Latest news with #Wikipedia
Miami Herald
38 minutes ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Guardians of the Gray Net: Evrima Chicago's Elite Mission for Aging and Ultra-Visible Clients
Why Evrima Chicago is Pioneering A11y, Cybersec & Reputation Management for an Aging Digital World NAPERVILLE, IL / ACCESS Newswire / June 18, 2025 / In a world increasingly dependent on digital access - where aging populations are growing alongside rising cyber threats - Evrima Chicago has positioned itself as a vanguard. Its mission is clear: protect, empower, and elevate older adults and ultra-visible individuals navigating a chaotic digital landscape. Whether it's defending a Nobel Peace Prize laureate from impersonation scams, equipping a forensic psychiatrist with secure communications, or ensuring a Pentagon official's reputation remains intact through a hostile media cycle - Evrima operates at the cutting edge of accessibility, cybersecurity, and elite reputation management. The Gray Net: Where Aging Meets Digital Vulnerability By 2050, the global senior population is projected to exceed 2 billion, and the so-called "silver economy" is expected to grow beyond $15 trillion. Despite this staggering market, mainstream tech and cybersecurity firms still under-serve older adults. That's where Evrima Chicago steps in. Based in Naperville, Illinois, this firm isn't just building tools - it's designing dignity. With assistive technology spanning screen readers, voice-command systems, and immersive virtual reality experiences, Evrima ensures digital inclusion for seniors and individuals with special needs. Accessibility - or A11y - isn't a feature. It's their foundation. When Cybercrime Crosses Generational Lines Older adults lost more than $3.4 billion to cybercrime in 2023, with the most at-risk individuals including not just everyday retirees - but aging professionals such as lawyers, doctors, and former intelligence officers. These individuals require a new kind of protection: stealth-class cyber defense. Evrima combats these threats with military-grade protocols, behavioral threat modeling, and deep reputational shielding. These tools protect not only sensitive data but entire digital identities - ensuring clients maintain control over their legacy, their public image, and their Google footprint. Digital Armor for the Ultra-Visible High-profile individuals don't just need public relations - they need precision digital control. One deepfake, misquote, or misinformation campaign can derail a lifetime of credibility. Evrima Chicago offers "reputation sovereignty" by managing Knowledge Panels, Wikipedia entries, and search visibility - well before crises emerge. Whether it's a bestselling author, a reclusive investor, or a national figure preparing for confirmation hearings, Evrima's team ensures the digital battlefield is secured in advance. Journalism Without Strings: The Evrima Newsroom Model Unlike most PR firms, Evrima Chicago operates a bias-free, ad-free newsroom. This editorial independence ensures that clients are featured in credible, citation-ready content - no pay-to-play gimmicks, no vanity press. Their publishing model delivers real authority. With data-backed storytelling and syndication-ready releases, policy influencers and public figures can shape their digital narrative proactively, not reactively. The Evrima Ethos: Serve the Person, Secure the Legacy Evrima Chicago isn't just building technology - it's building trust in an era where both are in short supply. From octogenarian activists to billionaires in the twilight of their careers, the firm delivers services designed for an aging digital elite. This is not public relations as is cyber is reputation is the future of digital dignity. Glossary Assistive Technology (AT): Tools that help individuals with disabilities or age-related limitations live independently - such as screen readers, VR mobility simulations, and adaptive input devices. A11y: A numeronym for "accessibility" (A + 11 letters + Y), emphasizing inclusive design for users of all ages and abilities. UHNW: Ultra-high-net-worth individuals with over $30 million in assets, who frequently face heightened cybersecurity and reputational risks. At Evrima Chicago, the mission is simple but essential: "A safer, more inclusive digital world - one elder, one executive, one encrypted connection at a time." Who is Waa Say? Waa Say is the caffeinated compass of the Evrima Chicago newsroom - its Editor-in-Chief, chief mischief-maker, and occasional fire extinguisher when headlines get too hot to handle. With a pen sharper than a Senate filibuster and a filing cabinet full of Post-it provocations, Waa Say doesn't just write stories - he orchestrates editorial ambushes on mediocrity. Working closely with Chicago Bureau Chief Mr. Ovais Riaz, he steers coverage with a blend of literary flair and old-school newsroom grit. In an America where politics feels like reality TV with fewer writers and worse wardrobe choices, Waa Say finds clarity in chaos. He's the guy who'll quote both Baldwin and Bugs Bunny before a deadline, reminding readers that truth needs teeth-and sometimes a punchline. Disclaimer This article was produced by Evrima Chicago LLC for editorial and informational purposes. The views expressed are drawn from cited sources and do not necessarily reflect the positions of any government, agency, or client. For inquiries, contact pr@ or waasay@ Sources and Citations SOURCE: Evrima Chicago LLC.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- General
- Daily Maverick
Cottage Pie, Shepherd's Pie: what's in a name?
Once upon a time, there was only Cottage Pie, no matter what meat was used in it. The term 'Shepherd's Pie' would only surface six decades later. So, when next an uppity food snob corrects you for calling a lamb version 'Cottage Pie', correct them right back. Cottage Pie dates to early 1790s England and had been around for six decades before Shepherd's Pie came along, the latter only appearing in the 1850s. For a very long time both were called Cottage Pie, because regardless of what we call it, it really is the same thing, whether the meat is beef or mutton. Cottagers in Britain in the late 18th century made potatoes a key part of their diet, so it made its way into various dishes, not least 'Cottage Pie', and whether the meat in it was beef or lamb, or for that matter venison nabbed in the wilds for the pot, it was simply the name of a 'pie' the cottagers made and ate. 'Pie' being a broader definition, for the British, than merely a description of a dish with a pastry crust; just as 'pudding' in the land of Blighty could be savoury or sweet. By the 1850s people began making a distinction if the meat in its making was lamb/mutton, which explains why even now many people are happy to call either of them 'cottage pie', given that the name does not indicate any type of meat. The 'Shepherd's Pie' entry in Wikipedia makes the puzzling claim that 'since the 21st century' (like, right now), 'the term shepherd's pie is used more commonly when the meat is lamb'. In the UK, that is. Honestly, does it really matter? Either way, it's the same thing: A layered 'pie' (we would say 'bake' in our time) of savoury minced/ground meat below, containing onions, other vegetables and aromatics, almost always including Worcestershire sauce, and creamy mashed potato on top, with or without cheese added. Some of the better recipes today call for Cheddar cheese to be grated and stirred into the mash before covering the top, and for beaten egg yolk to be brushed over to give it a pleasing golden glow. But it wasn't always layered in this way. Wikipedia explains that in earlier forms it was a way to use up leftover roasted meats, which were ground (after having been cooked, obviously). Mashed potato was used to line the bottom and sides of a dish, the meat was spooned in the middle, and it was topped with more mashed potatoes. Meanwhile, a Cumberland Pie can be either lamb or beef, with vegetables, but there's an extra topping of breadcrumbs mixed with grated cheese. Here's how I made a Cottage Pie this week: Ingredients 800 g beef mince/ ground beef 3 Tbsp olive oil 2 medium onions 2 or 3 garlic cloves 1 stick celery 2 carrots 2 lemon leaves (or bay) Zest of 1 lemon, grated finely 1 x 400 g can chopped tomatoes 2 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce Salt and pepper to taste For the topping: 700 g potatoes, peeled 2 heaped Tbsp butter 4 Tbsp cream 1 cup/ 225 g grated Cheddar Salt and pepper to taste 2 egg yolks Method Peel the potatoes and cut into smaller chunks. Boil them in plenty of salted water until al dente. Drain and reserve. Preheat the oven to 220℃ or a little higher. Chop and dice the onions, garlic, carrots and celery and sauté in olive oil until softened. Add the lemon leaves (or bay) and grated lemon zest and cook, stirring, for a minute. Add the tomatoes and Worcestershire sauce, season with salt and pepper, then add the minced beef and work it with a wooden spoon so that it does not form clumps. Simmer on a low heat for about half an hour for the meat to cook through and tenderise. Stir now and then to ensure it does not catch at the bottom of the pot. Mash the potatoes on a low heat, adding the butter and stirring until it melts and is absorbed, then adding cream and cooking until that has melted into the mash. Season to taste with salt and pepper; it's important to taste the mash while adding the salt until the right level of saltiness is achieved, so add only a little at a time, taste, add more, and so on, until you're happy with it. Grate the Cheddar and stir it into the mashed potato. Grease a suitable oven dish. Spoon in the meat mixture. Spoon the mash over the top and work it to all edges and corners, as evenly as possible. Beat the egg yolks with a fork and brush it all over the topping. Use a fork to make patterns on top of the mash. Bake until the topping turns golden. For me it took about 40 minutes, but all ovens are different so just check it every five minutes until it looks perfect. It doesn't need an accompaniment. DM
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Science
- Time of India
Nature's red alert: 5 species that went extinct while we watched
The last few years were quite ominous for conservationists and wildlife lovers everywhere. Climate change, deforestation, and pollution have long been known as causes of extinction, but 2019 to 2024 saw a rapid increase in species going extinct. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The official announcement of extinction is not to be taken lightly and takes years, and very often decades, of intensive surveys and ecological information. The following are five species that were officially confirmed as extinct between 2019 and 2024, using official sources such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and national environmental departments. Chinese Paddlefish (Psephurus gladius) Credit: Wikipedia Confirmed extinct: July 2022 (IUCN) Last spotted: Early 2000s Habitat: Yangtze River, China One of the world's largest freshwater fish, the Chinese paddlefish, was officially declared extinct in 2022. Reaching more than 7 meters in length, it was a top predator in the Yangtze River for millions of years. But dam building (particularly the Gezhouba Dam), overfishing, and habitat fragmentation put an end to its life. No one has been seen despite exhaustive search campaigns since 2003. The paddlefish was considered "functionally extinct" in 2019 before it was delisted from the IUCN Red List in 2022. Mountain Mist Frog (Litoria nyakalensis) Announced extinct: October 2020 (IUCN) Last recorded: 1990 Distribution: Queensland, Australia This rare frog had previously inhabited the rainforests of uplands in northeastern Australia. It started declining in the latter half of the 20th century due to the transmission of chytrid fungus, a highly lethal pathogen on amphibians globally. By 1990, the species was completely extinct. It was officially declared extinct by the IUCN in 2020, after intense surveys had failed to provide any indication of its continuation. Poʻouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) Credit: Wikipedia Declared extinct: 2021 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife), 2024 (IUCN) Last seen: 2004 Habitat: Maui, Hawaii The Poʻouli, a honeycreeper native to Hawaii, was a bird that inhabited forests with exceptional feeding habits and a distinctive look. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It was first discovered in 1973, and its population quickly dwindled because of habitat loss, introduced predators such as rats and cats, and disease transmitted by mosquitoes. The last recorded specimen died in captivity in 2004. In 2021, the U.S. formally recommended its delisting as an endangered species because it had gone extinct. IUCN also verified the status of extinction in 2024. Campo Grande Tree Frog (Boana cymbalum) Declared extinct: 2023 (IUCN) Last spotted: Only once in 1968 Habitat: São Paulo, Brazil Recorded from a single locality and observation in 1968, this Brazilian tree frog has not been seen since targeted searching. Urbanization at speed, pollution, and deforestation of forested habitats led to its suspected extinction. In 2023, the IUCN officially declared the Campo Grande tree frog to be extinct, another case of how biodiversity can be lost before a species can even be scientifically examined. Cheongpung Blind-Beetle (Coreoblemus parvicollis) Declared extinct: 2023 (IUCN) Last observed: Unknown Habitat: Cheongpung, South Korea A subsurface cave beetle restricted to a limited region of South Korea, the beetle went unnoticed when it silently became extinct after environmental alterations due to dam construction and flooding in the area. Its extinction was authenticated by the IUCN in 2023. Lacking its unknown nature, very little information is available, which is usually true with underground or micro-endemic organisms. Is this nature warning us against a bigger threat? These five species are among the hundreds that could be lost this decade. Every extinction carries a greater message: the Earth's biodiversity is in trouble. Over 47,000 species are threatened with extinction, and many will likely go silently into oblivion without ever being globally noticed, states the IUCN Red List. Whereas extinction is irreversible, activist conservation, restoration of habitats, and international cooperation can reverse this trend. The question remains: Will we do so before the next one is erased from the list.
The Herald Scotland
7 hours ago
- Entertainment
- The Herald Scotland
In honour of Joe Shaughnessy – a bonafide 'cinchman'
You can even do it by yourself. Sure, randomly saying the names of former-glory footballers out loud to yourself and laughing along may be a little extreme, and probably get you escorted out of your local Co-op, but we've all also carried out a version of this by getting lost in some online rabbit hole. It's often with the help of Wikipedia. You look up a player from years past, see his current club, recognise another player name there, and off you go! You can also do it with strangers online. In September of this past season, there was one such trend which took off on social media that was all about sitting around, trying to think of beloved (but not obviously so) players from days gone by and getting a kick out of what others managed to rescue from their subconscious. It was entitled 'Barclaysman' (or 'Barclaysmen'). This was in reference to the time when Barclays sponsored the English Premier League (née Premiership) between 2001 and 2016. To be labelled as Barclaysman, the player had to be good enough to be remembered fondly by a larger group of people than just supporters of one club, but they couldn't be so good as to being completely obvious and thereby miss the whole point in the exercise. Cristiano Ronaldo? Absolutely not a Barclaysman. Far too good, far too famous, far too successful. But Jay Jay Okocha on the other hand? Now you're talking. More than the players, it also appeals to the widely-shared belief that football was better before (it didn't have VAR, so it was). This was a celebrated era in which the Premier League really started to expand out to a global force, but before over-saturation got out of control and it was preordained that there be at least one English team in a European final every season. Following the success of #Barclaysman, there were some attempted spin-offs north of the border. We even had one on The Terrace Podcast talking about the ultimate lower-league heroes from recent years – or 'Irn-Bru Men' as we dubbed it. But it's much trickier for that kind of trend to take off amongst Scottish football supporters, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, while 'cinchman' was the most popular Scottish adaptation, it doesn't quite work to the same degree. After all, while some people still call it 'the cinch' despite William Hill having taken over as SPFL sponsors last summer, their run as the prefix to the Scottish league names only lasted two years (ah, but what a run it was!). You could go with 'Ladbrokesman' but that was only five years. And 'sponsorlessman' wouldn't do it either – everyone would just get annoyed about the governance of our game over recent decades and concentrate on that instead. Secondly, there just isn't the same level of interest from the average fan about players who don't play for their own club. You really have to be a Scottish football nerd (he says from experience) to get any sort of mild thrill out of someone going 'here, mind Kallum Higginbotham?' Most fans are likely to go 'who?'. Or, at best, 'aye, I remember the name' before incorrectly naming one of his former clubs. While we may not be strong in number, there are those of us who think watching Ross County v Dundee United on a rare Sky Sports broadcast is a treat and not a chore or something to be ignored, and we cherish these good men who may not have shone brightly but added to our enjoyment of Scottish football. Sadly, it now seems certain one such example of this is going to leave Scottish football for pastures new this summer. Joe Shaughnessy is just the epitome of a cinchman. He started at Aberdeen but he didn't really make his name there, despite making over 50 appearances following his move over from Ireland as a 16-year-old. That's because he was largely played at right-back and was, largely, not very good at it. He really grew into his own when he moved to St Johnstone in 2015 and was made a permanent fixture at the heart of their defence. He later impressed in a three-year spell at St Mirren before falling out with Stephen Robinson. And he was the only adult in the room over the last two seasons for a Dundee defence that was still shambolic with him in the team, but a total car-crash without his presence. He wasn't the most skilled of footballers, even for a centre-back, but he had enough poise in possession that meant you felt comfortable if you were a Saints or Dundee supporter and stopped him being a figure of ridicule if you weren't. What made him stand out was his aggression in the air. The man never saw a ball off the ground that he didn't like to attack, which contributed to his ability to make a difference at set-pieces in the opposing penalty area, scoring 27 times over the years. He was the perfect plug-and-play serviceable Scottish top-flight defender; exactly what a team needed if they aspirations were simply 'let's not make a fool of ourselves this season' – which is a mindset our clubs should really think about adopting more often. It feels inexplicable that he never featured for Motherwell or Kilmarnock and now he likely never will. With his 33rd birthday coming up, he has decided against remaining at Dundee for the Steven Pressley era and is now set to make the move down under to the Newcastle Jets. Unless he suffers immediate homesickness, we probably won't see Joe rock up again at another Premiership side. That is a shame, but he goes with the best wishes from those who will ultimately remember him as a proper cinchman.
New York Post
11 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
