Colorado Mom Accused of Killing 2 Kids Found in U.K.

Colorado Springs Police, GoFundMe

A Colorado mother suspected of killing two of her children, who has been the subject of a two-week manhunt, was arrested in the United Kingdom this weekend.

Kimberlee Singler, 35, was locked in a custody dispute with her ex-husband when police were summoned to her Colorado Springs home Dec. 19 after a 911 call about a burglary.

There, they found a 9-year-old boy, Aden, and a 7-year-old girl, Ellie, dead. Singler and her 11-year-old daughter were also injured.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Lauren Boebert blames Barbra Streisand and Ryan Reynolds for making her switch districts

Lauren Boebert (left), Barbra Streisand (center), and Ryan Reynolds (right).

Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images; Kevin Mazur via Getty Images; Noam Galai via Getty Images

Lauren Boebert is pointing the finger at Hollywood for making her swap congressional districts. The Colorado Republican accused Barbra Streisand and Ryan Reynolds of backing her Democrat rival.Streisand and Reynolds each donated $1,500 to Boebert’s rival, Democratic candidate Adam Frisch.

Rep. Lauren Boebert is blaming Hollywood for her decision to switch congressional districts.

“We have to shut down the Hollywood elites who are trying to buy my current district,” Boebert told Steve Bannon on his “War Room” podcast on Saturday.

“There has been close to $10 million poured into this district to buy this seat. Colorado’s 3rd District is not for sale,” she continued.

Boebert then named the stars, who she said were backing her rivals.

“When you have Barbra Streisand coming in and donating to the Democrat, when you have Ryan Reynolds coming in and donating to the Democrat, it shows you that Hollywood is trying to buy their way into Congress,” Boebert told Bannon.

This isn’t the first time Boebert has slammed Streisand and Reynolds for backing her opponents.

In November, Boebert had mentioned the two stars while soliciting donations from her supporters.

“My opponent has plenty of funding from Soros dark money and even Hollywood liberals like Barbra Streisand and Ryan Reynolds,” she wrote in a post on X.

According to the Federal Election Commission, both Streisand and Reynolds have donated $1,500 each to Boebert’s rival, Democratic candidate Adam Frisch.

Boebert said on Wednesday that she was moving from Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District to the 4th Congressional District, a more conservative part of the state.

Her announcement comes after Frisch vastly outraised her. On Tuesday, Business Insider reported that Frisch had raised over $7.7 million, according to the FEC.

That is more than triple the $2.4 million that Boebert raised, per the FEC.

“I will not allow dark money that is directed at destroying me personally to steal this seat,” Boebert said in a Facebook video on Wednesday.

“It’s not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories,” she added.

Representatives for Boebert, Streisand, and Reynolds did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider sent outside regular business hours.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Chief Justice Roberts used his year-end report to ponder ethical uses of AI in law but didn’t mention ethical questions circling the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts released his year-end review of the Supreme Court. He took a lot of space writing about the potential of AI in the courtroom. Notably, he sidestepped any discussions of Supreme Court ethics.

On Sunday, Chief Justice John Roberts turned his focus to the promise and shortcomings of artificial intelligence in the federal courts in an annual report that did not mention Supreme Court ethics or legal controversies involving Donald Trump.

Describing artificial intelligence as the “latest technological frontier,” Roberts discussed the pros and cons of computer-generated content in the legal profession. His remarks came just a few days after the latest instance of AI-generated fake legal citations making their way into official court records in a case involving ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

“Always a bad idea,” Roberts wrote in his year-end report, noting that “any use of AI requires caution and humility.”

At the same time, the chief justice acknowledged that AI can make it much easier for people without much money to access the courts. “These tools have the welcome potential to smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system,” Roberts wrote.

Notable, however, were Roberts’s omissions from his year-end report concerning a Supreme Court plagued with questions about its ethics and the court’s first adoption of a code of conduct.

The ethics questions stemmed from a series of reports from ProPublica scrutinizing gifts that Justice Clarence Thomas received and failed to disclose from Harlan Crow, a billionaire GOP donor.

The ethical dilemmas spread to other Justices. Samuel Alito was criticized for a luxury fishing trip he took with a billionaire working to block student debt relief. Sonia Sotomayor was accused of using her position to pressure institutions where she previously held speaking gigs into buying her books. Even Roberts came under scrutiny after Business Insider revealed that his wife made millions of dollars recruiting for law firms, one of which argued a case in front of the Supreme Court.

The code of conduct eventually adopted by the court this year has been criticized for being toothless, as it only suggests, rather than demands, that justices recuse themselves from cases involving friends or family members.

The country also is entering the beginning of an election year that seems likely to entangle the court in some way in the ongoing criminal cases against Trump and efforts to keep the Republican former president off the 2024 ballot.

Along with his eight colleagues, Roberts seldom discusses cases before the Supreme Court or that seem likely to get there. In past reports, he has advocated for enhanced security and salary increases for federal judges, praised judges and their aides for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, and highlighted other aspects of technological changes in the courts.

Roberts once famously compared judges to umpires who call balls and strikes but don’t make the rules. In his latest report, he turned to a different sport, tennis, to make the point that technology won’t soon replace judges.

At many tennis tournaments, optical technology, rather than human line judges, now determine “whether 130 mile per hour serves are in or out. These decisions involve precision to the millimeter. And there is no discretion; the ball either did or did not hit the line. By contrast, legal determinations often involve gray areas that still require application of human judgment,” Roberts wrote.

Looking ahead to the growing use of artificial intelligence in the courts, Roberts wrote: “I predict that human judges will be around for a while. But with equal confidence I predict that judicial work — particularly at the trial level — will be significantly affected by AI.”

A representative for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider sent outside regular business hours.

Read the original article on Business Insider

3 reasons why it feels like supply chains are always screwed up

Trucks carrying shipping containers line up as they are flagged for a secondary inspections at the Port of Manzanillo, Mexico.

Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Supply chains disruptions have repeatedly come under the spotlight in recent years.An ongoing disruption in the Red Sea due to Houthi attacks on vessels is the latest risk to supply chains.Geopolitics, climate change, and shipping incidents all pose risks to supply chains.

Supply chains are the backbone of global trade, but they’ve been largely taken for granted — until recently. Over the past few years, supply chain woes have repeatedly come into the spotlight.

The vital link came under the spotlight when President Donald Trump launched a trade war against China in 2018, prompting investors to reassess their reliance on the factory of the world.

Since then, global integrated supply chain systems just seem to keep getting disrupted — be it by the COVID-19 pandemic or Russia’s war in Ukraine.

For decades, supply chains have been driven by a “just in time” model in which materials were moved right before they were needed. The model keeps business operations extremely efficient — but it also opens them up to risks should just one part of the system fail.

“While just-in-time supply chain strategies have been the ‘go-to’ for 40 years, you can only expect something held together by chewing gum and shoelaces to last so long,” Nari Viswanathan, a senior director of supply chain strategy at Coupa, a business spend management platform, told Business Insider.

Viswanathan said “the world has been on a roller coaster that won’t stop” over the last few years, which has in turn sent the world’s supply chains into tailspin after tailspin.

Given that risks impacting supply chains are intertwined, they pose multifaceted risks to operations, Julie Gerdeman, the CEO of Everstream Analytics, a platform for supply-chain risk management, told BI.

Here are three key reasons why supply chains just seem to keep screwing up in recent years.

1. Heightened geopolitical tensions

Geopolitics are one of the biggest drivers of risks in fields ranging from economy to technology. Supply chains are no exception.

The issue first came to the fore in 2018, when Trump imposed high tariffs on a range of Chinese imports. It has become more amplified because of the tech rivalry between the US and China.

Examining ongoing conflicts in the Black Sea and Red Sea respectively shows how geopolitical conflicts affect global supply chains.

Russia’s blockade of the Black Sea amid the war in Ukraine is preventing wheat and sunflower supplies from Ukraine from moving freely to other parts of the world.

As of December 21, the Red Sea — a vital trade route between Europe and Asia — is under siege by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

To avoid being caught in the Red Sea attacks, cargo-carrying ships are rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope around the southern tip of Africa — but that will prolong journeys.

Vessel volumes through the Suez Canal are down by over 40% in the week of December 17 from a week ago, supply chain platform project44 told BI. The transit times for ships that usually use the waterway are expected to increase by a minimum of seven to 14 days.

2. Climate change

In the summer of 2023, a historic drought affected rainfall that feeds into the Panama Canal, lowering the canal’s water levels and limiting the number and weight of ships that can float on it. The drought was caused by the El Niño weather phenomenon and its warming effects, which were more severe in 2023 due to climate change.

The fall in water levels at the Panama Canal caused a buildup in the number of ships waiting to cross the waterway, increasing transit time and prompting some vessels to reroute through the Cape of Good Hope.

Roughly 40% of US container traffic passes through the Panama Canal. By late November, the wait time for some ships waiting to pass through the waterway was around 20 days — up from five to seven days in October.

“The low water levels at the Panama Canal are a clear example of the effects of climate change in rainfall and weather patterns across the globe, which causes a ripple effect through the supply chain,” shipping giant Maersk told BI in September.

3. Shipping incidents

Ships transport 90% of the world’s trade, and the vessels themselves just keep getting bigger and bigger.

With the increase in size, the risk that something goes very wrong also increases.

“A number of recurring themes have emerged in major incidents in recent years, many of which are a consequence of the increased size of vessels,” Justus Heinrich, a shipping product leader at Allianz Commercial, a corporate insurer, wrote in a May 2022 report.

This is best exemplified by the case of the massive 1,312-foot Ever Given container ship, which ran aground and blocked the Suez Canal for six days in March 2021. The incident delayed about 16 million tons of cargo on hundreds of container ships at a time when COVID-19-related movement restrictions were already straining the global shipping system.

MARCH 29, 2021: High-resolution satellite imagery of the Suez canal and the container ship (EVER GIVEN) that remains stuck in the canal north of the city of Suez, Egypt.

Satellite image (c) 2020 Maxar Technologies.

To be sure, the number of serious shipping accidents worldwide has declined in the longer term, Allianz wrote in its report. However, incidents involving large vessels — in particular container ships and large vehicle carriers — are resulting in disproportionately large losses.

In fact, the cost of responding to incidents and clean-up is typically many times the ship’s value, per Allianz.

“Larger vessels mean larger losses,” Rahul Khanna, the global head of marine risk consulting at Allianz, wrote in the report.

Read the original article on Business Insider