Kylie Jenner is a busty beauty as her new racy Khy collaboration goes on sale
Kyle Jenner downplayed her glamorous good looks as she promoted her latest collection of clothing Tuesday.
The reality star, 27, who got wild with pal Hailey Bieber and sisters Kendall and Khloe at a pre-launch party over the weekend, was nearly unrecognizable in the latest offering on social media.
Putting the focus on the fashion, the model relied on more natural looking makeup with a soft neutral lip for the online fashion show.
In one photo, she partially covered her face with her hair.
In others, she used netting to diffuse her features, including a sexy ensemble featuring a red bra top and a beige mini-skirt. She also showed only part of her face in another snap.
From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new Showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop.
In other photos, the reality star used netting to diffuse her features, including putting a sheer hood over her head for a sexy ensemble featuring a red bra top and a beige mini-skirt.
'The symmetry of your face is beautifully carved like a masterpiece,' commented one fan after seeing the snaps.
'I'm so excited to share this collection with you guys. My collaboration with @dilarafindikoglu launches TOMORROW at 9AM PT on khy.com,' she wrote.
Diehard fans gushed over the latest selection of outfits.
'Every new launch you make continues to redefine beauty in the most inspiring way, and I couldn't be prouder to support a brand like @khy that I truly love and believe in @kyliejenner,' wrote an ardent admirer.
'One of the most iconic collections ever!!,' stated a fan.
Another remarked on the 'Structure' of the garments.
One fan called her a 'Goddess,' adding, 'you look absolutely stunning.'
Jenner, who has experienced great financial success with her Kylie Cosmetics and Kylie Skin, launched her clothes brand in November 2023.
When it first went online, customers bought $1m worth of product in the first hour.
Some critics have been wary of the high prices, while others don't think they tight fitting looks will be flattering to 'normal' women.
For instance, the red Satin Zipper bralette she modeled retails for $248 on the website and the corseted skirt is $248 as well. The zippered black Denim Jacket goes for $288.
The company also sells a variety of items, including high end dresses, skirts, jeans, pants and tees, along with athleisure wear such as hoodies and joggers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Press and Journal
20 minutes ago
- Press and Journal
Uber boss slams council for having Aberdeen taxi rival 'representing the industry' in trade talks over Street Knowledge Test
An Uber boss has slammed the council after being shut out of talks on the industry's future – with an Aberdeen taxi rival 'representing the trade' in discussions over the city's shortages. The ride-hailing firm's head of cities, Matthew Freckelton, recently spoke out at a taxi industry conference over what he felt were major hurdles in the Granite City. He claimed that a recent survey on taxi shortages carried out by an independent firm was 'misleading', as he fumed that his firm was never told about it taking place. Mr Freckelton questioned how fair it is that he is represented by arguably his biggest opponent at trade meetings with the council. Russell McLeod, managing director of Rainbow City Taxis, serves as industry spokesman. It all comes amid Uber's fight to have the city's controversial street knowledge test scrapped – which they say hinders their chances of operating a thriving fleet in Aberdeen by challenging would-be-drivers with perplexing questions. During the Private Hire and Taxi Monthly Expo this month in Milton Keynes, Mr Freckelton took questions from the crowd during a Q&A session. One of those to grill the Uber boss was Aberdeen taxi driver Luke Hulse, who took issue with Uber lobbying to bin the knowledge test – which the firm blames for only having three drivers in the city. The contentious exam has a pass rate of 'between 15-30%, depending on the information that has come out'. Edinburgh and Glasgow do not have a street knowledge test. Uber say this proves it should be ditched. In response to Mr Hulse, Mr Freckelton said: 'We think that [the street knowledge test] is not in line with Scottish Government 'best practice' guidance. 'That states that, if you are to have a street knowledge test, it should not create unnecessary barriers to entry – which we think it does.' Mr Freckelton noted that he has had 'lots of new drivers come to our office' wanting to work for Uber, who are subsequently met with difficult hoops to jump through before they can get behind the wheel. 'How much more complicated is Aberdeen to navigate around compared to Edinburgh and Glasgow?' he pondered aloud to the audience. The Uber boss also hit out at a recent survey which found that there was 'no unmet demand' when it came to taxi drivers in Aberdeen. The independent Licensed Vehicle Surveys and Assessment (LVSA) body came to Aberdeen for a few days in November to look into the city's taxi issues. The probe focussed on whether Aberdeen has 'significant unmet demand' for taxis… In other words, whether people often struggle to get a cab home from the centre. Workers fixed cameras to lampposts at city ranks, watched and counted the amount of time customers had to wait before being picked up. They also asked various businesses, services and residents about their experiences. In the end, LVSA concluded that there is not a significant problem in Aberdeen. But the California-based firm totally disagree with the results. Responding to Mr Hulse's comments about the survey, Mr Freckelton stated sternly: 'You're wrong. Significantly wrong. 'I know from our own data that we have a significant amount of unmet demand.' The group's head of cities claims that in the run up to the survey, Uber 'were not told or consulted' about it. 'I have emails between the chair and deputy chair licensing expressing, almost begging, to be able to find a way to provide this data, and I was not furnished with this data,' he added. 'In our opinion, that was a misleading report.' Continuing, Mr Freckelton told the Expo crowd he has issues with how his firm is represented during talks between the industry and the local authority. Uber is currently prevented from attending trade group meetings with the council – as only one booking office licence holder is allowed to go. The current representative is Russell McLeod of Rainbow City Taxis – one of Uber's strongest opponents in Aberdeen. 'I have expressed the perfectly reasonable point of view that it is unreasonable for a competitor of mine to represent my interests in front of licensing officials and councillors,' Mr Freckelton said. 'Yes we want a good, strong working relationship with all our regulators and we had to engage legal counsel to express those views more firmly towards Aberdeen City Council. 'That is the relationship that we want with the council.' Speaking to The Press and Journal following Mr Freckelton's remarks, the Rainbow City Taxis boss was quick to give his version of events. He said that whilst he has 'never been against Uber' in Aberdeen, they should still have to 'play by the same rules as we do'. Mr McLeod said: 'It was an independent survey done by an independent company. Whether I agree with it or not, that is what they found. 'I definitely agree with the findings of the survey. The survey did not suit Uber's narrative, and that's the be all and end all. 'It didn't suit their argument, so therefore they want to diss it.' With regards to being the sole booking office representative, the taxi firm chief highlighted how there are still six others who fight for drivers in the group. Mr McLeod told The P&J: 'We've managed for I don't know how many years now [with one booking office representative]. 'ComCab don't have a representative there and never have, they seem to be quite happy that a booking office representative is there to look after their interests.' Aberdeen City Council was approached for comment.
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
Tech titans clash over scraps of limited time
NEW YORK, May 27 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Any smartphone is a window to a jostling crowd of apps: Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram, Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube, Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab messaging service, and so on. The only constraint is the number of minutes in a day each user has to give them - a limit against which they appear to be straining. The U.S. government's lawsuit seeking to break up Meta helps to illustrate how this overstuffed colosseum has no room for new challengers unless old ones make way. Technology titans' battle to keep a hold of eyeballs is more perilously changeable than it may seem. Trustbusters at the Federal Trade Commission allege that Mark Zuckerberg's empire stifled competition in a 'buy-or-bury strategy' as they push to unwind its acquisitions of photo-sharing app Instagram and messaging service WhatsApp. As is the way of such cases, much of the legal argument comes down to who exactly Meta competes with: select a narrow group, and its market dominance looks unassailable; expand the list, and Facebook might seem a drop in the bucket. The interesting result of this exercise is that it shows just how delicately balanced each app's hold on user attention is. Take the government's line, for instance. The FTC argues that Meta's rivals are limited to the likes of disappearing-photos app Snap (SNAP.N), opens new tab and a privacy-based social network with 20 million users called MeWe. Under this definition, Meta's share of user time spent is a whopping 85%. View the world like the $1.7 trillion social media giant's legal team, though, and it looks very different. When adding TikTok to the mix, Meta's share drops to 60%. It becomes even more feeble when YouTube enters the arena, declining to 30%. Meta's core app, Facebook, began in 2004. Snap followed in 2011, while TikTok was released in 2016. The risk is that each new entrant innovates just enough to steal away the limited minutes in a day. Take the ByteDance-owned short-form video app. In 2019, TikTok consumed, on average, over 2 minutes of each U.S. adult's day. Five years later, that number increased to almost 18 minutes, according to analysis by advisory firm Epyllion. And just as, say, the popularity of TV show 'Survivor' led broadcasters to endlessly replicate the reality-show formula as they vied for viewers, a defensive copycat pattern plays out in social media, too. Instagram and YouTube, sensing a threat, quickly embraced similar short-form video feeds. As Meta itself admitted in court, after initial disruption, every app simply begins to look the same. The maturing of the iPhone era makes this competition more desperate. When Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion in 2012, smartphone penetration in the United States was 45%, according to the Pew Research Center. Every day, there were plenty of people booting up a web-connected phone and peering into app stores for the first time, ready to be courted by social media platforms. By 2024, smartphone adoption rates had doubled. Home screens are now cluttered with apps. Growth must therefore come by keeping users glued to their phones for longer, taking up more time out of their day. The decline of recreational activities in the real world implies that this has already happened. People spent 26 minutes on average each day reading in 2023, 10 fewer minutes than in 2003, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Socializing and communicating fell even more, from 78 minutes in 2003 to 57 minutes in 2023. Hanging out with friends declined as mobile phone usage rose, with starker gaps among younger cohorts. Atsushi Katsuki, chief executive of Japanese beverage group Asahi, partially blamed, opens new tab digital entertainment, including video games, for the drop-off in consumption of beers like Peroni. 'Alcohol used to occupy a much bigger share of people's entertainment and joy,' he told the Financial Times in May. So if there are fewer new users and fewer new minutes in the day to win, platforms must instead steal time from each other. As Zuckerberg himself, opens new tab put it, when asked why he bought Instagram: 'Building a new app is hard.' Capturing people's attention is incredibly valuable, difficult to dislodge -- and immediately claimed if it is. A couple of accidental natural experiments provide handy proof. In October 2021, Facebook and Instagram experienced a six-hour global outage. Streaming television giant Netflix (NFLX.O), opens new tab materially benefitted. The company, which cites everything from the Sandman to Fortnite as competition, said it saw a 14% pop in engagement, opens new tab during Meta's unexpected downtime. Similarly, when TikTok was briefly banned at the beginning of the year, Facebook and Instagram noted a 37% uptick in usage, according to Meta's court presentations. Americans may have reached peak attention - at least for now. Sleep, personal hygiene, at least some socialization: all of these are likely to stay constant. One of the few places left to win time might be from the workday. The pattern of labor has changed little in the past two decades, clocking in at a little under 8 hours on average per day. Maybe, if technologists' wildest dreams for artificial intelligence are realized, this will finally start to shift. The more productive a society becomes, after all, the more time it will have to waste. Until then, the app battle royale rages on. Follow @jennifersaba, opens new tab on X
BreakingNews.ie
30 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling
A federal court in New York handed US President Donald Trump a big setback on Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Mr Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. Advertisement The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. -Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. Advertisement A person walks in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm in Tokyo (Eugene Hoshiko/AP) On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. Advertisement The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. The legal challenges to Mr Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up in the Supreme Court (Evan Vucci/AP) -Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. Advertisement The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. -So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. Advertisement She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity. 'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.' The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'
