Latest news with #December2024
Forbes
9 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Forbes
Twenty One Pilots Speed Things Up And Score Multiple New Top 10s
Twenty One Pilots debut 'The Craving' at No. 4 on Alternative Digital Song Sales chart, ahead of new ... More album Breach, which is due in September. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - DECEMBER 13: Josh Dun and Tyler Joseph attend the 2024 Z100 iHeartRadio Jingle Ball at Madison Square Garden on December 13, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Taylor Hill/FilmMagic) Like most bands, Twenty One Pilots typically space albums out by several years. That gives the duo time to not only promote one project and get the most possible out of it, but also to tour and be creative, coming up with something to say on the next collection. The Grammy-winning group is speeding things up, as its new album Breach is expected in September. The pair last released Clancy in May 2024, so these two titles will be only a little more than a year apart. Twenty One Pilots have introduced Breach with lead single "The Craving," which dropped in mid-June and has already become a quick success on a handful of Billboard charts. "The Craving" debuts on four tallies in the United States this week. The cut instantly becomes another top 10 for the group on half of all the rankings on which it currently appears. Twenty One Pilots launches "The Craving" inside the uppermost region on both the Alternative Digital Song Sales and Rock Digital Song Sales charts, as the single becomes a quick bestseller. The tune opens highest on the alternative list, landing at No. 4, while it narrowly sneaks into the loftiest space on the rock ranking, debuting at No. 9. The group collects its milestone twenty-fifth hit on both of the purchase-only tallies where 'The Craving' debuts this week. Twenty One Pilots has now seen 20 tunes break into the top 10 on the Alternative Digital Song Sales chart and just one fewer on the rock ranking. "The Craving" is also a quick success story on a handful of radio rosters, as DJs and programmers put the single into rotation right away. The first single from Breach starts at No. 38 on the Rock & Alternative Airplay chart. It sits just two spots further south on the slightly more specific Alternative Airplay list, coming in at No. 40. Twenty One Pilots has now earned a fitting 21 smashes on the Rock & Alternative Airplay tally and 22 on the Alternative Airplay list throughout the past decade or so.
SBS Australia
17 hours ago
- Business
- SBS Australia
Will the tech behind the teen social media ban work? These questions remain unanswered
Technologies to enforce the Australian government's social media ban for under 16s are "private, robust and effective". That's according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them. The findings, released on Friday, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to start in December. For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of 10 people support the idea of a ban. But it also found a large number of people were "very concerned" about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight. The trial's preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people's ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources. The social media ban for under-16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide "alternative age assurance methods" for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID. The Australian government commissioned an independent trial to evaluate the "effectiveness, maturity, and readiness for use" of these alternative methods. The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme — a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems. It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people's ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition. According to the preliminary findings of the trial, "age assurance can be done in Australia". The trial's project director, Tony Allen, said "there are no significant technological barriers" to assuring people's ages online. He added the solutions are "technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online". However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence. On Thursday, the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies "repeatedly misidentified" children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children's ages "within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases". This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked. This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade. An ongoing series of studies of age estimation technology by the United States' National Institute of Standards and Technology shows the algorithms "fail significantly when attempting to differentiate minors" of various ages. The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones. These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available — Yoti — has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone's age by 3.1 years on average. This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked. Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check. This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia's retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check. It's also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was "immature" and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security. We don't yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders' ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people's ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues. And it's not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom? There are other outstanding questions. What's stopping someone who's under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals. It's also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken "reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered "reasonable" is yet to be clearly defined. Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government's trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don't have all the answers they need. Lisa M. Given is a professor of information sciences and director of the Social Change Enabling Impact Platform at RMIT University.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
I tried 2 ways of investing in bitcoin. One thrived and one failed miserably, teaching me a valuable lesson.
Last December, I decided to add bitcoin exposure to my portfolio through an ETF and a single stock. The iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF has climbed double digits, while Semler Scientific has underperformed. If you're a crypto beginner looking to get exposure to bitcoin, I recommend sticking to ETFs. Back in December of 2024, I decided to hop aboard the bitcoin train and add some crypto exposure to my portfolio. Markets were flush off of the recent Trump victory, there were whispers of a national bitcoin reserve, and bitcoin had recently broken the $100,000 threshold for the first time. The cryptocurrency had gone mainstream enough for late adopters like myself to deem it investable. For my first foray into bitcoin, I purchased a share of Blackrock's iShares Bitcoin Trust Trust (IBIT). I later added a share of Semler Scientific (SMLR), a healthcare technology company that holds bitcoin on its balance sheet. I wanted to try multiple methods of investing in bitcoin. In hindsight, I realize I committed the classic retail investor impulse: buying in because of FOMO. Sure, positive investor sentiment led to gains in bitcoin, as well as the ETF I bought that was designed to track the crypto. But my stock purchase proved ill-timed. Almost six months later, bitcoin has crossed new all-time-highs, and I have mixed feelings on my investment. I opted to buy IBIT instead of actual spot bitcoin because it was a more accessible way to get exposure. I didn't want the hassle of setting up a Coinbase account. Plus, buying a single share in an ETF was more psychologically appealing than buying a tiny fraction of a bitcoin (I did not have a spare $100,000 or the risk tolerance to buy an entire bitcoin). The performance has been encouraging. Year-to-date, IBIT is up about 14%, outpacing a 12% gain for bitcoin itself. It's done its job of tracking the crypto, and even added a little extra. And it's far outperformed the S&P 500, which is up just 2% in 2025. ETFs can experience slight tracking differences due to management fees, operational costs, and the timing of inflows and outflows. But if you want a rough proxy of bitcoin performance without actually owning the underlying asset, IBIT gets the job done. A year and a half over its launch, IBIT has gained incredible popularity, growing to over $70 billion in assets under management. Robert Cannon, a financial advisor at Experity Wealth with a specialization in alternative assets, recommends his bitcoin-curious clients to start with the ETF. "It's the easiest, cleanest representation of bitcoin, compared to some of the other strategies that are a bit esoteric," Cannon told me. The ETF wrapper has really helped bitcoin adoption take off in the last year, Rahul Sen Sharma, president and co-CEO at the custom index provider Indxx, told me. Sharma's seeing a surge in interest for bitcoin and digital asset ETFs, and he believes Trump's continued support for crypto will pave the way for more mainstream adoption. Getting bitcoin exposure through other methods was indeed more esoteric — and much less profitable. I added Semler Scientific to my portfolio on January 8, 2025, and it's down more than 40% since then. There's a growing trend among companies to add bitcoin to their balance sheets, with Strategy, Tesla, and GameStop being one of the most prominent examples. The president's own Trump Media and Technology Group has recently raised $2.5 billion to buy bitcoin. Semler Scientific started adding bitcoin to its balance sheet in May of last year and now holds over 4,000 bitcoins. It sounds like a good idea in theory: holding bitcoin as a reserve asset could be a hedge against inflation and dollar weakness, and could also lead to capital appreciation as bitcoin takes off. Some companies like Strategy have had tremendous success. The firm has accumulated over half a million bitcoins, and the stock has outperformed the underlying crypto year-to-date. However, it's hard to replicate the scale and expertise of Strategy. While many of Cannon's clients often inquire about bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy, he usually recommends they stick to the basics with an ETF. There were also company-specific headwinds for Semler Scientific. The company had been under investigation from the Department of Justice for allegedly misleading claims about one of its medical devices. My takeaway from the experience is that buying a single stocks as a bitcoin proxy is probably not a good idea. When you buy into a bitcoin treasury company, you're also inheriting all of its company-specific risks. That includes everything from management decisions and financial health to legal exposure, product performance, and market sentiment around the core business. As a result, the benefits of diversification with bitcoin are watered down. If you're looking for bitcoin exposure, either buying the real thing or a spot ETF is your best bet. Maybe the strategy from here on out is to close out of my position in SMLR and do some tax-loss harvesting this year. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
The National
13-06-2025
- Business
- The National
Whistleblowers must report tax fraud judiciously but also be protected
You cannot get into business without accepting that you have entered a competitive space. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that all players operate within the law. Legally mandated periodic regulatory reporting and the knowledge that an external audit by an empowered body can occur at any time should be enough to ensure that no one cheats. Unfortunately, cheating happens. Even the clearly communicated punishments for doing so never seem to be sufficient to deter bad behaviour. Legally, you must fail two tests. They are, and to reinforce how dim a view is taken of this, I am using the legal Latin terms, mens rea and actus reus (meaning: guilty mind and guilty act). You need to think about committing an offence and then act on that thought. So far, we are talking about malfeasance being uncovered by a non-trading external body. Today, in the light of a recently issued Federal Tax Authority (FTA) guide, I wish to address the mechanism in place for all other actors that might likewise reveal potential illegal activity. I say potential because tax law is very complex in parts, and it is not impossible that someone might misunderstand a situation or treatment they have witnessed, and then innocently report it. Issued in December 2024, a whistleblower programme for tax violations and evasion represents the first detailed approach to the issue. I addressed this topic in a more general way in an article published by The National on April 29, 2017, as VAT was being launched. There was no formal programme then to protect whistleblowers but their impact could be imagined. Particularly worrying was the potential for aggrieved personnel who were returning to their home countries unleashing a litany of allegations to the relevant authorities. Trying to sift through that reported in anger would be a challenge. Also, now abroad, a person might assume that there would be no consequences to their actions. Understand that this new regime does not just relate to people, but to any juridical entity. I might have used a different word than informant, which represents the reporting party. While the word is absolutely accurate, language changes over time based on its usage and television has not been kind to the general perception of what an informant is and what often happens to them. The guidance lists two categories of information they are interested in. Firstly, there is suspected tax evasion, which includes anything from registering with false information to submitting returns that are manipulated to reduce or mitigate any payable tax. Secondly, there is non-compliance – from falsifying invoices, be it with incorrect amounts or use of a different currency, to trading under the counter for cash and keeping such transactions off the business's financial accounts. This is clearly identifiable fraudulent activity. An approach may be rebuffed if it is considered insufficient to prosecute. However, this does not prevent further approaches if additional and more substantial evidence is collected and presented. In presenting their evidence, the informant must clearly identify themselves. This will naturally remain confidential. Importantly, should any legal proceedings commence, the informant will remain unnamed. Two interesting things follow. One is whether the prosecuted party is made aware that their actions were uncovered and reported by a person or a juridical entity. Clarity on this element would be useful. Second is the matter of a monetary reward. A non-disclosure agreement is signed as part of this process. Any reward would be paid subsequent to a successful prosecution and collection of monies due. There are specifics worth reviewing, although it might be hoped that any reports made would be from a desire to see fairness than the prospect of a monetary windfall. The informant's involvement ends as action is being taken. No updates are provided on the nature of the continuing case, which would seem to be a sensible protocol. For someone to step forward and provide information about the actions of another creates on them a burden, which must be co-shouldered. Hence, the receiving party provides for protections where it's accurate and in good faith. The submission is made using the FTA portal and the process is well documented. I finish by highlighting this because the FTA document is, and I quote, 'not a legally binding document and is not intended to provide comprehensive details associated with taxes and is not intended for legal reference'. Either protection exists or it does not. I am not a solicitor, but for someone to agree to fall backwards, they must be certain that they are falling into the arms of safety.
The National
12-06-2025
- Business
- The National
Whistle-blowers must report tax fraud judiciously but also be protected
You cannot get into business without accepting that you have entered a competitive space. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that all players operate within the law. Legally mandated periodic regulatory reporting and the knowledge that an external audit by an empowered body can occur at any time should be enough to ensure that no one cheats. Unfortunately, cheating happens. Even the clearly communicated punishments for doing so never seem to be sufficient to deter bad behaviour. Legally, you must fail two tests. They are, and to reinforce how dim a view is taken of this, I am using the legal Latin terms, mens rea and actus reus (meaning: guilty mind and guilty act). You need to think about committing an offence and then act on that thought. So far, we are talking about malfeasance being uncovered by a non-trading external body. Today, in the light of a recently issued Federal Tax Authority (FTA) guide, I wish to address the mechanism in place for all other actors that might likewise reveal potential illegal activity. I say potential because tax law is very complex in parts, and it is not impossible that someone might misunderstand a situation or treatment they have witnessed, and then innocently report it. Issued in December 2024, a whistle-blower programme for tax violations and evasion represents the first detailed approach to the issue. I addressed this topic in a more general way in an article published by The National on April 29, 2017, as VAT was being launched. There was no formal programme then to protect whistle-blowers but their impact could be imagined. Particularly worrying was the potential for aggrieved personnel who were returning to their home countries unleashing a litany of allegations to the relevant authorities. Trying to sift through that reported in anger would be a challenge. Also, now abroad, a person might assume that there would be no consequences to their actions. Understand that this new regime does not just relate to people, but to any juridical entity. I might have used a different word than informant, which represents the reporting party. While the word is absolutely accurate, language changes over time based on its usage and television has not been kind to the general perception of what an informant is and what often happens to them. The guidance lists two categories of information they are interested in. Firstly, there is suspected tax evasion, which includes anything from registering with false information to submitting returns that are manipulated to reduce or mitigate any payable tax. Secondly, there is non-compliance – from falsifying invoices, be it with incorrect amounts or use of a different currency, to trading under the counter for cash and keeping such transactions off the business's financial accounts. This is clearly identifiable fraudulent activity. An approach may be rebuffed if it is considered insufficient to prosecute. However, this does not prevent further approaches if additional and more substantial evidence is collected and presented. In presenting their evidence, the informant must clearly identify themselves. This will naturally remain confidential. Importantly, should any legal proceedings commence, the informant will remain unnamed. Two interesting things follow. One is whether the prosecuted party is made aware that their actions were uncovered and reported by a person or a juridical entity. Clarity on this element would be useful. Second is the matter of a monetary reward. A non-disclosure agreement is signed as part of this process. Any reward would be paid subsequent to a successful prosecution and collection of monies due. There are specifics worth reviewing, although it might be hoped that any reports made would be from a desire to see fairness than the prospect of a monetary windfall. The informant's involvement ends as action is being taken. No updates are provided on the nature of the continuing case, which would seem to be a sensible protocol. For someone to step forward and provide information about the actions of another creates on them a burden, which must be co-shouldered. Hence, the receiving party provides for protections where it's accurate and in good faith. The submission is made using the FTA portal and the process is well documented. I finish by highlighting this because the FTA document is, and I quote, 'not a legally binding document and is not intended to provide comprehensive details associated with taxes and is not intended for legal reference'. Either protection exists or it does not. I am not a solicitor, but for someone to agree to fall backwards, they must be certain that they are falling into the arms of safety.
