James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday ending the de minimis tariff exemption loophole, which will make it more expensive for Americans to ship low-cost items from overseas.

Beginning August 29, any shipment of imported goods valued at less than $800 will be subject to duties based on the product’s country of origin and the specific item.

It’s part of Trump’s efforts to increase domestic manufacturing, making the United States less reliant on other countries. The president has vowed to balance trade deficits with other countries, believing they unfairly harm the U.S.

Over the last 10 years, the number of low-value packages entering the U.S. has surged more than 600 percent, according to Customs and Border Patrol. In 2015, there were approximately 139 million, but in 2024 shipments rose to more than 1.36 billion.

The White House called the de minimis a “catastrophic loophole,” saying it has been used to “evade tariffs and funnel deadly synthetic opioids as well as other unsafe or below-market products that harm American workers and businesses” into the U.S.

Trump had already suspended the exemption for Hong Kong and China, impacting popular cheap retailers such as Temu and Shein.

The de minimis provision was added several years after the passage of the Tariff Act of 1930. It was intended to make trade easier by eliminating administrative hurdles, such as collecting minimal duties. It has been particularly effective with the rise of e-commerce.

However, in recent years, cheap e-commerce retailers overseas have been accused of over-utilizing the loophole, increasing the number of packages coming into the U.S., and making it difficult for Customs and Border Patrol to examine and protect Americans from unsafe shipments.

Last year, the Biden administration also sought to decrease the number of low-cost packages coming into the U.S. by adding restrictions and regulations to retailers that claim the de minimis exemption.

However, Trump’s executive order is a much harsher attempt to curb the number of low-cost packages.

While the current repeal falls under an executive order, it will become permanent on July 1, 2027, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The White House said American travelers will still be permitted to bring back $200 worth of personal items, and individuals can continue receiving bona fide gifts valued at $100 or less duty-free.

In addition to the executive order on Wednesday, Trump also signed an order implementing a 50 percent tariff on imported copper, slapped a 25 percent tariff on India for purchasing Russian oil, and a 40 percent tariff on Brazil.

The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart player in the British news industry. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, and across the world, pluralism, reason, a progressive and humanitarian agenda, and internationalism – Independent values – are under threat. Yet we, The Independent, continue to grow.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

President Donald Trump has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a disease of the vessels that carry blood back to the heart from elsewhere in the body.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt disclosed the diagnosis during a press conference on July 17 in response to public concern raised by photographs of the president with significant swelling around his ankles and bruises on his hands.

A July 17 letter from Sean Barbabella, the president’s physician, noted that Trump, age 79, underwent several diagnostic tests, including blood work and an echocardiogram, which did not identify any signs of systemic illness or heart failure. “President Trump remains in excellent health,” Barbabella wrote.

Chronic venous insufficiency is “a very, very common thing, and for [President Trump’s] age, it’s totally understandable that he has it,” says Monara Dini, a treating physician at the University of California, San Francisco, Center for Limb Preservation.

Chronic venous insufficiency—a subset of a larger category of conditions called venous disorders—predominantly affects the legs and causes only pain rather than more serious harm or systemic issues. The condition is quite common—affecting perhaps 5 percent of U.S. adults, according to Cleveland Clinic—and the risk of developing it increases as people age.

The network of vessels that carries blood throughout the body includes two main types of tubing. Arteries carry freshly oxygenated blood away from the core of your body to the extremities, while veins carry blood back to the heart and lungs. Arteries need to withstand high pressure and only contain between 10 and 15 percent of the body’s blood at a time.

Veins are under much less pressure and therefore can have thinner walls and hold more blood. In addition, they contain one-way valves that keep blood flowing in the proper direction, back toward the internal organs. Chronic

venous insufficiency is characterized by weakened valves in leg veins, allowing blood to flow backward and pool under the force of gravity, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. These valves leak more often as people age, Dini says.

The most common cause of chronic venous insufficiency is a blood clot that damages the valve. Symptoms of the condition predominantly affect the legs and include achiness, cramping at night, swelling and discoloration, leathery looking skin, and open sores called ulcers.

“The worst outcome of having this condition is ulcers that can develop,” Dini says. “The skin is retaining so much fluid that it can, at some point, burst and break the skin, and you develop ulcerations. It happens a lot, and that’s more devastating in the sense that it requires wound care. It can be painful and life-altering.”

Bruising of the hands is not a symptom of chronic venous insufficiency, Dini says. In his letter about Trump, Barbabella attributed this to “minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin, which is taken as part of a standard cardiovascular prevention regimen.”

Chronic venous insufficiency is more likely to occur in people who are overweight or pregnant, who have had a leg injury or blood clots or who have family members who have also dealt with chronic venous insufficiency. Other risk factors can include smoking and insufficient exercise.

Typically, management of chronic venous insufficiency relies on keeping the legs elevated, increasing exercise, and reducing weight. Compression therapy, which can include the use of compression socks or pumps, can also help alleviate symptoms, Dini says. In certain cases, doctors may recommend minor surgical interventions to either repair or remove damaged tissue. Chronic venous insufficiency is a progressive condition that cannot be healed or reversed, however.

venous insufficiency is characterized by weakened valves in leg veins, allowing blood to flow backward and pool under the force of gravity, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. These valves leak more often as people age, Dini says.

The most common cause of chronic venous insufficiency is a blood clot that damages the valve. Symptoms of the condition predominantly affect the legs and include achiness, cramping at night, swelling and discoloration, leathery looking skin, and open sores called ulcers.

“The worst outcome of having this condition is ulcers that can develop,” Dini says. “The skin is retaining so much fluid that it can, at some point, burst and break the skin, and you develop ulcerations. It happens a lot, and that’s more devastating in the sense that it requires wound care. It can be painful and life-altering.”

Bruising of the hands is not a symptom of chronic venous insufficiency, Dini says. In his letter about Trump, Barbabella attributed this to “minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin, which is taken as part of a standard cardiovascular prevention regimen.”

Chronic venous insufficiency is more likely to occur in people who are overweight or pregnant, who have had a leg injury or blood clots, or who have family members who have also dealt with chronic venous insufficiency. Other risk factors can include smoking and insufficient exercise.

Typically, management of chronic venous insufficiency relies on keeping the legs elevated, increasing exercise, and reducing weight. Compression therapy, which can include the use of compression socks or pumps, can also help alleviate symptoms, Dini says. In certain cases, doctors may recommend minor surgical interventions to either repair or remove damaged tissue. Chronic venous insufficiency is a progressive condition that cannot be healed or reversed, however.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Depending on who you ask, texting is either an easy way to keep in touch or an overbearing item on an ever-growing to-do list. What’s convenient for one person may be a burden to another, which can cause strains on some relationships. 

So, how long can someone go without texting you back before they end up on the friendship chopping block? Not very long, if you ask me. 

It might come across as harsh, but I believe healthy relationships are sustained by timely communication, instead of consistently leaving someone on Read or Delivered for a week. It becomes practically impossible to coordinate hangouts or share life updates if someone can’t bother to respond to your messages within a reasonable window, or otherwise call you if that’s how they prefer to chat. 

Friends who take days to reply — if they ever do — come off as indifferent and uninterested, especially when they don’t arrange alternative ways to catch up. You might start to wonder how much they actually value your time and effort, and why they don’t prioritize communicating with you. Repeated offenses can make it tempting to throw in the towel and invest your energy elsewhere.  

How long can you go without texting someone back?

I’ll first acknowledge my personal bias here: I have always enjoyed texting. It’s been my preferred method of communication since I got my first phone at 13 years old and discovered the magic of talking to my friends anytime, anywhere. 

It’s no coincidence that some of my closest friends tend to be people with whom I regularly text. There’s a sense of familiarity that comes from sharing your day-to-day experiences and thoughts. It’s also a fun way to engage in banter and share relatable memes and videos.

And before I upset anyone — if I haven’t already — I’ll again acknowledge that for some people, texting isn’t enjoyable. But I still think people have a responsibility to communicate clearly and frequently with loved ones if they hope to maintain those relationships, whether it’s a text, phone call, or in-person meetup.  

So, what’s an acceptable window of time for someone to text you back? 

Despite how unaccommodating I may come off in that frank introduction, I do like to give people chances. If someone takes days to reply to me the first time, or simply never gets back to me, I let it go. But if it happens again, that’s a strike. I believe you should always text someone back within a 24-hour period — notwithstanding special circumstances like travel or illness, etc. 

Repeatedly taking several days to reply is not only inconsiderate, it also just kills the vibe. Why do I care if you laughed at a meme I sent you five days ago? At that point, I won’t even remember what I reached out to you about. And if I’m asking you about going to an event and you only respond after it’s over, that unlocks a whole other level of annoyance. 

I believe the time and effort you invest in friendships includes replying to texts within a reasonable period (as long as your friend isn’t bombarding your inbox, of course). So if someone continuously takes days to reply, I take it as my sign to stop trying, and to put that energy into the friends who won’t leave me waiting.

A more personal way to stay in touch

As a teenager, my friends and I would text each other around the clock, sending a steady stream of messages and photos about anything and everything, most of it totally inconsequential. (Being young and unemployed made this all the easier.)

But as we got older and busier, and as social media began eating up our free time, text messages were largely supplanted by posting and consuming content on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Our digital activity became less personal, more performative, and less conducive to maintaining relationships. Social media gives the false impression of keeping up with someone without actually talking to them, so relationships tend to fracture.

Most people have witnessed the awkwardness of someone not replying to your text for days, but ceaselessly posting on social media. Time and energy goes into both activities, and choosing to bypass personal interactions for more public-facing ones can prevent you from feeling a genuine connection to the people who care to reach out to you. Taking 30 seconds to reply to a text could be the difference between making and breaking a meaningful relationship. 

While phone calls and in-person meetups are undoubtedly the best ways to have an in-depth conversation with someone, finding a time that works for both parties can be a challenge, given how increasingly hectic our lives have become. Texting can be a comparatively low-lift way to build a true sense of camaraderie and connection.

So, the next time you think it’s not a big deal to leave someone on Read or Delivered, maybe reconsider what your actions (or lack thereof) may convey. 

.

Friends don’t leave friends on Read for days.  Jason Chun and Viva Tung/CNET

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The president issued letters to several countries, including South Korea and Japan, warning that the tariff rate on their goods would go up on August 1. It came after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that many governments never contacted the United States for trade talks. Susan Glasser, Akayla Gardner and Justin Wolfers join.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete video (sound On):

.

__________________________________________

Hmmmm… As usual, this administration is shortsighted and will put our country further behind the world!

Click the link below the picture

.

Mathematics research typically requires few materials. To explore the secrets of prime numbers, investigate unimaginable shapes or elucidate other fundamental mysteries of our universe, mathematicians don’t usually need special labs and equipment or to pay participants in clinical trials. Instead, funding for mathematicians goes toward meetings of the mind—conferences, workshops, and institutes where they gather for intensive sessions to work out math’s knottiest problems. Funding also supports the stipends of research fellows, postdoctoral scholars, and promising early-career mathematicians.

But under the Trump administration’s National Science Foundation, much of this funding is being revoked or cut, which, according to experts, could be catastrophic for the present and future of the field. In one recent example, the NSF canceled funding for the Association for Women in Mathematics’ research symposium in Wisconsin just four business days before the event was set to begin in May. The threat to this event catalyzed the American Mathematical Society to offer $1 million in backstop grants to support programs whose federal funding has been cut or remains in limbo. These grants are meant to provide a financial safety net that will temporarily allow math programs, researchers, and departments to continue operating—but it’s not a permanent solution. (Disclosure: The author of this article currently has a AAAS Mass Media Fellowship at Scientific American that is sponsored by the American Mathematical Society.)

“The funding cut is severe, and all of mathematics will be impacted,” says Raegan Higgins, president of the Association for Women in Mathematics and a mathematician at Texas Tech University.

Movies and television shows often portray mathematicians scribbling on chalkboards in seclusion, but that picture is often far from accurate. “None of us work in isolation,” Higgins says. In fact, mathematicians rely heavily on their ability to gather and discuss ideas with their peers—perhaps even more than researchers in other fields do. For mathematicians, conferences, workshops, and research talks are not just opportunities to share research and network but also crucial moments to work out tough problems together with colleagues, pose field-propelling questions, and generate new ideas.

“It’s a thinking science, [and] it’s a communication science, so we rely on being together to share ideas and to move the needle forward,” says Darla Kremer, executive director of the Association for Women in Mathematics. According to John Meier, CEO of the American Mathematical Society, “the ability of mathematicians to gather and talk with each other is absolutely central to the vitality of the field.”

Federal dollars, largely through the NSF, are responsible for a significant portion of math funding. But a lot of that funding is disappearing under the Trump administration. In April, NSF staff members were instructed to “stop awarding all funding actions until further notice.” Over the past 10 years, on average, the NSF has awarded $113 million in grants to mathematics by May 21 of each year. This year, the NSF has awarded only $32 million, representing a 72 percent reduction. By this metric, mathematics is one of the most deeply affected subjects, second only to physics, which has seen an 85 percent reduction. 

The administration is also canceling and freezing funding that it had previously promised to researchers. More than $14 million of funding already promised to mathematics programs was revoked earlier this year, according to an analysis by Scientific American. In response to a request for comment, the National Science Foundation told Scientific American that “the agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals.”

This withdrawal of grants is eroding trust and seeding uncertainty, experts say, and it comes with long-term consequences. Even if funding gets renewed again later, it can be very difficult for halted programs to recover. “If you have to shut down a lab and mothball it, that actually takes time and effort,” Meier says. “You can’t just walk in two weeks later, flip a switch, and have everything running again. You’ve got to rebuild it.” Even in mathematics, that process of rebuilding is time-intensive and not always possible if the space has been reallocated or the people have moved on.

American Mathematical Society leadership fears these cuts will hurt young mathematicians the most. Like in the sciences, the funding cuts are eliminating research experiences and supportive programming for undergraduates, fellowships for graduate students and positions for postdoctoral researchers. Travel funding for conferences is also disappearing, which leaves young researchers to choose between shelling out for airfare and lodging they can’t really afford and forgoing major career and research-building opportunities. As these opportunities disappear, young mathematicians are beginning to look elsewhere—either to more lucrative jobs in the private sector or to more supportive countries. “We worry about diminishing opportunities in the United States and people early in their career deciding that maybe there’s a more profitable venue for them to pursue mathematics in another country,” Meier says. “We love good mathematics wherever it arises, but we’d really like to see a lot of it arising in the United States. We think that’s very, very important.”

 The $1 million in backstop grants can’t fill the hole left by the more than $14 million in promised funding that has been denied or the more than $80 million in reduced funding so far this year. But it might be enough to keep many projects afloat simply by offering guaranteed access to funds in a turbulent time. “I think one of the great difficulties that we’re dealing with right now is the high level of uncertainty,” Meier says. Some mathematicians, for example, simply don’t know whether their projects are still being funded or not. In some applications for the backstop grants, researchers “basically talk about being ghosted,” Meier explains. “They say, ‘I can’t actually verify that we no longer have funding. I can only tell you my program officer [at the NSF] isn’t replying to my request for information.’” 

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________