Timberwolves player net ratings through 20 games: Donte DiVincenzo is Minnesota’s new No. 1

posted in: All news | 0

We all know about points, rebounds, assists, etc.

The counting stats get much of the glory in basketball. But how does your team perform when you’re on the floor?

That’s what net rating measures — the points per 100 possessions for your team versus your opponents. The more positive your number, the better your team is playing with you on the court. The more negative? Well, you get it.

Here are Minnesota’s updated individual numbers, with the offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions), defensive rating (points allowed per 100 possessions) and net rating (offense and defense combined) through 20 games of the season, per NBA.com, with the biggest takeaway from each:

Offensive Ratings

Minnesota Timberwolves forward Julius Randle reacts after scoring against the Phoenix Suns during the first half of an NBA Cup basketball game, Friday, Nov. 21, 2025, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri)

Julius Randle: 121.6

Donte DiVincenzo: 120.8

Anthony Edwards: 120.0

Jaden McDaniels: 118.8

Rudy Gobert: 116.4

Mike Conley: 115.0

Naz Reid: 113.3

Jaylen Clark: 111.2

Terrence Shannon Jr.: 105.8

Rob Dillingham: 102.0

Takeaway: The Wolves offensive efficiency dipped a bit team wide during a stretch of games against more formidable foes. But Minnesota’s offense continues to hum at a high octane when Randle is in full control of the show.

Defensive Ratings

Jaylen Clark: 106.2

Rudy Gobert: 106.6

Rob Dillingham: 109.9

Donte DiVincenzo: 110.4

Jaden McDaniels: 110.7

Julius Randle: 114.0

Naz Reid: 115.0

Mike Conley: 115.1

Anthony Edwards: 116.1

Terrence Shannon Jr.: 122.9

Takeaway: No surprises at the top with Clark and Gobert’s defensive dominance. But what’s noteworthy is the defensive ratings of DiVincenzo and McDaniels continue to improve. McDaniels, an All-Defense performer from two seasons ago, is starting to again have a team-wide impact on that end.

Net Ratings

Donte DiVincenzo: 10.4

Rudy Gobert: 9.8

Jaden McDaniels: 8.1

Julius Randle: 7.6

Jaylen Clark: 5.0

Anthony Edwards: 3.9

Mike Conley: -0.1

Naz Reid: -1.7

Rob Dillingham: -7.9

Terrence Shannon Jr.: -17.2

Takeaway: Minnesota’s best basketball this season now comes with DiVincenzo on the floor, as he’s picked up his defensive communication while hitting shots at a high rate. Four of Minnesota’s five starters sport net ratings north of 7.5 points per 100 possessions.

Related Articles


Frederick: Timberwolves set standard in fourth quarter of Spurs win


Timberwolves survive late to snap three-game losing streak


Anthony Edwards is Timberwolves’ point guard. He’s learning more about that every day


Frederick: Wolves were good Wednesday. That’s not enough against the Thunder


Frederick: In season of volatility, Timberwolves can’t abandon what works

Wall Street holds stronger as bond yields and bitcoin stabilize

posted in: All news | 0

By STAN CHOE, Associated Press Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. stock market is holding stronger on Tuesday as both bond yields and bitcoin stabilize.

Related Articles


How to prepare for the next government shutdown


Here’s why everyone’s talking about a ‘K-shaped’ economy


Thanksgiving debt regrets: How to recover if you overspend


What is GivingTuesday? How to donate on the annual day of charitable giving


Starbucks to pay $35M to NYC workers in settlement as ongoing strike draws pols to picket line

The S&P 500 rose 0.3%, coming off its first loss in six days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 37 points, or 0.1%, as of 9:35 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 0.6% higher.

MongoDB helped lead the market and jumped 24.6% after the database company headquartered in New York delivered stronger results for the latest quarter than analysts expected. United Natural Foods of Providence, Rhode Island, also climbed after reporting a stronger profit than expected, and it rose 8.4%.

They helped offset a 5.6% drop for Signet Jewelers, which gave a forecast for revenue in the holiday shopping season that fell short of analysts’ expectations. The jeweler said it’s expecting “a measured consumer environment.”

The U.S. economy has been holding up overall, but that’s masking sharp divisions underneath the surface. Lower-income households are struggling with inflation that’s still higher than anyone would like. Richer households, meanwhile, are benefiting from a stock market that’s near its all-time high set in late October.

In the bond market, Treasury yields were mixed following jumps the day before. The 10-year yield edged up to 4.10% from 4.09% late Monday, but the two-year yield eased to 3.52% from 3.54%.

Higher yields can drag prices lower for all kinds of investments, and those seen as the most expensive can take the biggest hit.

Bitcoin, which tumbled below $85,000 on Monday, rose back toward $89,000.

Monday’s climb in yields came after the Bank of Japan hinted that it may raise interest rates there soon. But hopes are still high that the Federal Reserve will cut its main interest rate when it meets in Washington next week.

What comes after that for the Fed, though, is uncertain. The Fed has already cut its overnight interest rate twice this year in hopes of shoring up a slowing job market. But lower rates can also fan inflation higher, and inflation has stubbornly remained above the Fed’s 2% target.

In stock markets abroad, indexes moved modestly across much of Europe and Asia.

South Korea’s Kospi was an outlier and jumped 1.9% for one of the world’s bigger moves. Tech stocks helped lead the way, including rises of 2.6% for Samsung Electronics and 3.7% for chip company SK Hynix.

AP Business Writers Matt Ott and Elaine Kurtenbach contributed.

Commentary: The future we’ll miss: Political inaction holds back AI’s benefits

posted in: All news | 0

We’re all familiar with the motivating cry of “YOLO” right before you do something on the edge of stupidity and exhilaration.

We’ve seen the “TL;DR” (“too long; didn’t read”) section that shares the key takeaways from a long article.

And, we’ve experienced “FOMO” when our friends make plans and we feel compelled to tag along just to make sure we’re not left on the sidelines of an epic experience.

Let’s give a name to our age’s most haunting anxiety: TFWM—The Future We’ll Miss. It’s the recognition that future generations may ask why, when faced with tools to cure, create and connect, we chose to maintain the status quo. Let’s run through a few examples to make this a little clearer:

— AI can detect breast cancer earlier than humans and save millions in treatments and perhaps even thousands of lives. Yet, AI use in medical contexts is often tied up in red tape. #TFWM

— New understanding of the interior design of cells via AI tools has the potential to increase drug development. AI researchers are still struggling to find the computing necessary to run their experiments. #TFWM

— Weather forecasts empowered by AI may soon allow us to detect storms 10 days earlier. A shortage of access to quality data may delay improvements and adoption of these tools. #TFWM

— Firefighters have turned to VR exercises to gain valuable experience fighting fires in novel, extreme contexts. It’s the sort of practice that can make a big difference when the next spark appears. Limited AI readiness among local and state governments, however, stands in the way. #TFWM

I could go on. The point is that in several domains, we’re making the affirmative choice to extend the status quo despite viable alternatives to further human flourishing. Barriers to spreading these AI tools across jurisdictions are eminently solvable. Whether it’s budgetary constraints, regulatory hurdles or public skepticism, all of these hindrances can be removed with enough political will.

So, why am I trying to make #TFWM a “thing”? In other words, why is it important to increase awareness of this perspective? The AI debate is being framed by questions that have distracted us from the practical policy challenges we need to address to bring about a better future.

The first set of distracting questions is some variant of: “Will AI become a sentient overlord and end humanity?” This is a debate about a speculative, distant future that conveniently distracts us from the very real, immediate lives we could be saving today.

The second set of questions is along the lines of “How many jobs will AI destroy?” This is a valid, but defensive and incomplete, question. It frames innovation as a zero-sum threat rather than asking the more productive question: “How can we deploy these tools to make our work more meaningful, creative and valuable?”

Finally, there’s a tranche of questions related to some of the technical aspects of AI, like “Can we even trust what it says?” This concern over AI “hallucinations,” while a real technical challenge, is often used to dismiss the technology’s proven, superhuman accuracy in specific, life-saving domains, such as in medical settings.

A common thread ties these inquiries together. These questions are passive. They ask, “What will AI do to us?”

TFWM flips the script. It demands we ask the active and urgent question: “What will we fail to do with AI?”

The real risk isn’t just that AI might go wrong. The real, measurable risk is that we won’t let it go right. The tragedy is not a robot uprising that makes for good sci-fi but bad public policy; it’s the preventable cancer, the missed storm warning, the failed drug trial. The problem isn’t the technology; it’s our failure of political will and, more pointedly, our failure of legal and regulatory imagination.

This brings us to why TFWM needs to be a “thing.”

FOMO, fear of missing out, for all its triviality, is a powerful motivator. It’s a personal anxiety that causes action. It gets you off the couch, into the Lyft, and into the party.

TFWM must become our new civic anxiety. It’s not the fear of missing a party; it’s the fear of being judged by posterity. It is the deep, haunting dread that our grandchildren will look back at this moment of historic opportunity and ask us, “You had the tools to solve this. Why didn’t you?”

This perspective creates the political will we desperately need. It reframes our entire approach to governance. It shifts the burden of proof from innovators to the status quo. The question is no longer, “Can you prove this new tool is 100% perfect and carries zero risk?” The question becomes, “Can you prove that our current system — with all its human error, bias, cost, and delay — is better than the alternative?”

YOLO, FOMO and TL;DR are shorthand for navigating our personal lives. TFWM is the shorthand for our collective responsibility. The status quo is not a safe, neutral position. It is an active choice, and it has a body count. The future we’ll miss isn’t inevitable. It’s a decision. And right now, we are deciding to miss it every single day we fail to act.

Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack. He wrote this column The Fulcrum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

Related Articles


David Brooks: What I love when I love America


Allison Schrager: There are worse things than rising inequality


Nina Stachenfeld: So DEI doesn’t work. What would be better?


Maureen Dowd: Time to let my brother do the carving


Noah Feldman: How constitutional limits become negotiable

Petrochemical Expansion in Texas Will Fall Heavily on Communities of Color, Study Finds 

posted in: All news | 0

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Researchers at Texas Southern University in Houston have analyzed demographic data around the locations of almost 100 industrial facilities proposed statewide and found that about 90 percent are located in counties with higher concentrations of people of color and families in poverty than statewide averages. 

In a report released this month, the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern also found that nearly half of those proposed industrial sites—petrochemicals plants for manufacturing plastics, coastal export terminals, refineries and other facilities—were already above the 90th percentile for pollution exposure under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory, a measurement of harmful industrial emissions.

“Texas and other states must end decades-long industrial facility siting where economically disadvantaged fenceline communities serve as dumping grounds,” the report concluded.

Robert Bullard, the center’s director and lead author of the report, first came to prominence as a young sociologist at the university when he produced a 1979 study showing that all five of Houston’s city-owned landfills and six of eight city-owned incinerators were located in Black neighborhoods.  

“The process of the dumping, the siting, has not changed over these 45 years that I’ve been studying this,” Bullard said in an interview. “America is segregated and so is pollution.”

Planned projects reviewed in the Bullard Center’s latest work, “Green Light to Pollute in Texas,“ cluster primarily around the state’s existing refinery hubs on the Gulf Coast, such as Port Arthur, the Houston Ship Channel, Freeport and Corpus Christi. Nearly half are located near neighborhoods that already face among the highest levels of toxic air pollution in the country, the report said.

These petrochemical complexes have grown rapidly in the last decade, fueled by abundant oil and gas from the fracking boom in the oilfields of Texas and beyond. Plastics industries dominated that growth. Plastics producers in Texas last year sold $61.5 billion in materials and employed 54,000 people, more than any other state, according to a recent report by the American Chemistry Council, an industry group.

“Plastics are essential to modern life, powering our economy,” said Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, in a statement on the report in September. “Plastics manufacturing means good jobs, strong wages, and sustained investment in America’s future.”

However, those good jobs and wages typically go to people who live farther from the petrochemical plants, not to adjacent communities, Bullard said. “Industries say they are providing jobs and increased tax base. But it’s just the opposite for the communities on the fencelines,” he said. “They have higher poverty rates, higher unemployment rates.”

Most plant workers commute in and out, leaving nearby neighborhoods to bear the impacts of toxic emissions without the economic benefits, said Bullard, 79, who has been called the father of environmental justice for his pioneering research. 

Airborne emissions associated with petrochemical production include known human carcinogens, such as  benzene, ethylene oxide, vinyl chloride and 1,3-butadiene, as well as soot and other harmful chemicals. Wastewater from petrochemical production often contains heavy metals or acids.

Making Plastic in Texas

The Bullard Center considered 114 projects related to oil and gas in Texas proposed at 89 different locations as of February 2024, including coastal export terminals, refineries and seawater desalination plants that would supply water for petrochemical production

Plastics projects dominated the list. Most are expansions of existing complexes. Companies in Texas have proposed five new ethylene “crackers,” units that break natural gas into the building blocks of plastics. 

Units to produce polyethylene—the most common type of plastic used in bottles and bags—are proposed by Dow and Chevron Phillips Chemical near Freeport, by Baystar near Houston, by Motiva Enterprises and Chevron Phillips Chemical near Port Arthur and by Equistar Chemicals near Corpus Christi. Formosa Plastics plans several new units at its sprawling complex in the town of Point Comfort, including a reactor to make PVC plastic, used in piping, plumbing and construction materials.

“The continued expansion of the petrochemical industry in Texas most heavily impacts low-income communities of color that are already overburdened by industrial pollution,” said Mike Belliveau, founder of a group called Bend the Curve, which advocates for reduced plastic consumption.

Since the Bullard Center sourced its data last year, petrochemical markets have cooled as the decade-long buildout that followed the fracking boom begins to slow. The world now faces an oversupply of plastics, Belliveau said, and several projects in Texas have been cancelled. 

Those include three units for polycarbonate plastics—rigid material used for automotive parts, electronic casings, food containers and windows—proposed near Freeport by PetroLogistics and near Houston by LyondellBassell and Covestro, which also cancelled a new plant to make polyurethane, used in car cushions and other foam. ExxonMobil paused plans for an ethylene cracker in Point Comfort this year. 

“Demand for plastics is still growing, but it’s slowing,” said Belliveau, a former research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s less than what the industry was banking on.” 

To evaluate project locations, the Bullard Center identified a three-mile radius around each proposed facility, then analyzed them according to several demographic indexes and indicators with the EPA’s EJScreen tool. (That tool has since been pulled down by the Trump administration amid a purge of federal efforts to address environmental disparities by race.)

While nearly half of the locations in Texas ranked above the 90th percentile for pollution exposure, three locations near Port Arthur and Beaumont—both cities where Black people make up the largest demographic—ranked in the 99th percentile for toxic emissions. Ten others were in the 98th.

According to permitting documents included in the report, one ethylene unit at the massive Chevron Phillips Chemical Complex in Port Arthur is authorized to emit 612 tons per year of volatile organic compounds, a category including scores of gases with varying health impacts, as well as 192 tons per year of airborne soot.  

The company is seeking to build an additional furnace that would add another 15 tons per year of VOCs and 8 tons per year of soot, plus other pollutants. 

“At what level of pollution will there be some threshold?” Bullard said. “This community has a toxic burden that needs to be addressed in a way that no other facility would be coming in to add to the pollution.”

The post Petrochemical Expansion in Texas Will Fall Heavily on Communities of Color, Study Finds  appeared first on The Texas Observer.