 |
|
|
|||||
Federal prosecutors cant seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a federal judge ruled Friday, foiling the Trump administrations bid to see him executed for what it called a premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America. Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed a federal murder charge that had enabled prosecutors to seek capital punishment, finding it technically flawed. She wrote that she did so to foreclose the death penalty as an available punishment to be considered by the jury” as it weighs whether to convict Mangione. Garnett also dismissed a gun charge but left in place stalking charges that carry a maximum punishment of life in prison. To seek the death penalty, prosecutors needed to show that Mangione killed Thompson while committing another “crime of violence.” Stalking doesn’t fit that definition, Garnett wrote in her opinion, citing case law and legal precedents. In a win for prosecutors, Garnett ruled they can use evidence collected from his backpack during his arrest, including a 9mm handgun and a notebook in which authorities say Mangione described his intent to wack an insurance executive. Mangiones lawyers had sought to exclude those items, arguing the search was illegal because police hadnt yet obtained a warrant. During a hearing Friday, Garnett gave prosecutors 30 days to update her on whether they’ll appeal her death penalty decision. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which is prosecuting the federal case, declined to comment. Garnett acknowledged that the decision may strike the average person and indeed many lawyers and judges as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about the criminal law.” But, she said, it reflected her “committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case. The law must be the Courts only concern. Mangione, 27, appeared relaxed as he sat with his lawyers during the scheduled hearing, which took place about an hour after Garnett issued her written ruling. Prosecutors retained their right to appeal but said they were ready to proceed to trial. Outside court afterward, Mangione’s attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo said her client and his defense team were relieved by the incredible decision. Jury selection in the federal case is set for Sept. 8, followed by opening statements and testimony on Oct. 13. The state trial’s date hasnt been set. On Wednesday, the Manhattan district attorneys office urged the judge in that case to schedule a July 1 trial date. That case is none of my concern, Garnett said, adding that she would proceed as if the federal case is the only case unless she hears formally from parties involved in the state case. She also said the federal case will be paused if the government appeals her death penalty ruling. Thompson, 50, was killed on Dec. 4, 2024, as he walked to a midtown Manhattan hotel for UnitedHealth Groups annual investor conference. Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting him from behind. Police say delay, deny and depose were written on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase used by critics to describe how insurers avoid paying claims. Mangione, an Ivy League graduate from a wealthy Maryland family, was arrested five days later at a McDonalds in Altoona, Pennsylvania, about 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) west of Manhattan. Following through on Trumps campaign promise to vigorously pursue capital punishment, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered Manhattan federal prosecutors last April to seek the death penalty against Mangione. It was the first time the Justice Department sought the death penalty in President Donald Trumps second term. He returned to office a year ago with a vow to resume federal executions after they were halted under his predecessor, President Joe Biden. Garnett, a Biden appointee and former Manhattan federal prosecutor, ruled after hearing oral arguments earlier this month. Besides seeking to have the death penalty rejected on the grounds Garnett cited, Mangiones lawyers argued that Bondis announcement flouted long-established Justice Department protocols and was based on politics, not merit. They said her remarks, followed by posts to her Instagram account and a TV appearance, indelibly prejudiced the grand jury process resulting in his indictment weeks later. Prosecutors urged Garnett to keep the death penalty on the table, arguing that the charges were legally sound and Bondis remarks werent prejudicial, as pretrial publicity, even when intense, is not itself a constitutional defect. Prosecutors argued that careful questioning of prospective jurors would alleviate the defenses concerns about their knowledge of the case and ensure Mangiones rights are respected at trial. What the defendant recasts as a constitutional crisis is merely a repackaging of arguments rejected in previous cases, prosecutors said. None warrants dismissal of the indictment or categorical preclusion of a congressionally authorized punishment. Michael R. Sisak and Larry Neumeister, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Relationships can feel like both a blessing and the bane of your existence, a source of joy and a source of frustration or resentment. At some point, each of us is faced with a clingy child, a dramatic friend, a partner who recoils at the first hint of intimacy, a volatile parent, or a controlling boss in short, a difficult relationship. As a psychology professor and relationship scientist, Ive spent countless hours observing human interactions, in the lab and in the real world, trying to understand what makes relationships work and what makes them feel utterly intractable. Recently, I teamed up with psychologist Rachel Samson, who helps individuals, couples and families untangle difficult dynamics in the therapy room. In our new book, Beyond Difficult: An attachment-based guide for dealing with challenging people, we explore the roots of difficult behavior and evidence-based strategies for making difficult relationships more bearable. So whats really going on beneath the surface of difficult behavior? And more to the point, what can you do about it? Difficult interactions can have deep roots When a conversation with a co-worker goes sideways or a phone call with a friend goes off the rails, its easy to assume the issue stems from the situation at hand. But sometimes, big emotions and reactions have deeper roots. Difficult interactions often result from differences in temperament: your biologically based style of emotional and behavioral responses to the world around you. People with a sensitive temperament react more strongly to stress and sensory experiences. When overwhelmed, they may seem volatile, moody or rigid but these reactions are often more about sensory or emotional overload than malice. Importantly, when sensitive children and adults are in a supportive environment that fits their temperament, they can thrive socially and emotionally. Beyond neurobiology, one of the most common threads underlying difficult relationships is what psychologists call insecure attachment. Early experiences with caregivers shape the way people connect with others later in life. Experiences of inconsistent or insensitive care can lead you to expect the worst of other people, a core feature of insecure attachment. People with insecure attachment may cling, withdraw, lash out or try to control others not because they want to make others miserable, but because they feel unsafe in close relationships. By addressing the underlying need for emotional safety, you can work toward more secure relationships. Managing difficult emotions In challenging interactions, emotions can run high and how you deal with those emotions can make or break a relationship. Research has shown that people with sensitive temperament, insecure attachment or a history of trauma often struggle with emotion regulation. In fact, difficulty managing emotions is one of the strongest predictors of mental illness, relationship breakups and even aggression and violence. Its easy to label someone as too emotional, but in reality, emotion is a social event. Our nervous systems constantly respond to one another which means our ability to stay regulated affects not only how we feel, but how others react to us. The good news is that there are evidence-based strategies to calm yourself when tensions rise: Take a breath. Slow, deep breathing helps signal safety to the nervous system. Take a break. Relationship researchers John and Julie Gottman found that taking a 20-minute break during conflict helps reduce physiological stress and prevent escalation. Move your body. Exercise particularly walking, dancing or yoga has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety, sometimes even more effectively than medication. Movement before or after a difficult interaction can help work out the tension. Reframe the situation. This strategy, called cognitive reappraisal, involves changing the way you interpret a situation or your goals within it. Instead of trying to fix a difficult family member, for example, you might focus on appreciating the time you have with them. Reappraisal helps the brain regulate emotion before it escalates, lowering activity in stress-related areas like the amygdala. Giving better feedback Difficult people are usually unaware of how their behavior affects you unless you tell them. One of the most powerful things you can do in a difficult relationship is give feedback. But not all feedback is created equal. Feedback, at its core, is a tool for learning. Without it, you would never have learned to write, drive or function socially. But when feedback is poorly delivered, it can backfire: People become defensive, shut down or dig in their heels. Feedback is most effective when it stays focused on the task rather than the individual; in other words, dont make it personal. Research points to four keys to effective feedback, based in learning theory: Mutuality: Approach the conversation as a two-way exchange. Be open to the needs and ideas of both parties. Specificity: Be clear about what behaviors youre referring to. Citing particular interactions is often better than You always . Goal-directedness: Connect the feedback to a shared goal. Work together to find a constructive solution to the problem. Timing: Give feedback close to the event, when its still fresh but emotions have settled. Also, skip the so-called compliment sandwich of a critique between two pieces of positive feedback. It doesnt actually improve outcomes or change behavior. Interestingly, the most effective sequence is actually to start with a corrective, followed by positive affirmation of whats going well. Leading with honesty shows respect. Plus, the corrective is more likely to be remembered. Following up with warmth builds connection and shows that you value te person. The bottom line Difficult relationships are part of being human; they dont mean someone is broken or toxic. Often, they reflect deeper patterns of attachment, temperament and differences in how our brains work. When you understand whats underneath the behavior and take steps to regulate yourself, communicate clearly, and give compassionate feedback you can shift even the most stuck relationship into something more bearable, perhaps even meaningful. Strengthening relationships isnt always easy. But the science shows that it is possible and can be rewarding. Jessica A. Stern is an assistant professor of psychology at Pomona College. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the 1950s, the Air Force designed cockpits for the average pilot by measuring thousands of pilots and calculating the average for ten key physical dimensionsheight, arm length, torso size, etc. They assumed most pilots would be close to average in most dimensions. When researchers actually checked, they found that out of 4,063 pilots, exactly zero were average on all ten dimensions. Not a single pilot fit the average they’d designed for. Even when they reduced it to just three dimensions, fewer than 5% of pilots were average on all three. By designing for the average, the Air Force created a cockpit that fit virtually no one well, and that had serious consequences for pilot performance and safety. The solution might sound obvious: adjustable seats, adjustable pedals, adjustable controls, etc. The cockpit was fine once they designed for the range of human variation, rather than an average person that doesnt exist. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-desktop.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-mobile.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Urbanism Speakeasy\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/\u0022\u003Eurbanismspeakeasy.com.\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91453933,"imageMobileId":91453932,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} The Statistical Ghost Most American transportation systems suffer from the same fallacy. The car becomes treated as a prosthetic extension of the human body rather than what it actually is: a tool used for one segment of a multi-modal journey. Designing for the average driver creates a phantom usera person who materializes inside their vehicle, drives, and dematerializes upon arrival. This ghost never walks across a street, never uses a bicycle or scooter, never uses a downtown circulator bus, and only makes long trips. The ghost is capable of seeing and hearing everything, is always alert and sober, doesnt experience chronic pain, doesnt need a cane or wheelchair, isnt young, and isnt old. And of course if the imaginary average driver has to wait a few seconds behind other people, the economy will collapse. Even the most car-dependent commuter is a pedestrian at the beginning and end of every trip. They walk from their front door to their driveway, from a parking space to the office entrance, from their car across a parking lot into the grocery store. By optimizing transportation systems for the average motorist, we’re making significant portions of every trip uncomfortable or dangerous for everyone. Like the Air Force’s phantom pilot, the average driver doesn’t exist. Designing for the statistical middle means designing well for none of them. Mode-Switching Humans Complete Streets is an engineering principle that acknowledges what actually exists: people switch modes throughout their day and even within single trips. The same person might drive to a park-and-ride, take transit downtown, walk to lunch, bike to a meeting, then return to the park-and-ride in an Uber. The approach works. Over 1,700 American communities have adopted Complete Streets policies, and cities that implement them will see real results. Des Moines, Iowa, went from being the 24th safest metro area for pedestrians to the 5th safest in just three years. Boulder, Colorado, cut carbon emissions by half a million pounds annually as more people chose walking, biking, and transit. Like the adjustable cockpit, Complete Streets accommodates the full range of users with protected bike lanes, accessible curb cuts, varied lane widths by context, pedestrian refuges, and transit priority lanes. Still, progress on implementation remains frustratingly slow. Despite widespread policy adoption, most communities have struggled to translate policies into actual street improvements. Planning and designing transportation systems for real, mode-switching humans instead of phantom average drivers creates safer, healthier, more livable communities. The question isn’t whether Complete Streets worksit’s whether we’ll finally implement it at scale. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-desktop.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-mobile.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Urbanism Speakeasy\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/\u0022\u003Eurbanismspeakeasy.com.\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91453933,"imageMobileId":91453932,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
This Sunday’s full moon, or “big cheese,” as it’s sometimes called, comes with a side of queso and chips. Fast-casual restaurant chain Qdoba is offering stargazers a free 4-ounce serving of its signature 3-Cheese Queso or Queso Diablo and chips all day on February 1, according to a press release. The deal is available for Qdoba Rewards members with the purchase of a full-size entrée in-restaurant, online at Qdoba.com, and through the Qdoba mobile app. No telescope is required. The moon may not really be made of cheese, but we think a free side of our creamy, cheesy queso and tortilla chipsseasoned with salt and limeis the next best thing,” Qdoba’s chief marketing officer Jon Burke said. Even better news: Qdoba is offering the deal on the day of each full moon in 2026. Those days are: March 3, April 1, May 1, May 31, June 29, July 29, August 28, September 26, October 26, November 24, and December 23. This weekend’s full moon, on February 1, is also dubbed the “snow” moon. Here’s what to know about it. What is the ‘snow’ moon? The second full moon of 2026 is called the Snow Moon, because it comes during a period of heavy snowfall in the northern hemisphere. (For those in the Northeast, you just have to look outside to see how fitting this is.) And this moon comes with a special treat: It will appear with “one of the most beautiful open star clusters in the night sky . . . in the Leo constellation,” according to Live Science. When can I see the February 2026 full moon? The best time to view the February full moon is at “moonrise” at 5:09 p.m. EST on February 1. It will also appear full and still be bright the following night, on Monday, February 2. The best way to view this full moon is to stand at an elevated point or an open space, looking toward the eastern horizon with binoculars or a telescope, though you’ll be able to see it with just your own eyes too, per Live Science.
Category:
E-Commerce
It’s shaping up to be a busy year for initial public offerings from some of the most closely watched companies. Rumors have been floating around for a while now that SpaceX, Elon Musk’s space company, and Anthropic, the artificial intelligence startup behind Claude, could make their market debuts in the summer and by the end of 2026, respectively. And now, a report says that OpenAIAnthropics main competitor, and the owner of ChatGPTcould go public before the end of the year, too. Heres what you need to know about OpenAIs rumored IPO plans. OpenAI may go public in 2026 A report from the Wall Street Journal yesterday has investors buzzing: ChatGPT owner OpenAI is reportedly considering an initial public offering before the year closes. According to the report, OpenAI is in informal talks with banks on Wall Street about a potential IPO. The artificial intelligence company is also reportedly staffing up in preparation for an IPO. The WSJ says OpenAI recently hired a new chief accounting officer and a new business finance officer, the latter of whom will oversee OpenAIs investor relations department. The report cited anonymous sources. Fast Company reached out to OpenAI for comment. Pressure and financial need may be driving OpenAIs 2026 IPO ambitions In the past, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman hasnt spoken enthusiastically about one day running a public company. As a private company currently, OpenAI doesnt have to answer to Wall Street or retail investors, giving it much more freedom in how it chooses to run its businesswhich is currently operating at a major loss. But as a public company, Altman and OpenAI would have to take investors desires and expectations for returns on investment into account. This would make Altman, who is currently answerable to very few, answerable to legions of shareholders. So why go public sooner rather than later? The Journals report says that there are two main factors driving OpenAIs exploration of a 2026 IPO. The first is Anthropic, one of OpenAIs biggest competitors. OpenAI executives have expressed concerns about Anthropic listing first, WSJ reports. There is massive pent-up demand from retail investors who want to get in on the latest spate of AI companies. If Anthropic were to go public first, it could potentially dampen demand for OpenAI shares. The second factor driving OpenAI to explore a potential 2026 IPO reportedly has to do with the companys finances. Current investors are concerned about the companys cash flow as it continues to spend billions training its models and building out its AI infrastructure. Despite ChatGPTs popularity and cultural cache, loss-making OpenAI is burning through piles of cash. Most analysts dont expect OpenAI to turn a profit until at least 2030. By going public, OpenAI would receive a massive injection of cash from its share sale. This could help alleviate current investor concerns over how the company can come up with the hundreds of billions of dollars it needs to keep expanding in the years before it starts to turn a profit. When is OpenAIs IPO date? As of now, OpenAI has not announced an initial public offering. There are only reports that the company will do so by the end of this year. Whether that 2026 timeframe actually comes to pass remains to be seen. How much will OpenAI shares cost? Until OpenAI announces its IPO and how many shares it will offer, it is impossible to know what its IPO share price will be. How much is OpenAI worth? As a private company, its impossible to put an exact figure on OpenAIs value. But most analysts currently value the company at around $500 billion, based on the amount of investment it has received so far. However, the Journal notes that OpenAI is currently in the middle of seeking additional fundraising, perhaps up to $100 billion more. If it achieves this, OpenAI could be valued at around $830 billion.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] next »