Podcasts about nyu center

From early inspirations to groundbreaking AI achievements, Yann's journey chronicles the rise of deep learning, the struggles for recognition, and the revolution that changed computing forever.00:09- About Yann LeCunYann is the Chief AI Scientist for Facebook AI Research (FAIR).He is also a Silver Professor at New York University on a part-time basis, mainly affiliated with the NYU Center for Data Science, and the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic is the first book to document the experiences of those hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City—disabled people. Diverse disability communities across the five boroughs have been disproportionately impacted by city and national policies, work and housing conditions, stigma, racism, and violence—as much as by the virus itself. Disabled and chronically-ill activists have protested plans for medical rationing and refuted the eugenic logic of mainstream politicians and journalists who “reassure” audiences that only older people and those with disabilities continue to die from COVID-19. At the same time, as exemplified by the viral hashtag #DisabledPeopleToldYou, disability expertise has become widely recognized in practices such as accessible remote work and education, quarantine, and distributed networks of support and mutual aid.  How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic (NYU Press, 2025) charts the legacies of this “mass disabling event” for uncertain viral futures, exploring the dialectic between disproportionate risk and the creativity of a disability justice response. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic includes contributions by wide-ranging disability scholars, writers, and activists whose research and lived experiences chronicle the pandemic's impacts in prisons, migrant detention centers, Chinatown senior centers, hospitals in Queens and the Bronx, working from bed in Brooklyn, subways, schools, housing shelters, social media, and other locations of public and private life. By focusing on New York City over the course of three years, the book reveals key themes of the pandemic, including hierarchies of disability vulnerability, the deployment of disability as a tool of population management, and innovative crip pandemic cultural production. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic honors those lost, as well as those who survived, by calling for just policies and caring infrastructures, not only in times of crisis but for the long haul. A full transcript of this interview is available at the link here Mara Mills is Associate Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. Mills is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and coeditor of Crip Authorship: Disability as Method. Harris Kornstein is Assistant Professor of Public and Applied Humanities at the University of Arizona. They have published research and essays in Surveillance & Society, Curriculum Inquiry, Wired, and others. Faye Ginsburg is Kriser Professor of Anthropology at New York University. Ginsburg is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and author of Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Rayna Rapp is Professor Emerita in the Department of Anthropology at New York University, and the author of Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic is the first book to document the experiences of those hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City—disabled people. Diverse disability communities across the five boroughs have been disproportionately impacted by city and national policies, work and housing conditions, stigma, racism, and violence—as much as by the virus itself. Disabled and chronically-ill activists have protested plans for medical rationing and refuted the eugenic logic of mainstream politicians and journalists who “reassure” audiences that only older people and those with disabilities continue to die from COVID-19. At the same time, as exemplified by the viral hashtag #DisabledPeopleToldYou, disability expertise has become widely recognized in practices such as accessible remote work and education, quarantine, and distributed networks of support and mutual aid.  How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic (NYU Press, 2025) charts the legacies of this “mass disabling event” for uncertain viral futures, exploring the dialectic between disproportionate risk and the creativity of a disability justice response. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic includes contributions by wide-ranging disability scholars, writers, and activists whose research and lived experiences chronicle the pandemic's impacts in prisons, migrant detention centers, Chinatown senior centers, hospitals in Queens and the Bronx, working from bed in Brooklyn, subways, schools, housing shelters, social media, and other locations of public and private life. By focusing on New York City over the course of three years, the book reveals key themes of the pandemic, including hierarchies of disability vulnerability, the deployment of disability as a tool of population management, and innovative crip pandemic cultural production. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic honors those lost, as well as those who survived, by calling for just policies and caring infrastructures, not only in times of crisis but for the long haul. A full transcript of this interview is available at the link here Mara Mills is Associate Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. Mills is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and coeditor of Crip Authorship: Disability as Method. Harris Kornstein is Assistant Professor of Public and Applied Humanities at the University of Arizona. They have published research and essays in Surveillance & Society, Curriculum Inquiry, Wired, and others. Faye Ginsburg is Kriser Professor of Anthropology at New York University. Ginsburg is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and author of Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Rayna Rapp is Professor Emerita in the Department of Anthropology at New York University, and the author of Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic is the first book to document the experiences of those hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City—disabled people. Diverse disability communities across the five boroughs have been disproportionately impacted by city and national policies, work and housing conditions, stigma, racism, and violence—as much as by the virus itself. Disabled and chronically-ill activists have protested plans for medical rationing and refuted the eugenic logic of mainstream politicians and journalists who “reassure” audiences that only older people and those with disabilities continue to die from COVID-19. At the same time, as exemplified by the viral hashtag #DisabledPeopleToldYou, disability expertise has become widely recognized in practices such as accessible remote work and education, quarantine, and distributed networks of support and mutual aid.  How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic (NYU Press, 2025) charts the legacies of this “mass disabling event” for uncertain viral futures, exploring the dialectic between disproportionate risk and the creativity of a disability justice response. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic includes contributions by wide-ranging disability scholars, writers, and activists whose research and lived experiences chronicle the pandemic's impacts in prisons, migrant detention centers, Chinatown senior centers, hospitals in Queens and the Bronx, working from bed in Brooklyn, subways, schools, housing shelters, social media, and other locations of public and private life. By focusing on New York City over the course of three years, the book reveals key themes of the pandemic, including hierarchies of disability vulnerability, the deployment of disability as a tool of population management, and innovative crip pandemic cultural production. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic honors those lost, as well as those who survived, by calling for just policies and caring infrastructures, not only in times of crisis but for the long haul. A full transcript of this interview is available at the link here Mara Mills is Associate Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. Mills is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and coeditor of Crip Authorship: Disability as Method. Harris Kornstein is Assistant Professor of Public and Applied Humanities at the University of Arizona. They have published research and essays in Surveillance & Society, Curriculum Inquiry, Wired, and others. Faye Ginsburg is Kriser Professor of Anthropology at New York University. Ginsburg is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and author of Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Rayna Rapp is Professor Emerita in the Department of Anthropology at New York University, and the author of Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic is the first book to document the experiences of those hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City—disabled people. Diverse disability communities across the five boroughs have been disproportionately impacted by city and national policies, work and housing conditions, stigma, racism, and violence—as much as by the virus itself. Disabled and chronically-ill activists have protested plans for medical rationing and refuted the eugenic logic of mainstream politicians and journalists who “reassure” audiences that only older people and those with disabilities continue to die from COVID-19. At the same time, as exemplified by the viral hashtag #DisabledPeopleToldYou, disability expertise has become widely recognized in practices such as accessible remote work and education, quarantine, and distributed networks of support and mutual aid.  How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic (NYU Press, 2025) charts the legacies of this “mass disabling event” for uncertain viral futures, exploring the dialectic between disproportionate risk and the creativity of a disability justice response. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic includes contributions by wide-ranging disability scholars, writers, and activists whose research and lived experiences chronicle the pandemic's impacts in prisons, migrant detention centers, Chinatown senior centers, hospitals in Queens and the Bronx, working from bed in Brooklyn, subways, schools, housing shelters, social media, and other locations of public and private life. By focusing on New York City over the course of three years, the book reveals key themes of the pandemic, including hierarchies of disability vulnerability, the deployment of disability as a tool of population management, and innovative crip pandemic cultural production. How to Be Disabled in a Pandemic honors those lost, as well as those who survived, by calling for just policies and caring infrastructures, not only in times of crisis but for the long haul. A full transcript of this interview is available at the link here Mara Mills is Associate Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. Mills is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and coeditor of Crip Authorship: Disability as Method. Harris Kornstein is Assistant Professor of Public and Applied Humanities at the University of Arizona. They have published research and essays in Surveillance & Society, Curriculum Inquiry, Wired, and others. Faye Ginsburg is Kriser Professor of Anthropology at New York University. Ginsburg is cofounder of the NYU Center for Disability Studies and author of Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Rayna Rapp is Professor Emerita in the Department of Anthropology at New York University, and the author of Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America and coauthor of Disability Worlds. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Five years ago, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Since that time, the world has changed dramatically, from the way we think about public health to the way we socialize to the way we watch movies. But those changes haven't had the same impact on everyone. This hour, we’re talking about COVID-19’s impact on existing inequities. We talk about the diverse experiences of disabled people over the last five years, and take a broader look at the history of health and race. GUESTS: Mara Mills: Associate Professor and Ph.D. Director in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. She is Co-Founder and Director of the NYU Center for Disability Studies. She co-edited the recent book How to be Disabled in a Pandemic. Edna Bonhomme: Historian of science. Her new book is A History of the World in Six Plagues: How Contagion, Class and Captivity Shaped Us, from Cholera to COVID-19. To learn more about public health and COVID-19, you can listen to our episode reflecting on four years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This volume of Osiris places disability history and the history of science in conversation to foreground disability epistemologies, disabled scientists, and disability sciencing (engagement with scientific tools and processes). Looking beyond paradigms of medicalization and industrialization, the volume authors also examine knowledge production about disability from the ancient world to the present in fields ranging from mathematics to the social sciences, resulting in groundbreaking histories of taken-for-granted terms such as impairment, infirmity, epidemics, and shōgai. Some contributors trace the disabling impacts of scientific theories and practices in the contexts of war, factory labor, insurance, and colonialism; others excavate racial and settler ableism in the history of scientific facts, protocols, and collections; still others query the boundaries between scientific, lay, and disability expertise. Contending that disability alters method, authors bring new sources and interpretation techniques to the history of science, overturn familiar narratives, apply disability analyses to established terms and archives, and discuss accessibility issues for disabled historians. The resulting volume announces a disability history of science. Jaipreet Virdi is a historian of medicine, technology and disability. Her research and teaching interests include the history of medicine, the history of science, disability history, disability technologies and material/visual culture studies. She received her Ph.D. from the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto (2014). Mara Mills is Associate Professor and Ph.D. Director in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. She is cofounder and Director of the NYU Center for Disability Studies; a founding editor of the award-winning journal Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience; and a founding member of the steering committees for the NYU cross-school minors in Science and Society and Disability Studies. Sarah Rose is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Arlington, where she founded and directs the Minor in Disability Studies. There are more than 120 Disability Studies graduates from UTA now. She also co-founded and serves as faculty advisor for UTA Libraries' Texas Disability History Collection, for which she and Trevor Engel co-curated the Building a Barrier-Free Campus traveling and digitized exhibit. Her book, No Right to Be Idle: The Invention of Disability, 1840s-1930s, was published by University of North Carolina Press in 2017 and was awarded the 2018 Philip Taft Prize in Labor and Working Class History and the 2018 Disability History Association Outstanding Book Award, among other awards. She has also published with Dr. Joshua Salzmann in LABOR on how baseball players and teams have managed health and fitness and in the Journal of Policy History on disabled veterans' access to the GI bill and higher education after World War II. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This volume of Osiris places disability history and the history of science in conversation to foreground disability epistemologies, disabled scientists, and disability sciencing (engagement with scientific tools and processes). Looking beyond paradigms of medicalization and industrialization, the volume authors also examine knowledge production about disability from the ancient world to the present in fields ranging from mathematics to the social sciences, resulting in groundbreaking histories of taken-for-granted terms such as impairment, infirmity, epidemics, and shōgai. Some contributors trace the disabling impacts of scientific theories and practices in the contexts of war, factory labor, insurance, and colonialism; others excavate racial and settler ableism in the history of scientific facts, protocols, and collections; still others query the boundaries between scientific, lay, and disability expertise. Contending that disability alters method, authors bring new sources and interpretation techniques to the history of science, overturn familiar narratives, apply disability analyses to established terms and archives, and discuss accessibility issues for disabled historians. The resulting volume announces a disability history of science. Jaipreet Virdi is a historian of medicine, technology and disability. Her research and teaching interests include the history of medicine, the history of science, disability history, disability technologies and material/visual culture studies. She received her Ph.D. from the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto (2014). Mara Mills is Associate Professor and Ph.D. Director in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. She is cofounder and Director of the NYU Center for Disability Studies; a founding editor of the award-winning journal Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience; and a founding member of the steering committees for the NYU cross-school minors in Science and Society and Disability Studies. Sarah Rose is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Arlington, where she founded and directs the Minor in Disability Studies. There are more than 120 Disability Studies graduates from UTA now. She also co-founded and serves as faculty advisor for UTA Libraries' Texas Disability History Collection, for which she and Trevor Engel co-curated the Building a Barrier-Free Campus traveling and digitized exhibit. Her book, No Right to Be Idle: The Invention of Disability, 1840s-1930s, was published by University of North Carolina Press in 2017 and was awarded the 2018 Philip Taft Prize in Labor and Working Class History and the 2018 Disability History Association Outstanding Book Award, among other awards. She has also published with Dr. Joshua Salzmann in LABOR on how baseball players and teams have managed health and fitness and in the Journal of Policy History on disabled veterans' access to the GI bill and higher education after World War II. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

This volume of Osiris places disability history and the history of science in conversation to foreground disability epistemologies, disabled scientists, and disability sciencing (engagement with scientific tools and processes). Looking beyond paradigms of medicalization and industrialization, the volume authors also examine knowledge production about disability from the ancient world to the present in fields ranging from mathematics to the social sciences, resulting in groundbreaking histories of taken-for-granted terms such as impairment, infirmity, epidemics, and shōgai. Some contributors trace the disabling impacts of scientific theories and practices in the contexts of war, factory labor, insurance, and colonialism; others excavate racial and settler ableism in the history of scientific facts, protocols, and collections; still others query the boundaries between scientific, lay, and disability expertise. Contending that disability alters method, authors bring new sources and interpretation techniques to the history of science, overturn familiar narratives, apply disability analyses to established terms and archives, and discuss accessibility issues for disabled historians. The resulting volume announces a disability history of science. Jaipreet Virdi is a historian of medicine, technology and disability. Her research and teaching interests include the history of medicine, the history of science, disability history, disability technologies and material/visual culture studies. She received her Ph.D. from the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto (2014). Mara Mills is Associate Professor and Ph.D. Director in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. She is cofounder and Director of the NYU Center for Disability Studies; a founding editor of the award-winning journal Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience; and a founding member of the steering committees for the NYU cross-school minors in Science and Society and Disability Studies. Sarah Rose is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Arlington, where she founded and directs the Minor in Disability Studies. There are more than 120 Disability Studies graduates from UTA now. She also co-founded and serves as faculty advisor for UTA Libraries' Texas Disability History Collection, for which she and Trevor Engel co-curated the Building a Barrier-Free Campus traveling and digitized exhibit. Her book, No Right to Be Idle: The Invention of Disability, 1840s-1930s, was published by University of North Carolina Press in 2017 and was awarded the 2018 Philip Taft Prize in Labor and Working Class History and the 2018 Disability History Association Outstanding Book Award, among other awards. She has also published with Dr. Joshua Salzmann in LABOR on how baseball players and teams have managed health and fitness and in the Journal of Policy History on disabled veterans' access to the GI bill and higher education after World War II. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This volume of Osiris places disability history and the history of science in conversation to foreground disability epistemologies, disabled scientists, and disability sciencing (engagement with scientific tools and processes). Looking beyond paradigms of medicalization and industrialization, the volume authors also examine knowledge production about disability from the ancient world to the present in fields ranging from mathematics to the social sciences, resulting in groundbreaking histories of taken-for-granted terms such as impairment, infirmity, epidemics, and shōgai. Some contributors trace the disabling impacts of scientific theories and practices in the contexts of war, factory labor, insurance, and colonialism; others excavate racial and settler ableism in the history of scientific facts, protocols, and collections; still others query the boundaries between scientific, lay, and disability expertise. Contending that disability alters method, authors bring new sources and interpretation techniques to the history of science, overturn familiar narratives, apply disability analyses to established terms and archives, and discuss accessibility issues for disabled historians. The resulting volume announces a disability history of science. Jaipreet Virdi is a historian of medicine, technology and disability. Her research and teaching interests include the history of medicine, the history of science, disability history, disability technologies and material/visual culture studies. She received her Ph.D. from the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto (2014). Mara Mills is Associate Professor and Ph.D. Director in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. She is cofounder and Director of the NYU Center for Disability Studies; a founding editor of the award-winning journal Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience; and a founding member of the steering committees for the NYU cross-school minors in Science and Society and Disability Studies. Sarah Rose is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Arlington, where she founded and directs the Minor in Disability Studies. There are more than 120 Disability Studies graduates from UTA now. She also co-founded and serves as faculty advisor for UTA Libraries' Texas Disability History Collection, for which she and Trevor Engel co-curated the Building a Barrier-Free Campus traveling and digitized exhibit. Her book, No Right to Be Idle: The Invention of Disability, 1840s-1930s, was published by University of North Carolina Press in 2017 and was awarded the 2018 Philip Taft Prize in Labor and Working Class History and the 2018 Disability History Association Outstanding Book Award, among other awards. She has also published with Dr. Joshua Salzmann in LABOR on how baseball players and teams have managed health and fitness and in the Journal of Policy History on disabled veterans' access to the GI bill and higher education after World War II. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

This volume of Osiris places disability history and the history of science in conversation to foreground disability epistemologies, disabled scientists, and disability sciencing (engagement with scientific tools and processes). Looking beyond paradigms of medicalization and industrialization, the volume authors also examine knowledge production about disability from the ancient world to the present in fields ranging from mathematics to the social sciences, resulting in groundbreaking histories of taken-for-granted terms such as impairment, infirmity, epidemics, and shōgai. Some contributors trace the disabling impacts of scientific theories and practices in the contexts of war, factory labor, insurance, and colonialism; others excavate racial and settler ableism in the history of scientific facts, protocols, and collections; still others query the boundaries between scientific, lay, and disability expertise. Contending that disability alters method, authors bring new sources and interpretation techniques to the history of science, overturn familiar narratives, apply disability analyses to established terms and archives, and discuss accessibility issues for disabled historians. The resulting volume announces a disability history of science. Jaipreet Virdi is a historian of medicine, technology and disability. Her research and teaching interests include the history of medicine, the history of science, disability history, disability technologies and material/visual culture studies. She received her Ph.D. from the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto (2014). Mara Mills is Associate Professor and Ph.D. Director in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. She is cofounder and Director of the NYU Center for Disability Studies; a founding editor of the award-winning journal Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience; and a founding member of the steering committees for the NYU cross-school minors in Science and Society and Disability Studies. Sarah Rose is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Arlington, where she founded and directs the Minor in Disability Studies. There are more than 120 Disability Studies graduates from UTA now. She also co-founded and serves as faculty advisor for UTA Libraries' Texas Disability History Collection, for which she and Trevor Engel co-curated the Building a Barrier-Free Campus traveling and digitized exhibit. Her book, No Right to Be Idle: The Invention of Disability, 1840s-1930s, was published by University of North Carolina Press in 2017 and was awarded the 2018 Philip Taft Prize in Labor and Working Class History and the 2018 Disability History Association Outstanding Book Award, among other awards. She has also published with Dr. Joshua Salzmann in LABOR on how baseball players and teams have managed health and fitness and in the Journal of Policy History on disabled veterans' access to the GI bill and higher education after World War II. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andrea Jones-Rooy is a data scientist, a standup comedian, _and_ a circus performer. Andrea delves into the realms of data science, its significance, and how it is often misunderstood in mainstream narratives. Andrea begins by reflecting on their journey to becoming a data scientist. Andrea was a professor of data science at NYU Center for Data Science and they taught an undergraduate course called "Data Science for Everyone". The cool thing is you can watch Andrea teach the same material for free in a video series of the same name: Data Science for Everyone on YouTube. I watched all 20 episodes, and I have to tell you it was fascinating. I may have gushed just a little bit about how awesome it was. Read an unedited, auto-generated transcript with chapter marks: CCATP_2025_01_10 Join the Conversation: allison@podfeet.com podfeet.com/slack Support the Show: Patreon Donation Apple Pay or Credit Card one-time donation PayPal one-time donation Podfeet Podcasts Mugs at Zazzle Podfeet 15-Year Anniversary Shirts Referral Links: Parallels Toolbox - 3 months free for you and me Learn through MacSparky Field Guides - 15% off for you and me Backblaze - One free month for me and you Eufy - $40 for me if you spend $200. Sadly nothing in it for you. PIA VPN - One month added to Paid Accounts for both of us CleanShot X - Earns me $25%, sorry nothing in it for you but my gratitude

Andrea Jones-Rooy is a data scientist, a standup comedian, _and_ a circus performer. Andrea delves into the realms of data science, its significance, and how it is often misunderstood in mainstream narratives. Andrea begins by reflecting on their journey to becoming a data scientist. Andrea was a professor of data science at NYU Center for Data Science and they taught an undergraduate course called "Data Science for Everyone". The cool thing is you can watch Andrea teach the same material for free in a video series of the same name: Data Science for Everyone on YouTube. I watched all 20 episodes, and I have to tell you it was fascinating. I may have gushed just a little bit about how awesome it was. Read an unedited, auto-generated transcript with chapter marks: CCATP_2025_01_10 Join the Conversation: allison@podfeet.com podfeet.com/slack Support the Show: Patreon Donation Apple Pay or Credit Card one-time donation PayPal one-time donation Podfeet Podcasts Mugs at Zazzle Podfeet 15-Year Anniversary Shirts Referral Links: Parallels Toolbox - 3 months free for you and me Learn through MacSparky Field Guides - 15% off for you and me Backblaze - One free month for me and you Eufy - $40 for me if you spend $200. Sadly nothing in it for you. PIA VPN - One month added to Paid Accounts for both of us CleanShot X - Earns me $25%, sorry nothing in it for you but my gratitude

Congress has not passed many bills on the emerging digital economy. But that does not mean nothing is happening policy-wise. At the state level, there were 238 new pieces of regulatory legislation, according to a new report from New York University. That is a 163 percent increase over 2023. New laws cover AI, non-consensual sexual imagery, political deepfakes, and copyright protection, among other topics. Joining us today is one of the authors of that report. Scott Brennen is the director of the NYU Center on Technology Policy. Darrell M. West and he will discuss why state lawmaking has accelerated and areas such as AI, non-consensual sexual imagery, political deepfakes, and copyright protection where bills have passed. They also will consider the state outlook for 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Justin Hendrix speaks with three researchers who recently published projects looking at the intersection of generative AI with elections around the world, including:Samuel Woolley, Dietrich Chair of Disinformation Studies at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the authors of a set of studies titled Generative Artificial Intelligence and Elections;Lindsay Gorman, Managing Director and Senior Fellow of the Technology Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and an author of a report and online resource titled Spitting Images: Tracking Deepfakes and Generative AI in Elections; andScott Babwah Brennen, Director of the NYU Center on Technology Policy and one of the authors of a deep dive into the literature on the effectiveness of AI content labels and another on the efficacy of recent US state legislation requiring labels on political ads that use generative AI.

Today we welcome to the show Todd Cherches, CEO and co-founder of Big Blue Gumball, to explore the intersections of visual leadership, storytelling, and effective communication. Todd shares transformative experiences, including his time in China, and delves into the power of visual thinking in redefining leadership. Key topics include enhancing communication through techniques such as the 'block and bridge' method, aligning messages with audience needs, and employing dual coding theory. Todd emphasizes the importance of understanding audience perspectives and adapting messaging to avoid miscommunication. The episode concludes with practical insights for leaders and communicators to innovate and connect more deeply with their stakeholders. Tune in to discover how to elevate your leadership and communication skills with visual thinking and storytelling.#Leadership #Storytelling #VisualThinking #EffectiveCommunication #PersonalDevelopmentIn this interview with Todd, you'll discover:03:55 The Power of Visual Thinking06:25 Leadership and Storytelling11:56 Effective Communication Strategies14:08 The Importance of Speaking Your Stakeholder's Language15:38 Creating Space for Effective Communication17:08 The Three-Legged Stool of Communication19:10 Avoiding Information Overload22:11 The Power of Tone and Emojis in Communication25:02 Understanding Different Perspectives26:17 Connecting with Todd Churches27:16 Conclusion and Preview to Upcoming EpisodesResources mentioned:Big Blue GumballAbout the guest:Connect on LinkedInTodd Cherches is the CEO and co-founder of BigBlueGumball LLC, an innovative New York City-based management and leadership consulting, training, and executive coaching firm. BigBlueGumball's patented VisuaLeadership® methodology leverages the power of visual thinking and visual communication to equip, enable, and empower business professionals of all levels—from individual contributors to senior-level executives—to maximize their performance, their productivity, and their potential.Cherches is also a three-time award-winning Adjunct Professor at the NYU School of Professional Studies, in their Division of Programs in Business, where he teaches the top-rated graduate course, “Leadership & Team Building” for their Human Capital Management master's degree program. A specialist in experiential learning and faculty development, Cherches has received the prestigious NYU “Excellence in Teaching” award (2016), as well as an NYU Center for Academic Excellent & Support (CAES) “Impact Award” (2018).He is also a Tedx Speaker and Lecturer on leadership at Columbia University where he has taught in their Executive MS in Strategic Communication graduate program, as well as guest lecturing on the subject of leadership in the Columbia MFA Theater program and Columbia University's Teachers College.A popular blogger, keynote speaker, and panelist, Cherches is the creator of the highly-acclaimed BigBlueGumball PowerDialTM model, as well as the BigBlueGumball Passion/Skill MatrixTM.Cherches is a graduate of the State University of New York at Albany from which he holds a Master of Arts degree in organizational and interpersonal communication from their School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, as well as a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature (magna cum laude) with a concentration in Shakespeare and poetry.OptiMatchAre you ready to stop struggling with high churn rates, decreased...

In this special episode titled “Lipids – Beyond Statins and LDL Cholesterol”, our host, Dr. Neil Skolnik will discuss with two expert guests the details of treatment for LDL-Cholesterol, Triglycerides, and other lipid risk markers.  This special episode is supported by an independent educational grant from Amarin. Presented by: Neil Skolnik, M.D., Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University; Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Abington Jefferson Health James Underberg, M.D. , Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine at NYU School of Medicine and the NYU Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Director of the Bellevue Hospital Lipid Clinic, and Past President of the National Lipid Association. Layla A. Abushamat, M.D., MPH, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine in the Division of Atherosclerosis and Vascular Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine,  Houston, Texas   Selected references referred to the in the Podcast: 1.     Icosapent Ethyl: REDUCE-IT - N Engl J Med 2019; 380:11-22 2.     Omega-3 Fatty Acids: STRENGTH trial - JAMA. 2020;324(22):2268-2280 3.     Lipoprotein(a) Blood Levels and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction With Icosapent Ethyl. JACC. 2024 Apr, 83 (16) 1529–1539 4.     Icosapent ethyl following acute coronary syndrome. European Heart Journal 2024; 45:1173–1176 5.     Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care 2024;47(supp 1): S179–S218

Joshua Tucker is a Professor of Politics at New York University, where he is also an affiliated Professor of Data Science, Russian, and Slavic Studies. He serves as the Director of NYU's Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia and co-director of the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics. His research focuses on comparative politics, mass politics, and the impact of social media on political behavior. On The Menu: 1. Generative AI reduces content production costs, influencing election campaigns and foreign interference. 2. Importance of cross-disciplinary partnerships in digital democracy research. 3. Difficulties in changing entrenched political attitudes and affective polarization. 4. Changes in Twitter data access for academic research under new ownership. 5. A shift from social graphs to engagement-maximizing algorithms in content delivery. 6. Implications and concerns of banning TikTok in the US from a democratic perspective. 7. Zelensky's efforts to garner international support through diplomacy and technology. Click here for a free trial: https://bit.ly/495qC9U Follow us on social media to hear from us more - Facebook- https://bit.ly/3ZYLiew Instagram- https://bit.ly/3Usdrtf Linkedin- https://bit.ly/43pdmdU Twitter- https://bit.ly/43qPvKX Pinterest- https://bit.ly/3KOOa9u Happy creating! #JoshuaTucker #NewyorkUniversity #Outgrow #Tech #MarketerOfTheMonth #Marketing #MarketingTactics #Outgrow #Democarcy #Podcastoftheday #MarketingPodcast

The NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program will soon become the NYU Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy (CMEP), our future secured by a generous $6,000,000 endowment. The CMEP Endowment Fund was established in May 2024 with a $5,000,000 gift from The Navigation Fund and a $1,000,000 gift from Polaris Ventures. We now welcome contributions from other supporters too, with deep gratitude to our founding supporters. Since our launch in Fall 2022, the NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program has stood at the forefront of academic inquiry into the nature and intrinsic value of nonhuman minds. CMEP will continue this work, seeking to advance understanding of the consciousness, sentience, sapience, moral status, legal status, and political status of animals and AI systems via research, outreach, and field building in science, philosophy, and policy. You can read the press release about the endowment here. Thanks to everyone who [...] --- First published: May 31st, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eu5ykCAKLtPTyb8eM/announcing-a-usd6-000-000-endowment-for-nyu-mind-ethics-and --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing a $6,000,000 endowment for NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy, published by Sofia Fogel on June 1, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program will soon become the NYU Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy (CMEP), our future secured by a generous $6,000,000 endowment. The CMEP Endowment Fund was established in May 2024 with a $5,000,000 gift from The Navigation Fund and a $1,000,000 gift from Polaris Ventures. We now welcome contributions from other supporters too, with deep gratitude to our founding supporters. Since our launch in Fall 2022, the NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program has stood at the forefront of academic inquiry into the nature and intrinsic value of nonhuman minds. CMEP will continue this work, seeking to advance understanding of the consciousness, sentience, sapience, moral status, legal status, and political status of animals and AI systems via research, outreach, and field building in science, philosophy, and policy. You can read the press release about the endowment here. Thanks to everyone who has engaged with our work so far, and please stay tuned for more announcements in the summer and fall! Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, published by Sofia Fogel on April 22, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The last ten years have witnessed rapid advances in the science of animal cognition and behavior. Striking results have hinted at surprisingly rich inner lives in a wide range of animals, driving renewed debate about animal consciousness. To highlight these advances, the NYU Mind, Ethics and Policy Program and NYU Wild Animal Welfare Program co-hosted a conference on the emerging science of animal consciousness on Friday April 19 at New York University. This conference also served as the launch event for The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. This short statement, signed by leading scientists who research a wide range of taxa, holds that all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects) have a realistic chance of being conscious, and that their welfare merits consideration. We now welcome signatures from others as well. If you have relevant expertise (for example, a graduate education or the equivalent in science, philosophy, or policy), you can send an email to nydeclaration@gmail.com from your institutional email address, say that you wish to sign, and list your title and institution as they should appear. Day-one media coverage of the conference and declaration included articles at Nature, NBC, Quanta, The Hill, and The Times. We also recorded the event, and our team will post videos on the declaration website in the near future. If you have questions or comments, feel free to send an email to nydeclaration@gmail.com or sofia.fogel@nyu.edu. Thank you to NYU Animal Studies, the NYU Center for Bioethics, and the NYU Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness for supporting this event. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Today on The Neil Haley Show, Neil "The Media Giant" and Kim Sorrelle of The Love Is Podcast interview Dr Beth Willman. Dr. Beth Willman joined LSST Discovery Alliance on September 7, 2022. She is a leader in the science and management of ground-based astronomy facilities. Her 20 years of research accomplishments have utilized wide-field survey datasets that are precursors to the Rubin LSST. Her primary scientific focus has been near-field cosmology, the detailed study of the nearby universe to answer questions such as “How has the universe formed and evolved?” and “What is the nature of dark matter?” Willman led the research team that discovered the first ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (Willman 1 and Ursa Major I), now known to be the most numerous type of galaxy in the Universe. Willman was the Deputy Director of NOIRLab and the Lab's Project Director for the US Extremely Large Telescope Program. NOIRLab is the preeminent US national center for ground-based, nighttime optical, and infrared astronomy with a ~$100M annual budget supported by ~500 staff members located in Arizona, Hawai'i, and Chile. Rubin Observatory Operations is part of NOIRLab, along with Gemini Observatory, CTIO/KPNO, and the Community Science and Data Center. She served as Deputy Director of the Rubin Observatory construction project for three years. As Rubin's Deputy Director, she convened community-based initiatives in support of LSST science and led the development of Rubin's operations plan. Prior to her management role at Rubin, she chaired an LSST science collaboration and contributed to the original LSST Science Book released in 2009. Willman earned a BS in Astrophysics from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington and has held prize fellowships at the NYU Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics and the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard-Smithsonian.

Today on The Neil Haley Show, Neil "The Media Giant" and Kim Sorrelle of The Love Is Podcast interview Dr Beth Willman. Dr. Beth Willman joined LSST Discovery Alliance on September 7, 2022. She is a leader in the science and management of ground-based astronomy facilities. Her 20 years of research accomplishments have utilized wide-field survey datasets that are precursors to the Rubin LSST. Her primary scientific focus has been near-field cosmology, the detailed study of the nearby universe to answer questions such as “How has the universe formed and evolved?” and “What is the nature of dark matter?” Willman led the research team that discovered the first ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (Willman 1 and Ursa Major I), now known to be the most numerous type of galaxy in the Universe. Willman was the Deputy Director of NOIRLab and the Lab's Project Director for the US Extremely Large Telescope Program. NOIRLab is the preeminent US national center for ground-based, nighttime optical, and infrared astronomy with a ~$100M annual budget supported by ~500 staff members located in Arizona, Hawai'i, and Chile. Rubin Observatory Operations is part of NOIRLab, along with Gemini Observatory, CTIO/KPNO, and the Community Science and Data Center. She served as Deputy Director of the Rubin Observatory construction project for three years. As Rubin's Deputy Director, she convened community-based initiatives in support of LSST science and led the development of Rubin's operations plan. Prior to her management role at Rubin, she chaired an LSST science collaboration and contributed to the original LSST Science Book released in 2009. Willman earned a BS in Astrophysics from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington and has held prize fellowships at the NYU Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics and the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard-Smithsonian. Willman spent seven years as a faculty member and department chair at Haverford College, during which time she earned multiple teaching awards.

Read the full transcript here. How did we end up with factory farming? How many animals do we kill every year in factory farms? When we consider the rights of non-human living things, we tend to focus mainly on the animal kingdom, and in particular on relatively larger, more complex animals; but to what extent should insects, plants, fungi, and even single-celled organisms deserve our moral consideration? Do we know anything about what it's like (or not) to be an AI? To what extent is the perception of time linked to the speed at which one's brain processes information? What's the difference between consciousness and sentience? Should an organism be required to have consciousness and/or sentience before we'll give it our moral consideration? What evidence do we have that various organisms and/or AIs are conscious? What do we know about the evolutionary function of consciousness? What's the "rebugnant conclusion"? What might it mean to "harm" an AI? What can be done by the average person to move the needle on these issues? What should we say to people who think all of this is ridiculous? What is Humean constructivism? What do all of the above considerations imply about abortion? Do we (or any organisms or AIs) have free will? How likely is it that panpsychism is true?Jeff Sebo is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies; Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law; Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program; Director of the Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program; and Co-Director of the Wild Animal Welfare Program at New York University. He is the author of Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (2022) and co-author of Chimpanzee Rights (2018) and Food, Animals, and the Environment (2018). He is also an executive committee member at the NYU Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, a board member at Minding Animals International, an advisory board member at the Insect Welfare Research Society, a senior research fellow at the Legal Priorities Project, and a mentor at Sentient Media. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsAlexandria D. — Research and Special Projects AssistantMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift [Read more]

Heavy fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee for their lives. And the conflict between the government and M23 fighters has escalated in recent weeks in the north east. So what's driving rebel activity? And can peace be achieved? In this episode: Patrick Muyaya, Minister of Communication and Media Spokesman, Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lawrence Kanyuka, Political spokesman, M23 rebel group.  Crystal Orderson, Journalist, The Africa Report. Fred Bauma, the Executive Director, Senior Fellow, NYU Center on International Cooperation. Host: Adrian Finighan Connect with us:@AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Threads and YouTube

Des Traynor is a Co-Founder of Intercom, and has built and led many teams within the company, including Product, Marketing, and Customer Support. Yann LeCun is VP & Chief AI Scientist at Meta and Silver Professor at NYU affiliated with the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences & the Center for Data Science. He was the founding Director of FAIR and of the NYU Center for Data Science.  Emad Mostaque is the Co-Founder and CEO @ StabilityAI, the parent company of Stable Diffusion. Stability are building the foundation to activate humanity's potential. Jeff Seibert is the Founder & CEO @ Digits, building the future of AI-powered accounting. Digits have raised funding from the likes of Peter Fenton @ Benchmark and 20VC. Tomasz Tunguz is the Founder and General Partner @ Theory Ventures, just announced last week, Theory is a $230M fund that invests $1-25m in early-stage companies that leverage technology discontinuities into go-to-market advantages. Douwe Kiela is the CEO of Contextual AI, building the contextual language model to power the future of businesses. Cris Valenzuela is the CEO and co-founder of Runway, the company that trains and builds generative AI models for content creation.  Richard Socher is the founder and CEO of You.com. Richard previously served as the Chief Scientist and EVP at Salesforce. Before that, Richard was the CEO/CTO of AI startup MetaMind, acquired by Salesforce in 2016. In Today's Episode We Discuss: Foundational Models: Analysis Will foundational models become commoditized? Who are the major players? What are their different strengths? Who will win? Who will lose? How important is the size of the model vs the quality of the data? 2. Open vs Closed: What are the biggest pros and cons of an open ecosystem for LLMs? Why is it naive to think that open-source LLMs will prevail? What will determine which method wins? 3. An Analysis of the Incumbents: Why is Google the most vulnerable? What can they do to regain ground? Why is Apple the sleeping giant? How could they win the next wave of AI? What should Amazon do today to compete with Microsoft? 4. The Future: Doom and Gloom? Why is it ridiculous to assume AI systems want to dominate? Why will AI create a renaissance of creativity and human freedom? What role should regulation play in the advancement and progression of AI?

Greece Central School District: Serving a student population of 10,775 students in 17 schools in grades PreK-12, Greece Central is the largest suburban school district in Monroe County and the tenth-largest district in New York State. The Greece Central School District serves most of the Town of Greece. The Greece Central School District was created in July 1928, but schools existed in the area before the Town was established in 1822.  Vision: We are committed to building a culture of high standards, engagement and supportive relationships.  We provide equitable access to opportunities for all students to pursue their full potential and become healthy, productive citizens who are actively involved in their communities. Core Beliefs:       We believe in placing Students First Our student's strengths, values, and opinions are at the forefront of our work.  We believe in Equity and Access Our students have access to high quality schools, innovative programs and necessary supports and we strive to remove all barriers that interfere with student success.  We believe in Striving for Excellence Our environment cultivates excellence by utilizing each student, parent, employee and community partner talents, strengths and skills.  We believe in establishing Coherence Our strategies and efforts are aligned, focused, and connected in order to ensure system-wide understanding and success. We believe in establishing Collaboration All students, parents, employees and community partners communicate and work together for excellence and success. We believe in inviting Voice  Our students, parents, and community member's contributions, opinions, questions and concerns are valued and drive our work. National Parent Leadership Institute (NPLI): The National Parent Leadership Institute is a nonpartisan, parent-centered, and anti-racist organization that partners with parents and communities to equip families with the civic skills, knowledge, and opportunities to be leading advocates for children at home, school, and in the community. We are pioneers in developing the field of parent leadership by embracing a cross-race, cross-class, parent-informed and pro-social learning approach to building parents as a constituency for community and recognizing children as the beneficiaries. Mission: We work with parents, public agencies, community organizations, local and state governments, foundations, and more to increase parent leadership, parent partnership, and parent voice at decision making tables, in order to create more caring communities for children. We support and celebrate PLTI alumni as they continue their leadership journey. We partner with Connecticut and Colorado in supporting their State-wide PLTI Initiatives We provide technical assistance to communities across the country as they support new cohorts of parent leaders, and as they work to build capacity within systems and staff to partner with parents. NYU Center for Policy Research: The Center for Policy, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) conducts applied research and evaluation studies focused on promoting positive educational outcomes for youth, and understanding the influence of both schools and communities on those outcomes. Its goal is to use research to inform educational policies and practices at federal, state, local, and programmatic levels. Mission: Our mission is to make research and evaluation for education that is action-oriented, liberating, accessible, and results in more equitable systems, policies, and practices. Recognizing that research is often used as a tool of domination, we believe in the reclamation of research tools to illuminate marginalized truths, stories, and experiences. We pursue our mission: in solidarity with youth, parents, educators, and communities that have been historically marginalized by oppression; collaboratively with researchers and practitioners from universities and community-based organizations; using a critical lens in our work and in our own personal development; with culturally responsive quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; through rigorous and thoughtful work that affirms humanity. PLTI Rochester: Too often, parents' opinions go unheard. Many parents lack the tools of civic engagement, the know-how of working in systems, but not the motivation or will to change their children's lives. PLTI provides parents with the necessary skills to lead change for the next generation. Mission: The mission of the Greater Rochester Parent Leadership Training Institute is to build bridges and advocacy skills to support parents becoming leading advocates for children. Parents' opinions are often unheard. They lack the skills, but not the motivation or will to change their children's lives. St. John Fisher University School of Education: The School of Education provides programs that prepare education professionals for teaching and leadership certifications and careers in schools, elementary through high school. Our Ed.D. in Executive Leadership program extends our purpose to prepare leaders at the doctoral level in higher education, health care, non-profit, public sector, corporate, and other service organizations. Mission: The mission of the School of Education at Fisher is to provide a quality educational experience that prepares candidates for distinguished careers in their chosen profession and for leadership roles in a diverse, rapidly changing, and increasingly technological society. To this end, we seek to:   Prepare highly capable and ethically responsible professional educators who are committed to improving educational conditions, opportunities, and outcomes for all students. Prepare candidates who share the belief that all students can and will learn. Prepare candidates who understand educational theory, research, best practices and the use of various technologies, and how to apply this knowledge in diverse school settings and communities. Prepare candidates to meet University, state, and national standards and requirements for graduation and certification Goals: University-wide Pillar One: Intellectual Vitality School of Education Goal 1 — Amend the initial undergraduate program so that more teacher candidates (new and transfer) can finish in 4 years School of Education Goal 2 — Conduct curriculum review/revision based on data and/or CAEP accreditation reports School of Education Goal 3 — Achieve national recognition from all Specialty Professional Associations (SPAs) for each content-area certification University-wide Pillar Two: Holistic Approaches to Student Development School of Education Goal 1 — Adapt to new resources to create and implement one Candidate Support System University-wide Three: Equity, Inclusion, Community School of Education Goal 1 — Increase enrollment of diverse teacher candidates School of Education Goal 2 — Increase retention of diverse teacher candidates School of Education Goal 3 — Respond to diversity needs of the community and increase retention and recruitment in all programs School of Education Goal 4 — Amend initial undergraduate program to increase diverse enrollment for new and transfer students University-wide Pillar Four: Community Engagement School of Education Goal 1 — Develop and sustain community partnerships to support teacher and leadership needs School of Education Goal 2 — Collaborate with completers to address P-12 student learning impact School of Education Goal 3 — Implement assessment and TK20 skill development and training for internal and external stakeholders University-wide Pillar Five: Institutional Excellence and Effectiveness School of Education Goal 1 — Improve governance, reporting and communication processes   Links:  Black in the Burbs   Brighton CSD    Carthage College (Wisconsin)   East Rochester CSD   Fairport CSD   Farrash Foundation   Gates-Chili CSD   Gates-Chili CSD PTO    Geneva CSD   Greece Central School District   Greece CSD SEPTA (Special Education Parent Teacher Association)   W.K.Kellogg Foundation   KONAR Foundation   Monroe County (NY)   NPLI   NYSED   NYU Center for Policy Research   PECAN (Roc the Future)   Penfield CSD   PLTI Rochester   RCSD East HS Teaching and Learning Institute (TLI)   RCSD PLAC   Regional Equity Network  Roc the Future   Rochester City School District   St. John Fisher University School of Education    Strive Together Network   The Children's Agenda   Urban League of Rochester   Wheatland-Chili CSD      Keywords: podcast, good, do good, amplify, amplify good, Collaborate, School, Education, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, DEI, Professional, Social worker, Network, Advocacy, Philanthropy, Teacher, Segregation, Poverty, Disparity, Abundance, Action, Rochester, NY, Political, Parent, Family engagement, Project management, Community, Recommendations, Process, Grassroots, Data analysis, Communication, Indicators, Evaluation, Research, Black, African American, Latine,  Coach, Partners, Goals, Racism, Discipline, Suspensions, Identity, Future Teachers, Qualitative, Quantitative, Social science, Interview, Emergent, Pipeline, Urban, Suburban, Rural, Sustainable, BIPOC, Teacher certification

Corbin Petro - CEO and Co-Founder, Eleanor Health Corey Thomas - Chair and CEO, Rapid7 Seth Moulton - U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 6th Congressional District Sanjeev Verma - Founder and Chairman, PreVeil Andrea Jones-Rooy (moderator) - Social Scientist, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Visiting Associate Professor, NYU Center for Data Science   Data is used across industries in innovative ways, raising questions on its use, ownership, and appropriate guardrails. This panel brings together industry experts all focused on using data for the greater good – improved health, safety, security – to share learnings on managing unintended consequences and protect from bad actors. In fact, the sports industry, athletes, leagues, and teams are just learning how to grapple with these issues, as the rise of video footage, AI, and wearable sensors have made it feasible to analyze performance trends in unparalleled detail. Join us as we look to the expertise of panelists across healthcare, government, and cybersecurity industries to better understand what sports can learn from other industries to ensure data is used in the right way by the right people.

The myth is that technology is unbiased, but says the truth is more complex and explains how bias and discrimination creep into the algorithms that shape the modern world. Broussard is a data journalist and an associate professor at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute of New York University, research director at the NYU Alliance for Public Interest Technology, and the author of several books, including “More Than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech” and “Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World.” Her academic research focuses on artificial intelligence in investigative reporting and ethical AI, withttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047654/h a particular interest in using data analysis for social good. She appeared in the 2020 documentary Coded Bias, an official selection of the Sundance Film Festival that was nominated for an Emmy Award and an NAACP Image Award.  She is an affiliate faculty member at the Moore Sloan Data Science Environment at the NYU Center for Data Science, a 2019 Reynolds Journalism Institute Fellow, and her work has been supported by New America, the Institute of Museum & Library Services, and the Tow Center at Columbia Journalism School. A former features editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, she has also worked as a software developer at AT&T Bell Labs and the MIT Media Lab. Her features and essays have appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Slate, and other outlets.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the core questions in AI and investing today; who wins, startups or incumbents? Startups have speed and innovation but incumbents have scale, resources, and distribution? Today we hear from 6 leading investors and founders discussing where they place their bets who has the advantage; startups or incumbents? Emad Mostaque is CEO @ StabilityAI, the parent company of Stable Diffusion. To date, Emad has raised over $110M with Stability with the latest round reportedly pricing the company at $4BN.  Yann LeCun is VP & Chief AI Scientist at Meta and Professor at NYU. He was the founding Director of FAIR and of the NYU Center for Data Science. Clem Delangue is the Co-Founder and CEO @ Hugging Face, the AI community building the future. Clem has raised over $160M from the likes of Sequoia, Coatue, Addition and Lux Capital to name a few. Sarah Guo is the Founding Partner @ Conviction Capital, a $100M first fund purpose-built to serve “Software 3.0” companies. Prior to founding Conviction, Sarah was a General Partner at Greylock. Vince Hankes is a Partner @ Thrive Capital where he has led the firm's investments in OpenAI, Melio, and Airplane.dev. Prior to Thrive, Vince learned the craft of venture from Lee Fixel @ Tiger. Tomasz Tunguz is the Founder and General Partner @ Theory Ventures, a $230M fund that invests $1-25m in companies that leverage technology discontinuities into go-to-market advantages. The Question of the Day: Who wins? Startups or Incumbents?

Yann LeCun is VP & Chief AI Scientist at Meta and Silver Professor at NYU affiliated with the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences & the Center for Data Science. He was the founding Director of FAIR and of the NYU Center for Data Science. After a postdoc in Toronto he joined AT&T Bell Labs in 1988, and AT&T Labs in 1996 as Head of Image Processing Research. He joined NYU as a professor in 2003 and Meta/Facebook in 2013. He is the recipient of the 2018 ACM Turing Award for "conceptual and engineering breakthroughs that have made deep neural networks a critical component of computing". Huge thanks to David Marcus for helping to make this happen. In Today's Episode with Yann LeCun: 1.) The Road to AI OG: How did Yann first hear about machine learning and make his foray into the world of AI? For 10 years plus, machine learning was in the shadows, how did Yan not get discouraged when the world did not appreciate the power of AI and ML? What does Yann know now that he wishes he had known when he started his career in machine learning? 2.) The Next Five Years of AI: Hope or Horror: Why does Yann believe it is nonsense that AI is dangerous? Why does Yann think it is crazy to assume that AI will even want to dominate humans? Why does Yann believe digital assistants will rule the world? If digital assistants do rule the world, what interface wins? Search? Chat? What happens to Google when digital assistants rule the world? 3.) Will Anyone Have Jobs in a World of AI: From speaking to many economists, why does Yann state "no economist thinks AI will replace jobs"? What jobs does Yann expect to be created in the next generation of the AI economy? What jobs does Yann believe are under more immediate threat/impact? Why does Yann expect the speed of transition to be much slower than people anticipate? Why does Yann believe Elon Musk is wrong to ask for the pausing of AI developments? 4.) Open or Closed: Who Wins: Why does Yann know that the open model will beat the closed model? Why is it superior for knowledge gathering and idea generation? What are some core historical precedents that have proved this to be true? What did Yann make of the leaked Google Memo last week? 5.) Startup vs Incumbent: Who Wins: Who does Yann believe will win the next 5 years of AI; startups or incumbents? How important are large models to winning in the next 12 months? In what ways does regulation and legal stop incumbents? How has he seen this at Meta? Has his role at Meta ever stopped him from being impartial? How does Yan deal with that?

Thank heavens for tenue... How else would The Chad & Cheese's brash, challenging, and no-bullshit attitude get in the same room, hell the same solar system, as NYU and UNC academics? Yup, tenue has got to be the answer. Earlier this year, NYU's Institute for Public Knowledge, the 370 Jay Project, and the NYU Tandon Department of Technology, Culture and Society hosted a new discussion in the series “Co-Opting AI”, which included this humble podcast. This event was created to examine how AI intersects with recruiting and with gaining access to the labor market. Taking a deep look into the industry and providing insights on the HR tech sector. The players: Ifeoma Ajunwa is an Associate Professor of Law with tenure at UNC School of Law. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ifeomaajunwa/ Mona Sloane is a sociologist working on design and inequality, specifically in the context of AI design and policy. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mona-sloane-ph-d-8b512656/ ...and The Chad & Cheese :) Props to The Co-Opting AI event series and Mona Sloane. It is hosted at IPK and co-sponsored by the 370 Jay Project, and the NYU Tandon Department of Technology, Culture, and Society, and the NYU Center for Responsible AI. https://ipk.nyu.edu/ https://engineering.nyu.edu/academics/departments/technology-culture-and-society https://engineering.nyu.edu/research-innovation/centers/center-responsible-ai

The NYU Center for Anti-racism, Social Justice & Public Health (CASJPH) is a research and advocacy center at NYU GPH. The center aims to advance health equity by addressing the root causes of health inequities and promoting social justice. CASJPH focuses on the intersection of racism and health, recognizing that racism is a fundamental determinant of health outcomes. The center conducts research, engages in policy advocacy, and provides training and education to promote anti-racism and social justice in public health. CASJPH's research focuses on several key areas, including the impact of structural racism on health, the role of racism in shaping health policies and systems, and the development of strategies to promote anti-racism and social justice in public health. The center also works to engage with and support communities impacted by health inequities. In this episode we speak with Dr. Melody Goodman & Danielle Joyner. Dr. Goodman is the co-director of the NYU Center for Anti-racism, Social Justice & Public Health (CASJPH) and is a key leader in advancing the center's mission of promoting health equity and social justice through research, advocacy, and education. Danielle Joyner is the Project Coordinator for the center and is playing an integral role in its establishment and daily operations at NYU. CASJPH Website: https://publichealth.nyu.edu/w/casjph CASPJH Twitter: https://twitter.com/nyu_casjph CASJPH Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nyu_casjph/ To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

The American Influencer Council (AIC) held its first in-person event of 2023 on the 20th anniversary of Safer Internet Day to kick off Black History Month (BHM). On Tuesday, February 7, a small intimate group gathered at Soho Works 10 Jay in Brooklyn to discuss the 'Creator Blind Spot, Navigating Algorithmic, and Moderation Biases.' The AIC is a Black-Founded 501(c)6 not-for-profit membership trade association that prioritizes diversity and inclusion 365 days a year. Federally recognized heritage months like BHM provide an excellent opportunity to bring people together from all backgrounds to embrace culture and share knowledge and drive awareness on topics impacting vulnerable communities. "This month, the AIC is driving awareness of the unintentional harms that come from automated decision-making," said AIC Founder Qianna Smith Bruneteau. "At the AIC, we believe awareness is the first step to finding solutions that will create positive change." Quotes of Note from our Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs): 1. "Many people show up on the Internet for the metrics and the hype. They're not showing up to serve or to help someone. And you truly do see a difference in your reach when you are here to serve rather than to get the likes." —Asa Dugger, Moderator, AIC Member 2. “You have to remember whom you're creating for. I have so many people that say, I want to be an influencer. What do you want to influence? It's not the number of likes you get that will keep you going.” —Nneya Richards, Travel Creator and co-Chair of the AIC Public Goodwill Committee 3. "The algorithm of life is also about putting the phone down, going outside, and touching the grass. You know, that's the stuff that's going to rejuvenate you to create and be more productive." —Visuals by Pierre, AIC Founding Member 4. "Algorithms tend to be living, breathing things that evolve based on product priorities, company priorities, and company goals." —Simone Oliver, SVP of Digital Content, BET 5. “There's the algorithms on these platforms and there's the algorithm of life, too. What are you choosing to engage with? You change these stories, you change the culture and you change the world.” —Rumi Chunara, Ph.D., Associate Professor at NYU Center for Health Data Science 6. "If you are truly putting yourself out there and have a core vision of what you are doing in social media as an influencer. Your impact in the world will always come through." —Sidney Madison Prescott, Former Global Head of Intelligent Automation, Spotify 7. “So when publishing your content, think of what someone is looking for in the simplest terms. What are the keywords, and how can I be prioritized to the top?” —Brandon Smithwrick, Head of Content at Songfinch Engage with us on Instagram @americaninfluencercouncil @creatorswithinfluence; TikTok @creatorswithinfluence. Watch on YouTube. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/creators-with-influence/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/creators-with-influence/support

FASKIANOS: Thank you, and welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website CFR.org/Academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Arunabha Ghosh with us to discuss climate compensation and cooperation. Dr. Ghosh is an internationally recognized public policy expert, author, columnist, and institution builder. He's the founder and CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment, and Water. He previously worked at Princeton University, the University of Oxford, the UN Development Program, and the World Trade Organization. He's also contributed to the creation of the International Solar Alliance and was a founding board member of the Clean Energy Access Network, and he currently serves on the government of India's G20 Finance Track Advisory Group, has co-chaired the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on Clean Air, and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and on the board of directors of the ClimateWorks Foundation. And he is joining us—it is, I think, after 11:00 p.m. where he is, so we appreciate your doing this so late your time. So, Dr. Ghosh, thank you very much for being with us today. We saw in November a historic climate compensation fund approved at the UN climate talks. It would be great if you could give an overview of what it means to compensate developing countries for losses and damages caused by climate change, as well as share your recommendations for how countries can more effectively cooperate on such efforts and maybe the interplay between mitigation, adaptation, and compensation—how are we attacking all of these things. So over to you. GHOSH: Well, good day to everyone out there. It's good evening at my end. It's nearing up on midnight. But thank you, Irina, for having me as part of this conversation and thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations. I think the way you framed it right at the end is really the way to start—how does mitigation, adaptation, and compensation all come together? Before I dive into the specific issue of loss and damage I want to just up front state for those listening in that I see climate change and the responses to climate change as not one market failure but at least three market failures that we are simultaneously trying to solve for. The first market failure is that climate risks are nonlinear in nature and, therefore, we don't have the normal approaches to insuring ourselves against climate risks. You can predict the probability of an earthquake of a certain intensity in a particular region without predicting an exact time of an earthquake but you can actually insure it by looking at the averages. But you can't do that with climate risk because the risks that we face today is less than the risks that you will face in 2030 and then it will exponentially rise in 2050. So your normal approaches towards insurance don't work. That's market failure number one. Market failure number two is, put very simply, money does not flow where the sun shines the most. We have a severe problem of climate-related investment in absolute terms not being sufficient globally and in relative terms significantly insufficient, especially in the regions where you actually have very good natural resources, particularly sunshine, for solar power, and the very same regions where sustainable infrastructure needs to be built between the tropics where countries continue to be developing and need to raise their per capita incomes. The third market failure is that even as we move towards or at least expend efforts towards moving to a more sustainable planet, we haven't really cracked the code on how do we narrow the technology gap rather than widen it. And this matters because, ultimately, the response to climate change, while it's a global collective action problem, because it is nationally situated it does raise concerns about national competitiveness, about industrial development, about access to technology and, of course, the rules that will—that would embed our moves towards a more free and more sustainable marketplace at a global level. And if we cannot crack the code on how technologies are developed and technologies are diffused and disseminated then it will continue to serve as a hindrance towards doubling down on developing the clean-tech technologies of tomorrow. So it's against this backdrop of multiple market failures that we have to understand where this whole loss and damage story comes through. Loss and damage has been discussed for decades, actually, in the climate negotiations. It was put formally on the agenda in 2007. But it was only at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt that there was finally an agreement amongst all the negotiating parties that a loss and damage financing facility would be set up. Now, what is loss and damage itself? Is it the same as adaptation? Clearly, not. It refers to the adverse impacts that vulnerable communities and countries face as a result of a changing climate including the increase in incidence and intensity of natural disasters and extreme weather events, as well as the slow onset of temperature increase, sea level rise, and desertification. So it's not just the hurricane that comes and slams on the coast. It's also repeated rounds of drought which might be impacting smallholder farmers in another part of the world. Now, adapting to a changing climate is different from compensating for the damages that you're facing and that is why there was this call for a separate financing facility for loss and damage. Now, this is the agreement thus far but it's not—it's not a done deal yet. What the decision did was basically said there will be now a transition committee developed dedicated to loss and damage with equal representation for rich and poor countries, and so on and so forth, but that transition committee would then have to figure out the funding arrangements, the institutional arrangements, where would this money sit, figure out how alternative sources of funding would come through only through existing mechanisms and ensure that it all gets delivered by COP28, which will be held in the UAE later this year. Now, my belief is that a political decision, while it's a strong signal, it's only, you know, just—you're just getting off the blocks and several other building blocks will be needed to make this work properly. Number one, we will need a much more granular understanding of hyperlocal climate risk. Today, if you wanted to buy a house in Florida, for instance, there's a high chance that there will be a neighborhood by neighborhood understanding of flooding risk, hurricane risk, et cetera, which is then priced into the insurance premiums that you had to pay for purchasing that property. But in many other parts of the world, when you look at climate models they treat entire countries as single pixels, which is not good enough. My own organization, CEEW, has trying to develop the first high-resolution climate risk atlas for India, a country of a billion and a half people. We now have a district-level vulnerability index looking at exposure to natural disasters sensitivity based on the economic configuration of that district and the adaptive capacity of the local communities and the administration. Based on that then we can say where do you need to double down on your efforts to build resilience. But that kind of effort is needed across the developing world in order to actually understand what it means to climate-proof communities and what it means to actually understand the scale of the problem that loss and damage financing facility will have to address. The second thing that has to happen is more development of attribution science. What is attribution science? Basically, a bad thing happens and then you figure out using the latest science how much of that bad thing happened because of the changed climate. Now, here's the problem. Only about—about less than 4 percent of global climate research spending is dedicated, for instance, to Africa but nearly 80 percent of that spending is actually spent in Europe and North America. So what I'm trying to say is that even as we try to build out attribution science we need a lot more capacity that has to be built in the Global South to understand not just global climate models but be able to downscale them in a way that we're able to understand what the next hurricane, the next flooding event, the next cyclone means in terms of the impacts of climate change. The third thing that has to happen is something called Early Warning Systems Initiative. Basically, the idea—it was unveiled at COP27—is to ensure that every person is protected by early warning systems within the next five years or so. So the next time a tsunami is coming you're not reacting after the fact but you're able to actually send out information well in advance. I'll give you an example. In 1999 a big cyclone—super cyclone—hit an eastern state of India, Odisha, and about ten thousand lives were lost. A huge effort was put in for early warning systems subsequently along with building storm shelters, et cetera. So twenty years later when a similar sized cyclone hit the same state in 2019 less than a hundred lives were lost. Ten thousand versus a hundred. So this is the scale of impact that properly designed early warning systems can do to save lives and save livelihoods. And, finally, of course, we have to build more resilient infrastructure. So the next bridge that is being built, the next airport that is being built, the next bridge that is being built, or a highway that's being built, all of that is going to get impacted by rising climate risks. So how do you bring in more resilient infrastructure? There's something called the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure that India has promoted. It has about thirty-five countries as members already and many multilateral institutions. It itself has started a program on infrastructure for resilient island states—for the small island states. So what I'm trying to tell you here is that the loss and damage—when we talk about compensation it's not just the monetary resources that are needed. There's a lot of technical resources needed to do the hyperlocal climate risk assessment, the infrastructure that is needed to do early warning initiatives, the scientific capability that is needed for attribution science, and the sort of organizational administration capability at a district level but also all the way at an international level. If all of that comes together then maybe we have a better architecture rather than just an announcement around compensation. But that just solves or begins to solve the first market failure. Let me maybe pause there and we can use the rest of the hour to talk about this and the other market failures I highlighted. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you so much. It really is daunting what needs to happen for sure in all the three market failures. We want to go now to all of you for your questions. You all should know how to do this. You can click the “Raise Hand” icon on your screen to ask a question. On an iPad or a Tablet click the “More” button to access the raise hand feature and when you're called upon accept the unmute prompt and state your name and affiliation and your question. Please keep it brief. And you can also write a written question in the Q&A box and, please, you can vote for questions that you like but if you do write a question it would be great if you could include your affiliation along with your name so that it gives us context. So the first question I'm going to take we'll go to Morton Holbrook. Morton, please identify yourself. Q: Hi. I'm Morton Holbrook at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro, Kentucky. Thanks, Dr. Ghosh, for your presentation. I confess I haven't paid enough attention to COP27. Can you enlighten me as to what the United States committed to and, more importantly, whether the Democratic bill—the bill passed in Congress in December was able to add—actually commit funds to the loss and damage project? GHOSH: Should I answer that, Irina, or are you taking a bunch of questions at a time? FASKIANOS: No, I think it's better to take one at a time— GHOSH: One at a time? OK. FASKIANOS: —so we can have more in-depth— GHOSH: Sure. Sure. Thank you, Morton. Well, the decision on loss and damage was agreed to by all the member states negotiating at COP27. But, as I said earlier, this only suggests the setting up of a financing facility. How it's going to be funded is yet to be determined. Will this be a reallocation of overseas development assistance that is redirected towards loss and damage or is this new money that's put on the table? All of that has to be decided. In fact, the developed countries did take a position that some of the larger developing countries that are big emitters should also contribute towards this loss and damage financing facility. Of course, on the other side the argument is that these are also the countries that are continuing to be vulnerable. So there is a difference now that is coming up in the conversation around loss and damage around vulnerability versus developing in the sense that even emerging economies could be vulnerable to climate change, whereas developing countries might be poorer than emerging economies that are also vulnerable to climate change but in some cases might not be as vulnerable. So the focus is actually on vulnerability in terms of the exposure to climate risks and, as I said earlier, the sensitivity of the communities and the economic systems. Now, with regards to the U.S. legislation, I am not sure of the legislation you're referring to for December. The one I'm aware of is the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed prior to COP27. But if there is something specifically that you're referring to that was passed through Congress in December then I'm not aware of it. FASKIANOS: OK. Let's go to Clemente Abrokwaa. Q: Thank you. Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Oh, good. Thank you, Dr. Ghosh. Very interesting your explanation or discussion. I'm from Penn State University and I have two short questions for you. One is base compensation. How would you monitor that? If you give a bunch of money or a lot of money to a country, especially those in the third world societies, third world countries, how would you monitor where it goes? Who controls the funding or the money? And I have a reason for—reasons for asking that question. And the second is I was a little surprised about the—what you said about the 80 percent of the money given to Africa is spent in Europe, unless I got you wrong. Yeah, so those—why should that be if that's true? GHOSH: So let me answer the second question first. That is, I was referring to climate—global climate research spending that happens. Of all the global climate research spending that happens less than 4 percent is dedicated to climate research on Africa. But that climate research 80 percent of that less than 4 percent is actually spent in research institutions in Europe and North America. So it wasn't about money going to Africa for climate. It's about the climate modeling research that goes on. So the point I was trying to make there was that we need to build up more climate research capacity in the Global South, not just in Africa and Asia and South America and so forth, in order to become better at that attribution science when it's related to the extreme weather events but also to understand in a more localized way the pathways for more climate-friendly economic development pathways. For instance, my institution CEEW, when we did net zero modeling for India we were looking at multiple different scenarios for economic development, for industrial development, for emissions, for equity, for jobs impact, et cetera, because we were able to contextualize the model for what it meant for a country like India, and now we're doing similar—we've downscaled our model now to a state level because India is a continent-sized country. So that's the point I was trying to make there. With regards to how to monitor the compensation, now, I want to make two points here. Number one is that, of course, if any money is delivered it should be monitored, I mean, in the sense that it's—transparency leads to better policy and better actions as a principle. But we should be careful not to conflate compensation for damages caused with development assistance. Let me give an analogy. Suppose there is—someone inadvertently rams their car into my garage and damages my house. Now, I will get a compensation from that person. Now, whether I go and repair my garage or whether I go on a holiday as such should not matter because what matters is that the damage was caused and I was due compensation. That's different from my neighbor coming and saying, I see that your garage, perhaps, needs some repair. Let me be a good neighbor and give you some money and help you rebuild your garage. In that case, it would be unethical for me to take that money and go on holiday. So there is a difference between compensation for loss and damage and money delivered for development assistance. However, I want to reiterate that once that money reaches any—whether it's a developing country government or a subnational government there should be—there should be mechanisms put in place for transparently monitoring where that money is going. That should be reported whether it's in a—I have often argued for climate risk assessments to be—annually reported at a national level. So the expenditure on all of this should also be reported. That should be tabled in a country's parliament. So I think it's important to use democratic processes to ensure that monies are deployed for where they are meant to be. But it should not be a reason that if I cause you damage, I will not pay you unless I think you are good enough to receive my money. No, I caused you damage. I owe you money. That is the basic principle of loss and damage. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Lindsey McCormack, raised hand. Q: Hi. I would love to hear your thoughts on lessons from the successful response to Cyclone Fani in 2019. I believe you mentioned it was over a million people were evacuated in India and Bangladesh, saving many lives. You know, I am a student at Baruch College in New York and you probably saw that terrible blizzard upstate. People were stranded and died. And I was just comparing their response capacity and the preparedness in that situation versus in the cyclone where you have over a million people moved out of harm's way. I'm really interested to hear what goes behind making that kind of preparation possible. GHOSH: Well, thanks for the question, Lindsey. This is extremely important. I think what happened—before I talk about Cyclone Fani let me go back again twenty years. There was the super cyclone in 1999 and then just a few years later there was also the tsunami in 2004 and, of course, there have been natural disasters from time to time. In fact, between 1990 and 2005 there were about 200-odd extreme weather events that we faced in India. But since 2005, we've already faced well over three hundred. The frequency of extreme cyclones has gone up 3X between the 1980s and now. So there is this constant need, obviously, to upgrade your systems but that investment that was put in in early warning systems at a sort of regional scale using satellites, using ground sensors in the sea, et cetera, help to monitor and help to predict when—the movement of cyclones' landfall and so forth. Along with that is—has been a lot of local administration capacity building of how do you then get this word out and how do you work with local communities. So there are, for instance, again, Odisha women run self-help groups who have become managers of storm shelters so when the community voices are telling people to get out of harm's way it has, perhaps, more social capital attached to it. In another part of the country in a hilly state in Uttar Pradesh—Uttarakhand, I'm sorry—there is a community-run radio station that sends out information about forest fires and things like that. The third thing has been around the rebuilding. So saving of lives is one thing but saving livelihoods is another critical issue and that's why it's not just getting people out of harm's way but often, for—the early warning helps to get livestock out of harm's way as well because, you know, for a small marginal farmer losing their cattle itself becomes a major loss of livelihood. So these are ways in which there have been attempts to ensure that the scientific or the technical capacity building is married with the social capital and the local administrative capital. But that does not mean that this is consistently done all the time. It's all work in progress and a lot more needs to be done in terms of the coverage of—and that's why this Early Warning Systems Initiative that was talked about in COP27 is important because you've got to—I mean, we, again, are working with some private sector entities that provide early warning systems for hundreds of millions of people. So how do their—how do our ground-level data and their sort of AI-based kind of modeling capacity marry together to offer those services to much larger numbers of people, literally, in the hundreds of millions. So it's very important that this becomes—and since the title of this conversation is about climate compensation and cooperation I would argue that this is a no regrets approach towards bridging the North and the South. 2022 has demonstrated that a long-held assumption that the rich would escape and the poor would somehow adapt is kind of gone. You know, we've all been slammed with extreme events and I think, of course, there will be positions on which the North and the South and the East and the West will be on different sides of the table. But building a resilience against nonlinear climate risk is a no regrets approach on which we could certainly be cooperating. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take a written question from Caden Hicks, who is at Lewis University. Of the 197 nations involved in these annual conferences of the parties when wealthy and powerful nations such as the United States and China do not meet their pledges are there any consequences for them? If they decide to drop their participation in this council how would they—what would the consequences be? GHOSH: This is at the heart of the climate problem. I talked about three market failures and there is one political failure, which is that we don't have an accountability mechanism, so to speak, that can hold everyone to account, the largest polluters but also everybody else. And that's why the climate regime is different from the trade regime, which has a dispute settlement mechanism, or the international financial regime where you have annual surveillance of what you're doing in managing your fiscal deficit, for instance. So when it comes to holding actors to account, I see that we need to make efforts both within the FCCC framework and with outside. Within the FCCC framework, the Article Fifteen of the Paris Agreement is something that can be leveraged more to ensure that the Compliance Committee has greater powers, that those that are not compliant are able to then—for instance, in Article Six, which has yet to be operationalized in terms of internationally trading of carbon credits, if you are not compliant with your domestic nationally determined contributions, then Article Thirteen compliance should demand that you have to buy more carbon credits than otherwise would have been possible. That's one idea. The second is that the—and I've written about this recently—that we need to stop making the COPs just platforms for announcing new initiatives, that every alternate COP should be designed as an accountability COP, which means that we come there and we report not just on what we are emitting and automating in terms of the biannual update reviews, but have a genuine peer review conversation as it happens in many other international regimes. Right now no one asks tough questions and no one answers tough questions. So it's—I mean, I said this quite publicly at—in Sharm el-Sheikh that, unfortunately, the COPs have become mutual admiration societies. Every year we come and make announcements. We form some initiatives. We say something will happen on methane, something will happen on finance, something will happen on agriculture and forests. And the next year we come and make new announcements. We never really ask what happened to the announcement you made twelve months ago. So how do we shift from being mutual admiration societies to mutual accountability societies? But beyond the COP process I think there are two other ways in which parties can be held to account. Number one is domestic legislatures and domestic courts. It's important that the pledges that are being made are legislated upon at a national level so that parliaments can hold executives to account, and if that is not happening then you can go to court and hold your governments to account. But, equally, it's not just about state parties. There are the nonstate actors. And last year I also served on the UN secretary-general's high-level expert group on net-zero commitments of nonstate entities, which means the corporations that are promising to get to net zero, or the cities and the states and the regions that are promising to get to net zero, and we laid out some clear principles on what it would mean to claim that you're headed towards net zero. Where are your plans? Where are your interim targets? Where are your financing strategies? How is this linked to your consumer base so you're not just looking at scope one or scope two but also scope three emissions. So there are ways in which then the shareholders and the consumers of products and services of corporations can hold them to account. It's a much more complicated world. But in the absence of the FCCC haven't been able to deliver genuine compliance. We've got to get creative in other ways. FASKIANOS: I'm going to go next to Stephen Kass, who has raised his hand. Also wrote a question but I think it'd be better if you just shared it yourself. Q: I'm an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and at NYU Center on Global Affairs. As you know, COP27 included these remarkable but belated obligations to make payments but without any enforceable mechanism or a specific set of commitments. Some years ago the New York City Bar Association proposed an international financial transaction tax on all transfers of money globally with the proceeds dedicated to climate adaptation. This would not be intended to replace the COP27 obligations but I wonder how you feel about that proposal. GHOSH: This is, again, a very interesting question, Stephen, because the need to be creative of—about different sources of money that can capitalize a loss and damage financing facility or an adaptation financing facility is absolutely essential because governments—I mean, we recognize that governments have limited fiscal resources and it has become harder and harder to get any money—real money—put on the table when it comes to the pledges that have been made. So I have recently been appointed to a group of economists that are looking at this issue. There is this approach, of course, of taxing financial transactions. There is another idea around taxing barrels of oil. Even a single dollar on a barrel of oil can capitalize a huge amount of fund. There are other ways, taxing aviation or the heavy kind of—heavy industries that—you know, shipping, aviation, et cetera. Then there are approaches towards leveraging the special drawing rights (SDRs) on the International Monetary Fund, which are basically a basket of currencies that can then be used to capitalize a—what I've called a global resilience reserve fund. So you don't make any payout right now from your treasuries but you do use the SDRs to build up the balance sheet of a resilience fund, which then pays out when disasters above a certain threshold hit. So these are certainly different ways in which we have to be thinking about finding the additional resources. See, when it comes to mitigation—this goes back to Irina's very first point—when it comes to mitigation there is—at least it's claimed there are tens of trillions of dollars of private investment just waiting to be deployed and that brings me to that second market failure that I referred to, that despite those tens of trillions of dollars waiting to be deployed, money does not flow where the sun shines the most. But when you pair it with, say, adaptation, let me give you an example. India has the largest deployment of solar-based irrigation pumps and it plans to deploy millions of solar-based irrigation pumps so you're not using diesel or coal-based electricity to pump water for agriculture. Now, is a solar-based irrigation pump a mitigation tool or is it an adaptation tool or is it a resilience tool? I would say it's all of the above. But if we can define that through the International Solar Alliance, it's actually trying to also fund the deployment of solar-based irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa as well. So the point I'm trying to make here is if we can find ways to aggregate projects, aggregate demand, and reduce that delta between perceived risk and real risk, we can lower the cost of finance and drive private investment into mitigation-cum-adaptation projects. But when it comes to pure compensation, the kind that we are talking about when it comes to loss and damage, disaster relief, et cetera—especially when climate shocks have compounding effects—that you're not just doing an after the event, you know, pitching a tent to house the displaced population, but we're building in real resilience against even the slow onset of the climate crisis, in some aspects. Then we have to get a lot more creative about the resources because private resources are not flowing there and traditional kind of vanilla-style public resources don't seem to be available. So your idea is very much one of those that should be considered. FASKIANOS: So I'm going to take a written question from Allan Victor Cortes, who's an undergrad at Lewis University: To what extent do you believe that small motivated groups can truly make a global impact on the climate scene? What incentivizes larger bodies, be it states or multinational corporations, to listen to these collaborations of small governments or firms and their proposed environmental solutions? GHOSH: This is a very interesting question because it has a normative dimension to it and an instrumental dimension to it. The normative dimension—I was having another public event just yesterday where we were talking about this—is what is the value—when you're faced with a planetary crisis what is the value of individual or small group action? The value, of course, is that there is agency because when we talk about, say, lifestyle changes, and India announced this national mission called Mission LiFE in October in the presence of the UN secretary-general—Lifestyle for Environment—the idea was how do you nudge behavior, to nudge behavior towards sustainable practices, sustainable consumption, sustainable mobility, sustainable food. You can think about creating awareness. You can think about giving more access to those products and services and, of course, it has to be affordable. But there is a fourth A, which is that it only works when individuals and communities take ownership or have agency over trying to solve the problem. But that is one part of the story. But there is an instrumental dimension to it, which is what I call the enabling of markets beyond just the nudging of individual or small group behavior. So, again, let me give an example of—from India but which is applicable in many other parts of the world. It is the use of distributed renewable energy. Now, distributed renewable energy is smaller in scale, smaller in investment size, even less on the radar of large institutional investors, and yet has many other benefits. It makes your energy system more resilient. It actually creates many more jobs. We calculate that you create—you get seven times more jobs per megawatt hour of distributed renewables or rooftop solar compared to large-scale solar, which creates more jobs than natural gas, which creates more jobs than coal, and it is able to drive local livelihoods. So we mapped this out across India of how distributed renewables could drive livelihoods in rural areas whether it's on-farm applications or off-farm applications, small food processing units, textile units, milk chilling and cold chain units, and so on and so forth, and we were baffled when we realized or we calculated that the market potential is more than $50 billion. In sub-Saharan Africa the market potential of solar-based irrigation is more—about $12 billion. So then suddenly what seems like really small individual efforts actually scales up to something much larger. Now, if we can figure out ways to warehouse or aggregate these projects and de-risk them by spreading those risks across a larger portfolio, are able to funnel institutional capital into a—through that warehousing facility into a large—a portfolio of a number of small projects, if we are able to use that money to then enable consumer finance as has been announced in today's national budget in India, then many things that originally seemed small suddenly begin to gain scale. So we, as a think tank, decided to put our own hypothesis to the test. So we evaluated more than one hundred startups, selected six of them, paired up with the largest social enterprise incubator in the country, and are now giving capital and technical assistance to six startups using distributed renewables for livelihoods. Within two and a half years we've had more than thirteen thousand technology deployments, 80 percent of the beneficiaries have been women who have gone on to become micro entrepreneurs, and India is the first country in the world that's come out with a national policy on the use of distributed renewables for livelihood activities. So the normative value is certainly there about agency. But the instrumental value of converting that agency into aggregated action is also something that we should tap into. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Tombong Jawo, if you could ask your question—it also got an up vote—and identify yourself, please. Let's see. You have to unmute yourself. You're still muted. OK. We're working on that. I'm going to take a quick question from Mark Bucknam, who's the chair of Department of Security Studies at the National War College. What is the best source for statistics on how much money is being spent on climate research? GHOSH: There are multiple sources depending on where you—I mean, the study I was referring to came from a journal paper that was written by Indra Overland, “Funding Flows for Climate Change Research.” This was in the journal Climate and Development. But I would think that the IPCC—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—would probably have some estimates aggregated in terms of this and you could check there. But let me also check with my modeling teams to see if they have better sources and get back to you on this. FASKIANOS: Fantastic, and we will be sending out a link to this webinar—to the video and transcripts—so we can include sources in that follow-up. So since Tombong could not unmute I will ask the question. Tombong is an undergraduate student at Cavendish University Uganda. Climate compensation and cooperation is undoubtedly a step in the right direction if all stakeholders adhere to the laid down rules and regulations. However, what mechanisms are put in place to ensure that it gets to the people who matter the most and not diverted for political gains by politicians? GHOSH: I mean, this is similar to the question that Clemente asked earlier, and I understand and I think it's important now that we start thinking about what are the national-level efforts that would be needed to build in the monitoring of where the funds go and what kind of infrastructure is built. So you can do this at multiple levels and this, again, goes back to the first thing I said about loss and damage, that we need this hyperlocal assessment. Let's say a hundred thousand dollars have been given to a small country for resilience. Now, how you deploy that needs to be a conversation that first begins with the science. Now, where are you going to be impacted the most? What is the kind of climate risk that you're going to be impacted by? Is it a flooding risk? Is it coastal degradation? Is it crop loss? Is it water stress? Accordingly, the monies should be then apportioned. Once it's apportioned that way it should immediately get down to a much local-level kind of monitoring. That requires itself a combination of state-level reporting but I would argue also nonstate reporting. So, again, we spend a lot of our efforts as a nonprofit institution tracking not just emissions but also tracking how moneys are deployed, the scale of projects, where the projects are coming up. We do a lot of ground surveys ourselves. We do the largest survey in the world on energy access, that data that helps to inform the rollout of energy access interventions. We've now paired up with the largest rural livelihood missions in two of our largest states to ensure that this work around distributed energy and livelihoods and climate resilience is tied up with what the rural livelihood missions are promising at a state legislature level. So I think that it is very important that the science dictates the apportionment of the funds but that there is a combination of government reporting and nongovernment assessment to track the progress of these projects. Of course, with advanced technology—and, I mean, some have proposed blockchain and so forth—can also track individual transactions, whether it's reaching the person who was intended to be reached, and so on and so forth, and those kinds of mechanisms need to be developed regardless of this loss and damage financing facility. If we talk about offsets, all the activity in voluntary carbon markets that are going on, the level of rigor that is needed for when, so you're trying to offset your flight and saying, well, a tree is going to be planted in Indonesia for this long-haul flight that you're taking, how do you know that that tree truly was planted? And also if trust is broken then it's very hard to rebuild and that's why, again, I said earlier in answer to a different question that transparency has its own value in addition to improving the trust of the market. But it has its own value because it guides policy development and policy action and individual action in a far better way. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Charles Fraser, who has raised his hand. Q: You can hear me? FASKIANOS: We can now. Thank you. But identify yourself. I know you also wrote your question. So— Q: Sure. I'm a graduate student at the Princeton School of International Public Affairs. My question is about access to finance issues. The UNFCCC has produced—has decreed other climate funds in the past, the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund for example, and often beyond issues of how much money is mobilized to those funds issues about how recipients can access the funds is a prominent thing that's discussed. How do you think that the—this new fund on loss and damage can be set up to address those issues and, perhaps, demonstrate ways to get around those problems? GHOSH: Firstly, in the case of the loss and damage financing facility we should make sure that it is not designed as a development assistance fund because, as soon as you do that, then you get into all those other questions about is this—is this going to be spam, should we really send it there, are they really ready to receive the money, and then so on and so forth. It has to be a parameterized one in the sense that if certain shocks are hitting vulnerable communities and countries above a certain threshold it should be able to pay out and that's why that hyperlocal climate science and the attribution science is absolutely critical. On top of that it has to—you know, this is not an investment fund in the sense that this is not a fund manager that has to then see where do I get best returns, and is the project application good enough for me to invest in this, whether it's a mitigation project or adaptation project. No. This is a payout fund. So most of the effort for loss and damage financing facility, in my opinion—I don't sit on the—that technical steering committee that is designing it—but in my opinion most of the effort has to go in figuring out what was the vulnerability, what was the baseline, and how much about that baseline did the—was the damage caused and therefore how much has to be paid out. That is really where a lot of the effort has to go, and the second effort that has to go goes back to what Stephen Kass was suggesting in terms of alternative ways to capitalize this, because with rising climate risks we will quickly run out of money even if we were able to capitalize it with some amount of money today. So these two will have to be the basis and the governing board has to basically decide that is the science that is guiding our understanding of a particular event robust enough for us to make the payout. It should not be contingent and that's—it's the same as one, say, an investigator from an insurance company does before a payout is made for a house that's burned down. But if you keep the victim running around from pillar to post asking for the money that they deserve as compensation, then it will quickly lose legitimacy like many of the other funding schemes that have come out of the climate regime thus far. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the last question from Connor Butler, who's at the University of Wisconsin Whitewater. In the near future do you see wealthy developed countries collaborating with poorer lesser-developed countries in order to build a resilience toward and combat climate change, or do you think that the North will always work together without involving the South? GHOSH: Connor, thank you for this question because this gives me a segue into my third market failure, which is should we build or are we building a sustainable planet which widens rather than narrows the technology divide. I analyzed about three dozen so-called technology-related initiatives emerging in the climate and energy space over the last decade and a half and there were only four that did any kind of real technology transfer and that to—none at scale. Basically, what happens is when you talk about technology, when you talk about cooperation on new technologies, usually these initiatives get stopped at, you know, organizing a conference and you talk about it. Sometimes you put in a—there's a joint research project that begins. Very few times there's a pilot project that actually you can physically see on the ground, and almost never does it get used at scale. So I have been increasingly arguing for technology co-development rather than technology transfer, because it's a fool's errand to hope that the technology will be transferred. Now, why is technology co-development important not just from the point of view of Global South? It's important from the point of view of Global North as well. Let's take something like green hydrogen. It is a major new thrust in many economies. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act provides a $3 subsidy for production of green hydrogen. India has just announced the largest green hydrogen mission in the world aiming to produce 5 million tons of green algae by 2030. But green hydrogen is not just—it's not easy to just take water and split it. You need a lot of energy. To make that—to split the water you need electrolyzers. For that, you need critical minerals. You need membranes that are developed in certain places. You need manufacturing capabilities that can build this out at scale. I mean, India alone will need 40 (gigawatts) to 60 gigawatts of electrolyzers by the end of the decade. So, ultimately, if we have to build a cleaner energy system and a cleaner economic system we will actually have to move away from islands of regulation towards a more interdependent resilient supply chain around clean energy and climate-friendly technologies. So rather than think of this as a handout to the Global South, I think it makes more sense—and I can talk about batteries, critical minerals, solar panels, wind turbines, green hydrogen, electric vehicles—and you will see again and again we are actually mapping economy by economy where strengths, weaknesses lie and how the complementarities come together. We can see that this technology co-development can become a new paradigm for bridging the North and the South rather than technology transfer being a chasm between the North and the South. FASKIANOS: I think that's a good place to conclude, especially since it is so late there. This was a fantastic conversation. We really appreciate your being with us, Dr. Ghosh, and for all the questions. I apologize to all of you. We could not get to them all. We'll just have to have you back. And I want to commend Dr. Ghosh's website. It is CEEW.in. So that is the Council on Energy, Environment, and Water website and you can find, I believe, a lot of the studies that you're talking about and your papers there. So if people want to dig in even further they should go there, also follow you on Twitter at—oh, my goodness. I need—I need—I think it's midnight here. GHOSH: So ghosharunabha. It's my last name and my first name—at @ghosharunabha FASKIANOS: Exactly. Right. So thank you again for doing this. We really appreciate it. The next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, February 15, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time with Margaret O'Mara, who is at the University of Washington, and we will be talking about big tech and global order. So, again, thank you, and if you want to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships you don't have to be in New York or Washington. We do have virtual internships as well. You should please reach out to us, and we also have fellowships for professors. You can go to CFR.org/Careers and do follow us at @CFR_Academic and come to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. So, again, Dr. Ghosh, thank you very much for today's conversation and to all of you for joining us. GHOSH: Thank you, Irina. Thank you, CFR. Thank you very much. (END)

Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:A new study found “no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.” - Gregory Eady, Tom Paskhalis, Jan Zilinsky, Richard Bonneau, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker/ Nature Communications, @CSMaP_NYUWe hear from Josh Tucker, a co-author of the paper and co-director of the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics. Importantly, the findings are limited to Twitter where a small, highly partisan audience was targeted. The findings do not fully reflect the multifaceted impact Russian interference had on faith in American elections. @j_a_tuckerA study conducting a $9 million social media advertising campaign reaching two million moderate voters in five battleground states found little effect for driving voter turnout during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. - Minali Aggarwal, Jennifer Allen, Alexander Coppock, Dan Frankowski, Solomon Messing, Kelly Zhang, James Barnes, Andrew Beasley, Harry Hantman, Sylvan Zheng/ Nature Human Behaviour, @_JenAllenWe hear from one of the co-authors, Sol Messing, a visiting researcher at Georgetown University. He highlights why campaigns might want to shift to focus on early voter turnout based on the findings. - @SolomonMgTwitter is cutting off API access to third party clients in an effort to force users to return to Twitter's own website and apps, according to messages reviewed by The Information. It was previously reported that users of apps including Tweetbot and Echofon were experiencing bugs late Thursday evening. - Erin Woo/ The Information, Ivan Mehta/ TechCrunch, Mitchell Clark/ The VergeState universities are banning access to TikTok on their WiFi networks and official devices in response to nearly two dozen state bans on government access to the popular short video social media service with a Chinese parent company. - Sapna Maheshwari/ The New York Times, Kate Mcgee/ The Texas TribuneApple promised to provide more information about why it bans certain apps from its App Store in countries like China and Russia in response to pressure from activist investors. - Kenza Byran, Patrick Mcgee/ Financial TimesLegal corner:“A public school district in Seattle has filed a novel lawsuit against the tech giants behind TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat, seeking to hold them accountable for the mental health crisis among youth.” - Gene Johnson/ Associated PressThe Supreme Court took a new case, Counterman v. Colorado, about what kind of mens rea, or intent, is necessary to prove a true threat. The case is based on the prosecution of a man who stalked and harassed a local musician on Facebook for years. - SCOTUSblogIn a new Supreme Court brief, Google argues that holding the company liable for recommendation systems that promoted ISIS videos in a case brought by the parents of a terrorist attack victim could “upend the internet” and result in websites with either extensive censorship or floods of questionable content, but nothing in-between. - John McKinnon/ The Wall Street JournalPresident Biden set priorities for bipartisan internet policy cooperation in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, focusing on data privacy, Section 230, algorithmic transparency, and antitrust measures. The piece left a lot to be desired, but signals these will continue to be hot issues over the next two years.  - Joe Biden/ The Wall Street JournalJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

In the years following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, much effort has been put into understanding foreign influence campaigns, and into disrupting efforts by Russia and other countries, such as China and Iran, to interfere in U.S. elections. Political and other computational social scientists continue to whittle at questions as to how much influence such campaigns have on domestic politics. One such question is how much did the Russian Internet Research Agency's (IRA) tweets, specifically, affect voting preferences and political polarization in the United States? A new paper in the journal Nature Communications provides an answer to that specific question. Titled Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior, the paper matches Twitter data with survey data to study the impact of the IRA's tweets. To learn more about the paper, Justin Hendrix spoke with one of its authors, Joshua Tucker, a professor of politics at NYU, where he also serves as the director of the Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia and the co-director of the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP). Hendrix and Tucker talked about the study, as well as what can and cannot be understood about the impact of the broader campaign of the IRA, or certainly the broader Russian effort to interfere in the U.S. election, from its results.

On today's episode of the RecruitingDaily Podcast, William Tincup speaks to Mona and Julia from NYU Center for Responsible AI about AI and hiring bias.Advance Partners solves the inherent cash flow challenges staffing firms face by providing unlimited funding so you never have to say NO to an opportunity again.If you're ready to grow, and want the experienced service that made us the number one funder for staffing firms for the last 25 years, Click Here to learn more!

In this episode Claudia talks to Jeff Sebo about bioethics and how it straddles both health and environmental ethics. They touch on some of the grounding principles of bioethics and how these principles frequently neglect to account for animals. They further discuss why a consideration of animals is necessary to achieve health and environmental justice. Date Recorded: 16 August 2022 Jeff Sebo is Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program, Director of the Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program, and Co-Director of the Wild Animal Welfare Program  at New York University. He is author of Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (Oxford University Press, 2022), co-author of Chimpanzee Rights (Routledge, 2018) and Food, Animals, and the Environment (Routledge, 2018). He is also an executive committee member at the NYU Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, an advisory board member at the Animals in Context series at NYU Press, a board member at Minding Animals International, a mentor at Sentient Media, and a senior research affiliate at the Legal Priorities Project. Find out more about Jeff on his website or connect with him on Twitter (@jeffrsebo)  Claudia (Towne) Hirtenfelder is the founder and host of The Animal Turn. She is a PhD Candidate in Geography and Planning at Queen's University and is currently undertaking her own research project looking at the geographical and historical relationships between animals (specifically cows) and cities. She was awarded the AASA Award for Popular Communication for her work on the podcast. Contact Claudia via email (info@theanimalturnpodcast.com) or follow her on Twitter (@ClaudiaFTowne). Featured: Saving Animals: Saving Ourselves by Jeff Sebo; Animals and Public Health by Aysha AkhtarAnimal Highlight: Flying Foxes  Bat by Tessa Laird; Shimmer: Flying Fox Exuberance in Worlds of Peril by Deborah Bird Rose; Flying Fox: Kin, Keystone, Kontaminant by Deborah Bird Rose; Wolli Creek Flying-Foxes belly-dipping in creek video by Megabattie; Banana Heaven After A Dip In The Pool video by Batzilla the Bat The Animal Turn is part of the  iROAR, an Animals Podcasting Network and can also be found on A.P.P.L.E, Twitter, and Instagram Thank you to Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law and Ethics (A.P.P.L.E) for sponsoring this podcast; the Biosecurities and Urban Governance Research Collective for sponsoA.P.P.L.E Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law and Ethics (A.P.P.L.E)Biosecurities Research Collective The Biosecurities and Urban Governance Research brings together scholars interested in biosecurity.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing the NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program, published by Sofia Fogel on September 19, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. We are thrilled to share that the NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy (MEP) Program has now launched! MEP will conduct and support foundational research about the nature and intrinsic value of nonhuman minds, including biological and artificial minds. In particular, this program aims to advance understanding of the consciousness, sentience, sapience, moral status, legal status, and political status of nonhumans – with special focus on invertebrates and AIs – via research and outreach. The team will include Jeff Sebo as director, me (Sofia) as coordinator, and Ned Block, Samuel Bowman, David Chalmers, Becca Franks, Joshua Lewis, S. Matthew Liao, Claudia Passos-Ferreira, Luke Roelofs, Katrina Wyman, and others as faculty affiliates. MEP has a variety of projects underway; you can find information about two of them below. David Chalmers Public Talk On October 13 2022 at 5:00pm ET, MEP will host a public talk by David Chalmers (University Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science and Co-Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, NYU; author, The Conscious Mind, Constructing the World, and Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy) on whether large language models are sentient. This talk, which will be co-sponsored by the NYU Center for Bioethics, the NYU Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, and the NYU Minds, Brains, and Machines Initiative, will be free and open to the public, in person and online. You can register to attend here. Early-Career Award and Workshop MEP is announcing an Early-Career Award and Workshop on Animal and AI Consciousness. PhD students and early-career faculty (PhD 2017 or later) in any field are invited to submit current or recent (published 2021 or later) work on this topic. Selected authors will receive a $500 award and an all-expenses paid trip to the Association of Scientific Studies of Consciousness Conference at NYU in June 2023. They will also be invited to speak at a Workshop on Animal and AI Consciousness associated with this conference. You can find more information about this award and workshop, including how to submit, here. Finally, if you have interest in receiving updates from MEP, you can visit our website or sign up for our email list. If you have interest in participating in our work, please contact Jeff or me to discuss. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Andrea Jones-Rooy, Ph.D., is a professor and the Director of Undergraduate Studies at the NYU Center for Data Science, where they teach the flagship undergraduate course, Data Science for Everyone, as well as advanced courses on Natural Language Processing.Andrea is also a research consultant and keynote speaker for global Fortune 500 and tech companies of all sizes on how to thoughtfully integrate data science into achieving their goals, especially in the people analytics space. When they aren't doing those things, they perform standup, trapeze, and fire all over the world.Andrea hosts the podcast Majoring in Everything and is working on a book about why focusing on just one thing is overrated.Get in touch after the interview…@jonesrooy on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTokhttp://www.jonesrooy.comjonesrooy@gmail.comDuring the interview we discuss…what data science iswho can get involved in data sciencethe best part of data sciencethe hardest part of data scienceClaim your free gift!We're giving away a one-year membership to the world's #1 business book summary service for leaders! Our gift will help you stay on top of the latest ideas, decide which books to read next, and engage your teams.To get your gift:Leave a rating or review on your favorite listening channel.Take a screenshot of your review.Share the screenshot on LinkedIn, and mention either “Allison Dunn” or “Deliberate Directions” and the “Deliberate Leaders Podcast”.=============Allison DunnExecutive Business CoachDeliberate Directions + Executive Business Coaching + Training Center3003 W Main Street, Suite 110, Boise ID 83702(208) 350-6551Website https://www.deliberatedirections.comLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/allisondunnPodcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deliberate-leaders-podcast-with-allison-dunn/id1500464675

Andrea Jones-Rooy is a professor of data science and Director of Undergraduate Studies at the NYU Center for Data Science. Possessing a strong social science background and analytical mind, this naturally lead to pursuits in comedy and circus performance. Join Andrea and the panel as we discuss "following the data", the world's most dangerous bias, flaming latex pants, and one of the most famous albums in history, Abbey Road by The Beatles.

Interest in therapeutic use of psychedelics has grown exponentially in recent years. And with recent studies showing these miraculous molecules help with depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, is it any wonder the p-word is on everyone's lips? In this unique episode of New Frontiers, the fantastic Dr. Austin Perlmutter guest hosts and interviews renowned psychedelics researcher Dr. Anthony Bossis, clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at NYU and the NYU Center for Psychedelic Medicine. With decades of experience in psychedelic and palliative care research, Dr. Bossis shares an evidence-based deep dialogue on meaning-making, spirituality, and end-of-life care. Tune in to learn how psilocybin can lower depression, anxiety, and end-of-life suffering, the appropriate intervention steps to avoid “bad trips,” what cancer patients define as their most meaningful experiences – and so, so much more. It's a podcast packed with powerful insights on the human race's quest for meaning and finding our true selves in a world full of distractions. Can't wait to hear what you think! ~DrKF

In 2020, COVID-19, the Australia bushfires, and other global threats served as vivid reminders that human and nonhuman fates are increasingly linked. Human use of nonhuman animals contributes to pandemics, climate change, and other global threats which, in turn, contribute to biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and nonhuman suffering. Jeff Sebo argues that humans have a moral responsibility to include animals in global health and environmental policy. In particular, we should reduce our use of animals as part of our pandemic and climate change mitigation efforts and increase our support for animals as part of our adaptation efforts. Applying and extending frameworks such as One Health and the Green New Deal, Sebo calls for reducing support for factory farming, deforestation, and the wildlife trade; increasing support for humane, healthful, and sustainable alternatives; and considering human and nonhuman needs holistically. Sebo also considers connections with practical issues such as education, employment, social services, and infrastructure, as well as with theoretical issues such as well-being, moral status, political status, and population ethics. In all cases, he shows that these issues are both important and complex, and that we should neither underestimate our responsibilities because of our limitations, nor underestimate our limitations because of our responsibilities.  Both an urgent call to action and a survey of what ethical and effective action requires, Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves: Why Animals Matter for Pandemics, Climate Change, and Other Catastrophes (Oxford UP, 2022) is an invaluable resource for scholars, advocates, policy-makers, and anyone interested in what kind of world we should attempt to build and how. Jeff Sebo is currently Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, and Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program at New York University. He is also on the executive committee at the NYU Center for Environmental and Animal Protection and the advisory board for the Animals in Context series at NYU Press. Austin Clyde is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago Department of Computer Science. He researches artificial intelligence and high-performance computing for developing new scientific methods. He is also a visiting research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Science, Technology, and Society program, where my research addresses the intersection of artificial intelligence, human rights, and democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2020, COVID-19, the Australia bushfires, and other global threats served as vivid reminders that human and nonhuman fates are increasingly linked. Human use of nonhuman animals contributes to pandemics, climate change, and other global threats which, in turn, contribute to biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and nonhuman suffering. Jeff Sebo argues that humans have a moral responsibility to include animals in global health and environmental policy. In particular, we should reduce our use of animals as part of our pandemic and climate change mitigation efforts and increase our support for animals as part of our adaptation efforts. Applying and extending frameworks such as One Health and the Green New Deal, Sebo calls for reducing support for factory farming, deforestation, and the wildlife trade; increasing support for humane, healthful, and sustainable alternatives; and considering human and nonhuman needs holistically. Sebo also considers connections with practical issues such as education, employment, social services, and infrastructure, as well as with theoretical issues such as well-being, moral status, political status, and population ethics. In all cases, he shows that these issues are both important and complex, and that we should neither underestimate our responsibilities because of our limitations, nor underestimate our limitations because of our responsibilities.  Both an urgent call to action and a survey of what ethical and effective action requires, Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves: Why Animals Matter for Pandemics, Climate Change, and Other Catastrophes (Oxford UP, 2022) is an invaluable resource for scholars, advocates, policy-makers, and anyone interested in what kind of world we should attempt to build and how. Jeff Sebo is currently Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, and Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program at New York University. He is also on the executive committee at the NYU Center for Environmental and Animal Protection and the advisory board for the Animals in Context series at NYU Press. Austin Clyde is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago Department of Computer Science. He researches artificial intelligence and high-performance computing for developing new scientific methods. He is also a visiting research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Science, Technology, and Society program, where my research addresses the intersection of artificial intelligence, human rights, and democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States Congress has before it dozens of bills intended to rein in social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter. This raft of proposed legislation is in response to various harms that have come to light over the past few years, including dangers to democracy, harassment and hate speech, concerns over safety (especially for children), and various ways the platforms reinforce inequities and permit discrimination.  One agency in the federal government arguably has the power to take action on these issues with its current authority- the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. But there are a variety of legislative proposals that would clarify the FTC's role with regard to social media, and even provide it with substantial new resources to police the harms these massive companies produce.  The https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/ (NYU Center for Business and Human Rights), with which I have https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/polarization-report-page (collaborated) in the past, last month produced a https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/62153d0793b1b95efdbccd34/1645559049492/NYU+CBHR+FTC_FINAL+Feb+22.pdf (substantial report) detailing principles and policy goals intended to clarify the debate in Congress and shape an agenda for the FTC, recommending that Congress direct the FTC to oversee the social media industry under the consumer protection authority that the agency already exercises in its regulation of other industries.  To learn more about the report and its recommendations, I spoke to Paul Barrett, the Center's Deputy Director. Paul joined the Center in September 2017 after working for more than three decades as a journalist and author focusing on the intersection of business, law, and society.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Joshua Tucker is a Professor of Politics, an affiliated Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies, and an affiliated Professor of Data Science at New York University. He is the Director of NYU's Jordan Center for Advanced Study of Russia, a co-director of the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP) and the Social Media and Political Participation (SMaPP) lab, and a co-editor of the award-winning politics and policy blog The Monkey Cage at The Washington Post. He has been spending a lot of time working on studying the relationship between social media, politics, and political participation. In this episode, we talk about social media and politics. Topics include: setting political agendas on social media; when celebrities post about politics; echo chambers; political polarization; and organizing political action online. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, DENISE COOK, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, AND TRADERINNYC! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, AND NUNO ELDER! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

In episode 6 of The Gradient Podcast, we interview Deep Learning pioneer Yann LeCun.Subscribe to The Gradient Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterYann LeCun is the VP & Chief AI Scientist at Facebook and Silver Professor at NYU and he was also the founding Director of Facebook AI Research and of the NYU Center for Data Science. He famously pioneered the use of Convolutional Neural Nets for image processing in the 80s and 90s, and is generally regarded as one of the people whose work was pivotal to the Deep Learning revolution in AI. In fact he is the recipient of the 2018 ACM Turing Award (with Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio) for "conceptual and engineering breakthroughs that have made deep neural networks a critical component of computing". Theme: “MusicVAE: Trio 16-bar Sample #2” from "MusicVAE: A Hierarchical Latent Vector Model for Learning Long-Term Structure in Music". Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe

Former Executive Vice President of Verizon Communications and Co-Chair of the NYU Center for Cyber Security Mr. Randy Milch joins co-host Andy Bonillo to discuss how NYU is breaking down legal and technical silos to develop a more informed cybersecurity, risk and legal workforce. Randy also gives an overview of his recent LawFare Blog Post titled What's Good for Litigation Isn't Necessarily Good for Cybersecurity and how there is a need for a post breach cybersecurity privilege and the traction it is getting. We finished up the show with Randy sharing his career advice and why it's important to take risks in your career. All this and much much more on Episode #175 of TaskForce Radio.

With billions of people around the planet remaining in place, there are vastly fewer cars on the road and planes overhead. All manner of industries and household activities that rely on fossil fuels have seen declines of some degree. In cities such as New Delhi and Mumbai, images of the clearest skies in decades reflect that fossil fuel consumption has plummeted. Dr. Carolyn Kissane, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Academic Director of the NYU Center for Global Affairs, joins Sam Chandan to discuss the implications of the resulting decline in oil prices—for the global economy, for oil-producing nations, and for the push for sustainability. For more information about the Urban Lab podcast and Dr. Sam Chandan, please visit http://www.samchandan.com/urbanlab and the NYU Urban Lab at the NYU SPS Schack Institute of Real Estate at http://sps.nyu.edu/schack.