Plymouth woman wins $1,000 a Week for Life lottery prize
DORCHESTER, Mass. (WWLP) – A Plymouth woman is a grand prize winner in the '$1,000 a Week for Life' $5 instant ticket game.
Jaclyn Miller claimed her winnings at the Massachusetts State Lottery headquarters on Thursday, receiving a one-time payment of $800,000 before taxes.
Westfield senior accepts full-ride scholarship to Harvard University
'I'm trying to buy a house, maybe I'll win the lottery,' Miller said when asked why she bought the instant ticket.
Miller, a nurse, plans to follow through with her wishes and buy a house with her prize winnings. The ticket was purchased at Players Cafe, located at 950 Hyde Park Avenue in Hyde Park. The store will receive a bonus of $10,400 for the sale.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
19 hours ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill lays out options for transferring small businesses
BOSTON (SHNS) – Warning that a 'silver tsunami' of Baby Boomer businessowners looking to sell in the next 15 to 20 years could lead to vanishing local small businesses, advocates asked lawmakers Thursday to provide incentives for employee ownership structures. John Abrams, who said his business was employee-owned for 40 years and has written two books on employee ownership, said about three million American small businesses including about 70,000 in Massachusetts have founders older than 55 and are likely to transition ownership in the next two decades. 'Some of those companies will be passed down in families, but less than in the past. Many will unceremoniously close their doors finding no buyer, leaving holes on Main Street. Others will be targeted by strategic buyers and private equity. They may be absorbed, bundled, relocated, carved up, sold for parts, their mission and culture undone. Jobs will be lost,' he said as part of a panel organized by the Coalition for Worker Ownership and Power. 'While many founders wish to preserve the businesses they devoted much of their life to, they and their advisors, financial planners, succession consultants, business brokers, accountants, know little of the employee ownership options available that can accomplish that.' Coalition members pitched the Joint Committee on Economic Development on a bill (H 503 / S 305) they said would make it easier for employees to buy the businesses they work for during ownership transitions, including by giving employees a right of first refusal, making technical assistance available and incentivizing the selling owner by exempting sales of less than $1 million (or the first $1 million in sales of a greater value) from the state capital gains tax, according to a committee summary. Halsey Platt, the owner of a residential construction business based in Ayer, told the committee that he is in the process of converting his business into an employee cooperative. He said he has been building the business for 33 years. As he begins to think about exiting the business, he said 'the notion of being able to have my employees be able to build generational wealth was incredibly appealing to me.' 'I think by the Legislature enacting these laws, it will make my choice and that business transition more normalized. And I think if the Legislature moves forward with this, part of what happens here in Massachusetts will be that it changes the landscape, that then employees get educated about what an employee cooperative is and they are able to start to think about that,' Platt said. 'This bill is not restrictive in terms of the owner of the business who wants to sell. It is simply giving those employees the opportunity to match that offer.' WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Fund-management veteran skips emotion in investment strategy
Fund-management veteran skips emotion in investment strategy originally appeared on TheStreet. This article is based on TheStreet's Stock & Markets Podcast, Episode 8. Hosted by the veteran Wall Street investor Chris Versace, the weekly podcasts are available early to members of TheStreetPro investing club. The podcasts are also available on YouTube. More than 40 years ago Tina Turner famously asked the world: "What's love got to with it?" If the subject is investing, David Miller has a simple answer: not much. 💵💰Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter 💰 Miller, chief investment officer of Catalyst Funds, spoke with Chris Versace, lead portfolio manager for TheStreet Pro Portfolio, in the June 4 edition, episode 8, of TheStreet Stocks & Markets Podcast, to talk about what his firm is looking for in a candidate for investment. "I think the sweet spot is where you have such a good business that even if people hate them they continue to grow and grow with high margins and high EPS growth," he said. Miller cited the billionaire entrepreneur, venture capitalist and political activist Peter Thiel, who advises founders and entrepreneurs to aim for a monopoly and avoid competition. "You're either in perfect competition or you have a monopoly or an oligopoly," he said. "And clearly, anyone who owns a business wants to be in that position where you have a monopoly rather than being in perfect competition."He described how airlines historically haven't even earned their cost of capital and frequently end up going bankrupt. Restaurants, he said, have very high fixed costs and "just never earn outsized economic profits." "Whereas you look at a company like a Visa () or Mastercard () or a Microsoft or an Apple or an Adobe () or an Nvidia," () Miller said. "Phenomenal businesses, phenomenal margins, great tailwinds, really strong free cash flows." So why invest in companies that aren't monopolies when many of the best returning stocks in history have turned into monopolies? "[Frankly,] you don't have to try to pick which stock is going to be the best stock," Miller said. "You can just take these categories that are far superior businesses and invest in those. That's the ideology behind that fund and why we launched it." Miller pointed to Apple () , explaining that "once you're in the Apple ecosystem, they own you." More Wall Street Analysts: Wells Fargo analysts reboot stock price targets after Fed action Apple analyst raises alarm about earnings, revenue growth Analyst initiates SoFi coverage, mulls loans, growth prospects "You don't have a whole lot of choices and they can get great margins," he said. "As someone who's been trapped in the Apple ecosystem willingly since 2005 I am perfectly content and happy," Versace responded. "I certainly understand why a lot of people love Apple," Miller said. "I have the iPhone. I like Apple and I don't particularly like Microsoft, but I'm definitely a customer of Microsoft. I think the best businesses are those where you'll do business with them even if you don't like them." Miller said Tesla () fits this dynamic, as the electric-vehicle maker "launched a new monopoly or an oligopoly depending on how you look at it certainly from a market share perspective." "Once you decide you're going to get an EV, it's a lot easier to go ahead and buy a Tesla and be part of their ecosystem than it is to ... buy an EV that's not part of that Tesla ecosystem," he added. Tesla shares have been thrashed lately — off 14% in regular trading June 5 — in light of Chief Executive Elon Musk's controversial involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency and backing of President Donald Trump. (The two have fallen out and Musk has rankled the White House by describing what the president called his "big, beautiful" budget bill as pork-laden and a 'disgusting abomination.') And while Tesla stock is down nearly 22% in 2025, it remains up about 60% from a year ago. Miller said the courts provide one of the most telltale signs of a monopoly. "Once the courts start coming after you for being a monopoly, that's a pretty good indication that you have some monopolistic characteristics in your business whether or not you want to admit it," he that historically been the targets of court action for their monopolistic characteristics have been phenomenal investments, he added. "If you look at a company like Microsoft, () if you got into [it when] the courts first came after them pretty hard, you'd be sitting pretty today," he said. Monopolies to avoid include electric and water companies. "If you're in a space where you have a product where your profits are regulated as to how much return on equity you can actually generate, we avoid those because what we want to go for is those that are growing monopolies." And Miller prefers to leave emotion out of the equation. "If people like a product, that's great," he said, "but what I really prefer is that they need the product rather than they like the product, and that there's some growing demand around it."Fund-management veteran skips emotion in investment strategy first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
