new video loaded: Tangled Parachute Leaves Skydiver Hanging From Plane
By Jake Lucas
December 11, 2025
A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser
extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your
connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.
After a left-hamstring strain sidelined him for several weeks, OG Anunoby returned to the lineup and immediately made a big impact for the New York Knicks. In his first game back, New York shot past the Utah Jazz 146–112. The smooth return to action helped restore balance to both offense and defense.
Before the injury, Anunoby showed a strong all-around game. Across 12 appearances this season he averaged 15.8 points, 5.6 rebounds, 2.2 assists, and nearly two steals per game, while shooting 47.6% from the field and 39.2% from three. Those numbers underscored his two-way value to the roster.
Defense has improved markedly with Anunoby back. He guards multiple positions, which helps the Knicks adapt to switch-heavy defensive schemes. That flexibility allows teammates to play with more confidence and focus on offense, knowing perimeter and wing defense is covered.
In the return game vs. the Jazz, his presence helped New York lock down the interior and perimeter simultaneously. The defensive boost was obvious, Utah struggled to generate consistent looks cleanly. That ability to disrupt passing lanes and challenge shots makes Anunoby a cornerstone of the defensive rotation.
Anunoby’s return offers more than defense. His ability to hit three-pointers and to knock down catch-and-shoot threes, helps the Knicks stretch the floor. That spacing creates driving lanes and reduces pressure on the paint, benefiting the ball-handlers and big men near the rim.
Moreover, having him back lets the offense revert to normal rotations. Role players such as guards and forwards who had to temporarily shift roles in his absence move back into more comfortable spots. That likely improves overall chemistry and execution.
Injuries had tested the depth of the Knicks’ roster, but Anunoby’s return gives them renewed balance. With him, the team gains a two-way wing who can defend top scorers and still contribute as a 3-and-D threat. That versatility and reliability matter especially as the season progresses and matchups get tougher.
If Anunoby stays healthy and maintains his level of play, New York once again looks like a serious contender in both the regular season and potentially the playoffs.
Anyone who’s mucked about with consumer-grade 3D printers knows that it’s infinitely cool to create stuff with them, but you can’t realistically expect those products to be particularly durable.
If you want to make something that can hold weight, take a beating, and last a long time, you’d usually have to book time with a more expensive composite 3D printer – the sort that can cost upward of US$15,000 and support continuous fibers of material like carbon fiber and fiberglass for added strength.
Hong Kong-based FibreSeek hopes to make that a lot more accessible to hobbyists. Its FibreSeeker 3 desktop machine uses a dual-extruder system that works with continuous fibers and comes with the necessary slicing software to make and print parts that are way stronger than conventional 3D printers’ results, at a fraction of the price.
FibreSeeker 3 – The First Consumer Continuous Fiber 3D Printer
The FibreSeeker 3 has a build volume of 300 mm x 300 mm x 245 mm, and features dual heads for composite fiber co-extrusion. One handles a range of regular thermoplastic filaments, and the other works with continuous fibers including the company’s own carbon fiber filament that promises high tensile strength fabrication: we’re talking up to 900 MPa, significantly more than aluminum.
FibreSeek
With this co-extrusion tech, the plastic filament can serve as as a binding agent when you’re creating carbon fiber parts. The 0.7-mm continuous fiber nozzle gets up to 662 °F (350 °C), which should make for increased strength.
FibreSeek
It runs in three modes:
There’s a 5-inch color touchscreen to track progress and speed, and adjust settings; the FibreSeeker 3 also automatically handles leveling and calibration, and uses an AI-powered camera to monitor prints and avoid errors. The printer runs on open-source Klipper firmware, along with the company’s proprietary slicing software that’s designed to handle continuous fiber-based projects.
FibreSeek
FibreSeek has a number of demo videos showcasing the tensile strength of parts printed using its machine, like this one below:
FibreSeeker 3 Demo Video:1.5 Tons Holding Test
For a simpler real-world comparison, YouTuber YGK3D’s review tested a 3D-printed PTG plastic hook against a carbon fiber hook, also made with the FibreSeeker 3. While the PTG hook held up a weight of 145 lb (65 kg), the carbon fiber hook managed 235 lb (106.5 kg) before breaking, which is quite a step up.
The FibreSeeker 3 is expected to retail at $5,000. It’s currently crowdfunding on Kickstarter, where the 3D printer is discounted down to as little as $2,699 for early backers. FibreSeek’s spools of 500-m (1,640-ft) carbon fiber filament can be had at $39 each through the campaign, which is 20% below its MSRP.
FibreSeek
All crowdfunding campaigns carry an element of risk, and this appears to be FibreSeek’s first project. For what it’s worth, the company notes its team comprises veterans from the 3D-printing industry, and has in-house production lines to manufacture the FibreSeeker 3. The campaign has vastly exceeded its funding goal with more than a thousand backers on board.
If all goes to plan, FibreSeeker 3 orders are slated to ship worldwide in January 2026, and delivery costs, as well as VAT and customs duties, are included in the pledge.
Check out the FibreSeeker over on Kickstarter.
An eight-month-old baby in Gaza died from exposure to torrential rains and cold temperatures in her family’s tent in Khan Younis. There are many more like her at risk as Israel continues violating its ceasefire commitments, blocking the entry of essential supplies.
Published On 11 Dec 2025
Cemex SAB de CV ADR stock hits 52-week high at 11.18 USD
Pakistan’s former spy chief has been sentenced to 14 years in prison by a military court, on charges including violation of state secrets and interfering in politics.
Faiz Hameed led Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency from 2019 to 2021, during the tenure of now-jailed former prime minister Imran Khan.
He was known to be a staunch supporter of Khan, and took early retirement shortly after Khan was ousted in a no-confidence vote in 2022.
It is the first time that an ISI chief in Pakistan has been court martialled. His lawyer said he plans to appeal against the verdict.
The ISI chief is seen as the second most powerful position in Pakistan’s military.
According to a press release issued by the public relations arm of Pakistani military (ISPR), the 15-month-long court martial proceeding began on August 12, 2024, under the Pakistan Army Act.
Hameed was tried on four charges, including “involvement in political activities, violation of the Official Secrets Act which harmed the interest of the state, misuse of his powers and government resources, and causing harm to citizens”.
The ISPR statement added that Hameed had been given “the right to have a defence team of his choice” and that he has the right to appeal the decision in the “appropriate forum”, which would be the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The exact details of the case are not public as the hearing was held behind closed doors in a military court.
The statement says that Hameed’s alleged involvement in fomenting political agitation and instability is being dealt with separately.
This is assumed to be regarding allegations that Hameed was tied to protests against Imran Khan’s arrest on 9 May 2023.
Hameed’s lawyer, Mian Ali Ashfaq, said his client was “1,000% innocent, but this is the court’s decision”.
“We were unaware of the judgement and only found out through the ISPR’s press release. We are now applying to the relevant forum for a copy of the decision,” he told the BBC.
“As soon as we receive it, we will review it and immediately file a petition to appeal. Right now, the first forum for appeal is the army chief, so that is what we will do. We are hopeful that at the next forum we will present our case and obtain justice.”
“If I had a million dollars… I’d be rich,” the Barenaked Ladies sang in their hit 1988 song.
At the time, a million dollars felt like a lot. But as inflation and tariffs have made essentially everything more expensive, that amount of money doesn’t feel like all that much at all. In fact, Americans now think it takes an average of $2.3 million to be considered wealthy, according to a Charles Schwabreport.
The financial services firm surveyed 2,200 adults between the ages of 21 to 75 from April 24 to May 23, so a variety of generations offered their input. The average response for what it takes to be considered “financially comfortable” was $839,000.
While the reported $2.3 million was a slight drop from last year’s Modern Wealth Survey at $2.5 million, it’s still 21% higher than the 2021 figure of $1.9 million.
Respondents also reported the bar to achieve monetary wealth feels as if it’s increasing, and 63% said it feels like it takes more money to be wealthy today compared to last year, citing the impacts of inflation, a worsening economy, and higher taxes.
Brad Clark, founder and CEO of financial advisory firm Solomon Financial, said these sentiments are relatively reflective of what he hears from his clients. There are a large number of millionaires in the U.S. when you factor in all assets, he told Fortune, but this typically includes their home, meaning their investable assets are typically less than $1 million.
“With so many middle-class Americans being considered millionaires, it stands to reason that the average individual would consider $2.3 million to be wealthy, as it may seem out of reach,” Clark said.
But experts said being considered wealthy doesn’t necessarily equate being opulent in all life choices.
The $2.3 million figure is “not luxury for everyone, but security. It’s wanting to have a house, retire well, have family, and have one’s time,” William “Bill” London, a lawyer and partner at Kimura London & White LLP who routinely handles high-net-worth families and individuals in divorces and estate cases, told Fortune. “Affluence is not about excess, but about reducing anxiety.”
The Charles Schwab survey showed when compared with other generations, Gen Z tends to set lower thresholds for what it takes to be wealthy and financially comfortable—$1.7 million and $329,000, respectively. Meanwhile, millennials and Gen Xers say it takes $2.1 million to be wealthy, and $2.8 million for baby boomers.
That may have to do with how exactly different generations define wealth. Earlier generations like baby boomers more frequently frame wealth in terms of security, London said, with a focus on property, pension, and assets that get passed down. Younger generations, on the other hand, more frequently consider experiences, freedom from debt, and lifestyle decisions, he added.
“More of my younger clients are more concerned about breathing space and time than they are about a big house or pricey assets,” London said. “Their definition of wealth is more about lifestyle than about acquisition.”
But it could also be the fact younger generations have a harder time acquiring large assets like a home due to comparatively high mortgage rates and home prices.
“Millennials and Gen Z are justifiably pessimistic about the prospects of home ownership, which historically was the most common way for Americans to build wealth,” Markus Schneider, associate professor and chair of the economics department at University of Denver, told Fortune. “There are lots of reasons why millennials and Gen Z may feel less secure about the world than the boomers did when they were the same age, and that may also impact how they feel about their wealth.”
Despite the differences among generations, experts agree it takes more than money to feel wealthy—and it shows in the Charles Schwab report. Some of the most popular personal definitions of wealth include happiness, physical health, mental health, quality of relationships, accomplishments, amount of free time, and material possessions.
“You don’t have to look too far to find a study that shows how depressed ultra-wealthy people often are. If you are defining wealth solely based on dollars, you likely will be disappointed when you achieve the number,” Clark said. “True wealth is being able to use your assets to free up your time to benefit those around you. The happiest people tend to be those with a greater purpose in life.”
A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on July 10, 2025.
On September 2, United States President Donald Trump released grainy footage of a missile obliterating a fishing boat off Venezuela’s coast. Eleven people died instantly. The administration called them narcoterrorists. Venezuelan sources identified them as fishermen. Since then, the US military has conducted at least 22 strikes, killing 87 people, with investigations revealing that the first attack included a second strike to kill two survivors clinging to wreckage — a potential war crime under international law. On Wednesday, the US went on to seize an oil tanker in Venezuelan waters, an escalation the Venezuelan government described as “blatant theft” and an “act of international piracy,” underscoring Washington’s shift towards economic coercion alongside military force.
The Trump administration frames all this as “counter-narcotics”. Critics call it regime change. But the most dangerous dimension of this crisis has nothing to do with Venezuela at all. It is about the consolidation of executive power at home.
If this were about oil, nothing about the current approach makes sense. The US produces more oil than any country in history, exporting millions of barrels daily. Neither America nor Europe faces an oil shortage that would require military intervention. Venezuela, meanwhile, sits atop the world’s largest proven reserves — 303 billion barrels — but its oil infrastructure is severely deteriorated. Production has collapsed from 3.2 million barrels per day in 2000 to roughly 900,000 today. The country’s pipelines have not been updated in 50 years, and restoring peak production capacity would require an estimated $58bn in investment, underscoring how far the sector is from posing any strategic threat that might justify military force.
More tellingly, legal pathways to Venezuelan oil already exist. The US could lift sanctions, expand Chevron’s operations, or reopen the energy corridor — measures that require neither warships nor circumventing Congress. In fact, Chevron’s operations in Venezuela represent 25 percent of the country’s total production, demonstrating that commercial access is entirely possible within existing frameworks. This contradiction exposes how little the current strategy has to do with securing resources. Trump’s own Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged the complexity, describing sanctions policy as a balancing act between displacing China and providing foreign currency to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
The fundamental shift in Washington’s Venezuela calculus has less to do with oil companies and more to do with private equity firms and defence contractors — interests focused not on barrels but on reconstruction contracts, mineral rights and territorial leverage in a post-Maduro scenario. Together, these dynamics make clear that the logic driving US policy lies outside the economics of oil itself.
The Venezuela narrative serves a different function: it provides the pretext for expanded executive authority through emergency declarations. Since 2015, the US has maintained a continuous “national emergency with respect to Venezuela” under the National Emergencies Act. This declaration unlocks access to more than 120 specific statutory powers, including asset seizures, commerce regulation and military deployment — authorities that bypass normal congressional authorisation and operate with minimal legislative oversight.
Trump has systematically layered additional emergency measures. In March, he designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organisation, expanded the legal definition of Venezuela’s government to encompass virtually any affiliated entity — from ministries to state-owned firms — and imposed 25 percent tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil. In August, he signed a secret directive authorising military force against Latin American drug cartels — a decision taken without coastguard involvement and relying solely on Navy assets, breaking with decades of maritime interdiction precedent and further consolidating executive discretion.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth framed the scope clearly when he declared that alleged drug operations “will not be controlled by cartels” and promised to “map your networks, track your people, hunt you down and kill you” — language more consistent with warfare than law enforcement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went further, stating that the Maduro regime is “not a legitimate government” but rather “a transshipment organisation” that facilitates drug trafficking — a characterisation that redefines diplomatic relations as a criminal enterprise and justifies treating state actors as targets.
What makes this deployment unprecedented is not its size — though assembling carrier strike groups, B-52 bombers, F-35 fighters, submarines and more than 15,000 personnel represents the most significant US military presence in Latin America since the Cold War — but the absence of congressional authorisation. Lawmakers from both parties have complained they were not provided with legal justification, target lists or evidence about those killed. The Senate has twice rejected resolutions to limit Trump’s military authority on Venezuela, leaving executive power in effect, unchecked.
Senator Lindsey Graham made the administration’s objective explicit, telling CBS that regime change is the goal and Trump “has all the authority in the world” to conduct strikes. Legal experts broadly characterise the maritime attacks as illegal under both US and international law. Yet classified briefings to congressional leadership — including recent sessions in which Hegseth refused to commit to releasing unedited strike footage — have produced no meaningful constraint on executive action.
The pattern emerging is one of expanding presidential discretion: once invoked, emergency powers become self-perpetuating tools that normalise unilateral military action. Rather than being used for targeted interdiction, they are increasingly employed to engineer confrontation and accelerate regime change — all without a congressional declaration of war.
The most insidious aspect of this crisis is that it manufactures a threat precisely calibrated to validate expanded executive power. Oil does not provide that pretext — a foreign emergency large enough to activate military force — and label as terrorism does. This permits the exercise of authority without Congress, without oversight and, increasingly, without resistance.
Venezuela becomes useful not for its resources but for its role as a political prop in a constitutional drama. While Trump has openly threatened land strikes and stated that the airspace above Venezuela should be considered closed, the administration is quietly drafting day-after plans for what happens if Maduro is ousted — planning that proceeds regardless of congressional authorisation or international law.
The Venezuelan people, already suffering under economic collapse and political repression, now face the prospect of becoming collateral damage in someone else’s power consolidation project. More than seven million Venezuelans have fled abroad, and those who remain endure the escalating danger of a manufactured crisis designed not to liberate them but to serve distant political calculations.
This is not an oil grab. It is a power grab — one that uses Venezuela as a pawn while setting precedents that will outlast any single administration. The question is not whether Maduro’s regime deserves international condemnation; it does. The question is whether democracies should abandon their own constitutional principles to achieve regime change abroad. On the current trajectory, the answer appears to be yes — and that is the most dangerous precedent of all.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Charlotte Stahl, who led music partnerships across Europe, the Middle East and Africa for TikTok, has left the company after more than five years at the company.
Stahl confirmed her exit via LinkedIn on Wednesday (December 10), saying her tenure at the ByteDance-owned social media app brought “more personal and professional growth than I ever imagined.”
She joined TikTok in 2020 as Artist Relations Manager for Germany. By October 2022, she had become Head of Music Operations for the DACH region (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) and Central and Eastern Europe.
In the summer of 2024, she took on a broader role as Head of Music Partnerships EMEA, overseeing relationships with artists, labels, and music partners.
Before TikTok, Stahl worked at YouTube for over three years, Aviator Management, Germany’s Roba Music Publishing and at Sony Music Entertainment, where she started her music industry career.
“We helped artists, labels and music partners onboard and thrive, being the human and approachable faces of a new, powerful platform that became the world’s most important driver in music discovery and promotion.”
Charlotte Stahl
At TikTok, Stahl said: “We helped artists, labels and music partners onboard and thrive, being the human and approachable faces of a new, powerful platform that became the world’s most important driver in music discovery and promotion.”
The role involved managing what Stahl called “ambitious projects.”
Stahl credited her team and industry partners for her accomplishments at the company, saying: “None of this would have been possible without genuine collaboration, trust and open conversation with our amazing partners in the music industry — especially the artists and labels we worked with every day. It means the world to me that we got to build this together.”
TikTok hasn’t announced a replacement for Stahl’s role.
Her departure comes just months after TikTok expanded its SoundOn distribution and services platform to Germany after launching in the UK, US, Brazil and Indonesia, and Australia.
SoundOn has seen “hundreds of thousands” of acts release music and generate revenue on the platform, TikTok said in September. The launch in Germany allowed local artists to distribute their songs across major streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, SoundCloud, Deezer, Pandora and more.
The development marks the latest executive change across TikTok’s global operations. Two weeks ago, TikTok appointed Ziad Ojakli as head of public policy for the Americas, a veteran government affairs executive, as the company races to finalize the sale of its US operations.
Music Business Worldwide
Welcome to World Breaking News, your trusted source for fast, accurate, and impactful news coverage from around the globe. We are a dedicated team of journalists, editors, and news enthusiasts committed to delivering breaking stories, in-depth analysis, and real-time updates on politics, business, technology, sports, entertainment, and more.
© Copyright -World Breaking News -2025
