Microsoft's ZeniMax Reaches Contract Deal, Union Says
The agreement comes after nearly two years of negotiations and would represent the first union contract at Microsoft in the US, a step forward for organizing efforts at the company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We Think You Can Look Beyond 1&1's (ETR:1U1) Lackluster Earnings
Soft earnings didn't appear to concern 1&1 AG's (ETR:1U1) shareholders over the last week. Our analysis suggests that while the profits are soft, the foundations of the business are strong. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How Do Unusual Items Influence Profit? To properly understand 1&1's profit results, we need to consider the €281m expense attributed to unusual items. It's never great to see unusual items costing the company profits, but on the upside, things might improve sooner rather than later. We looked at thousands of listed companies and found that unusual items are very often one-off in nature. And, after all, that's exactly what the accounting terminology implies. In the twelve months to June 2025, 1&1 had a big unusual items expense. As a result, we can surmise that the unusual items made its statutory profit significantly weaker than it would otherwise be. That might leave you wondering what analysts are forecasting in terms of future profitability. Luckily, you can click here to see an interactive graph depicting future profitability, based on their estimates. Our Take On 1&1's Profit Performance As we mentioned previously, the 1&1's profit was hampered by unusual items in the last year. Based on this observation, we consider it possible that 1&1's statutory profit actually understates its earnings potential! On the other hand, its EPS actually shrunk in the last twelve months. Of course, we've only just scratched the surface when it comes to analysing its earnings; one could also consider margins, forecast growth, and return on investment, among other factors. If you want to do dive deeper into 1&1, you'd also look into what risks it is currently facing. For example - 1&1 has 2 warning signs we think you should be aware of. This note has only looked at a single factor that sheds light on the nature of 1&1's profit. But there is always more to discover if you are capable of focussing your mind on minutiae. For example, many people consider a high return on equity as an indication of favorable business economics, while others like to 'follow the money' and search out stocks that insiders are buying. While it might take a little research on your behalf, you may find this free collection of companies boasting high return on equity, or this list of stocks with significant insider holdings to be useful. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge blocks Trump administration guidance against DEI programs at schools and colleges
FacebookTweetLink A federal judge on Thursday struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation's schools and universities. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland found that the Education Department violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that continued with DEI initiatives. The guidance has been on hold since April when three federal judges blocked various portions of the Education Department's anti-DEI measures. The ruling Thursday followed a motion for summary judgment from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which challenged the government's actions in a February lawsuit. The case centers on two Education Department memos ordering schools and universities to end all 'race-based decision-making' or face penalties up to a total loss of federal funding. It's part of a campaign to end practices the Trump administration frames as discrimination against white and Asian American students. The new ruling orders the department to scrap the guidance because it runs afoul of procedural requirements, though Gallagher wrote that she took no view on whether the policies were 'good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair.' Gallagher, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, rejected the government's argument that the memos simply served to remind schools that discrimination is illegal. 'It initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished,' Gallagher wrote. Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy firm representing the plaintiffs, called it an important victory over the administration's attack on DEI. 'Threatening teachers and sowing chaos in schools throughout America is part of the administration's war on education, and today the people won,' said Skye Perryman, the group's president and CEO. A statement from the Education Department on Thursday said it was disappointed in the ruling but that 'judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level.' The conflict started with a Feb. 14 memo declaring that any consideration of race in admissions, financial aid, hiring or other aspects of academic and student life would be considered a violation of federal civil rights law. The memo dramatically expanded the government's interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring colleges from considering race in admissions decisions. The government argued the ruling applied not only to admissions but across all of education, forbidding 'race-based preferences' of any kind. 'Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism' and advanced discriminatory policies and practices,' wrote Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of the department's Office for Civil Rights. A further memo in April asked state education agencies to certify they were not using 'illegal DEI practices.' Violators risked losing federal money and being prosecuted under the False Claims Act, it said. In total, the guidance amounted to a full-scale reframing of the government's approach to civil rights in education. It took aim at policies that were created to address longstanding racial disparities, saying those practices were their own form of discrimination. The memos drew a wave of backlash from states and education groups that called it illegal government censorship. In its lawsuit, the American Federation of Teachers said the government was imposing 'unclear and highly subjective' limits on schools across the country. It said teachers and professors had to 'choose between chilling their constitutionally protected speech and association or risk losing federal funds and being subject to prosecution.'
The Verge
9 minutes ago
- The Verge
Google isn't petitioning the Supreme Court yet — it's appealing Epic again to the appeals court first.
Epic v. Google: everything we learned in Fortnite court See all Stories Posted Aug 15, 2025 at 5:46 AM UTC Google isn't petitioning the Supreme Court yet — it's appealing Epic again to the appeals court first. Document here. Google argues it shouldn't be 'subject to dramatically different antitrust regulatory regimes based on diverging opinions from different panels of this Court,' so it's asking for en banc review, where the full Ninth Circuit (not just the previous three-judge panel) can decide whether it won on appeal. Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates. Sean Hollister Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Sean Hollister Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gaming Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Google Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech
