United States

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘No Smoking’ Sign on Planes Won’t Need Off Switch After FAA Rule Change

      by

      The Federal Aviation Administration did away with a rule that had required an off switch for the sign even though smoking on U.S. flights ended years ago.The days of airplane cabins hazy with cigarette smoke are long gone, but a reminder of that era is still visible inside commercial jets.Smoking has been banned on commercial flights in the United States for decades, but the Federal Aviation Administration is only just updating an outdated rule to reflect that reality. Starting on Tuesday, the illuminated overhead “No Smoking” sign no longer requires an off switch.That obsolete requirement had become “time-consuming and burdensome” for airlines and airplane manufacturers to comply with, the F.A.A. said in a rule enacting the change. In February, for example, United Airlines was briefly unable to use a handful of new Airbus planes because the “No Smoking” signs on board couldn’t be shut off, causing the airline to delay a few flights. The issue was resolved after the F.A.A. granted United an exemption.Dozens of such exemptions have allowed that requirement to live on while the agency focused on more pressing matters. But the long life of the mandate also reflects how entangled smoking once was with commercial flights, which began in the 1910s.“The rise of aviation literally parallels the rise of the cigarette,” said Alan Blum, the director of the University of Alabama’s Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society.Pipes, cigars and chewing tobacco were once more popular than cigarettes, but that began to change in the early 20th century, according to Dr. Blum. During World War I, cigarettes were added to rations for American soldiers fighting abroad.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

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency

      by

      Throughout American history, business leaders have been able to assume that an American president of either party would uphold the rule of law, defend property rights and respect the independence of the courts. Implicit in that assumption is a fundamental belief that the country’s ethos meant their enterprises and the U.S. economy could thrive, no matter who won. They could keep their distance from the rough-and-tumble of campaign politics. No matter who won, they could pursue long-term plans and investments with confidence in America’s political stability.In this election, American business leaders cannot afford to stand passive and silent.Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, have sketched out versions of their parties’ traditional positions on issues like taxation, trade and regulation that are well within the give-and-take of politics. In this election, however, stability itself is also at stake.Mr. Trump denies the legitimacy of elections, defies constitutional limits on presidential power and boasts of plans to punish his enemies. And in these attacks on America’s democracy, he is also attacking the foundations of American prosperity. Voting on narrow policy concerns would reflect a catastrophically nearsighted view of the interests of American business.Some prominent corporate leaders — including Elon Musk, a founder of Tesla; the investors David Sacks and Bill Ackman; and the financier Stephen Schwarzman — have been supportive of Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Beyond pure cynicism, it’s nearly impossible to understand why.Business leaders, of course, may be skeptical of Ms. Harris’s policies, uneasy because they don’t feel they know enough about how she would govern or worried that she may not be open to hearing their concerns — a frequent criticism of the Biden administration. They may be reluctant to offend or alienate employees, customers or suppliers who have different political views. Most of all, they may be afraid of angering Mr. Trump, who has a long track record of using the levers of power to reward loyalty.They should be more afraid of the consequences if he prevails.This week Donald Trump provided a stark reminder that this election is different. In remarks that ought to alarm any American committed to the survival of our democratic experiment, the Republican nominee again refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election. That comes on the heels of remarks in which he declared that he regards his political opponents as an “enemy from within” and that he would consider deploying the military against them merely for opposing his bid for the presidency. The implication is that participation in the democratic process is treason, and the threat is a fresh indication that if he is elected to a second term, Mr. Trump intends to deploy government power in new and dangerous ways.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

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Tesla Self-Driving System Will Be Investigated by Safety Agency

      by

      The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said it was looking into what Elon Musk’s electric car company called the full self-driving system.Tesla’s plan to build fleets of self-driving cars suffered a setback on Friday when the main federal auto safety regulator said it was investigating whether the technology was to blame for four collisions, including one that killed a pedestrian.The regulator, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, said it was examining whether the software, which Tesla calls supervised full self-driving, had safeguards in place to require drivers to retake control of their cars in situations the autonomous technology could not handle on its own.As sales of Tesla’s electric cars have slowed, Elon Musk, the company’s chief executive, has staked the company’s future on software that allows cars to navigate, steer and brake without human supervision. Last week, the company held an event at the Warner Bros. studios near Los Angeles to unveil what it called a cybercab, which Mr. Musk promised would be able to ferry passengers without a human driver.But such software has faced persistent criticism from regulators and safety experts who say it does not do enough to make sure drivers remain alert and ready to take over if the system makes a mistake. Tesla faces numerous lawsuits from people who blame the software for injuries or deaths of loved ones.Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.The crashes highlighted by the safety agency on Friday took place when road visibility may have been limited by glare from the sun, fog or dust, the federal safety agency said. Tesla’s self-driving software depends on cameras to operate, unlike other manufacturers who also use radar or laser technology that are often better at detecting objects and people when the view is obscured by poor weather or bright sunshine.The agency said it would “examine the system’s potential failure to detect and disengage in specific situations where it cannot adequately operate.”In one of the collisions, a pedestrian died. In another, a person was injured, the agency said.The investigation covers 2.4 million Tesla vehicles, including cars manufactured as far back as 2016. All of Tesla’s passenger models are involved, the agency said, including the Model 3 and Model S sedans, the Model X and Model Y sport utility vehicles, and the Cybertruck.Federal officials have also been investigating a less capable Tesla system known as Autopilot for several years. These investigations may not survive if former President Donald J. Trump is elected next month. Mr. Trump has said he will appoint Mr. Musk, one of his most prominent supporters in the business world, to lead a “government efficiency commission.” More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      En caso de crisis electoral, esto es lo que debes saber

      by

      En 2020, cuando Donald Trump cuestionó los resultados de las elecciones, los tribunales rechazaron decisivamente sus intentos una y otra vez. En 2024, el poder judicial podría ser incapaz de salvar nuestra democracia.Los renegados ya no son principiantes. Han pasado los últimos cuatro años haciéndose profesionales, diseñando meticulosamente una estrategia en múltiples frentes —legislaturas estatales, el Congreso, poderes ejecutivos y jueces electos— para anular cualquier elección reñida.Los nuevos desafíos tendrán lugar en foros que han purgado cada vez más a los funcionarios que anteponen el país al partido. Podrían ocurrir en un contexto de márgenes electorales muy estrechos en los estados clave de tendencia electoral incierta, lo que significa que cualquier impugnación exitosa podría cambiar potencialmente las elecciones.Disponemos de unas pocas semanas para comprender estos desafíos y así poder estar alerta contra ellos.En primer lugar, en los tribunales ya se han presentado docenas de demandas. En Pensilvania se ha iniciado un litigio sobre si están permitidas las papeletas de voto por correo sin fecha y si se pueden permitir las boletas provisionales. Stephen Miller, exasesor de Trump, presentó una demanda en Arizona alegando que los jueces deberían tener la capacidad de rechazar los resultados de las elecciones.Muchos estados han cambiado recientemente su forma de votar. Incluso una modificación menor podría dar lugar a impugnaciones legales, y algunas invitan afirmativamente al caos.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

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Walgreens Says It Will Close 1,200 Stores

      by

      The pharmacy giant said it would close the stores over the next three years and plans to “redeploy” the majority of the workers at the closed stores.Walgreens plans to close about 1,200 stores over the next three years, its parent company said on Tuesday, in an effort by the struggling pharmacy giant to cut costs and change focus.The chain, which is owned by Walgreens Boots Alliance, announced the closures in its latest quarterly earnings report, released on Tuesday.The closures will allow Walgreens to “respond more dynamically to shifts in consumer behavior and buying preferences,” Tim Wentworth, the chief executive of Walgreens Boots Alliance, told investors during an earnings call on Tuesday.There are more than 8,000 Walgreens stores in the United States, Mr. Wentworth said, and about 6,000 of those stores were profitable.“While the decision to close the store is never an easy one, we feel confident in our ability to continue to serve our customers,” Mr. Wentworth said, “and we intend to follow our historic practice to redeploy the majority of the work force in those stores that we closed.”About 500 of the closures will take place in the current fiscal year, which runs through September 2025, but the company did not say where they would occur.The company reported an operating loss of nearly $1 billion in the three months through August, roughly twice as much as the loss in the same period last year. Its stock price jumped more than 10 percent in early trading on Tuesday, as the results were slightly better than analysts had expected.Walgreens said in June that it would most likely close a significant amount of stores as part of a plan to turn around its business in the United States. At the time, Walgreens said spending by lower-income consumers in particular was lagging, driven by high inflation and depleted savings. The closures announced on Tuesday include 300 stores that had previously been approved to shut under that plan.Mr. Wentworth said that the company was also making changes to how it stocks its stores, by being “more selective” with the brands it carries, as well as expanding its own brands. This, he said, would enable the company to be “a destination for categories for which we believe we are uniquely positioned to lead, like health and wellness and, specifically, women’s health.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

      by

      As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek to develop legal arguments that determine which votes count, and therefore who emerges as the winner.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

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      California Rejects Bid for More Frequent SpaceX Launches

      by

      A commission denied a request to increase the number of rocket launches on the state’s central coast, citing environmental concerns.A California state commission this week rejected the U.S. Space Force’s bid to increase the number of SpaceX rocket launches on the state’s central coast, citing concerns about the environmental impacts of the launches.The Space Force had sought to increase the number of launches of SpaceX’s flagship Falcon 9 rocket from 36 to 50 per year out of California. But on Thursday, the California Coastal Commission denied the bid in a 6-4 vote, pointing to its previous requests for the military and SpaceX to mitigate the disruptive sonic booms caused by the rockets and to keep a closer eye on the operations’ effects on the state’s wildlife.The commission also rejected the military and SpaceX’s argument that the launches should be considered a federal activity, saying they mostly benefit SpaceX and its private business operations, as opposed to the government.The move came just a couple of months after the commission had approved increasing the number of SpaceX launches to 36, contingent on the military’s commitment to adopting such measures. The board, which is tasked with protecting the state’s coastal resources, previously expressed its reservation for approving more launches without understanding the effects of the sonic booms and launch debris on wildlife.SpaceX, which is owned by Elon Musk, has grown to dominate the space launch business, serving as the primary provider to both NASA and the Pentagon. It has blasted its own commercial satellites into space out of bases across the country at a rapid clip, and it is set to test its new Starship rocket on Sunday in Texas. In California, SpaceX carries out many of its missions at the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.But the sonic booms have been startling residents in Southern California, whose homes have been shaken by powerful, confusing jolts, The Los Angeles Times reported. And several environmental groups submitted letters urging the commission to take more time to study the impact on wildlife ahead of this week’s meeting.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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Stranded Mariner Seemingly Floated in the Gulf for Hours After the Hurricane

      by

      The U.S. Coast Guard on Thursday rescued a man who had seemingly done the impossible: he survived for hours in the Gulf of Mexico with nothing but a life jacket and a cooler to cling to.The agency posted a video of a Coast Guard crew member dropping from a helicopter about 30 miles off Longboat Key to grab the man from choppy seas and lift him to safety.The man, the captain of a fishing vessel, had lost contact with the Coast Guard around 7 p.m. on Wednesday as the storm worsened. He wasn’t found until 1:30 p.m. on Thursday.He managed to stay alive despite winds as fast as 90 miles per hour and waves as high as 20 to 25 feet through the night, said Lt. Cmdr. Dana Grady, the St. Petersburg command center chief of the U.S. Coast Guard.“This man survived in a nightmare scenario for even the most experienced mariner,” he said in a statement. The rescued captain, who was not identified, was taken to Tampa General Hospital to receive medical care. More