Apple wants you to send your best iPhone photos in return for exposure

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.

You can now submit your best iPhone shots to Apple, but forget about getting paid for them.
You can now submit your best iPhone shots to Apple, but forget about getting paid for them.

Image: Lili Sams/Mashable

2016%252f09%252f16%252f6f%252fhttpsd2mhye01h4nj2n.cloudfront.netmediazgkymdezlza1.53aea.jpg%252f90x90By Stan Schroeder

Apple wants your best iPhone shots, but it won’t pay you if it ends up using them. 

On Tuesday, the company announced a photo contest that asks iPhone users to “submit their best shots.” 

“The winning photos will be featured on billboards in select cities, Apple retail stores and online,” the company said in a blog post. Unfortunately, there’s no mention of any monetary compensation. 

SEE ALSO: Apple to fully switch to OLED iPhones in 2020, report claims

The contest, which goes on from Jan. 22 to Feb. 7, accepts anyone over 18 (except Apple employees and their immediate families) and looks for outstanding photos shot exclusively on the iPhone. A panel of 11 judges, which includes Apple’s Phil Schiller and former official White House photographer Pete Souza, will determine the 10 winning photos. The winners will be announced in February. 

Tim Cooked announced the contest on Twitter as well. 

If you’re interested in participating, you should know that you’ll essentially be giving Apple the rights to your photo for free. The fine print makes it clear that Apple gets the rights to use the photos as it pleases, including for commercial purposes (in some cases). 

“You retain your rights to your photograph; however, by submitting your photo, you grant Apple a royalty-free, world-wide, irrevocable, non-exclusive license for one year to use, modify, publish, display, distribute, create derivative works from and reproduce the photo on Apple Newsroom, apple.com, Apple Twitter accounts, Apple Instagram (@Apple), in Apple retail stores, Apple Weibo, Apple WeChat, on billboards and any Apple internal exhibitions. Any photograph reproduced will include a photographer credit. If your photo is selected to be featured on a billboard, you further agree to grant Apple exclusive commercial use of the photo for the life of the license,” the post reads. 

Furthermore, in the official rules of the contest, Apple clearly states that the “prize has no cash value,” and forbids “substitutions or cash redemptions.” 

Obviously getting this type of exposure is nice, but it’s also been a frequent complaint among photographers and artists, who are often offered exposure instead of getting paid. If Apple is planning to use the photos for commercial purposes, why not compensate the authors with cash?

While some people started submitting their photos right away, some photographers voiced their displeasure about the prospect of having a company such as Apple using their work without monetary compensation.  

And Apple is one of the most valuable companies in the world.

Dear @tim_cook, if you want to use photos for an entire year in an ad campaign to sell more iPhones, you should be offering prize $ to the 10 winners, not photo credit in exchange for exclusive commercial ownership. https://t.co/KCd3QuSCFs

📸Trevor Mahlmann (@TrevorMahlmann) January 23, 2019

Mashable has reached out to Apple to find out about the reasoning behind the decision not to compensate the winners with any kind of monetary award. We will update this post when we hear from them.

Read More

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

This birthday cake based on a Pikachu meme is going super viral

If you’re going to make a birthday cake for your partner — even if said partner doesn’t want anything for their birthday — then you might as well get some internet points for it.

And if there’s one surefire way to get internet points, it’s with some variation of the surprised Pikachu meme.

SEE ALSO: Pokémon Go maker Niantic valued at $4 billion after monster funding round

On Tuesday, Reddit user u/GeekyKirby shared the following post in the r/pics sub:

The 70,000+ upvotes on that picture are surely proof that there are few things more glorious than memes in cake form.

Other Redditors, meanwhile, had different suggestions for the caption:

Ah, surprised Pikachu. You’re truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2FJ8au8
via IFTTT

Why There’s No Liberal Federalist Society

It‘s been more than two weeks since Ruth Bader Ginsburg began missing Supreme Court oral arguments while recovering from cancer surgery and the White House is reportedly drafting a short list of replacements. If President Donald Trump does get a chance to nominate the liberal icon’s successor, one thing can be said with near-certainty: Whoever takes her seat will come with a firm stamp of approval from the archconservative Federalist Society.

The Supreme Court, in other words, may be about to get another seismic jolt rightward thanks in part to the Federalists. And liberals don’t seem to have an answer to what has long been an asymmetrical fight in the legal world.

Story Continued Below

Over the past three decades, the Federalist Society has ascended from modest origins to become one of the most influential legal organizations in American history, with intellectual reach and political clout that no other legal group can match. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump effectively outsourced his Supreme Court picks to Federalist Executive Vice President Leonard Leo, and the group has enjoyed a near-lockdown on new appointments to the federal bench under Trump, most notably on the Supreme Court, where Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch each had long-standing Federalist ties prior to their nominations.

So where’s the response from the left?

As liberals anxiously watch Trump populate the federal bench with one dyed-in-the-wool conservative after another, it’s only natural for them to ask why there’s no heavyweight progressive organization to counter its influence. There are some academic groups with a progressive bent, such as the Law and Society Association, but they generally don’t venture outside of scholarship. Last year, Hillary Clinton’s former spokesperson Brian Fallon helped create a new activist group called Demand Justice to spearhead political advocacy against conservative judges. None of these groups, however, have anywhere near the breadth of ambition of the Federalist Society, which both builds a roster of prospective conservative judges and sustains the intellectual regime that fosters new ones.

There actually is one liberal analog to the Federalist Society, but chances are you haven’t heard of it: the American Constitution Society, founded in 2001, after the Supreme Court decision that effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. In the wake of what ACS President Caroline Fredrickson calls the “Aha! moment,” ACS was launched as a conscious response to the Federalist Society. Their operations are mirror images: conferences, chapters of law students and practicing attorneys, and education projects.

But the playing field is decidedly not level. The Federalist Society has more student chapters, more than twice as many lawyer chapters and a huge fundraising edge. In 2016, ACS had total revenues of approximately $6.5 million, while the Federalist Society took in $26.7 million. And the relative impact of the organizations can hardly be compared. The federal and state judiciaries are filled with Federalist judges, but there are no “ACS” judges to be found on the Supreme Court or the federal benches. It’s just not a thing.

***

What’s going on? One explanation is historical: The Federalist Society is simply older, with deeper roots. Those trace back some years before its founding, to a 1971 memo written by Lewis Powell, shortly before his nomination to the Supreme Court, in which he argued that the “American economic system is under broad attack”—and called upon the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to build institutions to change public attitudes, especially at the campus level. The Powell Manifesto, as it came to be known, foreshadowed the development of today’s roster of powerful conservative think tanks—the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan and Cato Institutes, and the Federalist Society.

ACS didn’t get started until nearly 30 years after that memo, and 20 years after the first Federalist gathering at Yale Law School. By the time liberals got the wake-up call of Bush v. Gore, the Federalist Society had already established itself as a hugely effective networking organization for ambitious conservatives. (Approximately half of President George W. Bush’s nominees to the federal bench were Federalist Society members.) In part, ACS’ creation was triggered by shock, Frederick says: “Courts that the left had taken for granted since [Chief Justice Earl] Warren had handed the presidency to Bush.”

The right had a significant head start, and when it comes to populating the federal bench, it’s only possible to catch up while in control of the presidency. “To be fair, ACS has only had eight years of political access since it was founded,” says Amanda Hollis-Brusky, professor at Pomona College and author of “Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution.”

A second explanation is that the Federalist Society has a more natural base of big donors. “Their work aligns with corporate America much more neatly than ours does,” Fredrickson says. The Federalist Society receives significant funding from libertarian industrialists, including the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife’s foundation and the Mercer family. Those donors like the broad hands-off legal philosophy the Federalists espouse. Liberals, by contrast, are more inclined to be attached to individual social causes, Fredrickson says, and left-leaning philanthropy tends to be “short-term performance based.” Conservatives, she says, “have an interest in funding infrastructure.”

The most significant reason for the disparity, though, runs deeper and poses a daunting challenge for the left. Since its conception, the Federalist Society has had one consistent and very graspable ideological backbone: that the Constitution should be interpreted as having the meaning it had when it was enacted. So-called originalism gives the Federalists a catchy intellectual hook. The agents of change in American law, they argue, should be legislators, not judges; that’s how the Constitution intended it. Hence the famous proclamation of Justice Antonin Scaliathe first faculty adviser to one of the Federalist Society’s founding chapters at the University of Chicago—that the Constitution is “dead, dead, dead.”

The Federalists’ mantras are succinct and understandable: The law should be neutral. It is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. Whatever its theoretical weaknesses, says Columbia Law School’s Jamal Greene, “originalism’s simplicity is one of its chief selling points.” And in the abstract, it’s widely popular: In one study by Greene and his colleagues, 92 percent of people expressed support for the idea that a good Supreme Court judge should “uphold the values of those who wrote our Constitution two hundred years ago.”

***

Standing behind the original meaning of the Constitution gives the Federalists a deeply appealing claim to a neutral, timeless American tradition. It is also complete nonsense, according to scholars who’ve looked at the rulings of “originalist” judges: Those judges tend to issue politically conservative rulings regardless of the larger principles at stake. Judge Richard Posner, no liberal, has ridiculed Scalia’s claim that originalism and the related doctrine of textualism offer greater certainty than competing principles, such as interpreting the Constitution as an evolving document. Originalism, for all its pretenses, is no more than a fig leaf for injecting politics into the judiciary.

Judicial neutrality may be a fiction, but it’s a useful one—and an idea for which liberals just haven’t found a response. The Federalist Society’s claim that the law should be agnostic on policy consequences is seductive to law students and lawyers; the invocation of the Constitution gives it rhetorical roots in the foundations of the Republic. What do liberals have to offer on their side?

One of their counterweights is law school itself: There’s no question that law school faculties are overwhelmingly liberal, but when it comes to delivering results on the federal bench, the academy is not the same thing as an organization with a focused mission and a budget. The ACS has a mission, true, but it can be a little hard to pin down. Its website says the organization “works for positive change” on “important legal and constitutional issues including access to courts, voting, equality, and many other issues directly affecting people’s lives.” As judicial philosophies go, it couldn’t be more diffuse. And the focus on outcomes rather than first principles immediately colors it with politics.

But the liberal legal academy hasn’t come up with an easily digestible rival idea, or a readily comprehensible way to demonstrate to the American people that the idea of “fidelity to the Constitution” means less than the politics of the judge who professes it. This failure makes it hard to mount an effective case against conservative nominees who proclaim their commitment to impartiality before the Senate, and it also has hindered the left in doing the institution-building needed to assemble a deep bench of potential future progressive nominees. Becoming a judge is a time-consuming exercise in networking, and the Federalists are known both for their roster of wide-open debates and events, and their clubby dinners afterward. Where is the network for prospective progressive judges to burnish their credentials, and what’s the principle it would be built around?

The problem, of course, is also endemic to liberal politics, which tends to traffic in the rhetoric of identity and outcomes, while conservatives prefer the language of first principles (which, conveniently, lead directly to their preferred outcomes). That difference is hardly superficial. Even if there were “ACS judges,” what would be the principle to unite them? Progressive law students—and deep-pocketed donors—need to know that 20 years from now, when the news has changed and left-leaning politicians are embracing a whole new suite of favorite policies, that they will have a core jurisprudential principle around which to rally.

Maybe that core principle is impossible to articulate, and there’s nothing for progressives to do but play defense by showing the hypocrisy of originalism. Or maybe there’s an answer out there—a rallying cry for progressives. If there is, it couldn’t come a moment too soon. The balance of the Supreme Court is hanging by the slenderest of threads.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2FUjUt1
via IFTTT

Sexy Valentine’s Day gifts: R-rated ideas for couples tired of the mushy stuff

Let’s not beat around the bush here: A lot of Valentine’s Day gift guides are just plain boring. 

Sure, we can all appreciate a good bouquet of flowers or piece of jewelry — the heartfelt stuff is nice once in a while. Once in a while. Not every damn year

It’s pretty archaic to assume that every couple thinks Valentine’s Day means mush to the max, and whether or not we want to admit it, our primal urges are constantly lurking in the shadows. Congrats on being human.

It’s time to stop ignoring the fact that Valentine’s Day is the sex holiday. And hey, sometimes spicing things up in the bedroom is the most romantic thing you can do. 

We’ve scoured the internet to find the sexiest gifts on the market this year, making sure that every kink gets some recognition. Whether your boo is into toys, BDSM, or is just one of those people who gets turned on by food, there’s bound to be a gift option that satisfies their nether regions and their heart.

Because the only gift better than something super Instagrammable is something so dirty, only you two can know about it.

NSFW warning: Before you scroll any further, we’d suggest making sure your screen isn’t visible to bosses, children, or conservative family members. However, if you’re in public with just randos behind you, it’s your call as to whether you want to be that person shopping for vibrators in Starbucks.

Oh yeah, and we apologize in advance for using the word “penetration” so many times. No matter how sex-positive you are, that word sucks.

Without further ado, here are the sexiest Valentine’s Day gifts this year.

Read More

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

Tesla to start delivering Model 3 in Europe in February

Tesla’s “affordable” electric sedan is finally coming to Europe.

Image: Sean Gallup/Getty ImageS

2016%252f09%252f16%252f6f%252fhttpsd2mhye01h4nj2n.cloudfront.netmediazgkymdezlza1.53aea.jpg%252f90x90By Stan Schroeder

Tesla has gotten regulatory approval to start delivering its Model 3 mid-size electric sedan in Europe, Bloomberg reported Monday. 

After getting the green light from Dutch vehicle authority RDW, the company is slated to start delivering the Long Range Battery variant of the Model 3 in February. 

SEE ALSO: Elon Musk makes it more expensive to own a Tesla

It’s been a long wait for European customers, many of whom reserved a Model 3 back in early 2016 when the pre-orders first opened. UK customers will have to wait a little longer still; The Telegraph notes that production of right-hand Model 3s is slated to start in mid-2019. 

The news comes days after Tesla announced a 7% workforce cut. CEO Elon Musk said the layoffs were necessary for the company to keep turning a profit as it starts producing cheaper variants of the Model 3. 

Coming soon. Lots of unique road markings & signs in each country.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 22, 2019

There’s other good news for European Tesla customers too, both current and future. In a tweet Tuesday, Musk promised an important new feature, Navigate on Autopilot, is “coming soon” to Europe. The feature allows Tesla cars to change lanes and take exits on highways autonomously, with driver supervision. 

And in December 2018, Musk promised to extend Supercharger coverage in Europe to 100% sometime in 2019. 

Read More

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

They threatened to kill us if we didn’t leave India: Rohingya

Dhaka/Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh – Last October, Zakir Hossain was getting a hair cut at a saloon in southern Indian city of Hyderabad when the TV inside the shop flashed a report on India deporting seven Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar.

“That was the last straw. The prospect of being deported to Myanmar was terrifying,” said 25-year-old Hossain, who along with his family had taken an arduous trip to Hyderabad from Myanmar’s restive Rakhine state in 2014.

Following a crackdown that began in 2012, tens of thousands of Rohingya fled their villages escaping Buddhist mobs, often aided by the Myanmar military.

The Muslim-majority Rohingya were forced to live in squalid camps, which have been equated with concentration camps, with severe restrictions on their movements.

Hossain settled in India’s Hyderabad city in 2014 before being forced to move to Bangladesh [Abdul Aziz/Al Jazeera]

Since then, more than a million Rohingya have left Myanmar, taking desperate journeys via sea and land for safety and a better future.

An estimated 40,000 Rohingya live in India, according to the government. The United Nations’ refugee agency, UNHCR, says about 18,000 of them are registered as refugees and asylum seekers.

Hossain was one among them. He entered Bangladesh, which currently hosts the overwhelming majority of Rohingya, and then crossed another border few days later to reach India.

“Life inside the refugee camp in Balapur in Hyderabad was not bad. After what we had witnessed and sustained in Rakhine, the city was obviously a better option,” Hossain said.

It’s better to die here in India than go back to Burma [Myanmar].

Sanjeeda Begum, refugee at New Delhi camp

But the comfort of feeling safe in India didn’t last long for Hossain.

“Since April last year, Indian police started to visit our camp regularly, asking us to fill forms and give our biometric data. News spread across the camp that we would be deported back to Myanmar,” he told Al Jazeera.

Panic began on October 4 when India deported seven Rohingya, who were in jail in Assam state since 2012 for entering the country without official documents.

Rights groups have slammed India for handing over Rohingya to the Myanmar government in violation of the principle of non-refoulement, which seeks to prohibit states from deporting a refugee or an asylum seeker to territories where her life and freedom could be threatened.

Myanmar military has been accused of genocidal intent in their campaign of mass killing, gang-rape and arson against Rohingya. Within months of brutal military offensive launched in August 2017, more than 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh.

Myanmar government has denied the charges, but rights groups say the country continues with its discriminatory policies against Rohingya, who were stripped of their citizenship in 1982.

According to the UN, Rohingya is currently the most persecuted community in the world.

Faies Ahmed left India on January 7 after staying in a camp in Jammu city [Abdul Aziz/Al Jazeera]

Exodus from India

Hossain says he gathered his family, including his mother and brother, and decided to head back to Bangladesh before “things turned worse” in India.

It took Hossain over three months to find a way to reach Bangladesh. “At the border, India’s Border Security Force (BSF) detained me and my mother for a day but later allowed us to cross the border,” he said.

The Border Guard of Bangladesh (BGB), Hossain says, handed them over to police that later sent them to a transit camp in the coastal Cox’s Bazar district, where more than a million Rohingya refugees have taken shelter in sprawling camps.

Since the beginning of this year, at least 1,300 Rohingya like Hossain have crossed into Bangladesh from India.

This week, at least 61 Rohingya were arrested by the Indian police. On Tuesday, 31 of them, stuck at the ‘no-man’s land’ between India and Bangladesh, were arrested and sent to jail.

Last year, the Indian government ordered all its states to identify and deport Rohingya, saying they were “more vulnerable for getting recruited by terrorist organisations”.

Maryam Khatun, 55, Hossain’s mother, is relieved. “Since the last year, we had been living amid tension due to constant threat from the local police there.”

Khatun said there is point in going back to Myanmar. “We left that place long ago. There is nothing there for us.”

India’s approach to the Rohingya situation has been shockingly callous.

Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Rights Watch

Faies Ahmed, 75, left India on January 7 after staying in a camp in northern Indian city of Jammu.

“Bangladesh seems like the safest place for us now. We have a lot of relatives here in different camps,” said Ahmed, who now lives in a transit camp in Cox’s Bazar.

“I stayed in the refugee camp over there [Jammu] for six years. But things changed last year when police started visiting our camps. They used to ask us to provide our personal information.”

He added that the situation there was turning very hostile. “The local Hindu leaders started to threaten us. They said they would kill us if we don’t leave India.”

At a Rohingya camp in India’s capital, New Delhi, there is a palpable sense of fear. Mohmmad Salimullah runs a small grocery shop at the camp located in the Kalindi Kunj area.

He said the Delhi police asked the refugees to submit a six-page “personal data” form a few months ago.

“Our people got scared that authorities here might deport us back to Myanmar, like they did with some Rohingya in Assam and Manipur,” Salimullah said.

Salimullah said things were better when he arrived in India in 2012.

“During the initial years, we used to get jobs here. Our children could go to schools and a single document – the refugee card – was required for verification.”

“Now, our children can’t go to schools because all educational institutions ask for Aadhaar card (national identity card for Indian citizens) and we do not have it,” Salimullah said.

“We aren’t blaming India or Bangladesh for anything. It is our destiny.”

Zafar Mahmood of Zakat Foundation at the Kalandi Kunj camp in New Delhi [Bilal Kuchay/Al Jazeera]

New Delhi-based activist Zafar Mahmood says his organisation, Zakat Foundation, is trying to help the Rohingya, but Indian authorities create roadblocks.

“Zakat Foundation is ready to construct an accommodation on its own land for Rohingya, but the government is not allowing the construction,” Mahmood told Al Jazeera.

He blames the ruling Hindu nationalist government’s “anti-Muslim politics” for the hostility against Rohingya.

“India’s approach to the Rohingya situation has been shockingly callous,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“The world is aware of the UN conclusions that Myanmar military is responsible for crimes against humanity against the Rohingya people,” Ganguly told Al Jazeera.

“Yet India has not only failed to condemn the atrocities and call upon Myanmar to ensure justice, several Rohingya refugees have been sent back to the same authorities that forced them to leave in the first place.”

Ganguly says India’s political leadership has failed to condemn allegations that the Rohingya are a security risk. “India should protect the refugees and provide UNHCR proper access,” she said.

But India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) party spokesperson, Nalin Kohli, said the Rohingya cannot demand refugee status in India since New Delhi is not a signatory to such international protocols.

“We do not want to opine on whether Myanmar is safe for Rohingya or not. Myanmar government has said they are willing to take them back,” he said.

Kohli reiterated the government’s stand that Rohingya are a “big security threat”.

The prospect of being deported to Myanmar was terrifying.

Zakir Hossain, Rohingya refugee from Hyderabad

‘We will not throw them out’

“Rohingya refugees from India are entering Bangladesh every day since the beginning of this year,” Abul Kalam, who works as a refugees, relief and repatriation commissioner in Bangladesh, told Al Jazeera.

“As of now, the number has well crossed 1,300,” said Kalam, “And more are coming.”

Kalam, who is in charge of all the refugee camps, said the Rohingya from India are kept in a transit camp in Ukhia.

“This camp is run by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). They are providing food, shelter and protection to them.”

UNHCR spokesperson Firas-Al-Khateeb told Al Jazeera that Rohingya arriving from India are “being provided with services at the transit centre”.

When asked what plans the Bangladesh government has for the new refugees from India, Kalam said, “We have given shelter to over a million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. So I can assure you that we will not throw them out.”

Kalam, however, said the Bangladesh government may talk its Indian counterarts on the matter. “This is not up to me. It’s a decision that has to be taken at the highest level.”

An official at Bangladesh’s foreign ministry told Al Jazeera that the newly appointed Bangladeshi Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen will visit Indian soon, where he is likely to discuss the refugee crisis.

Back at the Rohingya camp in New Delhi, Sanjeeda Begum fears she may be the next to be deported to Myanmar.

“Everyone knows the situation in Myanmar. We don’t want to go there in the present circumstances,” said the 25-year-old mother of two daughters.

“It’s better to die here in India than go back to Burma [Myanmar] without any rights or guarantee of your life.”

Additional reporting by Abdul Aziz from Cox’s Bazaar, Bangladesh, and Bilal Kuchay and Zeenat Saberin from New Delhi, India

Read More

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

Kids tell Jimmy Kimmel if they hear Grover cursing in viral clip

At the end of December, Redditor u/schrodert was watching Sesame Street with his daughter, when he thought he heard beloved monster Grover drop an F-bomb.

“Yes, yes that’s a fucking excellent idea!” he seemed to say.

The clip went viral, like the whole Laurel/Yanny debate, even Jimmy Kimmel heard it. But the late show host wanted to know if it was just adults who could hear it. So, he sent his crew to ask a bunch of kids if they could catch a naughty word in the clip.

Some of these kids don’t hear it at all, or hear “sounds like an excellent idea,” but a handful hear the forbidden word — and their reactions are frankly adorable.

“Don’t worry, I hear it at home,” one said.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2RI2x5z
via IFTTT

Gulf Arab economies to grow more slowly through 2020: economists

Gulf Arab economies will grow at a slower pace than previously forecast as oil output cuts, lower crude prices, and weaker global growth put pressure on regional economies.

According to a quarterly Reuters poll of 22 economists, gross domestic product in Saudi Arabia, the largest Gulf Arab economy and the world’s largest oil exporter, will grow 2.1 percent in 2019 and 2.2 percent in 2020.

Three months ago, the forecasts were for growth of 2.5 percent in 2019 and 3.0 percent in 2020.

The benchmark price for Brent crude oil averaged about $71.6 per barrel last year. So far this year, it has only averaged around $60 per barrel, and economists are predicting prices below $70 a barrel in 2019, based on lower demand growth and oversupply concerns.

Supply cuts led by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and some non-OPEC allies, including Russia, are likely to support oil prices to an extent, but they will weigh on gross domestic product growth, economists said.

Global slowdown

The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its forecasts for world economic growth in 2019 and 2020 for the second time in three months. The IMF predicted the global economy would grow 3.5 percent in 2019 and 3.6 percent in 2020.

“Basically, we are a little less optimistic than we were six to nine months ago,” said Khatija Haque, Emirates NBD head of MENA Research, citing the lower oil price expectations, oil output cuts, and a gloomier global growth outlook.

Riyadh plans to increase spending by seven percent this year to an all-time high in an effort to boost non-oil growth. The latest poll raises the median forecast for Saudi’s fiscal deficit this year to 5.6 percent of GDP from 4.0 percent, and to 5.9 percent from 2.8 percent for 2020.

Saudi has pledged to eliminate the state deficit by 2023.

Those polled also pushed back to 2020 their expectation of when the United Arab Emirates would return to fiscal surplus for the first time since it started running a deficit in 2015. Last quarter’s poll had forecast a surplus for 2018.

The latest poll continues to predict sizeable budget and current account deficits for the two weakest GCC economies, Bahrain and Oman.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2CF1vx2
via IFTTT

Sony’s adorable robot dog Aibo now comes in chocolate

Sony’s robot dog companion, Aibo, now comes in a brand new colour: chocolate.

The tech giant announced the new special edition, tri-tone shade for its four-legged friend on Tuesday. 

SEE ALSO: Japanese Buddhist temple hosts funeral for over 100 Sony Aibo robot dogs

An alternative to the standard Bicentennial Man-like white/ivory version, the special edition Aibo will come in three shades of brown.

It’s available for preorder now in Japan, with shipping set to start on February 1.

Sony’s all-new Aibo was first unveiled at CES in January 2018, and landed in the U.S. in September . But these adorable robodogs are pretty damn expensive, going for a cool $2,899 each — about as much as MacBook Pro.

Apart from merely resembling a cartoon dog, Aibo uses 22 points of articulation along with motion sensors, including a camera in its nose, to detect and interact with humans and other Aibo dogs.

White or chocolate, they’re bloody expensive, but exceptionally cute companions for people who can’t actually own a real dog.

[h/t The Verge]

Read More

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

Serena Williams Upset by Karolina Pliskova at 2019 Australian Open Quarterfinals

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - JANUARY 23:  Karolina Pliskova of Czech Republic celebrates in her quarter final match against Serena Williams of the United States during day 10 of the 2019 Australian Open at Melbourne Park on January 23, 2019 in Melbourne, Australia.  (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

Mark Kolbe/Getty Images

Karolina Pliskova is two wins away from her first career Grand Slam title.

The seventh-seeded Pliskova defeated No. 16 seed Serena Williams in three sets in Tuesday’s dramatic Australian Open quarterfinals showdown at Rod Laver Arena, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5. It marked the first time Pliskova advanced past the quarterfinals at the Australian Open, and she won the final six games of the decisive set to do it after falling behind 5-1.

The Czech now holds a 2-2 record against Williams in her career and bounced back from a head-to-head quarterfinals loss at the 2018 U.S. Open.

It is a credit to Pliskova’s mental and physical toughness that she was able to overcome a 5-1 deficit in the third set with six straight games, but the biggest story from the match is how Williams lost.

She was serving for the victory after two breaks but was called for a foot fault and then suffered an apparent ankle injury. She was seen limping at times in between points and was unable to tap back into the dominance she displayed throughout the second and majority of the third set.

Pliskova took full advantage, though, rediscovering the precise serves she unleashed in the first set and notching clutch breaks as she held off multiple match points.

It was more of the same for her in this tournament, seeing how she came through in critical moments in decisive sets in the second round against Madison Brengle and the third round against No. 27 Camila Giorgi as well.

By contrast, Williams lost just one set in the entire first four rounds of the tournament, and that came against top-seeded Simona Halep.

The loss prevented Williams’ quest for a 24th career Grand Slam and eighth Australian Open title. It also marked her first loss before the semifinals in the year’s first major—which she won while pregnant in 2017—since a 2014 loss to Ana Ivanovic.

Pliskova has never won a major, but the closest she came included a victory over Williams. She defeated the American in the semifinals of the 2016 U.S. Open before losing in the final to Angelique Kerber.

It appeared as if Pliskova was going to cruise to victory when she controlled the first set with her serve. All she needed was a quick break to go up 2-1 because she won 81 percent of her first-service points in the set to establish an early lead.

She continued rolling in the second with an early break to go up 3-2, but Williams tapped into her dominance with four straight points to earn a break right back and then prevailed in a four-deuce effort for another break to force the decisive set.

All the momentum was on Williams’ side, and a win seemed like a formality when she jumped out to a 5-1 lead with two breaks, but the apparent ankle injury and Pliskova’s timely points proved crucial. 

Pliskova committed just 15 unforced errors to Williams’ 37, which allowed her to overcome the momentum swings in the middle of the match and keep her pursuit of a major title alive.

What’s Next?

Pliskova will play Naomi Osaka in the semifinals after the No. 4 seed defeated No. 6 Elina Svitolina 6-4, 6-1 in Tuesday’s other quarterfinals match. Pliskova holds a 2-1 record against her next opponent, though they split their 2018 matches.

Tuesday’s result also prevented a rematch of the infamous 2018 U.S. Open final between Williams and Osaka in which the former clashed with chair umpire Carlos Ramos and the fans booed for part of Osaka’s trophy ceremony. Osaka holds a 2-0 record against the all-time great with both wins coming last year.

*All stats courtesy of the tournament’s official website.

Read More

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