Elections

A change in Microsoft Word’s default typeface, from Calibri to Aptos, didn’t register for everyone, but fans of typography got excited.When you read — a book, a traffic sign, a billboard, this article — how much do you really notice the letters? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably not at all.But even if you don’t really notice them, you might sense it if something has subtly changed. That’s a feeling some people have had in recent weeks when they turn on their Microsoft Word programs.After 17 years of Calibri as Word’s default typeface, many users suddenly found themselves typing in a new typeface called Aptos. The change is also affecting the look of PowerPoint, Outlook and Excel.Letters are letters, but for designers and typography fans, they matter a lot.Why the change?“We wanted to bring something new and fresh that really was designed natively for the sort of modern era of computing,” said Jon Friedman, the company’s corporate vice president for design and research, who led the effort.(Technically Aptos and Calibri are typefaces, while a “font” refers to a particular face or size, like italics or boldface. But in practice, “font” is often used as a synonym for “typeface,” including by Microsoft employees interviewed for this article.)The big divide in the world of typeface is between serif, or letters with small lines or tails attached to their edges, and sans serif, letters without those lines that have a smoother look.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

Canceling is simple. The tough part is remembering to do it.The dream of streaming — watch what you want, whenever you want, for a sliver of the price of cable! — is coming to an end.With all the price increases for video streaming apps like Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and Hulu, the average household that subscribes to four streaming apps may now end up paying just as much as a cable subscriber, according to research by Deloitte.To name a few of the price jumps for streaming video (without ads) in just over the past year: Amazon’s ad-free Prime Video is now $12 a month, up from $9; Netflix raised the price of its premium plan for watching content on four devices to $23 a month, from $20; Disney increased the price of its Hulu service to $18 a month, from $15; and HBO’s Max now costs $16 a month, up from $15.If, like many people, you subscribe to all those services, you are paying about $70 a month, roughly the same as a modest cable TV package.More changes on the horizon will have people paying more for streaming. Disney announced this month that it would crack down on password sharing for Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+. Netflix told shareholders last month to expect more price increases.Streaming services still offer more flexibility and potential to save than a cable bundle. If that’s what drew you to streaming, the solution may seem obvious: You could be more judicious about managing your subscriptions — by canceling Netflix as soon as you’re done bingeing “Love Is Blind,” for instance.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

Put off by pitying displays of concern for her son’s paralysis, a reader wonders how to handle a well-meaning friend whose support misses the mark.Our son was partly paralyzed in a sporting accident as a teenager. Now, years later, he lives a full life — with friends, a job, sports and lots of fun. Still, when we socialize with a certain friend, our son’s disability is her main concern: We get sad eyes, soft touches and pronouncements about how brave we are. I know she means to be supportive, but it makes me uncomfortable. When I respond that his paralysis is not as problematic as she thinks, she goes on and on about how inspirational he is. Sometimes, it casts a pall over the room. Obviously, I am not uncaring about my son’s situation, but he is more than his legs. How should I handle this?MOTHERI think there may be two issues here: Your friend’s well-intentioned compassion — which you kindly acknowledge — seems to have tipped into pity. That would make many of us bristle. Pity carries a whiff of superiority. And I second your objection to your friend’s (implicit) judgment that your son is somehow inferior because he’s paralyzed. He seems to be living a full and happy life!Now, we can manage this first issue pretty easily. But the challenge comes — in my experience — because your friend may be frightened by your son’s disability: She brings it up endlessly because she can’t imagine how she would cope in your position. The prospect may unnerve her.So I would be direct but gentle with her. When you have some time alone with her, say: “You seem so focused on my son’s disability. We’ve all had years to process his accident. And look at what a fulfilling life he leads. You may want to consider why his disability strikes such a deep chord in you.” As you aptly put it, we are all more than our challenges.Miguel PorlanTable-Side Chat, or Tip-Gouging Enterprise?In restaurants recently, several waiters have delivered meals to our table and then proceeded to talk to us the whole time we were eating. In retrospect, I realize they shared — in great detail — their hard-luck stories. I wonder if they do this in hopes of getting bigger tips. I know times are tough, and I want to be sympathetic. But restaurant meals are treats, and we’d like to be left alone to enjoy them. Any advice? We don’t want to be rude.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

Polls close at 8 p.m. local time. Most of the state observes Eastern time, but in the handful of counties that use Central time, polls close at 9 p.m. Eastern. In the 2020 primaries, the first votes were reported soon after polls closed, and nearly all votes were reported by 4 a.m. Eastern. All Michigan […] More

Source: Election results and race calls are from The Associated Press. The Times publishes its own estimates for each candidate’s share of the final vote and the number of remaining votes, based on historic turnout data and reporting from results providers. These are only estimates, and they may not be informed by reports from election officials.Produced by Michael Andre, Camille Baker, Neil Berg, Michael Beswetherick, Matthew Bloch, Irineo Cabreros, Nate Cohn, Alastair Coote, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Leo Dominguez, Andrew Fischer, Martín González Gómez, Will Houp, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Jasmine C. Lee, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Alicia Parlapiano, Elena Shao, Charlie Smart, Isaac White and Christine Zhang. Reporting by Felice Belman.
Editing by Wilson Andrews, Lindsey Rogers Cook, William P. Davis, Amy Hughes, Ben Koski and Allison McCartney. More

In his New York Times debut, Greg Snitkin has finally made it.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesWEDNESDAY PUZZLE — Today, Feb. 28, would normally be the end of the month. But since 2024 is a leap year, we have the luxury — or the misfortune, depending on your opinions about February — of one extra day before March hits. What are we going to do with ourselves?Since you don’t have to worry about the first of the month just yet, kick your feet up and try your hand at solving today’s crossword, constructed by Greg Snitkin in his New York Times debut. Unlike the month in which we currently find ourselves, it requires no great leaps to understand.Today’s ThemeThe thing that ties today’s themed entries together might be described, per the revealer at 53-Across, as “The main takeaway.” But what could that takeaway — which also must be “considered in three different senses” — be?Our big hint, I think, comes at 33-Across. “Someone terrorizing kids in a 1986 Stephen King novel” is somewhat generically described as a SCARY CLOWN, but most of us know this monster as “It” (or as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, but that name hardly fits into a standard grid). Once we learn about the HOKEY POKEY (41A) — the “Participation dance in which you ‘turn yourself around’” — we can deduce the revealer and its meaning. That’s WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT (53A), indeed.These are lyrics from the HOKEY POKEY, but can also be applied to 33-Across — SCARY CLOWN summarizes the plot of Stephen King’s “It.” And above that, COMPUTER SYSTEMS (20A) are what I.T., short for information technology, is all about.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

A lower court had mostly blocked enforcement of a state law that banned gender-transition care for minors, but a federal appellate court lifted that injunction on Tuesday.Indiana’s ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors can go into effect, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday, undoing a lower court decision last year that had largely blocked the law.The three-paragraph ruling by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago, said it was staying a preliminary injunction that the district court had issued in June, just before the law was scheduled to take effect last summer.The appellate judges did not explain their reasoning but simply said that a full opinion on the case would be issued in the future.The decision further unsettles the national legal landscape around transgender care for minors, with bans blocked in some states but not others, and it could lead to abrupt changes in treatment for young people in Indiana.“This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors and their families,” the American Civil Liberties Union and the A.C.L.U. of Indiana, which brought the lawsuit challenging the ban, said in a statement. “As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Indiana to know this fight is far from over,” the statement added.The Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, whose office defended the law in court, said on social media that “we are proud to win this fight.”“Our common-sense state law, banning dangerous and irreversible gender-transition procedures for minors, is now enforceable,” said Mr. Rokita, a Republican. Republican-led states have raced to ban gender-transition care for minors in recent years, leading to a series of lawsuits in federal and state courts that so far have had mixed results. Many legal experts on both sides of the issue expect the legality of the bans to ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.The Indiana ban passed the Republican-controlled legislature last spring by large margins and was signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican. Supporters of the law claimed they were seeking to protect young people from making life-altering decisions that they might later regret.Families of transgender children sued to block the law, saying that it would put transgender youths at immediate risk of unwanted changes to their bodies, which would have lifelong consequences.A federal district judge, James Patrick Hanlon, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, temporarily blocked portions of the law banning hormone treatments and puberty blockers for minors while the lawsuit proceeded. He allowed a ban on gender-transition surgeries for minors to take effect as scheduled.But after hearing arguments this month, a three-judge panel from the Seventh Circuit, made up of two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one appointed by a Democratic president, lifted Judge Hanlon’s injunction. More

Itamar Moses’s play offers eloquent arguments on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it doesn’t offer much drama.As this is a trial, let’s start with the facts. Asaf Sternheim, who teaches writing at a university a lot like Penn, is asked by a former student, Baron Prince, to endorse a manifesto. The manifesto seeks justice for Baron’s cousin, Deronte, who was killed by police officers while being stopped for a theft he had nothing to do with.Also pertinent: Asaf (Josh Radnor) is a Jew, albeit the kind that subscribes, as he says, to the “acoustic-guitar-based variety” of Judaism. Baron (Elijah Jones) is Black, as was Deronte.And one more thing: The 20-page manifesto, tying violence against Black Americans to violence against all subjugated populations, calls for “sanctions on the apartheid state of Israel,” adding that “failure to do so will leave the United States complicit in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.”You could feel the “uh-oh” in the audience the night I saw “The Ally,” an important, maddening play by Itamar Moses that opened on Tuesday at the Public Theater.Words like “apartheid” and “genocide,” when applied to Israel and Palestinians, are sure to rile lots of people. But challenging the use of those words will equally rile others. Smack in the middle is Asaf, whom the play proceeds to put through a tribal-political wringer that leaves him — and left me — a limp dishrag.Whether you think that’s a good thing for a play to do may depend on your tolerance for endless, furious, yet familiar debate. There’s no question that Moses, whose biography as the Berkeley-raised son of Israeli immigrants is a close match for Asaf’s, knows the territory and its every skirmish intimately. It often seems that the arguments, on all sides, have been transcribed from personal experience or the news.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