X owner Elon Musk has floated the idea that the social network formerly known as Twitter may no longer be a free site. In a live-streamed conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Musk said the company was “moving to a small monthly payment” for the use of the X system. He suggested that such a change would be necessary to deal with the problem of bots on the platform.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk. “Because a bot costs a fraction of a penny — call it a tenth of a penny — but even if it has to pay…a few dollars or something, the effective cost of bots is very high,” he said. Plus, every time a bot creator wanted to make another bot, they would need another new payment method.

Musk didn’t say what the new subscription payment would cost, but described it as a “small amount of money.”

During the conversation, Musk also shared new metrics for X, noting the site has now 550 million monthly users, who generate 100 to 200 million posts every day. However, it wasn’t clear if Musk is counting automated accounts — that is, either good bots like news feeds or bad bots like spammers — among those numbers.

This figure also didn’t allow for a direct comparison with Twitter’s user base pre-Musk, which was calculated using a specific metric Twitter had invented called the “average monetizable daily active user,” or mDAU. This older metric indicated the users on Twitter who could be monetized by viewing its ads. During its last public earnings of Q1 2022 Twitter had 229 million mDAUs.

Musk didn’t expand on his plan to charge for X or when such a change would come about. But since Musk took over the platform last year, the company has been pushing its users to subscribe to its paid subscription product, X Premium (previously Twitter Blue). This $8 per month or $84 per year subscription service offers a variety of features like the ability to edit posts, half the ad load, prioritized rankings in search and conversations, the ability to write longer posts, and more.

X doesn’t disclose how many paid subscribers it has, but independent research indicates X Premium hasn’t attracted a majority of X users. One analysis determined only 827,615 users currently subscribe to X Premium, for example.

The idea of charging everyone for X is not a new idea for Musk. Platformer last year reported that Musk was weighing the idea of putting all of Twitter behind a paywall, in fact.

The larger conversation between Musk and Netanyahu today focused on AI technology and its regulation, though the topic of hate speech on X came up. Here, Musk claimed he’s “against antisemitism” and “anything that promotes hate and conflict.” Of course, Musk’s latest spat saw him threatening to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League, which has accused both Musk and X of being antisemitic.

Tech Crunch

Most people now live in countries where two or fewer children are born for every two adults. If all people in the United States today lived through their reproductive years and had babies at an average pace, then it would add up to about 1.66 births per woman. In Europe, that number is 1.5; in East Asia, 1.2; in Latin America, 1.9. Any worldwide average of fewer than two children per two adults means our population shrinks and in the long run each new generation is smaller than the one before. If the world’s fertility rate were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to less than two billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.

What would happen as a consequence? Over the past 200 years, humanity’s population growth has gone hand in hand with profound advances in living standards and health: longer lives, healthier children, better education, shorter workweeks and many more improvements. Our period of progress began recently, bringing the discovery of antibiotics, the invention of electric lightbulbs, video calls with Grandma and the possibility of eradicating Guinea worm disease. In this short period, humanity has been large and growing. Economists who study growth and progress don’t think this is a coincidence. Innovations and discoveries are made by people. In a world with fewer people in it, the loss of so much human potential may threaten humanity’s continued path toward better lives.

Whenever low birthrates get public attention, chances are somebody is concerned about what it means for international competition, immigration or a government’s fiscal challenges over the coming decades as the population ages. But that’s thinking too small. A depopulating world is a big change that we all face together. It’s bigger than geopolitical advantage or government budgets. It’s much bigger than nationalistic worries over which country or culture might manage to eke out a population decline that’s a little bit slower than its neighbors’.

Fewer and fewer countries have high birthrates

Sustained below-replacement fertility will mean tens of billions of lives not lived over the next few centuries — many lives that could have been wonderful for the people who would have lived them and by your standards, too.

Perhaps that loss doesn’t trouble you. It would be tempting to welcome depopulation as a boon to the environment. But the pace of depopulation will be too slow for our most pressing problems. It will not replace the need for urgent action on climate, land use, biodiversity, pollution and other environmental challenges. If the population hits around 10 billion people in the 2080s and then begins to decline, it might still exceed today’s eight billion after 2100. Population decline would come quickly, measured in generations, and yet arrive far too slowly to be more than a sideshow in the effort to save the planet. Work to decarbonize our economies and reform our land use and food systems must accelerate in this decade and the next, not start in the next century.

This isn’t a call to immediately remake our societies and economies in the service of birthrates. It’s a call to start conversations now, so that our response to low birthrates is a decision that is made with the best ideas from all of us. Kicking the can down the road will make choices more difficult for future generations. The economics and politics of a society in which the old outnumber the young will make it even harder to choose policies that support children.

If we wait, the less inclusive, less compassionate, less calm elements within our society and many societies worldwide may someday call depopulation a crisis and exploit it to suit their agendas — of inequality, nationalism, exclusion or control. Paying attention now would create an opportunity to lay out a path that would preserve freedom, share burdens, advance gender equity, value care work and avoid the disasters that happen when governments try to impose their will on reproduction.

Or perhaps we don’t need to concern ourselves at all if fertility rates self-correct to two. But the data shows that they don’t. Births won’t automatically rebound just because it would be convenient for advancing living standards or sharing the burden of care work or financing social insurance programs. We know that fertility rates can stay below replacement because they have. They’ve been below that level in Brazil and Chile for about 20 years; in Thailand for about 30 years; and in Canada, Germany and Japan for about 50.

In fact, in none of the countries where lifelong fertility rates have fallen well below two have they ever returned above it. Depopulation could continue, generation after generation, as long as people look around and decide that small families work best for them, some having no children, some having three or four and many having one or two.

Nor can humanity count on any one region or subgroup to buoy us all over the long run. Birthrates are falling in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the current highest average rates, as education and economic opportunities continue to improve. Israel is an example of a rich country that, as of today, has above-replacement fertility rates. But there, too, fertility rates have been falling over the decades, from 4.5 in 1950 to 3.0 today. Israel may not be above 2.1 for many more generations.

As living standards increased, birthrates fell

The main reason that birthrates are low is simple: People today want smaller families than people did in the past. That’s true in different cultures and economies around the world. It’s what both women and men report in surveys.

Humanity is building a better, freer world with more opportunities for everyone, especially for women. That progress deserves everyone’s greatest celebration — and everyone’s continued efforts. That progress also means that, for many of us, the desire to build a family can clash with other important goals, including having a career, pursuing projects and maintaining relationships. No society has solved this yet. These tradeoffs bite deep for parents everywhere. For some parents, that means struggle. For others, that means smaller families than they hoped for. And for too many, it means both.

In a world of sustained low birthrates and declining populations, there may be threats of backsliding on reproductive freedom — by limiting abortion rights, for example. Some will inexcusably claim that restricting reproductive choice is a way to curb long-run population decline. Somealready do.

No. Low birthrates are no reason to reverse progress toward a more free, diverse and equal world. Restricting reproductive rights — by denying access to critical health care and by denying the basic freedom to choose to parent or not to parent — would harm many people and for that reason would be wrong whether or not depopulation is coming. And it would not prevent the population from shrinking. We know that because fertility rates are below two both where abortion is freely available and where abortion is restricted. Any policymaker asking how to respond to global depopulation should start by asking what people want and how to help them achieve it rather than by asking what they might take away.

There are many ways to live a life or be a family, and having that freedom and diversity is good. If an inclusive, compassionate response to population decline emerges someday, it need not be in conflict with those values. If one in every four pairs of American adults would choose to have one more child, that would be enough to stabilize the U.S. population. In that future, there would still be many ways to live a life or be a family; two kids on average doesn’t mean two kids for everyone.

Nobody yet knows what to do about global depopulation. But it wasn’t long ago that nobody knew what to do about climate change. These shared challenges have much in common, which gives humanity some shared experience to build on.

As with climate change, our individual decisions on family size add up to an outcome that we all share. No people are making mistakes when they choose not to have children or to have small families. (Although we might all be making a mistake, together, when instead of taking care of one another, we make it hard for people to choose larger families.) It’s in no one’s hands to change global population trajectories alone. Not yours, whatever you choose for your life, not one country’s, not one generation’s. Nor is it in your hands personally to end all carbon emissions even by ending your own emissions. And yet our personal choices add up to big implications for humanity as a whole.

It’s not too early to take depopulation seriously. The New York Times reported on the threat of climate change in 1956. A scientist testified about it before Congress in 1957. In 1965 the White House released a reportcalling carbon dioxide a pollutant, warning of a warming world with melting ice caps and rising sea levels. That was nearly six decades ago.

Six decades from now is when the U.N. projects the size of the world population will peak. There won’t be any quick fixes: Even if it’s too early today to know exactly how to build an abundant future that offers good lives to a stable, large and flourishing future population, we should already be working toward that goal. Waiting until the population peaks to ask how to respond to depopulation would be as imprudent as waiting until the world starts to run out of fossil fuels to begin responding to climate change.

Humanity needs a compassionate, factual and fair conversation about how to respond to depopulation and how to share the burdens of creating each future generation. The way to have that conversation is to start paying attention now.

** Spears is an economist at the University of Texas, Austin, and a research affiliate at its Population Research Center.

New York Times

TikTok is full of advice on how to ace your job interview — but not all of those tips are actually a good idea, some recruiters say.

It’s smart to come prepared with questions for your interviewer when they inevitably ask if you have any. But one question often floated as a way to make yourself stand out could actually end your interviews prematurely.

“When you ask questions at the end of your interview and ask your interviewer, “Do you have any hesitations about my candidacy?′ That is the worst advice,” says Farah Sharghi, who estimates she’s conducted more than 10,000 interviews at companies like Google, Lyft and TikTok. “Do not do that.”

Why it’s a bad idea

First of all, Sharghi says, you don’t always know if the person interviewing you is making any hiring decisions, let alone the final one, for the role. When Sharghi was a recruiter at Google, for example, candidates interviewed with members of a hiring committee, who would then submit feedback to the person making the hiring decision, and it wasn’t always the person managing the role.

Asking someone who doesn’t do the hiring why you might not be hire-able shows a naivete about how the interviewing process works, Sharghi says.

“You’re putting someone on the spot who is going to be put in a very uncomfortable [position],” she adds.

Second, and most crucially, asking this type of question can introduce doubt into your otherwise stellar qualifications.

“If I mention ‘pink elephant,’ what do you think of immediately? You’re visualizing in your head a pink elephant,” Sharghi explains. So, “when you’re asking this question, ‘Do you have any hesitancies about my candidacy?’ Maybe the interviewer was thinking, ‘Well, I actually really liked this person, but now you’ve introduced hesitancy into my head.’”

That alone could cause the interviewer to think, “Maybe I should hesitate to hire this person” or “Let me think of the negative reasons why we shouldn’t hire this person,” Sharghi says

“Why would you lead someone down the path of saying no? Don’t do this. Let them say yes,” she says.

What to ask instead

Instead, pose questions where you can focus on your strengths rather than your shortcomings.

Former HR professional Natalie Fisher says one question she always tells people to ask during interviews is, “If the new hire was to achieve one thing that would blow your mind, what would it be?”

Once the interviewer responds with the task, mention if you’ve ever hit a similar goal in your experience. If you haven’t, you can instead respond with follow-up questions that show your enthusiasm to deliver on it, and explain why you have what it takes.

When done well, Fisher says, clients say asking this question has helped them land an offer on the spot.

CNBC

In a race to beat the deadline for the planned commencement of an indefinite strike that may lead to the shutdown of the economy, the Federal Government on Monday held a meeting with organised labour on post-subsidy removal palliatives for workers.

The parley, hosted by the Minister of Labour, Simon Lalong, in Abuja, however, failed to reach a consensus as the Nigerian Labour Congress insisted that the FG must meet its demands ahead of the 21-day ultimatum issued on September 1 by the congress.

The union had on September 1 handed down the 21-day ultimatum to the FG over the delay in sharing of palliatives, saying it might be compelled to declare an indefinite labour action if its demands were not met.

In furtherance of its demands, the NLC mobilised workers for a two-day warning strike on September 5 and 6, partially grounding social and economic activities in several states with banks, ministries, agencies and departments closed to the public in some states.

The NLC leadership had said the action was in preparation for a total shutdown of the economy which would start at the expiration of the ultimatum on Friday.

Among other demands, the NLC and the Trade Union Congress were asking for wage awards, implementation of palliatives, tax exemptions and allowances to the public sector workers and a review of the minimum wage.

Though the FG made a commitment to restructure the framework for engagement with organised Labour on palliatives, the eight-week timeframe set for the conclusion of the process expired in August with no action whatsoever.

Briefing journalists at the end of the meeting on Monday, both parties pledged to find solutions to the key demands tabled before the government by the organised labour before the deadline.

Lalong said many of the items presented by Labour were still under consideration before the final agreement.

The minister stated, “Our meeting was very robust. It was a fruitful meeting. Many of the items presented by labour are still under consideration before the final agreement or discussions.

“It was a fruitful meeting. I thank the NLC for coming to the meeting and for their very useful contributions.”

President of the NLC, Joe Ajaero, also described the meeting as fruitful but said only the Presidency could take decisions on the demands presented to the government

Ajaero said the organised labour was ready to meet with the government any time of the day to find solutions to its demands and avert the planned strike.

The NLC president said, “Like the minister said we had a fruitful deliberation and we have agreed to continue to make sure we arrive at meaningful agreement within the remaining days of the ultimatum.

“We equally discussed frankly the issue bordering the coup floated and executed by the Nigeria Police against the National Union of Road Transport Workers which has led to the detention of their democratically elected national officers and both parties agreed to show concern towards the resolution of the matter.

‘’It is one sore area that the trade union movement in Nigeria is not ready to compromise. Whether a coup in the trade union movement or in the polity. It must be condemned; whether it is in Niger Republic, Congo or Mali or in the trade union movement in Nigeria.

“On the other issue, you can see that there is no agreement or implementation on any. There is no CNG anywhere. Refineries are not working. No agreement on wage award. Those are the issues we believe that something will happen before the ultimatum expires. It is possible that something will happen.’’

He further explained, “We had a convivial deliberation with the minister and we hope that even if it is remaining one day, we will get to the root of all these problems. Whenever we are invited, we will be there. Both parties will work towards the realisation of these objectives before the last minute of the ultimatum.

“There is a larger committee that has set up technical committees. The ministry has performed its role to mediate and conciliate in the problem between us and the Federal Government. There is an inter-ministerial committee at the Presidency level which is supposed to address these issues.

“The ministry of labour can’t address wage award, the issue of CNG, refineries and others. The ministry has mediated to ensure that there is no problem or get both parties to resolve these issues. We are ready to engage the government whether in the night or day; we are ready to engage but not at gunpoint.”

Before the meeting went into a closed-door session, Ajaero had said the two – day warning strike declared on September 5 and 6 by the NLC was “a product of frustration caused by the economic situation in the country.”

The labour leader complained that “none of the demands put before the federal government had been addressed.”

He lamented the lack of trust between the government and the union in the negotiation process.

Ajaero stated, “We came with mixed feelings whether it will work or not because we have had many meetings, some beyond this level, yet nothing seems to be coming out of it.

 ‘’But I have great optimism in the Nigerian project; we can’t stop trying. We are here with that belief that something may happen. But that doubt, that trust gap is what we feared for a long time now and it calls for lamentation.

“The strike is an effect of a policy that doesn’t have a human face. There was no strike before the removal of fuel subsidy. It was the government that said ‘ask for palliatives, ask for wages’ and we have asked for it; that warning strike was a product of frustration, up till this moment.’’

Ajaero bemoaned the adverse impact of the fuel subsidy withdrawal on Nigerians, stressing that the NLC would not rush into a strike without justifications.

He added, “We must work together to ensure that we don’t keep on dragging these issues. It is the Nigerian people that are being affected, they are the people that are suffering. We have a lot of demands that we have put on paper for the government.

‘’There is the issue of CNG, refineries working, wage award and cash transfer. Of all these agreements, not even one has been addressed by the government and you want us to meet every day.

“Some of us have been around for a long time and our job is not to go on strike but when you enter into an agreement that agreement should be implemented. Before the warning strike we raised the issues of palliatives and wage award and the NURTW.

“Nobody earning N30,000 or N60,000 will buy fuel for one week. We need to find solutions to all these problems and we have articulated them. Each time we finish they ask for time.

‘’They asked for eight weeks, we gave them. They asked for four weeks, we gave them. We don’t know what to tell our colleagues or members again. We hope that at the end of this meeting, we will have something to tell our members. This is a neck-breaking meeting.”

Lalong assured the labour leaders that the government was committed to addressing all the issues that led to their warning strike.

The minister maintained that the government must be mindful of striking a balance that promotes economic growth and secures sustainable progress for the nation as it attempts to address the demands of Labour.

Lalong said, “In recent months, our country has witnessed teething challenges, marked by industrial actions and unrest that have adversely affected the economy.

‘’I appear before you today not just as a representative of the government, but as an advocate for constructive dialogue, aspiring to understand your concerns and working hand in hand to find lasting solutions that benefit all Nigerians.

“I fully acknowledge and appreciate the invaluable role the NLC plays in championing the rights and welfare of our workers. Your dedication and tireless advocacy have been critical in shaping a fair and inclusive work environment, and ensuring the wellbeing of our workforce. We acknowledge the valid grievances that have fuelled the recent labour crisis, and we are committed to addressing them in a just and equitable manner.”

He added, “We must also recognise the economic realities that confront us. As we address the concerns of our workforce, we must be mindful of striking a balance that promotes economic growth and secures sustainable progress for our nation.

‘’Today, I call upon each one of you to join hands in an open-minded and constructive dialogue, enabling us to bridge any gaps that may exist between the interests of workers and the ultimate goal of driving economic advancement.”

The minister appealed to the labour unions to embrace dialogue and shun the strike.

“In the spirit of unity and with utmost commitment to the betterment of our nation, let us seize this opportunity to listen and understand one another. Together, let us explore innovative approaches, reimagining strategies that enhance working conditions and worker benefits while nurturing a robust economy.

“I am confident that this gathering will produce resolutions that propel our labour sector towards greater strength, and our beloved country towards a brighter future.

“We eagerly look forward to our discussions today, knowing that the harmonious collaboration between the government and the NLC will facilitate an environment where our workforce thrives, and our economy flourishes,”  he admonished.

Punch

President Bola Tinubu has been accused of nepotism following the concentration of most of his recent appointments in the Southwest and Lagos State in particular.

Daniel Bwala, the spokesperson of the Atiku Abubakar presidential campaign council for the 2023 general election made the accusation while speaking on Channels TV Politics Today.

He claimed that Tinubu had beaten ex-president, Muhammadu Buhari, in nepotism.

Buhari was accused of making most of his appointments from the northern part of the country while in office, but Bwala said in the case of Tinubu, only a section of the southern part of the country was getting attention.

Bwala, a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), stressed that the president had ignored the Southsouth and Southeast in his appointments so far.

He said: “APC as a political party is a party that commenced the idea of nepotism. Remember when Buhari was in power, people complained about nepotism…but he’s like iPhone 13 Promax.

“By the time Tinubu took over, his own even exceeded iPhone 14 and went straight to iPhone 15 Promax in the sense that his appointments have generated a conversation around the country that the government is being concentrated in one part of the country over and above others.

“In the case of Buhari, you could argue that he favoured the North…but you could see that it is populated by Northeast, Northwest, and Northcentral. There was a democratic distribution of appointments there but when it comes to this present government, if you look at it, the Southeast and the Southsouth are left behind.

“The dominance of the appointments is in the Southwest. And even when you go further in the Southwest, there are quite a number of people in the Southwest who will tell you that the appointments were concentrated in Lagos.”

He argued that the constitution stated that the country should not be run in a way that would reflect the dominance of one part over the other, stressing that Tinubu is breaking the law.

The former member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), said the president may not be able to enjoy loyalty from all sections of the country, following his obvious disregard for other parts of Nigeria.

It’s too early – APC

Reacting, a member of the ruling APC, Aliyu Audu, who was also featured on the programme, said criticisms of the government should be constructive.

He argued that it was too early to accuse the president of nepotism, stressing that there were more appointments to be made.

While pointing out that the concerns have been noted, he assured that Tinubu would not leave any part of the country behind.

“We should critique our own, we should praise our own but we should understand where to draw the line. We should always have an objective, we should not criticize just for the sake of criticism, we shouldn’t criticize for the sake of causing disaffection among Nigerians,” he said.

Daily Trust

A new Nigeria can only be born with a new constitution says the leader of the Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion,Henry Ndukuba. 

Ndukuba the Archbishop Metropolitan and Primate of all Nigeria declared in Nnewi: "We need a new constitution that would reinforce true federalism, granting states more powers to address local challenges and drive development initiatives."

Delivering his opening address at the just concluded 14th  General Synod of the Church  of Nigeria Anglican Communion at St Mark's Anglican Church Nnewichi Ndukuba said: "To address the pressing issues and lay a solid foundation for a stronger future, Nigeria must embark on the arduous but essential task of crafting a new Constitution that reflects the aspirations and values of all people and culture.

"One is convinced that what 

we need is a totally new Constitution made by a Sovereign Representation of the Ethnic Nationalities of this country."

He stressed further that this new Constitution must "reflect the nation's identity and diversity and be a unifying force that recognizes and protect our diversity."

He noted that Nigeria, "is a diverse and dynamic nation, which has seen significant progress over the years, but it also faces numerous challenges. The current constitution has limitations that hinder the nation's growth and stability", the Primate concluded.

French defense attache Emmanuel Pasquier and his team have been told to leave Burkina Faso, according to Reuters. France recalled its ambassador from the country, following his expulsion by

leaders of the coup who took power in September 2022.

“The government of Burkina Faso has decided… to withdraw the approval of Mr. Emmanuel Pasquier, defense attache at the French embassy in Burkina Faso for subversive activities,” the Burkinabe Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in a letter to Paris on Thursday, granting “a period of two weeks to leave Burkinabe territory,” Reuters reported.

According to the letter, the French military mission in the capital, Ouagadougou, will be closed while Burkina Faso will also close its defense office in Paris.

“The accusation of subversive activities is obviously fanciful,” a spokesperson for the French Foreign Ministry told AFP in Paris.

French television channels La Chaine Info and France24, as well as Radio France Internationale, have been suspended by authorities in Burkina Faso and correspondents from French newspapers Liberation and Le Monde have been expelled, local journalist Kader Nalima Bado told RT on Saturday. Nalima Bado claimed that the news has been perceived in his country as a "good sign" because of local perceptions that French media companies were one-sided in their reporting.

Russia Today

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Top US general: Removing Russia from Ukraine a ‘very high bar’

Army Gen. Mark Milley said a quick outcome to the war in Ukraine is unlikely, noting that a Ukrainian victory in the conflict is a “very high bar” and would take a “very long time.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has resisted negotiating a peace with Russia since the country’s invasion began more than a year and a half ago, citing unserious terms from Moscow. He said the best outcome would be to remove Russia from all Ukrainian territory.

Milley, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is retiring from his post at the end of this month, said that objective won’t be possible, however, in the country’s current counteroffensive.

“There’s well over 200,000 Russian troops in Russian-occupied Ukraine. This offensive, although significant, has operational and tactical objectives that are limited, in the sense that they do not — even if they are fully achieved — they don’t completely kick out all the Russians, which is the broader strategic objective that President Zelensky had,” Milley said in a CNN interview Sunday. 

“That’s going to take a long time to do that. That’s going to be very significant effort over a considerable amount of time,” he continued.

He refused to say exactly how long he believes it will take, citing the changing aspects of war, but he doubted that the conflict will end any time soon.

“I can tell you that it’ll take a considerable length of time to militarily eject all 200,000 or plus Russian troops out of Russian-occupied Ukraine,” he said. “That’s a very high bar. It’s going to take a long time to do it.”

Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive has made slow progress against Russian lines in the country’s east. 

That slow pace has worried Western allies, and Milley has previously both defended the Ukrainian effort and said its success will require patience.

“This is going to be long; it’s going to be hard; it’s going to be bloody,” Milley said in July, adding that the effort “is far from a failure, in my view.” 

“That’s a different war on paper and real war,” Milley said. “These are real people in real machines that are out there really clearing real minefields and they’re really dying. So when that happens, units tend to slow down … in order to survive, in order to get through.”

** Russian air attack on Ukraine's Lviv injures one, sparks fire - Ukraine's officials

Western Ukrainian city of Lviv was rocked by blasts in the early hours on Tuesday, with local officials saying the Russian air attack injured one man and caused a major fire at an industrial warehouse.

"A woman and a man were found under the rubble in Lviv. According to preliminary information, the woman was not injured. The man is in a serious condition," Lviv's region Governor Maxim Kozitsky said on the Telegram messaging app.

Reuters could not independently verify the report. The scale of the attack and full extent of the damage was not immediately known. There was no immediate comment from Russia.

Lviv city mayor Andriy Sadovyi said air raid alerts for the region were called off after nearly three hours at around 0300 GMT.

Since the start of the war in February 2022, Russia has carried out countless attacks on Ukraine's territory far away from the front lines, aiming at destroying infrastructure critical to Kyiv's defence, energy and agriculture.

But the New York Times reported late on Monday that a reported Russian attack that killed at least 17 people earlier this month in a crowded market in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka, appeared to be a "tragic mishap" on Ukraine's part.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy condemned the attack at the time, saying Russia was behind it.

"Evidence collected and analyzed by The New York Times, including missile fragments, satellite imagery, witness accounts and social media posts, strongly suggests the catastrophic strike was the result of an errant Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system," the newspaper reported.

Reuters could not verify the report. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine or Russia.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Situation in Russian economy better than previously projected on some key figures — Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that the economic situation on a number of key indicators is better than projected earlier.

"I would like to say at once that on a number of key indicators the situation is much better than previously projected," he said at a meeting on draft federal budget for 2024-2026.

Despite negative forecasts, Russia’s GDP may grow by 2.8% by the end of the year, Putin said. "Back in April this year’s GDP growth was expected at 1.2%. Initially some even projected [GDP] contraction, though later the outlook was adjusted to 1.2% growth, though in fact we have already surpassed this mark, and GDP growth may reach 2.5% by the end of the year, maybe even up to 2.8%," the president added.

Russia’s economy has coped with an unprecedented external pressure and fully recovered, with the country’s GDP having reached the level of 2021, Putin noted.

"Overall it is safe to say that the stage of recovery of the Russian economy is over. We coped with an absolutely unprecedented external pressure, the sanctions pressure of some ruling elites in the so-called Western bloc, some ruling elites in certain countries that we call unfriendly," he said, adding that "Russia’s GDP has reached the level of 2021."

Moreover, Russian President has tasked the government and the Central Bank with taking measures to support the national currency.

"Obviously one of the main problems is related to inflation acceleration now, with the ruble’s weakening being clearly the key factor here," he said.

"It is necessary to clearly understand its reasons and take timely measures. I am confident that the government, the Central Bank will work professionally," Putin noted.

** Russian Su-34 hits Ukrainian brigade’s deployment point in Kupyansk direction

The Russian Battlegroup West’s Su-34 fighter-bomber delivered a strike on a temporary dislocation point of Ukraine’s 103rd territorial defense brigade in the Kupyansk direction, Battlegroup Spokesman Sergey Zybinsky told TASS.

"During combat in the Kupyansk area, the crew of a Su-34 fighter-bomber of the Battlegroup West delivered an airstrike on a temporary deployment point of the [Ukrainian] 103rd territorial defense brigade near Peschanoye," said Zybinsky.

According to him, the crews of Ka-52 and Mi-29 attack helicopters and assault aviation carried out 14 missile strikes on concentrations of manpower, weapons and military hardware of Ukraine’s 14th mechanized brigade and territorial defense units near Sinkovka, Kotlyarovka, Makeyevka and Terna.

In addition, in counterbattery fire, the battlegroup’s artillery destroyed a US-made 155mm M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer system and three mortar crews near Peschanoye, Krakhmalnoye, Sinkovka and Stelmakhovka.

In all, the enemy lost more than two platoons, a car and nine unmanned aerial vehicles, Zybinsky said.

The Hill/Reuters/Tass

According to a survey by Open society foundations, more than a third of 18-35 year olds favour a military regime or an authoritarian leader. How did it come to this?

Do people still believe in democracy? This was the question asked by a recent Open Society Foundations poll, which for the second consecutive year surveyed more than 36,000 people in 30 countries around the world to hear their opinions and feelings about human rights, democracy, and other important issues facing countries around the world.

The "Open Society Barometer: Is Democracy Effective?" survey, one of the largest global polls ever conducted, was conducted between May and July 2023 and the results, published in the run-up to International Democracy Day, are surprising, to say the least.

The concept of democracy is still widely popular in every region of the world: 86% of respondents say they would prefer to live in a democratic state and 62% believe that democracy is the best possible form of government. In Italy, the results were 91% and 69% respectively.

Only 20% of people said that authoritarian states are more capable of satisfying citizens' demands and are more efficient in dealing with major issues at home and in the international arena.

What is surprising, however, is that although trust in democracy is still high across the board, the age group that is most sceptical about its effectiveness is the youngest one, those aged 18 to 35.

If we look at the data disaggregated by age group, the percentage of citizens who consider democracy to be the best possible form of government drops to 55% among the youngest, while it is 61.4% among the 35 to 55-year-olds and 69% among those older than 56. 

What is more, 42% of those aged 18-35 said that a military regime is a good way to govern a country, while 35% are in favour of a 'strong' leader who dispenses with elections and parliament. In Italy, the percentages drop to 24 and 32%, respectively. 

But how did we get here - and what does it mean for the survival of democracy?

"It is really worrying that the lowest support is in the youngest group, the 18 to 35-year-olds because today we have the largest generation of young people. Half of the world is under 30," says Natalie Samarasinghe, Global director for advocacy at Open Society Foundations.

But, she says, context is important. "It is a combination of factors. We are facing a generation that has experienced a series of shocks: economic crises, COVID-19, climate change, and it is more than proven that authoritarian states have not handled these crises well, but neither have democracies. When you grow up in an era of instability and crisis, you have little trust in politicians. So I think this translates to scepticism about the system as a whole."

In addition to the feeling that politicians have failed to deal with the major crises of recent years, there is also the impression 'that they are worse off' than their parents in terms of socio-economic conditions and, finally, the lack of representation: "How many young people feel that they have a say in democracy when the issues they fight for are never at the top of the agenda?", asks Samarasinghe.

This disaffection for democracy thus stems from a general and continuous mismatch between what citizens demand and what is then actually delivered by the political class. On average, about one-third of the respondents do not trust politicians to work in their interests and address the issues they care about. Primarily poverty, inequality and human rights, climate change and corruption.

The responsibility of other generations

Gianfranco Pasquino, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, agrees with Samarasinghe not only on the socio-economic difficulties that have marked the last generations but also on the responsibility of the political class. "Parties have become inadequate structures. Parties teach democracy, practise it and show how to practise it. A great American political scientist wrote a book in the early 1940s saying that parties are born with democracy and democracy is born with parties. Consequently, democracy dies if parties die and instead thrives if parties recover. But I do not see this effort on the part of politicians," Pasquino explains.

However, the professor also attributes some of the responsibility for young people's disaffection with the democratic system to the older generations, who are progressively more pro-democracy. Among the over 56 interviewed, the most authoritarian regimes are not particularly popular: only 20% are open to a military state, and 26% to a strong leader.

A considerable difference with younger people, but one that is easily explained according to Pasquino: "Quite simply, many of them have lived part of their lives under an authoritarian regime and know that they would never want to go back. Instead, they have had positive or at least better experiences with democracy than young people. But it would have been better if they had passed on this information, feelings and emotions to their children. Perhaps they did not do it enough."

Is democracy at risk of extinction?

So what does this data tell us about the health and future of democracy? Is there really a risk that the democratic system will gradually fade away? Neither expert sees this as even remotely possible.

"Democracies continue to appear, and the established ones have never fallen. It is actually wrong to say that there is a crisis of democracy, there are problems in the functioning within some democracies, for example,Hungary, for example, Poland, but democracy is not in crisis," says Professor Pasquino.

Samarasinghe goes even deeper: "The trend has always been and will be towards more freedom. And I think this survey also shows that there is this desire. Only that people now see a discrepancy between this desire and their lives. But I don't think their solution is 'OK, we will turn to an authoritarian system'. It may be a short-term solution, but not a long-term one. The values that people personally hold dear, including human rights, are so deeply rooted even in countries that currently have more authoritarian governments, that they cannot possibly fade away."

Rather, the concern is another: what can happen during this period of misalignment. "I think political leaders, national and international, need to keep in mind what the consequences of inaction are. It is not just a matter of saying: 'OK, we don't want to give up coal production now because we have this industry in the lobby and we might lose the next election.' The whole system is at stake here."

Euronews

Cassiy Johnson always wanted a second income source. But selling concrete candles and coffee mugs swirled in nail polish from her Howell, Michigan, home proved too time-consuming and heavy to ship.

Then, she tried designing T-shirts.

It was April 2020, and Johnson had been furloughed from her full-time job as a daycare salesperson, where she made $70,000 per year. Her Etsy shop launched the next month — and in the fall, it brought in $30,000 in revenue in just two months, she says.

Even better, she adds: She spent less than 30 minutes per day on the side hustle, running it entirely on her phone, she says. The rest of her time went toward her new sales job, making $17 per hour. The following year, she made $90,000 off Etsy and decided to run the online store full-time, she says.

The store has brought in more than $766,400 in lifetime revenue, according to documents reviewed by CNBC Make It. Roughly a third of that is profit, Johnson estimates: She brought in $100,900 in her highest-earning month to date, and was able to pocket $26,100 of that money.

Johnson initially ran her business from her phone. She has since moved it to a bigger screen, she says.

Mary Colleen Photography

The store’s success spawned two additional businesses and enabled her husband to quit his job, she says.

“My husband was having a really stressful time at work, and I knew we could live off $90,000 [per year],” says Johnson, 31. “It was a magical time, to be able to be like, ‘You know what, honey, just quit your job.’”

Here’s how Johnson developed her side hustle, giving herself more free time and turning it into three different income streams.

A ‘print on demand’ side hustle

Johnson’s Etsy shop, which she prefers not to name to prevent potential copycats, was inspired by a YouTube channel. The account was dedicated to teaching viewers about “print-on-demand” stores, where sellers create designs on blank T-shirt templates — called mock-ups — and send orders to manufacturers, who print and ship them.

It seemed “simple and easy,” Johnson says. Her strategy is straightforward, she adds: Figure out what “people are already looking for [and] put something up for sale in front of them.”

Once per month, Johnson does a research deep dive, searching Etsy’s site for trends worth jumping on. She also looks for inspiration while shopping at Walmart and scrolling social media, she says.

She uses graphic design platform Canva to create each new shirt, superimposing the final result onto a pre-purchased photo of a mock-up and uploading it to her Etsy page. The shirt doesn’t actually exist until someone orders it, sending an automated request to a manufacturer and distributor like Printify, which is integrated into Etsy.

Many of her designs involve popular phrases, either in unique fonts or with slightly altered language for demographics like nurses or teachers. Grandmother-themed shirts, for example, feature catchphrases like “My favorite people call me” followed by Nonnie, Mimi, Gammy or more.

Occasionally, Johnson buys an illustration from a designer that “parodies” or “duly references” popular characters or songs — carefully walking a “gray line” to avoid copyright infringement, she says.

She also sells customizable shirts, where people can plug their own text into existing design templates. Her most popular offering in 2021 was a repeatable design featuring letters that were half-cheetah print, half-neon font, she says.

“I made designs that look exactly the same, that say hundreds of different things,” says Johnson.

New streams of income

Two years ago, Johnson realized her business could lend itself to another side gig.

Print-on-demand sellers buy photos of models wearing blank T-shirts, and photoshop their designs on top. Those photos are called mock-ups, and Johnson wanted to sell them to other sellers.

In March 2021, she opened an Esty store called StopMockAndRoll, featuring photos of herself wearing blank shirts for others to buy. It’s a nice side income, but nowhere near as lucrative as print-on-demand, she says.

Last year, Johnson added a third income stream. The YouTubers who taught her how to start her business retired, she says, so she decided to film, edit and star in her own print-on-demand tutorial videos.

She gained 1,000 followers in her first six weeks, largely due to her already-established presence in print-on-demand Facebook groups, she says. Today, her channel has more than 118,000 subscribers.

Johnson declined to share her exact YouTube earnings, but says it has outpaced her Etsy profits over the last six months.

The grit that ‘really sets me apart’

Making those YouTube videos takes up to 20 hours per week, Johnson says. Print-on-demand selling, by comparison, is a lot less time-intensive — but it’s not effortless.

“It’s a grind,” says Johnson. “You have to do the easy stuff every day for weeks and months and years on end, until it works.” Then, you have to constantly stay up-to-date on your trend research, so your products can remain competitive against every other print-on-demand seller, she adds.

Anyone can do it, she says — but to reach her level of success, making money without sacrificing her personal life, you’ll need some grit.

“I think that’s what really sets me apart,” Johnson says. “I’m not afraid to put in the hours, and I don’t have the expectation of like, ‘What if I fail?’ So what if I do? Then I’ll find out.”

CNBC