AI Chatbot Example

AI Chatbot Example — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

CloudSim

CloudSim is a framework for modeling and simulation of cloud computing infrastructures and services. Originally built primarily at the Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, the University of Melbourne, Australia, CloudSim has become one of the most popular open source cloud simulators in the research and academia. CloudSim is completely written in Java. The latest version of CloudSim is CloudSim v6.0.0-beta on GitHub. Cloudsim is suitable for implementing simulations scenarios based on Infrastructure as a service as well as with latest version Platform as a service, so get started here == CloudSim extensions == Initially developed as a stand-alone cloud simulator, CloudSim has further been extended by independent researchers. GPUCloudSim is an enhanced CloudSim tool for modeling GPU-based cloud infrastructures and data centers. It offers simulations for multi-GPU setups, customizable GPU policies, GPU remoting, etc. It also examines performance impacts and interactions within virtualized GPU environments. CloudSim Plus is a totally re-engineered CloudSim fork providing general-purpose cloud computing simulation and exclusive features such as: multi-cloud simulations, vertical and horizontal VM scaling, host fault injection and recovery, joint power- and network-aware simulations and more. Though CloudSim itself does not have a graphical user interface, extensions such as CloudReports offer a GUI for CloudSim simulations. CloudSimEx extends CloudSim by adding MapReduce simulation capabilities and parallel simulations. Cloud2Sim extends CloudSim to execute on multiple distributed servers, by leveraging Hazelcast distributed execution framework. RECAP DES extends the CloudSim Plus framework to model synchronous hierarchical architectures (such as ElasticSearch). ThermoSim extends CloudSim toolkit by incorporating thermal characteristics, and uses Deep learning-based temperature predictor for cloud nodes.
Read more →
TheFWA

FWA (Favourite Website Awards) is an international award platform that honors and rewards web designers, developers and agencies around the world for excellence within the field of web design and development. The FWA was founded in May 2000 by Rob Ford. In November 2012, The FWA was the most visited website award program in the history of the internet, with over 170 millions site visits. == Jury == The FWA jury is composed of more than 500 web professionals (200 women + 200 men) from 35 countries. == Awards granted == FWA of the Day (FOTD) : Every day, the FWA jury selects the best project, FWA of the Month (FOTM): Every month, the FWA jury selects the best project, People's Choice Award (PCA) : Every year, a public vote selects the people's favourite project, FWA of the Year (FOTY) : Every year, the FWA jury selects the best project. == Hall Of Fame == The FWA Hall of Fame was established in May 2007 (to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the FWA), as a recognition of web's greatest individuals and companies.
Read more →
Duck face

Duck face or duck lips is a photographic pose that is common on profile pictures in social networks. The lips are pressed together as in a pout and the cheeks are typically also sucked in. The pose is usually seen as an attempt to appear alluring, but it can be ironic or an attempt to hide self-conscious embarrassment. == History == Fashion models frequently use exaggerated pouts, and self-portraits with a pouty face go back to Rembrandt. In the 1994 film Four Weddings and a Funeral, one of the lead characters, Henrietta, played by Anna Chancellor, is nicknamed Duckface for her pouty expressions. Ben Stiller mocked models' pouty expressions in 1996 comedy sketches and the 2001 feature film Zoolander. The silly expressions made by his narcissistic character have retroactively been identified as an example of duck face. As social networks became popular, young women frequently made exaggeratedly pouty expressions. This became a major fad by the 2010s, provoking a strong negative reaction among some viewers. OxfordDictionaries.com added "duck face" as a new word in 2014 to their list of current and modern words, but it has not been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. In an animal communication studies of capuchin monkeys, the "duck face" term has been used synonymously with "protruded lip face", which females exhibit in the proceptive phase before mating.
Read more →
Cardiovascular health awareness in Nepal

Cardiovascular health awareness in Nepal has improved in recent times. It has emerged as a cost-effective tool for prevention of heart disease in recent years. == Background == Cardiovascular diseases in Nepal is responsible for maximum number of deaths and rapid urbanization possess extra threat in this situation emphasizing need for widespread awareness campaigns. Efforts to enhance cardiovascular health awareness among the general public, particularly through social media platforms, have proven pivotal in motivating individuals to adopt healthier lifestyle choices and improve heart health in Nepal in recent years. These awareness initiatives, often organized on special occasions such as World Heart Day of World Heart Federation, World Hypertension Day, and World Health Day of World Health Organization, have garnered active participation from the public, reflecting a growing interest in health-related information. Notably, various hospitals, organizations, and health professionals actively contribute to cardiovascular health awareness in Nepal. The prevalence of heart health-related content on social media platforms indicates a substantial dissemination of information. The engagement of a large number of followers underscores the audience's keen interest in health matters, evident in the significant engagement on various social media accounts and pages. During an event of cardiovascular health awareness a Guinness World Record was achieved on World Heart Day 2023. A Facebook live awareness programme on heart health prevention attracted 11,212 viewers during the 30-minute presentation and was awarded the "Most viewers for a cardiovascular health awareness live stream on Facebook" by Guinness World Record signifying depth of public involvement and importance of social media use in health awareness. In 2014, a 11-day heart camp was conducted in Nepal to raise awareness . In 2015, a is a heart health education program " Mission to Save Heart" was conducted to empower health professionals to manage heart attacks and reduce heart disease deaths.
Read more →
ReRites

ReRites (also known as RERITES, ReadingRites, Big Data Poetry) is a literary work of "Human + A.I. poetry" by David Jhave Johnston that used neural network models trained to generate poetry which the author then edited. ReRites won the Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature in 2022. == About the project == The ReRites project began as a daily rite of writing with a neural network, expanded into a series of performances from which video documentation has been published online, and concluded with a set of 12 books and an accompanying book of essays published by Anteism Books in 2019. In Electronic Literature, Scott Rettberg describes the early phases of the project in 2016, when it bore the preliminary name Big Data Poetry. Jhave (the artist name that David Jhave Johnston goes by) describes the process of writing ReRites as a rite: "Every morning for 2 hours (normally 6:30–8:30am) I get up and edit the poetic output of a neural net. Deleting, weaving, conjugating, lineating, cohering. Re-writing. Re-wiring authorship: hybrid augmented enhanced evolutionary". There is video documentation of the writing process. The human editing of the neural network's output is fundamental to this project, and Jhave gives examples of both unedited text extracts and his edited versions in publications about the project. Kyle Booten describes ReRites as "simultaneously dusty and outrageously verdant, monotonously sublime and speckled with beautiful and rare specimens". === Performances === ReRites was first shared with an audience through a series of performances where audience members and poets would participate in reading the automatically generated texts, which appeared on screen so fast that human readers could barely keep up. This has been described as allowing participants to "re-discover[..] the peculiar pleasures of being embodied", or, in Jhave's own words, as a space where human participants were "playing their wits and voices against an evocative infinite deep-learning muse". The first performance was at Brown University's Interrupt Festival in 2019. It has been performed many times since, including at the Barbican Centre in London and Anteism Books. === Print publications === For a single year Jhave published one book of poetry from the ReRites project each month. These twelve volumes are accompanied by a book of essays, all published by Anteism Books. The accompanying essays provide critical responses to the project from poets and scholars including Allison Parrish, Johanna Drucker, Kyle Booten, Stephanie Strickland, John Cayley, Lai-Tze Fan, Nick Montfort, Mairéad Byrne, and Chris Funkhouser. Allison Parrish notes elsewhere that these paratexts to ReRites serve a legitimising function for a genre of poetry that is not yet institutionally acknowledged. === Technical details === Starting in 2016 under the name Big Data Poetry, Jhave generated poems using, in his own words, "neural network code (..) adapted from three corporate github-hosted machine-learning libraries: TensorFlow (Google), PyTorch (Facebook), and AWD-LSTM (SalesForce)". He explains that the "models were trained on a customised corpus of 600,000 lines of poetry ranging from the romantic epoch to the 20th century avant garde". Jhave maintains a GitHub repository with some of the code supporting ReRites. == Reception == ReRites is described by John Cayley as "one of the most thorough and beautiful" poetic responses to machine learning. The work's influence on the field of electronic literature was acknowledged in 2022, when the work won the Electronic Literature Organization's Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature. The jury described ReRites as particularly poignant in the time of the pandemic, as it was "a documentation of the performance of the private ritual of writing and the obsessive-compulsive need for writers to communicate — even when no one else is reading". The question of authorship and voice in ReRites has been raised by several critics. Although generated poetry is an established genre in electronic literature, Cayley notes that unlike the combinatory poems created by authors like Nick Montfort, where the author explicitly defines which words and phrases will be recombined, ReRites has "not been directed by literary preconceptions inscribed in the program itself, but only by patterns and rhythms pre-existing in the corpora". In an essay for the Australian journal TEXT, David Thomas Henry Wright asks how to understand authorship and authority in ReRites: "Who or what is the authority of the work? The original data fed into the machine, that is not currently retrievable or discernible from the final works? The code that was taken and adapted for his purposes? Or Jhave, the human editor?" Wright concludes that Jhave is the only actor with any intentionality and therefore the authority of the work. The centrality of the human editor is also emphasised by other scholars. In a chapter analysing ReRites Malthe Stavning Erslev argues that the machine learning misrepresents the dataset it is trained on. While ReRites uses 21st century neural networks, it has been compared to earlier literary traditions. Poet Victoria Stanton, who read at one of the ReRites performances, has compared ReRites to found poetry, while David Thomas Henry Wright compares it to the Oulipo movement and Mark Amerika to the cut-up technique. Scholars also position ReRites firmly within the long tradition of generative poetry both in electronic literature and print, stretching from the I Ching, Queneau's Cent Mille Milliards de Poemes and Nabokov's Pale Fire to computer-generated poems like Christopher Strachey's Love Letter Generator (1952) and more contemporary examples. Jhave describes the process of working with the output from the neural network as "carving". In his book My Life as an Artificial Creative Intelligence, Mark Amerika writes that the "method of carving the digital outputs provided by the language model as part of a collaborative remix jam session with GPT-2, where the language artist and the language model play off each other’s unexpected outputs as if caught in a live postproduction set, is one I share with electronic literature composer David Jhave Johnston, whose AI poetry experiments precede my own investigations."
Read more →
Enterprise social software

Enterprise social software (also known as or regarded as a major component of Enterprise 2.0), comprises social software as used in "enterprise" (business/commercial) contexts. It includes social and networked modifications to corporate intranets and other classic software platforms used by large companies to organize their communication. In contrast to traditional enterprise software, which imposes structure prior to use, enterprise social software tends to encourage use prior to providing structure. Carl Frappaolo and Dan Keldsen defined Enterprise 2.0 in a report written for Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM) as "a system of web-based technologies that provide rapid and agile collaboration, information sharing, emergence and integration capabilities in the extended enterprise". == Applications == === Functionality === Social software for an enterprise must (according to Andrew McAfee, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School) have the following functionality to work well: Search: allowing users to search for other users or content Links: grouping similar users or content together Authoring: including blogs and wikis Tags: allowing users to tag content Extensions: recommendations of users; or content based on profile Signals: allowing people to subscribe to users or content with RSS feeds McAfee recommends installing easy-to-use software which does not impose any rigid structure on users. He envisages an informal roll-out, but on a common platform to enable future collaboration between areas. He also recommends strong and visible managerial support to achieve this. In 2007 Dion Hinchcliffe expanded the list above by adding the following four functions: Freeform function: no barriers to authorship (meaning free from a learning curve or from restrictions) Network-oriented function, requiring web-addressable content in all cases Social function: stressing transparency (to access), diversity (in content and community members) and openness (to structure) Emergence function: requiring the provision of approaches that detect and leverage the collective wisdom of the community Enterprise search differs from a typical web search in its focus on "use within an organization by employees seeking information held internally, in a variety of formats and locations, including databases, document management systems, and other repositories". === Criticism === There has been recent criticism that the adaptation of the social paradigm (e.g. openness and altruistic behavior) does not always work well for the enterprise setting, which led some authors to question the proper functioning of enterprise social software. The findings from a novel study suggests that free and non-anonymous sharing of trusted information (beyond marketing or product information) is significantly influenced by concerns from business users.
Read more →
Are We Dating The Same Guy?

Are We Dating The Same Guy?, also abbreviated AWDTSG is a series of over 200 individual Facebook groups where women share dating profiles of men they matched with on dating networks to seek the opinion of other women who may have dated the same man in the past. The first group was created by Paola Sanchez and aimed at women living in the New York City environs. The groups have over 3.5 million members as of January 2024. The group's function is to post screenshots of a man's dating profile to that city's designated Facebook group, after which the poster asks "any tea?". Other users in the group will then share information about the man and share warnings. The groups are moderated by volunteers, and have been described as a feminist group. The groups have rules saying that personal information such as addresses must not be included in the Facebook posts. Users attempting to join the group are also examined to prevent fake profiles. The group is mainly for straight women. According to Vice, the men being posted about have no way to defend against accusations made about them, and on the other hand, posters cannot prove their stories unless backed up by others. Often times, members post pictures alongside personal information such as names, which may infringe on subjects' legal right to privacy. Lawyers have said these issues can lead to defamation lawsuits, and members can make false allegations and create fabricated stories. If members tell a man that he's been talked about on the group, the "snitch" will be banned and be "exposed to the whole group". == History == The first Are We Dating The Same Guy group was created by Paola Sanchez. The first group was created in March 2022 in New York City. A male counterpart, named "Are We Dating the Same Girl NYC" was created for New York, with mostly the same guidelines and rules to the original. When the original Are We Dating The Same Guy group found it, they denounced the new group. == Operations == Administrators are told not to respond to men asking to have posts about them removed, and to not remove said posts. The people being posted about have reported being questioned by their employers about things they have not done. Members of the groups sometimes criticise the physical appearance of the men being posted about. According to the Evening Standard, the groups "frequent[ly] mock" the appearance or dating profiles of the men who are posted about, despite being against the rules. For this behaviour, women are sometimes kicked out, or the group is disciplined en masse by admins. The groups have rules against hate towards men, but the rules can be difficult to enforce in large groups, with some having over 100,000 members. Some men have also been able to join the groups without being noticed. == Reception == In October 2023, Sera Bozza of Body+Soul wrote that consistently using Are We Dating The Same Guy can "affect your real-world view". She wrote that "A few stories of cheating may persuade you to believe that all men are unfaithful". Some lawyers and commentators have expressed concern that the groups fail to acknowledge the legal right to privacy and users can create false allegations and fabricated stories, and cyberbully men without them being able to defend themselves. This may lead to civil lawsuits against the author for defamation, harassment, and other related privacy torts. Netsafe, an online safety organisation in New Zealand, advises users of a similar group to familiarise themselves with the Harmful Digital Communications Act to ensure that posts do not lead to "harmful consequences". The Independent reported that men who have been posted on the dating groups have felt violated, and that even if reviewed positively by potentially thousands of strangers, the men being discussed about may have their reputation slightly decreased due to the association with being on the groups. The Independent also reported that some men believe that the groups are created to spread lies or mock them. Mashable reported that the growth of AWDTSG in recent years has led to the rise of a small industry of online reputation and content removal services, as increasing numbers of men seek assistance. A co-founder of Maximatic Media, one such agency offering these removal services, stated that many of the men contacting the firm do so in a state of panic after learning that allegations about them have circulated among tens of thousands of participants without their knowledge. Mashable similarly reported that the growing visibility of AWDTSG and similar platforms has contributed to what commentators describe as a "public trial" dynamic, where subjective accounts about dating behavior are interpreted as factual assessments and can influence a person's reputation among large audiences within their locale. The Oklahoman reported that anonymous, unverified claims in these groups have led some men to experience social and dating repercussions, although legal analysts argue that the benefits of community-based safety networks still outweigh these concerns in modern, app based dating environments. UTV/ITV News reportedly spoke to a man who was posted who alleged he attempted suicide, was clinically dead for three minutes, and spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital as a result of the posts made about him. Many other men have talked about malicious false claims made about them. Self-described men’s rights activists have taken a dislike to these groups and have gotten multiple North American groups shut down by running campaigns, threatening lawsuits, and mass Facebook reporting. They also have Reddit communities dedicated to getting rid of such groups. Women who have posted in the groups have felt that they have put their safety at risk, with some having been confronted by the men they posted about. The group has been noted for exposing men who use dating apps while already in a relationship, misrepresent their ages, or repeatedly stand up the women they meet through apps, among other bad dating behaviors. For example, some members of the group had matched on a dating site with a man who had, several years prior, killed a stranger while having a mental break. After this information came to light, members of the group were warned. The group has also been noted to be complimentary of some men. == Lawsuits == In 2023, a 41-year-old man sued the administrators of the London group for $35,000 under defamation, alleging that the group "called names, accused of sending lewd photos and of being a bad parent". In January 2024 a man sued Meta, the owner of Facebook, along with Patreon, GoFundMe, and the AWDTSG website, as well as almost 30 group members due to alleged defamation, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. Claiming that the groups violate anti-doxxing laws and do not fact check, seeking $75,000 in damages. He claims that the group shared fake images of him sending women texts containing harassment, his name and photo. His attorneys claim that if the images were real, they would fall under free speech in the First Amendment. By February, groups had raised $80,000. The Washington Post said that this case caused AWDTSG to "explode into public view". The case was dismissed in 2025 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to renew the case in D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al. The plaintiff and his attorneys, Marc Trent and Aaron Walner of Trent Law Firm, were sanctioned "for frivolously appealing the dismissal of the claims," "misrepresentations of law," in connection with falsified citations included in the plaintiff's brief, and " disputing at oral argument without any evidentiary basis that [the plaintiff] client sent the text message she attributed to him." == By country == === Australia === In Australia, there are groups for multiple cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Rockhampton with many having several thousand members. The Sydney group has 30,000 members. In March 2023, the Adelaide version of the group, which had 7,000 members, was shut down. In 2024, groups titled "Sis, Are We Dating The Same Guy" stopped accepting new posts after an admin was sued for defamation and had to pay over AU$20,000 in legal fees. The case was settled out of court. The administrator announcing these closures cited a 2021 defamation High Court case involving detainee Dylan Voller, which led to the High Court saying that owners of Facebook groups can be held liable for defamatory comments, even if they did not know the comments had been made. === Canada === In 2023, a group was started for Ottawa. The founder previously was in a relationship full of "cheating and lies", which prompted her to creating the Facebook community. In 2023, the group for Vancouver and British Columbia was shut down after concerns about men being unable to protect themselves against fa
Read more →
FaceApp

FaceApp is a photo and video editing application for iOS and Android developed by FaceApp Technology Limited, a company based in Cyprus. The app generates highly realistic transformations of human faces in photographs by using neural networks. The app can transform a face to make it smile, look younger, look older, or change gender. == History == FaceApp was launched on iOS in January 2017 and on Android in February 2017. It was developed by Yaroslav Goncharov, a former executive at Yandex, and created by the Russian company Wireless Lab. == Features == There are multiple options to manipulate the photo uploaded such as editor options of adding an impression, make-up, smiles, hair colors, hairstyles, glasses, age or beards. Filters, lens blur and backgrounds along with overlays, tattoos, and vignettes are also a part of the app. The gender change transformations of FaceApp have attracted particular interest from the LGBT and transgender communities, due to their ability to realistically simulate the appearance of a person as the opposite gender. == Criticism == In 2017, FaceApp faced criticism for a "hot" filter that appeared to lighten users' skin tones, prompting accusations of racial bias. The feature was briefly renamed "spark" before being removed. Founder Yaroslav Goncharov attributed the issue to training data bias and apologized. In August of that year, more criticism arose when it featured "ethnicity filters" depicting "White", "Black", "Asian", and "Indian". The filters were immediately removed from the app. In 2019, FaceApp faced criticism over its handling of user data, including concerns that it stored users' photos on its servers and could use them for commercial purposes. Founder Yaroslav Goncharov stated that images were processed on cloud servers like Google Cloud Platform and Amazon Web Services, not transferred to Russia, and were temporarily stored only to support editing functions before being deleted. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer raised concerns about data privacy and called for an FBI investigation.
Read more →
Color image pipeline

An image pipeline or video pipeline is the set of components commonly used between an image source (such as a camera, a scanner, or the rendering engine in a computer game), and an image renderer (such as a television set, a computer screen, a computer printer or cinema screen), or for performing any intermediate digital image processing consisting of two or more separate processing blocks. An image/video pipeline may be implemented as computer software, in a digital signal processor, on an FPGA, or as fixed-function ASIC. In addition, analog circuits can be used to do many of the same functions. Typical components include image sensor corrections (including debayering or applying a Bayer filter), noise reduction, image scaling, gamma correction, image enhancement, colorspace conversion (between formats such as RGB, YUV or YCbCr), chroma subsampling, framerate conversion, image compression/video compression (such as JPEG), and computer data storage/data transmission. Typical goals of an imaging pipeline may be perceptually pleasing end-results, colorimetric precision, a high degree of flexibility, low cost/low CPU utilization/long battery life, or reduction in bandwidth/file size. Some functions may be algorithmically linear. Mathematically, those elements can be connected in any order without changing the end-result. As digital computers use a finite approximation to numerical computing, this is in practice not true. Other elements may be non-linear or time-variant. For both cases, there is often one or a few sequences of components that makes sense for optimum precision and minimum hardware-cost/CPU-load.
Read more →
Fansly

Fansly is a subscription-based social media platform that allows content creators to monetize exclusive content, including photos, videos, live streams, and direct messages. Operated by Select Media LLC, the platform is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. While the platform hosts a variety of content genres, it is primarily known for adult content and is frequently compared to OnlyFans. == History == Fansly was launched in 2020 by Micheal Etelis under Select Media LLC, which was incorporated in February 2020. The platform also operates through CY Media LTD, registered in Kamares, Cyprus, established in May 2021. The company has remained privately held with no disclosed external funding rounds or official valuation, operating as a bootstrapped entity. Based on Fansly's social media presence, which was created in November 2020, the platform did not begin gaining traction until early 2021 when creators started to become concerned about potential content policy changes at OnlyFans. In August 2021, OnlyFans announced it would ban sexually explicit content effective October 2021, citing pressure from banks involved in its payment processing. Although OnlyFans reversed the decision six days later, the announcement triggered a massive influx of users to Fansly; the platform received nearly 4,000 new creator applications in a single hour, causing its servers to crash from the surge in traffic. By August 21, 2021, Fansly had reached 2.1 million users. == Features and business model == Fansly operates as a B2C marketplace, taking a 20% commission on all transactions conducted on the platform, with creators retaining the remaining 80%. This commission rate is the same as that charged by its main competitor, OnlyFans. A distinguishing feature of Fansly is its tiered subscription model, which allows creators to set multiple subscription levels at different price points, each offering different perks such as exclusive content, chat access, or custom requests. By contrast, OnlyFans historically relied on a single-tier subscription model. Revenue streams on the platform include recurring subscriptions, one-time pay-per-view content purchases, tips, paid messaging, and live-streaming fees. The platform also features an algorithmic "For You" feed that helps users discover new creators, addressing a limitation of competitors that lack internal content promotion mechanisms. Additional features include content watermarking, geolocation blocking to control where content is visible, two-factor authentication, community polls, 24-hour stories, and social media integration with platforms such as Twitter and Twitch. Payouts are processed within one to two business days and support multiple methods, including bank transfers, Skrill, Paxum, and cryptocurrency. In December 2025, Fansly expanded its live-streaming capabilities, introducing ticketed access, private list gating, configurable chat permissions, stream goals, and interactive device integration. == Controversies == === OnlyFans anti-competitive allegations === In August 2022, a series of lawsuits were filed in the United States alleging that OnlyFans had bribed employees of Meta Platforms to place Instagram accounts of creators who also sold content on competitor platforms, including Fansly, onto a terrorist blacklist. The lawsuits alleged that adult performers had traffic driven away from their Instagram accounts after being falsely tagged as terror-related. OnlyFans denied awareness of such activity. The plaintiffs withdrew the bribery claim in July 2023, and the case was dismissed in August 2023. === Privacy class action === In June 2025, Select Media LLC (operating as Fansly) was the subject of a digital privacy class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts District Court. The lawsuit alleged that the platform secretly collected and shared users' sensitive viewing data with Google and other third parties without consent. The case was brought on behalf of an estimated class of over 10,000 users across multiple states.
Read more →
The Holocaust and social media

The representation of the Holocaust on social media has been a subject of scholarly inquiry and media attention. == Selfies at Holocaust memorial sites == Some visitors take selfies at Holocaust memorials, which has been the subject of controversy. In 2018, Rhian Sugden, a British model, received criticism after posting a selfie at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin with the caption "ET phone home". She later removed the caption, but defended taking the photograph. Other celebrities have also been criticised for photographs at the Berlin memorial, including Indian actress Priyanka Chopra and US politician Pete Buttigieg, whose husband posted a photograph of him at the memorial on a personal social media account. The Israeli artist and satirist Shahak Shapira set up the website yolocaust.de in 2017 to expose people who take inappropriate selfies at the Holocaust memorial in Berlin. Shapira went through thousands of selfies posted to social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, and Grindr, choosing the twelve that he found most offensive. When the images were moused over, the website replaces the memorial backdrop with black and white images of Nazi victims. "Yolocaust" is a portmanteau of "Holocaust" and YOLO, an acronym for "you only live once". The website went viral, receiving 1.2 million views in the first 24 hours after its launch. Shapira honored requests to take down all of the photographs, which he had used without permission, and the website remains with only a textual documentation of the project. In an analysis of comments by Internet users on the project, Christoph Bareither estimated that 75% were positive. However, the memorial's architect, Peter Eisenman, criticized the website. In his 2018 book Postcards from Auschwitz, Grinnell professor Daniel P. Reynolds defends the practice of selfie-taking at Holocaust sites. In 2019, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum requested that visitors not take inappropriate selfies, although the museum's staff acknowledged that other visitors take selfies in a thoughtful and respectful manner, which they did not criticize. In an academic paper, Gemma Commane and Rebekah Potton analyze the use of Instagram to share tourist photographs at Holocaust sites and conclude that "Instagram encourages conversation and empathy, keeping the Holocaust visible in youth discourses". According to their analysis, most images are tagged with respectful hashtags such as #tragic, #remembrance, and #sadness. The Auschwitz museum has an official Instagram account, auschwitzmemorial, which it uses to share selected appropriate Instagram posts. However, the image feed for the hashtag "Auschwitz" includes potentially offensive images such as an image of "Nazi Vs. Jews #beerpong". This image, according to the authors, expresses "mockery and contempt" for Holocaust victims. They also document offensive memes using images of Holocaust atrocities and shared on Instagram. Some social media users post in order to criticize what they see as inappropriate behavior at Holocaust sites, with one commenting, "Taking photos posing next to razor wire, selfies with victim's hair in the background, and even group shots in front of the crematoria had to be seen to be believed." == Assessment of tourism == Social media posts have been used by researchers to analyze the phenomenon of Holocaust-related tourism. == Social media groups == People have created groups on Facebook to discuss issues related to the Holocaust. One paper analyses two such groups, "The Holocaust and My Family" and "The Descendants of the Victims and Survivors of the Holocaust" in which people engage in collective trauma processing. == Eva.stories == In 2019, Israeli high-tech entrepreneur Mati Kochavi created a fictitious Instagram account for Eva Heyman, a Hungarian-Jewish girl who was murdered in Auschwitz concentration camp. The project met with mixed reception. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the project, saying that it "exposes the immense tragedy of our people through the story of one girl". == Holocaust denial == The issue of Holocaust denial on social media has also attracted attention. In October 2020, Facebook reversed its policy and banned Holocaust denial from the platform. Founder Mark Zuckerberg had previously argued that such content should not be banned on freedom of speech grounds.
Read more →
Atomtronics

Atomtronics is an emerging field concerning the quantum technology of matter-wave circuits which coherently guide propagating ultra-cold atoms. The systems typically include components analogous to those found in electronics, quantum electronics or optical systems, such as beam splitters, transistors, and atomic counterparts of superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs). Applications range from studies of fundamental physics to the development of practical devices such as quantum superfluids for the computation of large models for artificial general intelligence. == Etymology == Atomtronics is a portmanteau of "atom" and "electronics", in reference to the creation of atomic analogues of electronic components, such as transistors and diodes, and also electronic materials such as semiconductors. The field itself has considerable overlap with atom optics and quantum simulation, and is not strictly limited to the development of electronic-like components. However, this field develops into the research of ultra-cold atoms for the applied research implications of computations in quantum science. == Methodology == Three major elements are required for an atomtronic circuit. The first is a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is needed for its coherent and superfluid properties, although an ultracold Fermi gas may also be used for certain applications. The second is a tailored trapping potential, which can be generated optically, magnetically, or using a combination of both. The final element is a method to induce the movement of atoms within the potential, which can be achieved in several ways, for various research advancements around fields not limited to distributed computing, supercomputing, and quantum computing. For example, a transistor-like atomtronic circuit may be realized by a ring-shaped trap divided into two by two moveable weak barriers, with the two separate parts of the ring acting as the drain and the source and the barriers acting as the gate. As the barriers move, atoms flow from the source to the drain. It is now possible to coherently guide matterwaves over distances of up to 40 cm in ring-shaped atomtronic matterwave guide measurement. == Applications == The field of atomtronics is still very nascent and any schemes realized thus far are proof-of-concept. Applications include: gravimetry rotational sensing via the Sagnac effect quantum computing Obstacles to the development of practical sensing devices are largely due to the technical challenges of creating Bose-Einstein condensates. They require bulky lab-based setups not easily suitable for transportation. However, creating portable experimental setups is an active area of research.
Read more →
Lexical Markup Framework

Language resource management – Lexical markup framework (LMF; ISO 24613), produced by ISO/TC 37, is the ISO standard for natural language processing (NLP) and machine-readable dictionary (MRD) lexicons. The scope is standardization of principles and methods relating to language resources in the contexts of multilingual communication. == Objectives == The goals of LMF are to provide a common model for the creation and use of lexical resources, to manage the exchange of data between and among these resources, and to enable the merging of large number of individual electronic resources to form extensive global electronic resources. Types of individual instantiations of LMF can include monolingual, bilingual or multilingual lexical resources. The same specifications are to be used for both small and large lexicons, for both simple and complex lexicons, for both written and spoken lexical representations. The descriptions range from morphology, syntax, computational semantics to computer-assisted translation. The covered languages are not restricted to European languages but cover all natural languages. The range of targeted NLP applications is not restricted. LMF is able to represent most lexicons, including WordNet, EDR and PAROLE lexicons. == History == In the past, lexicon standardization has been studied and developed by a series of projects like GENELEX, EDR, EAGLES, MULTEXT, PAROLE, SIMPLE and ISLE. Then, the ISO/TC 37 National delegations decided to address standards dedicated to NLP and lexicon representation. The work on LMF started in Summer 2003 by a new work item proposal issued by the US delegation. In Fall 2003, the French delegation issued a technical proposition for a data model dedicated to NLP lexicons. In early 2004, the ISO/TC 37 committee decided to form a common ISO project with Nicoletta Calzolari (CNR-ILC Italy) as convenor and Gil Francopoulo (Tagmatica France) and Monte George (ANSI, United States) as editors. The first step in developing LMF was to design an overall framework based on the general features of existing lexicons and to develop a consistent terminology to describe the components of those lexicons. The next step was the actual design of a comprehensive model that best represented all of the lexicons in detail. A large panel of 60 experts contributed a wide range of requirements for LMF that covered many types of NLP lexicons. The editors of LMF worked closely with the panel of experts to identify the best solutions and reach a consensus on the design of LMF. Special attention was paid to the morphology in order to provide powerful mechanisms for handling problems in several languages that were known as difficult to handle. 13 versions have been written, dispatched (to the National nominated experts), commented and discussed during various ISO technical meetings. After five years of work, including numerous face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges, the editors arrived at a coherent UML model. In conclusion, LMF should be considered a synthesis of the state of the art in NLP lexicon field. == Current stage == The ISO number is 24613. The LMF specification has been published officially as an International Standard on 17 November 2008. == As one of the members of the ISO/TC 37 family of standards == The ISO/TC 37 standards are currently elaborated as high level specifications and deal with word segmentation (ISO 24614), annotations (ISO 24611 a.k.a. MAF, ISO 24612 a.k.a. LAF, ISO 24615 a.k.a. SynAF, and ISO 24617-1 a.k.a. SemAF/Time), feature structures (ISO 24610), multimedia containers (ISO 24616 a.k.a. MLIF), and lexicons (ISO 24613). These standards are based on low level specifications dedicated to constants, namely data categories (revision of ISO 12620), language codes (ISO 639), scripts codes (ISO 15924), country codes (ISO 3166) and Unicode (ISO 10646). The two level organization forms a coherent family of standards with the following common and simple rules: the high level specification provides structural elements that are adorned by the standardized constants; the low level specifications provide standardized constants as metadata. == Key standards == The linguistics constants like /feminine/ or /transitive/ are not defined within LMF but are recorded in the Data Category Registry (DCR) that is maintained as a global resource by ISO/TC 37 in compliance with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003. And these constants are used to adorn the high level structural elements. The LMF specification complies with the modeling principles of Unified Modeling Language (UML) as defined by Object Management Group (OMG). The structure is specified by means of UML class diagrams. The examples are presented by means of UML instance (or object) diagrams. An XML DTD is given in an annex of the LMF document. == Model structure == LMF is composed of the following components: The core package that is the structural skeleton which describes the basic hierarchy of information in a lexical entry. Extensions of the core package which are expressed in a framework that describes the reuse of the core components in conjunction with the additional components required for a specific lexical resource. The extensions are specifically dedicated to morphology, MRD, NLP syntax, NLP semantics, NLP multilingual notations, NLP morphological patterns, multiword expression patterns, and constraint expression patterns. == Example == In the following example, the lexical entry is associated with a lemma clergyman and two inflected forms clergyman and clergymen. The language coding is set for the whole lexical resource. The language value is set for the whole lexicon as shown in the following UML instance diagram. The elements Lexical Resource, Global Information, Lexicon, Lexical Entry, Lemma, and Word Form define the structure of the lexicon. They are specified within the LMF document. On the contrary, languageCoding, language, partOfSpeech, commonNoun, writtenForm, grammaticalNumber, singular, plural are data categories that are taken from the Data Category Registry. These marks adorn the structure. The values ISO 639-3, clergyman, clergymen are plain character strings. The value eng is taken from the list of languages as defined by ISO 639-3. With some additional information like dtdVersion and feat, the same data can be expressed by the following XML fragment: This example is rather simple, while LMF can represent much more complex linguistic descriptions the XML tagging is correspondingly complex. == Selected publications about LMF == The first publication about the LMF specification as it has been ratified by ISO (this paper became (in 2015) the 9th most cited paper within the Language Resources and Evaluation conferences from LREC papers): Language Resources and Evaluation LREC-2006/Genoa: Gil Francopoulo, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Nuria Bel, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) About semantic representation: Gesellschaft für linguistische Datenverarbeitung GLDV-2007/Tübingen: Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework ISO standard for semantic information in NLP lexicons About African languages: Traitement Automatique des langues naturelles, Marseille, 2014: Mouhamadou Khoule, Mouhamad Ndiankho Thiam, El Hadj Mamadou Nguer: Toward the establishment of a LMF-based Wolof language lexicon (Vers la mise en place d'un lexique basé sur LMF pour la langue wolof) [in French] About Asian languages: Lexicography, Journal of ASIALEX, Springer 2014: Lexical Markup Framework: Gil Francopoulo, Chu-Ren Huang: An ISO Standard for Electronic Lexicons and its Implications for Asian Languages DOI 10.1007/s40607-014-0006-z About European languages: COLING 2010: Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs: Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet EACL 2012: Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych: Subcat-LMF: Fleshing out a standardized format for subcategorization frame interoperability EACL 2012: Iryna Gurevych, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Silvana Hartmann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M Meyer, Christian Wirth: UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical-Semantic Resource Based on LMF. About Semitic languages: Journal of Natural Language Engineering, Cambridge University Press (to appear in Spring 2015): Aida Khemakhem, Bilel Gargouri, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Gil Francopoulo: ISO Standard Modeling of a large Arabic Dictionary. Proceedings of the seventh Global Wordnet Conference 2014: Nadia B M Karmani, Hsan Soussou, Adel M Alimi: Building a standardized Wordnet in the ISO LMF for aeb language. Proceedings of the workshop: HLT & NLP within Arabic world, LREC 2008: Noureddine Loukil, Kais Haddar, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou: Towards a syntactic lexicon of Arabic Verbs. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse (in French) 2007: Khemakhem A, Gargouri B, Abdelwahed A, Francopoulo G: Modélisation des paradigmes de fl
Read more →
Zero-overhead looping

In computer architecture, zero-overhead looping is a hardware feature found in some processors that enables loops to execute without the performance cost of traditional loop control instructions. Instead of software managing loop iterations, the processor's hardware handles repetition automatically, saving clock cycles and improving efficiency. This technique is commonly employed in digital signal processors (DSPs) and certain complex instruction set computer (CISC) architectures. == Background == In many instruction sets, a loop must be implemented by using instructions to increment or decrement a counter, check whether the end of the loop has been reached, and if not jump to the beginning of the loop so it can be repeated. Although this typically only represents around 3–16 bytes of space for each loop, even that small amount could be significant depending on the size of the CPU caches. More significant is that those instructions each take time to execute, time which is not spent doing useful work. The overhead of such a loop is apparent compared to a completely unrolled loop, in which the body of the loop is duplicated exactly as many times as it will execute. In that case, no space or execution time is wasted on instructions to repeat the body of the loop. However, the duplication caused by loop unrolling can significantly increase code size, and the larger size can even impact execution time due to cache misses. (For this reason, it's common to only partially unroll loops, such as transforming it into a loop which performs the work of four iterations in one step before repeating. This balances the advantages of unrolling with the overhead of repeating the loop.) Moreover, completely unrolling a loop is only possible for a limited number of loops: those whose number of iterations is known at compile time. For example, the following C code could be compiled and optimized into the following x86 assembly code: == Implementation == Processors with zero-overhead looping have machine instructions and registers to automatically repeat one or more instructions. Depending on the instructions available, these may only be suitable for count-controlled loops ("for loops") in which the number of iterations can be calculated in advance, or only for condition-controlled loops ("while loops") such as operations on null-terminated strings. === Examples === ==== PIC ==== In the PIC instruction set, the REPEAT and DO instructions implement zero-overhead loops. REPEAT only repeats a single instruction, while DO repeats a specified number of following instructions. ==== Blackfin ==== Blackfin offers two zero-overhead loops. The loops can be nested; if both hardware loops are configured with the same "loop end" address, loop 1 will behave as the inner loop and repeat, and loop 0 will behave as the outer loop and repeat only if loop 1 would not repeat. Loops are controlled using the LTx and LBx registers (x either 0 to 1) to set the top and bottom of the loop — that is, the first and last instructions to be executed, which can be the same for a loop with only one instruction — and LCx for the loop count. The loop repeats if LCx is nonzero at the end of the loop, in which case LCx is decremented. The loop registers can be set manually, but this would typically consume 6 bytes to load the registers, and 8–16 bytes to set up the values to be loaded. More common is to use the loop setup instruction (represented in assembly as either LOOP with pseudo-instruction LOOP_BEGIN and LOOP_END, or in a single line as LSETUP), which optionally initializes LCx and sets LTx and LBx to the desired values. This only requires 4–6 bytes, but can only set LTx and LBx within a limited range relative to where the loop setup instruction is located. ==== x86 ==== The x86 assembly language REP prefixes implement zero-overhead loops for a few instructions (namely MOVS/STOS/CMPS/LODS/SCAS). Depending on the prefix and the instruction, the instruction will be repeated a number of times with (E)CX holding the repeat count, or until a match (or non-match) is found with AL/AX/EAX or with DS:[(E)SI]. This can be used to implement some types of searches and operations on null-terminated strings.
Read more →
CloudLibrary

CloudLibrary (stylized as "cloudLibrary") is a cloud-based software system through which libraries lend electronic books; it is also the name of the app that users download to access the e-books. CloudLibrary was created in 2011 by 3M as part of its library systems unit as a competitor to OverDrive, Inc.; in 2015 3M sold the North American part of that unit to Bibliotheca Group GmbH, a company founded in 2011 that was funded by One Equity Partners Capital Advisors, a division of JP Morgan Chase. By 2019, Bibliotecha had tried, unsuccessfully, to negotiate with Amazon to add Kindle-ebook compatibility to cloudLibrary - something that, as of then, Amazon had only made available to Overdrive. In that year, cloudLibrary, along with hoopla offered by Midwest Tape, ODILO, and Baker & Taylor’s Axis 360, were the main competitors to the Overdrive and Libby apps offered by OverDrive, Inc. in the library e-book market. In April 2024, Bibliotheca sold cloudLibrary to the nonprofit cooperative OCLC. By that time, cloudLibrary was used by around 500 libraries in around 20 countries in around 50 languages, and was used to lend audiobooks, digital magazines, newspapers, and comics, and streaming media, along with e-books.
Read more →