Latest news with #flawed
India.com
4 hours ago
- Politics
- India.com
Peacemaker Or Patron Of Peril? Pakistan's Hollow Gratitude To Saudi Arabia Over India ‘Ceasefire' Reeks of Hypocrisy
New Delhi: In a political theatre draped in hypocrisy and delusion, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's June 6 Eid pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia has revealed more than diplomatic pleasantries, it has exposed Islamabad's deeply flawed obsession with projecting itself as a peace-seeking nation, while covertly fuelling terror and instability across South Asia. While Indian security forces continue to grapple with Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism, the latest being the April 22 deadly Pahalgam attack that killed 26 civilians, Sharif had the gall to thank Saudi Arabia for mediating 'peace' between India and Pakistan. Yes, the same Pakistan whose soil has birthed masterminds like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar now pretends to be a sobered neighbour seeking dialogue. Shehbaz's post-Eid rendezvous with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman became a diplomatic masquerade. Pakistan's PM went as far as commending Riyadh's 'positive and constructive' role in de-escalating recent Indo-Pak tensions. But let us not forget: there was no ceasefire agreement because India needed mediation. It was a tactical decision from New Delhi, calibrated, controlled and backed by military superiority. India, unlike Pakistan, does not run to foreign patrons for a bailout every time tensions flare. It responds with surgical strikes, diplomatic isolations, or, most recently, tough measures like suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, choking Pakistan's already struggling agrarian economy. Islamabad calling it 'Indian aggression' is laughable. The real aggression has always flowed from Rawalpindi's GHQ, not Raisina Hill. Pakistan's Saudi Paradox It is ironic and almost insulting that Pakistan speaks of 'responsible restraint' while praising Saudi Arabia for 'peacemaking', even as ISI-trained militants infiltrate Indian borders. This charade seems more like Islamabad seeking validation for a narrative that has lost global credibility. India has made it clear – terror and talks cannot go together. When New Delhi responds, it does so with clarity, whether it is by revoking Article 370, neutralising terrorists with pinpoint military operations or weaponising diplomacy at global forums like the FATF, where Pakistan continues to oscillate on grey lists. Pakistan's efforts to internationalise every skirmish with India, now disguised under the veil of 'Saudi mediation', are nothing but attempts to cover up its diplomatic failures and domestic chaos. The recent Eid-ul-Adha trip, painted as a triumph, only further illustrated Pakistan's dependence on external crutches to remain relevant on the global stage. Meanwhile, India continues to handle its security and diplomacy with maturity. It does not need foreign intervention to speak for it. India's stance is firm: if Pakistan wants peace, it must first stop exporting terror. Can Saudi Arabia Play a Real Strategic Role? The honest answer is yes, but only if it chooses substance over symbolism. Riyadh holds leverage over Islamabad, not just diplomatically but economically, given the billions in aid and loans Saudi Arabia has extended to keep Pakistan afloat. If the Kingdom truly wishes to play a constructive role in South Asia, it should use that leverage to demand accountability from Pakistan's military and intelligence networks that perpetuate terrorism. It should push for genuine de-radicalisation, not lavish state banquets while terror training camps operate across the LOC. The Kingdom's credibility as a regional power hinges not on polite diplomacy, but on tough conversations behind closed doors. Enough of This Farce India sees the visit a bizarre gratitude Pakistan extended to Saudi Arabia over a supposed 'ceasefire' with New Delhi. There was no such peace deal, just India deciding when and how to engage. After all, why would the world's most populated democracy entertain a dialogue with a rogue state where democracy itself is a puppet of the military? Sharif may find joy in royal luncheons and chauffeured rides by the Saudi Crown Prince. But no amount of hospitality or photo-ops can erase Pakistan's record as the fountainhead of terrorism in South Asia. India does not need a peace certificate from a state that harbours fugitives and celebrates terrorists as martyrs. And if Saudi Arabia truly wants to play peacemaker, it should first urge Pakistan to dismantle its terror infrastructure. Until then, these symbolic gestures and orchestrated hugs in palaces will remain what they truly are – diplomatic illusions in a house of cards.
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Why The Next Internet Isn't Web3—It's Interchain
Wesley is the CEO of FPBlock , helping clients with the latest techniques in functional programming, cloud, DevOps and containerization. getty The early internet wasn't built in neat layers. It was chaotic and fragmented with competing protocols, no clear standards and certainly no centralized gatekeeper. But from that chaos emerged a global network—not by unification but through interoperability. Web3 is following a similar arc. We're witnessing the birth of a new digital terrain—one not owned or ruled by a single entity but composed of many sovereign networks working in parallel. Not one chain to rule them all, but many chains, cooperating across boundaries. Welcome to the Interchain. For years, Web3 debates revolved around dominance. Which chain will win? Will it be Ethereum with its first-mover advantage? Solana with its speed? Bitcoin with its simplicity? But these questions assume a flawed premise—that the blockchain world must mirror the Web2 model: one platform to rule them all, everything else a plug-in. That's not what's happening. Blockchains are emerging as digital nations, not Web2-style platforms. They have unique cultures, governance structures and economies. Ethereum, Solana, Celestia, Bitcoin—each has its own purpose, priorities and strengths. Like nations, their power lies in their sovereignty. Interchain is not about centralizing power—it's about collaborating across it. Sovereign, Composable And Specialized Established networks and emerging modular blockchains are pioneering this vision. They're not trying to consolidate chains. Instead, they're making them interoperable by making them: • Sovereign: Each chain operates under its own rules, governance and upgrade schedule. • Composable: Chains can exchange assets and messages freely via standards like Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) or trust-minimized bridges. • Specialized: Chains are optimized for what they do best—whether that's decentralized finance (DeFi), gaming, identity or AI. This is the Interchain philosophy: Build small, build sovereign and connect everything. Understanding The Kolme Framework For The Interchain Era The Kolme Framework is a modular blockchain infrastructure that enables developers to build application-specific chains with native cross-chain communication. Designed for the Interchain era, Kolme simplifies interoperability, abstracts the complexities of multichain development and accelerates time-to-market without compromising sovereignty or security. This framework introduces structured interoperability to a diverse blockchain ecosystem. Rather than enforcing uniformity, it standardizes communication while allowing each chain to maintain its independence. This approach strengthens the Interchain in four key ways: • Seamless Cross-Chain Experiences: Asset and data transfers are not only technically smooth—they're intuitive for users as well. • Scalability Through Modular Architecture: By distributing processing across sovereign chains, Kolme reduces bottlenecks and enhances performance. • Security-First Interoperability: Robust standards reduce vulnerabilities common in early bridge technologies and improvised integrations. • Support For Modular Blockchain Design: Chains can remain specialized and agile, while Kolme ensures they stay connected and collaborative. Kolme isn't just building tools—it's laying the digital highways between decentralized cities. The outcome: a thriving digital economy marked by fluid movement, shared innovation and resilient infrastructure. The Impact Of Interchain While monolithic blockchains concentrate power and risk, Interchain helps disperse both. The benefits are: • Resilience: There is no single point of failure. If one chain halts, the others continue. • Innovation: Sovereign chains evolve independently, pioneering and sharing breakthroughs. • Freedom: Builders and users can move between ecosystems—or create entirely new ones—with fewer barriers. Where Web2 stacked vertical layers, Interchain is horizontal—a flat, open space where ideas travel, chains specialize and users roam. What This Means For You Whether you're a founder, investor or everyday user, the rise of the Interchain is reshaping core assumptions. For founders, it's no longer about building for a single chain—it's about building for a network. Applications should be designed to plug into an evolving, interconnected ecosystem rather than being tied to one specific host. For users, the expectation is shifting toward seamless portability—your identity, assets and permissions should move with you across chains, wallets and decentralized applications. For investors, the strategy must evolve beyond backing isolated winners; the real opportunity lies in funding foundational primitives, interoperability standards and coordination layers. This isn't a move toward one dominant chain, but rather a platform shift toward a cooperative constellation of networks. The Road Ahead: Friction, Then Flight The vision is clear, but the path to get there is still bumpy as Interchain adoption comes with challenges. For starters, security is a major concern—cross-chain interactions add complexity and introduce new risks, and the guardrails to protect against them are still evolving. Scalability also presents a tension between sovereignty and efficiency; not every interaction requires validation on a global ledger, and systems must account for that. User experience is another critical area—signing multichain transactions and juggling multiple wallets is cumbersome, and these processes must become significantly more seamless. Finally, governance must adapt. As chains increasingly cooperate, governance structures will need to evolve from isolated forums into coordinated networks capable of managing collective decision making across ecosystems. However, these are growing pains, not fatal flaws. To overcome Interchain's challenges, the ecosystem must adopt a few key principles: 1. Security must be standardized across bridges and messaging layers through rigorous auditing, formal verification and shared security models. 2. User experience needs to become seamless: wallet providers, user interface (UI) designers and protocol teams should collaborate on abstracting away chain-specific details. 3. Interoperability standards like inter-blockchain communication (IBC) should be adopted broadly to reduce fragmentation. 4. Governance coordination must evolve by enabling on-chain collaboration across networks, not just within them. Together, these steps can turn early friction into future fluidity. The early internet didn't start with clean user experiences or rock-solid standards. It grew into them. I believe Interchain will, too. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Wall Street Journal
3 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Revisiting the Health Effect of ACA Expansion
In your editorial 'The Medicaid Scare Campaign' (May 27), you refer to our research on the health effect of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion among states as an honest but flawed effort. You suggest that a secondary finding in our study—smaller effects in a broader sample that included disabled individuals—undermines its conclusions. You add that it is 'clear that the ObamaCare expansion hasn't reduced deaths among lower-income, able-bodied adults,' citing flat U.S. life expectancies since 2014 as evidence. We respectfully disagree with both points. Our research shows that Medicaid significantly reduced mortality among nondisabled, low-income adults who gained eligibility through the Affordable Care Act and earlier state expansions. That we find smaller effects in a broader sample that included disabled individuals—defined as Disability Insurance or SSI recipients—strengthens our argument: We wouldn't expect ACA eligibility expansions to increase coverage or reduce mortality among disabled individuals who were already eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. In our paper, we emphasize the results for the population of nondisabled, low-income adults precisely because this is the group targeted by the expansions. The inclusion of people with disabilities reduces the effect of the Medicaid expansions that is otherwise observed for this targeted group.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bank of Marin Bancorp (NASDAQ:BMRC) investors are sitting on a loss of 26% if they invested five years ago
For many, the main point of investing is to generate higher returns than the overall market. But even the best stock picker will only win with some selections. At this point some shareholders may be questioning their investment in Bank of Marin Bancorp (NASDAQ:BMRC), since the last five years saw the share price fall 39%. The falls have accelerated recently, with the share price down 16% in the last three months. We note that the company has reported results fairly recently; and the market is hardly delighted. You can check out the latest numbers in our company report. Now let's have a look at the company's fundamentals, and see if the long term shareholder return has matched the performance of the underlying business. Our free stock report includes 1 warning sign investors should be aware of before investing in Bank of Marin Bancorp. Read for free now. While the efficient markets hypothesis continues to be taught by some, it has been proven that markets are over-reactive dynamic systems, and investors are not always rational. One flawed but reasonable way to assess how sentiment around a company has changed is to compare the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price. In the last half decade Bank of Marin Bancorp saw its share price fall as its EPS declined below zero. At present it's hard to make valid comparisons between EPS and the share price. However, we can say we'd expect to see a falling share price in this scenario. The company's earnings per share (over time) is depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers). It's probably worth noting that the CEO is paid less than the median at similar sized companies. But while CEO remuneration is always worth checking, the really important question is whether the company can grow earnings going forward. Before buying or selling a stock, we always recommend a close examination of historic growth trends, available here.. It is important to consider the total shareholder return, as well as the share price return, for any given stock. The TSR incorporates the value of any spin-offs or discounted capital raisings, along with any dividends, based on the assumption that the dividends are reinvested. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. In the case of Bank of Marin Bancorp, it has a TSR of -26% for the last 5 years. That exceeds its share price return that we previously mentioned. And there's no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence! We're pleased to report that Bank of Marin Bancorp shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 41% over one year. Of course, that includes the dividend. Notably the five-year annualised TSR loss of 5% per year compares very unfavourably with the recent share price performance. This makes us a little wary, but the business might have turned around its fortunes. It's always interesting to track share price performance over the longer term. But to understand Bank of Marin Bancorp better, we need to consider many other factors. Case in point: We've spotted 1 warning sign for Bank of Marin Bancorp you should be aware of. But note: Bank of Marin Bancorp may not be the best stock to buy. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies with past earnings growth (and further growth forecast). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on American exchanges. 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.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fort Worth city council splits in vote to oppose Tarrant County redistricting
The Fort Worth city council voted 6-4 Tuesday to approve a resolution opposing Tarrant County's plan to draw new district maps for representatives on the county commission. It comes two weeks before the county commissioners are scheduled to vote on a map that supporters say would strengthen the conservative leadership that's made the county successful. Arlington Mayor Jim Ross, whose city is currently entirely in county commission precinct 2, has questioned the legality of the county's process, and is having city attorneys review Arlington's legal options. Seats on the Fort Worth city council are non-partisan, however, Tuesday's vote largely broke down along political party lines. Council members Chris Nettles, Jeanette Martinez, Elizabeth Beck, Jared Williams, Deborah Peoples and Carlos Flores, who've been associated with the Democratic party, voted to support the resolution. Mayor Mattie Parker, a Republican, was joined by council members Macy Hill, Alan Blaylock, and Charlie Lauersdorf in opposition. District 3 council member Michael Crain, who did not participate in the vote, was in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday lobbying to protect grant funding for Trinity Metro's expansion of TEXRail into the Medical District. Parker bemoaned seeming partisan in the division around the resolution, arguing that fights between the Democratic and Republican parties are irrelevant to city business. 'Every single thing right now feels like it's about whether you are blue or red. Everything. And it is dividing this city, and it's dividing this county, and it's unacceptable,' Parker said. While Parker voted to oppose the resolution, she made clear that her vote was not an endorsement of the county's redistricting process. Parker agreed that the county's process is flawed, but argued the resolution wasn't the best way for the city to respond. The council hasn't deliberated about this, and there will be other opportunities for the city to make its voice known on this issue, Parker said. Council members supporting the resolution said it was about standing up for fair representation amid what they said was a rushed process by Tarrant County to ensure a partisan outcome in county commissioner elections. The county's proposed map appears to concentrate Black and Latino voters into a single district, which critics have argued is a violation of the 1963 Voting Rights Act. Proponents of the new map have pushed back on that assertion, however, and the county's consultant on the matter, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, has experience defending local governments against allegations of racial gerrymandering. 'This kind of process is not just flawed, it's dangerous to our democracy,' said District 6 council member Jared Williams, whose district covers southwest Fort Worth and the Lake Como neighborhood. 'If people don't trust how their representation is shaped, then ultimately we're eroding faith and trust in our very institution called democracy,' Williams said. District 8 council member Chris Nettles, who proposed the council resolution, also argued the county's redistricting could affect road projects in his southeast Fort Worth district. He was joined in supporting the resolution by District 11 council member Jeanette Martinez, who also works as an administrator for Tarrant County precinct one commissioner Roderick Miles, a Democrat. 'This is a move of self-interest — one that is targeted and will have ramifications,' Martinez said. Several council members referenced the city's experience with redistricting in late 2021 into 2022. The process wasn't easy, and caused friction between members of the city council, but ultimately the city ended up with a map that was reflective of the city as a whole, said District 9 council member Elizabeth Beck. Fort Worth's council has a wealth of diversity when it comes to the members' backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, Beck said. 'That is because we had some well drawn, well thought out maps that produced some great leaders that sit on this dais today,' she said. 'We don't see that with the county's process.' Beck referenced a Star-Telegram op-ed by Precinct 4 Commissioner Manny Ramirez that she said made clear the county's process was about partisanship. She argued that diluting the county's non-conservative voices would be a disservice to residents. District 4 council member Charlie Lauersdorf, who spearheaded the city of Fort Worth's opposition to the Keller school district split, argued the resolution will have little impact on the county's decision making. Lauersdorf instead said the city should be focusing on issues that have a more direct impact on the lives of residents. However, Beck and Williams both noted the council's resolution sends a clear message to the county about where it stands on redistricting. The real issue is the county's process for redistricting, Parker said, speaking after the meeting. While the city's redistricting process was contentious, Parker said she was proud it resulted in a map that every council member could get behind. Parker added that she didn't begrudge County Judge Tim O'Hare or the other commissioners for prioritizing partisanship in their redistricting. County commissioners are elected to partisan positions whereas city officials are not, she said. County Commissioner Manny Ramirez declined to comment on the city's resolution. Representatives for Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare did not immediately respond to an email from the Star-Telegram requesting comment.
