ph live casino

ph live casino

None

The Philadelphia Eagles ruled wide receiver DeVonta Smith out for Sunday night's game at the Los Angeles Rams due to a hamstring injury. Smith did not practice all week and will miss his second game of the season and just the third of his four-year NFL career. He was inactive in a Week 4 loss at Tampa Bay due to a concussion. Smith, 26, leads the Eagles with 41 receptions and four touchdown catches ands ranks second with 516 receiving yards in nine starts this season. The former Heisman Trophy winner has 281 catches for 3,694 yards and 23 scores in 59 games (58 starts) since the Eagles drafted him with the 10th overall pick in 2021. NFC East-leading Philadelphia (8-2) takes a six-game winning streak to Los Angeles (5-5), which has won four of its last five games. --Field Level Media

SYM Stock News: Shareholder Rights Law Firm Robbins LLP Urges Symbotic Inc. Stockholders With Large Losses To Seek Legal Counsel In Connection With The Class Action Lawsuit

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Londynn Jones scored 15 points, making all five of her 3-pointers, and fifth-ranked UCLA stunned No. 1 South Carolina 77-62 on Sunday, ending the Gamecocks’ overall 43-game winning streak and their run of 33 consecutive road victories. The Gamecocks (5-1) lost for the first time since April 2023, when Caitlin Clark and Iowa beat them in the NCAA Tournament national semifinals. Te-Hina Paopao scored 18 points and Tessa Johnson scored 14 for the Gamecocks, whose road winning streak was third-longest in Division I history. It was the first time UCLA took down a No. 1 team in school history, having been 0-20 in such games. The program's previous best wins were over a couple of No. 2s — Oregon in 2019 and Stanford in 2008. Elina Aarnisalo added 13 points as one of five Bruins in double figures. UCLA (5-0) dominated from start to finish, with the Bruins' suffocating defense preventing the Gamecocks from making any sustained scoring runs. Takeaways South Carolina: The Gamecocks trailed by double-digits at halftime for the first time since Dec. 21, 2021, against Stanford, according to ESPN. Chloe Kitts, who averages a team-leading 14 points, finished the game with 2 points on 1 of 7 shooting. UCLA: The Bruins led 43-22 at halftime. Eight different players scored and contributed to 11-0 and 7-0 runs in the first and second quarters as they shot 52% from the field. Key moment The first quarter set the tone for a game in which the Gamecocks never led. They missed their first nine shots and were 4 of 18 from the floor in the quarter. UCLA ran off 11 straight points to take a 20-10 lead into the second quarter. Key stats The Bruins dominated the boards, 41-34, and held the Gamecocks well under their scoring average of 80.2 points. Up next South Carolina travels to Florida to meet Iowa State in the Fort Myers Tipoff on Thanksgiving. UCLA travels to the Rainbow Wahine Showdown in Hawaii to play UT Martin on Friday. ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 all season. Sign up here. AP college basketball: and Beth Harris, The Associated Press

The usual rule of thumb is that stories sell; data, not so much. But new research suggests that’s not necessarily true. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that numbers are dull and uninspiring, numbers dominate our decisions — on what to buy, whom to hire and where to donate money. A paper published last month in the journal PNAS shows that numbers are so compelling that when making a decision, people will put more weight on relatively trivial attributes if they’re expressed numerically, factoring them in above more relevant information expressed in qualitative form. The researchers call the phenomenon “quantification fixation.” “I think it helps explain why there’s such a move to put a number on everything,” said Katherine Milkman, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the authors of the paper. For example, think of online purchases — it’s so much easier to compare customer star ratings than to sort through a bunch of descriptive reviews. Right up top, Amazon gives you not just the average rating as a number and a graphic, but also gives you the number of ratings. The paper itself starts out with an impressive number — the researchers conducted 21 different experiments to bolster their conclusions and explore how quantification fixation works in different contexts. In one, volunteers were put in the position of a boss being asked to choose a summer intern. They were told two candidates were comparable in every way except one got a higher grade in management and the other, a higher grade in calculus. When they offered the calculus grade as a number, people tended to hire the candidate with the higher calculus grade, and when they switched and only offered the management grade as a number, the preference flipped. In another experiment, the researchers wanted to see if a fixation on numbers might nudge people to make unprofitable choices. So they asked volunteers again to play the employer and choose from prospective employees to assist them in a game. The winning pairs would get a cash reward. The prospective employees were scored in three skill areas — math, trivia and a geometric reasoning assessment called the angles test. People were again more likely to choose the candidate whose skills had been expressed as a number (rather than, say, as a bar graph with no numbers). They did this even when told that the numbered skill was less relevant to winning — and, as a result, those teams won less money. “I think it’s a brilliant paper,” said Ellen Peters, a former engineer turned psychologist at the University of Oregon. “The stereotype is that people hate numbers, so they’re going to run away from them,” she said. But this and other studies show people prefer using numbers to make decisions. Peters took part in a recent study that showed people were much more likely to share social media posts on climate change if they included numerical information. The numbers made people think the posts were more trustworthy, she said. There’s a lesson here for those of us trying to sell things, or get hired, or even to get elected. If there’s a quality you want people to value, put a number on it. If there’s something you’d rather people ignore, make it qualitative. Perhaps some degree of numeric fixation can explain why, when asked if they’re better off than they were four years ago, voters focus on what’s most quantifiable — the price they see on a carton of eggs. And there’s a lesson for making better decisions about where to spend our money. Do we really care about a 4.5 versus a 4.4? Or are we ignoring other important information — like whether an item suits our kitchen or our wardrobe? Sometimes we imbue more authority in numbers than they deserve. There are some caveats to the “quantification fixation.” Most people have poor intuition for big numbers, so when faced with the cost of a Mars mission or a foreign war, it all sounds expensive whether it adds up to $7 million or $270 billion, let alone anything in the trillions. And numbers don’t work to inspire compassion. Whether it’s deaths from cancer, COVID or natural disasters, people generally don’t muster more compassion for a million than they do for 100,000 or 10,000. But ratings are on the upswing. In the prescient 2010 novel “Super Sad True Love Story,” by Gary Shteyngart, a future somewhere in the 2020s has become so ratings-obsessed that every time the protagonist walked into a bar, other patrons used a smartphone-like device called an apparat to rate his hotness (always low) and his potential as a long-term mate. What follows is an all-too-plausible scenario of crass consumerism gone wild, economic collapse and terror when all the apparats stop working. The book only got 4 out of 5 Amazon stars, but don’t be turned off by that. It’s just a number.