Latest news with #2016
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Why A McDonald's Happy Meal Toy Promoting Fitness Was One Of The Worst Mistakes Ever
McDonald's has found its way mixed into more than a fair share of controversies over the years, as you may expect. Though we bet more than a few McNuggets you haven't heard of the Happy Meal "fitness trackers" that got recalled due to skin irritations in 2016. Yeah ... we didn't think so. What may have been even more surprising is the words "fitness" and "McDonald's" in the same sentence. Though, you're not seeing funny -- in 2016, the quick bites giant released a new toy alongside its kids' meals, that being a fitness tracker, formally known as the Step-It Activity Band. Though the company has experienced and sustained many scandals over the years, this one was particularly Meals have been around since 1979, allowing for longstanding relationships to develop amongst the company's customer base. With a long history of nostalgic Happy Meals toys amid iconic McDonald's collaborations with the likes of Beanie Babies, nobody could've guessed its newest release would be unsafe. Soon after the release of the Step-It Activity Band, McDonald's reported that over 70 customers suffered injuries — in the form of burns and skin damage — from the wristbands, possibly stemming from the heat produced by the batteries. This statistic was especially shocking, as those who sustained the injuries were mostly recipients of Happy Meals, that being primarily children. How did they resolve the issue, you may be wondering? The company immediately recalled the dangerous toys and offered a free yogurt tube or different toy in exchange for the faulty fitness trackers. Read more: Every McDonald's Burger, Ranked Worst To Best You may be wondering about the specifics of this colorful plastic nightmare -- and how it was originally designed. The band had two versions: a model that would light up based on how fast it perceived you were moving, and a version that counted your steps (or at least tried to). The mid-2010s were rampant with a wearables-fixated population, an uptick in health consciousness paired with the gamification of exercise that inevitably led to a market boom. Don't you distinctly remember when Fitbits started cropping up by the millions? In 2013, McDonald's introduced its new health-conscious era, instigated by signing a voluntary agreement with Healthier Generation. The companies worked together to change McDonald's menu to promote more balanced options, such as offering customers a side of fruit or vegetables, or including nutrition-related facts on its Happy Meal boxes. Amidst media attention and the cultural shift toward healthier eating generally, these changes created the perfect pathway for the inadvertent nightmare toy to appear. The Step-it Activity Band was therefore born, totaling at 33 million units. The "steps" fixation seemingly ruled our every movement, literally. It was only a matter of time before the concept was translated into children's toys. Read the original article on Chowhound.
Gizmodo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Gizmodo
Elon Says He's Working to ‘Fix' Grok After AI Disagrees With Him on Right-Wing Violence
Musk thinks his AI is corrupted by the "legacy media." Billionaire conspiracy theorist Elon Musk really doesn't like it when Grok says anything that contradicts his far-right worldview. And that's exactly what his AI chatbot did late Tuesday when an X user asked whether people on the political right or the political left have been more violent since President Donald Trump was first elected in 2016. Grok said it was people on the right. Musk responded that he was working to fix Grok so it wouldn't do that again. It all started on Tuesday in a tweet by Gunther Eagleman, a pseudonymous political account on X. 'JUST ANNOUNCED: Support for the violent Democrat Party has collapsed,' Eagleman tweeted. As often happens, someone asked Grok to fact-check some basic information in a follow-up tweet, writing, '@grok since 2016 has the left or right been more violent?' Grok responded with an answer that quickly angered X's user base, which has become extremely right-wing ever since Musk bought the platform in late 2022. 'Since 2016, data suggests right-wing political violence has been more frequent and deadly, with incidents like the January 6 Capitol riot and mass shootings (e.g., El Paso 2019) causing significant fatalities,' Grok wrote. Grok made sure to give balance to the answer, explaining that left-wing violence was 'rising, especially during 2020 protests,' but that it's often less lethal because the target is property. 'Surveys show both sides increasingly justify violence, reflecting deep polarization,' Grok continued. 'Right-wing attacks account for most deadly incidents, per reports like Reuters and GAO. However, biases in reporting may skew perceptions. Both sides contribute to a growing cycle of unrest, and precise attribution remains contentious due to varying definitions of violence.' That was not the right response for Musk. 'Major fail, as this is objectively false. Grok is parroting legacy media. Working on it,' the billionaire oligarch wrote. Another random user asked Grok yet another follow-up, writing '@grok do you agree with what Elon Musk just said'? But Grok again didn't provide an answer that Musk would like. 'I don't fully agree with Elon Musk's claim that my analysis was 'objectively false or 'parroting legacy media,'' the AI wrote. 'Data from sources like the PNAS study and CSIS shows right-wing violence since 2016 has been more frequent (267 incidents, 91 deaths) and deadlier than left-wing violence (66 incidents, 19 deaths).' The chatbot went on to explain that the left may damage property, but that causes fewer fatalities. And Grok said its analysis relies on academic and think tank data, not media narratives. 'Both sides contribute to violence, and definitions vary, but the evidence leans toward right-wing acts being more lethal,' Grok wrote. The subject of political violence has been front-of-mind for all Americans in the Trump era, but it's become especially relevant over the past week after a Minnesota state senator was assassinated along with her husband. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were killed, and another state legislator, John Hoffman and his wife, were both severely wounded in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 14. Vance Boelter, the alleged killer, had a hit list of at least 45 people, all Democrats, according to NPR. But before the shooter's identity was known, conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Elon Musk were cooking up their own version of events. 'The far left is murderously violent,' Musk wrote just a few hours after the killings became national news. Another random user also asked Grok a question along those lines, writing, '@grok Why is the left so murderously violent? They don't seem so tolerant.' Grok again answered in a way that would upset the site's right-wing users, writing, 'The claim that 'the left' is murderously violent isn't backed by evidence.' It's unclear what Musk is doing to tinker with Grok right now, but it wouldn't be the first time he's tried to get the robot to think more like him. Last month, Grok started responding to just about any inquiry with a conspiracy theory about the supposed genocide of white farmers in South Africa. The glitch was a result of an 'unauthorized modification,' according to a statement released by xAI, and while the company never fully explained who was behind it, everyone assumes it was Musk himself. Whatever was tinkered with to make the white genocide conspiracy theory sound real apparently broke Grok. Musk, who infamously made two Nazi-style salutes the day Trump was inaugurated for his second term, recently retreated from his role in the Trump administration as the head of DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. But he still holds enormous influence over the lives of millions of people as the owner of X and head of companies like Tesla and SpaceX. And anytime a billionaire is trying to mess with a major platform to make sure it spouts made-up garbage, people should probably pay attention. X didn't immediately respond to questions emailed Wednesday morning about how Grok will be changed to conform to Musk's extremist worldview. Gizmodo will update this post if we hear back.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Raj Kapoor studio redevelopment project: MahaRERA directs Godrej Properties to refund homebuyers without interest
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed Godrej Properties to refund, without interest, the amounts paid by six homebuyers for seven flats in its Chembur-based project, Godrej RKS, in Mumbai. Godrej Properties acquired the project from the Kapoor family for residential development, redeveloping the former film studio owned by the late Bollywood actor and filmmaker Raj Kapoor. The homebuyers had cited financial difficulties following the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for seeking a refund. MahaRERA instructed that the agreements be terminated once the refund is processed. While ordering the refund, the authority clarified that it cannot alter the terms of the agreement at this stage and directed the developer to refund the amounts as per the original contract, without any additional interest. In its order dated May 29, MahaRERA noted that the developer had issued termination letters to all complainants between August 2021 and July 2023. It clarified that there was no delay in handing over possession; rather, the complainants had defaulted on the agreed payment schedules As per the agreements, payments were to be made in stages linked to construction milestones. All homebuyers had signed application forms or sale agreements that clearly outlined the terms of default. The Authority ruled that it could not alter these contractual terms and found that five homebuyers, each associated with one flat, were not entitled to the refunds they had claimed. Also Read: Godrej buys Raj Kapoor's iconic bungalow in Chembur for ₹100 crore Regarding the sixth homebuyer, who had purchased two flats, MahaRERA observed that the developer had issued a termination notice due to payment default. The Authority found the termination to be valid and stated that the developer is at liberty to proceed under Section 11(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, to execute the cancellation deed. It also directed the complainants/allottees to cooperate and execute the cancellation deed. Additionally, MahaRERA instructed the developer to refund all amounts received from the homebuyer towards the consideration of the flats within 60 days from the date of the order, in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Upon receipt of the refund, MahaRERA directed the homebuyers to execute the cancellation deed within 30 days, on a date mutually convenient to both parties. The Authority also clarified that the homebuyers are not entitled to any interest on the refunded amount. Meanwhile, an email query has been sent to Godrej Properties. If a response is received, the story will be updated. Six homebuyers purchased seven apartments in the Godrej RKS project located in Chembur, Mumbai. Of these, five apartments were transferred to buyers through registered agreements for sale, while one was allotted via an allotment letter in 2020. According to the MahaRERA order, the total consideration value for the seven units was ₹28.80 crore, of which the homebuyers had paid ₹6.21 crore. Out of the six homebuyers, five approached MahaRERA seeking to withdraw from the project and requested a refund. They submitted that they had received termination letters from the developer stating that the entire amount paid had been forfeited. The complainants were also directed to return all documents related to their respective units. The homebuyers cited financial and personal hardships arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of which, they claimed, continues to affect them. Also Read: Over 29,000 complaints filed by homebuyers against 5,500 real estate projects in Maharashtra: MahaRERA data One of the six homebuyers stated that the developer had not executed a sale agreement and, after receiving a termination notice prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate, was pressured via email to book another flat in a different project despite there being no such clause in the original application. The buyer also alleged that no clear calculation was provided regarding the non-refundable amount. The other four homebuyers claimed they had attempted to transfer their bookings to new buyers, but delays and a lack of response from the developer eventually led to cancellations. The sixth homebuyer, who had purchased two apartments, cited financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for non-payment and expressed a desire to continue with the purchase. In response to the complaints, the developer stated that one of the homebuyers had accepted the termination letter and subsequently booked a flat in another project, Godrej Urban Park. Therefore, the developer argued, the complaint related to the Godrej RKS project was no longer valid. They also contended that there was no valid contract as no sale agreement had been executed. Since the homebuyer had defaulted on payments, the developer maintained it was within its rights to terminate the booking and forfeit a portion of the amount as per the agreed terms. Regarding the other four homebuyers, the developer said that there was no delay in possession. The Occupation Certificate (OC) for the project was issued in December 2023, well before the scheduled deadline of June 2024. As a result, the refund claims were not applicable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The developer further noted that one of the complainants had filed duplicate complaints seeking the same refund, which it termed as a misuse of the legal process. In the case of the sixth homebuyer, who had booked two flats, the developer said the buyer failed to clear outstanding dues despite being given multiple opportunities. The developer argued that the homebuyer could not now seek an extension or request changes to the contract terms. It also said that the reliefs being sought were beyond the jurisdiction of RERA and that the developer had incurred financial losses due to the delays, for which it should be compensated. Also Read: MahaRERA update: Maharashtra regulator surpasses 50,000 project registrations in 8 years RK Films & Studios, the iconic film studio established by legendary actor and filmmaker Raj Kapoor in 1948, was located in Chembur, Mumbai. Set up just a year after India gained Independence, the studio became a significant part of Indian cinema history and was associated with several classic films over the decades. In May 2019, the Kapoor family sold the 2.2-acre property to Godrej Properties for real estate development. According to registration documents accessed by the land parcel measuring 9,655.10 sq. m was acquired for approximately ₹250 crore. Godrej Properties announced plans to develop a premium mixed-use project on the site, named Godrej RKS. The project was registered with MahaRERA in January 2020, with a scheduled completion date of December 2024. In January 2020, the company launched a luxury residential offering at the site, featuring 'Collector's Edition' three- and four-bedroom residences. The project's architecture draws inspiration from Bombay Art Deco, paying homage to the legacy and cultural significance of the original RK Studios.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Looking for financial independence? Follow 'The Simple Path.'
Author and blogger JL Collins's book 'The Simple Path to Wealth: Your Road Map to Financial Independence and a Rich, Free Life' was published in 2016 and has since sold more than 1 million copies. It's hands-down one of my favorite investing books. Drumroll. He has now returned with a second edition of the book, which his daughter, Jess, collaborated on. I asked Collins to share some insights. Here are edited excerpts of our conversation. What has changed since your first edition in terms of your philosophy? Anything you tweaked in this new edition? JL Collins: Nothing. Zero. I designed the simple path to wealth to be something that you implement over decades. If it were to require major modification after a single 10-year period, I would not have designed it very well. The basic philosophy is the same, and that's important. What has changed is all the little details — the government regulations around income limits for investing in 401(k)s and the amount of money you can put in individual retirement accounts and all that kind of stuff. You kick off the book with your three key principles. Can you share? Avoid debt, live on less than you earn, and invest the surplus — if you're following my simple path, you'll be doing that in low-cost index funds. Avoiding debt, or getting out of it... is critical. You can never achieve financial independence if you're dragging that particular ball and chain around. I'm a little appalled that in our culture, carrying debt has become (so) normalized that people sort of assume, well, of course I'm going to borrow money to buy this, that, or, or the other thing. How should we spend our money? Spend money on what is most valuable to you. For me, there is nothing more valuable than buying my freedom, my freedom of time, my freedom of choice. You do that by having money and investments that ultimately pay all of your expenses. How do you define financial independence? How is your approach aligned with the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) movement? I love the FIRE acronym. It's very clever, and it's a great goal if that's your goal. Retiring early was never my goal. I like working. My goal was, and is, to have enough money to allow me to make bolder choices. Being financially independent means that you have enough money invested to throw off enough to cover all of your expenses and then some — a little bit of a cushion. You write that 25 times your annual expenses is the amount you need to be financially independent. Explain. There is the concept of what's called the 4% rule. And what the 4% rule suggests, and I think it's a great guideline, is that when you have enough money invested, that 4% of it will cover all of your expenses. Let's suppose that you have a million dollars invested. Well, that throws off at 4%, $40,000 a year. So if you can live on $40,000 a year comfortably, you are now financially independent. If you need $100,000, you multiply it by 25, you'd be at $2.5 million. You advocate saving 50% of your income if you want to become financially independent. Isn't that a tad unrealistic for most people? This is one of the things I probably get the most pushback on because, well, it depends on how you construct your lifestyle. And I'm sympathetic to people who feel that way, but there are people who are doing it very successfully. The more you can set aside, the greater the percentage, the shorter your journey will be to get to that financial independence thing. You are all in on owning stocks, but what advice or do you have for people when it comes to dealing with rocky uncertainty in markets? The single thing that determines whether the market will make you wealthy or leave you bleeding at the side of the road is what you do when it drops. Because market corrections, which are 10% and bear markets, which are 20%, are all normal. They are to be expected. If you're going to be investing in the stock market, you have to be prepared for those things to happen. And they are unpredictable in spite of all the people out there who are claiming they can predict it. I've been doing this for 50 years, and the answer to what do you do when you know these things are going to come and you can't predict them? Well, you just stay the course. You don't panic and sell, which is the worst thing you can do because that will leave you bleeding at the side of the road. And not only do you stay the course, but if you're building your wealth, and you've been adding money on a regular basis, which is what the simple path calls for, these things are a blessing because now you're accumulating those shares at a lower cost. Read more: How to protect your money during stock market volatility What's your ideal investment strategy? This is the simple path to wealth. It's not only easier, but it's also more powerful. So when you're building your wealth, you hold one index fund, and in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund. The key thing is it's a total stock market index fund. And caveat here is I hear from people all the time who say, you know, I'm at Fidelity, or I'm at Schwab and they have total stock market index funds. Are those okay? The answer to that question is, yes, those are fine. You own virtually every publicly traded company in the United States of America, and everybody from the factory floor to the CEO is now working to make you richer. That keeps me warm and comfortable at night when I go to sleep. When you stop having earned income to flow into that total stock market index fund, then you want to add a bond fund. And in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index Fund. I also hold some money in a money market fund. Frequently people will go to their 401(k) and they won't find a total stock market index fund, but they will find an S&P 500 fund, those are fine. Read more: 12 money market accounts with interest rates of 4% APY and higher What about the international angle? I'm a little bit alone in this position. I simply don't see the need because those largest companies... which make up the bulk of my total stock market index fund, are by definition international companies. An enormous amount of their sales and profit comes from all over the your take on target-date funds? They are the primary investment vehicle for people in employer retirement plans these days. They're effective. One of these target-date retirement funds is a great way to go. That fund will handle all of the rebalancing when it comes time for adding bonds. For those people who want ultimate simplicity, you never have to think about it at all. I don't think it's going to perform quite as well which is why I don't personally use it, and by the way, it will give you that international exposure. What's your take on crypto creeping into investment portfolios as well as private equity and such? Still stick with the index funds? I'm not a fan of the multiple income stream school of investing. Simple is better. So no cattle, gold, annuities, crypto, or the like. For the most part, so far, cryptocurrencies are a speculation. Sometimes speculations work out very well, often these speculations don't work out. That's what makes them speculations. I'm not a speculator. I'm an investor. An investor buys assets that have operations that can generate cash and growth — stock in a company or rental real estate, for example. Such things grow in value because of the underlying activities that earn money. Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work" and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Looking for financial independence? Follow 'The Simple Path.'
Author and blogger JL Collins's book 'The Simple Path to Wealth: Your Road Map to Financial Independence and a Rich, Free Life' was published in 2016 and has since sold more than 1 million copies. It's hands-down one of my favorite investing books. Drumroll. He has now returned with a second edition of the book, which his daughter, Jess, collaborated on. I asked Collins to share some insights. Here are edited excerpts of our conversation. What has changed since your first edition in terms of your philosophy? Anything you tweaked in this new edition? JL Collins: Nothing. Zero. I designed the simple path to wealth to be something that you implement over decades. If it were to require major modification after a single 10-year period, I would not have designed it very well. The basic philosophy is the same, and that's important. What has changed is all the little details — the government regulations around income limits for investing in 401(k)s and the amount of money you can put in individual retirement accounts and all that kind of stuff. You kick off the book with your three key principles. Can you share? Avoid debt, live on less than you earn, and invest the surplus — if you're following my simple path, you'll be doing that in low-cost index funds. Avoiding debt, or getting out of it... is critical. You can never achieve financial independence if you're dragging that particular ball and chain around. I'm a little appalled that in our culture, carrying debt has become (so) normalized that people sort of assume, well, of course I'm going to borrow money to buy this, that, or, or the other thing. How should we spend our money? Spend money on what is most valuable to you. For me, there is nothing more valuable than buying my freedom, my freedom of time, my freedom of choice. You do that by having money and investments that ultimately pay all of your expenses. How do you define financial independence? How is your approach aligned with the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) movement? I love the FIRE acronym. It's very clever, and it's a great goal if that's your goal. Retiring early was never my goal. I like working. My goal was, and is, to have enough money to allow me to make bolder choices. Being financially independent means that you have enough money invested to throw off enough to cover all of your expenses and then some — a little bit of a cushion. You write that 25 times your annual expenses is the amount you need to be financially independent. Explain. There is the concept of what's called the 4% rule. And what the 4% rule suggests, and I think it's a great guideline, is that when you have enough money invested, that 4% of it will cover all of your expenses. Let's suppose that you have a million dollars invested. Well, that throws off at 4%, $40,000 a year. So if you can live on $40,000 a year comfortably, you are now financially independent. If you need $100,000, you multiply it by 25, you'd be at $2.5 million. You advocate saving 50% of your income if you want to become financially independent. Isn't that a tad unrealistic for most people? This is one of the things I probably get the most pushback on because, well, it depends on how you construct your lifestyle. And I'm sympathetic to people who feel that way, but there are people who are doing it very successfully. The more you can set aside, the greater the percentage, the shorter your journey will be to get to that financial independence thing. You are all in on owning stocks, but what advice or do you have for people when it comes to dealing with rocky uncertainty in markets? The single thing that determines whether the market will make you wealthy or leave you bleeding at the side of the road is what you do when it drops. Because market corrections, which are 10% and bear markets, which are 20%, are all normal. They are to be expected. If you're going to be investing in the stock market, you have to be prepared for those things to happen. And they are unpredictable in spite of all the people out there who are claiming they can predict it. I've been doing this for 50 years, and the answer to what do you do when you know these things are going to come and you can't predict them? Well, you just stay the course. You don't panic and sell, which is the worst thing you can do because that will leave you bleeding at the side of the road. And not only do you stay the course, but if you're building your wealth, and you've been adding money on a regular basis, which is what the simple path calls for, these things are a blessing because now you're accumulating those shares at a lower cost. Read more: How to protect your money during stock market volatility What's your ideal investment strategy? This is the simple path to wealth. It's not only easier, but it's also more powerful. So when you're building your wealth, you hold one index fund, and in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund. The key thing is it's a total stock market index fund. And caveat here is I hear from people all the time who say, you know, I'm at Fidelity, or I'm at Schwab and they have total stock market index funds. Are those okay? The answer to that question is, yes, those are fine. You own virtually every publicly traded company in the United States of America, and everybody from the factory floor to the CEO is now working to make you richer. That keeps me warm and comfortable at night when I go to sleep. When you stop having earned income to flow into that total stock market index fund, then you want to add a bond fund. And in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index Fund. I also hold some money in a money market fund. Frequently people will go to their 401(k) and they won't find a total stock market index fund, but they will find an S&P 500 fund, those are fine. Read more: 12 money market accounts with interest rates of 4% APY and higher What about the international angle? I'm a little bit alone in this position. I simply don't see the need because those largest companies... which make up the bulk of my total stock market index fund, are by definition international companies. An enormous amount of their sales and profit comes from all over the subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy What's your take on target-date funds? They are the primary investment vehicle for people in employer retirement plans these days. They're effective. One of these target-date retirement funds is a great way to go. That fund will handle all of the rebalancing when it comes time for adding bonds. For those people who want ultimate simplicity, you never have to think about it at all. I don't think it's going to perform quite as well which is why I don't personally use it, and by the way, it will give you that international exposure. What's your take on crypto creeping into investment portfolios as well as private equity and such? Still stick with the index funds? I'm not a fan of the multiple income stream school of investing. Simple is better. So no cattle, gold, annuities, crypto, or the like. For the most part, so far, cryptocurrencies are a speculation. Sometimes speculations work out very well, often these speculations don't work out. That's what makes them speculations. I'm not a speculator. I'm an investor. An investor buys assets that have operations that can generate cash and growth — stock in a company or rental real estate, for example. Such things grow in value because of the underlying activities that earn money. Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work" and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
