LOS ANGELES — Thor may have been a big hit in Hollywood with "The Avengers," but the Noah Syndergaard version of Thor ended his time with the Dodgers on Wednesday.Looking for a way to end what was a failed attempt to revitalize the career of one of the game's most dominant p...

By Brigid Riley TOKYO The dollar was firm on Tuesday and the Aussie under a little pressure as

Yevgeny Prigozhin claimed a 'huge number' of his fighters had been killed in the strike.

By Eliana Raszewski BUENOS AIRES Argentina has a $12 billion energy conundrum: what to do about state subsidies

Manchester United were drawing 0-0 with West Ham in January 2022 when, with the minutes ticking down, Ralf Rangnick brought on Edinson Cavani and Anthony Martial. It proved a fine double change, with each involved in Marcus Rashford’s injury-time winner. Its significance now, however, is rather different. Mason Greenwood was one of those removed: now his 129th United appearance will prove his last. What should have been a glittering career at Old Trafford in effect ended a few months after his 20th birthday. For now, he is still under contract, but in limbo. A six-month investigation has brought the conclusion that Greenwood will not play for United again. He may be sold or loaned out. His contract could be paid up. He has not been sacked, which United say they would have done had they determined he was guilty of attempted rape, assault or coercive and controlling behaviour, the charges first levelled and then dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. But in January 2022, a week after Greenwood’s last game, pictures emerged of a bruised, bleeding woman, audio of a man seemingly threatening to rape her. That remains impossible to forget; to forgive, for many. Greenwood will not play for United again and nor should he. And so it is possible they reached the right decision, perhaps in the wrong way, possibly for the wrong reasons. There were plans to bring Greenwood back – though United insist they simply considered a variety of scenarios – and perhaps the most telling phrase in chief executive Richard Arnold’s statement was: “Further, this case has provoked strong opinions, and it is my responsibility to minimise any distraction to the unity we are seeking within the club.” Had Greenwood played again, it would have been Manchester Divided, not United. There were protests before Monday’s game against Wolves; there would have been far more were he to return to the team. The television presenter Rachel Riley said she would have stopped supporting United had Greenwood represented them again. She would not have been alone in that, either. The Manchester United Supporters Trust backed the decision not to bring him back, though not the lack of consultation for fans. There were staff at Old Trafford who felt it would be wrong to recall him, some of whom would not have wanted to encounter Greenwood in their line of work, maybe some who would have considered quitting their jobs. Perhaps United originally underestimated the strength of feeling. Perhaps, too, there were commercial considerations; the club’s image would have suffered considerable damage if he played, and has already been tainted. Because there is a tendency – often a wish – to celebrate footballers. But could United fans have cheered if Greenwood scored for them again? Would they have been in the awkward position of loving the shirt, hating the man wearing it? Footballers are imperfect people, as we all are, and some more than most, but there is a matter of character. The word is often used in football – when a team gets a late equaliser, when a player makes a comeback from injury – but there is a deeper meaning. If there is a moral test, Greenwood has failed it. Those who have been convicted of criminal offences have a right to work, let alone those who have not, but playing for Manchester United is not merely a job: it is a privilege. And if that invites questions as to at which level of football, if any, that stops being true and there is no definitive answer as to where Greenwood should be allowed to play, there could be a similar reaction at other clubs in England, should they try and sign him; it is still harder to imagine a scenario where he adds to his one cap for England. None of which makes him the victim. United argue they conducted a thorough investigation, showing concern for the woman in question, who has lifelong anonymity for legal reasons, speaking to her mother, showing her their findings, as well as a duty of care to Greenwood. Arnold said he was “satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”. None of which necessarily makes Greenwood innocent in the court of public opinion; as he accepted himself, his behaviour was wrong. “I fully accept I made mistakes, and I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post,” he said. Yet if time is required to see if he does, as he has pledged to do, lead a better life and if there are reasons to keep some of the detail confidential, it would help to know if he has, for instance, spoken to a counsellor, or to victims of rape and domestic abuse, or donated to suitable charities. And if not, why not; these would not be automatically be admissions of guilt, but they would be a recognition he took the issues seriously. His other concern may seem trivial in comparison, though football can be a juxtaposition of the relevant and the irrelevant. But he has to find a club, with United pledging their help to do so. If his prime responsibility is to be a better partner and a good father, as he vowed, he may have a duty to himself to try and rescue his career and realise some of his potential. The teenage prodigy – the man Ole Gunnar Solskjaer deemed the best finisher at Old Trafford – had the talent to be a United great; he has not been found guilty of a crime or sacked by United, but it is still his fault he never will be. Read More Mason Greenwood will not play for Manchester United again, club announce Mason Greenwood speaks out on Manchester United exit: ‘I made mistakes’ Mason Greenwood timeline: How the Manchester United star fell from grace

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 1, 2023--

Brian O'Nora rushed off the field in the middle of an inning and didn't return.

The ex-wife of a Microsoft executive who was gunned down in front of his young daughter has been charged with first-degree murder

Zoom CEO Eric Yuan told staff an all-hands meeting earlier this month that he wants employees to return to in-person work because Zoom is making them too “friendly” and unable to build trust. “Over the past several years, we’ve hired so many new ‘Zoomies’ that it’s really hard to build trust,” Mr Yuan says in the audio, which was obtained and first reported by Insider. “We cannot have a great conversation. We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call.” Mr Yuan’s thoughts were accompanied by action: On 3 August, Zoom instituted a new policy requiring employees who live within 50 miles of a physical Zoom office to report to work at least two days per week. The return to the office policy at Zoom is striking considering that it was the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting stay-at-home orders that turned the platform from one few people had ever heard of to a part of everyday life for millions. But Mr Yuan is not alone among senior executives at tech firms. Apple, Meta, and Amazon have all instituted return-to-work policies in recent months, angering employees who have enjoyed the increased flexibility afforded by work-from-home policies. Since Covid-19 vaccines have facilitated the re-opening of the economy, workers and bosses in many sectors have clashed over the importance of in-person work and the ability of companies to exercise control over their employees whereabouts and schedules. Some, like Zoom and a number of other tech companies, have adopted hybrid policies in which workers are required to come into the office on certain days of the week but are allowed to work from home on others. But even those companies have faced backlash from workers, many of whom were hired at a different stage of the pandemic when most or all work at their respective companies was being conducted remotely. Mr Yuan’s comments, which were not meant for public consumption, may provide a measure of insight into how he and other top executives truly feel about Zoom and remote work more broadly — suggesting that it somehow limits innovation by not allowing for the sometimes uncomfortable kinds of interactions that can build trust. Mr Yuan, who was born and raised in China, moved to Silicon Valley during the late 1990s. He founded Zoom more than a decade ago and became a multibillionaire during the pandemic. Read More Maui residents are still reeling from wildfire devastation. Now investors and realtors are trying to cash in

Joe Rogan is certainly unhappy with the political condition of Canada at the moment

Singer songwriter Fletcher has been diagnosed with Lyme disease after becoming "increasingly ill" over the past couple of years.

Samoa head coach Seilala Mapusua said on Thursday he changed his whole front five for this weekend's Rugby World Cup game with England to deal with...