Every time Phoebe Philo drops a new collection, it causes a stir. Past hits include the ultra-oversized Bombé sunglasses, a leather jacket with a built-in ruffle, and a $27,000 fur coat that Kendall Jenner wore for a night out in Aspen.
But the Collection C campaign gave us an entirely new thing to covet: the perfect fall manicure. Starring filmmaker Mati Diop, the imagery features a tight crop that showed us only a hint of the minimalist clothing, leaning instead into the fun and beauty we’d be enjoying in it. Diop’s hair was pulled back, lips glossed a deep shade of black cherry, and nails filed into long rectangles, a different shade and style on each finger.
Courtesy of Phoebe Philo
Courtesy of Phoebe Philo
“I’ve done my fair share of multicolored manicures in the past 14 years,” says celebrity manicurist Betina Goldstein. While she didn’t work on Philo’s campaign herself, she’s been using similar shades on clients like Margot Robbie recently. “It’s a fun and easy way to experiment with nails.”
But what makes the Philo x Diop manicure even cooler than a standard multicolored manicure (which is also called a Skittles manicure) is the mixing of opacities and finishes. One finger is an opaque and creamy ivory, the next a jelly brown. Each finger is different, but together the color palette is neutral and cool.
“When it comes to playing around with multicolored manicures, it’s all about the color combination and placement,” Goldstein says. “A tone in one place versus another could make it feel too childlike or give it a completely different vibe than what you are going for.”
Vogue Runway director Nicole Phelps describes Philo’s aesthetic as “grown-up minimalism,” and that’s exactly what this manicure is giving: beauty, the Phoebe Philo way.
Beta-blockers have had a 40-year reign as the standard treatment for heart attack patients. That may come to an end, based on the results of two new studies.
What’s more, women who take beta-blockers may have an increased risk of other complications, like death, another heart attack or hospitalization for heart failure, the researchers found.
Dr. Borja Ibáñez, the study’s principal investigator and scientific director of Spain’s Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, said in a news release that the findings “represent one of the most significant advances in heart attack treatment in decades” and could change how doctors treat many patients in the future.
The study was conducted in patients “treated according to modern standards of care,” Ibáñez told AARP. These standards include quickly restoring blood flow to the heart after a blockage, opening all blocked arteries through surgery and using medications to lower blood pressure and prevent blood clots.
Older adults are more likely to experience a heart attack than their younger peers. For men, heart attack risk increases around the age of 45; for women, it rises around 55.
A closer look at the study
The study, conducted in Spain and Italy, involved 8,438 patients who had experienced a heart attack but had preserved heart function, meaning the heart still pumps effectively. About half of the study participants received beta-blocker therapy, and the other half used other treatments commonly prescribed to heart attack patients.
Participants attended four follow-up appointments within the same time frame to track their vitals and statistics. The results showed that there was no significant difference in death rates, recurrent heart attack or hospitalization or heart failure between the two groups.
“Another important practical finding is that the abrupt withdrawal of beta-blockers in these patients does not carry safety concerns, which has clear clinical relevance,” Ibáñez said.
Schematic diagram showing all the model pathways leading to the production of both neutrals and cations. Each molecular species indicated here has a node whose size is proportional to the number of times this species is either lost or produced in the overall scheme. The larger the node, the more important that molecule’s contribution to the network. In blue are species participating mainly as a formed product. In gold are species participating mainly as a reactant. Species in crimson are in reactant-product equilibrium. — astro-ph.IM
In the study presented here, we model the gas phase chemistry induced by plasma discharge at low temperature (150 K) in the NASA Ames COSmIC Simulation Chamber (COSmIC) using a 1-dimensional multi-fluid plasma model named CO-PRISM (COSmIC Plasma Reactivity and Ionization Simulation Model).
Our model incorporates an extensive chemical reaction network to simulate the neutral-neutral and ion-neutral reactions occurring in the COSmIC experiments when using N2-CH4-based gas mixtures relevant to Titan’s atmosphere.
Our reaction network now includes crucial reactions involving the first electronically-excited state of atomic nitrogen, recent electron collision cross-sections, and radical chemistry. In particular, we have investigated the influence of C2H2 on the gas phase polymeric growth and the elemental composition of the chemical products, and we have compared our findings to recently published solid phase analyses.
The modeling results are consistent with experimental measurements of N2-CH4-C2H2 plasmas on COSmIC, showing the production of C6Hx intermediates and precursors of larger organics, as well as methanimine in small concentration. Our numerical results point to cationic pathways enabling efficient intermediate-sized and nitrogen-rich C2H2-driven chemistry driving tholin production.
Comparison of the modeled gas phase elemental composition with elemental composition of the solid phase samples produced in COSmIC reveal similar trends, with C/N increasing when C2H2 is present in the gas mixture. Finally, our results demonstrate the importance of such synergistic studies using low-temperature plasma chemistry experiments combined with modeling efforts to improve our understanding of cold planetary environments.
a) Cross-section schematic view of the THS plasma channel (not to scale). The pathway along which reactions are calculated by the model in the plasma channel is indicated in blue. The temperature inside the plasma cavity is on the order of T = 150 K (L. Biennier et al. 2006b; E. Sciamma-O’Brien et al. 2014). b) Top-view cross-section schematic view of the plasma cavity (not to scale) indicating the dominant collisional processes occurring in the plasma and controlling the formation of the first building blocks leading to larger products; illustrated in the case of an N2 – CH4-based atmosphere relevant to Titan. c) Simplified schematic representation of the CO-PRISM model. Each simulation is controlled by the initial precursor gas composition (blue triangle). Green boxes correspond to the chemical input parameters (list of species, molecular reactions, and surface reactions), purple ellipses correspond to plasma physics and grid geometry parameters, and outputs are represented with red triangles. The model parameters that were updated and modified in the study presented here are circled in orange. Synthetic mass spectra can then be retrieved from the computed mole fractions. — astro-ph.IM
David Dubois, Alexander W. Raymond, Ella Sciamma-O’Brien, Farid Salama
Comments: 50 pages, 13 figures, 4 tables, accepted for publication in the Planetary Science Journal Subjects: Plasma Physics (physics.plasm-ph); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM) Cite as: arXiv:2509.08063 [physics.plasm-ph] (or arXiv:2509.08063v1 [physics.plasm-ph] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.08063 Focus to learn more Submission history From: David Dubois [v1] Tue, 9 Sep 2025 18:04:17 UTC (6,671 KB) https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08063 Astrobiology, Astrochemistry,
A massive immigration raid at a Hyundai plant in the US will delay its opening by at least two months, according to the company.
The raid has raised tensions between the US and South Korea, where many of those detained were from, with the South Korean president warning that it will discourage foreign investment into the US.
South Korean officials have said many of the workers had been sent to the US factory temporarily to help get it going.
Hyundai chief executive José Muñoz told US media the raid will create “minimum two to three months delay [in opening the factory] because now all these people want to get back”.
The raid in the state of Georgia was the biggest in US history, leading to the detention of 475 people, including roughly 300 people from South Korea.
US immigration officials said the workers were not authorized to work in the US while South Korean officials said it is common practice for Korean firms to send workers to help set up overseas factories.
According to South Korean officials, the workers are due to return home on Friday after their flight, initially set for Wednesday, was delayed.
South Korean Lee Jae Myung added US President Donald Trump proposed the workers remain in the US to continue training American workers but that only one person accepted that offer.
Mr Muñoz said the firm is figuring out how it will fill the positions of the workers who plan to return to South Korea.
None of the people arrested at the site last week were directly employed by Hyundai, according to the company.
LG Energy Solution, which operates the battery plant in Georgia with Hyundai, said that many of its employees who were arrested had various types of visas or were under a visa waiver programme.
At a press conference on Thursday, South Korea’s president said if such arrangements were no longer allowed, it would make building factories in the US “more difficult… making companies question whether it’s worth doing at all”.
The situation has raised questions about the viability of the trade deal that the US and South Korea had agreed earlier this year, in which President Donald Trump had agreed to drop some of his steepest tariff threats, in exchange for promises of billions of dollars of investment.
Hyundai alone had pledged $26bn (£19.2bn), including a new steel factory in Louisiana that had been celebrated by Trump, who has made boosting foreign investment in the US to revive manufacturing a top priority.
The site of the raid is part of a bigger complex in Georgia that is eventually supposed to create 8,500 jobs and had been hailed as the largest economic development project in the state’s history.
If you need a new phone and don’t care that much about whether it runs iOS or Android, there are a couple of solid options for you right now.
Specifically, those would be the iPhone 17 and Google Pixel 10. The former was just revealed at a big announcement event, while the latter is already on store shelves. There’s plenty to like about both of these phones, so instead of wasting any more time, let’s jump right in.
SEE ALSO:
The new Apple products are available for preorder on Amazon
iPhone 17 vs. Pixel 10: Price
Both the iPhone 17 and Pixel 10 start at $799. While it might not seem like it, that actually gives Apple the edge on price.
That’s because the base version of the iPhone 17 comes with 256GB of storage (which is still on the light side), while the base Pixel 10 comes with a measly 128GB. If you opt for the Pixel 10 with 256GB of storage, you’ll have to pay $899.
So, point Apple.
iPhone 17 vs. Pixel 10: Specs
The Pixel 10 and its signature camera bump. Credit: Joe Maldonado/Mashable
Here are the iPhone 17’s basic specs:
6.3-inch display with 2622×1206 resolution and adaptive 120Hz refresh rate
A19 chip
256GB/512GB storage
Rear cameras: 48MP wide, 48MP ultrawide
Front camera: 18MP
And here are the Pixel 10’s specs:
6.3-inch display with 2424×1080 resolution and adaptive 120Hz refresh rate
Okay, so what do all those numbers and abbreviations mean? There are actually major differences worth noting. Not only does Apple’s handset have higher base storage of 256GB, but it also goes up to 512GB. The Pixel 10 starts at 128GB and maxes out at 256GB. For two phones that cost the same amount of money, that’s a pretty big disparity.
Aside from that, Apple caught up with the Joneses this year by embracing a 120Hz refresh rate in the base iPhone 17’s display. In previous years, you needed to shell out for an iPhone Pro model to get that, while Google included it in the base Pixel phone. That’s not a disparity anymore, which is good for Apple.
Mashable Light Speed
The two phones also have different in-house chipsets and fairly different camera arrays, which we’ll get to in a little bit.
iPhone 17 vs. Pixel 10: Design
Left: Credit: CNET
Right: Credit: Joe Maldonado/Mashable
There really isn’t a lot to say in this category. Both the iPhone 17 and Pixel 10 look a lot like their 2024 predecessors. While the internet is extremely divided on the iPhone 17 Pro and its “cosmic orange” color, the iPhone 17 just looks like a regular ol’ iPhone. It carries forward the vertically stacked dual-camera bump on the phone’s backside, while the Pixel 10 maintains the Cyclops-looking horizontal camera bar that the Pixel 9 had.
You do get different color options with both phones, at least. The iPhone 17 comes in five hues: Lavender, Mist Blue, Black, White, and Sage. As for Pixel 10, here are your choices: Indigo, Frost, Lemongrass, and Obsidian. I’m a big proponent of the Pixel 10’s indigo color, but this ultimately is a matter of personal taste for everyone.
iPhone 17 vs. Pixel 10: Performance and battery
The new iPhone 17. Credit: CNET
Both the Pixel 10 and iPhone 17 use custom, in-house chipsets rather than third-party chips. For Apple, it’s the new A19 chip, while Google’s handset uses the Tensor G5 chip.
Since the iPhone 17 isn’t actually out yet, we can’t directly compare the Tensor 5 to the A19, though Apple usually has the edge when it comes to processors. I can say that the Pixel 10’s performance is totally fine, and if recent history is any indication, the same will be true of the iPhone 17. Processor performance is rarely an issue with Apple devices, and there’s no reason to believe it will start being one this year.
As for battery life, both phones are rated for about 30 hours on a single charge. The Pixel 10 almost got there in my testing, but we haven’t tested the iPhone 17 yet. It remains to be seen if there is a significant difference between these two phones when it comes to battery endurance.
iPhone 17 vs. Pixel 10: Cameras
1x zoom on Pixel 10. Credit: Alex Perry/Mashable
5x zoom on Pixel 10. Credit: Alex Perry/Mashable
Lastly, Google has one big advantage over Apple when it comes to cameras: A third telephoto lens.
Apple has never included this on any of its base iPhone models, instead making it a Pro feature. Google never had, either, until this year. The Pixel 10’s telephoto lens has up to 5x optical zoom, which produced pretty sharp results in my testing. You only get up to 2x optical zoom on iPhone 17, so that puts Apple at a sizable disadvantage.
That’s not to say Apple doesn’t have some numerical wins over Google this year, though. The main shooter on each phone is 48MP, but the iPhone 17’s ultrawide lens is 48MP, while the Pixel 10’s is just 13MP. Apple also has a cool new 18MP Center Stage selfie camera (versus 10.5MP on Pixel 10), and it sports a wider field of view so you can fit more people into selfies. We’ll have to wait until we can properly test this out to see if it really beats Google at the selfie game, but for now, it seems like it will.
So, if you take more selfies, iPhone has the advantage for now. If you like to zoom in, the Pixel has the edge.
Should you buy the iPhone 17 or Pixel 10?
Apple fans disappointed by this year’s iPhone launch event may be tempted to explore Pixel and Samsung Galaxy phones for the first time. But the vast majority of people have a clear preference when it comes to the iOS or Android question. We’ll reserve judgment on this question until we’ve tested the iPhone 17. If you need more help in the meantime, check out our full Pixel 10 review.
Compare and contrast. Here is the opening line in the government’s response to news that the US pharmaceutical company Merck is scrapping its £1bn research centre in King’s Cross in London because it thinks the UK is not an internationally competitive venue. Whistling cheerfully, the Department for Science, Technology and Innovation managed to claim: “The UK has become the most attractive place to invest in the world.”
And here is Sir John Bell, former regius professor of medicine at the University of Oxford and all-round grand guru of life sciences in the UK. He told Radio 4 he had spoken to several chief executives of large pharmaceutical companies in the past six months “and they’re all in the same space, and that is, they’re not going to do any more investing in the UK”.
Who to believe? Frankly, the government’s boast is absurd. As anybody who follows the pharma sector knows, the big multinational firms are all obsessing over precisely the issues identified by Bell.
The first is the amount of money the UK spends on medicines: 9% of its healthcare budget, versus 17% in Germany and Italy and 15% in France. The second is the “clawback” mechanism that caps the NHS’s spending on prescription medicines. The formula last year spat out a figure of 23% to be recouped from firms, whereas equivalent European schemes tend to be in single digits. Such out-of-line ratios deter investment, goes the industry’s argument.
One possible reaction is to say big pharma makes big profits and the government is only doing its job if it tries to drive a hard bargain on drug prices. Another is to point out that the UK still has excellent long-term research and development infrastructure – world-class labs, universities, pots of public money for manufacturing – that even the most commercially minded pharma company ought to view separately from a quarrel over the price the NHS pays for medicines.
Sadly, real life is not so simple. The Trump factor, as described in this column a couple of weeks ago, has changed the dynamic. The president is demanding that US drug prices fall towards European levels; thus the companies do not want the UK, which has traditionally been able to force some of the lowest prices among rich European countries, to be used as a reference point. One can accuse the drugmakers of being ruthless or shortsighted, but the cold reality is that they choose where to invest. The Merck example suggests that the mood is genuinely hardening.
The company is not a fly-by-night operator. It has been in the UK for almost a century and is a big commercial presence in the Francis Crick Institute, one of those pieces of valuable infrastructure that, supposedly, was meant to tie firms into the UK. Government ministers comforted themselves that Merck is keeping 1,600 jobs in the UK and will continue to run clinical trials here. But the lifeblood of the life sciences is new investment. Merck is pulling the plug on a building that is half-built; other companies’ investments that, invisibly, don’t happen are just as damaging over time.
As previously argued, one can sympathise with Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who walked away from price negotiations by the pharma trade body last month. He inherited tensions that are a decade old and the new US factor has raised the stakes massively. Then there is the complication of official “value for money” criteria for new medicines that have not changed since 2001 (the industry’s other big complaint). The backdrop is the Treasury’s budget constraints. There is no easy answer.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
But a good first step would be to stop officials making silly statements about the UK being the best place in the world to invest. Yes, there are underlying strengths – the ministerial pitch about the UK becoming “a life sciences superpower” isn’t completely dreamy. But Bell is right when he says “without large companies, it isn’t going to work”. At the moment, it isn’t working.
The logos of Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk, maker of the blockbuster diabetes and weight-loss treatments Ozempic and Wegovy is seen outside theri building as the company presents the annual report at Novo Nordisk in Bagsvaerd, Denmark, on February 5, 2025.
Mads Claus Rasmussen | Afp | Getty Images
Wegovy-maker Novo Nordisk said on Thursday it had told all its staff to return to the office as the drugmaker’s new CEO tries to accelerate decision-making and improve its commercial execution amid intense competition in the obesity drug market.
Novo on Wednesday said it would cut 9,000 jobs after sales growth had stalled and shares had slumped, knocking $450 billion off the company’s market cap since the middle of last year, as it faces competition from U.S. rival Eli Lilly and a wave of compounded copycat drugs.
“This is designed to foster a stronger sense of belonging, strengthen relationships, enhance collaboration and accelerate decision-making processes,” the company said in a statement.
The company declined to comment on what its previous work-from-home policy was. According to Danish news agency Ritzau, there were no general guidelines on working from home prior to Thursday, and rules varied from one country and department to another.
The chair of Danish trade union HK Privat, which organizes administrative staff and laboratory technicians at Novo Nordisk, said he was surprised that Novo had discontinued its work-from-home policy.
“Working from home and a vibrant office culture are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” Kim Jung Olsen said in a statement.
“It is unfortunate for the many employees who have enjoyed being able to work from home from time to time that management has not managed to make this work at Novo Nordisk.”
Novo’s request comes after other companies have abandoned work-from-home policies.
In January, JPMorgan Chase asked employees to return to the office five days a week starting in March, while U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered federal workers back to the office. Amazon and others already asked staff to return to the office late last year.
Novo said it would still be possible for employees to make individual agreements with their managers, leaving some room for flexibility to ensure that both personal and business needs were met.
Ziftomenib yielded a median overall survival of 16.4 months in responders with NPM1-mutant AML who received ziftomenib in the phase 1b/2 KOMET-001 trial.
At the Society of Hematological Oncology 2025 Annual Meeting, Ghayas C. Issa, MD, MS, presented results on ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring NPM1 mutations from the phase 1b/2 KOMET-001 trial (NCT04067336).1
Ziftomenib achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 35% in the pooled analysis, with a complete remission (CR) and complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) rate of 25%. Notably, after a median follow-up of 4.1 months (range, 0.1-19.7), the median time to CR/CRh was 2.8 months (range, 1.0-15.0) and the median time to ORR was 1.9 months (range, 0.8-3.7). The rate of measurable residual disease (MRD) among CR and CRh responders evaluated for MRD was 65%.
The median overall survival (OS) was 6.1 months (95% CI, 3.8-8.4); in responders vs non-responders, the median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI, 9.6-20.4) vs 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.5-4.0), respectively.
Regarding safety, any adverse effects of grade 3 or higher occurred in 94% of patients, with the most common being febrile neutropenia (22%), anemia (21%), and thrombocytopenia (20%); differentiation syndrome events occurred in 13% of patients, none of which were grade 4 or 5.
Following his presentation, Issa, an associate professor in the Department of Leukemia and in the Department of Genomic Medicine in the Division of Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, spoke with CancerNetwork® about the results.
CancerNetwork: What was the rationale for conducting the KOMET-001 study?
Issa: Menin inhibitors form a new class of targeted therapies in AML. They’re epigenetic modifiers, so they work by disrupting the genes that cause leukemia. Ziftomenib is a potent menin inhibitor, and in this case, we are testing it in NPM1-mutant [AML], which depends on the menin and KMT2A interaction. NPM1 leukemias, when they’re newly diagnosed, have a good prognosis, but once relapsed, they’re as bad as any other leukemia. That’s why we need new targeted therapies to improve outcomes for our patients.
What was this study’s design?
This study was single-cohort [and] phase [1b/2]. Patients received the menin inhibitor ziftomenib once a day. Those patients had [AML] and had relapsed/refractory disease…. The main mutation, or the mutation that we’ve analyzed in this phase 2 cohort, is the NPM1 mutation. This [trial] included patients aged 18 and [older], and a variety of patients [in terms of] other baseline characteristics.
What were the most significant findings?
Excitingly, we saw single-agent activity with ziftomenib, which is what we’ve also seen in the phase 1 study of this drug. We found a complete remission or a complete remission with partial hematologic recovery rate of about 25% in the pooled phase 1b/2 cohort. This met the primary end point of the phase 2 study, which was to compare it with a historical control. In other words, with this drug, we are doing better than we would have expected if those patients [received] any other therapy. The duration of the response was about 4 months. Those patients, in general, have very resistant disease. This is an advancement because this therapy could be used in combination in the future and [may] improve outcomes for patients.
How did patients tolerate the therapy?
There were no new findings that we didn’t know of from the phase 1 study. The main on-target effect was differentiation syndrome, which was controlled with the protocol strategies that we’ve used with ziftomenib. All patients who got steroids had their differentiation syndrome resolved; there were no grade 4 [events] or death from differentiation syndrome. Otherwise, compared with other targeted therapies for AML or chemotherapy, this drug didn’t have significant severe adverse effects, so it was well tolerated.
How does the selective inhibition of the menin-KMT2A interaction address this patient group’s biology?
In NPM1-mutant [AML], the KMT2A and menin interaction is critical to cause abnormal expression of genes that are responsible for this leukemia. By disrupting the binding of KMT2A and menin by using a small molecule menin inhibitor, the lab evidence is that we can shut down this gene expression and [that will] lead to responses. That’s what we’re seeing in patients, too. With this drug, by targeting this specific node, we’re getting single-agent responses.
What are the potential clinical implications of these results?
Based on these results, there was a submission to the FDA for approval of ziftomenib for this indication, which is NPM1-mutant relapsed/refractory [AML].2 We hope that, soon, this drug will be available as a standard of care for patients. Even more importantly, we’re trying to test it to improve outcomes for all patients, including newly diagnosed patients with NPM1. There are ongoing studies that will test the addition of ziftomenib to standard induction chemotherapy, either high-intensity chemotherapy, such as “7 + 3”, or in older, unfit patients, which is azacitidine and venetoclax. In the future, we hope that the addition of ziftomenib would improve the chances of cure for patients by adding them to these therapies.
What other research is currently building off these results?
This is the randomized control study that is meant to be registrational, meaning if we meet the primary end point, this would be the new standard of care for induction treatment of NPM1-mutant [AML]. There are multiple other combination studies going on in the relapsed/refractory setting, such as combinations with [hypomethylating agents] and venetoclax—the KOMET-007 study [NCT05735184]—combinations with low-dose cytarabine, combinations with gilteritinib [Xospata], or combinations with high-intensity chemotherapy in the KOMET-008 study [NCT06001788]. All these [studies] are ongoing, and we’ll be presenting results soon.
References
Issa GC, Wang ES, Montesinos P, et al. Ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia: phase 1b/2 results from the pivotal KOMET-001 study. Presented at the Society of Hematological Oncology 2025 Annual Meeting; September 2-5, 2025; Houston, TX. Abstract AML-789.
Kura Oncology and Kyowa Kirin report positive pivotal ziftomenib monotherapy data at 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. News release. Kura Oncology and Kyowa Kirin. June 2 and 3, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/376xycme
Karachi, September 11, 2025: K-Electric’s (KE) network across the generation, distribution, and transmission segments stood tall against moderate to heavy showers that lashed Karachi over the course of this week, underscoring the stability of the network and preparedness of the utility.
Despite waterlogging and urban flooding in several areas, KE’s 2,100-plus feeder network showed its resilience, with fewer than 200 feeders seeing temporary outage at the peak of the rainfall. Swift recovery and short turnaround times were also seen in areas where safety clearance was received from field teams.
Reflecting on the rain spells and the utility’s performance, Sadia Dada, Chief Distribution and Marcomms Officer (CDMO), stated, “The recurring spells of rain and accompanying urban flooding once again highlight the urgent need to build resilience against the growing impacts of climate change. At KE, we remain committed to grid modernisation and service reliability, ensuring Karachi is better prepared for the future.
“The credit for keeping the city powered during such a challenging time goes to our field teams, who worked tirelessly in difficult conditions. Their commitment—supported by planning, preparation and investment in the network—kept supply largely stable. We are thankful to civic agencies for their swift support, and to our customers for their patience and appreciation, which encouraged our teams on the ground.”
Meanwhile, KE actively ensured safety protocols and responded swiftly to unfortunate incidents that happened during the recent rain spells. Preliminary investigations indicated that no KE infrastructure was the reason for any of the reported incidents. KE emphasises that public safety remains its foremost priority. Citizens are strongly advised to maintain safe distance from poles, meters, and service brackets. Avoid contact with broken or tangled internet and tv cables, including communication wires. Refrain from using illegal connections, encroachment or makeshift arrangements in flooded conditions.
About K-Electric:
K-Electric (KE) is a public listed company incorporated in Pakistan in 1913 as KESC. Privatized in 2005, KE is the only vertically integrated power utility in Pakistan supplying electricity to Karachi and its adjoining areas. The majority shares (66.4%) of the Company are owned by KES Power, a consortium of investors including Al-Jomaih Power Limited of Saudi Arabia, National Industries Group (Holding) of Kuwait, and KE Holdings (Formerly: Infrastructure and Growth Capital Fund or IGCF). The Government of Pakistan is also a shareholder (24.36%) in the Company while the remaining are listed as free float shares.
