於4月12號假修頓室內場館舉行。當晚共有22場賽事，當中更有多場腰帶爭奪戰。重點賽事包括香港郭偉瀚、陳啟軒、楊其德、吳嘉晉、黃爵及王康達分別對戰泰國、菲律賓及中國拳手。69公斤冠軍賽則由兩名香港當打拳手謝傑丞對戰崔曜麟。中華台北洪祥鈞及王靖蓉分別對戰泰國及香港拳手王子靖。兩場女子賽則由香港女拳手對戰，吳蕙嵐對羅柏芝、向籽贏對殷淑華。 賽事創辦人江富德（下圖右）表示，每年會在香港舉辦兩場國際搏擊大賽，令本地拳手有更多實戰經驗。成績優越者更可有機會代香港往世界各地比賽。 富德紅人堂行政總裁翁燦燐（下圖左）認為，優質體育比賽可在香發展成新興產業，吸引本地人及旅客入場觀賞賽事。今次搏擊比賽更資助長者及基層家庭可免費入場觀看比賽。 賽事查詢電話：69984327 LinkedIn Email Facebook Twitter WhatsApp source

Enterprise analytics in 2025: AI and analytics convergence and focused utility In 2025, BI dashboards are dead and AI is moving the user experience from query, response and decision support to agent-based planning and execution with validated accuracy, automated process execution, adaptability and business impact. Enterprises are moving past experimentation, enabling specialized tools and systems of intelligence to address challenges at scale. The melding of AI with enterprise analytics is happening now as enterprise data platform vendors like Snowflake and Databricks recognize that they must differentiate beyond data aggregation and cleansing to systems of intelligence that support systems interaction and engagement. The industry itself is also shifting away from generalized AI solutions that are now commodities toward focused, utility-based applications that address in specific challenges in specific industries like healthcare, manufacturing, finance and telecommunications with specific solutions.  We are seeing evolve with Agentic AI solutions from SAP, Salesforce and Microsoft to name but a few that will move beyond data as insight to data as action.  Data and analytics leaders will need to evolve how they view the role of enterprise analytics in the Age of AI.  Every business initiative will expect access to organizational data and this will be problematic if data strategies don’t offer flexible, reliable and governed approaches to accessing information diverse data stores.  Effective governance can clearly drive adoption of intelligent analytics throughout the business.  source

Terminology Throughout this report, religious switching refers to a change between the religious group in which a person says they were raised (during their childhood) and their religious identity now (in adulthood). The rates of religious switching are based on responses to two survey questions we asked of adults ages 18 and older: “What is your current religion, if any?” “Thinking about when you were a child, in what religion were you raised, if any?” The responses to these two questions allow us to calculate what percentage of the public has left a religious group (or “switched out”) and what percentage has entered (or “switched in”). This kind of switching can take place without any formal rite or ceremony. We have analyzed switching into and out of five widely recognized, worldwide religions to allow for consistent comparisons around the globe. Specifically, this report analyzes change between the following groups: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, other religions, religiously unaffiliated adults, and those who did not answer the question. For example, someone who was raised Buddhist but now identifies as Christian would be considered as having switched religions – as would someone who was raised Christian but is now unaffiliated. However, switching within a religious tradition, such as between Catholicism and Protestantism, is not captured in this report. (Refer to Pew Research Center’s 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study for an analysis of switching in the United States that does count some switching within Christianity. Read “4 facts about religious switching within Judaism in Israel” for an analysis of switching within Judaism.) Religiously unaffiliated refers to people who answer a question about their current religion (or their upbringing) by saying they are (or were raised as) atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” This category is sometimes called “no religion” or “nones.” Other religions is an umbrella category. It contains a wide variety of religions that are not in the other categories and that have survey sample sizes too small to analyze separately in most countries. This includes Sikhism, Jainism, the Baha’i faith, African traditional religions, Native American religious traditions, and others. Disaffiliation rates refer to the percentage of adults who say they were raised in a religion but are now religiously unaffiliated (or have no religion). Net gains/losses are the differences between the percentage of survey respondents who say they were raised in a particular religious category (as children) and the percentage who identify with that same category at the time of the survey (as adults). The “net” gain or loss takes into account both sides of the equation – those who have left and those who have entered the group. Retention rates show, among all the people who say they were raised in a particular religious group, the percentage who still describe themselves as belonging to that group today. Accession rates (also called entrance rates) show, among all the people who describe themselves as belonging to a particular religious group today, the percentage who were raised in some other group. This section delves into religious switching into and out of Islam, describing where Islam has had the largest net gains and losses, what percentage of adults who were raised Muslim are still Muslim (i.e., retention rates), which religious groups people who left Islam have switched into, and where Islam has the largest shares of new entrants (i.e., the highest accession rates). Of the 36 countries surveyed, 13 have sufficient sample sizes of Muslims to allow analysis of religious switching into and out of Islam. The United States is among these countries. Net gains and losses for Islam Very small percentages of the overall adult population have left or joined Islam in most of the 13 countries analyzed. Remaining Muslim In several countries, nearly all adults who were raised Muslim still identify that way today, yielding high Muslim retention rates. Leaving Islam Fewer than a quarter of adults in all countries analyzed who were raised Muslim no longer identify as Muslim. Most who have left Islam either no longer identify with any religion (i.e., they identify religiously as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”) or now identify as Christian. Entering Islam Large majorities of people who currently identify as Muslim say they were raised as Muslims. The U.S. and Kenya have the highest levels of “accession,” or entrance, into Islam, with 20% of U.S. Muslims and 11% of Kenyan Muslims saying they were raised in another religion or with no religion. That said, overall, Muslims are a minority in both places: About 1% of U.S. adults and 11% of Kenyans currently identify as Muslim. Among those who have switched into Islam, most say they were raised Christian. Where has Islam experienced the largest net gains or losses from religious switching? Across the 13 countries with sufficient sample sizes to analyze religious switching for Muslims, 3% or fewer of all adults have left or entered Islam, resulting in very little change between childhood and current religion from religious switching. For instance, in Indonesia, the share of adults who currently identify as Muslim is equal to the share who say they were raised Muslim (93%). Fewer than 1% of all adults surveyed in Indonesia say they have left or entered Islam. What percentage of people raised Muslim are still Muslim? In several countries, virtually all adults who answer survey questions by saying they were raised Muslim still identify that way today, yielding extremely high retention rates. Except in the U.S., the survey does not show much variation in Muslim retention rates. In most places, upward of 90% of people raised as Muslims have remained Muslims as adults. Even in the U.S. – which has the lowest retention rate among Muslims in the countries surveyed – roughly three-quarters of Americans who were raised Muslim still identify as Muslims today. Which religious groups have former Muslims switched to? Analyzing retention rates also sheds light on the religious groups that former Muslims have joined. In the U.S., 13% of adults who were brought up as Muslims no longer

Image: nicescene/Adobe Stock Microsoft has detected a zero-day vulnerability in the Windows Common Log File System (CLFS) being exploited in the wild to deploy ransomware. Target industries include IT, real estate, finance, software, and retail, with companies based in the US, Spain, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-29824 and rated “important,” is present in the CLFS kernel driver. It allows an attacker who already has standard user access to a system to escalate their local privileges. The individual can then use their privileged access for “widespread deployment and detonation of ransomware within an environment,” according to a blog post by the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center. The CFLS driver is a key element of Windows used to write transaction logs, and its misuse could let an attacker gain SYSTEM privileges. From there, they could steal data or install backdoors. Microsoft often uncovers privilege escalation flaws in CFLS, the last one being patched in December. In instances of CVE-2025-29824 exploitation observed by Microsoft, the so-called “PipeMagic” malware was deployed before the attackers could exploit the vulnerability to escalate their privileges. PipeMagic gives attackers remote control over a system and lets them run commands or install more malicious tools. SEE: TechRepublic Exclusive: New Ransomware Attacks are Getting More Personal as Hackers ‘Apply Psychological Pressure’ Who is behind the exploitation? Microsoft has identified Storm-2460 as the threat actor exploiting this vulnerability with PipeMagic and ransomware, linking it to the RansomEXX group. Once known as Defray777, the attackers came onto the scene in 2018. They have since targeted high-profile organisations such as the Texas Department of Transportation, the Brazilian government, and Taiwanese hardware manufacturer GIGABYTE. The group has been linked to Russian nationals. The US’s cyber agency has added the 7.8-rated vulnerability to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list, meaning that federal civilian agencies are required to apply the patch by April 29. Windows 10, Windows 11, and Windows Server are vulnerable On April 8, security updates were released to patch the vulnerability in Windows 11, Windows Server 2022, and Windows Server 2019. Windows 10 x64-based and 32-bit systems are still awaiting fixes, but Redmond says they will be released “as soon as possible,” and “customers will be notified via a revision to this CVE information” as soon as they are. Devices running Windows 11 version 24H2 or newer cannot be exploited this way, even if the vulnerability exists. Access to the required system information is restricted to users with the “SeDebugPrivilege” permission, a level of access typically unavailable to standard users. Must-read security coverage How exploitation works Microsoft observed threat actors using the certutil command-line utility to download a malicious MSBuild file onto the victim’s system. This file, which carried an encrypted PipeMagic payload, was available on a once-legitimate third-party website that had been compromised to host the threat actor’s malware. One domain PipeMagic communicated to was aaaaabbbbbbb.eastus.cloudapp.azure[.]com, which has now been disabled. Once PipeMagic was decrypted and run in memory, the attackers used a dllhost.exe process to leak kernel addresses, or memory locations, to user mode. They overwrote the process’s token, which defines what the process is allowed to do, with the value 0xFFFFFFFF, granting it full privileges and allowing the attackers to inject code into SYSTEM-level processes. Next, they injected a payload into the SYSTEM winlogon.exe process, which subsequently injected the Sysinternals procdump.exe tool into another dllhost.exe process and executed it. This enabled the threat actor to dump the memory of LSASS, a process that contains user credentials. Following credential theft, ransomware was deployed. Microsoft observed files being encrypted, a random extension added, and a ransom note named !_READ_ME_REXX2_!.txt dropped on affected systems. source

Despite recent claims that European startups aren’t working hard enough, new research shows the continent’s founders are putting in serious shifts to turn their ideas into successful businesses. A survey of 128 founders by early-stage VC firm Antler found that three-quarters of them work more than 60 hours weekly, with 19% exceeding 80 hours.  German founders emerged as Europe’s hardest workers, with 94% working more than 60 hours weekly and 38% exceeding 80 hours.  Daria Stepanova, co-founder of German startup AIRMO, said she’s sacrificed “time, stability, and relationships” to grow her company. However, she sees a certain level of obsession is a good thing. Otherwise, “what you’re building probably isn’t worth building.” Swedish entrepreneurs followed closely behind. While UK founders were still working long hours, they were least likely to cross the 80-hour threshold, with only 10% doing so. The 💜 of EU tech The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now! Over 70% describe building their company as “easily the hardest thing they have ever done.” Yet nearly all (98%) remain passionate about their career choice.  That’s despite feeling underappreciated for their hard work. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of European founders feel their dedication goes unacknowledged.  “In Europe, you are more likely to be an Olympic medalist than the founder of a unicorn company,” said Alan Poensgen, a partner at Antler. “Whilst both require similar levels of ambition, resilience, and endurance, founders don’t get the same level of recognition.” What’s motivating founders? The survey paints a picture of founders driven more by impact than income. Only 4% cited financial reward as their primary motivation, with the majority instead pointing to creating innovation (27%), positive global impact (22%), and proving they can tackle difficult challenges (19%). This commitment comes at a cost. Founders identified their biggest sacrifices as work-life balance (61%) and salary reduction (36%). Family concerns add another layer of pressure, with 62% reporting that relatives expressed confusion about their decision to leave stable careers.  What keeps these ambitious entrepreneurs awake at night? Execution speed (40%), customer acquisition (24%), and runway concerns (18%) top the list of worries — reflecting the intense pressure to deliver results with limited resources and time. The findings come amid a growing debate in European tech over whether workplace culture is holding the region back compared to the US or China.  In a podcast interview last month, Revolut boss Nik Storonsky criticised European startup entrepreneurs, saying they weren’t working hard enough and valued work-life balance too highly. Those comments followed a lively social media debate earlier this year about whether French founders lacked the “grindset” to succeed.   However, Antler’s findings challenge the notion that European founders prioritise balance over hustle — suggesting that behind the continent’s startup scene is a culture of quiet, often overlooked, hard work.  “People often see the headlines but not the sleepless nights or personal risks behind them,” said Danyal Oezdeuzenciler, co-founder of London-based Capsa AI. “Founders pour so much into an idea — financially, emotionally, mentally — and the resilience it takes is pretty extraordinary.” Startup founders from all over Europe are heading to Amsterdam for TNW Conference, which takes place on June 19-20. Tickets for the event are now on sale. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the check-out to get 30% off the price tag. source

Rebecca Fox is group chief information officer at cybersecurity consulting firm NCC Group. Responsible for technology and application strategy and delivery, she has over 15 years of experience leading technology functions, sales, and commercial teams. During her career, Fox has led digital transformations, system implementations, organization design, and complex and diverse technical and development teams on a global scale. Fox has a technical development background, yet her experiences include large-scale project/program/portfolio management, data management and strategy, and service operations.  In an online interview, Fox relates her experience trying to successfully assemble a high-stakes puzzle that was critical to her enterprise’s long-term success. She notes that the project, while immensely challenging, would ultimately benefit both the organization as well as her personal expertise and confidence.  What’s the biggest challenge you ever faced during your tenure?  A post-M&A integration — specifically, trying to consolidate CRM platforms across multiple businesses with different cultures, processes, and emotional states. I was tasked with delivering one system, fast. On paper, it looked like a straightforward strategic priority. In reality, it pushed me and my leadership to the edge.  Related:How Today’s CIOs are Upskilling What caused the problem?  I tried to move faster than the business could absorb. I had the solution, I had the plan, but I hadn’t built enough of the runway. I underestimated the emotional impact of M&A and overestimated the readiness for change. I hadn’t done the people work first. It’s like giving a child bitter medicine — it may be the right thing, but if you don’t wrap it in understanding, empathy, and communication, they’re going to spit it out.  How did you resolve the problem?  I had to hit pause and reframe the whole project. I focused on outcomes, not process. I also became a lot clearer on the outcome and why. But above all I prioritized relationships, because without trust, there’s no traction.  What would have happened if the problem wasn’t swiftly resolved?  We would have launched a platform no one used. Worse, I would have burned out the team, damaged relationships, and lost momentum at a time when unity was non-negotiable. Change would have stalled, and cynicism would have grown.  How long did it take to resolve the problem?  The platform landed within months and was received better because of the tension and disagreement that forced us to get aligned. But the leadership lessons? That evolution has taken a career. That M&A moment was just one chapter — a pivotal one — but part of a much longer journey in learning how to lead through people, not just through plans.  Related:Why IT Leaders Must Prioritize Leading Over Contributing to Projects Who supported you during this challenge?  My team, even when I didn’t get it right the first time, and a few brave peers who gave me the kind of feedback that stings in the moment but sticks because it’s true.  Did anyone let you down?  Yes — me. I let myself down by pushing too hard, too fast. I let my team down by not giving them the space to speak up sooner. I’ve had to own that, grow from it, and lead differently since.  What advice do you have for other leaders who may face a similar challenge?  Build the relationships before you need them. The role of CIO today isn’t just about technology, it’s about influence, resilience, and focus. You are the negotiator, the connector, the cheerleader, and you must anchor everything to the big three: grow revenue, increase margins, and reduce risk. That clarity makes it easier for everyone to understand the ‘why’ behind the ‘what.’  Is there anything else you would like to add?  It took me too long to realize that relentless focus on the customer is what cuts through the noise. We’re not here to launch platforms. We’re here to make the business better, and that starts by aligning every decision to the outcomes that matter. Progress is messy, tension is necessary, and leadership is about showing up — especially when it’s hard.  Related:How to Handle a Runaway IT Development Team source