On December 2, the Supreme Court will consider constitutional challenges to "assault weapon" bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, that cover widely owned rifles, including the AR-15. As the plaintiffs in those consolidated cases see it, such laws plainly violate the Second Amendment because they prohibit arms in common use for lawful purposes. In briefs filed on Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County urge the justices to reject that test, saying a weapon's popularity is not dispositive. The relevant question, they say, is whether their rifle restrictions fit a historical tradition of banning "unusually dangerous weapons."

Cook County and Connecticut have the burden of showing that their laws are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On the face of it, that is a daunting challenge.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to own "bearable arms" that are "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense." That description indisputably encompasses "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles," the firearms at issue in these cases. But Heller also recognized "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Cook County and Connecticut argue that the rifles they have deemed intolerable fall into that category.

"There is a robust historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons that
compromise public safety," Cook County says. "Such regulations, which long
predate the founding, have included outright bans and other restrictions on exceptionally dangerous weapons like launcegays, trap guns, Bowie knives, and slung shots."

Cook County argues that its ordinance is "relevantly similar" to those historical restrictions because it targets "exceptionally lethal weapons that are disproportionate to the end of self-defense." AR-15s are "offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality and are not customarily used for self-defense," the brief says. "The purpose and operation of the ban is consistent with our Nation's historical tradition and accounts for the exceptional dangerousness of these technologically advanced weapons."

The ban is "an appropriate contemporary restriction implemented by the legislature in response to dramatic technological change and unprecedented societal concern," the brief says. "It is tailored to respond to the particular dangers presented in areas with mass casualty exposure and acute public safety risk."

Connecticut offers a similar argument. One problem with this defense is the premise that "assault weapon" bans focus on "exceptionally lethal weapons." As critics of such laws have been pointing out for decades, the features they target, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, do not affect a rifle's basic operation. With or without them, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. And because AR-15s use intermediate-caliber ammunition, they are arguably less lethal than shotguns and many hunting rifles that are not classified as "assault weapons."

Cook County's emphasis on technological developments is also questionable. Constitutional guarantees establish principles that courts routinely apply to technologies that did not exist at the founding. Although the Framers did not have radio, television, or the internet, for example, the First Amendment nevertheless constrains government regulation of those media.

More specifically, Heller rejected the idea that modern weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment by recognizing a constitutional right to own semiautomatic pistols. The Supreme Court said "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." The Court confirmed that point in the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, which involved a state ban on stun guns.

Cook County also asserts that AR-15s are not suitable for self-defense, a claim that would be hotly contested by many owners of such rifles, who commonly report using them for that purpose. "Plaintiffs have shown that AR-15s are well-adapted for self-defense," U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan wrote in 2024, when he reluctantly concluded that New Jersey's AR-15 ban was inconsistent with Heller while expressing his dismay at that result. "Evidence has been presented to the Court that the build of the AR-15 makes it well-suited to self-defense because it is 'light weight, [has] very mild recoil, and [has] good ergonomics'; it is a weapon which is 'well suited to younger shooters, female shooters, and other shooters of smaller stature.'"

Sheridan added that "the AR-15's design features—including the effectiveness of its cartridge for self-defense use and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines—make the AR-15 a good choice for self-defense." And he noted that "the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma."

Cook County and Connecticut are also wrong in suggesting that self-defense is the only "lawful purpose" that matters. While Heller emphasized the use of handguns "in defense of hearth and home," it did not say that was the full extent of the Second Amendment right. To the contrary, the phrase "lawful purposes like self-defense" implies that the right extends to other uses, such as hunting, pest control, and target shooting. The decision explicitly mentioned hunting as a "reason Americans valued the ancient right."

The briefs are misleading in another way that may prove decisive. They conflate "dangerous and unusual" with "unusually dangerous," which is not the same thing.

During the 19th century, state legislators restricted (and sometimes banned) weapons such as Bowie knives, spears, sword canes, slungshots, and brass knuckles. But the historical evidence suggests those weapons were not targeted simply because they were "unusually dangerous." Legislators were also concerned about how the weapons were typically used.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who filed a brief supporting the challenges to the AR-15 bans, notes that the 19th-century laws targeted weapons associated with "duels, brawls, and other criminal activities." And in reviewing those laws, state courts distinguished between arms favored by criminals and arms commonly used for lawful purposes.

In 1871, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that legislators could ban weapons that were "not usual" but could not ban "the usual arms of the citizen." The top courts of Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan concurred that the right to arms encompassed weapons commonly owned by law-abiding people, including rifles.

AR-15s and similar rifles readily pass that common-use test. In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million "modern sporting rifles," its preferred term for the models covered by "assault weapon" bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. Last year, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as "the most popular rifle in the country."

According to Cook County and Connecticut, however, none of that matters. "Once it is established that a regulation pursues a legitimate public safety objective in a permissible manner, raw ownership numbers cannot immunize a firearm from regulation," Cook County says. It argues that opponents of its ordinance have misconstrued the significance of the common-use test and misunderstood how it interacts with Bruen.

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," the Supreme Court said in Bruen. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"

The common-use question, Cook County argues, figures only in the first Bruen step: "the inquiry whether the weapon at issue is one 'the Second Amendment protects.'" But even if ownership of AR-15s is covered by "the Second Amendment's plain text," it says, that does not resolve the question of whether they can be banned, which depends on the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test.

"This Court's decision in Bruen confirms that the Second Amendment's step-two inquiry does not insulate popularly owned firearms from regulation," the brief says. In
Bruen, it was "undisputed" that "handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," including "outside the home." But "instead of being the end of this Court's inquiry, that observation was just the beginning." The decision also included an "extended analysis" of the historical laws that New York cited to justify its "proper cause" requirement for carry permits. "If lawful common use alone were enough to forbid regulation," Cook County argues, "there would have been no need to engage in that careful and prolonged analysis."

The question in Bruen was not whether the Second Amendment precludes "regulation." It was whether New York's specific approach, which required residents to demonstrate a "special need" before they were allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, was consistent with the historical tradition. That is why the Court considered (and rejected) the purported historical analogs that New York offered.

Cook County conflates requirements for carry permits, the issue in Bruen, with an outright ban on ownership, the policy it is defending. Connecticut likewise blurs the distinction between carry restrictions and complete prohibition.

"The Bowie knife was 'widely carried by Americans of all stripes,' including 'upstanding citizens and villains' alike," Connecticut's brief says. "The widespread use of Bowie knives and other weapons for lawful purposes did not prevent dozens of States from restricting those weapons." But those laws generally restricted or banned public carry. They rarely made it illegal to acquire or possess a Bowie knife, which is the approach that Connecticut and Cook County have taken with AR-15s.

That policy is hard to reconcile with Heller. I will quote Sheridan again, since his comments made it clear that he would have preferred to uphold New Jersey's AR-15 ban. Under Heller, he said, "a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful." Given "the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point," he concluded, New Jersey's law "is unconstitutional" as applied to "the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home."

Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed and went further, extending that conclusion to "the full class of semi-automatic rifles" banned in New Jersey. "Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation," Judge Arianna Freeman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. "That principle resolves our inquiry here."

To beat back the challenges to their laws, Connecticut and Cook County will have to persuade the justices that the 3rd Circuit's understanding of Heller and Bruen is wrong, meaning they are free to ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That seems like a tall order, and Cook County's position is especially puzzling. According to its brief, the fact that a weapon is covered by the Second Amendment does not mean Americans have a right to possess it. The more you think about that claim, the less sense it makes.

The post Defending Its AR-15 Ban, Cook County Urges SCOTUS To Ignore the Rifle's Popularity appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Way back in May 2024, I wrote about Miller v. McDonald. Amish parents challenged New York's vaccine mandate on Free Exercise Clause grounds. In December 2025, the Supreme Court GVR'd the case in light of Mahmoud. Unsurprisingly, the New York courts thought Mahmoud changed nothing. The case is now back before the Supreme Court. A cert petition was filed on September 28.

The New York Times covered the case in an article titled, "Amish Families Pushed to Undo a Vaccine Law. Then Measles Arrived." The undercurrent of the article is that Amish children deserve to become sick because their parents did not vaccinate them. The New York Health commissioner made this point expressly:

In a petition filed on Sept. 28, the Amish asked the U.S. Supreme Court to force New York to grant religious exemptions to immunization rules, as most states do. A previous ruling gave the Amish reason to think they might have a chance at prevailing.

But then a wave of measles cases began sweeping through Amish communities. Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a statewide health emergency this month after more than 100 people fell ill with measles.

"Perhaps Mother Nature, by delivering a measles outbreak in New York's Amish community coincident with this case returning to the Supreme Court, is her not-so-subtle hint," said Dr. Howard Zucker, who was state health commissioner when New York eliminated religious exemptions.

If only the Amish people chose the state over their religion, and took the hint, they wouldn't have so many sick children! I am appalled by Zucker's arrogance and hostility to religion. He is stating that "Mother Nature" is sending a signal to the Amish that adhering to their religion is making children sick. In effect, nature is punishing the Amish for not submitting to Kathy Hochul.

Chief Justice Burger described this unique community in the Supreme Court's unanimous Wisconsin v. Yoder decision:

The history of the Amish sect was given in some detail, beginning with the Swiss Anabaptists of the 16th century, who rejected institutionalized churches and sought to return to the early, simple, Christian life deemphasizing material success, rejecting the competitive spirit, and seeking to insulate themselves from the modern world. As a result of their common heritage, Old Order Amish communities today are characterized by a fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church community separate and apart from the world and worldly influence. This concept of life aloof from the world and its values is central to their faith.

A related feature of Old Order Amish communities is their devotion to a life in harmony with nature and the soil, as exemplified by the simple life of the early Christian era that continued in America during much of our early national life. Amish beliefs require members of the community to make their living by farming or closely related activities. Broadly speaking, the Old Order Amish religion pervades and determines the entire mode of life of its adherents. Their conduct is regulated in great detail by the Ordnung, or rules, of the church community.

It is especially awful for Zucker to weaponize "Mother Nature" (capital letters) against a people whose life is devoted to "harmony with nature."

This is not the first time New York has accused insular religious communities of spreading diseases. In October 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo shared a photograph of religious Jews congregating in close quarters as evidence they were spreading the disease. He said, "I'm going to say to the orthodox community tomorrow if you don't agree then we will have to close down your religious institutions." The only problem was that the photograph was from the 2006 funeral of Hassidic rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum. And the photo wasn't even from New York City. It was taken in the Orange County village of Kiryas Joel. This charge really isn't new. Jews were blamed for the spreading of the Bubonic Plague, among other pandemics.

The Times gestures at the religious reasons why the Amish oppose the vaccines:

But many Amish families regard vaccine mandates — and government intrusion in their schools — as a greater threat to the health of their community than measles. Their religion calls for adherents to live together in tightknit religious communities apart from the modern world and its influences.

"Our almighty God wants us to fully put our faith and trust in him, which is in conflict to put our trust in vaccines," Ezra Wengerd, an Amish leader who represents the 26 families that send their children to the three schools, told a judge in 2022.

The Amish have been practicing their faith for more than three centuries and have principled reasons to oppose vaccines. Indeed, the Amish have a far stronger case to object to vaccines than many people who made up their beliefs during the pandemic. Shame on the New York government for singling out this tradition in such hostile terms.

Zucker and others do not seem to know or care what it means to place faith in a higher power. Instead, Zucker thinks Mother Nature is seeking retribution against the Amish children.

Yet, perhaps we should be grateful. This sort of statement should feature prominently in future briefing. Indeed, Zucker demonstrates the sort of hostility we've seen in past victories for religious liberty. In the leadup to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a government official said that "things have changed since 100 yearsago," and "it would be great if we followed the teachings of Pope Francis, the voice of the Catholic Church." And in Masterpiece Cakeshop, a commissioner said "Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust." These statements are prima facie evidence of religious hostility.

So thank you Mr. Zucker. You've made the odds of your state losing far greater.

People sometimes ask me whether I would ever want to live in New York again. The answer is 1000% no. This state consistently exhibits so much hostility towards people of faith. Here in Texas, some people object to posting the Ten Commandments on the wall of classrooms as some evidence of hatred. But no piece of paper can compare to the overt disdain towards traditional religions that people like Zucker and Cuomo demonstrate. So long as religious people get vaccinated and attend services on Zoom, they are in good standing with the government. But as soon as any person of faith deigns to disagree with elite opinions, then Gaia will seek vengeance.

These people are living in an episode of Captain Planet. (I cringe that as a child I absorbed this Turnerfied propaganda.)

The post NY Health Commissioner Says "Mother Nature" Is Punishing Amish Children With Measles Outbreak appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Of all the arguments for protectionism, the infant industry argument probably has the strongest theoretical appeal. By protecting a new industry from its more developed foreign competition, the story goes, tariffs give domestic producers the time to grow, learn, and become efficient enough to stand on their own. Domestic consumers feel the short-term pains of higher prices, but they enjoy the long-term gains of job growth and lower prices as the new industry blossoms.

It's no secret that tariffs have driven significant price increases over the last year and a half. A study from the New York Federal Reserve finds that tariffs "contributed 2.9 percentage points to goods price inflation" and that without tariffs those prices would have slightly declined. Tariff defenders, looking for a new reason to claim these higher prices are only temporary, have reimagined the infant industry argument. Now it's being used to support trade barriers in industries that are over a century old, but the promise is exactly the same: Domestic firms need the protection so they can compete, innovate, and cut costs until prices come back down even further than they were before the tariffs.

Michael Brendan Dougherty recently made such an argument in National Review, arguing that "tariffs can, over time, bring prices below where they started." When economist Don Boudreaux called the argument "bizarre," Dougherty replied that critics had failed to acknowledge the dynamic process by which markets respond to tariffs "by adapting and cutting costs." Although he is light on specific details, he posits that the changed incentives of a "paradigm shift" in tariff policy will spur domestic competition, leading to the theorized price reduction. Of course, firms would still respond to the dynamic processes of domestic competition without a tariff wall, but the point stands.

From there, the reworked infant industry argument becomes the standard version advanced more than two centuries ago by Alexander Hamilton and his disciple Friedrich List. When Hamilton made this claim in 1791, his argument may have seemed suitable for a new nation seeking to firm up its economy and security against established European powers.

Others at the time pointed out that special interest groups—a manifestation of the "violence of faction" so thoroughly dissected in the Federalist Papers—had already begun to coalesce around the fledgling iron industry in Pennsylvania, clamoring for protective tariffs. Two years earlier, James Madison had warned about a "premature policy of stimulating manufactures" driving tariffs too high. In the end, Hamilton recommended and Congress enacted a far more moderate tariff schedule than his theoretical musings portended. American iron manufacturers received a consolation prize of a higher tariff on their competitors than the rate for most general imports. Hamiltonians have been touting the infant industry argument ever since.

Nearly 250 years later, those same infants apparently have yet to advance into adulthood. Steel, the direct successor to the founding-era iron manufacturers, remains a singular focus of President Donald Trump's protectionist tariff policies, just as it was under former President Joe Biden. And former President George W. Bush before him. Indeed, steel has been a recurring beneficiary of protectionism for most of America's existence.

This extended period of protectionist infancy suggests that the argument needs a new name. We propose the "Peter Pan industry argument" for companies that never grow up because tariffs make sure they never have to.

The question tariff advocates rarely ask is: Why do some American producers have higher costs than foreign rivals even in the face of lower-cost foreign competition? The answer comes down to specific rules and choices within particular firms and industries. Tariffs, and protectionism in general, address none of these. No industry illustrates this like steel, but it is far from the only one.

In 1947, United Steelworkers won a contract provision known as Section 2-B. Among other things, this barred mill managers from changing established work practices unless new technology required it. Steel companies tried to get rid of this in 1959, finding it difficult (given union incentives) to establish that technology required change. In response, 500,000 steelworkers went on strike for 116 days. This strike sent buyers abroad, causing 1959 to be the first year the U.S. imported more steel than it exported. One of the then-new technologies that was delayed was basic oxygen furnaces, which could produce steel far faster and cheaper than the open-hearth furnaces that were so common. In 1965, only about 17 percent of steel made in the U.S. was made using the basic oxygen furnace. Japan produced 55 percent of its steel with this faster, more efficient method.

Change finally came from a steel customer. Vulcraft, a maker of steel joists, grew tired of paying Big Steel's prices and waiting for Big Steel's deliveries. In 1969, free from steel unions and preconceived notions, the company looked for new steel-producing technologies and found the answer in the electric arc furnaces that had been adopted in much of the world throughout the 1950s and '60s. Vulcraft's parent company later renamed itself Nucor, and minimills like the ones it pioneered now make most of America's steel.

So the modern steel industry was built by a frustrated steel buyer who found a way around protected companies. In other words, the U.S. steel industry has lagged behind the technologies found around the world.

We could go on, but the broad point here is that the "relatively higher domestic production costs that made the tariff 'necessary' in the first place," as one critic put it, are often the result of preventing competition in the first place. It's odd to suggest that further preventing competition through tariffs will somehow alleviate the ills of already-prevented competition.

Tariff advocates fail to acknowledge that the ability to import steel also comes with the benefit of access to cheaper steel for steel-using industries, such as manufacturing. A 50 percent tariff on steel further closes the release valve that imported steel offers. Buyers of steel are then left to purchase more of the more expensive domestic steel. Because new steel mills take years to bring online, this causes delays and longer delivery times for manufacturers.

We don't have to wonder what happens when a country lowers its tariffs on materials used by manufacturers. India did this in the '90s, and researchers found that newly available inputs accounted for 31 percent of the new products that Indian manufacturers introduced. And what happens when the U.S. imposes tariffs on steel? Downstream U.S. firms become less competitive. This is why American businesses clamor for exemptions to tariffs, especially for tariffs on materials like steel.

Perhaps all this could be forgiven if tariffs advanced national security concerns, as tariff advocates assert. They point out that an adversarial nation could cut off supplies of critical materials during wartime and cripple America's ability to defend itself. Unfortunately, tariffs fail there too.

First, this conflates production with access. While domestic production does ensure domestic access, access can be secured without production. In the case of steel, the Commerce Department reports that in 2025, the U.S. imported steel from 79 countries, with Canada being our top foreign supplier. The top 10 sources of steel are responsible for 77.8 percent of America's steel imports. None of those countries were considered adversaries—at least not until the tariff crusades pushed these friends away. What's more, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, only 23 percent of finished steel in the U.S. was imported in 2024. Far from being exposed to foreign states' whims, American access to steel is incredibly resilient.

Second, this view ignores the positive effects of trade and globalization on national security. The Center for Strategic & International Studies finds that increased trade between countries reduces the likelihood that they'll go to war against one another. Globalization helps ensure that domestic access continues unabated should war break out, thanks to the diversity of trading partners.

When Hamilton made the infant industry argument, he at least assured us that the industry would at some point advance to adulthood and stand on its own. Steel, like so many other Peter Pan industries, has proven Madison right. These industries have refused to grow up, and it's time to stop pretending that tariffs will fix that.

The post Peter Pan Tariffs for Companies That Never Grow Up appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A seguradora Fidelidade anunciou o lançamento de um novo ‘website’, uma iniciativa inserida no seu programa de renovação dos canais digitais do grupo que tem a finalidade de reforçar a estratégia de transformação omnicanal e aproximar a empresa de clientes, mediadores e parceiros.

De acordo com o comunicado divulgado pela seguradora, a nova plataforma integra simuladores evoluídos, uma imagem renovada, navegação mais intuitiva e novas funcionalidades de ‘self-service’.

O objetivo passa por garantir uma experiência integrada e personalizada ao longo de toda a jornada do cliente, desde a descoberta de soluções até à contratação e utilização dos serviços, diz a companhia liderada por Rogério Campos Henriques.

A estrutura tecnológica adotada permite flexibilidade para acompanhar a evolução da oferta e adaptar conteúdos às necessidades dos utilizadores, articulando de forma mais próxima os canais digitais, a rede de mediação e as equipas de apoio ao cliente, explica a seguradora.

O diretor de Marketing e Clientes da Fidelidade, Sérgio Carvalho, sublinha no comunicado que a nova ferramenta materializa uma visão estratégica para proporcionar “experiências mais simples, mais personalizadas e mais integradas”, permitindo aos clientes o contacto através do ponto de interação que lhes for mais conveniente.

Fundada em 1808, a Fidelidade é líder de mercado no setor segurador em Portugal nos ramos vida e não vida, registando uma quota de mercado de 28,1% em 2025. A companhia, que conta com 2,4 milhões de clientes no país e mais de 10 milhões a nível global, está presente em 14 países e registou em 2025 um volume global de prémios de 6,5 mil milhões de euros.

F1 bosses have insisted the season will conclude with two races in the Middle East

Xbox exigirá a sus trabajadores de la zona de Redmond acudir a la oficina cuatro días a la semana a partir de febrero de 2027, según confirmó la directora de recursos humanos de la división, Jacinda Chislum Pearson, en un comunicado interno.

La medida marca un endurecimiento de la política de presencialidad que Microsoft ya había impuesto meses atrás y confirma que la compañía se suma a la tendencia de otras grandes tecnológicas que buscan recuperar el trabajo en persona tras años de flexibilidad pospandemia.

La noticia llega en un momento en el que Xbox concentra la atención mediática por varios frentes a la vez: desde el precio estimado de su próxima generación de consolas hasta los posibles cambios en Game Pass. Sin embargo, este anuncio sobre la jornada laboral de sus empleados se ha convertido en uno de los asuntos que más repercusión ha generado en las últimas horas.

Xbox amplía la obligatoriedad del trabajo presencial a cuatro días

La nueva política, revelada primero por The Verge, establece que los empleados de Xbox radicados en la región de Puget Sound deberán cumplir con un mínimo de cuatro jornadas semanales en la oficina a partir del 1 de febrero de 2027.

El requisito afecta de forma concreta a quienes residan a menos de 50 millas (80 kilómetros) de distancia de Studio D, el complejo de oficinas donde la compañía concentra buena parte de su operación en la zona.

En el memorando interno, Chislum Pearson explicó los motivos detrás de la decisión: “Tenemos miles de empleados de Xbox a distancia de desplazamiento desde Redmond. Aprovechar esa proximidad y trabajar juntos en persona facilita revisar el trabajo, resolver problemas y tomar decisiones sin la carga de programar otra reunión”.

La directora de recursos humanos también enmarcó el cambio como una respuesta directa a las inquietudes manifestadas por el propio personal. Según el comunicado, la compañía busca con esta medida impulsar una mayor colaboración entre equipos que trabajan de manera presencial.

El antecedente de Microsoft con el regreso a la oficina

Esta decisión no surge de manera aislada. Microsoft, la empresa matriz de Xbox, ya había implementado previamente una política que obligaba a sus trabajadores a asistir a la oficina tres días por semana.

El nuevo esquema de cuatro días representa, por lo tanto, una ampliación de un día adicional respecto a la exigencia anterior, lo que confirma una tendencia progresiva hacia una mayor presencialidad dentro de la estructura corporativa de la compañía.

Un elemento relevante de la medida es su alcance limitado: no se trata de una política global para toda la plantilla de Xbox, sino de un requisito específico para quienes se encuentran dentro del radio geográfico de 50 millas desde Puget Sound, en Redmond.

Xbox se suma a la tendencia de retorno presencial en el sector tecnológico

El movimiento de Xbox se inscribe dentro de una corriente que contradice la flexibilidad laboral que se extendió tras la pandemia de coronavirus. Numerosas compañías tecnológicas que en su momento apostaron fuerte por el teletrabajo han comenzado a revertir esas políticas en los últimos años.

Rockstar Games figura entre los ejemplos previos de esta tendencia, al haber optado también por reforzar la exigencia de trabajo presencial entre sus empleados.

Con esta nueva política, Xbox confirma que el modelo de oficina continúa ganando terreno frente al teletrabajo dentro de las grandes empresas tecnológicas, al menos para aquellos empleados que, por cercanía geográfica, pueden desplazarse con facilidad hasta sus instalaciones centrales.

“Secondo me ci sono delle riforme che possono essere fatte per migliorare ed ampliare la libertà di stampa che non è mai stata così ristretta come oggi. Descrivere la realtà è quello che proviamo a fare”. Il premio ricevuto è l’occasione per Marco Travaglio, direttore de Il Fatto Quotidiano dire “che il Parlamento potrebbe e dovrebbe fare molto per la nostra professione”. Per Travaglio “è incredibile che una legge sul conflitto d’interesse non sia stata ancora varata. Poi una legge che la faccia finita con la concorrenza sleale di coloro che prendono i finanziamenti pubblici dallo Stato rispetto a quei fessi, noi in particolare, che non li prendono. Noi vediamo – continua Travaglio – altri giornali che possono pagare molto meglio i collaboratori, possono assumere più firme, più feste promozionali perché ogni anno vanno a Palazzo Chigi e ricevono più assegni. A noi è stato offerto anche l’anno scorso e l’abbiamo rifiutato”.

Altra riforma dirottare “un po’ dei fondi che vengono dati a pioggia ad editori che sono già miliardari per gli edicolanti perché il problema nostro principale è il crollo delle vendite in edicola dipende dal fatto che le edicole non ci sono più”. In ultimo Travaglio indica una battaglia storica: “le querele temerarie. Non può una battuta satirica essere messa sullo stesso piano dell’attribuzione di un fatto determinato. Facciamo una legge sulle querele che intanto distingua l’opnione legittima di un giornalista e valorrizziamo il valore della rettifica e soprattutto mettiamo un freno alle richieste di risarcimento intimidatorie”.

L'articolo Le tre proposte di Travaglio al Parlamento per l’editoria: “Servono riforme per la libertà di stampa” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Lima, 22 oct (Prensa Latina) El cardenal Carlos Castillo saludó hoy la exitosa operación quirúrgica al papa León XIV y dijo que el programa de su visita a Perú solo podría alterarse por contingencias como la anomalía climática de El Niño.

The post Cardenal peruano destaca previsiones por llegada de León XIV first appeared on Noticias Prensa Latina.

As 'águias' continuam a voar nas competições europeias e, esta quinta-feira, voltaram a ser felizes, em Chipre (4-1), na terceira jornada da fase de liga.

O SC Braga venceu hoje na receção aos belgas do Gent, por 2-0, na segunda jornada da Liga Conferência de futebol, abrilhantando a estreia do novo treinador, Franclim Carvalho, com uma boa exibição.

Os golos de Victor Gómez (03 minutos) e Gabri Martínez (76) deram um triunfo justo aos minhotos, permitindo quebrar um ciclo de quatro jogos sem vencer e três derrotas consecutivas, que ditou a saída de Carlos Vicens.

Na estreia, Franclim Carvalho promoveu logo a mudança do esquema tático, passando do ‘3-4-3’ (o mais habitual com o técnico espanhol) para um ‘4-2-3-1’ e a equipa deu uma boa resposta, fazendo os primeiros três pontos na prova europeia, depois da derrota na jornada inaugural, em Copenhaga (3-0).

O novo técnico dos bracarenses fez cinco alterações, três delas na defesa, Victor Gómez, Barisic e Arrey-Mbi (como lateral-esquerdo de uma defesa agora com quatro homens), Gabriel Silva e Milosevic.

O Braga não podia querer melhor início, porque, logo aos três minutos, inaugurou o marcador, após uma excelente jogada coletiva: Gorby tabelou com Ricardo Horta já dentro da área e serviu Victor Gómez que, de primeira, fez o primeiro golo da partida.

O Gent é líder do campeonato belga, mas vinha de uma surpreendente eliminação da Taça da Bélgica por uma equipa do terceiro escalão e mostrou pouco poder ofensivo.

Aos 33 minutos, uma oferta de Paskotsi quase foi aproveitada por Pau Victor para fazer o segundo dos bracarenses, mas o Davy Roef defendeu bem para canto e, logo a seguir, foi a vez de Gabriel Silva, com uma boa jogada individual a rematar já de ângulo reduzido, mas obrigando o guardião belga a defesa atenta.

No segundo tempo, o Gent parecia querer mostrar mais e, aos 52 minutos, Sonko rematou com algum perigo, mas ao lado.

A resposta do SC Braga chegou pouco depois, primeiro com um remate de fora da área de Pau Victor, a que Davy Roef se opôs bem – na sequência, Gabriel Silva amorteceu de cabeça para Ricardo Horta que desviou por cima.

Franclim Carvalho foi refrescando a equipa, primeiro com Dorgeles (61) e, 10 minutos depois, com Tiknaz e Gabri Martínez, tentando estancar um certo ascendente do Gent: Van Der Heyden ameaçou com um remate ao lado (70) e Sonko obrigou Bernardo Fontes à defesa da noite com um remate forte já dentro da área (72).

Seria, contudo, o Braga a fazer o segundo e a ‘matar’ o jogo, por Gabri Martínez, de primeira e com o pé esquerdo a marcar o seu primeiro golo na Liga Conferência (e segundo da época), após assistência de Victor Gómez.

O SC Braga embalou para uns minutos finais de domínio completo e esteve perto do terceiro, por Ricardo Horta, que enviou à barra da baliza belga (85), e Gabri Martínez, por duas vezes (88 e 90).

Ficha de jogo

Jogo realizado no Estádio Municipal de Braga.

SC Braga – Gent, 2-0.

Ao intervalo: 1-0.

Marcadores

1-0, Victor Gómez, 03 minutos.

2-0, Gabri Martínez, 76.

Equipas

– SC Braga: Bernardo Fontes, Victor Gómez, Lagerbielke, Barisic (Sergio Barcia, 89), Arrey-Mbi, Gorby (Tiknaz, 71), João Moutinho, Pau Victor, Ricardo Horta (Huseinbasc, 89), Gabriel Silva (Gabri Martínez, 71) e Milosevic (Dorgeles, 61).

(Suplentes: Tiago Sá, Vítor Carvalho, Bajrami, Sergio Barcia, Diego Rodrigues, Tommy Marqués, Tiknaz, Travassos, Huseinbasic, Dorgeles, Gabri Martínez e Fran Navarro).

Treinador: Franclim Carvalho.

– Gent: Davy Roef, Maksim Paskotsi (Kyrell Wilson, 82), Christian Burgess, Siebe Van Der Heyden, Tiago Araújo, Tibe De Vlieger, Hyllarion Goore (El Hadji Seck, 63), Mathias Delorge (Leonardo Lopes, 63), Michel-Ange Balikwisha (Lazló Bénes, 41), Momodou Sonko (Gilles De Meyer , 82) e Ibrahima Cissé.

(Suplentes: Kjeel Peersman, Lazló Bénes, Aimé Omgba, Kyrell Wilson, Leonardo Lopes, Mohammed El Adfaoui, Gilles De Meyer, Abdelkahar Kadri, Abdoul Ayinde, Mamadou Diallo, Matties Volckaert e El Hadji Seck).   

Treinador: Rik De Mil.

Árbitro: Andris Treimanis (Letónia).

Ação disciplinar: cartão amarelo para Barisic (27), Maksim Paskotsi (32) e Tiago Sá (40).

Assistência: 10.449 espetadores.

O conteúdo SC Braga vence Gent na estreia de Franclim Carvalho aparece primeiro em O MINHO.

As reclamações relacionadas com promoções, descontos e cupões nos supermercados já ultrapassaram, em menos de dez meses, o total registado durante todo o ano passado, refletindo uma crescente insatisfação dos consumidores com o setor do retalho alimentar, segundo um estudo divulgado esta quinta-feira pelo Portal da Queixa.

De acordo com os dados, foram registadas 626 reclamações relacionadas com promoções, descontos e cupões desde o início de 2026, acima das 583 contabilizadas durante todo o ano de 2025.

No total, o setor dos hiper e supermercados acumulou 3.406 reclamações nos primeiros dez meses do ano, o que representa um aumento de 19,8% face ao mesmo período de 2025, quando tinham sido registadas 2.843 queixas. Julho destacou-se como o mês com maior volume de reclamações, somando 456 ocorrências.

As reclamações associadas a promoções, benefícios e ofertas representam atualmente 18,77% do total das queixas dirigidas ao setor, acima dos 12,65% registados no ano anterior. Entre os principais problemas reportados pelos consumidores estão descontos que não são aplicados, cupões e códigos promocionais que falham, incumprimento das condições anunciadas e dificuldades relacionadas com programas de fidelização.

Ainda assim, o principal motivo de insatisfação continua a ser o atendimento e a experiência do cliente, responsável por 27,78% das reclamações. Nesta categoria incluem-se situações de atendimento considerado ineficiente, longos tempos de espera, falta de pessoal disponível, falhas de comunicação e problemas nos canais digitais.

Já as questões relacionadas com qualidade e segurança dos produtos representam 25,93% das reclamações, embora registem um peso inferior ao observado em 2025 (27,97%). Os consumidores reportam casos de produtos impróprios para consumo, artigos danificados ou defeituosos, falhas de segurança, bem como erros de embalagem e de peso.

Os produtos alimentares são os mais referidos nas reclamações, representando 40,37% das menções. Dentro desta categoria, destacam-se os produtos de talho e charcutaria (10,66%), seguidos das bebidas (9,15%), mercearia e congelados (7,56%) e frutas e legumes (6,56%). Segundo o estudo, a maioria destas queixas está relacionada com questões de qualidade e segurança alimentar.

Por tipo de estabelecimento, os hipermercados concentram a maior fatia das reclamações, com 53,7% do total, seguindo-se os supermercados de grande retalho, com 43,83%. Em comparação com o período homólogo de 2025, as queixas aumentaram 21,69% nos hipermercados e 21,09% nos supermercados de grande retalho.

O estudo destaca ainda o crescimento das reclamações relacionadas com automação e falta de atendimento humano. O número de queixas nesta área passou de 44 em 2024 para 89 em 2026, mais do que duplicando no período analisado. Entre as situações apontadas pelos consumidores está a substituição de caixas tradicionais por caixas automáticas e a perceção de que tarefas anteriormente desempenhadas por funcionários passaram a ser assumidas pelos próprios clientes.

Geograficamente, Lisboa concentra 34,09% das reclamações registadas este ano, seguindo-se o Porto, com 16,82%, e Setúbal, com 12,42%. Quanto ao perfil dos reclamantes, o grupo etário entre os 35 e os 44 anos representa a maior parcela (25,78%), enquanto os consumidores com 65 ou mais anos reforçaram o seu peso relativo, passando de 9,03% em 2025 para 11,36% em 2026.

Citado no estudo, o fundador do Portal da Queixa by Consumers Trust, Pedro Lourenço, considera que os dados mostram que os consumidores esperam que as promoções e programas de fidelização sejam cumpridos conforme anunciado e alerta para a necessidade de conciliar a modernização das lojas com a qualidade do atendimento e da assistência prestada aos clientes.

Poucos dias após o despedimento de Carlos Vicens, que foi substituído por Franclim Carvalho, os 'guerreiros do Minho' recolocaram-se na rota das vitórias, no Municipal de Braga, diante dos belgas do KAA Gent.