Aurelia Butler

When an open-door tourist helicopter crashed into the East River, Trevor Cadigan, 26, and four other passengers were unable to escape from cumbersome safety harnesses.The helicopter flight began with celebration. “All right — let’s do it!” the pilot shouted just before liftoff from the heliport in New Jersey.“Party,” said one passenger. “Hooo!” said another.After flybys of the Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center and the Brooklyn Bridge, during which passengers leaned out the open door to shoot photos, the flight ended suddenly 14 minutes after takeoff when the red helicopter plunged into the East River. It tipped on its side, and as cold water flooded the cockpit, the passengers realized they could not escape.“How do I cut this?” a passenger said, struggling to free himself from the harness that anchored him to the aircraft, according to the transcript of an onboard video from the flight released by the National Transportation Safety Board.All five passengers died in the March 11, 2018, flight. Only the pilot escaped. The accident was caused by a loose, improvised safety harness that caught on the helicopter’s fuel shut-off lever, mounted on the floor. That activated the lever, killed the engine and caused the crash, the safety board found.The safety harnesses, meant to prevent passengers from falling out the open door of the helicopter, instead locked the passengers in place, exposing them to “great difficulty extricating themselves” quickly in an emergency, the safety board found.Six jurors in State Supreme Court in Manhattan agreed on Thursday, awarding $116 million in compensatory and punitive damages to family members of one of the passengers, Trevor Cadigan, 26.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Aunque este escenario inesperado podría reflejar una variación usual en los resultados de las encuestas, también podría señalar una ventaja cada vez menor de Trump en el Colegio Electoral.Kamala Harris lidera por cuatro puntos en nuestro nuevo sondeo de Pensilvania.Kenny Holston/The New York Times[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Tenemos nuestras dos primeras encuestas desde el debate presidencial de la semana pasada: una a nivel nacional y otra sobre Pensilvania.Combinadas, son un pequeño enigma.En la encuesta nacional, Kamala Harris y Donald Trump están empatados entre los votantes probables, ambos con un 47 por ciento, un ligero avance para Harris desde nuestra encuesta nacional más reciente, realizada inmediatamente antes del debate.Al mismo tiempo, Harris tenía una ventaja de cuatro puntos en una encuesta de The New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College de Pensilvania, 50 por ciento a 46 por ciento.Antes de entrar en detalles, empecemos por el panorama general:No ha cambiado mucho tras el debate. A pesar de su buena actuación, la vicepresidenta Harris no ganó mucho terreno en comparación con nuestras encuestas más recientes a nivel nacional y en Pensilvania. La encuesta está llena de señales de que nuestros encuestados pensaron que Harris tuvo un buen debate —y que Trump uno malo— pero no ha hecho una gran diferencia, al menos por ahora y al menos en nuestro sondeo.Pensilvania, Pensilvania, Pensilvania. Es posible que Harris no haya ganado mucho, pero su campaña seguramente estará contenta con las cifras en Pensilvania. El resultado nacional, por otra parte, es bastante favorable para Trump (esa es la parte que nos desconcierta y que estamos a punto de analizar). Pero nuestras elecciones se deciden en el Colegio Electoral, y ningún estado tiene un lugar más relevante en las matemáticas electorales que Pensilvania.Ahora vayamos a nuestro enigma: ¿una clara ventaja para Harris en Pensilvania, pero un empate a nivel nacional? Esto es inesperado. Hace cuatro años, el presidente Joe Biden ganó el voto nacional por 4,5 puntos porcentuales, pero ganó Pensilvania por solo 1,2 puntos. Del mismo modo, nuestros promedios de encuestas han mostrado que Harris obtiene mejores resultados a nivel nacional que en Pensilvania. Esta encuesta es casi lo contrario.Por lo general diría que se trata de ruido estadístico, la inevitable variación en los resultados de las encuestas que es inherente al muestreo aleatorio. Y puede que lo sea, como veremos. Pero creo que es difícil suponer que se trata simplemente de ruido, por dos razones:Es lo que hemos señalado antes. Es fácil descartar cualquier resultado de una encuesta como una casualidad estadística. Pero hemos encontrado resultados similares en nuestras dos encuestas más recientes a nivel nacional y en Pensilvania.Esto se está convirtiendo en una tendencia para los encuestadores de alta calidad. Sí, el promedio de nuestras encuestas revela que Harris obtiene mejores resultados a nivel nacional que en Pensilvania, pero la historia es un poco diferente si nos centramos solo en las encuestas de mayor calidad (a las que llamamos “encuestadoras selectas” en nuestra tabla). En el último mes, muchos de estos sondeos muestran que a Harris le va relativamente mal a nivel nacional, pero le va bien en los estados disputados del norte de Estados Unidos.Nota sobre los encuestadores “selectos”: para ser considerados selectos en nuestro promedio de encuestas, los encuestadores deben cumplir dos de los tres criterios siguientes: un historial de resultados superiores a los de otros encuestadores, una metodología transparente y el uso de un método que tenga posibilidades de llegar a la mayoría o a todos los votantes potenciales. No se trata de un enfoque perfecto (omite algunas encuestas muy buenas e incluye otras que no lo son tanto), pero incluye a la mayoría de los pesos pesados del sector y elimina gran parte de lo que no funciona. More

La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris intenta conseguir apoyo entre los votantes latinos, ya que las encuestas muestran que los estadounidenses confían en el expresidente Donald Trump por encima de los demócratas en la frontera.La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris advirtió sobre deportaciones masivas y “campos de detención masivos” si Donald Trump regresaba al poder, y dijo en una audiencia de líderes hispanos en Washington que la agenda migratoria del expresidente era un peligro para el país.“Todos recordamos lo que hicieron para separar a las familias”, dijo Harris el miércoles en un evento del Caucus Hispano del Congreso, que forma parte de un esfuerzo para aumentar el apoyo entre los votantes latinos. “Y ahora han prometido llevar a cabo la mayor deportación, una deportación masiva, en la historia de Estados Unidos”.La multitud pasó de la jovialidad al silencio cuando la vicepresidenta les pidió que profundizaran en las propuestas de Trump, que incluyen planes para acorralar a los indocumentados a escala masiva y detenerlos en campamentos a la espera de su deportación.“Imaginen cómo se vería eso y cómo sería”, dijo Harris. “¿Cómo va a ocurrir? ¿Redadas masivas? ¿Campos de detención masivos? ¿De qué están hablando?”.Harris combinó el ataque a la agenda de Trump con promesas de priorizar la seguridad en la frontera y proporcionar un “camino ganado a la ciudadanía”. La vicepresidenta ha buscado un acto de equilibrio ya que las encuestas han demostrado que algunos votantes latinos confían en Trump más que en los demócratas en cuanto a la frontera.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Donald J. Trump, the company’s largest shareholder, has said he won’t sell when a lockup agreement expires on Thursday. But other large investors could.Former President Donald J. Trump and a handful of other investors are finally going to be able to do what they want with shares in the parent company of Truth Social — the social media platform that has become Mr. Trump’s main online megaphone.A lockup agreement that had barred those investors from selling their shares expires at 4 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday. The six-month lockup, which applied to all large shareholders of Trump Media & Technology Group, had been in place since the social media company completed its merger with a cash-rich public shell company.In early trading on Thursday, Trump Media’s shares fell 4 percent.Investors have been focused mostly on Mr. Trump’s plans for his stock. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, said last week that he had no intention of selling his shares. His major stake in the company, 115 million shares, is worth close to $1.8 billion, and his involvement with Truth Social is critical to its future.But other large investors, who collectively control more than 20 million shares, may well begin selling once the lockup expires. They include two contestants from “The Apprentice” who helped start Trump Media and a group of early investors in the shell company that Trump Media merged with in March.Even with Mr. Trump holding tight to his shares, the company’s stock price could slide if those other investors sell. The stock is already down more than 76 percent from its post-merger high six months ago.Here’s how any sizable sale would work, and why it has drawn so much interest.

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Trump Media & Technology Group share price
As of Wednesday, Sept. 18Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

To amplify the first live athletic competition at the Las Vegas landmark, the Ultimate Fighting Championship turned to Hollywood.After an animated vignette of conquistadors ransacking Indigenous Mexican temples played on the Sphere’s enormous video screen and the venue’s haptic seats shook violently, two mixed martial arts fighters approached each other on Mexican Independence Day weekend. As they battled in the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s caged octagon, birds soared across a backdrop of temple ruins.The Sphere — a futuristic orb-like structure with more than 700,000 square feet of programmable screens inside and out — has primarily hosted musicians, keynote speakers and filmmakers since opening its radiant gaze upon the Las Vegas Strip in July 2023.It was one of those concerts last year, part of U2’s nearly six-month residency, that amazed and inspired Dana White, the U.F.C.’s chief executive. For months he has grandiosely proclaimed that he would hold the first live athletic competition at the Sphere, which can typically seat about 17,000 people.The company invested $20 million into Saturday night’s spectacle, called Noche U.F.C., as White challenged his staff to mesh a brutal, polarizing blood sport with pageantry and flair by working with award-winning Hollywood creators.“We showed everybody tonight what’s possible,” White said after the fight, which he said broke U.F.C. records for ticket and merchandise sales. “You can do more than just concerts here and pull them off and make them great. So who’s next?”The U.F.C. filled more than 700,000 square feet of programmable screens with tributes on Mexican Independence Day weekend.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Leaders around the world are asking the European Union to delay rules that would require companies to police their global supply chains.The European Union has been a world leader on climate change, passing groundbreaking legislation to reduce noxious greenhouse gasses. Now the world is pushing back.Government officials and business groups around the globe have jacked up their lobbying in recent months to persuade E.U. officials to suspend a landmark environmental law aimed at protecting the planet’s endangered forests by tracing supply chains.The rules, scheduled to take effect at the end of the year, would affect billions of dollars in traded goods. They have been denounced as “discriminatory and punitive” by countries in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa.In the United States, the Biden administration petitioned for a delay as American paper companies warned that the law could result in shortages of diapers and sanitary pads in Europe. In July, China said it would not comply because “security concerns” prevent the country from sharing the necessary data.Last week, the chorus got larger. Cabinet members in Brazil, the director general of the World Trade Organization and even Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany — leader of the largest economy in the 27-member European Union — asked the European Commission’s president to postpone the impending deforestation regulations.The uproar underscores the bruising difficulties of making progress on a problem that most everyone agrees is urgent: protecting the world’s population from devastating climate change.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Virtually everyone on Capitol Hill agrees that the Secret Service needs to do a better job. But Democrats and Republicans are at odds over whether to increase the agency’s budget.After the second assassination attempt against former President Donald J. Trump in two months, a fevered debate has broken out in Congress over whether the Secret Service needs more money.Because the dispute is unfolding on Capitol Hill and comes little more than six weeks before a presidential election, the question has, perhaps predictably, become mired in politics. And given that there are only 11 days before Congress’s deadline for extending federal spending, it is threatening to complicate already contentious negotiations aimed at heading off a government shutdown on Oct. 1.Republicans have sought to pin blame on Democrats and their anti-Trump statements for the actions of Ryan W. Routh, 58, who was arrested on Sunday after hiding in the bushes with an assault rifle at Mr. Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Fla., in an apparent attempt to target the former president. They have accused the administration of providing better protection for President Biden than for Mr. Trump and plan to vote on Friday on a bill that would ensure that Mr. Trump is protected at the same level as the president — something the Secret Service says is already happening.Democrats, who routinely note that Mr. Trump has long trafficked in the kind of bellicose language that can fuel political violence, have said they are all for beefing up protections for him and fixing what is broken with the Secret Service.They have even offered to increase funding for the embattled agency, including potentially through a stopgap spending bill they are negotiating to avert a government shutdown. In doing so, Democrats are effectively daring Republicans — who are bent on slashing spending, not increasing it — to be the ones to object to paying for increased protection for Mr. Trump.“If the Secret Service is in need of more resources, we are prepared to provide it for them, possibly in the upcoming funding agreement,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on the floor this week.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Back in theaters for its 10th anniversary, the haunting movie never really left, with a legacy that includes an entire horror subgenre.Before I even saw “The Babadook” I was scared of the Babadook. He quickly became such an icon of horror that the idea was immediately unsettling.Invented by the Australian director Jennifer Kent for her 2014 film, Mister Babadook is a creature from a children’s pop-up book that suddenly appears in the home of Amelia (Essie Davis) and her son, Samuel (Noah Wiseman). The brute is crudely drawn, with a top hat, long spindly fingers and teeth that form a grimace. “If it’s in a word or in a look, you can’t get rid of the Babadook,” the foreboding red hardcover reads.Despite his silly name and somewhat dapper attire, the Babadook is the stuff of nightmares, inexplicable but threatening. And as you watch Kent’s film, the terror only intensifies. You never actually see the corporeal form of the Babadook, but he infiltrates Amelia, an exhausted mother grieving after her husband was killed while driving her to the hospital to give birth to Samuel. He has grown into an erratic little boy who believes monsters are lurking in their house and has behavioral issues in school. When the Babadook book suddenly appears out of nowhere, his fears seem justified. Amelia, however, tries to pretend everything is normal.She has buried her pain, allowing it to fester into a bloodthirsty animosity toward her own spawn. The Babadook latches on to what’s been growing inside of her.When the film was originally released, it grossed just a little over $960,000 domestically (and a little over $10 million worldwide). Yet like the Babadook himself, the film has cast a long shadow that grows only more encompassing as it celebrates its 10th anniversary with a rerelease starting Thursday.The character became an internet phenomenon, even making an appearance in the Urban Dictionary. One popular post from 2016 featured the comedy writer Katie Dippold announcing that for Halloween she had “dressed as the Babadook but my friend’s house had more of a grown-ups drinking wine vibe,” complete with a photo of herself out of place in full Babadook drag. Somehow the creature also turned into a gay icon. (Well, he is quite fabulous.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More