Australian PM confirms secret Rwandan guerilla deal

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison | Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images

POLITICO’s revelations have sparked condemnation from across the political spectrum.

SYDNEY — The Australian prime minister confirmed his country resettled two Rwandans accused of murdering tourists two decades ago in a secret deal revealed by POLITICO Thursday.

“They’re in Australia,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the “7.30” TV news program on Australian broadcaster ABC Thursday evening, just two days before the country’s general election on Saturday. He added: “They were cleared of those particular matters, in terms of Australia’s assessment of those particular matters.”

POLITICO reported that in a deal struck in 2016 by Australia and the U.S. under former national leaders Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama, Washington publicly agreed to take in up to 1,250 refugees, predominantly from Iran, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, who were being held in Australian-run offshore island camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The deal was done after Australia agreed to resettle Central American refugees from camps in Costa Rica.

But in a secret arrangement, Australia also agreed to take in at least two of three Rwandans who were brought to the U.S. to face trial — and potentially the federal death penalty — on charges of involvement in the brutal murder of eight tourists, including two Americans and two New Zealanders, who were on a gorilla-watching visit to the Ugandan rainforest in 1999.

The three Rwandans, who were members of Hutu rebel group Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR), confessed to the murders, but the American case fell apart after a judge ruled the men were tortured in their home country.

On Thursday, Morrison said in a statement to broadcaster ABC: “I can confirm that the two individuals were subjected to strict security and character checks by our security agencies. That included checks relating to national security, criminality, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“That resulted in an assessment that they did not represent a risk to security and they were cleared.”

The revelations sparked condemnation from across the political spectrum.

The opposition Labor Party’s Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said he wants the government to “thoroughly” explain the deal and promised his party would demand an urgent briefing if it’s elected Saturday, according to the ABC.

Greens leader Richard Di Natale also condemned the deal on the ABC’s Radio National “Drive” program, citing his party’s opposition to offshore processing under any circumstances.

“If we had done what was our moral and legal obligation and that was to treat people with some decency, to process them here, to close the inhumane, unjust brutal regime that is offshore detention, then we wouldn’t be facing this right now,” Di Natale said.

Pauline Hanson, leader of Australia’s far-right, anti-immigration One Nation party, posted a video statement on Twitter demanding answers.

“I’m really angry with what I’ve just heard: that Australia took two detainees from America, Rwandans, who were involved in the murder of eight tourists in Rwanda,” Hanson said.

“We weren’t told about this, how much other information have we not been told about? This is important, we as Australians know the type of people we are allowing into this country,” she added.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2Qa5VlY
via IFTTT

‘Game of Thrones’ fan theory culture is bad for the future of TV

One Game of Thrones fan theory says Bran Stark is the Night King. Another says Drogon flew off to Valyria and laid enough eggs to burn all of Westeros. Theories have made Tyrion Lannister a secret Targaryen, Talisa Stark a Lannister plant, and Syrio Forel the most indestructible fencing coach in the universe.

Everyone has a Game of Thrones fan theory, but what’s going to happen when Thrones is over and all of that analytical energy has nowhere else to go? 

Thrones is far from the first piece of media to generate a massive fan theory culture — Lost thrived on torturing its audience with cryptic clues and red herrings, and people wrote actual books on what would happen next in the Harry Potter series. Thrones does, however, have the distinction of legitimizing fan theories as a crucial and expected part of each episode’s aftermath. 

While some people watch Game of Thrones and take the plot at face value, the effort to predict the show’s next big twist have become a cottage industry unto itself. During and after each episode, Twitter and Reddit light up with posts from superfans who claim to hold the key to the endgame based on line readings and newly revealed information, and online outlets (including Mashable) publish exhaustive analyses that not only sum up what just happened on Game of Thrones, but what might happen next. 

SEE ALSO: Here’s where everyone stands going into the ‘Game of Thrones’ finale

Fueling Thrones’ fan theory culture is the fact that many of its most popular theories turned out to be right. Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, Cersei did blow up the Sept of Baelor, Daenerys did become the Mad Queen, and Cleganebowl did actually happen. With these, the basic rush of enjoying a television show joined forces with the more personal rush of being proven right — which further fueled fan desire to watch closer, read harder, and predict the show’s events ever more accurately. 

On the other side of that coin is what happens when Thrones debunks or veers away from fan predictions, as has happened more often in its closing seasons. In these cases, disappointment with the show’s choices becomes entwined with the humiliation of being proved wrong — a perfect recipe for fan fury. Fan theorists are loud and extremely online, and their discourse can often color what the “public” reaction to any given twist looks like. Viewership and numbers don’t lie, but a cacophonous minority of mad folks is not ideal for studios and showrunners alike. 

Even shows as massive as Game of Thrones have something to fear from disappointing fan theorists. After its final episode airs, its current popularity will inevitably transform into legacy, which is entirely determined by its fans. 

When the Lost finale failed to live up to expectations, its airwave domination faded into a punchline, as some fans felt like the show’s entire run was a waste of time. Similarly, the Marvel Cinematic Universe recently ended its Infinity Saga with Avengers: Endgame, preserving the first 22 films in the franchise as an artifact that will either be remembered fondly by those who loved Endgame or trashed as worthless by those who felt the story’s conclusion wasn’t worth the effort. 

It’s hard enough to write a television show that doesn’t have thousands of fans tearing through its script to find a nugget of viable prediction. 

Regardless of how the finale of Game of Thrones turns out, the exhaustive theory culture it created will remain. That culture transformed passive watchers of television into a veritable army that wields textual analysis and imagination like weapons of war, and that army won’t go away after the credits roll. The Thrones audience cut their teeth on a complex, fascinating story packed with foreshadowing and false hints, and they’ve gotten almost too good at figuring their way around the future. 

SEE ALSO: Cleganebowl was the most satisfying moment in the final ‘Game of Thrones’ season

Even if the finale of Game of Thrones is somehow enough to satisfy the majority of fan theorists and its legacy is one of a show that stuck the landing in increasingly turbulent conditions, the larger issue still remains. 

Thrones trained a generation of smart, engaged audience members to expect more from their television entertainment. The kinds of people who come up with and popularize the best fan theories are the same people who drive and generate “the discourse,” and with Thrones gone, they’re going to be hungry for something new.

Any TV creator trying to court this desirable fan demographic in a post-Thrones world will have to take into account the fact that their target audience is primed to overthink (and occasionally outthink) any plot twist a showrunner can throw at them. Merely telling an interesting story won’t be enough to satisfy the prophets, who will want something better on which to stake their theories. It’s hard enough to write a television show that doesn’t have thousands of fans tearing through its script to find a nugget of viable prediction.

When Thrones goes, that audience will search for something else to examine and predict, and no one should envy the next showrunner charged with satisfying them. Good luck to whoever it is. They’ll need it.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2W9oT1j
via IFTTT

UN chief Guterres concerned nuclear ‘coffin’ leaking in Pacific

The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has raised concerns that a concrete dome built last century to contain waste from atomic bomb tests is leaking radioactive material into the Pacific.

Speaking to students in Fiji on Thursday, Guterres described the structure on Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands as “a kind of coffin” and said it was a legacy of Cold War-era nuclear tests in the Pacific.

“The Pacific was victimised in the past as we all know,” said Guterres, referring to nuclear explosions carried out by the United States and France in the region.

In the Marshalls, numerous islanders were forcibly evacuated from ancestral lands and resettled, while thousands more were exposed to radioactive fallout.

The island nation was ground zero for 67 American nuclear weapons tests from 1946 to 1958 at Bikini and Enewetak atolls, when it was under US administration.

The tests included the 1954 “Bravo” hydrogen bomb, the most powerful detonated by the US, about 1,000 times bigger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Guterres, who is touring the South Pacific to raise awareness of climate change issues, said Pacific islanders still needed help to deal with the fallout of the nuclear testing.

“The consequences of these have been quite dramatic, in relation to health, in relation to the poisoning of waters in some areas,” he said.

“I’ve just been with the president of the Marshall Islands [Hilda Heine], who is very worried because there is a risk of leaking of radioactive materials that are contained in a kind of coffin in the area.”

The “coffin” is a concrete dome, built in the late 1970s on Runit Island, part of Enewetak Atoll, as a dumping ground for waste from the nuclear tests.

Radioactive soil and ash from the explosions were tipped in a crater and capped with a concrete dome 45cm thick.

However, it was only envisaged as a temporary fix and the bottom of the crater was never lined, leading to fears the waste is leaching into the Pacific.

Cracks have also developed in the concrete after decades of exposure and there are concerns it could break apart if hit by a tropical cyclone.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2LOtVfL
via IFTTT

Trump’s Trade War Is Making Mexico Great


Donald Trump

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

wealth of nations

If high tariffs persuade manufacturers to leave China, they won’t move to the United States. There’s a much cheaper option next door.

When President Donald Trump made good on his promise to be “Tariff Man” this week, he sent economists into a lather, launched the stock markets on a wild and largely downward ride, and thrilled parts of his political base, who saw a president finally willing to use his bluntest policy weapon against America’s biggest economic rival. Trump claims that imposing as much as $60 billion in new taxes on Chinese goods will hurt China more than American consumers. Both are quite likely to be hurt, at least in the short run. But the tariffs have an unexpected beneficiary as well, one that Trump is surely less excited to talk about. In an ironic twist, Trump’s tariffs might make Mexico great again.

The easy, and wrongheaded, pro-tariff argument made by Trump and his fellow China hawks is that when he slaps a tax on goods from China, it will make it less attractive for companies to manufacture there and less appealing for American consumers to buy goods made in China. That will then create an incentive to make more in the United States. So, America wins, right?

Story Continued Below

But the reality is that America and China are both going to lose, and they aren’t haggling in a vacuum. There are dozens of players ready to swoop in to take advantage when two titans start wounding each other.

The entire network of production, with China as an assembly hub for parts sourced globally which are then put together in mainland China and shipped to the United States, has been the product of more than 20 years and trillions of dollars in investment. Changing that isn’t going to happen quickly. Companies can’t just snap their fingers and rejigger their supply chains overnight. The cost of abandoning it is many multiples greater than the amount of the tariffs, no matter who pays them.

Still, China is no longer the low-cost producer globally, even if its infrastructure and expertise in multiple areas of manufacturing are second to none. Just as years of volatile oil prices and vulnerability to the erratic politics of oil led many companies to invest in domestic substitutes like fracking, the uncertainty surrounding American tariffs is forcing manufacturers to rethink their supply chains. Companies are reconsidering China as a primary place to manufacture.

But that has not, however, led those companies to bring factories and manufacturing jobs to the United States. Instead, they’re looking elsewhere for low-cost efficient hubs, to places like Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and, of all places given Trump’s rhetoric, Mexico.

If Trump’s trade war against China does finally disrupt the U.S.-China economic fusion, the main beneficiary will not be American manufacturers. Instead, the winners will be other countries, including one very prominent country that borders the U.S. and that Trump has denounced for its unfair trade deals with the United States under NAFTA. Already, Hasbro and GoPro have shifted production from China to Mexico, along with hundreds of other companies totaling tens of billions of dollars. Other countries that are seeing new investment include Indonesia and Egypt.

Mexico in particular stands to gain because it is easier and cheaper for U.S. companies to relocate manufacturing there than to build new factories elsewhere for the kind of goods now produced in China. Mexico has the infrastructure from years of NAFTA, as well as ease of transport to and from the United States. That isn’t necessarily bad for the United States, but then again, it wasn’t necessarily bad that manufacturing that was no longer economically feasible in the United States went to Japan and Taiwan in the 1970s and 1980s, and then to China in the late 1990s and into the 2000s. And it certainly isn’t what the political proponents of tariffs, both Democrat and Republican, promise will happen.

Faced with such facts, Trump may well be inclined to impose tariffs on everyone, everywhere in the hopes that enough economic walls will force a complete rejiggering of the global economic system and lead to a return of a 1950s halcyon moment when, after the global destruction caused by World War II, U.S. manufacturing accounted for nearly half of all world production. To accomplish even a fraction of that, the U.S. would have to impose tariffs far higher than 25 percent. Tariffs would have to be so high that companies simply could not manage the costs of producing abroad. Only then would it be economically sensible to produce lower-cost goods domestically—at much higher cost than most other countries.

Trump the Tariff Man would need tariffs of more like 100 percent to make that attractive to companies. He probably would support that. Of course, tariffs in excess of 100 percent would wreak havoc on our economy, and would then require, oh, many trillions of dollars of domestic spending to stave off the decimation, help companies build new supply chains and provide a cushion for citizens facing a doubling of the cost of living. One could, in theory, craft a rational argument for just that, for a government-triggered economic revolution, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone making that case, and very few would ever support it.

Contrary to popular perception, the United States is still a manufacturing behemoth, but it tends to make higher-end goods like automobiles, medical devices, industrial equipment and pharmaceuticals. The U.S. accounts for 18 percent of global manufacturing output, China 20 percent. But because of robotics and automation, U.S. manufacturing requires far fewer workers. And of course, the U.S. also exports a considerable portion of what it makes, and that exporting is also imperiled by a trade war. Tariffs might increase inflation in the United States by making goods more expensive, but even with some onshoring of manufacturing, they aren’t likely to raise either wages or jobs. A factory that employs 150 people and 50 robots will not bring Toledo back.

The best-case scenario is that tariffs will lead companies to alter their supply chains in ways that aren’t overly painful for companies and consumers. But they also will not return or recreate the manufacturing economy of yore, which in any event has already been replaced in the United States by a vibrant, high-end, lucrative manufacturing of today that does many things but does not create large numbers of jobs. China is already focusing more of its manufacturing energies on supplying its own 1.5 billion people and not exporting to the world, regardless of tariffs. It will feel a sting, but its domestic economy has now reached something a break-away point, tariffs or not, deal with the United States or no deal.

This trade war, therefore, is likely to be no more effective than the phony one President Trump waged before he got serious about tariffs. It seems likely that this skirmish will end with both sides declaring some sort of victory. It seems even likelier that those declarations will be hollow, and that the ones cheering will be doing so quietly, south of China’s borders and south of ours.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2W9oRqd
via IFTTT

Trump’s Trade War Is Making Mexico Great


Donald Trump

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

wealth of nations

If high tariffs persuade manufacturers to leave China, they won’t move to the United States. There’s a much cheaper option next door.

When President Donald Trump made good on his promise to be “Tariff Man” this week, he sent economists into a lather, launched the stock markets on a wild and largely downward ride, and thrilled parts of his political base, who saw a president finally willing to use his bluntest policy weapon against America’s biggest economic rival. Trump claims that imposing as much as $60 billion in new taxes on Chinese goods will hurt China more than American consumers. Both are quite likely to be hurt, at least in the short run. But the tariffs have an unexpected beneficiary as well, one that Trump is surely less excited to talk about. In an ironic twist, Trump’s tariffs might make Mexico great again.

The easy, and wrongheaded, pro-tariff argument made by Trump and his fellow China hawks is that when he slaps a tax on goods from China, it will make it less attractive for companies to manufacture there and less appealing for American consumers to buy goods made in China. That will then create an incentive to make more in the United States. So, America wins, right?

Story Continued Below

But the reality is that America and China are both going to lose, and they aren’t haggling in a vacuum. There are dozens of players ready to swoop in to take advantage when two titans start wounding each other.

The entire network of production, with China as an assembly hub for parts sourced globally which are then put together in mainland China and shipped to the United States, has been the product of more than 20 years and trillions of dollars in investment. Changing that isn’t going to happen quickly. Companies can’t just snap their fingers and rejigger their supply chains overnight. The cost of abandoning it is many multiples greater than the amount of the tariffs, no matter who pays them.

Still, China is no longer the low-cost producer globally, even if its infrastructure and expertise in multiple areas of manufacturing are second to none. Just as years of volatile oil prices and vulnerability to the erratic politics of oil led many companies to invest in domestic substitutes like fracking, the uncertainty surrounding American tariffs is forcing manufacturers to rethink their supply chains. Companies are reconsidering China as a primary place to manufacture.

But that has not, however, led those companies to bring factories and manufacturing jobs to the United States. Instead, they’re looking elsewhere for low-cost efficient hubs, to places like Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and, of all places given Trump’s rhetoric, Mexico.

If Trump’s trade war against China does finally disrupt the U.S.-China economic fusion, the main beneficiary will not be American manufacturers. Instead, the winners will be other countries, including one very prominent country that borders the U.S. and that Trump has denounced for its unfair trade deals with the United States under NAFTA. Already, Hasbro and GoPro have shifted production from China to Mexico, along with hundreds of other companies totaling tens of billions of dollars. Other countries that are seeing new investment include Indonesia and Egypt.

Mexico in particular stands to gain because it is easier and cheaper for U.S. companies to relocate manufacturing there than to build new factories elsewhere for the kind of goods now produced in China. Mexico has the infrastructure from years of NAFTA, as well as ease of transport to and from the United States. That isn’t necessarily bad for the United States, but then again, it wasn’t necessarily bad that manufacturing that was no longer economically feasible in the United States went to Japan and Taiwan in the 1970s and 1980s, and then to China in the late 1990s and into the 2000s. And it certainly isn’t what the political proponents of tariffs, both Democrat and Republican, promise will happen.

Faced with such facts, Trump may well be inclined to impose tariffs on everyone, everywhere in the hopes that enough economic walls will force a complete rejiggering of the global economic system and lead to a return of a 1950s halcyon moment when, after the global destruction caused by World War II, U.S. manufacturing accounted for nearly half of all world production. To accomplish even a fraction of that, the U.S. would have to impose tariffs far higher than 25 percent. Tariffs would have to be so high that companies simply could not manage the costs of producing abroad. Only then would it be economically sensible to produce lower-cost goods domestically—at much higher cost than most other countries.

Trump the Tariff Man would need tariffs of more like 100 percent to make that attractive to companies. He probably would support that. Of course, tariffs in excess of 100 percent would wreak havoc on our economy, and would then require, oh, many trillions of dollars of domestic spending to stave off the decimation, help companies build new supply chains and provide a cushion for citizens facing a doubling of the cost of living. One could, in theory, craft a rational argument for just that, for a government-triggered economic revolution, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone making that case, and very few would ever support it.

Contrary to popular perception, the United States is still a manufacturing behemoth, but it tends to make higher-end goods like automobiles, medical devices, industrial equipment and pharmaceuticals. The U.S. accounts for 18 percent of global manufacturing output, China 20 percent. But because of robotics and automation, U.S. manufacturing requires far fewer workers. And of course, the U.S. also exports a considerable portion of what it makes, and that exporting is also imperiled by a trade war. Tariffs might increase inflation in the United States by making goods more expensive, but even with some onshoring of manufacturing, they aren’t likely to raise either wages or jobs. A factory that employs 150 people and 50 robots will not bring Toledo back.

The best-case scenario is that tariffs will lead companies to alter their supply chains in ways that aren’t overly painful for companies and consumers. But they also will not return or recreate the manufacturing economy of yore, which in any event has already been replaced in the United States by a vibrant, high-end, lucrative manufacturing of today that does many things but does not create large numbers of jobs. China is already focusing more of its manufacturing energies on supplying its own 1.5 billion people and not exporting to the world, regardless of tariffs. It will feel a sting, but its domestic economy has now reached something a break-away point, tariffs or not, deal with the United States or no deal.

This trade war, therefore, is likely to be no more effective than the phony one President Trump waged before he got serious about tariffs. It seems likely that this skirmish will end with both sides declaring some sort of victory. It seems even likelier that those declarations will be hollow, and that the ones cheering will be doing so quietly, south of China’s borders and south of ours.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2VGBVE8
via IFTTT

Patton Oswalt’s new Marvel series sounds both ridiculous and awesome

By Sam Haysom

As you can tell from the interview above, Patton Oswalt is a pretty big Marvel fan.

And nowadays he’s part of the Marvel family, too. On Wednesday’s edition of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Oswalt described a new animated Disney series he’s working on based on a supervillain called MODOK (that stands for Mobile/Mechanised Organism Designed Only for Killing, in case you were wondering).

“He’s just like this weird, giant genius head,” explains Oswalt, “with of course a forehead laser, as you have.”

Frankly we can’t wait.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2Hm8Vsm
via IFTTT

The 5 best fast food mobile apps, ranked

One of the best things to come out of this current tech dystopia of staring at our phones all day long is that getting fast food is easier than ever. While it was never exactly difficult to get fast food in most of the United States, almost every major chain now has a mobile app that allows those of us with phones to get our food with as little fuss as possible.

Which apps stand above the rest? It’s a tough question to answer with any kind of authority for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, geographical distribution made it logistically impossible for me to test certain apps, no matter how good they looked. Sorry to Jack in the Box, Whataburger, and Sonic; the problem isn’t you, it’s New York City.

Second, personal taste is a big factor here. I might like fast food restaurants you don’t, and there’s nothing I can do about that. But even acknowledging individual tastes and the limits of geography, there are some indisputably great fast food mobile apps. Here are five of them.

1. Burger King

Take a bow, BK.

Take a bow, BK.

Image: Dave Rowland/Getty Images

Burger King’s mobile app is, well, the king of the fast food mobile space, as far as I’m concerned. It actually made me like Burger King’s food more after years of thinking it had gone downhill. 

That’s because when you open the app, you’re hit with a tidal wave of discounts that are as absurd in their quantity as they are in their quality. At the time of writing, the BK app’s home screen is offering 17 different deals. Do you want two bacon cheeseburgers, fries, and a drink for $4? How about two entire Whopper meals for $8.99?

It’s enough to make me wonder whether Burger King is on the verge of going out of business. The part where you put together your own custom mobile orders is totally fine, too, but there’s almost no reason to use it thanks to the ridiculous deals the app offers every day.

Great work, BK. We’re all very proud of you.

2. Taco Bell

So many choices.

So many choices.

Image: Joshua Blanchard/Getty Images for Taco Bell

I have to be honest: There isn’t a huge gap in quality between items 2 through 5 on this list. Burger King stands tall above the rest, but it’s a pretty tight race afterward.

Taco Bell grabs the second spot because I really like Taco Bell and the mobile app is a quality way to acquire it. There isn’t much in the way of huge savings, but the interface is cleanly laid out, so finding exactly what you want is a simple process.

Once you’ve made that decision, the Taco Bell app offers an impressive amount of customization for menu items. If you’ve got a highly specific Cheesy Gordita Crunch configuration, you can take your time in the app without holding up the line at the restaurant. 

The in-app discount offers might not be spectacular, but that’s cancelled out by the fact that Taco Bell is pretty cheap by nature, anyway.

3. Wendy’s

The hamburgers may be old-fashioned, but the mobile app is not.

The hamburgers may be old-fashioned, but the mobile app is not.

Image: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

There’s nothing flashy about what Wendy’s does with mobile ordering — it’s fairly standard — but it puts in the work and gets results. 

Most importantly, I think Wendy’s makes pretty good fast food. Selecting what you want, customizing it to your liking, and picking it up at the restaurant are all fairly breezy and self-explanatory.

SEE ALSO: McDonald’s wants to use machine learning to serve fast food

The deals aren’t quite as special as Burger King, but the limited selection is more than acceptable. Two spicy chicken sandwich combos for $10 is nothing to scoff at. 

4. Domino’s

Congratulations to the Pizza Tracker.

Congratulations to the Pizza Tracker.

Image: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

This one is a little bit of a lifetime achievement award, and again, personal taste could make it a controversial choice. The quality of Domino’s pizza is a divisive issue, especially in a place like New York.

But the pizza chain has offered online and mobile ordering for more than a decade. The Pizza Tracker has been a staple for almost the same amount of time. It’s still a little bit creepy and invasive if you think about it too hard, but it’s an online food ordering icon!

If you like the food, there aren’t many better ways to get it.

5. Chipotle

Skip the line!

Skip the line!

Image: Getty Images

I don’t think Chipotle’s food is incredible by any means, but the mobile app makes the experience much, much better. 

It’s easy to specify exactly what you want in your order and select a pickup time, which is all well and good. But the best part is that you get to skip waiting in line, which is more of a problem at Chipotle, given the multitude of choices and how they make your food, than some other chain restaurants. 

The app turns Chipotle from a place you might want to avoid during the lunch rush to a perfectly acceptable solution, which is an impressive feat.

Honorable Mentions

Most fast food apps hit roughly the same bar of quality, it turns out. There are some that are totally worthwhile and that barely missed the cut. They deserve some mention, too:

Shake Shack’s app is like Chipotle’s in that it’s an essential tool for skipping long lines. You can also check off things you’re allergic to in your profile, which should be standard. It honestly would have made the list if not for the fact that Shake Shack still isn’t available in large swaths of the U.S. 

Panera, Potbelly, and Panda Express all have seemingly fine mobile apps too, if that’s your thing. 

Go forth and order. 

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2YtDS3G
via IFTTT

Saudi-UAE coalition carries out deadly air raids on Yemen’s Sanaa

At least six civilians, including a child, have been killed and dozens wounded in Saudi-UAE led coalition air raids on residential areas and Houthi rebel military targets in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa.

Nine military sites in and around Sanaa were targeted on Thursday, residents told Reuters news agency.

The Houthi-run Masirah TV channel said six attacks on the Arhab district of Sanaa province took place, before reporting further raids, including one in Sanaa itself. It blamed “aircraft of the (Saudi-led) aggression”.

Saudi-owned broadcaster Al Arabiya quoted a coalition statement as saying the Saudi coalition had launched an operation aimed at “neutralising the ability of the Houthi militia to carry out acts of aggression.”

This comes two days after the Iran-aligned rebels claimed drone attacks that shut a key oil pipeline in neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

Witnesses told AFP news agency that raids began around 8am (0500 GMT), while many Yemenis were asleep awaiting the end at sunset of the daytime fast observed by Muslims during the holy month of Ramadan.

Nasser Arrabyee, a Yemeni journalist, said the number of casualties are expected to rise.

“Medial sources are saying that they have received a lot of victims – injured and dead – which means the number will be even higher than just six,” he told Al Jazeera from Sanaa.

Arrabyee said “residential areas in the middle of Sanaa, in the most crowded areas were randomly bombed and many houses were reduced to the ground”.

Calls for retaliation

On Tuesday, the Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for twin drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s main east-west oil pipeline, saying that they were a response to “crimes” committed by Riyadh during the bloody air war it has led in Yemen since March 2015.

The pipeline, which can carry five million barrels of crude per day, provides a strategic alternative route for Saudi exports if the shipping lane from the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the vital conduit for global oil supplies in case of a military confrontation with the United States.

WATCH: New clashes erupt in Yemen as UN discusses way forward

The Saudi cabinet called on Wednesday for “confronting terrorist entities which carry out such sabotage acts, including the Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen.”

Key ally the United Arab Emirates echoed the call.

“We will retaliate and we will retaliate hard when we see Huthis hitting civilian targets like what happened in Saudi Arabia,” the UAE minister of state for foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, said on Wednesday.

Saudi Arabia and its allies intervened in Yemen when President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi fled into Saudi exile as the rebels closed in on his last refuge in Yemen’s second city Aden after sweeping through most of the country.

The intervention has retaken much of the south but the capital and most of the populous central highlands remain in rebel hands.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2HntO6E
via IFTTT

You can now buy a 1TB microSD memory card

Disclosure

Every product here is independently selected by Mashable journalists. If you buy something featured, we may earn an affiliate commission which helps support our work.

It's here, if you're willing to spend a 450 bucks.
It’s here, if you’re willing to spend a 450 bucks.

Image: Sandisk

By Stan Schroeder

Back in February, at the Mobile World Congress trade show in Barcelona, SanDisk announced their most capacious microSD memory card yet — a behemoth with 1TB of storage memory. 

The company said at the time the card would be available in April, but The Verge noticed that it has taken until now for it to actually hit retailers. 

SEE ALSO: OnePlus 7 Pro review: The ‘flagship killer’ is all grown up

The card, sexily named “SanDisk Extreme microSD UHS-I Card – 1TB,” is available on SanDisk’s online store, for the price of $449.99, as originally promised. It’s also on Amazon, but it’s only available in certain countries, including Spain and the UK. 

In terms of specs, SanDisk promises 160MB/s read speeds and up to 90MB/s write speeds. 

If the price is too much for you, perhaps SanDisk’s 512GB card is a better option — it’s available from SanDisk’s website for $199.99, and it’s more widely available on Amazon for the same price. 

As for the reasons for getting such a capacious memory card in the first place, if you have to think about it, you probably don’t need it. Folks with very large music collections and those who shoot a lot of 4K video on their phones, for example, will easily find a use for it. 

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2HmqNTZ
via IFTTT

Philippines recalls envoy, consuls from Canada over rubbish row

Ties between the two countries have been deteriorating since a Canadian company sent about 100 shipping containers that included rotting rubbish wrongly labelled as recyclable to Philippine ports in 2013 and 2014. [File: Aaron Favila/AP]
Ties between the two countries have been deteriorating since a Canadian company sent about 100 shipping containers that included rotting rubbish wrongly labelled as recyclable to Philippine ports in 2013 and 2014. [File: Aaron Favila/AP]

The Philippines has recalled its ambassador and consuls from Canada in an escalation of a festering diplomatic row over tonnes of rubbish shipped to the Southeast Asian nation.

Ties have been deteriorating since a Canadian company sent about 100 shipping containers that included rotting rubbish wrongly labelled as recyclable to Philippine ports in 2013 and 2014.

Manila set a May 15 deadline for Canada to take it back, after President Rodrigo Duterte criticised Ottawa over the issue last month.

Canada has since said it is working to arrange for the containers’ return, but has not said when exactly that might happen.

On Thursday, Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin said letters recalling the ambassador and consuls to Canada have been sent and the diplomats would be in Manila “in a day or so”.

“Canada missed the May 15 deadline. And we shall maintain a diminished diplomatic presence in Canada until its garbage is ship-bound there,” Locsin wrote on Twitter.

‘Let’s fight Canada’

During a speech in April, Duterte threatened to unilaterally ship the garbage back to Canada, saying: “Let’s fight Canada. I will declare war against them.”

Duterte frequently uses coarse language and hyperbole in speeches about opponents.

Fear and killings on the rise in Duterte’s war on drugs (02:40)

Following the comments, Canada offered to repatriate the waste and the Philippines said Ottawa would shoulder the expense of disposal.

Last week, Manila’s bureau of customs said Philippines was ready to send back the waste, but Canada needed several more weeks to prepare documentation.

About 69 shipping containers of trash remain after 34 others have already been disposed of in the Philippines, the finance ministry said.

The ties between the two nations were already tested after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau questioned Duterte’s deadly drug crackdown, which has seen police kill thousands of alleged addicts and pushers since 2016.

Last year, Duterte cancelled the Philippine military’s $235m contract to buy 16 military helicopters from a Canada-based manufacturer after Ottawa put the deal under review because of the president’s human rights record.

The Philippines: Locked Up | 101 East (25:00)

SOURCE:
News agencies

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/30kjRyd
via IFTTT