Latest news with #Sherman
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Why antitrust regulations are pertinent
While arguing for the Sherman Act, Senator John Sherman said in 1890, 'If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.' The law would eventually mark the beginning of antitrust regulation in the United States, while also laying the groundwork for similar statutes preserving market competition worldwide, including in India. Sherman's idea of what constitutes a 'necessity of life' has evolved since then. Technology is reshaping societies and markets — it now shapes the production, transportation, and sale of most goods and services, leading to the rise of what we now term the global 'digital economy'. India is a significant player, with its domestic digital economy contributing 11.74% to its GDP (2022-23). This success has partially been driven by technology start-ups, which rose from just 2,000 in 2014 to over 31,000 in 2023. The government recognises their potential and leans on them to build a $35 trillion 'Viksit Bharat' by 2047. Yet Sherman's concern about a few players dominating economies still applies. In Digital India, the kings are located in foreign waters, dictating selective terms to home-grown start-ups building the country's digital future. As a result, the ability of Indian start-ups to scale is often stunted. While these global firms connect societies, they also wield immense monopolistic power. A recent case by a leading Indian online gaming company against Google, filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI), highlights the risks posed by such dominance. On start-ups and monopolies Discriminatory practices by gatekeepers in the digital economy harm India's economy, business environment, and consumers. Google, for example, dominates distribution and discovery of digital services. With Android holding about 95% of the of the mobile operating system market share in India, it is nearly impossible for consumers to discover new online businesses without the latter hawking their services on Google's superior search engine, app store, or online advertising ecosystem. This dominance has led to discriminatory outcomes for Indian start-ups. For example, high commissions levied by Google on transactions taking place within its payments ecosystem have dampened the revenues of start-ups using these services. These issues have led domestic antitrust regulators to crack down on the tech giant, preventing Google from restricting app developers from using third-party payment systems or from communicating with their users to promote their apps. The gaming start-up's CCI filing is an addition to this long list of concerns with Google's anticompetitive behaviour in India. In its complaint, the gaming industry leader alleged that Google abused its dominant position via a discriminatory Real Money Gaming (RMG) Pilot Program operated through the Play Store, and restrictive advertising policies. Google's Pilot Program, launched in September 2022, selectively permitted two specific formats of RMG on the Play Store — Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and rummy — limiting market access for other formats of RMG, such as the casual games offered by the gaming company. While Google discontinued similar pilots in Mexico and Brazil in June 2024, its Indian iteration continues to date, offering DFS and rummy operators relatively unfettered access. For example, the complaint notes that a DFS operator with 90% of the market share acquired 150 million users over 16 years, but upon joining the Pilot, it added another 55 million users in just one year. Google similarly amended its advertising policies following the launch of the Pilot, limiting gaming advertisements to DFS and rummy operators, which earlier allowed advertisements by all games of skill. Before these amendments, the online gaming leader claimed that 68.21% of its app downloads were derived from Google's ad program. Now, they have stopped — a deep cut for an Indian start-up with proven global credibility and scale. CCI, the forward-looking and progressive digital regulator, has began an investigation into these concerns. Costs to India Such market distortions carry serious economic consequences, compromising India's ability to reach its digital economy ambitions. Most importantly, lack of competition leads to 'reductions in quality and consumer choice[s]', and excessive reliance on few powerful players. Net-net, everyone loses, except the gatekeepers. India cannot afford such a loss in innovation — and nor can its people, who will ultimately benefit from competitive growth, driven by ambitious start-ups. Sherman's homeland offers some insight into what the future holds for markets where the antitrust issue is not addressed head-on. Antitrust scholars suggest that rising monopolisation across American industries has increased the cost of doing business for growing businesses, leading to a dramatic decrease in Initial Public Offerings. The economic consequences of such lopsided markets are too severe for India to bear. Ultimately, global tech giants play a critical role in powering these new-age businesses. What the future requires is recognition from Indian adjudicators that avenues for distribution and monetisation must be democratised, without gatekeeping, for domestic start-ups to thrive. The gaming industry leader's case carries on Sherman's legacy — it is one step towards a fairer field for everyone. Alwyn Didar Singh, Former Secretary to the Government of India and former Secretary General, FICCI
Tom's Guide
23-07-2025
- Tom's Guide
I came so close to loving the Nothing Headphone (1), but the sound held them back — here's what I'd recommend instead
When I pulled the Nothing Headphone (1) from their box, I immediately noticed just how well-built and designed the headphones are. The quality metal earcups and intuitive physical controls could have made them a shoe-in for my favorite pair of headphones of 2025, and pose a threat to the best headphones you can buy. But sadly they fell down at what is, ultimately, the most important hurdle of all — sound quality. I'd hoped they were going to sound good thanks to Nothing's partnership with KEF, but there were significant sonic issues that I noted in my Headphone (1) review. Any pair of headphones that effectively requires the use of an EQ isn't a good pair of headphones in my mind, given that general audiences don't understand their 100Hz from their 14KHz. Thankfully, there's a pair of headphones in the $200-$299 price range that you should buy instead that outperforms the Nothing Headphone (1) in most metrics — the Cambridge Audio melomania P100. Here's why you should buy them instead. The Melomania P100 are an excellent pair of headphones featuring a whole range of features to make them a great alternative to the more well-known competition. They're also a better buy than the Headphone (1), with more battery life, much better sound, and a simpler look for those who don't want Nothing's more out there design. The Nothing Headphone (1) bring a fancy design to the table and great build quality, but they let the side down when it comes to sound; arguably the most important bit. You do get solid battery life though, and a very good and compact hard case. The physical controls are amongst the best around as well. There's no denying that the Nothing Headphone (1) have a unique look. They're smothered in metal and transparent plastic, with their cassette motif shining through to get glances from everyone that's walking past. If you're looking for a pair of headphones that shouts "look at me!" then the Headphone (1) are the headphones you're looking for. If you're not looking to make as much of a statement and want something that looks solid without being louder than a piledriver on a building site, then the Melomania P100 might be more up your street. They've got a clean, sleek look, but I really like their subtle design touches. The Cambridge Audio circle on the outside of the cans is a nice feature, and the shape of the earcups is good. Build is similar to the Nothing Headphone (1) too. There's metal in these earcups, and they feel like they'd survive a brush with a Sherman tank. They're more comfortable in some ways as well especially if you've got ear piercings. They don't press on your lobes like the Headphone (1). I like the look of both headphones, but while I'm happy that Nothing is shaking things up with the Headphone (1), I'd still go for the more understated style of the Cambridge Audio cans. The Nothing Headphone (1), on paper, have more features than the Cambridge Audio Melomania P100. There's spatial audio and adaptive ANC, amongst others. In actuality, however, they're much closer than they seem on first inspection. The spatial audio, as with many implementations, is worth leaving off. It thins out the sound of your music, and makes it sound like it's being played down a metal pipe. Worth avoiding. Adaptive ANC sounds good, but I didn't find any battery gains on paper, and it actually made some things worse when it misread the environment. I just left it on max level whenever I needed ANC as a result — the same level available with the Melomania P100. After that, the feature sets remain similar. There are strong EQ adjusters on both, and low-latency modes for gamers. USB-C audio can play Hi-res tracks with great bandwidth, although, as we'll find out later, you'll only want to use it with one pair of headphones. The Cambridge Audio cans last 100 hours with the ANC off, and then 60 hours with the ANC on. The Nothing Headphone (1) have good battery life. They'll last you for 35 hours with ANC on after a full charge, which rises to 80 hours when you turn the ANC off. That's more than the Sony WH-1000XM5 and the Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones — but much less than the Melomania P100. The Cambridge Audio cans last 100 hours with the ANC off, and then 60 hours with the ANC on. That's a lot of battery, and I can attest to their battery life personally. I took them on a three-day camping trip, and didn't need to charge them once, despite using them to help me climb mountains and circumnavigate lakes. And then they got me home for the 6-hour drive. Quick charge is similar on both models as well — a 5-minute quick charge gets you 4 hours with Cambridge Audio, while the Nothing cans manage 5 hours. If that's what $70 gets you, I'm not sure I'd bother with the more expensive option. There's no avoiding it. Despite working with renowned audio brand KEF, the Nothing Headphone (1) just don't sound all that good out of the box. They're far too dark, and need significant work in the EQ to make them sound decent. I certainly wasn't a fan of the way they sounded, and it lost them a whole star and a half in their review. The Melomania P100 are one of the best-sounding pairs of headphones around — you'll have to spend hundreds more dollars to find something that sounds better. Harsh? Perhaps, but when you consider how the cheaper competition sound, you'll understand why. The Melomania P100 are one of the best-sounding pairs of headphones around — you'll have to spend hundreds more dollars to find something that sounds better. They are supremely well detailed, and the soundstage is extremely wide and involving. It places instruments very well, and makes for one of the best listening experiences you'll have this side of $450. At the end of the day, headphones are all about how they sound. ANC is important, and both are good at it, but it's really all about the sound. And the Cambridge Audio Melomania P100 just sound better. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you value in a pair of headphones. But as far as I can tell, the Cambridge Audio smash the Nothing Headphone (1) in most metrics. Battery life, sound quality, price — Nothing leaves bloodied and bruised while Cambridge Audio shrugs off a volley of style points. For my money I'd save $60 and buy the Melomania P100. They're just a better pair of headphones. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
22-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Sex recession: Why Gen Z is saying no intercourse
Does Gen Z have a problem with sex? One in four Gen Z adults has had zero sexual partners, and they are masturbating less than before, according to studies. But why are they staying off sex? read more Gen Z are those born in the 1990s and early 2000s. They come after the millennials, also known as Gen Y. Gen Y came after Gen X – the original alphabet generation. Representational Image/Pixabay Gen Z has a problem with sex. Specifically that they can't get any – in what has been dubbed the 'sex recession'. This, according to Carter Sherman, author of The Second Coming: Sex and the Next Generation's Fight Over Its Future. Sherman, who is a reporter at The Guardian, interviewed over 100 Gen Z-ers under the age of 30 for her book. She previously worked for Vice News. But what do we know? What does it mean? Why is this happening? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let's take a closer look: A brief look at Gen Z First, let's take a brief look at Gen Z. Gen Z are those born in the 1990s and early 2000s. They come after the millennials, also known as Gen Y. Gen Y came after Gen X – the original alphabet generation. The data shows that over 60 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds lean to the Left. Gen Z women are said to be the most left-wing bloc in history – particularly on issues such as the environment, gun control and abortion. What do we know? Sherman in her book said the data reflects the scope of the sex recession. She quoted a 2022 study as showing that o ne in four Gen Z adults have had zero sexual partners. She said in 2023, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that a third of high schoolers had sex. That number was nearly 50 per cent in 2013. Sherman says Gen Z is even masturbating less than before. She said what she discovered was contrary to the media narratives that they are disinterested in sex or simply prudes. 'Many of them are very horny. They would like to be having sex, and in fact they feel a lot of shame over the fact that they haven't had sex yet or that they're not having sex enough', Sherman told Wired. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sherman in her book writes that young people feel 'stranded before the maw of a vast and dehumanising internet.' The ubiquity of porn in the lives of Gen Z cannot be taken for granted. She described the internet as a 'TikTokian carousel of porn' and also a 'mass social experiment with no antecedent and whose results we are just now beginning to see'. Sherman said many Gen Z-ers had learned about sex from porn – which had impacted their ideas about sexual preferences. 'A lot of young people told me that they felt like porn had normalised 'rough sex' and in particular had normalized choking. If you're under 40, you are almost twice as likely to have been choked during sex. And I talked to one young woman who was telling me, you know, when she was first having sex in high school, and all of her friends were having sex, all of them were getting choked, and she was like, 'Some of us liked it, but not all of us liked it', Sherman told Wired. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The ubiquity of porn in the lives of Gen Z cannot be taken for granted. While some data show that nearly half of adult Gen Z-ers think porn is harmful, three-fourths of young Americans have done so by the time they turn 18, Worse, 15 per cent have watched it at age 10 or below. Why is this happening? Sherman has claimed that Gen Z is worried about being punished for having sex. Sherman has said that these attitudes are a result of sexual conservatism – which seeks to eliminate abortion and access to birth control – being on the upswing in America. This has become more far more acute in the aftermath the fall of Roe vs Wade. Sherman in her NPR interviewed described Gen Z as 'petrified' of the consequences of sex. '…I think that feeling that people are now going to face a kind of punishment for sex, because they'll be forced to have kids that they don't want — I think that is really rife within Gen Z. And that contributes to this overall miasma of anxiety and fear around sex that really doesn't lead people to want to have it,' Sherman said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD She also pointed to the MeToo movement having unintended consequences of having created concern around sex but not providing women with ways to improve the system. Gen Z in America worried about being punished for having sex. This has become more far more acute in the aftermath the fall of Roe vs Wade. AP 'So for the young women I talked to, that makes the whole world just seem so much more dangerous because it just makes it seem like now you know that something bad happened, but no one else cares,' Sherman added. She also blamed Covid-19 for depriving this generation of real life experiences when it comes to sex. '…I think that they are very interested in sex, but they're not necessarily able to put it into practice as much. I mean, this is a generation that grew up during COVID, and so they missed a lot of key milestones — they just missed out on having that really critical IRL experience to know what it's like to try and get with somebody else,' Sherman said. With inputs from agencies
USA Today
22-07-2025
- General
- USA Today
'Sexual conservatism,' virginity and why Gen Z is having less sex
Research shows America's youth today are having less sex. The 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior found adolescent sexual behavior declined since 2013. A 2022 survey from the Kinsey Institute that found one in four Gen Z adults say they have never experienced partnered sex. But are Gen Z really as modest as some may think? Carter Sherman, 31, a journalist for The Guardian, digs into that question with her new book "The Second Coming," which explores Gen Z's sex lives — or lack thereof. Sherman found through interviews with more than 100 young people that this generational dry spell is less puritanical and more political, with Gen Zers abstaining from sex for a complex variety of reasons. Gen Z is sometimes framed as a "nation of virgins," Sherman writes, but our obsession with their lack of intercourse may really say more about our constant need to tell young people how to have sex. Rather than be corrective, she argues, we should focus on approaches that promote safe, consensual encounters and reduce shame. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. Question: You share at the opening of the book you were obsessed with losing your virginity as a teen — sobbing to your mother when you learned a best friend lost theirs to a classmate before you. How is the idea of virginity impacting how we think about young people and sex? I was so obsessed with my own [virginity]. Truly, my last few years of high school were dominated by my a total freak-out that I was still a virgin. I felt that I should have already had sex and my friends were leaving me behind by having sex, and I felt I wasn't living up to the standard of being a teenager. Part of my own journey in writing this book was coming to understand that standard was based on false information. You're either too virginal, or not virginal enough. There's no way to win. I don't think we've moved from the idea of virginity. At the end of the day many of the young people I spoke to felt their virginity was important, and some feel that their virginity was treated as too important. We are always setting standards that don't match up to reality and make us feel worse about ourselves. What doesn't help is the level of shame people carry around and the feeling they're constantly doing it wrong. How much of a factor is the end of Roe v. Wade playing in Gen Z's not having sex? Gen Z is absolutely aware of how much the overturning of Roe v. Wade has changed the U.S., and in particularly their sex lives. Sixteen percent of Gen Zers are now more hesitant to date since the fall of Roe. There are so many young women I talked to who shared a level of sheer anxiety that Roe's overturning sparked. What the overturning of Roe has done is create a deep of anxiety but also create a generation that is ready to do battle over this. Feeling this stuff doesn't make you feel safe enough not only to be in a sexual relationship but also a romantic one. At the same time, you spoke with conservative youth, particularly men, and found that movements to embrace traditional sex roles have also complicated youth feelings about sex. What I call "sexual conservatism" speaks to that. This is the movement to make it dangerous to have queer, unmarried or recreational sex. Sexual conservatism has done a much better job of speaking about the difficulties of raising a family in this country than progressives. It's very appealing for young people to go toward sexual conservatism because the only people they hear talking about it are those on the right. If you feel like you're not being heard, you're going to go to the only people talking about this issue in a comprehensive manner. Gen Z has so much online information about sex, including porn, at their fingertips. How does that impact their sex lives? I really love how the internet has opened up discussions about what is sexuality. But social media also does this thing where it makes people extremely aware of the ways they believe they're falling short with sex. We're gauging our sexual value by likes, matches and follower counts. It makes people not want to engage in sex because they feel they have to look perfect naked in order to get naked. That's not a recipe for vulnerability or connection. How does OnlyFans fit into all of this? As Only Fans bleeds into mainstream social media, it becomes another metric whereby people evaluate themselves and make themselves also appear that way. For young people, the line between (real life) and virtual sex is very much diminishing and blurring. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's just how it is at this point. If we want to have conversations about sex, we have to acknowledge so much of young people's sex lives are shaped by the interactions they're having online. What is your advice for older adults trying to relate Gen Z right now? It's less about having the exact right information and more about approaching the topic with an empathetic attitude. Young people through the internet have more taken an approach to LGBTQ+ identities that are more iterative. Recognizing that and not treating that with suspicion is what's important for older people who might not understand what young people are going through. Gen Z men, women have a political divide It's made dating a nightmare What's the bottom line about Gen Z's sex lives? I don't really care if young people are having less sex if that's something they're comfortable with. What I worry about is if having less sex is a proxy for not having relationships, not having connections with yourself and what makes you feel good.
Chicago Tribune
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Jim Nowlan: Democracy thrives on competition. Run for office.
Nearly half the 118 Illinois House districts were uncontested during the 2024 election. The 17 Illinois congressional districts are mostly hungry for competition in 2026. County and municipal offices across the state often go begging for officeholders. Voters need alternatives to consider. If there are none on the ballot, interest in democracy dries up. Run for office. You could have a ball. And even win. As I wrote in this space recently, Barack Obama might still be a community organizer, absent throwing his hat in the ring in 2004 to run as a longshot candidate for the U.S. Senate, after having been clobbered earlier in a race for the U.S. House. The primary culprit in our absence of candidates is gerrymandering, in which the majority party draws absurd district shapes in order to protect incumbents and generate lopsided majorities. This creates a situation in which a challenge to the incumbents looks hopeless. But it isn't, always, and there are other reasons to run for office than winning. Take my friend Charles Owens of rural Henry, Illinois. In 2002, Owens ran for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor of our state; he filed the appropriate petitions and appeared on the ballot. (Petition circulation in Illinois for the 2026 elections runs from August to December.) Owens and everyone in the party knew he had zippo chance of winning. Undaunted, Owens traveled the state to participate in the traditional candidates' meetings and rallies. At these gatherings, each candidate who qualifies for the ballot is on the stage and offered three to five minutes to say his piece. A good Catholic social conservative, Owens devoted his remarks to his anti-abortion rights position and the plight of the homeless, the latter a subject rarely if ever on the radar screen of the GOP. The audiences politely applauded Owens, as they did everyone else on the stage — and they heard about how he would help those among us who are struggling. Maybe a few even learned something and were moved to act. Who knows? After all, 70,000 voted for Owens (9% of the total). The quiet, reserved Owens had a great time, enjoyed meeting hundreds of people and marveled at our big, hugely diverse state. He spent but gas money on his campaign. Recalling his bid, Owens told me later: 'I was a winner.' Or take my case. In 1971, I was a little-noticed, 29-year-old back-bench Illinois House member. My governor, Richard Ogilvie, had promoted and enacted a new income tax, so most laughed at his reelection chances. Nobody wanted to be his lieutenant governor. Except me. I realized the House was not a career (as it shouldn't be for anyone; after all, it's public service, not personal service). So, I thought, up or out. Ogilvie had few options, so he endorsed me. I hired a strapping friend, just back from Vietnam, to be my driver. For a year, we traveled up and down the 400 miles of Illinois, in a fire-engine red Chevy station wagon the size of a Sherman tank. We hit all the county fairs, small-town candidate nights and Latino urban neighborhoods, most too trifling for the governor's time. We had a ball. I have friends to this day from across the Prairie State whom I met on the campaign trail half a century ago. And Ogilvie (plus Nowlan, for we were linked on the ballot) almost won. If 38,000 of the 5 million who turned out (less than 1%) had cast their ballots for us rather than our opponents, I would have become 'lite guv,' as pols call the official. From there, who knows. Decades later, I bumped into Leo Shapiro, the pollster for our 1972 opponents. 'Jim, our tracking polls were showing that if the election had gone on for three more weeks, you would have won.' That's life. Running for office is obviously not everybody's thing, yet there are thousands of 60-ish early retirees out there, still full of spit and vinegar, who should consider running for office. Their golf game isn't going to get much better, and they have important things to say about our city, state and nation's future. Democracy could use you. What do you have to lose?
