OpenAI just raised $122 billion at an $852 billion valuation. That's the largest private funding round ever.
大多数人认为如此巨额的融资反映了AI行业的泡沫和过度估值。但作者将此描述为OpenAI主导市场的战略举措,暗示这种规模的融资可能是为了建立行业壁垒,而非仅仅是市场炒作,这挑战了主流对AI投资泡沫的看法。
OpenAI just raised $122 billion at an $852 billion valuation. That's the largest private funding round ever.
大多数人认为如此巨额的融资反映了AI行业的泡沫和过度估值。但作者将此描述为OpenAI主导市场的战略举措,暗示这种规模的融资可能是为了建立行业壁垒,而非仅仅是市场炒作,这挑战了主流对AI投资泡沫的看法。
Drive the evolution of the internet towards open and interoperable Web
Sur le plan formel, il me semble que l'efficacité politique d'une lettre ouverte dépend avant tout de deux facteurs : 1. le niveau de responsabilité publique, en particulier médiatique, des décideurs concernés, et 2. le caractère exceptionnel de la situation, c’est-à-dire la gravité de celle-ci combinée à un manque d'autres types d'actions politiques possibles. Or, dans ce cas, j'ai le sentiment que, d'une part, les décideurs sont principalement des experts techniques, peu connus du grand public et peu médiatisés, et d'autre part, qu'une période de consultation publique ouverte à tous a eu lieu il y a deux mois, ce qui me paraît adéquat comme moyen d'action politique.
Il me semble donc que cette lettre rouvre un débat déjà abordé, exprimant un mécontentement généralisé envers une décision provisoire non encore actée. Ceci pourrait potentiellement affaiblir l'impact des lettres ouvertes en général.
En ce qui concerne le fond, notre société semble évoluer vers une centralisation accrue des politiques, des régulations et du financement. Cette centralisation requiert davantage de responsabilité et de transparence. Peut-être que NGI, en soutenant des individus indépendants, rencontre des difficultés à justifier ces financements. En particulier, l'UE s'attend à ce que les investissements produisent des impacts à l’échelle européenne avec une adoption réelle et significative. Il pourrait être intéressant de disposer d’un tableau de bord des indicateurs clés de performance (KPI) pour démontrer la croissance et l’usage des projets NGI.
En revanche, il faut constater que l'adoption reste faible au sein de la communauté. Le graphique sur le financement est explicite : les deux tiers des projets sont à nouveau financés par NGI. Cela peut indiquer un manque d'adhésion de la communauté. Or, l'objectif de ce financement européen est de démontrer une capacité de ne pas dépendre exclusivement de ce financement et de pouvoir générer une activité rentable. Cela confirme mon impression que la communauté technologique continue de se focaliser sur le développement de nouvelles solutions en autonomie, tout en oubliant peut-être que ce financement communautaire doit générer un usage réel et utile. Ne devrions-nous pas mettre l'usage au premier plan de nos objectifs ? Le rapport précise bien que les nouvelles technologies doivent rivaliser avec les usages existants. Il nous faut trouver d'autres solutions, peut-être non technologiques.
Pour conclure, je suggère que la réponse la plus constructive à cette potentielle réduction de financement serait d’admettre que NGI fait face à une concurrence d’autres initiatives sur les mêmes financements. Il serait alors judicieux d’évaluer nos approches et de proposer de nouvelles mesures afin de répondre aux attentes. Une lettre ouverte de protestation envoie un message contraire à une volonté d’adaptation et de collaboration. Que devrions-nous apprendre de cette situation ?
Coloradowants:• All kids who need services to have access toservices and to be served in their family’s homeor in a relative’s home whenever possible• Families to have what they need to keep theirfamily safe and together, and• Services available without requiring the family tobe involved in the child welfare system
YOU DO???!!!!!! THEN LET'S GET TO IT
Counties will continue to use Child Welfare Block, Core and County-onlyfunding to provide services that best meet the needs of theircommunities
Not all youth and families will benefit from the limited set of Clearinghouse approved services
Counties will continue to use Child Welfare Block, Core and County-only funding to provide services that best meet the needs of theircommunities
Federal Funding In 2018 the United Stated Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, has interpreted administrative costs for foster care to include costs for children’s and parents’ attorneys. (Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B, Question 30). For the first time, jurisdictions can seek federal reimbursement for the cost of legal representation for eligible children and their parents. The resources listed below provide information about claiming federal Title IV-E Funds of the Social Security Act to pay for legal representation for children and parents.
Family Justice Initiative
What research shows:A landmark May 2019 study17 foundproviding parents multidisciplinaryrepresentation in child welfareproceedings significantly improvedcase outcomes. The multiyear studyin New York City compared out-comes for 9,582 families and their18,288 children, looking at differ-ences based on representation type:solo panel attorneys vs. multidis-ciplinary legal teams that includedattorneys, social workers, and parentadvocates. The study found multi-disciplinary representation promot-ed swift permanency outcomes by:■ reducing the time childrenspend in care,■ producing plans that allowedparents to safely care for theirchildren,■ reuniting families sooner, and■ increasing kin placements andguardianships.
Is there a way for legal organizations in a given locality to access this funding in the eventthe local IV-E agency decides not to seek federal funds for representation for children andparents?o No. Funds must be claimed through the state IV-E agency. If you are an individualattorney or attorney organization interested in learning if your jurisdiction isplanning to take advantage of this funding opportunity, your best first step is tocontact your state court improvement program (CIP).
Will jurisdictions have to redirect IV-E funds from current programs or give up somethingto support legal representation for parents and children?o No. Title IV-E funds are an open-ended entitlement. The federal policy changemeans that new/additional IV-E dollars are now available to support high-qualitylegal representation for children and parents.
whole page is IMPORTANT
he Children’sBureau has been clear that their preference is that newly available federal fundssupport improved representation for parents and children – not act as a substitutefor state investment. The new federal funds should be used to invest in improvedrepresentation
Generally, representing parents and children in child welfareproceedings requires that attorneys are competent in the relevant laws andlitigation skills
Can jurisdictions submit a claim for federal reimbursement for costs for non-attorneymembers of an interdisciplinary legal representation team for children and parents?o Yes. The Child Welfare Policy Manual clarifies that the Title IV-E agency may claimadministrative costs for the parent and/or child legal representation team, includingparalegals, investigators, peer partners or social workers that support attorneysproviding independent legal representation for children who are candidates for titleIV-E foster care or are in title IV-E foster care, and their parents, to prepare for andparticipate in all stages of foster care legal proceedings, and for office support staffand overhead expenses. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B, Question 32
Title IV-E funds available to reimburse jurisdictions for attorneys for parents andchildren are separate and distinct from IV-E funds available for prevention servicesunder FFPSA.
he Children’sBureau has been clear that their preference is that newly available federal fundssupport improved representation for parents and children – not act as a substitutefor state investment. The new federal funds should be used to invest in improvedrepresentation
Will jurisdictions have to redirect IV-E funds from current programs or give up somethingto support legal representation for parents and children?o No. Title IV-E funds are an open-ended entitlement. The federal policy changemeans that new/additional IV-E dollars are now available to support high-qualitylegal representation for children and parents.
whole page is IMPORTANT
Title IV-E funds available to reimburse jurisdictions for attorneys for parents andchildren are separate and distinct from IV-E funds available for prevention servicesunder FFPSA.
Can jurisdictions submit a claim for federal reimbursement for costs for non-attorneymembers of an interdisciplinary legal representation team for children and parents?o Yes. The Child Welfare Policy Manual clarifies that the Title IV-E agency may claimadministrative costs for the parent and/or child legal representation team, includingparalegals, investigators, peer partners or social workers that support attorneysproviding independent legal representation for children who are candidates for titleIV-E foster care or are in title IV-E foster care, and their parents, to prepare for andparticipate in all stages of foster care legal proceedings, and for office support staffand overhead expenses. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B, Question 32
What funding is available to support legal representation forparents and children?A recent federal policy change provides a new funding source for legalrepresentation for parents and children.9 The change allows states to seekfederal reimbursement under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act for thecost of providing legal representation to eligible children and parents. Thepurpose of the funding is to invest in improving legal representation forchildren and parents.10Excellent resources exist explaining the details of this new funding.11Becoming knowledgeable about this funding source, raising awarenesswithin the child welfare legal community, and supporting efforts to lever-age it to improve representation quality in your jurisdiction are key judi-cial roles. However, elements of high-quality legal representation do notdepend on new funding sources, so it is equally key to ensure attorneysadhere to fundamental representation standards that guide their practice.1
Building a Multidisciplinary Legal Team: The role of social workers and peermentors in representing parents and children could be eligible for reimbursement whena multidisciplinary team addresses prevention. Funding is available for time-limitedprevention services for mental health, substance abuse disorder, and in-home parentskill-based programs for children or youth who are candidates for foster care
Pre-Petition Legal Advocacy: Funding is available to reimburse expenses forattorneys, paralegals, social workers, peer partners, investigators, support staff, andoverhead for independent child and parent legal representation prior to the filing of adependency petition
Orgs: National Council for State Courts National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts' Response to Mental Illness
Pre-Petition Legal Advocacy: Funding is available to reimburse expenses forattorneys, paralegals, social workers, peer partners, investigators, support staff, andoverhead for independent child and parent legal representation prior to the filing of adependency petition
Orgs: National Council for State Courts National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts' Response to Mental Illness
Building a Multidisciplinary Legal Team: The role of social workers and peermentors in representing parents and children could be eligible for reimbursement whena multidisciplinary team addresses prevention. Funding is available for time-limitedprevention services for mental health, substance abuse disorder, and in-home parentskill-based programs for children or youth who are candidates for foster care
We now are thrilled to report on remarkable developments which should focus the field on the importance and ability of providing high-quality legal representation to parents in dependency cases. We have long believed two things about parental representation in child welfare cases:
Until now, we could rely only on personal experiences and anecdotes. No longer. In May 2019, a study commissioned by Casey Family Programs and jointly investigated by Casey, New York University, and Action Research was published validating this belief.[2]
Despite its importance in terms of the consequences poor parents and children suffer from coercive intervention in their families, the field has been undervalued for far too long.
Giving parents free representation by lawyers does more than advance social justice. It is a smart investment because it furthers the state’s goal of reducing the time children spend in foster care. The study showed
Despite its importance in terms of the consequences poor parents and children suffer from coercive intervention in their families, the field has been undervalued for far too long.
We are long past the time of regarding a parent’s lawyer as an antagonist to be tolerated only because the statute requires one. It’s now time to recognize parents’ lawyers and other members of the multidisciplinary legal team as allies to the system, committed to the identical values that drive it: Keep no child from his or her parents, for even one night, except when necessary to protect the child from a risk of serious harm.
Keep no child from his or her parents, for even one night, except when necessary to protect the child from a risk of serious harm.
Lawyering really matters and providing parents the right kind of legal representation in child welfare cases can mean the difference between preserving a family and seeing it permanently destroyed.
difference between preserving a family and seeing it permanently destroyed
“A CASA is appointed by a judge to provide information directly to the judge—not to provide legal representation,” Milner said. “The policy specifically covers attorneys … and support staff that help prepare attorneys for the legal representation of a child or parent as part of an independent legal team.”
Funding: - CSP - FFPSA - ORPC - case consultant, expert witness - Medicaid - behavioral health care - Admin. of Child & Families rescue plan PEAF funds
American Bar AssociationStandards of Practice for Attorneys RepresentingParents in Abuse and Neglect Cases
American Bar AssociationStandards of Practice for Attorneys RepresentingParents in Abuse and Neglect Cases
earn about funding options to pay for precourt legal advocacy andassociated cost-savings. Early legal advocacy programs tend to relyon several funding sources, including:■ federal funding under Title IV-E of and Title IV-B the SocialSecurity Act,■ state funding,■ private foundation grants,■ court improvement program funding,■ contracts with child welfare agencies or legal aid offices, and■ donations.
earn about funding options to pay for precourt legal advocacy andassociated cost-savings. Early legal advocacy programs tend to relyon several funding sources, including:■ federal funding under Title IV-E of and Title IV-B the SocialSecurity Act,■ state funding,■ private foundation grants,■ court improvement program funding,■ contracts with child welfare agencies or legal aid offices, and■ donations.
Colin D’Mello CTVNews. (2020, November 25). BREAKING: CTVNews has learned McKinsey & Company was paid $1.6million to help create the COVID-19 command tables, and $3.2 million to help with the school re-opening strategy. Https://t.co/F3FQtG8ftW #onpoli [Tweet]. @ColinDMello. https://twitter.com/ColinDMello/status/1331625704501424129
Petersen, A. H. (n.d.). Between f**ked and a hard place. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from https://annehelen.substack.com/p/between-fked-and-a-hard-place
You submit the first grant, youpropose the novel thing. You know damn well any study section that’s evenmildly conservative is going give you, ‘‘Well, it sounds promising.’’ Theymight give you a good score, you hope for a good score, but it’s not going toget funded, because it’s too novel, it’s too risky, it’s too blah blah. But youalready have the damn data. You know on the second resubmit, you’re goingto say, ‘‘Good point! We took that to heart. Oh, what a wonderful suggestion!We will worry about this too. Guess what? Here’s the data!’’ Shove it downtheir throat. And then it’s funded. Because, wow, you flagged them, yousucker-punched them. They said, ‘‘This is really novel, blah, blah. Boy if youcould only do that, that would be a great grant.’’ Well, you alreadydiddo it,and that’s the point. And you basically sucker-punch the study section intogiving you the money by default. They have to at that point. They don’t havea choice.
On the need to have results before funding is given.