Latest news with #JohnWall
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cadence Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Webcast
SAN JOSE, Calif., July 03, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cadence (Nasdaq: CDNS) will hold its second quarter 2025 financial results webcast on Monday, July 28, 2025. Participating in the webcast will be Dr. Anirudh Devgan, president and chief executive officer, and John Wall, senior vice president and chief financial officer. The webcast will begin Monday, July 28, 2025, at 2:00pm Pacific Time. An archive of the webcast will be available online from 5:00pm Pacific Time on July 28, 2025, until 5:00pm Pacific Time on Monday, September 16, 2025, at About Cadence Cadence is a market leader in AI and digital twins, pioneering the application of computational software to accelerate innovation in the engineering design of silicon to systems. Our design solutions, based on Cadence's Intelligent System Design™ strategy, are essential for the world's leading semiconductor and systems companies to build their next-generation products from chips to full electromechanical systems that serve a wide range of markets, including hyperscale computing, mobile communications, automotive, aerospace, industrial, life sciences and robotics. In 2024, Cadence was recognized by the Wall Street Journal as one of the world's top 100 best-managed companies. Cadence® solutions offer limitless opportunities—learn more at © 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Cadence, the Cadence logo and the other Cadence marks found at are trademarks or registered trademarks of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Category: Financial View source version on Contacts For more information, please contact: Cadence Investor Relations408-944-7100investor_relations@
Business Wire
03-07-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Cadence Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Webcast
SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cadence (Nasdaq: CDNS) will hold its second quarter 2025 financial results webcast on . Cadence (Nasdaq: CDNS) will hold its second quarter 2025 financial results webcast on Monday, July 28, 2025. Participating in the webcast will be Dr. Anirudh Devgan, president and chief executive officer, and John Wall, senior vice president and chief financial officer. The webcast will begin Monday, July 28, 2025, at 2:00pm Pacific Time. An archive of the webcast will be available online from 5:00pm Pacific Time on July 28, 2025, until 5:00pm Pacific Time on Monday, September 16, 2025, at About Cadence Cadence is a market leader in AI and digital twins, pioneering the application of computational software to accelerate innovation in the engineering design of silicon to systems. Our design solutions, based on Cadence's Intelligent System Design ™ strategy, are essential for the world's leading semiconductor and systems companies to build their next-generation products from chips to full electromechanical systems that serve a wide range of markets, including hyperscale computing, mobile communications, automotive, aerospace, industrial, life sciences and robotics. In 2024, Cadence was recognized by the Wall Street Journal as one of the world's top 100 best-managed companies. Cadence ® solutions offer limitless opportunities—learn more at © 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Cadence, the Cadence logo and the other Cadence marks found at are trademarks or registered trademarks of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Category: Financial
Telegraph
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The liberal elite's maddest brainwave yet: give babies the vote
As we know, Sir Keir Starmer is planning to give the vote to 16 year-olds. According to some radical thinkers, however, that's simply not good enough. Because they say we should give the vote to all children – including babies. This fascinating proposal was examined at the weekend by the The Guardian – which concluded that the arguments for it are 'hard to refute'. It cited John Wall, a political philosopher, who thinks it's 'unjust that up to a third of the population [is] excluded from the democratic process'. It also cited Clémentine Beauvais, an education researcher, who says children are good at asking important questions about major issues, such as 'war', 'money' and 'meat'. And it cited Harry Pearse, another researcher, who believes that five-year-old voters would add 'some healthy chaos' to 'the system'. Surprisingly, though, the Guardian overlooked what is surely the main reason why so many progressives are eager to enfranchise children: they'd overwhelmingly vote for Left-wing parties. Children, after all, are natural socialists. From birth they're provided with food, housing, clothing and much else, without having to work or pay for it. So of course they're attracted to an ideology which promises to extend this arrangement into adulthood. The Guardian also missed a key argument against giving children the vote, which is that it would undermine the mantra of 'stranger danger'. Come election time, politicians would be constantly lurking outside playparks and primary schools, in the hope of buttering up infant voters with pledges of later bedtimes and free sweets on the NHS. Still, perhaps this peculiar debate explains why Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has suddenly started urging us to have more babies. It's not about saving the economy and the NHS. It's about saving Labour, by producing millions of tiny Labour voters. Over the rainbow LGBTQIA+ Pride Month is sadly at an end. But don't despair. We've still got many, many other dates to look forward to in the calendar of inclusivity. Starting on Sunday, July 6, with Omnisexual Visibility Day. I must confess, the term 'omnisexuality' is a new one on me, but I presume it means having sex with absolutely everyone. I wonder what this group is planning to do to increase its 'visibility'. I hope it's just a march. Rather than, say, orgies in the street. Anyway, once that's over, it'll be International Non-Binary People's Day (July 14) – which heralds the start of Non-Binary Awareness Week (July 14-20). In the middle of which, it's International Drag Day (July 16). After that, we've got Bisexual Awareness Week (September 16-23), National Coming Out Day (October 11), International Pronouns Day (Oct 15), Asexual Awareness Week (Oct 19-25), Intersex Awareness Day (Oct 26), Transgender Parent Day (November 2), Intersex Day of Solidarity (Nov 8), Transgender Awareness Week (Nov 13-19), Trans Day of Remembrance (Nov 20) and Pansexual Pride Day (December 8). Then, once you've got your diary for next year, remember to pencil in LGBTQ History Month (February), Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week (Feb 15-21), International Day of Trans Visibility (March 31), International Asexuality Day (April 6), Trans History Week (May 5-11), International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (May 17), Agender Pride Day (May 19) and Pansexual Visibility Day (May 24). Followed, just a week later, by LGBTQIA+ Pride Month 2026. If you can't wait till then, though, not to worry – because nowadays, there are local LGBTQIA+ Pride events literally every weekend between April and October. This coming weekend, for example, it's Caerphilly Pride, Cleveland Pride, Fife Pride, Hartlepool Pride, London Pride, Macclesfield Pride, Redruth Pride, Sherborne Pride, Tavistock Pride and Ulverston Pride. Perhaps we should enjoy them while we still can. According to a report in the Independent, Donald Trump's 'assault on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion' has led to some UK Pride events facing an alarming fall in corporate sponsorship. So, if we wish to applaud LGBTQIA+ activists next year, there may be only several hundred opportunities. Satire is dead Kneecap, the balaclava-clad Belfast rap group, have insisted that controversial comments they've made during concerts – such as, 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory' – should not be taken literally. When onstage, they explained in an interview on Saturday, they're 'playing characters', and any such comments are purely 'satirical'. All I can say is: Lucy Connolly must be kicking herself. If only she'd thought to try that defence. 'You see, Your Honour, when I go on social media I'm playing a character, and my tweets about asylum hotels are purely satirical…' 'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday
The Guardian
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The big idea: should we give babies the right to vote?
Two years ago, Alisa Perales sued California and the US government because they wouldn't let her vote. The academically gifted Perales, who was eight years old at the time, argued that the rule excluding under-18s from democracy, which is enshrined in the US constitution, amounted to age discrimination. Her case was thrown out, but it wasn't the first time the voting age was challenged and it won't be the last. The issue of whether the limit should be removed entirely has been raised periodically since at least the 19th century, and the ageless voting movement has been gaining momentum since political philosopher John Wall wrote a manifesto for it in 2021. More recently, children's author and education researcher Clémentine Beauvais published a short tract in her native France making the case for it. Both Wall and Beauvais report that a common first reaction to the concept of ageless voting is laughter. Then people start to think, and often they end up saying that they can't find any serious objections. Wall first confronted the question 20 years ago, when he took on a PhD student who had been researching children's parliaments in India. He soon came round to the idea that it was unjust that up to a third of the population was excluded from the democratic process, since political decisions affected them, too. As he became better informed, he realised that excluding the young was bad for society as a whole. Beauvais agrees. In her tract she highlights evidence that larger electorates produce better decisions. Younger people's gaze is fixed further in the future than that of older people, for obvious reasons, but older people have more experience, so they complement each other when it comes to prioritising societal issues. And children are observant and can ask questions that are troubling because they are so fundamental: questions about war, meat, money, love and death, for instance. When Greta Thunberg started campaigning for urgent climate action at the age of 15, Beauvais writes, many adults criticised her, but her position is now mainstream. Children can also be silly and naive, of course. But if silliness and naivety were reasons to deprive people of the vote, many adults would come a cropper. In fact, although the human brain takes years to mature, it hasn't completed that process by 16, 18, or even – for some parts of the brain – the early 30s. And however you define competence to vote, you'll find that it doesn't start or stop cleanly at any age. This line of thought led Wall to conclude that the only criterion for eligibility to vote should be wanting to vote. Again, Beauvais agrees. But they disagree on the practical implications of this. Wall assumes that wanting to vote is the default and proposes that someone else should vote for the young person by proxy until they are able to do so themselves – as already happens for certain categories of adult in many countries, including the cognitively impaired. Most often, the proxy voter in the case of a very young person would be a parent. Beauvais considers proxies risky – what if a five-year-old changed her mind and her parents refused? – and also difficult to implement, for example in the case of divorced parents. She would rather societies accepted that, though a person would have the right to vote from birth, it would be some time before they exercised it. In that time – the length of which would depend on the individual – the right would be purely symbolic. It would still mean something, just as it means something that everyone in the UK has the right to marry a person of the same sex even if many of them will never exercise it. Acommon objection to ageless voting is that individuals who can't be trusted to drink, drive or have sex shouldn't be trusted to vote. But Harry Pearse, research director at the Centre for Deliberation, part of the UK's National Centre for Social Research in London, says that's a red herring. We don't allow the very young to indulge in those behaviours because we want to protect them from the potentially harmful consequences, but voting isn't harmful to the voter. It's not as if we're asking babies to make policy. They may vote badly, whatever that means, but again, so do many adults. Some countries, including Scotland, already allow 16-year-olds to vote, so data exists on 16-year-olds' voting habits. Five-year-olds are an unknown quantity, on the other hand, and Pearse thinks that's a good thing: 'Some healthy chaos gets chucked into the system.' For him, the beauty of democracy – for all its flaws – is its simplicity. When the rule is one-person-one-vote, politicians feel pressure to serve all constituencies. In practice, Beauvais says, because we know so little about how the very young would vote, the voting age would probably have to be lowered incrementally. That way society could address any vulnerabilities the new regime exposed – the risk of a charismatic teacher capturing large numbers of young votes for a given political cause, say – before advancing to the next stage. The goal would still be to abolish the age threshold completely. Many people feel that modern democracies have become calcified. In the past, when that happened, societies sought to expand the franchise, and in time, Pearse says, the expansion reinvigorated democratic life. At this point in history, the only way we can expand, short of violating the species barrier, is downwards in age. Beauvais sees that as much more than a political project. It invites us to stop thinking about participation in terms of competence or productivity, she says, and to focus more on our lived experience and interdependence. It's about what it means to be an individual in society. In her view, we should all want Alisa Perales to vote – and not just for her sake. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Suffrage for Children by Mike Weimann (Common Threads, £18) A Minor Revolution by Adam Benforado (Crown Forum, £24) Give Children the Vote by John Wall, (Bloomsbury, £18.99)
The Guardian
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The big idea: should we give babies the right to vote?
Two years ago, Alisa Perales sued California and the US government because they wouldn't let her vote. The academically gifted Perales, who was eight years old at the time, argued that the rule excluding under-18s from democracy, which is enshrined in the US constitution, amounted to age discrimination. Her case was thrown out, but it wasn't the first time the voting age was challenged and it won't be the last. The issue of whether the limit should be removed entirely has been raised periodically since at least the 19th century, and the ageless voting movement has been gaining momentum since political philosopher John Wall wrote a manifesto for it in 2021. More recently, children's author and education researcher Clémentine Beauvais published a short tract in her native France making the case for it. Both Wall and Beauvais report that a common first reaction to the concept of ageless voting is laughter. Then people start to think, and often they end up saying that they can't find any serious objections. Wall first confronted the question 20 years ago, when he took on a PhD student who had been researching children's parliaments in India. He soon came round to the idea that it was unjust that up to a third of the population was excluded from the democratic process, since political decisions affected them, too. As he became better informed, he realised that excluding the young was bad for society as a whole. Beauvais agrees. In her tract she highlights evidence that larger electorates produce better decisions. Younger people's gaze is fixed further in the future than that of older people, for obvious reasons, but older people have more experience, so they complement each other when it comes to prioritising societal issues. And children are observant and can ask questions that are troubling because they are so fundamental: questions about war, meat, money, love and death, for instance. When Greta Thunberg started campaigning for urgent climate action at the age of 15, Beauvais writes, many adults criticised her, but her position is now mainstream. Children can also be silly and naive, of course. But if silliness and naivety were reasons to deprive people of the vote, many adults would come a cropper. In fact, although the human brain takes years to mature, it hasn't completed that process by 16, 18, or even – for some parts of the brain – the early 30s. And however you define competence to vote, you'll find that it doesn't start or stop cleanly at any age. This line of thought led Wall to conclude that the only criterion for eligibility to vote should be wanting to vote. Again, Beauvais agrees. But they disagree on the practical implications of this. Wall assumes that wanting to vote is the default and proposes that someone else should vote for the young person by proxy until they are able to do so themselves – as already happens for certain categories of adult in many countries, including the cognitively impaired. Most often, the proxy voter in the case of a very young person would be a parent. Beauvais considers proxies risky – what if a five-year-old changed her mind and her parents refused? – and also difficult to implement, for example in the case of divorced parents. She would rather societies accepted that, though a person would have the right to vote from birth, it would be some time before they exercised it. In that time – the length of which would depend on the individual – the right would be purely symbolic. It would still mean something, just as it means something that everyone in the UK has the right to marry a person of the same sex even if many of them will never exercise it. Acommon objection to ageless voting is that individuals who can't be trusted to drink, drive or have sex shouldn't be trusted to vote. But Harry Pearse, research director at the Centre for Deliberation, part of the UK's National Centre for Social Research in London, says that's a red herring. We don't allow the very young to indulge in those behaviours because we want to protect them from the potentially harmful consequences, but voting isn't harmful to the voter. It's not as if we're asking babies to make policy. They may vote badly, whatever that means, but again, so do many adults. Some countries, including Scotland, already allow 16-year-olds to vote, so data exists on 16-year-olds' voting habits. Five-year-olds are an unknown quantity, on the other hand, and Pearse thinks that's a good thing: 'Some healthy chaos gets chucked into the system.' For him, the beauty of democracy – for all its flaws – is its simplicity. When the rule is one-person-one-vote, politicians feel pressure to serve all constituencies. In practice, Beauvais says, because we know so little about how the very young would vote, the voting age would probably have to be lowered incrementally. That way society could address any vulnerabilities the new regime exposed – the risk of a charismatic teacher capturing large numbers of young votes for a given political cause, say – before advancing to the next stage. The goal would still be to abolish the age threshold completely. Many people feel that modern democracies have become calcified. In the past, when that happened, societies sought to expand the franchise, and in time, Pearse says, the expansion reinvigorated democratic life. At this point in history, the only way we can expand, short of violating the species barrier, is downwards in age. Beauvais sees that as much more than a political project. It invites us to stop thinking about participation in terms of competence or productivity, she says, and to focus more on our lived experience and interdependence. It's about what it means to be an individual in society. In her view, we should all want Alisa Perales to vote – and not just for her sake. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Suffrage for Children by Mike Weimann (Common Threads, £18) A Minor Revolution by Adam Benforado (Crown Forum, £24) Give Children the Vote by John Wall, (Bloomsbury, £18.99)
