News
Thailand Reverts Back To 30-Day Entry Visas For Most Nationalities

Thailand reinstates 30-day entry visas for the majority of nationalities. For some time, it was anticipated that the Government of Thailand would consider keeping the 45-Day Visa Exemption stamp that was in place until March 31st through the end of the year, but that has not happened, and visa-free entries are now limited to the original 30-Day time period.
The 45-Day Entry Exemption for a broad range of nationalities went into effect on October 1, 2022, in an effort to boost the Thai tourism industry.
Most visa-waiver-eligible western passports are issued with a 30-day entry stamp that can be extended once for an extra 30 days at a local immigration office.
Extending the entry period by two weeks has proven to be very beneficial to long-term travellers; however, the issue is how many of those arrivals remained in hotels, resulting in increased income as a tourist rather than cheaper Air BnB. (not really allowed in Thailand).
The 45-day visa waiver stamp was reinstated last October as Thailand sought to stimulate the tourism industry and encourage visitors to remain longer in the hope of spending more money.
Other than checking how many people stayed longer than the initial 30 days, it’s presumably difficult to tell if that actually happened.
Tourism Authority proposes extension of 45 day visa exemption
The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) recommended to the government in late January that the measure be prolonged until the end of the year. To boost tourism recovery, Thailand’s Tourism Authority suggested extending the 45-day visa-free policy until the end of 2023.
Foreign tourists arriving in Thailand between October 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 were eligible to remain in the kingdom for the following periods, based on their passport country.
Visa-on-arrival stays will be increased from 15 to 30 days. Visa on Arrival is available to passport holders from 19 nations.
Visa exemption stays for passport bearers from the 64 countries with which Thailand has bilateral agreements will be increased from 30 to 45 days.
Thailand exceeded its target of 10 million tourists in 2022, welcoming 11.5 million in total, which the TAT attributes primarily to the country’s extended visa on arrival/visa exemption policy.
The TAT predicted last year that extended stays would cause tourists to remain in Thailand for an additional five days on average. If each tourist spent 4000 – 5000 baht per day, that’s an additional 20,000 baht pumped into the Thai economy for each trip.
Extended stays have been critical to producing tourism income, propelling Thailand’s tourism industry to be one of the most quickly recovered in post-pandemic Southeast Asia. However, a complete recovery is still a long way off.
As a result, the TAT has suggested extending the visa on arrival/visa exemption on arrival policy in order to help Thailand meet its goal of 25 million foreign arrivals by 2023.
Thailand’s Immigration Let Visa Extension Expire
This was in mid-January, and nothing happened until March 31st, so the regulation merely expired and reverted to the initial entry duration specified in the visa waiver agreements.
It’s not uncommon for Thailand to make such decisions at the last minute, so I’m not surprised they simply let it die rather than making a huge deal about it. The notion was that it would appeal to longer-term tourists, but I’m convinced that it didn’t have the desired effect.
All it did was assist long-term visitors who are usually in the country on tourist visas avoid another visa run. While this demographic spends money in the nation, it is far less than a genuine tourist would spend on a daily basis, as measured by hotel receipts and other expenses.
Those who always cry the loudest, however, are hardly legitimate “tourists” in Thailand, but rather the usual “barstool crowd” that attempts to get by cheaply and stays put through methods such as visa runs. The same people fought for years when Thailand had the “Covid extension,” which was a visa relief or extension that gave those who applied 60 days of stay without having to leave the country. This finally ended in August of 2022, long after Covid was no longer a problem, and yet people still complained about the program’s termination.
Those who want to remain longer can apply ahead of time for a 60-day tourist visa, which is of course more expensive and involves uploading a variety of documents as most embassies have moved to the e-visa application system.
Both entry choices can be extended for another 30 days at a local immigration office for a fee of 1,900 Baht.
When entering Thailand, some countries, including Korea and many from South America, receive a 90-day visa waiver stamp, typically based on reciprocity.
60-day Tourist e-Visa for Thailand
Thailand has officially reverted to the original rules for visa waiver arrivals, which means that most countries from Europe, North America, and Japan will receive the basic 30-day entry allowance, rather than the 45-day allowance that has been in effect for the past six months.
The Thai Tourism Authority’s rumors and pleas did not result in the program’s extension. Some people who expected the initiative to be expanded were disappointed and became vocal on various online platforms, including Richard Barrow’s page.
If visitors wish to remain longer in Thailand, they can obtain a 60-day tourist e-visa prior to arrival or extend their stay once at a local immigration office. I recommend getting an e-visa because it is much cheaper, more convenient, and much simpler than going to an immigration office in Thailand. Depending on where you go, you could easily spend a half-day there standing in line. (Bangkok being the worst).

News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
News
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.
Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.
The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.
Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.
Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.
He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.
“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.
Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.
SOURCE | AP
-
News4 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health4 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning3 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?