Kris Jenner is opening up about her health. The reality star shared plans to have her ovaries surgically removed after she was diagnosed with a tumor on one of the organs. “I went to the doctor and I had my scan," she tearfully told daughters Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian and Kendall Jenner on the July 4 episode of The Kardashians. "They found a cyst.” Kris continued, "They said I gotta have my ovaries taken out." While the 68-year-old—who is also mom to kids Kourtney Kardashian, Rob Kardashian and Kylie Jenner—wasn't nervous about the procedure, she did feel very emotional over having to part with her ovaries because, as she put it, "that’s where all my kids were conceived." "It’s also a thing about getting older," Kris noted. "It’s a sign of 'we’re done with this part of your life.' It’s a whole chapter that’s just closed.” She added in a separate confessional, “People often ask me what is the best job you’ve ever had, and I always say mom. The biggest blessing in my life was being able to give birth to six beautiful kids.” And in true Kardashian fashion, Kris' family quickly rallied behind her. After Kourtney called in to check on Kris, the Poosh founder said in a confessional, "I totally understand how my mom is feeling because I would feel the same way." "It’s your womanly power," Kourtney continued. "It doesn’t mean it’s taking away who she is or what she’s experienced, but I would feel this sentimental feeling of what it’s created.” Likewise, Kim empathized with Kris, saying that she feels "really sad for her." "To have a surgery and remove your ovaries is a really big deal," the SKIMS mogul shared. "I couldn’t even imagine being in that situation.” Kris' longtime boyfriend Corey Gamble also showed his support, surprising the momager with a special gift to “help your energy."

South Korea's Minister of Health and Welfare Cho Kyu-hong said at a press conference on the 8th local time that after comprehensively considering the suggestions of frontline interns and the situation on the front line of medical care, the government decided that from that day on, all interns and residents who resigned would not be given administrative sanctions such as revoking their medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong also said that for interns and residents who have returned to work and those who have resigned and are preparing to re-register for internship courses in September, the government will make special cases to try to minimize the internship gap and not affect the relevant doctors from obtaining specialist medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong said that the government believes that in order to minimize the diagnosis and treatment gaps for critically ill and emergency patients and ensure the smooth training process of interns and residents, it is in the public interest, so it has made a decision not to punish interns and residents who resigned. It is hoped that major hospitals will complete the resignation processing of doctors who have not returned to work before July 15 and determine the scale of vacancies. Previously, large general hospitals in South Korea, such as Seoul National University Hospital, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, and Seoul Asan Medical Center, suspended or limited their medical services in an effort to cancel all penalties against interns and residents.

Apple is giving the Apple Watch a major update for its 10th anniversary. The watch's display will be larger, and the entire device will be thinner and lighter. Both the Apple Watch Series 10 and the new Apple Watch Ultra 3 will be equipped with new chips, which may be paving the way for future Apple AI capabilities. According to sources, the Apple Watch health detection function has encountered some technical obstacles in the upgrade process, the blood pressure measurement function or can only realistically display fluctuations and cannot display values, and the sleep apnea detection and other functions can not appear on the new product. The shell material of Apple Watch SE series products may be replaced by hard plastic from aluminum shell. The plastic-clad Apple Watch may be sold at a lower price to compete with Samsung's cheapest Watch, the Galaxy Watch FE. In addition, Siri's new features may be delayed, and AirPods with cameras may arrive in 2026.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.