Latest news with #MacArthur
New Indian Express
a day ago
- General
- New Indian Express
‘Radical acceptance': Yiyun Li lost both her sons to suicide. Her rigorous memoir reveals her as a very special writer
'My husband and I had two children and lost them both,' writes Yiyun Li early in her latest book, Things in Nature Merely Grow. And then, with harrowing directness, 'Both chose suicide'. Such loss might seem at odds with the title of growth, but as she explains in her deeply thoughtful, rigorous account of a family tragedy, it reflects insights developed through the practice of gardening. 'Things in nature merely grow until it's time for them to die' – and gardeners must learn to develop patience, flexibility and openness to what may come. Such capacities are very useful for writers, and Li is a prolific author who brings to her writing a forensic, incisive perspective, along with a marvellous deployment of language and tone. Born and raised in China, Li migrated to the United States in 1996 with the intention of completing a doctorate in immunology. But, she says, 'I wanted to do something I loved'. That turned out to be writing. In 2005, she added a master of fine arts (MFA) from University of Iowa to her bachelor of science and research masters in immunology. I imagine these qualifications, along with her nuclear physicist father, provided deep immersion in the scientific method – and led to her writing style, imbued with systematic observation and analysis. Li's first book, the short-story collection A Thousand Years of Good Prayers, was the inaugural winner of the Frank O'Connor International Short Story Award. In 2010, she was included in the New Yorker's 20 best writers under 40 and won a MacArthur 'genius' grant. Since then, she has received cabinets of further awards. Across her work, Li consistently explores difficult issues – as writers generally do. In many cases, the topic and content draw on her experiences as the child of an abusive mother, and as a young woman living under the strictures of China in the post-Tiananmen Square period. Years after her migration, she experienced a major depressive episode and was hospitalised following suicide attempts. Out of this experience, she wrote her first memoir (in essays), Dear Friend, From My Life I Write to You in Your Life (2017).
Al Arabiya
a day ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Targeting Iran's Supreme Leader is madness
Last week, the idea resurfaced that Israel may target Iran's Supreme Leader – as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the United States. US President Donald Trump made a point of distancing himself from the Israeli plan, announcing that the Iranian Supreme Leader is at the top of Israel's target list and now within their reach. Trump made it clear he opposes Israel's move and does not support it. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. This issue is far more serious than just another military objective; it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into World War II. Yet, during the war, and on the recommendation of General Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the American victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal – regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield. The Supreme Leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq – a war we thought would only end with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with neighboring Iraq – except the late Supreme Leader. Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries – when they could have achieved victory without doing so. There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's Supreme Leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave. And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid al-Adha in 2006 – though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader – came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory. Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year – but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of entering a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the use of the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits—to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the United States, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace.
Business Insider
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Raymond James Reaffirms Their Buy Rating on Cameco (CCJ)
In a report released today, Brian MacArthur from Raymond James maintained a Buy rating on Cameco (CCJ – Research Report), with a price target of C$102.00. The company's shares closed today at $69.25. Confident Investing Starts Here: Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter MacArthur covers the Basic Materials sector, focusing on stocks such as Barrick Mining, Franco-Nevada, and Freeport-McMoRan. According to TipRanks, MacArthur has an average return of 14.4% and a 62.60% success rate on recommended stocks. Currently, the analyst consensus on Cameco is a Strong Buy with an average price target of $72.45, a 4.62% upside from current levels. In a report released today, Desjardins also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a C$105.00 price target. Based on Cameco's latest earnings release for the quarter ending March 31, the company reported a quarterly revenue of $789.43 million and a net profit of $69.76 million. In comparison, last year the company earned a revenue of $633.55 million and had a GAAP net loss of $7.06 million Based on the recent corporate insider activity of 58 insiders, corporate insider sentiment is negative on the stock. This means that over the past quarter there has been an increase of insiders selling their shares of CCJ in relation to earlier this year.
Boston Globe
10-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
The 2025 Tech Power Players in the foundational AI sector
The team behind the company, now chasing better known rivals such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, included three MIT students and their adviser, computer scientist Rus has been a fixture on the AI scene since she came to MIT in 2003, fresh off a MacArthur 'genius' grant for her work developing robots. Nine years later, the university named Rus to lead the school's famed Born in Communist Romania during the Cold War, Rus and her family immigrated to the United States in 1982. She studied at the University of Iowa before earning a doctorate at Cornell University in 1992. She taught at Dartmouth College before moving to MIT. Advertisement Inspired by the simple brain structure of a roundworm, Rus and her cofounders, Ramin Hasani, Mathias Lechner, and Alexander Amini, developed an AI technique with fewer software 'neurons' than the large language models of OpenAI and others. That means Liquid AI requires less computing power (and electricity). The company, valued at more than $2 billion, has about 55 employees at its Kendall Square headquarters. More tech power players to watch in the foundational AI sector: Explore more sectors Aaron Pressman can be reached at
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
04-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
China really wants to attract talented scientists. Trump just helped
China was already scoring wins in its rivalry with the United States for scientific talent. It had drawn some of the world's best researchers to its campuses, people decorated with Nobel Prizes, MacArthur 'Genius' grants and seemingly every other academic laurel on offer. Now the Trump administration's policies might soon bolster China's efforts. Under President Trump, the United States is slashing the research funding that helped establish its reputation as the global leader in science and technology. The president is also attacking the country's premier universities, and trying to limit the enrollment of international students. Scientists from China are under particular pressure, as U.S. officials have said that they may pose a national security threat by funneling valuable knowledge to China. Chinese-born scientists have been investigated or even arrested. Last week, the Trump administration said it would work to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students in 'critical fields.' And Chinese institutions have been quick to try and capitalize. Universities in Hong Kong and Xi'an said they would offer streamlined admission to transfer students from Harvard. An ad from a group with links to the Chinese Academy of Sciences welcomed 'talents who have been dismissed by the U.S. NIH,' or National Institutes of Health. 'The United States is shooting itself in the foot,' said Zhang Xiaoming, an anatomy expert who last year left the Baylor College of Medicine, in Texas, to lead the medical education program at Westlake University, a research university in the tech hub of Hangzhou. 'Since I went to the United States more than 30 years ago, so much of its research has been supported by foreigners, including many Chinese,' said Professor Zhang, who emphasized that he was speaking for himself, not his employer. 'Without foreigners, at least in the field of scientific research, they can't go on.' On its own, China had become more attractive to scientists in recent years because of the huge investments the country has made in research. Westlake is a prime example. Established in 2018 by several high-profile scientists who had themselves returned to China from the West, Westlake's campus exudes technological advancement. A spaceship-like tower looms over rows of research laboratories. Computing centers and animal testing facilities cluster around a central lawn, in a shape designed to evoke a biological cell. In its main academic building, portraits of dozens of professors are on display — all of whom were recruited from overseas. There is Guan Kunliang, a biochemist who won a MacArthur 'Genius' grant while in Michigan; Cheng Jianjun, a materials engineer honored multiple times by the National Science Foundation; Yu Hongtao, a Harvard-educated cell biologist who received millions in funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Maryland. Recruitment notices advertise high compensation, in line with those at top foreign universities. Westlake has been perhaps the most successful Chinese university at recruiting overseas talent, but it is far from the only one. Between 2010 and 2021, nearly 12,500 scientists of Chinese descent left the United States for China, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The rate of departure was accelerating: More than half of them left in just the five years between 2017 and 2021. The trend has only continued in the last few years, said Yu Xie, a professor at Princeton University who coauthored the study. Nor is it only Chinese-born scientists who are jumping ship. Charles Lieber, a former Harvard chemist who was convicted in 2023 of failing to disclose payments from a Chinese university, recently joined Tsinghua University. Chinese scientists have long flocked to American universities, lured by the promise of a world-class education and resources that their home country could not provide. In the 1980s, Chinese scientists who visited the United States would collect disposable test tubes to reuse in China, said Rao Yi, a neurobiologist at Peking University in Beijing, who studied and worked in the United States for two decades. The admiration continued even as China's economy boomed. In 2020, nearly one-fifth of Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering and mathematics awarded in the United States went to students from China, according to data from the National Science Foundation. Historically, the vast majority of those Ph.D.s stayed in the United States — 87 percent between 2005 and 2015, the data showed. Many became U.S. citizens, and they have helped the United States accumulate patents, publications and Nobel Prizes. But in recent years, more scientists have been returning to China, drawn partly by government recruitment programs promising them millions of dollars in funding as well as housing subsidies and other perks. China's spending on research and development is now second only to the United States. And Chinese institutions such as Tsinghua and Zhejiang University now routinely rank among the best in the world for science and technology. The investment is part of a plan to turn China into a scientific superpower, especially in strategically important fields such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors and biotechnology. 'The scientific and technological revolution is intertwined with the game between superpowers,' China's leader, Xi Jinping, said last year. At the same time, the United States has been pushing scientists away for years, in particular by investigating their ties with China. Lu Wuyuan, a protein chemist formerly at the University of Maryland, was one of those targeted. He was investigated by the National Institutes of Health for allegedly failing to disclose research ties to China — ties he said Maryland knew about. After 20 years at the university, he quit in 2020. Most of the cases brought under the so-called China Initiative eventually collapsed. Many researchers criticized the campaign as racial profiling. Professor Lu, who now works at Fudan University in Shanghai, said that many of his friends mused about leaving the United States, but most chose to stay because they had built lives there. The Trump administration's assault on research funding may change that. 'If they cut so much funding, I believe that may be the last straw for many people,' Professor Lu said. Still, China faces its own issues in poaching talent. It has become harder for Chinese universities to meet and woo overseas scientists, as Chinese scholars have had trouble securing visas to the United States to attend academic conferences. Researchers in America also face restrictions in visiting China; Texas, for example, prohibits employees of public universities from traveling to China for work. The scientists who have returned to China largely fall into a few categories: those who are early in their careers, or who are nearing retirement, or who felt pushed out by investigations. Established midcareer scholars are still reluctant to leave, multiple scientists said. Professor Rao at Peking University, who was also one of Westlake's co-founders, said that China's progress in recruiting international talent had also been hampered by jealousy among domestic colleagues. 'While funding should increase, it is not the key factor at this stage,' Professor Rao said. 'Supporting scientists based on merit and their good science is the key.' And even at home, scientists are not spared political scrutiny. Chinese universities face limits on free expression, and China's Ministry of State Security has warned that scholars returning from overseas may be spies. Multiple Chinese-born scientists — both those who had returned to China, and those still in the United States — emphasized that they did not want to get entangled in politics. They were just trying to do good work. The simple fact was, many agreed, that it was increasingly easier to do so in China. 'It's hard to survive in America. And China is developing so fast,' said Fu Tianfan, 32, an artificial intelligence researcher who left Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in December to join Nanjing University. 'Whether it was the best choice,' he said, 'it may take some time to say.'
