The killing of a police officer by so-called cow vigilantes, belonging to far-right Hindu groups, has triggered outrage in India.
Local media reported on Wednesday that Yogesh Raj, the main suspect behind the violence, is absconding and remains to be arrested.
Inspector Subodh Kumar Singh was killed on Monday when villagers, many of them members of far-right Hindu groups, clashed with police in Uttar Pradesh state’s Bulandshahr district, about 100km from the Indian capital, New Delhi.
The villagers were protesting the alleged inability of police in Chingrawathi village to stop cow slaughtering, claiming that animal carcasses – including of cows – were found in the area. A police outpost was torched, while a young man, who was allegedly part of the mob, also died in the rioting.
The police officer’s killing following a cow-slaughter protest was the first-of-its-kind in India, where Muslims and low-caste Dalits have been frequently attacked over the issue in the past.
Accused releases video
Four men have been arrested so far in connection with the killing of Singh, while more than two dozen people are facing charges, including of rioting and destroying property. Seven Muslims, including two minors aged 11 and 12, were also charged by the police for cow slaughter.
A video purportedly showing the moments leading to the killing of the police officer appeared on Wednesday.
While police said they were still looking for Raj, from the Hindu right-wing group Bajrang Dal, reports on Wednesday said he had issued a video, claiming innocence and making contradictory statements over the incident.
Raj claimed he was not present at Chingrawathi, where the violent protests broke out over the alleged cow slaughter in the nearby Mahaw village of Bulandshahr district.
Raj, instead, claimed he was at a police station in Syana, a hamlet near Bulandshahr, where he said he had gone to register a report about the incident.
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh police hinted at a “conspiracy” behind the violence since it occurred as tens of thousands of Muslims gathered for a religious event in Bulandshahr.
UP DGP O P Singh: The incident in #Bulandshahr is a big conspiracy. This is not only a law and order issue, how did the cattle carcass reach there? Who brought it, why & under what circumstances? pic.twitter.com/Zs2YQZw4br
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a hardline Hindu monk known for his anti-Muslim remarks, called a meeting in state capital Lucknow on Tuesday.
At the time of the incident, Adityanath was touring the neighbouring state of Chhattisgarh to campaign for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of local assembly elections.
An investigation into allegations of cow slaughter was ordered by Adityanath, but local reports said he did not address Singh’s killing in the Lucknow meeting.
Extraordinary: statement after UP Chief Minister meeting on #Bulandshahr doesn’t mention the murdered police inspector even once. Focus almost solely on cow slaughter. pic.twitter.com/olFIgRQVXg
“The UP Chief Minister directed officials for a thorough probe in the incident. Instructions were also issued to take stringent action against people involved in cow slaughter,” a senior government official told reporters after the meeting.
Adityanath is expected to visit Singh’s family on Thursday, Indian news agency ANI reported.
A special investigation team has been formed by the Uttar Pradesh government to investigate the cause of the violence.
Meanwhile, the slain officer’s family has also alleged a police conspiracy and demanded justice for his killing.
Singh was part of the team that initially investigated the infamous 2015 lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq, a 52-year-old resident of Bisara village, over allegations of cow slaughter in a district neighbouring Bulandshahr.
India’s Hindu majority regards cows as holy and their slaughter is banned in most Indian states.
Hindu vigilantes often roam the roads in northern India to protect cows, frequently resulting in assaults against India’s Muslim population – some 14 percent of the country’s 1.3 billion people.
In recent years, there have been a string of deadly attacks on Muslims and low-caste Dalits over cattle slaughter and beef consumption.
According to data analytics site India Spend, almost 80 cases of cow-related violence were reported in India between 2012 and 2017.
At least 39 people have been killed in such violence since 2014 when the Hindu nationalist BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, came to power.
As India heads to crucial elections in the coming months, including the national elections due early next year, many fear such polarising issues will continue to be raised by the Hindu far-right to mobilise voters.
Nanchy Pelosi’s possible embrace of the proposalshows just how much House Democratic politics have shifted in the month since the election. | Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
The push by junior members to limit committee chairmen could face stiff opposition from the minority members of the Democratic Caucus.
A generational fight is brewing inside the Democratic Caucus as a significant bloc of younger members is pushing for term limits for committee chairmen.
And in a potentially major shift that could anger the Congressional Black Caucus and other veteran lawmakers, Nancy Pelosi seems to be warming to the idea.
Story Continued Below
Democrats are expected to confront the issue next week when they huddle to vote on a package of rules for the new Congress. Pelosi herself has not endorsed the term limits proposal but is “sympathetic” to it, according to a source close to the California Democrat.
“It is inevitable that one day we will have term limits,” the source said. “Pelosi is sympathetic to the concerns of the newer members and wants some sort of closure to this.”
The idea to place limits on committee leaders’ tenure has faced stiff opposition from minority members, particularly the CBC. Because of the sensitivity of the topic, it’s one Pelosi has often avoided taking a position on in recent years.
But if Pelosi were to get behind the idea, it could help buttress her efforts to become speaker by wooing some incoming freshmen. Pelosi is still short of the 218 votes she needs to regain the gavel on Jan. 3.
The topic came up during two separate calls with House Democratic leadership and ranking members this week, according to multiple House Democratic sources. Pelosi said on the calls that the idea is being pushed by junior Democrats, from incoming freshmen to lawmakers who have been in Congress five terms or less.
But several top Democrats spoke out against the idea, including incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), all likely chairmen in the Democratic majority, also voiced opposition.
Democrats have to deal with the topic because it’s currently in the Republican majority’s rules package for the 115th Congress. Democrats can decide to keep the GOP’s three-term limit on committee leaders, revise the provision or strike it completely.
The move would bring a drastic change in the way the caucus operates. Pelosi’s possible embrace of the proposalshows just how much House Democratic politics have shifted in the month since the election. Democrats elected their largest freshmen class since Watergate, and many of the newcomers campaigned on the promise of bucking Pelosi or calling for new leadership.
“This issue has come up in many meetings that Pelosi has had with freshmen and other newer Members,” the Pelosi source said. “It has come up repeatedly in the conversations Mr. McGovern has been having as part of his process to solicit suggestions for the rules package.” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) is the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
The effort could help Pelosi sway some of the members and incoming freshmen who have vowed to vote against her for speaker, allowing her to peel off enough Democrats to clinch the speakership well ahead of the upcoming floor vote. Pelosi can lose 17 Democrats and still win the speaker’s gavel; currently, around 20 Democrats are on record in opposition to her.
Several of those Democrats have signaled publicly and privately that they could switch their position if Pelosi would commit to serving one more term and then handing the reins to a younger leader. Pelosi has publicly dismissed that idea, saying she will not put an end date on her tenure.
Still, the push to adopt term limits — and where Pelosi falls on the issue — isn’t without potential peril. In the past, the CBC and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have fiercely objected to any suggestion of limits for committee leaders.
Lawmakers in those groups maintain that seniority is the bedrock of the Democratic Caucus. They say it’s what has allowed minority members to rise through the ranks of the caucus, when they otherwise might have been passed over for higher-ranking posts in favor of a white member.
The issue is very sensitive within the caucus. When Democrats took back the majority in 2009, they voted to scrap six-year term limits for committee chairmen. Pelosi has mostly avoided taking a position on the issue since then — even when pressured to do so — saying it’s up to the will of the caucus.
The change, if enacted, would allow for much more churn at the top, giving younger members the opportunity to lead influential committees without having to wait decades to do so. And the move could alleviate some pressure on Pelosi and her two deputies — all of whom are approaching 80 years old — to step aside soon.
Scattered throughout Ariana Grande‘s triumphant Billboard Woman of the Year profile are major tidbits for everyone who has diligently read every tweet, checked every Instagram story, and watched every YouTube drop on Ari’s accounts since early October: concrete details on her second new album of the year.
Thank U, Next — the album, not the song — is almost ready for global consumption. In mid-November, when the interview took place, Ari was in the “polishing” phase of production, having spent one week writing the tracks and two weeks recording them with help from collaborators Tommy Brown, Social House, Victoria Monét, and Tayla Parx. But as of Tuesday (December 4), she was tweeting Republic Records to “hurry yo ass up” with her final product.
Created in a zen-sounding studio outfitted in white flowers, a candle, and a light that projects rippling water imagery, the new music is “not particularly uplifting,” Ariana said. “A lot of it sounds really upbeat, but it’s actually a super sad chapter.”
It’s a description that actually makes a lot of sense considering the work was fueled by pink champagne and an unthinkable amount of heartache that the artist has endured in the past few months alone — most notably, that which resulted from the tragic death of her ex Mac Miller. At least one song on TUN is about the late rapper, according to the profile.
Another tune — one whose name we already know — tackles a happier memory. “7 Rings” is about a “challenging fall day in New York” that brought Ari and her friends to Tiffany’s for some casual retail therapy. A few glasses of champagne (what else?) later, “we bought seven engagement rings, and when I got back to the studio I gave everybody a friendship ring.”
Billboard writer Natalie Weiner, who got to listen to the tracks, described the album as “defiant — deep, bass-driven bangers with trap beats alternating with airy, sad ballads — and aesthetically more adventurous than anything she has ever released.” Lyrically, Weiner called it “unambiguously personal and gutting.”
But perhaps the best news to come of this interview is that Ariana, being the benevolent pop diva she is, is already looking forward to making even more new music when she hits the road for next year’s Sweetener tour.
“Please. [“Thank U, Next” production duo] Social House is my opening act — you don’t think we’re going to have a studio on the bus? That we’re not going to be making records on the road? Of course we are,” she said. “I want to be able to do what is authentic and honest and natural. It’s the only way that I’ve been able to survive.”
It’s a bold approach that’s been working for Ari these past few months, and we are here to support its continuation. Please!
Before he lost his job earlier this week, now-former Chicago Bulls head coach Fred Hoiberg had reportedly lost control of his team.
The Athletic’s Darnell Mayberry reported Tuesday that “players no longer believed in his system and became increasingly emboldened in undermining Hoiberg’s authority.” Meanwhile, Bulls star Zach LaVine was reportedly allowed to do “anything he wanted.”
All of that contributed to the fear of a players revolt at some point this season, per Mayberry.
Chicago executive vice president of basketball operations John Paxson said Hoiberg’s 5-19 record was not what cost him his job, via ESPN:
“What we’re lacking is an energy and a spirit about our team, and we need to get that back,” Paxson said. “It’s not as simple as saying we would have gotten that with healthy, healthy players. … It wasn’t going to be that simple.”
Mayberry’s report offers some insight as to what was going on behind the scenes, which seems to be what Paxson was hinting at.
There was reportedly strong belief within the Bulls organization that Hoiberg was not holding players accountable for their actions. That was exemplified by his handling of LaVine, who re-signed with the team on a four-year, $78 million deal this past summer.
Ultimately, Paxson and Co. believed the Bulls needed a new voice in the locker room, and they tabbed associate head coach Jim Boylen to replace Hoiberg. An insider told Mayberry that Boylen is not afraid to “bust people’s chops and hold people accountable.”
While injuries to Denzel Valentine (ankle), Kris Dunn (knee), Bobby Portis (knee) and Lauri Markkanen (elbow) did not make it easy for Hoiberg to win games, the change of command apparently did not have to do with results. It was all about the culture, which is important for a team that has missed out on the playoffs in two of the past three seasons.
Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Chinese tech giant Huawei, has been arrested in Canada and faces extradition to the US.
In a statement on Wednesday, Canada’s justice ministry, said Meng was arrested in Vancouver on December 1.
“She is sought for extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday.”
The ministry added it could not provide further details due to a publication ban that was sought by Meng.
There was no immediate comment from Huawei.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that US authorities are investigating whether Huawei, one of the world’s top makers of telecommunications network equipmentviolated sanctions on Iran.
Meng is also deputy chairman of the board and the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei.
Al Jazeera’s John Hendren, reporting from Washington, DC, said the arrest “could be a major blow for Huawei”.
“Huawei is one of the largest makers of smartphones. It uses parts from the US, which has sanctions against Iran, and it doesn’t want its parts being used there – so Meng was arrested in Canada on suspicion of circumventing those trade sanctions.”
Hendren said that in the worst case scenario Huawei “could lose access to the US parts it’s using to make its smartphones – that’s what happened last year to ZTE, another Chinese company, which paid $892m for violating US sanctions”.
He added that Friday’s hearing will determine whether Meng will be extradited to the US.
Trade war
Huawei has been under tough scrutiny in the US, where government national security officials say that its alleged close links to the Chinese government make it a security risk.
Its US business has been tightly constrained by worries it could undermine US competitors and that its cellphones and networking equipment, used widely in other countries, could provide Beijing with avenues for espionage.
Hendren said that despite the Chinese company’s denials, Washington has already taken a series of “extraordinary measures”, including President Donald Trump signing an order banning the use of Huawei products at nuclear facilities in the US, while Congress had passed a bill also prohibiting the use of the company’s goods by defence contractors.
“This [the arrest] is likely to rile up the Chinese government and exacerbate what is already an intense trade war between the US and China,” added Hendren, referring to a major tit-for-tat dispute between the world’s top two economies
This year, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on a total of $250bn of Chinese imports. For its part, China has slapped tariffs on $110bn of US imports.
Despite being essentially barred from the critical US market, Huawei surpassed Apple to become the world’s number two smartphone maker in the second quarter of this year and has market leader Samsung in its sights.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has used his control of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to provide some reprimands of the Trump administration’s foreign policy. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO
Senators are furious after the Khashoggi killing and are eager to challenge the president.
The Senate is on the verge of an extraordinary rebuke of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, underscoring a bipartisan willingness to encroach on the president’s powers as commander in chief.
From forcing Trump to impose sanctions on Russia to raising questions about his nuclear trigger finger, lawmakers are repeatedly asserting themselves in an area long dominated by the executive branch.
Story Continued Below
And now the fury is so great on Capitol Hill over the Saudi murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi — and the Trump administration’s tepid response — that senators are deliberating over whether to pull U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.
That senators have allowed the debate to even reach this stage is itself a reproach to Trump, who has downplayed evidence implicating the powerful Saudi crown prince suspected of masterminding the killing.
Trump has “forced members of the Senate to clarify that many of us continue to believe that we are a country that is safe and secure and prosperous when we put our values first and our interests second, not the other way around,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
In fact, it’s Trump’s fellow Republicans who have often led the charge against his foreign policy — a sign that his nationalist views have gained little traction in his party’s upper rungs. And with Democrats taking control of the House next month, the Hill’s intrusion on foreign policy is likely to get even sharper.
Trump’s disdain for multilateralism, insults to U.S. allies and transactional approach to dealings with other countries have long alarmed top Republicans and Democrats alike. Trump’s attempts to gain favor with Russian President Vladimir Putin also upset many in both parties.
Signs that Congress would push back on Trump came within weeks of his taking office in 2017, when he proposed a budget that slashed funding for the State Department by a third. Republicans and Democrats dismissed the proposal and used their budget-setting power to protect funding for U.S. diplomacy.
Later in the year, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill imposing sanctions on Russia over its interference in the 2016 presidential race. Unlike other such measures, the bill did not include a provision allowing the president to unilaterally waive sanctions, another rebuke of Trump, who reluctantly signed the veto-proof bill even as he said parts were unconstitutional.
The congressional reprimands of Trump also have taken other, often symbolic forms.
One example came when the GOP chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, convened a hearing to examine the president’s authority to use nuclear weapons.
The hearing indicated that lawmakers did not trust Trump’s judgment, especially as he was exchanging heated rhetoric at the time with the nuclear-armed leader of North Korea.
Lawmakers on the left and right have frequently issued statements slamming the president for insulting U.S. allies in Europe and beyond. Behind the scenes, some lawmakers reach out directly to officials in offended governments to assure them of America’s continued support.
Lawmakers also have supported resolutions re-affirming U.S. support for the NATO military alliance. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group introduced legislation that would bar the president from quitting NATO without Senate consent.
Senate Republicans, including Corker and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), pushed legislation earlier this year that would give Congress the authority to sign off on tariffs linked to national security, in a sign of their unease with Trump’s protectionist tendencies.
The congressional rebukes at times extend to foreign policy matters in which the president appears to take little interest.
Next week, the House is expected to easily pass a resolution declaring that the Myanmar military has been waging a genocide against Rohingya Muslims. The move amounts to a swipe at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and an administration that refuses to take a stand on whether the anti-Rohingya campaign amounts to genocide.
Such moves “reflect a bipartisan majority of lawmakers who are fundamentally more internationalist and humanitarian in their global outlook than the president,” said Mariah Sixkiller, a former adviser to Democrat Steny Hoyer, the incoming House majority leader. “On the Republican side, some of that is true compassionate conservatism. That strain still exists.”
Jamie Fly, a former adviser to GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, noted: “There appear to be few repercussions with voters for Republican members who oppose the president on foreign policy – indicating perhaps that the Republican base may continue to support him in spite of his foreign policy views rather than because of them.”
The ongoing Congress-White House clash over Saudi Arabia encapsulates many concerns on the Hill about Trump, including his admiration for dictators, his vitriol toward journalists and a transactional approach to foreign affairs that puts little value on human rights.
Senators briefed this week by CIA director Gina Haspel say they are more convinced than ever that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, orchestrated the murder of Khashoggi.
Khashoggi, who was living in the United States, had criticized the prince. He disappeared on Oct. 2 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The Saudi government admits he was killed by a hit squad waiting for him, but it denies the prince played a role.
Trump has argued that Saudi Arabia is too important to U.S. interests — keeping oil markets stable, containing Iran, and selling weapons — to anger by punishing the heir apparent.
But top lawmakers from both parties say they cannot let the crown prince off the hook. MBS, as he is also known, is in his 30s; if he reaches the throne he could rule for decades, and his record of squelching dissent so far has some lawmakers deeply alarmed about his future reign.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who is a close Trump ally, has said he thinks MBS is “crazy.”
Graham noted Wednesday that Congress has pushed back on previous presidents, citing efforts by Republicans to block Barack Obama’s Iran policy.
“Every now and then on occasion, Congress fills in a vacuum or goes its own way, and I think you’ve seen that with Saudi Arabia,” he said.
The discussion on the Hill about whether to keep supporting the Saudi-led war effort in Yemen, where millions of civilians face starvation, could still fall short of a vote to pull U.S. backing, but the mere fact that it’s happening is a sign of lawmakers’ discomfort with the Saudis — and Trump.
The White House, for its part, has insisted it’s not uniformly opposed to Congress taking a strong hand on foreign policy. Amid the congressional furor over Khashoggi’s killing, Trump vowed that he would “consider whatever ideas are presented to me, but only if they are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America.”
Despite all the maneuvering on Capitol Hill, the president retains tremendous influence over foreign policy. It is a power that scholars say has grown over time regardless of checks and balances provided in the Constitution. That’s especially the case when it comes to U.S. military actions, even though the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
For all their concerted efforts under Trump, lawmakers have failed to devise a replacement for the 2001 law authorizing the use of military force abroad, a measure that has been used to justify military actions well beyond conflicts linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The moves in Congress could prove “an important attempt to take back some of the authorities and power the legislative branch has in shaping U.S. national security policy. But it’s too early to tell,” Brian Katulis of the left-leaning Center for American Progress wrote in an email.
Katulis also warned Democrats, soon to take control of the House, not to overreach by viewing foreign policy as a wedge issue.
“If Democrats simply look at the things that will gain partisan advantage against Republicans,” he wrote, “they may be missing an opportunity to build bridges with some conservatives to check Trump.”
Smart camera frees you up to move around • Great in the office
App support is limited • Doesn’t work with Messenger.com • Facebook hasn’t done enough to address privacy concerns
Facebook’s Portal and Portal+ speakers are excellent for video calls, but they may actually be better suited to connecting businesses than friends.
Are you ready for Facebook to have a physical, semi-permanent presence in your home? That’s the central question you’ll need to consider before you invest in the company’s new Portal or Portal+ speaker.
The pair of speakers, Facebook’s first non-VR hardware product, come at a time when trust in the social network is at an all-time low. The company is reeling from scandal after scandal, and is still facing tough questions about users’ privacy.
But, if you like the idea of a dedicated video chat device, and you’re generally not creeped out by Facebook (a tall order these days), Portal actually isn’t bad.
The Portal and Portal+
With the Portal, you have two choices: the $199 Portal and $349 Portal+. The features on both are pretty much the same, the main differences being size (the Portal+ is larger and has a slightly better speaker and display) and price.
The larger Portal+ has a 15.6-inch display
Image: karissa bell / mashable
The Portal+ is heavier than it looks.
Image: karissa bell / mahable
I personally tested the larger Portal+, which has a 15.6-inch rotating display, and it’s downright huge — think having a full-sized iPad (with a little extra) mounted to a heavy base. Besides the larger display, it also has a more powerful 20-watt speaker. The greater Mashable team also tested the regular (and cheaper) Portal, with that unit living in our offices in New York City.
But the main difference is size. And the Portal+, at 17.7 inches high, is quite massive. It’s likely too tall to fit in smaller corners or shelves. And the hulking speaker, with its more prominent camera, definitely ups the “creepy” factor a bit more compared with the smaller version.
The Portal has a 10.1-inch display.
Image: ZLATA IVELEVA / MASHABLE
The back of the smaller Portal speaker.
Image: zlata iveleva/mashable
For most people, the smaller Portal is probably more than enough for simple video calls and listening to music. It’s much more compact, with a 10.1-inch display, looking a bit like an Amazon Echo Show.
Both speakers have volume and mute switches on top and a power button on the back. You can also use voice commands to control volume and other basic functions by saying “Hey Portal.” Because Facebook never actually created its own digital assistant (“M” was downgraded to mere suggestions in Messenger earlier this year), the “Hey Portal” functionality is limited to controlling basic features and making calls. But if you want to use voice commands to check the weather or play music, you can use Alexa directly through the Portal. The only downside is Alexa doesn’t display any information on the screen, which makes it inferior to an Echo Show or Google Home Hub, and honestly, wastes the display.
Made for video calls
While the Portal and Portal+ are often compared to Amazon’s Echo Show, Facebook’s devices are actually much more limited. Yes, you can use Alexa skills, but there are very few third-party apps available for the Portal right now. There’s Pandora, Spotify, and iHeartRadio for music, as well as YouTube, Food Network, and Facebook Watch for video.
But Portal is first and foremost a video-calling tool. Yes, it can technically do a bit more than that — you can add your Amazon account to use Alexa skills and perhaps future functionality — but if you’re not planning on spending a lot of time video chatting, there’s no point in getting one.
Augmented reality masks on Facebook’s Portal+.
Image: karissa bell / mashable
If you do already spend a lot of time video chatting with friends and family (or want to start), then there’s a lot to like about the Portal. It runs on Facebook Messenger, so you can easily call anyone who you’re friends with on Facebook, regardless of whether they have a Portal of their own. It supports group calls (up to seven people) and you can use Facebook’s augmented reality effects while you chat for some added fun.
Facebook seems to think one of the best use cases for Portal is for distant parents and grandparents who want to be able to spend time with kids. There’s a “Story Time” feature that lets you read to kids (complete with animations and sound effects for specific stories), which seems like a nice idea but only has a couple of stories at the moment.
Portal’s “Story Time” feature.
Image: ZLATA IVELEVA / MASHABLE
The standout feature, though, is the Portal’s camera. The wide-angle 12-megapixel camera has a 140-degree field of view. It uses software to automatically detect faces and it can pan and zoom as people move around the room to track them. All this gives you considerably more freedom while chatting as you can move around without worrying about stepping out of frame.
In fact, I was consistently surprised at just how much I could move around and Portal’s camera was still able to find me. Even when I moved so far back that I was almost physically behind the Portal, the camera was still able to adjust.
Portal and privacy
As good as the video-chatting features are, they don’t matter much if you don’t have anyone to talk to. And, given Facebook’s recent track record, the idea of long, intimate conversations via Portal may be a tough sell for some.
Though the company has taken great pains to point to the various privacy features on the device, (the plastic camera cover was reportedly a late addition to help assuage fears) and explicitly explain its privacy policy, many people are wary of letting the social network further encroach into their lives. It doesn’t help that the only way to connect with a portal call is via Messenger app (which many are still grumpy about Facebook essentially forcing upon users), though Facebook says support for Messenger.com, so you can join Portal call via web browser, is in the works.
To be clear: there is relatively little data that gets fed from Portal back to the advertising behemoth. The content of your calls is kept private, but the company can use certain information about how you’re using the speaker generally to inform the kinds of ads you see on Facebook. You’ll also see and hear ads on YouTube and other ad-supported services that connect with the device.
The Portal and Portal+ come with plastic covers for their cameras.
Image: zlata iveleva / mashable
In terms of privacy controls, there is a plastic cover for the camera which, as someone who has taped over my laptop webcam for years, I appreciated. There’s also a physical mute switch on top of the device, which disables both the camera and microphone.
Still, privacy concerns are completely understandable. Facebook has done very little to prove its trustworthiness over the last two years. So even though Portal may have decent privacy controls and relatively little data sharing (at least, by Facebook standards), the company has provided few reasons to trust that this will always be the case.
The case for having a Portal in the office
One use case where I do think Portal actually makes a lot of sense — and one Facebook hasn’t talked about very much — is not as an in-home video calling gadget, but as a corporate video conferencing tool.
Think about it: corporate video conferencing systems tend to suck. They’re expensive and bug-ridden and never quite work the way you need them to. And Facebook already has relationships with thousands of companies, thanks to Workplace.
Mashable’s Tech team meeting via the Portal.
Image: karissa bell / mashable
Mashable’s Tech team tried out our set of Portal speakers during a team meeting to see just how viable it might be. There were a few complications at first. We had one Portal in our San Francisco office and one in New York. But we also needed to add several other remote team members.
Because it’s not officially part of Workplace yet, this meant the only option for those without access to a Portal was for them to join the call via Messenger on their phone.
Having used quite a few different corporate videoconferencing systems over the years, I fully expected this somewhat hacked-together solution to be horrible, but it was actually pretty good once we managed to get everyone into the same call.
The sound was good throughout, even if the video quality was inconsistent (despite everyone being on speedy WiFi connections). For the NY and SF team members, who were joining the call via Portal speakers, the cameras were able to track our faces when we were speaking. However, there was sometimes a delay when there were several people in the room. And it was still pretty fun to sit through an entire meeting with different AR effects, as cheesy as they can sometimes be, projected onto various faces. I’m partial to the cat ears myself, but there are tons more, including some that transform the whole scene around you so your boring office looks more like dance floor.
The Portal’s AR effects can be used on multiple faces.
Image: ZLATA IVELEVA / MASHABLE
The disco ball filter on the Portal+.
Image: karissa bell / mashable
There are some drawbacks compared with other systems. For starters, you can’t share your screen or “present.” You also can’t take screen grabs or natively record video or audio, which might make it a nonstarter for some. And the process of actually setting up a group call can be a bit tricky when you have many participants.
But, assuming Facebook adds Workplace integration (which the company says it’s looking at), these shortcomings are certainly solvable. A quick and easy video chat tool for business is, to me, the most compelling use case for Portal. Of course, Facebook didn’t build the Portal to make a better business chat gadget (even if that’s what they ended up creating). The social network, which counts more than 2 billion users, built the Portal because it’s planning for a future beyond our smartphones. And having a voice-activated speaker is an essential first step toward that future.
Unfortunately for Facebook, though, Portal’s launch not only comes much later than its competitors, it comes at a time when Facebook’s relationship with its users is beginning to deteriorate. But there could still be a narrow path forward for Facebook. For every person who distrusts the company, there are others who still find Facebook an integral part of their daily lives.
And for some of them, a $199 video chat device may not seem like such a terrible idea. Facebook is, after all, about communicating with people. And Portal, for all its flaws, certainly makes that communication a lot easier — and a lot more fun.
Fisher played 18 NBA seasons with five teams and most notably started for the Los Angeles Lakers during their NBA championship stretch from 1999-2000 to 2001-02.
Fisher retired in 2014 and was hired as the New York Knicks head coach. The Knicks fired him midway through the 2015-16 season after he amassed a 40-96 record.
Since then, he’s worked as a television broadcaster on TNT for national NBA broadcasts and SpectrumSportsNet for Lakers games.
Fisher replaces BrianAgler, whoresignedon November 30 after four seasons of leading the Sparks. DuringAgler’s tenure, the Sparks made the playoffs four straight years and theWNBAFinals twice, winning in 2016.
Fisher has some work to do to get the Sparks back to their championship glory days. The Sparks regressed in 2018 as the 19-15 squad finished sixth out of 12 teams and was knocked out in the second round.
Los Angeles does have a solid core with Candace Parker, NnekaOgwumikeand Chelsea Gray leading the way, with Parker having one of the more decorated resumes in basketball today.
However, the days of a couple of teams dominating theWNBAlandscape year after year (a la the Sparks and Minnesota Lynx in the past) appear to be over with there being more parity in the top half of the conference.
While the Seattle Storm led the league with a 26-8 record en route to a Finals win, they were nearly picked off by the Phoenix Mercury in the semifinals. The second-through-seventh-placed teams all had one more win than the next team in their group in succession. In other words, the Sparks aren’t getting many easy breaks on their schedule barring a seismic change in theWNBAlandscape.
Given that it’s a smaller league with 12 teams, the squads in each city are packed with talent as opposed to other leagues where the star players are more dispersed. The competition makes it tougher for Fisher, although his extensive basketball resume could be a huge asset for the team.
Furthermore, he’s no longer locked into running a system that his team’s president of basketball operationsforced him to execute, which was the case in New York with Phil Jackson and the triangle.
Daily Trends Hunter 