Experts say gaming will be the first real use case for blockchain, revamping the industry and making games more immersive than ever. How gaming navigates the remaining hurdles will become a case study for other industries considering mass blockchain adoption. Topic: The new ‘Jeopardy!’ host, Mike Richards, quits. Category: News The new host of “Jeopardy!”, Mike Richards, has quit the show after just one episode. The cause for his resignation was not disclosed but it is said that he did not want to be a part of the show anymore.
The new host of jeopardy 2021 is the latest in a series of changes that have taken place since Alex Trebek announced his retirement.
Briefing on Business Every Day
Updated on August 20, 2021
11:30 a.m. ET, August 20, 2021
11:30 a.m. ET, August 20, 2021
Mike Richards, the game show’s executive producer, led the hunt for Alex Trebek’s successor. Credit… Sony Pictures Entertainment/Carol Kaelson
Mike Richards, who was appointed the new host of “Jeopardy!” only a few weeks ago, is stepping down amid a raging scandal over rude and sexist remarks he made on a podcast many years ago.
Mr. Richards, who oversaw the search for Alex Trebek’s replacement as the show’s executive producer before being named to the position, said in a staff memo on Friday that the controversy had made it “clear that moving forward as host would be too much of a distraction for our fans and not the right move for the show.”
Mr. Richards stated, “As a result, I will be stepping down as host effective immediately.”
Mr. Richards will remain as executive producer of the game show, according to Sony Pictures Entertainment, which produces and distributes it.
In a statement, Sony stated, “We support Mike’s choice to stand down as host.” “We were taken aback last week when we learned about Mike’s 2013/2014 podcast and his previous usage of inappropriate language. We’ve discussed our worries and aspirations for the future with him.”
“Mike has been with us for the past two years and has led the ‘Jeopardy!’ crew through the most difficult period the program has ever experienced,” Sony said. We hope that in his new role as executive producer, he will continue to act professionally and respectfully.”
The hunt for a permanent replacement host for the program will now resume, with a succession of guest hosts planned. The comedy actress Mayim Bialik will continue to anchor “Jeopardy!” prime-time specials.
Mr. Richards’ new position was revealed with considerable hoopla by Sony on Wednesday, with the company describing him as a “great talent.”
However, a story published this week in The Ringer uncovered previous inappropriate remarks made by Mr. Richards on a podcast, which prompted condemnation from opponents like the Anti-Defamation League.
“It saddens me that these previous events and remarks have thrown such a shadow on ‘Jeopardy!’ as we seek to start a new chapter,” Mr. Richards said in his Friday message.
“I realize I have a lot of work ahead of me to restore your trust and confidence,” he said.
This is a work in progress. Keep an eye out for more information.
Governors claimed that cutting off federal unemployment benefits would encourage individuals to return to work when states started doing so this summer.
According to new study, although terminating the benefits did cause some individuals to find work, many more people did not, leaving them — and perhaps their states’ economy — in worse shape.
A total of 26 states have sought to terminate the enhanced unemployment benefits that have been in effect since the epidemic started, with all but one having Republican governors. Many company owners criticize the benefits for preventing individuals from returning to work, while proponents say that they have given those who lost employment due to the epidemic a lifeline.
The additional benefits are scheduled to expire nationally next month, but President Biden urged states with high unemployment rates to extend the programs using separate federal money on Thursday.
To investigate the impact of the rules, a group of economists analyzed anonymised banking records from over 18,000 low-income employees receiving unemployment benefits in late April using data from Earnin, a financial services firm.
The study discovered that terminating the benefits had a negative impact on employment: In the research, approximately 26% of individuals in states that cut off benefits were working in early August, compared to around 22% of people in states that kept the benefits.
However, many more individuals were unable to find work. About two million individuals lost their benefits completely, and a million had their payments cut, in the 19 states that ended the programs for which researchers had data. Because of the deadline, just approximately 145,000 individuals were able to find work. (The researchers believe that the actual number is likely to be much smaller, since the employees they studied were the ones who were most likely to be negatively impacted by the loss of income, and therefore may not be typical of everyone who receives benefits.)
Unemployed employees were on average worse off once the payments were cut. According to the study, employees lost an average of $278 per week in benefits as a result of the move, while only earning $14 per week (not $14 per hour, as previously stated). They made up for it by reducing spending by $145 per week, or approximately 20%, and so putting less money into their local economies.
Michael Stepner, a University of Toronto economist who was one of the study’s authors, stated, “The labor market didn’t explode when you booted these individuals off.” “Most of these individuals are having trouble finding work, and it will take a long time for them to recoup their losses.”
Other recent study has shown that increased unemployment benefits had a noticeable but little impact on the number of individuals working and searching for job. The next piece of evidence will be released by the Labor Department on Friday morning, when it releases state-level employment statistics for July.
Coral Murphy Marcos contributed to the story as a reporter.
In Beijing, taking pictures near surveillance cameras. Facial recognition technology deployed in public areas must be properly labeled, according to a new Chinese legislation. Credit… Associated Press/Ng Han Guan
China passed a legislation on Friday that restricts the gathering and use of personal data, reflecting popular concern about big tech’s influence, but it’s unlikely to hinder the Chinese government’s vast surveillance capabilities.
The Personal Information Protection Law, which some legal experts have compared to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or G.D.P.R., prohibits the gathering “too much” of people’s data, according to the official Xinhua news agency. It asks for more effective methods for people to submit concerns about how their personal information is utilized.
The new legislation prohibits companies from exploiting consumer data to charge them “unreasonably” greater charges. It also mandates that any face recognition technology placed in public spaces be properly identified.
Companies that violate these laws, as well as their workers, risk penalties. The entire wording of the new legislation, which takes effect on November 1, has yet to be released.
China has slammed the brakes on its once burgeoning internet sector this year. Alibaba, Tencent, Meituan, Ant, and Didi were able to expand and gain influence over broad sectors of the economy largely due to Beijing’s lack of regulation of their business methods. The administration is now attempting to catch up.
The Chinese government was included in an earlier draft of the privacy legislation, which said that its provisions extended to them as well. It prohibited government entities from processing personal data in excess of what was “essential” for their legally mandated functions.
However, the Chinese government and police have claimed broad power to monitor citizens, frequently in the name of public safety. It’s also unclear how much the new legislation will affect this. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) limits the legal justifications that government entities may use to handle personal data.
Binance recruited Brian Brooks, the previous acting comptroller of the currency, as its CEO, but he subsequently quit. Credit… Bloomberg/Eva Marie Uzcategui
Many bitcoin companies are following the same script as they try to break into the financial mainstream: they recruit former government officials. Getting them on board is one thing; keeping them around is another, according to the DealBook newsletter.
Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, has made recruiting former regulators a priority in its attempts to improve its image. Binance.US, the company’s American affiliate, appointed Brian Brooks, the former acting comptroller of the currency, as its CEO in April. He said at the time that “managing reputation” among regulators was a top concern for him. Mr. Brooks, on the other hand, suddenly quit last month, claiming “strategic disagreements.”
Binance is diversifying its portfolio. Mr. Brooks’ ambitions to establish a more transparent company and satisfy regulators’ concerns hinged on the ownership structure of US. However, Binance’s creator, Changpeng Zhao, insisted on keeping control, which made some prospective investors nervous. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Zhao were both aware of reputational risks, but they couldn’t seem to agree on how to handle them.
In April, Brett Redfearn, who formerly headed a section of the Securities and Exchange Commission, was recruited by Coinbase, the biggest U.S. crypto exchange, where Mr. Brooks was general counsel before moving into government. According to Coinbase, he left in July due to a change in the company’s strategic emphasis.
There’s a whole lot more where that came from. Jay Clayton, a former SEC chair, joined the advisory board of Fireblocks, a crypto custody service, on Thursday. Greg Monahan, a veteran Treasury Department criminal investigator, joined Binance last week in an anti-money laundering position. Chris Giancarlo, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joined the board of BlockFi in April, putting the company in the crosshairs of securities authorities in multiple states. Katie Haun, a former federal prosecutor, runs Andreessen Horowitz, the world’s largest crypto venture capital firm.
William Ackman is fighting for the survival of his $4 billion special purpose purchase firm. Credit… Associated Press/Andrew Harnik
The billionaire hedge fund manager William Ackman is pivoting once again in an attempt to rescue Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, his $4 billion special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, which has had a string of failures since its inception a year ago. According to the DealBook newsletter, he suggested an overhaul in a letter to investors sent late Thursday that might result in the SPAC being shut down, its money returned to investors, and it being resurrected under a new name.
To summarize, Mr. Ackman’s SPAC, the biggest of its type, advocated a number of investor-friendly characteristics, such as more closely linking the sponsor’s compensation to post-merger performance. Regulators objected when he claimed he’d found a deal, a complicated arrangement that included purchasing a minority interest in Universal Music while spinning off two additional blank-check entities, and the proposal was abandoned last month. The SPAC was struck with a lawsuit last week that called into question the SPAC’s basic structure, forcing Ackman to alter his strategy.
Mr. Ackman argued that “the sheer presence of the lawsuit may discourage prospective merger partners” from participating with the SPAC. The appeals procedure may take a long time, and the SPAC only has 11 months to reach an agreement.
Mr. Ackman claimed that his SPAC was a proxy for a larger scholarly and legal fight against all blank-check companies, which have exploded in popularity over the last year. He said, “The two law professors who devised the legal theory underlying the case admitted to the press that their goal in filing the action was’to reform’ the whole SPAC business.”
Mr. Ackman said, “All is not lost, however.” He suggested replacing his SPAC with a SPARC, a new blank-check vehicle he originally offered as part of the failed Universal Music transaction. If the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange accept the SPARC structure, which Mr. Ackman said he was in discussions with, investors in the SPAC would get their money back plus warrants to purchase into the SPARC at the $20 per share initial public offering price.
In a SPAC, investors purchase shares in a public shell company established to undertake a two-year acquisition. Investors in a SPARC don’t put money in up front; instead, they acquire a right (the “R” in SPARC) to buy in whenever the vehicle announces a merger target that isn’t limited in time.
Investors who purchased while Mr. Ackman’s SPAC was trading above its I.P.O. price would be compelled to accept cash at the offer price, resulting in a loss. Some people are turning to social media to air their grievances, using profane language. Whether it ever comes to that, only time will tell if the associated right to buy into the SPARC is worthwhile.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Mike Richards quit as Jeopardy host?
Mike Richards was fired from Jeopardy for the first time in his career on April 26, 2018.
Who is replacing Mike Richards on Jeopardy?
- jeopardy new host candidates
- guest hosts for jeopardy 2021
- jeopardy alex trebek