Latest news with #JoonLee
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Truist Financial Remains Bullish on Praxis Precision Medicines (PRAX)
Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) is one of the 13 Small Cap Stocks Analysts Are Bullish On. On June 12, Truist Financial analyst Joon Lee maintained a Buy rating on Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) without a price target. The company reported in its fiscal Q1 2025 results that it is on track for six major study readouts across four programs over 12 months, and is ready to start the pivotal studies in two developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE) programs in mid-year 2025. These include the EMERALD for broad DEEs with relutrigine and EMBRAVE3 for SCN2A GoF with elsunersen. A scientist wearing a lab coat, surrounded by vivid blue-themed biopharmaceutical equipment in a research laboratory. Management anticipates topline near-term results for vormatrigine from the RADIANT study in epilepsy by mid-2025, along with the POWER1 study in H2 2025. Vormatrigine is continuing to exhibit competitive differentiation and an ideal profile, bringing a positive light to Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX). Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops therapies for central nervous system disorders characterized by neuronal excitation-inhibition imbalance. The company focuses on two proprietary platforms: Cerebrum and Solidus. While we acknowledge the potential of PRAX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Truist Financial Remains Bullish on Praxis Precision Medicines (PRAX)
Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) is one of the 13 Small Cap Stocks Analysts Are Bullish On. On June 12, Truist Financial analyst Joon Lee maintained a Buy rating on Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) without a price target. The company reported in its fiscal Q1 2025 results that it is on track for six major study readouts across four programs over 12 months, and is ready to start the pivotal studies in two developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE) programs in mid-year 2025. These include the EMERALD for broad DEEs with relutrigine and EMBRAVE3 for SCN2A GoF with elsunersen. A scientist wearing a lab coat, surrounded by vivid blue-themed biopharmaceutical equipment in a research laboratory. Management anticipates topline near-term results for vormatrigine from the RADIANT study in epilepsy by mid-2025, along with the POWER1 study in H2 2025. Vormatrigine is continuing to exhibit competitive differentiation and an ideal profile, bringing a positive light to Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX). Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops therapies for central nervous system disorders characterized by neuronal excitation-inhibition imbalance. The company focuses on two proprietary platforms: Cerebrum and Solidus. While we acknowledge the potential of PRAX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sports Absolutely Do Not Need Politicians More Involved
Hello and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Why not try getting a little creative with your wedges today? Congratulations to the half of you that were rooting for the Oklahoma City Thunder and the half of you that were rooting for the Florida Panthers. (Glad I'm not the only one who noticed the Thunder celebration was weirdly muted.) Today, we're talking about a proposal to regulate sports broadcasts, and get into a little sports betting legalization debate. Then we'll get into taxes and the NHL, plus a quick hit on a soccer movie. Let's go! Locker Room Links Keep Politicians Away From Sports Does anyone really want more political bickering over sports? Advertisement In a truly terrible New York Times guest essay (thanks to subscriber Nathan for sending it my way), that's what former ESPN staff writer Joon Lee calls for. Not directly, of course, but more political bickering over sports would be the obvious result of what he wants. Politicians disagree about most things, often in stupid ways, and getting them more involved in sports will just make them disagree about sports in stupid ways. For example, Lee writes that "Congress could also take inspiration from Britain's 'crown jewel' rule and designate key sporting events—perhaps the World Series, the Super Bowl, the N.B.A. Finals—as nationally significant and require that they air on free, widely accessible platforms." [Emphasis added.] Note the absences from that list: the Stanley Cup Finals, for one, but there are also zero women's sporting events. Think that's going to fly with Democrats? Republicans from SEC country might be aghast at the lack of college football events on the list. Or imagine Congress delegates the designation of these events to some agency in the president's bureaucracy: Every time the White House changes parties we'd get another round of bickering or glad-handing from league officials who either do, or don't, want to get on the list. Lee probably imagines his preferred regulations would be cleanly implemented by politicians he likes who agree with his aims—but that's just so clearly not how it would go. Advertisement The main issue Lee takes with modern sports broadcasting is cost. He estimates that he spends $2,634 a year on various subscription services to stream all the live sports. (Lee runs a sports media YouTube channel, so I hope he is deducting this business expense from his taxes.) Watching every single game in every single sport is expensive, I get it. But the vast majority of sports fans are not doing this. Most of them are not even doing this for their favorite teams. If your favorite baseball team is on Apple TV+ and you're not subscribed, you'll probably skip that game. There are plenty more. Most fans are probably watching whatever games are already included in their basic cable package or chosen streaming services. Pushing one-off games to other subscription services is the leagues' way of getting extra income from the super fans who are willing to pay. But let's not pretend every fan is like that, and let's not get politicians more involved in sports to fix this "problem." After bemoaning that Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) held a hearing on sports broadcasting but hasn't introduced any regulations yet, Lee writes, "If public money is going to support professional sports, then public obligations—like ensuring access—should come with it." Maybe the better plan is to get people like Cruz and his ilk out of sports altogether, and to stop paying for sports with public money. Bet On It In National Review's August issue, Jack Butler (who I'm friendly with in real life—hopefully still so after he reads this) writes on the scourge of sports gambling. I don't think anything in the article is untrue—Jack is a great writer who gets his facts right. He writes about people losing a lot of money gambling and people harassing athletes over lost bets. Advertisement But like most of the articles I see criticizing sports betting legalization, there's an argument that isn't addressed: What about the rest of us? There are millions of people betting on sports who aren't doing those things. They lose a little money on sports betting (and have fun doing it), they text their friends about what bets they won and lost, and they post their parlays online (don't post your parlays online—no one cares and they're not smart bets). Why should we take away their freedom to bet because some people did bad things? Many people do bad things under the influence of alcohol. The right course of action is not banning alcohol altogether—it's punishing specific people for the specific bad things they do under the influence of alcohol. There's nothing fair about collective punishment. Some people lose too much money on betting. They should not do that. Some people harass athletes on social media over their lost bets. They should not do that. That doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to place bets in peace. Tax-Off The Florida Panthers winning the Stanley Cup (again) has some hockey fans up in arms (again) about the league's hard salary cap and the advantages for teams in states with no income tax. Some say the league should adjust the cap based on each state and province's income tax level. Advertisement Perhaps the best thing NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has ever done is nip that idea in the bud, saying "it's a ridiculous issue." The issue is that players don't want to pay taxes, so free agents might accept a lower or equal salary offer from a team in a place with a lower tax burden. But where does the issue stop? Players also want to live in cities with a lower cost of living. Or maybe they want to be in a bigger market so they can get bigger endorsement deals. Or maybe they want to play in a city where the weather doesn't suck in January. Or maybe they want to play near their hometown. The NHL can't be expected to make adjustments in its salary cap for all the different reasons players might prefer a certain team or city. Taxes do affect how well teams do, and players are indeed drawn to states with no income taxes. But that's not the NHL's problem; it's for state governments to deal with. Just Score One Goal If you're looking for a soccer movie to watch, Next Goal Wins (2023) is pretty good. I watched it on a plane, and that's the right place to watch it (which sounds insulting, but also implies that it was better than everything else in United's movie collection at the time). I appreciate a film based on real events that also admits at the beginning that the film is exaggerating some. Advertisement The film tells the story of Dutch-American soccer coach Thomas Rongen, who, after various coaching jobs in MLS, had a short stint coaching the American Samoa national team. After a few weeks of training, Rongen led the team into World Cup qualifying, with the nation still seeking its first FIFA-recognized victory. I won't spoil it for you, but it's a feel-good comeback story, and they didn't make a movie about a scoreless draw, so you can probably guess what happened. It's a short, fun watch anyway (as long as your viewing options are constricted to the United Airlines entertainment library). Replay of the Week Not sure how this happened but it's great (although I prefer the Mets over the Phillies). That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real event of the week, the PGA's Rocket Classic tournament in Detroit, Thursday–Sunday on CBS, Golf Channel, ESPN+, and Paramount+ (admittedly, this absurd number of platforms does not help with my earlier point). The post Sports Absolutely Do Not Need Politicians More Involved appeared first on
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Red Sox address ‘unsubstantiated report' about using AI for baseball ops interviews
SEATTLE — The Red Sox on Wednesday released a statement to address an 'unsubstantiated report' that the organization uses AI to interview candidates for their baseball operations openings. Joon Lee made the claim on NBC Sports Boston's Arbella Early Edition on Tuesday, saying, 'The Red Sox were trying to recruit a new person for their baseball operations department, and during this interview process, the entire interview was conducted with an AI bot, where you would record the answers to the questions and then the Red Sox would then evaluate them. And this wasn't just one round. It wasn't just two rounds. It was five rounds of interviews where this person did not talk to another person in the Red Sox organization.' Advertisement The Red Sox released the following statement: 'We wanted to reach out to you because we are seeing unsubstantiated reports about the Red Sox using AI bots to hire candidates. ... Since 2012, the club has used a tool called HireVue to screen applicants for all roles across the organization. The Red Sox are one of several MLB clubs to use this tool, which asks candidates to answer a few questions in a recorded video for the hiring manager to get a sense of the person beyond their resume. This is one of several steps in the hiring process and is just one factor that helps determine which candidates should advance to an in-person interview. On average, the club receives over 500 applicants per position, and for some roles, as many as 3,000. This tool is in no way a replacement for in-person interviews, simply one of many steps that helps the club screen the many candidates who apply for each job posting. 'We wanted to ensure all of you had this information directly from us and would appreciate your partnership in helping clear up these unsupported claims.' More Red Sox coverage Read the original article on MassLive.
USA Today
19-06-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
A totally not fake look at the Boston Red Sox AI interview questions
A totally not fake look at the Boston Red Sox AI interview questions Hey all, it's me. The guy who programmed the Boston Red Sox AI bot. You know, the one Joon Lee reported has been conducting interviews on behalf of the team for a baseball operations job role. I can understand why there might be some consternation about the team trusting computers more than humans. Especially after so many one-sided trades over the last few years, but this is getting a little bit blown out of proportion. I only made the AI bot to see if potential candidates align with The Red Sox Way. Like everything else in sports, there's a perfect algorithm to tell us who can do the job better than anyone else and my bot can weed through those who don't fit in with our culture. Many of you are probably still skeptical, so please allow me to provide a sampling of questions our AI bot has been asking during the course of our hiring search. For privacy reasons, you must understand we cannot reveal the answers, but if you adhere to The Red Sox Way, they should be fairly obvious. Fenway Sports Group has many other entities and interests besides the Red Sox. Would you be comfortable trading a superstar to finance something not related to baseball, such as a Broadway play? Your superstar starting pitcher just blew another late-inning lead to the Yankees do you: Throw a tantrum in the clubhouse? Trade your ace for prospects because he can't get the job done Tip you cap and call the Yankees your daddy A beloved first baseman makes a critical error in a World Series game do you: Explain this is a team sport and the series isn't over Chalk it up to the unpredictability of baseball and move on Let the player take all the heat then cut him the following season A beloved starting pitcher who helped the team win two World Series after beating cancer is up for a new contract. Our internal analytics program says to low-ball him on an offer. What's your next move? Reboot the computer because the program is clearly broken Ignore the computer altogether because it can't process sentimental value Side with the computer and trade the pitcher to Oakland for pennies on the dollar after the pitcher finds your compensation offer 'a joke' Our Manager has been found complicit in a scheme to electronically steal signs, compromising the integrity of the game and calling into question the ethics of the entire organization. How long would you wait to re-hire him to the exact same position? In a smashing success for our scouting and player development departments, a 26-year-old homegrown talent has just won AL MVP and guided the team to another World Series title. He has one year left on his contract. What team would you trade him to and why? A beloved third baseman and three-time All-Star is unhappy with the team asking him to only DH going forward. How do you make sure this gets as messy as possible before also trading him for pennies on the dollar? A disheveled Ben Affleck shows up in your office demanding your help. He can't tell you what it is. You can never ask him about it later and you're going to hurt some people. Do you respond: How did you get in here? Can't you ask Matt Damon? Whose car we gonna take? See? These are all just your standard baseball questions here at the Red Sox. I can assure you, had this candidate made it through a sixth round of interviews, they would've spoken to a human representative. Well, it's a hologram of Bill James, but James is technically a human!
