Varun Dhawan, Bollywood actor and well-known WWE fan, is excited about WWE Live in India on December 9 at the Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium.Taking to Twitter to express his excitement, he posted a video asking his fellow WWE fans to not miss the event in Delhi.”Delhi it is going to be one crazy live show,” he said.”This is the biggest announcement I’ve ever made. The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) is coming to Delhi. They are going to be here on 9th of December. WWE is back in India, Triple H takes on Jinder Mahal . After 15 years, he (Triple H) is wrestling in India. The Shield is going to in wrestling action. Finn Balor, the demon King, is here. He is taking on Bray Wyatt. It will be an insane show. Seth Rollins, the King Slayer is there. Dean Ambrose, the Lunatic Fringe, is there. Book your tickets,” he said in the video.@WWE @WWERomanReigns @WWERollins @JinderMahal @TripleH the wwe is live in india in delhi on dec 9 th book your tickets nowwwwww pic.twitter.com/CidGxj0vOY- Varun Dhawan (@Varun_dvn) November 30, 2017Jinder Mahal had earlier posted a video saying that “the match has been made, the biggest match in India’s history.” The biggest match in Indian history is set. So @TripleH … are YOU ready? @WWEIndia pic.twitter.com/yOXkMfolkm- The Maharaja (@JinderMahal) November 22, 2017Triple H (Paul Michael Levesque) posted a video on his Facebook page, announcing, ” When you (Jinder Mahal) step into the ring on December 9th Jinder Mahal, I will teach you there is only ONE king.”advertisement”Jinder Mahal, as December 9, approaches, you must ask yourself why I am back, why I am stepping back in the ring, why am I coming to India, to New Delhi to face the ‘Modern Day Maharaja’?” he said.Jinder Mahal was earlier slated to face Kevin Owens. However, plans changed and Owens will not travel and has been replaced by Triple H, who will take on Jinder in the main-event on December 9.The list of matches scheduled for the event:Triple H vs Jinder MahalThe Shield: Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose vs. Samoa Joe and RAW Tag Team Champions Cesaro and SheamusBraun Strowman vs. KaneFinn Balor vs Bray WyattRAW Women’s Champion Alexa Bliss vs. Sasha BanksJason Jordan vs EliasWWE Cruiserweight Champion Enzo Amore vs. KalistoApollo Crews and Titus O’Neil vs Gallows and AndersonJeet Rama and Kishan Rafter vs The Miztourage*Talent line-up subject to change
Novak Djokovic isn’t just chasing the records of his sport’s all-time greats. He’s accelerating in his pursuit.After winning his first French Open title on Sunday, Djokovic holds all four major titles at the same time, the first man to do so since Rod Laver in 1969. He is halfway to winning all four in one year, leaving him closer to winning a Grand Slam than any man since Jim Courier won the first two in 1992.1Mats Wilander was the only man other than Courier to win the Australian Open and French Open back-to-back since Laver’s 1969 Grand Slam. Wilander did it in 1984-85 (back when the Australian Open was in December) and in 1988. He has won 12 major titles, just two behind Rafael Nadal and five behind all-time leader Roger Federer. And on Monday he will be No. 1 in the rankings by the enormous margin of 8,045 points, leaving him in a strong position to overtake Federer’s record for the most weeks at No. 1 as soon as 2018.History suggests Djokovic should be slowing down, not speeding up, at age 29. Even all-time greats have rarely won many major titles so close to 30. While the sport has become kinder to veterans, just two majors were won by a man 29 or older in the last decade: Federer, at Wimbledon in 2012; and Stan Wawrinka, over Djokovic at last year’s French Open. Three factors are speeding Djokovic’s chase:1) He’s playing outstanding tennis, the most dominant of the Open era. Our Elo ratings at the end of last year showed Djokovic topping all other men since 1968, an era that encompasses just about every contender for the greatest career of all time, though it omits many of Laver’s best years. More conventional stats confirm Djokovic’s dominance. Men’s tennis has three types of events that feature nearly all of the best players who are fit to play: the four majors, nine Masters and the World Tour Finals. Djokovic has reached the final of 21 of the last 22 of these events he has entered, winning 17 of them. No man has ever had a stretch that dominant.Andy Murray should be Djokovic’s biggest rival. Murray was born exactly a week before Djokovic, has an eerily similar game and has dealt him three of his biggest recent losses: in the finals of the 2012 U.S. Open and 2013 Wimbledon, and in the 2012 Olympics semifinal. But since Murray’s Wimbledon win, Djokovic has beaten him in 13 of their 15 meetings, including all five of their matches at Grand Slams. The reasons were evident in Djokovic’s defeat of Murray in Sunday’s final: In just about every facet of the game, Murray is great but Djokovic is greater. Murray has an edge in one scenario: When he’s lobbing the ball and Djokovic is smashing it. That doesn’t happen often enough to swing a tennis match.2) The men who used to hold Djokovic back when they were at their peak are fading as he continues to soar. If Federer and Nadal hadn’t been around, Djokovic probably would have won many more majors by 2010. He faced them 11 times at majors through the 2010 U.S. Open and lost nine of those matches. Since then, Djokovic has beaten them in 11 of 17 meetings at majors, including the last five. And he may not meet them many more times at majors, with both men struggling with injuries. Federer withdrew from the French Open before it began, and Nadal withdrew after the first two rounds.3) Djokovic doesn’t yet have any younger rivals. That is stunning for a man at age 29. Players younger than him have won just two majors combined: Marin Cilic and Juan Martín del Potro, both born a year after Djokovic, have one apiece. Neither has made more than one major final. And men born in 1989 or later have not won a single title of note. No major, no Masters, no tour final. The entire generation of men younger than Djokovic who should be leading the sport hasn’t lifted a single significant trophy. By this stage of the season two years ago — when he was the same age as the 1989ers — Djokovic by himself had won six majors, three tour finals and 19 Masters titles.This might look like a chicken-and-egg problem: Have players younger than Djokovic struggled because he is an all-time great who keeps ousting them, or because they’re not very good? The answer is a little of both, but more the latter. Djokovic has ousted men younger than him from Slams in the fourth round or later only 17 times in his career. None were in a final. The primary reason the younger guys aren’t breaking through isn’t because Djokovic keeps stopping them. It’s because other older guys are.While the men ages 23 to 28 might retire as a collective lost cause — a weird void in the tennis record books — the men younger than them show real promise, including Dominic Thiem, who will enter the Top 10 on Monday, and Nick Kyrgios. They will have to grow up in a hurry if they are to slow Djokovic’s run at the record book. At the moment, aging or injury look likely to be his biggest obstacle.
While correlating user behavior to the business model is the only way to judge revenue performance, surprisingly few publishers can differentiate between a page view that is aligned to the business model vs. a page view that is not. Consequently, many publishers are chasing low value page views and jeopardizing their long-term viability. Might as well hire some bots…Matt Shanahan is vice president of strategy at Scout Analytics, a specialist in digital revenue optimization. Measuring the number of page views as a key performance indicator (KPI), is a growing practice among publishers. In fact, editorial and development teams are increasingly being rewarded for boosting page views, with some publishers even shaping their entire site just to generate page views.That is not a business model! Let me prove it with an extreme example.Any publisher can deploy bots to generate page views for their site. No advertiser will pay for those page views, because the page views have no advertising value. While page views could be used as a KPI by the editorial team to generate more content for bot consumption, no revenue is coming through the door to keep them employed.The right metric for publishers should be revenue performance indicators (RPI), which means the metrics tie directly to the business model. Many publishers are looking to build recurring revenue streams from loyal audience members, and in this case, RPIs such as audience size, loyalty, and level of engagement are meaningful. However, some publishers are relying on non-recurring revenue from SEO acquired visitors, and in this case, RPIs such as percentage share of search and time on site become more relevant. In paid content, RPIs such as price per article or price per device become critical. And for all of these business models, average revenue per user (ARPU) is the RPI for benchmarking efficiency and profit (see my post on ARPU here).
Close A British government-backed review released on Thursday (14 May) is seeking billions of dollars to fund the development of 15 new antibiotics to counter antibiotic resistance.The review, led by former Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim ONeill, said the lump sum payments could add up to $16-$37bn (£10-23.5bn) over 10 years, but should only be made when companies have fully developed a successful bug-killing drug.Seen in a global context, and compared to the cost of inaction, its actually peanuts. Critically linked to that were also calling for an innovation fund, about $2bn perhaps over five years, that the pharmaceutical industry itself essentially finances, ONeill said.The review says that companies that develop new antibiotics should be awarded prize money of up to $3.5bn for each new drug, instead of selling the medication at a profit.Because if you come up with the specific incentives and rewards were suggesting to get them to produce more drugs, its essentially giving them a lot of financial relief. So we think its only right that they play a role in financing the research at the early stage, ONeill added.The prizes, of between $1.5bn and $3.5bn, should be funded in part by the pharma industry itself, ONeill said, probably also with input from national governments and the global taxpayer.I think the proposal were suggesting is better than what the pharma industry would like itself, which is much higher prices so they can just charge a lot more for it. I dont think that would be a better option for every individual in this country and elsewhere in the world, he said.The successful drugmaker would then be required to make no profit from its sales of the drugs to governments and healthcare providers around the world, ONeill added, saying this approach would de-link the profitability of a drug from its volume of sales.I think there are two core problems. Theres a demand problem and a supply problem. The paper weve published today focuses all about the supply issues of getting more drugs, he saidIn recent years, bugs resistant to multiple drugs have evolved at the same time as drugmakers have cut back investment in finding new ways to fight them, creating a global health threat as superbug strains of infections like tuberculosis and gonorrhoea have become untreatable.ONeill, who was asked last year by British Prime Minister David Cameron to take an economists view of the problem, said far too little is currently invested in hunting for new drugs against drug-resistant infections.In his initial report, ONeill estimated that anti-microbial resistance (AMR) could kill an extra 10 million people a year and cost up to $100tn by 2050 if it is not brought under control.ONeill has also proposed that a $2bn innovation fund financed by drug companies should be created to invest in early-stage research and speed up development of new medicines to fight drug-resistant superbugs.Sally Davies, the UK governments chief medical adviser, welcomed ONeills latest report, saying it would stimulate important conversations between governments, pharmaceutical companies and other funders.
Road Accident logoThree auto-rickshaw passengers were killed and another one injured in a road accident in South Keraniganj, on the outskirts of the capital, in the small hours of Saturday.The deceased are Falan Mia, 25, Afzal Hossain, 28 and the auto-rickshaw driver Chan Mia, 32.The accident took place when a goods-laden truck hit the Postagola-bound CNG-run auto-rickshaw around 1:00am, leaving Falan and Chan dead on the spot and two others injured, South Keraniganj police station sub-inspector M Kawsar told Prothom Alo in the morning.Injured Afzal succumbed to his injuries at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital, he said.Another injured was taken to Mitford Hospital in Dhaka.Kawsar said police seized the truck but the driver and helper managed to flee the scene.No suit was filed in this connection, the SI said.
To embed this piece of audio in your site, please use this code: Listen 00:00 /01:16 X Thousands of Texas high school seniors are officially moving onto college this month. But this year’s freshmen might struggle more than last year’s freshmen class.That prediction comes from the latest test scores from the most popular college entrance exam, the ACT.In Texas, 26 percent of graduating seniors met the so-called “benchmark score” across all four subjects: English, math, reading and science. That means they have a good chance of getting a B or C in that subject in college.ACT officials blamed the drop in scores to a record number of students taking the exam.“This year’s ACT-tested class is more representative of the student population than any we’ve ever had,” said ACT Chief Executive Officer Marten Roorda in a statement.“We have likely added many more underrepresented students who may not have been preparing to go to college. In a situation such as this, it’s not at all surprising that overall achievement levels went down. Research clearly shows that scores initially decrease when states adopt the ACT for all students, but access and opportunities increase.”Bob Schaeffer with the advocacy group FairTest said that it’s more evidence that there’s too much focus on testing.“Kids who are not even on the college track are taking the test as well. And that both adds to the number of test-takers and lowers the average score,” Schaeffer said.What’s more, the gap grew between students from low-income homes and those from more affluent families making $80,000 or more a year. Schaeffer said that reflects the difference in opportunity for those kids, not their ability.“Kids whose parents have the means buy them test prep, get them special summer programs, send them to the best schools, and all of those show up in test scores, furthering the advantages that those children already have — since before they were born,” he said.Schaeffer contends that high school grades and rankings better predict how students will do in college. His group tracks how many colleges don’t require admissions exams or have flexible policies on tests. More than 75 colleges have joined that tally in the last three years. Pexels Share