AI Content Generation Tools

AI Content Generation Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Visual servoing

  Visual servoing, also known as vision-based robot control and abbreviated VS, is a technique which uses feedback information extracted from a vision sensor (visual feedback) to control the motion of a robot. One of the earliest papers that talks about visual servoing was from the SRI International Labs in 1979. == Visual servoing taxonomy == There are two fundamental configurations of the robot end-effector (hand) and the camera: Eye-in-hand, or end-point open-loop control, where the camera is attached to the moving hand and observing the relative position of the target. Eye-to-hand, or end-point closed-loop control, where the camera is fixed in the world and observing the target and the motion of the hand. Visual Servoing control techniques are broadly classified into the following types: Image-based (IBVS) Position/pose-based (PBVS) Hybrid approach IBVS was proposed by Weiss and Sanderson. The control law is based on the error between current and desired features on the image plane, and does not involve any estimate of the pose of the target. The features may be the coordinates of visual features, lines or moments of regions. IBVS has difficulties with motions very large rotations, which has come to be called camera retreat. PBVS is a model-based technique (with a single camera). This is because the pose of the object of interest is estimated with respect to the camera and then a command is issued to the robot controller, which in turn controls the robot. In this case the image features are extracted as well, but are additionally used to estimate 3D information (pose of the object in Cartesian space), hence it is servoing in 3D. Hybrid approaches use some combination of the 2D and 3D servoing. There have been a few different approaches to hybrid servoing 2-1/2-D Servoing Motion partition-based Partitioned DOF Based == Survey == The following description of the prior work is divided into 3 parts Survey of existing visual servoing methods. Various features used and their impacts on visual servoing. Error and stability analysis of visual servoing schemes. === Survey of existing visual servoing methods === Visual servo systems, also called servoing, have been around since the early 1980s , although the term visual servo itself was only coined in 1987. Visual Servoing is, in essence, a method for robot control where the sensor used is a camera (visual sensor). Servoing consists primarily of two techniques, one involves using information from the image to directly control the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the robot, thus referred to as Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS). While the other involves the geometric interpretation of the information extracted from the camera, such as estimating the pose of the target and parameters of the camera (assuming some basic model of the target is known). Other servoing classifications exist based on the variations in each component of a servoing system , e.g. the location of the camera, the two kinds are eye-in-hand and hand–eye configurations. Based on the control loop, the two kinds are end-point-open-loop and end-point-closed-loop. Based on whether the control is applied to the joints (or DOF) directly or as a position command to a robot controller the two types are direct servoing and dynamic look-and-move. Being one of the earliest works the authors proposed a hierarchical visual servo scheme applied to image-based servoing. The technique relies on the assumption that a good set of features can be extracted from the object of interest (e.g. edges, corners and centroids) and used as a partial model along with global models of the scene and robot. The control strategy is applied to a simulation of a two and three DOF robot arm. Feddema et al. introduced the idea of generating task trajectory with respect to the feature velocity. This is to ensure that the sensors are not rendered ineffective (stopping the feedback) for any the robot motions. The authors assume that the objects are known a priori (e.g. CAD model) and all the features can be extracted from the object. The work by Espiau et al. discusses some of the basic questions in visual servoing. The discussions concentrate on modeling of the interaction matrix, camera, visual features (points, lines, etc..). In an adaptive servoing system was proposed with a look-and-move servoing architecture. The method used optical flow along with SSD to provide a confidence metric and a stochastic controller with Kalman filtering for the control scheme. The system assumes (in the examples) that the plane of the camera and the plane of the features are parallel., discusses an approach of velocity control using the Jacobian relationship s˙ = Jv˙ . In addition the author uses Kalman filtering, assuming that the extracted position of the target have inherent errors (sensor errors). A model of the target velocity is developed and used as a feed-forward input in the control loop. Also, mentions the importance of looking into kinematic discrepancy, dynamic effects, repeatability, settling time oscillations and lag in response. Corke poses a set of very critical questions on visual servoing and tries to elaborate on their implications. The paper primarily focuses the dynamics of visual servoing. The author tries to address problems like lag and stability, while also talking about feed-forward paths in the control loop. The paper also, tries to seek justification for trajectory generation, methodology of axis control and development of performance metrics. Chaumette in provides good insight into the two major problems with IBVS. One, servoing to a local minima and second, reaching a Jacobian singularity. The author show that image points alone do not make good features due to the occurrence of singularities. The paper continues, by discussing the possible additional checks to prevent singularities namely, condition numbers of J_s and Jˆ+_s, to check the null space of ˆ J_s and J^T_s . One main point that the author highlights is the relation between local minima and unrealizable image feature motions. Over the years many hybrid techniques have been developed. These involve computing partial/complete pose from Epipolar Geometry using multiple views or multiple cameras. The values are obtained by direct estimation or through a learning or a statistical scheme. While others have used a switching approach that changes between image-based and position-based on a Lyapnov function. The early hybrid techniques that used a combination of image-based and pose-based (2D and 3D information) approaches for servoing required either a full or partial model of the object in order to extract the pose information and used a variety of techniques to extract the motion information from the image. used an affine motion model from the image motion in addition to a rough polyhedral CAD model to extract the object pose with respect to the camera to be able to servo onto the object (on the lines of PBVS). 2-1/2-D visual servoing developed by Malis et al. is a well known technique that breaks down the information required for servoing into an organized fashion which decouples rotations and translations. The papers assume that the desired pose is known a priori. The rotational information is obtained from partial pose estimation, a homography, (essentially 3D information) giving an axis of rotation and the angle (by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the homography). The translational information is obtained from the image directly by tracking a set of feature points. The only conditions being that the feature points being tracked never leave the field of view and that a depth estimate be predetermined by some off-line technique. 2-1/2-D servoing has been shown to be more stable than the techniques that preceded it. Another interesting observation with this formulation is that the authors claim that the visual Jacobian will have no singularities during the motions. The hybrid technique developed by Corke and Hutchinson, popularly called portioned approach partitions the visual (or image) Jacobian into motions (both rotations and translations) relating X and Y axes and motions related to the Z axis. outlines the technique, to break out columns of the visual Jacobian that correspond to the Z axis translation and rotation (namely, the third and sixth columns). The partitioned approach is shown to handle the Chaumette Conundrum discussed in. This technique requires a good depth estimate in order to function properly. outlines a hybrid approach where the servoing task is split into two, namely main and secondary. The main task is keep the features of interest within the field of view. While the secondary task is to mark a fixation point and use it as a reference to bring the camera to the desired pose. The technique does need a depth estimate from an off-line procedure. The paper discusses two examples for which depth estimates are obtained from robot odometry and by assuming that all

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized benchmarking

  Randomized benchmarking is an experimental method for measuring the average error rates of quantum computing hardware platforms. The protocol estimates the average error rates by implementing long sequences of randomly sampled quantum gate operations. Randomized benchmarking is the industry-standard protocol used by quantum hardware developers such as IBM and Google to test the performance of the quantum operations. The original theory of randomized benchmarking, proposed by Joseph Emerson and collaborators, considered the implementation of sequences of Haar-random operations, but this had several practical limitations. The now-standard protocol for randomized benchmarking (RB) relies on uniformly random Clifford operations, as proposed in 2006 by Dankert et al. as an application of the theory of unitary t-designs. In current usage randomized benchmarking sometimes refers to the broader family of generalizations of the 2005 protocol involving different random gate sets that can identify various features of the strength and type of errors affecting the elementary quantum gate operations. Randomized benchmarking protocols are an important means of verifying and validating quantum operations and are also routinely used for the optimization of quantum control procedures. == Overview == Randomized benchmarking offers several key advantages over alternative approaches to error characterization. For example, the number of experimental procedures required for full characterization of errors (called tomography) grows exponentially with the number of quantum bits (called qubits). This makes tomographic methods impractical for even small systems of just 3 or 4 qubits. In contrast, randomized benchmarking protocols are the only known approaches to error characterization that scale efficiently as number of qubits in the system increases. Thus RB can be applied in practice to characterize errors in arbitrarily large quantum processors. Additionally, in experimental quantum computing, procedures for state preparation and measurement (SPAM) are also error-prone, and thus quantum process tomography is unable to distinguish errors associated with gate operations from errors associated with SPAM. In contrast, RB protocols are robust to state-preparation and measurement errors Randomized benchmarking protocols estimate key features of the errors that affect a set of quantum operations by examining how the observed fidelity of the final quantum state decreases as the length of the random sequence increases. If the set of operations satisfies certain mathematical properties, such as comprising a sequence of twirls with unitary two-designs, then the measured decay can be shown to be an invariant exponential with a rate fixed uniquely by features of the error model. == History == Randomized benchmarking was proposed in Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators, where it was shown that long sequences of quantum gates sampled uniformly at random from the Haar measure on the group SU(d) would lead to an exponential decay at a rate that was uniquely fixed by the error model. Emerson, Alicki and Zyczkowski also showed, under the assumption of gate-independent errors, that the measured decay rate is directly related to an important figure of merit, the average gate fidelity and independent of the choice of initial state and any errors in the initial state, as well as the specific random sequences of quantum gates. This protocol applied for arbitrary dimension d and an arbitrary number n of qubits, where d=2n. The SU(d) RB protocol had two important limitations that were overcome in a modified protocol proposed by Dankert et al., who proposed sampling the gate operations uniformly at random from any unitary two-design, such as the Clifford group. They proved that this would produce the same exponential decay rate as the random SU(d) version of the protocol proposed in Emerson et al.. This follows from the observation that a random sequence of gates is equivalent to an independent sequence of twirls under that group, as conjectured in and later proven in. This Clifford-group approach to Randomized Benchmarking is the now standard method for assessing error rates in quantum computers. A variation of this protocol was proposed by NIST in 2008 for the first experimental implementation of an RB-type for single qubit gates. However, the sampling of random gates in the NIST protocol was later proven not to reproduce any unitary two-design. The NIST RB protocol was later shown to also produce an exponential fidelity decay, albeit with a rate that depends on non-invariant features of the error model In recent years a rigorous theoretical framework has been developed for Clifford-group RB protocols to show that they work reliably under very broad experimental conditions. In 2011 and 2012, Magesan et al. proved that the exponential decay rate is fully robust to arbitrary state preparation and measurement errors (SPAM). They also proved a connection between the average gate fidelity and diamond norm metric of error that is relevant to the fault-tolerant threshold. They also provided evidence that the observed decay was exponential and related to the average gate fidelity even if the error model varied across the gate operations, so-called gate-dependent errors, which is the experimentally realistic situation. In 2018, Wallman and Dugas et al., showed that, despite concerns raised in, even under very strong gate-dependence errors the standard RB protocols produces an exponential decay at a rate that precisely measures the average gate-fidelity of the experimentally relevant errors. The results of Wallman. in particular proved that the RB error rate is so robust to gate-dependent errors models that it provides an extremely sensitive tool for detecting non-Markovian errors. This follows because under a standard RB experiment only non-Markovian errors (including time-dependent Markovian errors) can produce a statistically significant deviation from an exponential decay The standard RB protocol was first implemented for single qubit gate operations in 2012 at Yale on a superconducting qubit. A variation of this standard protocol that is only defined for single qubit operations was implemented by NIST in 2008 on a trapped ion. The first implementation of the standard RB protocol for two-qubit gates was performed in 2012 at NIST for a system of two trapped ions

  Read more →
• 

  Fediverse

  The Fediverse (commonly shortened to fedi) is a collection of social networking services that can communicate with each other (formally known as federation) using a common protocol. Users of different websites can send and receive status updates, multimedia files and other data across the network. The term Fediverse is a portmanteau of federation and universe. The majority of Fediverse platforms are based on free and open-source software, and create connections between servers using the ActivityPub protocol. Some software still supports older federation protocols as well, such as OStatus, the Diaspora protocol and Zot, while newer protocols such as AT Protocol connect via network bridges. Diaspora is the only actively developed software project classified under the original definition of Fediverse that does not support ActivityPub. == Design == While a traditional social networking service will host all its content on servers managed by the owner of the website, the decentralized structure of the Fediverse allows any individual or organization to host a social platform using their own servers (referred to as an "instance"). Every instance is independent, and can set its own rules and expectations. Even so, much like how users of one email service such as Gmail can still send emails to users of another service such as Outlook, users may still view content and interact with users on any other instance in the Fediverse. A user on one Mastodon instance, for example, may view and interact with posts made by a user on a different instance even if it is not running Mastodon. Instances hosted by different social networking services may also communicate with one another. A user on the microblogging platform Misskey, for example, may view and interact with posts made by users on Mastodon. Some Fediverse networks even allow users to interact with different social networking formats from the same platform. For example, a user on a social news instance running Lemmy can interact with another post from an mbin instance, a similar service, as well as microblog statuses from Mastodon. === Content moderation and user safety === Decentralized social networking platforms introduce new challenges and difficulties for user trust and safety. By nature of the Fediverse, operators of an instance are solely responsible for moderation of its content. As there is no form of centralized governance or moderation across the Fediverse, it is impossible for an instance to be "removed" from the Fediverse; it can only be defederated per an instance operator's choice, which makes that instance's content inaccessible from the operator's instance. Individual instances are responsible for defining their own content policies, which may then be enforced by its staff. Moderation of a Fediverse instance differs significantly from that of traditional social media platforms, as moderators are responsible not only for content posted by users of that instance ("local users"), but also for content posted by users of other instances ("remote users"). == History == === Historical protocols === The concept and the functionality of the Fediverse existed before the ActivityPub protocol and the term itself. One of the first projects that included support for a decentralized social networking service was Laconica, a microblogging platform which implemented the OpenMicroBlogging protocol for communicating between different installations of the software. The software was later renamed to StatusNet in 2009, before being merged into the GNU social project in 2013 along with Free Social, with the two latter servers being a fork of StatusNet. Over time, the limitations of the OpenMicroBlogging protocol became more apparent, being designed as a one-way text messaging system. To replace the ageing protocol, OStatus was devised as an open standard for microblogging, combining various other technologies like Salmon, Atom, WebSub and ActivityStreams into a single protocol used for communicating between instances. StatusNet first implemented the OStatus protocol on March 3, 2010, with version 0.9.0, and OStatus quickly became the most popular federated protocol in usage. Around the same time as OStatus was gaining popularity, the Diaspora social network was formed, using its own federated protocol. To illustrate the differences between the two protocols, the terms of the Fediverse and the federation began to enter common usage, mainly after 2017. The term "the Fediverse" was used to describe the network formed by software using the OStatus protocol, such as GNU Social, Mastodon, and Friendica, in contrast to the competing diaspora protocol under "the federation". === ActivityPub === In December 2012, the flagship StatusNet instance at the time, identi.ca, transitioned away to a new software named pump.io, with a new federation protocol to replace OStatus. The new protocol was designed to be useful for general activity streams and not just status updates, and replaced many of OStatus' external dependencies with JSON-LD and a REST API for its messaging and inbox systems, as well as making more use of ActivityStreams. While not as utilized as its OStatus predecessor, it would later become influential in the development of the ActivityPub standard. In January 2018, the W3C presented the ActivityPub protocol as a recommended standard. The standard aimed to improve the interoperability between different software packages running on a wide network of servers and to supersede both the OStatus protocol and Pump.io. By 2019, almost all software that was using OStatus had added support for ActivityPub. While Mastodon began to remove OStatus support, other projects maintained it in their code, such as Friendica (which also maintained diaspora support along with ActivityPub). === AT Protocol === A major protocol often contrasted with ActivityPub is the AT Protocol, which powers the Bluesky social network. While both protocols aim to create decentralized social networks, they employ different technical philosophies regarding user identity. Developers of the AT Protocol, including Bluesky CEO Jay Graber, have stated they chose not to use ActivityPub because it did not natively support easy "account portability", the ability for a user to move their account, data, and social graph to a new provider without relying on the original server to authorize the move. In the ActivityPub model (used by Mastodon), a user's identity is typically tied to a specific server, similar to an email address; if that server goes offline, the identity can be lost. The AT Protocol aims to solve this by separating identity from hosting, allowing users to switch providers without losing their identity. Although the two protocols are technically incompatible by default, third-party "bridges" such as Bridgy Fed have been developed to allow users on ActivityPub networks to follow and interact with users on the AT Protocol network, and vice versa. === Other Fediverse protocols === While the Fediverse has traditionally been the network most commonly referred to and used as an example regarding the subject of decentralized social networks, alternatives to it and the accompanying ActivityPub have been developed and deployed. Smaller competitors such as Nostr and Farcaster have become popular within the cryptocurrency community. These protocols have used ActivityPub as a frame of reference for which to design their own architecture, as these newer protocols use a different federation model based on publishing content to relays for distribution rather than ActivityPub's server-centric model. Despite their differences, software exists that permit the bridging of user content between these protocols, including "double-bridges" that span multiple protocols for the purpose of distributing the same content. == Adoption == Users have been slow to embrace the Fediverse due to poor user experience and excessive complexity. Following the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk in November 2022, certain major social networks, including Threads, Tumblr and Flipboard, expressed interest in supporting the ActivityPub protocol, as a large number of users began to migrate to Mastodon, a server that supports the Fediverse and was also the most popular alternative to Twitter at the time. Flickr also expressed support in supporting ActivityPub. As of November 2022, no information had been released by Flickr after the initial tweets by the CEO, with support for ActivityPub suspected to be on hold or cancelled. In 2024, the local government of the Stary Sącz municipality in Poland launched their own PeerTube instance in order to de facto abolish its presence on YouTube. According to the government, they stopped using YouTube for official communications "in order to adhere to the appropriate regulations". In the same year, VIVERSE, HTC Vive's metaverse platform, implemented support for ActivityPub in their chat feature, allowing users to send direct messages to other

  Read more →
• 

  Remote scripting

  Remote scripting is a technology which allows scripts and programs that are running inside a browser to exchange information with a server. The local scripts can invoke scripts on the remote side and process the returned information. The earliest form of asynchronous remote scripting was developed before XMLHttpRequest existed, and made use of very simple process: a static web page opens a dynamic web page (e.g. at other target frame) that is reloaded with new JavaScript content, generated remotely on the server side. The XMLHttpRequest and similar "client-side script remote procedure call" functions, open the possibility of use and triggering web services from the web page interface. The web development community subsequently developed a range of techniques for remote scripting in order to enable consistent results across different browsers. Early examples include JSRS library from 2000, the introduction of the Image/Cookie technique in 2000. == JavaScript Remote Scripting == JavaScript Remote Scripting (JSRS) is a web development technique for creating interactive web applications using a combination of: HTML (or XHTML) The Document Object Model manipulated through JavaScript to dynamically display and interact with the information presented A transport layer. Different technologies may be used, though using a script tag or an iframe is used the most because it has better browser support than XMLHttpRequest A data format. XML with WDDX can be used as well as JSON or any other text format. Schematic A similar approach is Ajax, though it depends on the XmlHttpRequest in newer web browsers. === Libraries === Brent Ashley's original JSRS library released in 2000 BlueShoes JSRS with added encoding and OO RPC abstractions Simple Tutorials: Javascript Remote Scripting with PHP at the Wayback Machine (archived 2006-04-14) MSDN article

  Read more →
• 

  Point distribution model

  The point distribution model is a model for representing the mean geometry of a shape and some statistical modes of geometric variation inferred from a training set of shapes. == Background == The point distribution model concept has been developed by Cootes, Taylor et al. and became a standard in computer vision for the statistical study of shape and for segmentation of medical images where shape priors really help interpretation of noisy and low-contrasted pixels/voxels. The latter point leads to active shape models (ASM) and active appearance models (AAM). Point distribution models rely on landmark points. A landmark is an annotating point posed by an anatomist onto a given locus for every shape instance across the training set population. For instance, the same landmark will designate the tip of the index finger in a training set of 2D hands outlines. Principal component analysis (PCA), for instance, is a relevant tool for studying correlations of movement between groups of landmarks among the training set population. Typically, it might detect that all the landmarks located along the same finger move exactly together across the training set examples showing different finger spacing for a flat-posed hands collection. == Details == First, a set of training images are manually landmarked with enough corresponding landmarks to sufficiently approximate the geometry of the original shapes. These landmarks are aligned using the generalized procrustes analysis, which minimizes the least squared error between the points. k {\displaystyle k} aligned landmarks in two dimensions are given as X = ( x 1 , y 1 , … , x k , y k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} =(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots ,x_{k},y_{k})} . It's important to note that each landmark i ∈ { 1 , … k } {\displaystyle i\in \lbrace 1,\ldots k\rbrace } should represent the same anatomical location. For example, landmark #3, ( x 3 , y 3 ) {\displaystyle (x_{3},y_{3})} might represent the tip of the ring finger across all training images. Now the shape outlines are reduced to sequences of k {\displaystyle k} landmarks, so that a given training shape is defined as the vector X ∈ R 2 k {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{2k}} . Assuming the scattering is gaussian in this space, PCA is used to compute normalized eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the covariance matrix across all training shapes. The matrix of the top d {\displaystyle d} eigenvectors is given as P ∈ R 2 k × d {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} \in \mathbb {R} ^{2k\times d}} , and each eigenvector describes a principal mode of variation along the set. Finally, a linear combination of the eigenvectors is used to define a new shape X ′ {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} '} , mathematically defined as: X ′ = X ¯ + P b {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} '={\overline {\mathbf {X} }}+\mathbf {P} \mathbf {b} } where X ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathbf {X} }}} is defined as the mean shape across all training images, and b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } is a vector of scaling values for each principal component. Therefore, by modifying the variable b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } an infinite number of shapes can be defined. To ensure that the new shapes are all within the variation seen in the training set, it is common to only allow each element of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } to be within ± {\displaystyle \pm } 3 standard deviations, where the standard deviation of a given principal component is defined as the square root of its corresponding eigenvalue. PDM's can be extended to any arbitrary number of dimensions, but are typically used in 2D image and 3D volume applications (where each landmark point is R 2 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}} or R 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}} ). == Discussion == An eigenvector, interpreted in euclidean space, can be seen as a sequence of k {\displaystyle k} euclidean vectors associated to corresponding landmark and designating a compound move for the whole shape. Global nonlinear variation is usually well handled provided nonlinear variation is kept to a reasonable level. Typically, a twisting nematode worm is used as an example in the teaching of kernel PCA-based methods. Due to the PCA properties: eigenvectors are mutually orthogonal, form a basis of the training set cloud in the shape space, and cross at the 0 in this space, which represents the mean shape. Also, PCA is a traditional way of fitting a closed ellipsoid to a Gaussian cloud of points (whatever their dimension): this suggests the concept of bounded variation. The idea behind PDMs is that eigenvectors can be linearly combined to create an infinity of new shape instances that will 'look like' the one in the training set. The coefficients are bounded alike the values of the corresponding eigenvalues, so as to ensure the generated 2n/3n-dimensional dot will remain into the hyper-ellipsoidal allowed domain—allowable shape domain (ASD).

  Read more →
• 

  Packingham v. North Carolina

  Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience. Police then identified Packingham and charged him with violating North Carolina's law. Packingham moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state's law violated the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Packingham. A state appellate court initially reversed the trial court, holding that the law did violate the First Amendment, but the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, disagreed and reinstated the conviction. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD, among many others—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech. The Court offered that North Carolina could protect children through less restrictive means, such as prohibiting "conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor". == Background == === North Carolina statute === In 2008, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages". The law defined a "commercial social networking Web site" using four criteria. Specifically, the website must: be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site". facilitate "the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges". allow "users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site". provide "users or visitors... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger". The law exempted websites that "Provid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform", as well as websites that have as their primary purpose "the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors". === Facts of the case === In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. A North Carolina court sentenced him to 10–12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than to "remain away from" the minor. In 2010, after a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham, he submitted a post on Facebook under the name "J. R. Gerrard", stating: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" The Durham Police Department identified Packingham as the author of the post after cross-checking the time of the post with recently dismissed traffic tickets, and a grand jury indicted him for violating the North Carolina statute. === Lower court proceedings === Initially, Packingham moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. A North Carolina Superior Court judge denied this motion, and he was convicted of violating the North Carolina social media law. Packingham appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision in 2013. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat to minors. The appeals court also stated that the law had been defined broadly enough to prohibit a registered sex offender from conducting a wide array of Internet activity, such as "conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors". In 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the law was "constitutional in all respects". The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the statute was a "limitation on conduct" and did not impede any free speech. The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and upheld Packingham's conviction. == Supreme Court ruling == Packingham filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in October 2016. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors from being stalked online. === Oral argument === The oral argument took place in February 2017. Packingham’s lawyer, David T. Goldberg, argued that the law banned “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, went too far in restricting which Internet sites could be accessed, and forbade use of the Internet in general. The law targeted speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often, Goldberg noted, and that under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case. He further noted that the law imposes punishment without regard to whether the offender actually did anything wrong. North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer added that “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a 'clear and present danger'." === Opinion of the Court === In June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of Packingham, unanimously voting to reverse the state court's ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the decision, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. Kennedy explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as a precedent, Kennedy also wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'." === Concurring opinion === Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. While Alito agreed that the state statute at issue violated the First Amendment, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case. == Impact == Packingham v. North Carolina was one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases to ana

  Read more →
• 

  FreePBX Distro

  The FreePBX Distro was a freeware unified communications software system that consisted of FreePBX, a graphical user interface (GUI) for configuring, controlling and managing Asterisk PBX software. The FreePBX Distro included packages that offer VoIP, PBX, Fax, IVR, voice-mail and email functions. The FreePBX Distro Linux distribution was based on CentOS, which maintains binary compatibility with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. FreePBX has contributed to the popularity of Asterisk. As a result of CentOS Linux being discontinued and the last version of CentOS 7 going out of support on June 30, 2024, FreePBX 17 has moved over to and is supported on Debian Linux. FreePBX will no longer be providing a pre-configured FreePBX Distro, but will provide a script to install FreePBX on a fresh install of Debian Linux. In-place migration will not be possible, but will be possible by restoring a backup on the new version from the previous version. As FreePBX 16 will be supported until the release of FreePBX 18, FreePBX on this distribution will still work and be supported, however, there will be no further support for the underlying operating system. == Installation == The Official FreePBX Distro is installed from a ISO image available by web download, that includes the system CentOS, Asterisk, FreePBX GUI and assorted dependencies. This can then either be burned to DVD or written to a USB stick for installation == Support for telephony hardware == The FreePBX Distro has built-in support for cards from multiple vendors, including Digium, OpenVox, Alto, Rhino Equipment, Xorcom and Sangoma. The FreePBX Distro supports a large number of phone models via open-source modules. Supported VoIP phone manufacturers include Algo, AND, AudioCodes, Cisco, Cyberdata, Digium, Grandstream, Mitel/Aastra, Nortel/Avaya, Panasonic, Polycom, Sangoma, Snom, Xorcom and Yealink. == Development == FreePBX made its debut in 2004 as the AMP project (Asterisk Management Portal). The FreePBX Distro was released in 2011 as an turnkey solution for building a PBX using Asterisk, CentOS and FreePBX. FreePBX has over 1 million active production PBXs and over 20,000 new systems added each month. The core telephony engine is Asterisk, as configured by the Open Source FreePBX GUI. The last stable release is FreePBX Distro Stable SNG7-PBX16-64bit-2302-1 based on these main components: FreePBX 16 CentOS 7.8 Asterisk 16, 18, 19 (20 supported by upgrade once installed)

  Read more →
• 

  FutureMedia

  FutureMedia is a program that analyzes the state and future of digital, social, and mobile media. It functions as a collaborative initiative at Georgia Tech and the Georgia Tech Research Institute. FutureMedia consults approximately 500 faculty members working in those fields. == History == In 2019, Future Media expanded into the Direct-To-Consumer market by acquiring Australian watchmaker Oak & Jackal. == Programs == === FutureMedia Fest === The organization most recently hosted FutureMedia Fest 2010, a four-day conference (Oct 4–7, 2010) with a keynote addresses from Michael Jones, the chief technology advocate at Google. The event featured panels, workshops, and technology demonstrations. === FutureMedia Outlook === Contemporaneous with FutureMedia Fest 2010, the organization released the FutureMedia Outlook, an analysis of the future of media, concentrating on six major trends in those fields, including information overload, personalization, data integrity, an expectation of multimedia, augmented reality, and collaborative software.

  Read more →
• 

  Multi-armed bandit

  In probability theory and machine learning, the multi-armed bandit problem (sometimes called the K- or N-armed bandit problem) is named from imagining a gambler at a row of slot machines (sometimes known as "one-armed bandits"), who has to decide which machines to play, how many times to play each machine and in which order to play them, and whether to continue with the current machine or try a different machine. More generally, it is a problem in which a decision maker iteratively selects one of multiple fixed choices (i.e., arms or actions) when the properties of each choice are only partially known at the time of allocation, and may become better understood as time passes. A fundamental aspect of bandit problems is that choosing an arm does not affect the properties of the arm or other arms. Instances of the multi-armed bandit problem include the task of iteratively allocating a fixed, limited set of resources between competing (alternative) choices in a way that minimizes the regret. A notable alternative setup for the multi-armed bandit problem includes the "best arm identification (BAI)" problem where the goal is instead to identify the best choice by the end of a finite number of rounds. The multi-armed bandit problem is a classic reinforcement learning problem that exemplifies the exploration–exploitation tradeoff dilemma. In contrast to general reinforcement learning, the selected actions in bandit problems do not affect the reward distribution of the arms. The multi-armed bandit problem also falls into the broad category of stochastic scheduling. In the problem, each machine provides a random reward from a probability distribution specific to that machine, that is not known a priori. The objective of the gambler is to maximize the sum of rewards earned through a sequence of lever pulls. The crucial tradeoff the gambler faces at each trial is between "exploitation" of the machine that has the highest expected payoff and "exploration" to get more information about the expected payoffs of the other machines. The trade-off between exploration and exploitation is also faced in machine learning. In practice, multi-armed bandits have been used to model problems such as managing research projects in a large organization, like a science foundation or a pharmaceutical company. In early versions of the problem, the gambler begins with no initial knowledge about the machines. Herbert Robbins in 1952, realizing the importance of the problem, constructed convergent population selection strategies in "some aspects of the sequential design of experiments". A theorem, the Gittins index, first published by John C. Gittins, gives an optimal policy for maximizing the expected discounted reward. == Empirical motivation == The multi-armed bandit problem models an agent that simultaneously attempts to acquire new knowledge (called "exploration") and optimize their decisions based on existing knowledge (called "exploitation"). The agent attempts to balance these competing tasks in order to maximize their total value over the period of time considered. There are many practical applications of the bandit model, for example: clinical trials investigating the effects of different experimental treatments while minimizing patient losses, adaptive routing efforts for minimizing delays in a network, financial portfolio design In these practical examples, the problem requires balancing reward maximization based on the knowledge already acquired with attempting new actions to further increase knowledge. This is known as the exploitation vs. exploration tradeoff in machine learning. The model has also been used to control dynamic allocation of resources to different projects, answering the question of which project to work on, given uncertainty about the difficulty and payoff of each possibility. Originally considered by Allied scientists in World War II, it proved so intractable that, according to Peter Whittle, the problem was proposed to be dropped over Germany so that German scientists could also waste their time on it. The version of the problem now commonly analyzed was formulated by Herbert Robbins in 1952. == The multi-armed bandit model == The multi-armed bandit (short: bandit or MAB) can be seen as a set of real distributions B = { R 1 , … , R K } {\displaystyle B=\{R_{1},\dots ,R_{K}\}} , each distribution being associated with the rewards delivered by one of the K ∈ N + {\displaystyle K\in \mathbb {N} ^{+}} levers. Let μ 1 , … , μ K {\displaystyle \mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K}} be the mean values associated with these reward distributions. The gambler iteratively plays one lever per round and observes the associated reward. The objective is to maximize the sum of the collected rewards. The horizon H {\displaystyle H} is the number of rounds that remain to be played. The bandit problem is formally equivalent to a one-state Markov decision process. The regret ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after T {\displaystyle T} rounds is defined as the expected difference between the reward sum associated with an optimal strategy and the sum of the collected rewards: ρ = T μ ∗ − ∑ t = 1 T r ^ t {\displaystyle \rho =T\mu ^{}-\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\widehat {r}}_{t}} , where μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is the maximal reward mean, μ ∗ = max k { μ k } {\displaystyle \mu ^{}=\max _{k}\{\mu _{k}\}} , and r ^ t {\displaystyle {\widehat {r}}_{t}} is the reward in round t {\displaystyle t} . A zero-regret strategy is a strategy whose average regret per round ρ / T {\displaystyle \rho /T} tends to zero with probability 1 when the number of played rounds tends to infinity. Intuitively, zero-regret strategies are guaranteed to converge to a (not necessarily unique) optimal strategy if enough rounds are played. == Variations == A common formulation is the Binary multi-armed bandit or Bernoulli multi-armed bandit, which issues a reward of one with probability p {\displaystyle p} , and otherwise a reward of zero. Another formulation of the multi-armed bandit has each arm representing an independent Markov machine. Each time a particular arm is played, the state of that machine advances to a new one, chosen according to the Markov state evolution probabilities. There is a reward depending on the current state of the machine. In a generalization called the "restless bandit problem", the states of non-played arms can also evolve over time. There has also been discussion of systems where the number of choices (about which arm to play) increases over time. Computer science researchers have studied multi-armed bandits under worst-case assumptions, obtaining algorithms to minimize regret in both finite and infinite (asymptotic) time horizons for both stochastic and non-stochastic arm payoffs. === Best arm identification === An important variation of the classical regret minimization problem in multi-armed bandits is best arm identification (BAI), also known as pure exploration. This problem is crucial in various applications, including clinical trials, adaptive routing, recommendation systems, and A/B testing. In BAI, the objective is to identify the arm having the highest expected reward. An algorithm in this setting is characterized by a sampling rule, a decision rule, and a stopping rule, described as follows: Sampling rule: ( a t ) t ≥ 1 {\displaystyle (a_{t})_{t\geq 1}} is a sequence of actions at each time step Stopping rule: τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a (random) stopping time which suggests when to stop collecting samples Decision rule: a ^ τ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau }} is a guess on the best arm based on the data collected up to time τ {\displaystyle \tau } There are two predominant settings in BAI: Fixed budget setting: Given a time horizon T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} minimizing probability of error δ {\displaystyle \delta } . Fixed confidence setting: Given a confidence level δ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta \in (0,1)} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} with the least possible amount of trials and with probability of error P ( a ^ τ ≠ a ⋆ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau }\neq a^{\star })\leq \delta } . For example using a decision rule, we could use m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} where m {\displaystyle m} is the machine no.1 (you can use a different variable respectively) and 1 {\displaystyle 1} is the amount for each time an attempt is made at pulling the lever, where ∫ ∑ m 1 , m 2 , ( . . . ) = M {\displaystyle \int \sum m_{1},m_{2},(...)=M} , identify M {\displaystyle M} as the sum of each attempts m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} , (...) as needed, and from there you can get a ratio, sum or mean as quantitative probability and sample your formulation for each slots. You can also do ∫ ∑ k ∝ i N − (

  Read more →
• 

  Front-end web development

  Front-end web development is the development of the graphical user interface of a website through the use of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript so users can view and interact with that website. == Tools used for front-end development == There are several tools and platforms, such as WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal, available that can be used to develop the front end of a website. === HyperText Markup Language === HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is the modern standard for displaying and structuring web content across the internet. HTML defines what elements will be displayed on a website, and how they will be arranged. All major web browsers are designed to interpret HTML, and most modern websites serve HTML to the user. Hypertext is text displayed on a computer with references to other text, these references (or links,) are termed "hyperlinks." When an internet user interacts with a hyperlinked item, the website serves the user the linked data. This data can be another HTML web-page, JavaScript, or anything else. The latest major release of HTML is HTML5, originally published on October 28, 2014 as a W3C recommendation. A web page may be developed to include many markup tags. For each pair of markup tag normally starts with a Start tag and ends with a matching end tag. The text in between the Start tag and the End tag is called an HTML Element. [1] === Cascading Style Sheets === Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) control the presentation and style of a website. CSS uses a cascading system to resolve style conflicts by applying style rules based on specificity, inheritance, and importance. Media queries allow for adjustments to the site's layout and appearance depending on factors such as screen size and resolution. CSS can be applied in three ways: external stylesheets linked in an HTML file, internal