MISSION FOR A LONG TERM WHICH SHOULD BEGIN BY ECONOMY WITHOUT STATE IN MARS BEFORE FOUNDING A STATE THERE

Your message related to your case with ref no. ( S2403-5041) has been received by World Bank. You'll be notified once any update occurs in your case

Your NAIRR Pilot proposal "GLACY ICE MELTING NORTH AMERICA IN DANGER AFTER 21 st CENTURY" (NAIRR240006) has been submitted
Inbox

noreply@allocations.nairrpilot.org
11:25 AM (1 hour ago)
to me

Thank you for your submission to the NAIRR Pilot. Your proposal will be considered by the review committees and resource providers within the next two weeks.

If you have any questions, contact help@allocations.nairrpilot.org.

-----
REQUEST SUMMARY

Request Number: NAIRR240006
Title: GLACY ICE MELTING NORTH AMERICA IN DANGER AFTER 21 st CENTURY
Project Lead: Khaled Menchaoui, American Bar Association

-----
Regards,

The NAIRR Pilot Allocations Team

Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information.[1][2] It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive and propagated information.[3][4][5] Early definitions of misinformation focused on statements that were patently false, incorrect, or not factual.[6] Therefore, a narrow definition of misinformation refers to the information's quality, whether inaccurate, incomplete, or false.[7] However, recent studies define misinformation per deception rather than informational accuracy[8] because misinformation can include falsehoods, selective truths, and half-truths.[9]

Research on how to correct misinformation have focused on fact-checking.[10] However, one can fact-check news, but not beliefs,[11] and studies show that fact-checking can backfire.[12] Others studied what makes people susceptible to misinformation. People may be more prone to believe misinformation because they are emotionally connected to what they are listening to or are reading. The role of social media has made information readily available to society at anytime, and it connects vast groups of people along with their information at one time.[13] Advances in technology has impacted the way people communicate information and the way misinformation is spread.[10] Misinformation has impacts on societies' ability to receive information which then influences our communities, politics, and medical field.[13]

The term came into wide coinage during the late 2010s and early 2020s, when it was used to describe policies to combat misinformation. The term as been used to suppress legitimate and true speech, and control political discourse.[14]

“Semiconductors are in everything from our cellphones, to refrigerators, to cars, and our most advanced weapons systems, and access to them carries important economic and national security implications. It was the shortages of semiconductors during the COVID-19 pandemic that raised prices for consumers and led to the shutdown of automobile manufacturing sites across the country,” said Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “Thanks to President Biden’s CHIPS and Science Act, we’re working to onshore these critical technologies in order to bolster the supply of domestic chips that are essential to manufacturing cars, electronics, and national defense systems in New York, Vermont, and states across the country.”

“The CHIPS and Science Act set out to make the United States a leader in semiconductor R&D and manufacturing, and with this proposed CHIPS funding, GlobalFoundries could help realize this vision by modernizing and building new chip fabrication facilities to increase its capacity to make current-generation and mature-node chips in the United States while creating thousands of good jobs in New York and Vermont,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Laurie E. Locascio. “By investing in domestic manufacturing capabilities, CHIPS for America is helping secure a stable domestic supply of chips that are found in everything from home electronics to advanced aerospace systems.”

"GF is proud to announce this proposed funding from the Department of Commerce and appreciates the collaboration of the CHIPS Office throughout this process. These proposed investments, along with the investment tax credit (ITC) for semiconductor manufacturing, are central to the next chapter of the GlobalFoundries story and our industry. They would also play an important role in making the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem more globally competitive and resilient," said Dr. Thomas Caulfield, president and CEO of GF. "With new onshore capacity and technology on the horizon, as an industry we now need to turn our attention to increasing the demand for U.S.-made chips, and to growing our talented U.S. semiconductor workforce."

The proposed expansion of GF is expected to help advance U.S. economic and national security by increasing capacity, strengthening supply chain resilience, and onshoring technologies in the U.S. for the first time that are important to our defense and intelligence communities. With multiple facilities that are designated as Trusted Foundries by the Department of Defense, GF has a long history of supporting the U.S. military and this proposed funding is expected to strengthen those ties. The Department of Defense relies on GF chips for national defense uses including satellite and space communications. GF chips also support broader U.S. technological leadership and discovery, such as the James Webb Telescope and the International Space Station.

The approximately $1.5 billion in proposed CHIPS funding would be split across three projects:

Malta, New York – New State-of-the-Art 300 mm Fab: The construction of a new, large-scale 300 mm fabrication facility that is expected to produce high value technologies not currently available in the U.S. The new facility is intended to leverage existing infrastructure to expedite the path from construction to production.
Malta, New York – Capacity Expansion for Automotive: The proposed expansion of the existing Malta, New York fabrication facility, which includes a strategic agreement with General Motors, to secure a dedicated supply of essential semiconductor technologies. This project would also support America’s economic and national security by expanding domestic capacity for semiconductors that are used in the U.S. critical infrastructure base. This expansion, combined with the new 300 mm fabrication facility, is expected to triple the existing capacity of the Malta campus over the next 10+ years. These two projects are expected to increase wafer production to 1 million per year once all phases are complete.
Burlington, Vermont – Fab Revitalization: The revitalization of an existing fabrication facility in Burlington, Vermont, to commercialize new 200 mm technologies, creating the first U.S. facility capable of high-volume manufacturing of next-generation Gallium Nitride on Silicon for use in electric vehicles, power grid, 5G and 6G smartphones, and other critical technologies. The site will apply industry-leading sustainability practices, including the use of 100% carbon-free neutral energy and the development of an onsite solar system to supply up to 9% of the site’s annual energy.
Lawyers may be excellent when questioning on the stand, but when it comes to cross-examining artificial intelligence, they may need an assist.

With generative artificial intelligence, it’s all about the search prompt. This is the optimal mix of words to form the question or the statement that you input into the system to receive a response. According to experts interviewed by the ABA Journal, inputting an effective search prompt is a learned skill that’s typically in its infancy for the majority of lawyers, as generative AI is still a relatively new concept.

“You have to think of AI as a witness you are cross-examining,” says Troy Doucet, an attorney and a co-founder of ai.law, a legal AI platform. “Good prompts yield good results.”

First, start with a clear objective in mind, Doucet says. What information do you ultimately want to obtain, and in what context or scenario does that information exist? The more specific that you can be, the better.

For example, a not-so-helpful prompt might be: “Tell me about privacy laws in California.”

“This is vague and lacks context, leading to a broad and possibly irrelevant response,” says Ryan Mazur, an attorney with Mazur Legal Research specializing in providing legal research and writing services to attorneys throughout the United States.

A better prompt, Mazur says, might be: “Can you provide a summary of the latest California Consumer Privacy Act compliance requirements for small businesses operating online in California, including any recent changes in 2024?”

This prompt, Mazur notes, is specific, it includes jurisdiction, it mentions a time frame, and it guides AI to provide a focused and relevant answer.

When thinking about the prompt, it’s important to be as specific as possible, clearly defining the legal issue and including relevant facts, plus legal standards or tests that should be applied. Remember to include jurisdiction, and mention any outcomes or considerations that you’d like included, such as caselaw or statutory interpretation, Mazur says. Also indicate the purpose of the information that you’re requesting: Is this going to be used to draft a brief? To advise a client? To understand a new regulation?

“This helps the AI tailor its response to your needs,” Mazur says.

When writing the prompt, use plain English and avoid legalese.

“Although you’re an attorney, the AI’s understanding of context improves with clear language,” he says.

When helping AI with the context, you should also explain the ground rules. Tell the AI who you are and why you’re asking the question, says Patrick Keenan, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law.

Keenan may say: “I’m a law professor at an American law school, and I need to explain a legal concept to my law students. In your answer, refer only to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which are published by the ABA. Do not refer to any other materials. Do not make up any cases, rules or regulations.”

Strong chains
Generative AI’s output improves if you continue writing prompts (also known as prompt chaining), adding detail and reworking the questions. The more details that you include—such as tone, the desired depth of discussion and the target audience—the better the outcome, says David Coale, a partner and leader of the appellate practice at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann in Dallas.

For example, here’s a well-constructed prompt suggested by Charles Nerko, a partner and leader of the data security litigation team at Barclay Damon in New York: “Revise the legal text provided to align with the standards of top-tier court submissions. Ensure clarity at a 12th grade reading level without compromising depth. Incorporate active voice, simple yet elegant language and parallel structure. Keep sentences varied but concise, emphasizing strong verbs while avoiding nominalized verbs. Organize the content logically with headings, topic sentences and seamless transitions. Minimize jargon unless widely understood, and prioritize precise, professional terminology. The goal is to achieve conciseness and clarity while preservice all legal nuances.”

When thinking about your prompt, consider how you’d explain a task to a high school student: Offer sufficient details for someone who is intelligent but lacks legal, business or case-specific experience, Nerko suggests.

If all fails, try again. Regardless of the response that Keenan receives, he always asks again. The answer may change, even if you ask the same question—or you may notice a small problem with it.

Not quite getting the answer that he needs? Keenan may tweak his question again, continuing to push until he gets something useful. While ChatGPT is designed to only respond with about 500 words for each prompt, you can always write: “Go on” or “Expand” to get more information if it’s on the right track.

If you continue to struggle and you’ve entered plenty of clear, detailed prompts, then you may be using the wrong generative AI tool, Keenan says. Some, he says, are trained on the public internet, while others learn from a closed corpus of legal materials. In other words, prompt practice makes prompt perfect.

During oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court last term—in one of two thorny cases about whether social media companies could be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorist groups—Justice Elena Kagan observed, “We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things.”

“You know,” she continued, looking across the bench at her colleagues and drawing laughter in the courtroom, “these are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

This term, however, the justices are getting a crash course on some of the most salient regulatory and constitutional questions involving social media.

The court in October heard arguments in two cases that will help determine whether public officials may block bothersome constituents from their personal social media accounts. (Decisions in those cases are pending.) In March, meanwhile, the court will take up a case involving allegations that the federal government coerced some social media outlets to stifle some users who posted misinformation about COVID-19 or the 2020 presidential election.

Next week, the court will consider perhaps the highest-stakes battle for web and social media companies, at least for this term. A pair of cases, NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, ask whether states may dictate content-moderation standards or require individualized explanations when social media outlets remove or alter users’ posts.

Some legal experts are a bit worried about how well the nine non-experts on the internet will handle the latest social media battle to confront them.

“I think there is no way for them to ‘get it’ on the set of issues raised in this case, because the issues are so novel that even the most specialized experts are still evolving their thinking,” says Daphne Keller, a lecturer at Stanford Law School and the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at the Stanford Cyber Policy
Sweden officially joins NATO
07 Mar. 2024 -|Last updated: 07 Mar. 2024 17:30
EnglishFrenchRussianUkrainian
Sweden became NATO’s newest member on Thursday (7 March 2024), upon depositing its instrument of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty with the Government of the United States in Washington DC. With Sweden’s accession, NATO now counts 32 countries among its members.

NATO and Sweden flags
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: “This is a historic day. Sweden will now take its rightful place at NATO’s table, with an equal say in shaping NATO policies and decisions. After over 200 years of non-alignment Sweden now enjoys the protection granted under Article 5, the ultimate guarantee of Allies’ freedom and security. Sweden brings with it capable armed forces and a first-class defence industry. Sweden’s accession makes NATO stronger, Sweden safer and the whole Alliance more secure. Today’s accession demonstrates that NATO’s door remains open and that every nation has the right to choose its own path.”

Sweden’s flag will be raised alongside those of the other 31 Allies in a ceremony at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Monday (11 March 2024), and simultaneously at NATO commands across Europe and North America.

TOPICS
Relations with Sweden
NATO member countries
Enlargement and Article 10
NEWS
Ceremony to mark Sweden joining NATO
05 Mar. 2024