweatsuit sets; a mask to match each one, naturally; colorful eyeliner and eyeshadow (since lipstick was no longer necessary); a handful of glitzy dresses and tops for future, post-pandemic nights out; a DIY stick-and-poke tattoo kit; and a horde of face and hair masks to pamper myself with. Like many, I threw myself into online shopping frequently and excessively, more so than at any other point in my life, because, well, I had no other choice.

Ford Motor Co on Tuesday named Whirlpool Corp's Liz Door its chief supply chain officer, at a time

The heads of two of the leading AI firms have once again warned of the existential threat posed by advanced artificial intelligence. DeepMind and OpenAI chief executives Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman pledged their support to a short statement published by the Centre for AI Safety, which claimed that regulators and lawmakers should take the “severe risks” more seriously. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” the statement read. The Centre for AI Safety is a San Francisco-based non-profit which aims “to reduce societal-scale risks from AI”, claiming that the use of AI in warfare could be “extremely harmful” as it could be used to develop new chemical weapons and enhance aerial combat. Signatories of the short statement, which did not clarify what they think may become extinct, also included business and academic leaders in the space. Among them were Geoffrey Hinton, who is sometimes nicknamed the “Godfather of AI”, and Ilya Sutskever, the chief executive and co-founder respectively of ChatGPT-developer OpenAI. The list also included dozens of senior bosses at companies like Google, the co-founder of Skype, and the founders of AI company Anthropic. AI is now in the global consciousness after several firms released new tools allowing users to generate text, images and even computer code by just asking for what they want. Experts say the technology could take over jobs from humans – but this statement warns of an even deeper concern. The emergence of tools like ChatGPT and Dall-E have resurfaced fears that AI could one day wipe out humanity if it passes human intelligence. Earlier this year, tech leaders called on leading AI firms to pause development of their systems for six months in order to work on ways to mitigate risks. “AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity,” the open letter from the Future of Life Institute stated. “AI research and development should be refocused on making today’s powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal.” Additional reporting from agencies Read More What is superintelligence? How AI could replace humans as the dominant lifeform on Earth Major breakthrough is a reminder that AI can keep us alive, not just wipe us out Scientists use AI to find new antibiotic against deadly hospital superbug ChatGPT creator signs up for eyeball-scanning cryptocurrency

Epic Games teased the Fortnite Chapter 4 Season 4 theme by sending a framed portrait of a moon to a creator, possibly hinting that the return of the Ice Moon.

Sifan Hassan and Faith Kipyegon were in the same heat for the first round of the 5,000 meters

Brentford avoided becoming Newport’s latest cup victims as they won 3-0 on penalties after a 1-1 draw at Rodney Parade. Adam Lewis hit a post with Newport’s first effort, before Nathan Wood and Bryn Morris both saw theirs saved by Bees debutant Ellery Balcombe, and Keane Lewis-Potter settled the contest in the Premier League side’s favour. Mathias Jensen thought he had won it in the 88th minute but teenage substitute Kiban Rai headed home deep into stoppage time to take the tie to spot-kicks. The Welsh side have earned shock wins over Leeds, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Swansea, Watford and Luton in the last five years but they were denied another scalp as Brentford avoided a repeat of last year’s shoot-out defeat to Gillingham. Exiles boss Graham Coughlan made five changes from Saturday’s 3-1 home win over Sutton. Jonny Maxted made his debut in goal, while Josh Seberry came into the back line, Matty Bondswell and James Waite were drafted into midfield and fit-again Omar Bogle started up front. Brentford made nine changes, with Vitaly Janelt and goalscorer Kevin Schade the only survivors from their weekend draw against Crystal Palace. Thomas Frank handed debuts to goalkeeper Balcombe, Ukrainian midfielder Yehor Yarmoliuk and teenage forward Michael Olakigbe. The first opportunity arrived after 18 minutes as the visitors recycled a corner and Lewis-Potter’s header looped over Maxted, but Harry Charsley was in the right place to clear the danger from under his own crossbar. Kristoffer Ajer then saw a side-footed effort from 25 yards comfortably saved by Maxted two minutes later, before Schade’s fierce drive from the edge of the area was deflected behind. That was one of eight corners won by Brentford in the first half but, despite enjoying 76 per cent possession, they could not get the early goal. The home side could have opened the scoring after 34 minutes when Aaron Wildig and Bogle linked up well down the left flank and the striker produced a clever cross to pick out Charsley, who placed his header just wide of Balcombe’s right-hand post. The lively Olakigbe went closest in the opening stages of the second half with a fizzing effort just over the angle of post and bar. But Frank had seen enough after an hour and he introduced experienced trio Bryan Mbeumo, Yoane Wissa and Jensen. Mbeumo forced Maxted into a smart save almost immediately. Jensen made the visitors’ pressure tell two minutes from the end of normal time as he tapped in from close range after Mbeumo’s cross was cut back across goal by Lewis-Potter. But County refused to lie down and Rai’s added-time header ensured the tie went the distance.

Provides an overview of Myanmar, including key dates and facts about this South East Asian country.

Dollar General Corp. rose sharply in late trading after announcing former Chief Executive Officer Todd Vasos is returning

Ecuadorian presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio was shot and killed by an unidentified gunman while at a political rally in the country’s capital of Quito, President Guillermo Lasso said

South Korea's spy agency has told lawmakers that Russian support likely enabled North Korea to put a spy satellite into orbit for the first time this week

Sam Cane became the first player to be sent off in a men’s Rugby World Cup final after seeing his yellow card upgraded to a red following a review from the TMO bunker during the New Zealand v South Africa match in the Rugby World Cup final. In the first half of the Stade de France showpiece, the All Blacks captain’s shoulder connected with the head of Jesse Kriel. Referee Wayne Barnes initially sent the captain to the sin-bin but, using the bunker system, that was upgraded to a red card soon after. The foul play review officer ruled that it was a shoulder direct to head with significant force and not enough mitigation to remain a yellow card. After the review was complete, Barnes called over stand-in skipper Ardie Savea to deliver the bad news for the All Blacks. He responded in shock: "to red!?" Cane was then seen in agony after learning his fate on the touchline, closing his eyes and rocking back on his chair. Reacting to the decision at half-time, Ireland legend Brian O'Driscoll was adamant Cane deserved the red card, telling ITV Sport: "Any effective tackle is a hinge at the hips, Sam Cane can have no complaints, there's no late dip, he has a clear line of sight, it's considerable force to the head and a very, very clear red card." While All Blacks legend Sean Fitzpatrick reluctantly agreed: "In real time, it's a red card, we have to get on with it." But what are the laws around head contact and high tackles that referees are following and how do they decide on the punishment? Here’s everything you need to know: What are World Rugby’s laws on head contact? Head-on-head contact in the tackle comes under Law 9 of the Laws of Rugby Union, which covers foul play. Law 9.11 dictates “Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others, including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler” and Law 9.13 goes on to say “A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.” If a player breaks these laws and the act is deemed to be reckless or dangerous, then the referee is entitled to issue a yellow or red card. World Rugby also clarify the intent of the laws, stating in their guidelines that: “ Player welfare drives World Rugby’s decision making for zero tolerance of foul play, especially where head contact occurs. The focus must be on the actions of those involved, not the injury – the need for an HIA [a Head Injury Assessment] does not necessarily mean that there has been illegal head contact.” What are the punishments for head-on-head contact? Ok, this is where things get technical and debates start to occur. In March 2023, World Rugby issued their latest ‘head contact process law application guidelines’ to guide referees on whether foul play has occurred and how it should be punished. The referee has to go through a four-step process (detailed below) to determine the extent of the foul play and the sanction. The four steps are: Has head contact occurred? Was there any foul play? What was the degree of danger? Is there any mitigation? Step 1 (has head contact occurred?) is relatively straightforward, with head contact including the head and the face as well as the neck and throat area. If any head contact is made at all, we move on to Step 2. Step 2 (was there foul play?) is a touch more complex. The referees are told to consider whether the head contact was either intentional, reckless or avoidable – e.g. the defender is always upright. If it was, the tackler will be penalised and they move on to Step 3. However, if the head contact was deemed not to be foul play, the game continues. Step 3 (what was the degree of danger?) – judged from high to low – determines the initial punishment. A degree of high danger is judged on any of: direct contact rather than indirect, a high-force impact, a lack of control from the tackler, the incident occurring at high speed, the tackler leading with the head/shoulder/elbow/forearm or the tackle being reckless. If the referee judges there to be a high degree of danger, a red card will be shown. Meanwhile, low danger is judged as indirect contact, low force, low speed or no leading head/shoulder/forearm/swinging arm and a yellow card or even just a penalty to the opposition may be awarded. The final step, Step 4 (is there any mitigation?) determines whether the punishment can be reduced by one grade (i.e red card down to yellow card or yellow card down to just a penalty). Mitigation includes a sudden or significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier, a late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact area, a clear effort from the tackler to reduce their height or the tackler having no time to adjust. However, mitigation will never apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play. What about the Foul Play Review Officer/Bunker review? Introduced for this World Cup was the Bunker review system. This allows the referee to issue a yellow card to a player, sending them to the sin-bin while play goes on, where a Foul Play Review Official (FPRO) will then take another look at the incident and determine if the yellow card should be upgraded to red, allowing the game to continue rather than a long stoppage to debate this. This is what happened to Curry against Argentina. The referee crosses their arms to indicate a Bunker review will take place. Once a player is in the sin-bin, the FPRO has up to eight minutes to review the decision and decide if it warrants upgrading to a red card. If not, the player will return to the field after their 10 minutes in the sin-bin has elapsed. Read More South Africa become kings of rugby with dramatic World Cup win over greatest rivals Sam Cane, Siya Kolisi and a tale of two captains at the heart of this Rugby World Cup final New Zealand captain Sam Cane opens up on Rugby World Cup ‘heartbreak’ after red card in final New Zealand v South Africa LIVE: Rugby World Cup final score updates as Springboks lead 14-man All Blacks South Africa’s Bongi Mbonambi suffers Rugby World Cup final heartbreak with injury South Africa vs New Zealand: Who is the referee for the Rugby World Cup final?