©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

In a significant move within the tech industry, Atlassian, the well-known co-founders of collaboration and productivity software, have announced the acquisition of The Browser Co., an innovative startup recognized for its AI-enhanced web browser. The deal, which is valued at $610 million, is anticipated to finalize within Atlassian’s fiscal second quarter, ending in December. The merger highlights Atlassian’s strategy to enhance its offerings and emphasizes the need for more ambitious climate actions as companies seek to innovate in an increasingly competitive technological landscape.

Overview of the Acquisition

On August 19, 2022, Atlassian announced its decision to acquire The Browser Co., a move that caught the attention of industry insiders and analysts alike. The acquisition is reportedly valued at $610 million in cash and aims to be finalized by December, aligning with Atlassian’s fiscal second quarter. The Browser Co., established in 2019, has entered a market dominated by giants like Google and Apple, aiming to innovate and differentiate itself with a focus on user experience and AI integration.

Atlassian, known for its cloud-based software products like Jira, aims to leverage The Browser Co.’s technologies to strengthen its position in the market. The integration is expected to enhance the utility and efficiency of existing Atlassian products while introducing fresh features that could attract new customers. As leaders in the tech realm, both companies see an opportunity to reshape user experiences through advanced browser functionalities.

Features of The Browser Co.’s Arc

The Browser Co. is gaining momentum primarily due to its innovative product, Arc, released in 2022. Arc is a customizable web browser that features unique functionalities such as a built-in whiteboard and user-friendly tab management. One of its notable capabilities is allowing users to group and share tabs efficiently. With a focus on productivity, Arc aims to cater to individuals engaged in professional tasks on a daily basis, aligning closely with Atlassian’s commitment to streamlining collaboration and project management.

In interviews, Mike Cannon-Brookes, co-founder and CEO of Atlassian, expressed his admiration for Arc’s potential to transform workflow management. He pointed out that typical browsers are not suited for the complex needs of modern-day users, stating,

“Whatever it is that you’re actually doing in your browser is not particularly well served by a browser that was built in the name to browse.”

This perspective shapes Atlassian’s vision for integrating Arc’s features into its existing product suite.

Challenges Faced by The Browser Co.

Despite its potential, The Browser Co. faced numerous hurdles in the competitive landscape of web browsers. Although the Arc browser attracted initial attention, only a small subset of users engaged with its specialized features. Reports indicate that user metrics showed more alignment with niche professional tools—comparable to software used for video editing—rather than appealing to a mass-market audience. Josh Miller, co-founder of The Browser Co., noted this discrepancy, stating that they halted the rollout of new features due to the limited adoption of existing ones, raising questions about the future of the browser.

The challenges compounded as the browser market continued to evolve, requiring constant innovation and adaptation. Acknowledging the importance of user feedback, The Browser Co. is exploring whether releasing Arc’s technology under an open-source license might serve as a way to garner more engagement and collaboration from a wider community. As part of Atlassian, these hurdles may inspire renewed efforts to enhance Arc’s appeal and usability amongst broader audiences.

Market Dynamics and Competition

The acquisition of The Browser Co. occurs within a rapidly changing competitive landscape dominated by major players such as Google Chrome and Apple Safari. Recently, Perplexity, an AI-focused startup, approached The Browser Co. with acquisition offers, indicating a rising interest in browser technology that integrates AI features. While there have been talks surrounding potential acquisitions, Cannon-Brookes remains focused on Atlassian’s direction, downplaying the significance of competitors’ actions in the overall strategy.

He stated,

“I think we focus on actually getting acquisitions done and actually making those products a part of a coherent whole and delivering value for our customers.”

as he emphasized the importance of concentrating on real growth opportunities rather than engaging in bidding wars reminiscent of public relations tactics. The decision to elevate The Browser Co. within Atlassian’s framework could redefine market expectations and spark new innovations aimed at meeting complex user needs.

Implications for Atlassian Moving Forward

Atlassian’s strategic acquisition is indeed a pivotal step toward reinforcing its presence in the tech space by offering enhanced functionalities that aid productivity. The company aspires to synthesize Arc’s SaaS application experience, which features streamlined task management and collaboration tools, with its existing resources and enterprise-level capabilities. Cannon-Brookes envisions a significant transformation, where the combined strengths of both entities can deliver an improved user experience for Atlassian’s customer base.

The overarching idea behind the acquisition is not just to enhance existing products, but to innovate a new browsing experience that allows users to maximize productivity and minimize friction. By incorporating AI-driven elements from Dia, The Browser Co.’s simpler offering, and aligning it with the sophisticated features of Arc, Atlassian could create a cohesive browser experience that positions it effectively against competitors. This is expected to result in a comprehensive strategy to address the future demands of users in a tech-savvy world.

Summary

The acquisition of The Browser Co. by Atlassian represents a transformative step for both companies, setting the stage for future innovations in digital collaboration and productivity. By integrating advanced features of Arc into Atlassian’s robust offerings, the partnership promises to enhance user experience significantly. As the tech landscape continues to evolve, such moves mark the beginning of an era where adaptability and specialized features might pave the way for competitive advantage.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: What are the key features of Arc?

Arc is designed to facilitate productivity, featuring functionalities like customizable tab management, built-in whiteboards, and user-friendly sharing options for collaborative tasks.

Question: Why did Atlassian acquire The Browser Co.?

Atlassian aims to enhance its product suite by integrating The Browser Co.’s innovative browser technology, which aligns with its focus on improving workflow and productivity for its users.

Question: What challenges did The Browser Co. face prior to the acquisition?

The Browser Co. struggled with user adoption of its specialized features and faced difficulties competing against established players like Google Chrome and Apple Safari in the browser market.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

In a significant diplomatic development, President Donald Trump announced a new NATO agreement that will facilitate the transfer of U.S. arms to Ukraine via allied nations. This landmark agreement, established during last month’s NATO summit, allows NATO to finance these arms transfers entirely. The news comes amid escalating tensions and ongoing military activities between Russia and Ukraine, raising questions about future military support and international relations.

Details of the NATO Agreement

The agreement established during the NATO summit facilitates the provision of U.S. arms to Ukraine through NATO member states, with the costs being fully covered by NATO. This strategy is aimed at enhancing the military capabilities of Ukraine, which has been embroiled in conflict since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Trump, during a recent phone interview, emphasized the importance of this cooperation, stating that, “We’re sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, 100%.” This remark underscores both the tactical and financial frameworks being put in place to support Ukraine against ongoing aggression from Russia.

Reactions and Implications

Reactions from various political leaders and analysts have highlighted both support and skepticism regarding the NATO agreement. Some leaders in Europe are in favor of procuring U.S. arms, signaling a unified stance in support of Ukraine. For instance, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that Berlin is “prepared to purchase additional Patriot systems from the U.S. to make them available to Ukraine.” This acquisition illustrates a broader commitment by NATO allies to contribute to Ukraine’s defense amidst the escalating tensions with Russia.

However, not everyone is convinced that this agreement will lead to a swift resolution of the conflict or significantly alter the military dynamics on the ground. Some analysts caution that while the influx of U.S. arms is vital, it may also provoke a further escalation in hostilities from Russia. Therefore, the implications of this agreement extend beyond just military logistics; they also touch on the delicate balance of international relations and the principles of collective security.

Calls for Increased Military Support

The call for enhanced military support for Ukraine has gained momentum, especially following reports about the Pentagon’s temporary pause on previously pledged defensive aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed his frustrations over these pauses and is actively seeking alternative solutions. His administration is reportedly exploring other channels for procuring arms to ensure that Ukraine remains equipped to handle ongoing threats from Russia. As Zelenskyy stated, “Our nation desperately needs these arms.” This urgency emphasizes the critical situation faced by Ukraine as it continues to engage in combat against Russian forces.

Attacks on Ukrainian Civilian Areas

The backdrop of this military assistance is marked by a series of aggressive strikes by Russian forces on Ukrainian territory. Just recently, attacks have intensified, resulting in casualties and damage, particularly to civilian areas like hospitals. In a tragic episode, a maternity hospital was reportedly struck, injuring women who were in labor or recovering from childbirth. President Trump, amid these developments, expressed his growing frustration towards Russian President Vladimir Putin for the ongoing military aggression, which he described as targeting life. “Women in labor with children, women after surgery,” he remarked, highlighting the indiscriminate nature of these attacks. Zelenskyy’s emphasis on the targeted nature of these strikes underscores the humanitarian crisis unfolding alongside military confrontations.

Future Strategic Initiatives

Looking ahead, the strategic landscape could undergo significant changes based on the evolving dynamics of NATO’s involvement and international diplomatic efforts. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hinted at presenting a “new and different” approach to ending the war in his meetings with Russian officials. His discrete discussions with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov add a layer of complexity, raising questions about potential shifts in U.S.-Russia relations.

As the situation continues to develop, it remains crucial to track how NATO’s support mechanisms will influence the course of the conflict. The fate of countless lives hangs in the balance as strategies and counter-strategies unfold on both military and diplomatic fronts.

Summary

The recent NATO deal to provide U.S. arms to Ukraine marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Amidst rising concerns over civilian casualties and military aggression, the agreement reflects a concerted effort by NATO allies to bolster Ukraine’s defense capabilities. As various international leaders weigh in and politics unfold, the broader implications of this development bear careful monitoring, particularly concerning future diplomatic negotiations and military strategies. The crisis necessitates a united and calculated response from the international community to ensure regional stability and humanitarian support.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: What does the new NATO agreement entail?

The NATO agreement allows U.S. arms to be supplied to Ukraine through NATO member countries, with NATO covering the full costs of these arms.

Question: How has Ukraine responded to the attacks from Russia?

Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, have called for increased military support from NATO allies as reports of intensified attacks on civilian areas continue to emerge.

Question: What potential impact might the agreement have on U.S.-Russia relations?

The agreement could potentially complicate U.S.-Russia relations, especially as discussions about diplomatic approaches are ongoing, raising questions about how both nations will navigate future negotiations.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Overview of Acquisition and Deal Structure

CoreWeave has officially declared its strategy to acquire Core Scientific, marking a pivotal moment in the artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure sectors. This acquisition, valued at approximately $9 billion, will be executed as an all-stock deal, consolidating CoreWeave’s foothold in the industry. According to CoreWeave’s CEO, Michael Intrator, the combination of both entities seeks to leverage Core Scientific’s existing infrastructure while expanding CoreWeave’s capabilities in AI workloads.

Market responses to the announcement showed volatility, with CoreWeave’s stock witnessing a 2% decline and Core Scientific dropping approximately 16% following the news. This fluctuation reflects investor sentiment as the distribution of shares and expected improvements in operational efficiency are anticipated to transform the market dynamics.

Furthermore, the deal is poised to complete in the fourth quarter of 2025, pending regulatory eyes, which adds a layer of complexity as both companies navigate compliance procedures. This acquisition echoes a trend in the tech sector where major firms merge to form more streamlined, competitive entities to meet growing demands in cloud computing and artificial intelligence.

Impacts on CoreWeave’s Market Position

The acquisition is set to enhance CoreWeave’s market position significantly. With ownership of 1.3 gigawatts of gross power capacity from Core Scientific’s extensive data center network across the United States, CoreWeave can better cater to demands in AI workloads. Nitin Agrawal, CoreWeave’s finance chief, mentioned that approximately 840 megawatts of this capacity would be allocated to meet existing contracts, facilitating an immediate bolstering of resources and capabilities.

This strategic move will enable CoreWeave to operate with increased efficiency, potentially leading to better service offerings and lower operating costs, positioning it favorably against large competitors like Amazon Web Services. It also indicates a forward-thinking approach where CoreWeave aims not just to acquire but to integrate and optimize operations.

The merger comes at a time when the demand for cloud infrastructure services is surging, particularly as businesses increasingly shift toward AI-driven operations. CoreWeave appears ready to capitalize on this trend, significantly broadening its operational horizon while reducing dependency on third-party vendors for critical infrastructure.

Operational and Financial Benefits

CoreWeave’s acquisition of Core Scientific is expected to yield substantial operational and financial benefits. By eliminating approximately $10 billion in future lease obligations, CoreWeave aims to improve its fiscal health and reduce ongoing overhead costs. This financial maneuver is crucial for tech companies, especially as they invest heavily in new technologies and infrastructure.

CoreWeave’s efficiency strategy includes repurposing Core Scientific’s facilities which had previously been focused on cryptocurrency mining. After the acquisition, CoreWeave can choose to modify these sites for AI workloads, allowing the company to pivot swiftly to market demands.

“We have gone through the conversion process,” Intrator mentioned, highlighting the company’s readiness for transformation.

Moreover, CoreWeave’s partnership with investment vehicles and infrastructure sources could lower its capital costs, as evidenced by their current short-term debt rate of 10.1%. A reduced cost of capital would provide a strong competitive edge as it expands operations.

Future Prospects and Challenges

The future of CoreWeave post-acquisition hinges on overcoming various challenges while capitalizing on opportunities. The transition from a primarily cryptocurrency-focused business model to one centered on high-performance computing for AI presents both risks and rewards. As discussed by Michael Intrator, the adaptability of CoreWeave’s infrastructure allows for an efficient switch with minimal financial burden compared to establishing new data centers.

However, the competition remains fierce. Major players such as Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure continue to dominate the cloud infrastructure market, making it imperative for CoreWeave to differentiate itself. By focusing on quality service and operational efficiency, CoreWeave can carve out a niche for itself in this crowded field.

Additionally, regulatory approval remains a significant hurdle. The acquisition must pass scrutiny, which could impact timelines and operational integration. Enhancing relationships with regulatory bodies will be a key strategy moving forward.

Shareholder Implications and Company Structure Post-Acquisition

For shareholders, the acquisition will lead to significant restructuring. Upon completion, Core Scientific shareholders will receive 0.1235 shares of CoreWeave for every share held, translating to a per-share valuation of $20.40, representing a 66% premium compared to Core Scientific’s stock price prior to acquisition discussions.

Once the acquisition is finalized, Core Scientific shareholders are projected to retain less than 10% of the combined entity, which raises questions about the benefits to existing investors inCoreWeave. This dilution suggests a strategic rebalance where existing shareholders may need to adapt to a new entity structure with diversified objectives and focus areas.

The groundwork for this merger began last year when Core Scientific rejected an unsolicited offer from CoreWeave, making this announced acquisition an unexpected twist in an ongoing negotiation process. As both companies venture into uncharted territory, their ability to synergize will define their future successes.

Summary

The acquisition of Core Scientific by CoreWeave represents a pivotal move in the cloud infrastructure and AI landscape. As both companies prepare for a transition that promises operational efficiencies and financial viability, the implications on the market, existing shareholders, and future growth potential cannot be overstated. The upcoming months will be critical as they navigate regulatory challenges and integrate their operations for a competitive edge in an increasingly demanding sector.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: What are the main benefits of the CoreWeave and Core Scientific merger?

The merger promises to provide significant operational efficiencies, eliminate future lease obligations, and enhance CoreWeave’s power capacity to support AI workloads more effectively.

Question: How will shareholders be affected by this acquisition?

Shareholders of Core Scientific will receive a fixed number of CoreWeave shares, which may lead to dilution in their ownership percentage, impacting their influence and stake in the newly combined entity.

Question: What is the expected timeline for the merger’s completion?

The transaction is expected to close by the fourth quarter of 2025, subject to obtaining necessary regulatory and shareholder approvals.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Details of the Acquisition Agreement

On Thursday, Dick’s Sporting Goods revealed its strategic intent to acquire Foot Locker for $2.4 billion, a move that could redefine their positions within the competitive sports retail landscape. The acquisition is structured using a combination of cash and new debt, allowing Foot Locker shareholders the option to receive $24 in cash—reflecting a substantial 66% premium over Foot Locker’s average share price over the past 60 days—or to accept 0.1168 shares of Dick’s stock. This strategic financial decision is expected to bolster Dick’s capability in the sneaker market, particularly against the backdrop of a transformation in consumer preferences.

Foot Locker’s Position in the Market

Despite Foot Locker’s historical prominence, the company has been facing significant challenges in recent years, exacerbated by unfavorable market conditions, tariffs, and consumer spending softening. Under the leadership of CEO Mary Dillon, Foot Locker has embarked on an ambitious turnaround strategy that has indicated some improvement. However, this has not been sufficient to offset the broader issues, leading to a dismal year-to-date performance, with the company’s shares plummeting over 41% as of Wednesday’s close. The ongoing transformation at Foot Locker makes it a prime candidate for acquisition to ensure access to new markets and customer segments.

Brand Strategy Post-Acquisition

In the wake of the acquisition, Dick’s CEO Lauren Hobart announced plans for maintaining both companies as separate entities, allowing Foot Locker to operate as a stand-alone business unit while retaining its various brands, including Foot Locker Kids, WSS, Champs, and atmos. This approach seeks to leverage the unique strengths of both brands to meet consumer needs effectively, regardless of whether they perceive the combined nature of the businesses. “The combination of them for the consumer is not the most important thing; it’s making sure that there are two powerful brands,” said Hobart, highlighting the dual brand strategy.

Market Reactions and Financial Implications

Following the announcement, Foot Locker’s shares surged over 80%, signaling investor confidence in the acquisition. In contrast, Dick’s shares dropped approximately 15%, reflecting apprehensions about how the deal might affect their financial health. Despite these immediate reactions, Dick’s anticipates that the transaction will enhance earnings and deliver synergies between $100 million and $125 million within the first full fiscal year after closing. However, analysts express concerns about Foot Locker’s performance and its potential liabilities, noting the higher exposure to economic downturns due to its lower-income customer base.

Analysts’ Perspectives on the Deal

While some industry leaders herald the acquisition as a strategic triumph, others are more skeptical. Following the deal’s announcement, TD Cowen analysts downgraded Dick’s stock from “buy” to “hold,” branding the acquisition a “strategic mistake.” Analyst John Kernan argues that precedent shows mergers at this scale rarely yield shareholder value and may lead to substantial financial losses over time. Despite challenges to synergies, finalized assessments remain cautious, particularly given Foot Locker’s substantial store network in malls, which may struggle amid changing consumer behaviors.

Summary

The acquisition of Foot Locker by Dick’s Sporting Goods marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of retail sports, with implications that could resonate throughout the industry. By leveraging Foot Locker’s substantial market presence, Dick’s aims to enhance its competitiveness, particularly in the sneaker sector. While the deal poses both opportunities and challenges, its success will largely depend on effective integration strategies and the companies’ ability to navigate a complex retail landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: What does the acquisition mean for Foot Locker’s employees?

The acquisition may lead to operational changes, but Dick’s has stated that Foot Locker will continue to operate as a stand-alone entity, indicating that the current employee structure may remain largely intact.

Question: How will the merger impact Dick’s customer base?

The merger is expected to expand Dick’s customer base by integrating Foot Locker’s younger, urban demographic, which is crucial in achieving long-term growth.

Question: What are the potential regulatory issues surrounding this acquisition?

While the acquisition raises anti-competition concerns, particularly in the sneaker market, officials from both companies believe that they do not anticipate significant regulatory hurdles from the Federal Trade Commission.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Indiana has recently embarked on a surprising initiative to amend its border with parts of Illinois. The Indiana state legislature passed a bill to create the Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission, which will explore the possibility of altering the state line, focusing particularly on counties that wish to separate from the densely populated Chicago area. While Indiana’s leadership, including Governor Mike Braun, aims to advance this effort, significant opposition remains from Illinois officials, reflecting the deep political divisions between the states.

Indiana’s Legislative Move

In the latest legislative session, the Indiana government passed a measure aimed at establishing the Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission. This bill seeks to analyze whether sections of Illinois could become part of Indiana, particularly looking at regions dissatisfied with their current governance. The state’s initiative aligns with a broader trend where residents in certain Illinois counties express frustration with local leadership stemming from the Chicago metropolitan area. Indiana Governor Mike Braun, who is advocating for this change, has indicated plans to sign the bill into law, and has set a deadline of September 1 to schedule the commission’s first meeting.

Support and Opposition

Despite the push from Indiana officials, significant obstacles loom ahead. Illinois officials have publicly criticized the initiative; Governor J.B. Pritzker has labeled it a “stunt”, signaling a lack of viable support from his administration. A companion bill in Illinois designed to enable participation in the commission has faced stagnation, having not received a hearing in the state House committee. This reflects a broader opposition from Illinois’s leadership, illustrating the contentious political landscape between these neighboring states and adding complexity to the proposed boundary alteration.

The residents of the counties considering separation believe that joining Indiana might offer a chance for better governance. However, this is contingent not only on support from Illinois lawmakers but also requires the consent of Congress for any major boundary changes. This fact emphasizes that while local support may exist, the larger-scale political feasibility of such a shift remains uncertain.

Historical Context of Border Changes

Changing state borders is not an unprecedented concept in American history; however, it is quite rare in modern times. Historical records indicate that during the Civil War era, counties in Virginia successfully petitioned to separate and create West Virginia. Since then, only minor boundary adjustments have occurred to address geographical and governance issues. According to the National Center for Interstate Compacts, there have been at least 50 changes in U.S. history, but the last major alteration was significantly over 150 years ago, signaling the challenges any ambitious state border change would face today.

Given the long-standing political divisions between Illinois and Indiana, this proposed boundary change illustrates a complex intersection of regional governance, party alignment, and local identity. Political alignment plays a crucial role in this scenario, as strong Democratic control in Cook County has resulted in a diverging path compared to Republican-dominated Indiana, influencing the legislative considerations on both sides of the border.

Wider Implications of the Proposal

The implications of Indiana’s pursuit to adjust its borders extend beyond administrative changes. This initiative underscores the growing tensions between urban and rural voters within Illinois, highlighting a feeling of disenfranchisement among those living outside Chicago. A recent trend shows that voters in 33 Illinois counties have approved measures to explore separation from Cook County, suggesting a mounting desire for greater autonomy in governance. However, it is essential to clarify that these counties may seek routes other than joining Indiana, and their motivations stem from a desire for local empowerment rather than purely partisan alignments.

In a similar vein, proposals for border alteration are emerging in other states, such as Oregon, where certain counties express aspirations of aligning with Idaho politics. This reflects a nationwide pattern where residents are re-evaluating their political affiliations based on local leadership effectiveness. As these proposals gain traction, they raise questions about the nature of statehood, representation, and the democratic process.

Future Prospects and Developments

Looking forward, the future of Indiana’s initiative to adjust its border will largely depend on both local sentiment and legislative cooperation. The scheduled meeting for the Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission will be pivotal—offering a platform for stakeholders to voice their opinions and evaluate the logistics of such a transition. For Indiana, gaining territories could mean economic shifts, increased population, and a more robust political influence in the region.

Conversely, for Illinois, the implications could include a further dilution of representation for areas already grappling with political challenges. The ongoing discussions within the context of local governance will be a significant part of the narrative moving forward, revealing whether this initiative can translate into actionable change or remain a speculative venture.

Summary

The proposed border adjustments between Indiana and Illinois signify a landmark attempt to address regional governance concerns within the context of contemporary political dynamics. The efforts reflect both historical precedents and present-day frustrations among local populations longing for enhanced representation and governance. As discussions evolve and the commission convenes, the national spotlight will be focused on the outcomes, potentially influencing similar movements across the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: Why is Indiana looking to change its border with Illinois?

Indiana is seeking to adjust its border as part of a legislative initiative aimed at accommodating certain Illinois counties that wish to separate from the governance of steeply Democratic Chicago.

Question: What is the role of the Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission?

The Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission will be tasked with assessing the feasibility of altering the boundary lines between the two states, particularly regarding the counties expressing a desire to change their state affiliation.

Question: What challenges do the proposed changes face?

The changes face considerable resistance from Illinois officials, and any adjustments would require both state legislatures’ approval, as well as consent from Congress, making the path forward politically intricate.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.