Hampi ranked second in New York Times’s must-see global destinations | Bengaluru News – Times of

Hampi ranked second in New York Times’s must-see global destinations | Bengaluru News – Times of

BENGALURU: The ruins of Hampi in Ballari district , which under the Vijayanagar Empire thrived as one of the richest towns during the 16th century, has been ranked second among the must-see global destinations as per New York Times list of ‘52 Places To Go In 2019’.
The NYT has described Hampi as an ancient archaeological complex and highlighted that the destination is more accessible with an airline recently starting direct flights to Ballari from Bengaluru and Hyderabad. Hampi is 40km from Ballari.
Hampi ranked second in New York Times’s must-see global destinations 1 11 hamp10 hamp9 hamp8 hamp7 hamp6 hamp6 hamp5 hamp4 hamp3 hamp2 hamp1
Puerto Rico, a Caribbean island and unincorporated US territory, topped the list.
An official from the state tourism department expressed happiness over the recognition and said they are making all efforts to provide better amenities to tourists at this heritage site located on the banks of Tungabhadra River.
Biocon managing director Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw tweeted: “NYT lists Hampi as the second must-see global destination for 2019 — truly a wonder of the world.”

Read More…

Universal credit: Two-child benefit cap to be relaxed – BBC News

Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption Amber Rudd will make her first major welfare speech on Friday About 15,000 families no longer face having their benefits capped after the government performed another U-turn over its flagship universal credit.
The work and pensions secretary has ditched plans to extend a benefits cap on families of more than two children.
Amber Rudd said those with children born before the system began in 2017 would remain exempt, as she aimed to ensure it was “compassionate and fair”.
The Child Poverty Action Group said the decision was “fantastically good news”.
However, the group is still calling for the two-child cap to be scrapped for all other families.
Labour said the change “does not go far enough”.
Reality Check: What’s the problem with universal credit? Single mums win universal credit challenge Universal Credit: Will benefit changes affect you? Will the changes help you? Email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk
Ms Rudd also confirmed she would again delay asking MPs to authorise the transfer of three million people from the old benefits system.
Instead, the government will run a pilot involving 10,000 people going through the universal credit process.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What’s the problem with universal credit? BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said Ms Rudd also remains under pressure to shorten a five-week wait before new universal credit claims are paid.
He added that Ms Rudd may ask the Treasury for more money to implement further modifications, once the pilot scheme is completed.
Image caption Ms Rudd’s changes only protect families with children born before April 2017. For families where the third child is born after April 2017, the changes have no effect and the impacts the chart is showing still hold Ms Rudd told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I’m making a number of changes to our welfare system to make sure that it delivers on the intent which is to be a safety net and also to be a compassionate and fair system helping people into work.”
Ahead of a speech on Friday announcing the changes, she also signalled a benefit freeze introduced in 2016 might not be renewed when it comes to an end next year.
“It was the right policy at the time… I look forward to it coming off,” she told Sky News.
What is universal credit? Universal credit is a benefit for working-age people, replacing six benefits and merging them into one payment:
income support income-based jobseeker’s allowance income-related employment and support allowance housing benefit child tax credit working tax credit It was designed to make claiming benefits simpler, and is being introduced in stages across the UK.
Confirming she would delay asking MPs to authorise the transfer of three million people from the old benefits system, she told Today: “We have listened to people. We know they want more individual assistance either with getting payments more regularly or having payments made direct to landlords.”
“These elements, which could help universal credit work more helpfully for individuals receiving it, are what I’m going to be changing.”
She also said she wanted to ensure that the main carer in a household would be the primary recipient of universal credit.
On the two-child limit, she will say in her speech later that it was “not right” for it to apply to those who had their children before the cap was announced.
“These parents made decisions about the size of the family when the previous system was the only system in place,” she will say.
The “child element” of universal credit varies, but is worth at least £231.67 a child per month.
Ms Rudd, who became work and pensions secretary in November, accepted there were problems with universal credit, and promised to “learn from errors” and “adjust” the system after taking expert guidance.
Her predecessor Esther McVey had already announced changes to ensure claimants were given more time to switch to the benefit and would not have to wait so long for their money.
The system had been the target of complaints that it was forcing some claimants into destitution and even prostitution.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Struggling with universal credit in Hartlepool Ms Rudd will defend the introduction of the benefit by saying: “Universal credit is working for the vast majority of people.
“As a nation, I believe we all want a decent safety net: if you’re facing a difficult moment in life, the state should be there to help you.
“But it is vital that people are supported by this safety net, not trapped beneath it.”
Shadow work and pensions secretary Margaret Greenwood said the government should abandon the two-child limit in its entirety.
“Universal credit is clearly failing and the government should stop the roll out now,” she said.
Former Labour MP Frank Field, who chairs the work and pensions committee, said: “I strongly welcome the secretary of state’s decision not to press ahead with what could have been the cruellest benefit cut in history.
“At the eleventh hour, she has prevented thousands of children from being plunged into poverty by an unjustifiable retrospective policy.”
Analysis By Michael Buchanan, BBC social affairs correspondent
This speech is billed as a reset of universal credit, a clear acknowledgment from Amber Rudd that further tinkering with the troubled reform will no longer do.
The last two budgets have seen billions spent trying to reduce the problems that have become ever-more obvious, from increasing use of food banks to private landlords refusing to take people on universal credit.
But this speech demonstrates that Amber Rudd believes a more fundamental assessment of the benefit is needed. That makes her the first work and pensions secretary since Iain Duncan Smith to try to take responsibility for welfare reform rather than simply managing the existing system.
She will need to convince the Treasury in particular to back her judgement.

Read More…

Baby boomers share nearly 7 times as many ‘fake news’ articles on Facebook as adults under 30, new study finds

source Mitchell Layton/Getty Images
A new study by researchers at Princeton and New York University found that people over 65 years old were far more likely to share intentionally false or misleading information on Facebook than all other adults. Researchers looked at Facebook posts leading up to the 2016 presidential election and after, checking them for popular news domains known for spreading disinformation. The study did find, however, that the practice of sharing so-called fake news was fairly rare in general.
A recently published study found that Facebook users over 65 years old were far more likely than other adults to share disinformation on social media.
Researchers at both Princeton and New York University concluded that though the practice of spreading so-called fake news was rare overall, a person’s likelihood of sharing it correlated more strongly with age than it did education, sex, or political views.
“No other demographic characteristic seems to have a consistent effect on sharing fake news, making our age finding that much more notable,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published in Science Advances on Thursday.
Researchers commissioned an online sample of 3,500 people – not all of them Facebook users – with the goal of seeing which characteristics were associated with sharing disinformation on Facebook around the November 2016 US elections.
The researchers defined fake news as “knowingly false or misleading content created largely for the purpose of generating ad revenue.” While that aligns with the original meaning of the phrase that sprang up ahead of the 2016 elections, President Donald Trump has more often used it to refer to reputable news organizations he doesn’t like.
Of those who said they used Facebook, only 49% agreed to share any profile data. Of those users, people older than 65 captured the researchers’ attention.
Eleven percent of users older than 65 shared an article consistent with the study’s definition of fake news. Just 3% of users ages 18 to 29 did the same. The study drew its list of “fake news domains” from a list assembled by the journalist Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed News.
Andrew Guess, a coauthor of the study and a political scientist at Princeton University, told The Verge that the findings were not as obvious as some people might think.
“For me, what is pretty striking is that the relationship holds even when you control for party affiliation or ideology,” he said. “The fact that it’s independent of these other traits is pretty surprising to me. It’s not just being driven by older people being more conservative.”
The study did also find that, of those participating in the study, Republicans shared more links to sites peddling disinformation than Democrats, but “self-described independents” shared roughly the same number of those sites as Republicans.
The study’s conclusion, that people 65 years and older share most of the intentionally false or misleading news we see on social media, could be helpful for social networks in deciphering how to tackle the spread of disinformation.
The study’s authors also said more context was needed, since the oldest generation may not have a “level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online.” TAGS

Read More…

Baby boomers share nearly seven times as many ‘fake news’ articles on Facebook than anyone else, new study finds

A new study by researchers at Princeton and New York University found that people over 65 years old were far more likely to share intentionally false or misleading information on Facebook than all other adults. Researchers looked at Facebook posts leading up to the 2016 presidential election and after, checking them for popular news domains known for spreading disinformation. The study did find, however, that the practice of sharing so-called fake news was fairly rare in general. A recently published study found that Facebook users over 65 years old were far more likely than other adults to share disinformation on social media.
Researchers at both Princeton and New York University concluded that though the practice of spreading so-called fake news was rare overall, a person’s likelihood of sharing it correlated more strongly with age than it did education, sex, or political views.
“No other demographic characteristic seems to have a consistent effect on sharing fake news, making our age finding that much more notable,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published in Science Advances on Thursday.
Researchers commissioned an online sample of 3,500 people — not all of them Facebook users — with the goal of seeing which characteristics were associated with sharing disinformation on Facebook around the November 2016 US elections.
The researchers defined fake news as “knowingly false or misleading content created largely for the purpose of generating ad revenue.” While that aligns with the original meaning of the phrase that sprang up ahead of the 2016 elections, President Donald Trump has more often used it to refer to reputable news organizations he doesn’t like.
Of those who said they used Facebook, only 49% agreed to share any profile data. Of those users, people older than 65 captured the researchers’ attention.
Eleven percent of users older than 65 shared an article consistent with the study’s definition of fake news. Just 3% of users ages 18 to 29 did the same. The study drew its list of “fake news domains” from a list assembled by the journalist Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed News.
Andrew Guess, a coauthor of the study and a political scientist at Princeton University, told The Verge that the findings were not as obvious as some people might think.
“For me, what is pretty striking is that the relationship holds even when you control for party affiliation or ideology,” he said. “The fact that it’s independent of these other traits is pretty surprising to me. It’s not just being driven by older people being more conservative.”
The study did also find that, of those participating in the study, Republicans shared more links to sites peddling disinformation than Democrats, but “self-described independents” shared roughly the same number of those sites as Republicans.
The study’s conclusion, that people 65 years and older share most of the intentionally false or misleading news we see on social media, could be helpful for social networks in deciphering how to tackle the spread of disinformation.
The study’s authors also said more context was needed, since the oldest generation may not have a “level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online.”

Read More…

Fox News host Shep Smith doesn’t waste any time fact-checking Trump’s border security speech

Shep Smith on Fox News. YouTube The Fox News anchor Shep Smith on Tuesday night immediately fact-checked President Donald Trump’s speech on border security, undermining claims Trump made during his Oval Office address. Trump presented his border wall as a barrier against violence by undocumented immigrants — but he left out important context that Smith pointed out. “Statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population,” Smith said. The Fox News anchor Shep Smith on Tuesday night immediately fact-checked President Donald Trump’s speech on border security , undermining claims Trump made during his Oval Office address. Trump cited examples of undocumented immigrants committing violent acts as he sought to garner support for a wall along the US-Mexico border. “How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?” he said. “To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask, imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken.” Read more: ‘How much more American blood must we shed?’: Trump addresses the nation amid government shutdown over border-wall funding But as Smith pointed out, the president did not provide important context on this and a slew of other immigration-related issues. “Statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population,” Smith said. Smith is backed up by widespread research on this topic that has found that people born in the US are more likely to commit violent crimes than undocumented immigrants. Research based on federal and state data has also found no significant causal relationship between rising immigration rates and violent crime. Shayanne Gal/Business Insider Moreover, responding to Trump’s suggestion that undocumented immigrants are pouring across the border, Smith said, “The number of undocumented crossings over the southern border has been steadily down over the last 10 years, and the government reports that there is more outward traffic than inward traffic.” Government data backs up Smith. The number of people arrested on suspicion of attempting to cross the border illegally hit a historic low in 2017, and illegal-border-crossing arrests have declined drastically from historic highs . Annual arrests at the US-Mexico border from 2000 to 2017. Business Insider/Shayanne Gal Trump on Tuesday night also reiterated his claim the wall would help stop the flow of drugs across the southern border, but Smith noted that “government statistics show much of the heroin actually comes not over the unguarded border but through ports of call.” The latest Drug Enforcement Administration report on the national drug threat said that “the majority of the flow” was through privately owned vehicles “entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers, where the heroin is co-mingled with legal goods.” In short, many of the claims Trump made in his Oval Office address were inaccurate or misleading.

Read More…