AI For Business Microsoft

AI For Business Microsoft — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Dropbox Paper

Dropbox Paper, or simply Paper, is a collaborative document-editing service developed by Dropbox. Originating from the company's acquisition of document collaboration company Hackpad in April 2014, Dropbox Paper was officially announced in October 2015, and launched in January 2017. It offers a web application, as well as mobile apps for Android and iOS. Dropbox Paper was described in the official announcement post as "a flexible workspace that brings people and ideas together. With Paper, teams can create, review, revise, manage, and organize — all in shared documents". Reception of Dropbox Paper has been mixed. Critics praised collaboration functionality, including content available immediately, the ability to mention specific collaborators, assign tasks, write comments, as well as editing attribution, and revision history. It received particular praise for its support for rich media from a variety of sources, with one reviewer noting that the Paper's support for rich media exceeds the capabilities of most of its competitors. However, it was criticized for a lack of formatting options and editing features. While the user interface was liked for being minimal, reviewers cited the lack of a fixed formatting bar and missing features present in competitors' products as making Dropbox Paper seem like a "light" tool. == History == Dropbox acquired document collaboration company Hackpad in April 2014. A year later, Dropbox launched a Dropbox Notes note-taking product in beta testing phase. Dropbox Paper was officially announced on October 15, 2015, followed by an open beta and release of mobile Android and iOS apps in August 2016. Dropbox Paper was officially released on January 30, 2017. == Reception == In a comparison between Dropbox Paper and Evernote, PC World's Michael Ansaldo wrote that "With its emphasis on document creation, you might expect formatting to be front and center in Dropbox Paper. That's not the case." Ansaldo noted the lack of a "fixed formatting toolbar as you'd find in Evernote or a word processor like Google Docs or Microsoft Word. Instead, the text editor appears as a floating ribbon only when you highlight selected text." The only formatting options available for emphasis were bolding, strikethrough, bulleted and numbered lists, and H1 and H2 tags. Users can also add links, convert text to checklists, and add comments. Ansaldo wrote that "Both Evernote and Dropbox Paper make it easy to add images to a document", but also noted that "Dropbox Paper doesn't support any image editing". Paper supports rich media, and users can "add rich content to your document just by pasting a link to the file. In addition to Dropbox, Paper supports media from a variety of popular services including YouTube, Spotify, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Facebook, and Google's productivity suite. Once the file appears, you can delete the link for a cleaner display." To start working with other people, Paper "allows you to invite people via email from within a document", with sharing options for who can view the link (anyone with the link or just the invited person), and action permissions (edit or only comment). Regarding collaboration, Ansaldo wrote that "Creative collaboration is Paper’s marquee feature, and it provides a variety of ways to work effectively with others in real time". Users can "make any content immediately visible and accessible to a specific collaborator with "@mentions"", and "You can also use @mentions to create and assign task lists within a document." Paper also "boasts essential collaboration tools including comments, editing attribution, and revision history." Writing for TechRadar, John Brandon wrote that Dropbox Paper "might be a 'light' tool for now without the extensive templates of Microsoft Office or the integration with other apps in the Zoho suite, but it does work well with the Dropbox storage service that's so popular with office workers these days." Kyle Wiggers of Digital Trends wrote that Paper is "all about minimizing distractions. Its interface is quite literally a big, blank canvas on which you tap out your agenda. You can organize notes by title and create to-do lists, but even basic formatting tools are obscured from view", noting Paper's "floating box above words and phrases highlighted by your cursor". Wiggers stated that "Paper is not a to-do organizer", but that it's "well suited to the purpose thanks to a bevy of labor-saving conveniences", highlighting that Paper "supports more media than most of its to-do and note-taking counterparts". He praised the collaboration tools, writing that they "are as extensive as you'd hope, and then some", citing its invitation system with permission controls, lists of changes and revision history, comment and chat support, and "perhaps best of all", the ability to assign tasks with a "@" mention. Business Insider's Alex Heath praised that "Paper's interface is spotless and friendly to write in. You don't feel overwhelmed with formatting options", but criticized the available features, writing that "Google Docs is much more full-featured in the formatting department, so Paper has some catching up to do if it wants to be on par with the competition". Writing for The Verge, Casey Newton praised Paper's handling of rich media, complimenting it for being "great", and added that "I imagine that creative types who work on teams will appreciate having rich media embedded in the documents they're working on rather than in a series of infinite tabs".
Read more →
Vx-underground

vx-underground, also known as VXUG, is an educational website about malware and cybersecurity. It claims to have the largest online repository of malware. The site was launched in May, 2019 and has grown to host over 35 million pieces of malware samples. On their account on Twitter, VXUG reports on and verifies cybersecurity breaches. == Reception == Kim Crawley compared the site to VirusTotal and states that vx-underground is more susceptible to suspicion for law enforcement. == Data breach reports == In May 2024, the International Baccalaureate organizations faced allegations over supposed breaches in their IT infrastructure after an incident of examination leaks. Upon inspecting leaked data, VXUG were the first to report that the breach seemed legitimate on the morning of May 6.
Read more →
Human Race Machine

The Human Race Machine (HRM) is a computerized console composed of four different programs. The Human Race Machine program allows participants to see themselves with the facial characteristics of six different races: Asian, White, African, Middle Eastern, and Indian, mapped onto their own face. The Age Machine allows viewers see an aged version of his or her face. A version of this methodology has been used for over twenty years by the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to help locate kidnap victims and missing children. The Couples Machine combines photographs of two people in different percentages to show the appearance of their child. The Anomaly Machine lets viewers see themselves with facial anomalies. The HRM was created by artist Nancy Burson and David Kramlich; it uses morphing technology. It was shown on Oprah on 2006-02-16.
Read more →
Information schema

In relational databases, the information schema (information_schema) is an ANSI-standard set of read-only views that provide information about all of the tables, views, columns, and procedures in a database. It can be used as a source of the information that some databases make available through non-standard commands, such as: the SHOW command of MySQL the DESCRIBE command of Oracle's SQLPlus the \d command in psql (PostgreSQL's default command-line program). => SELECT count(table_name) FROM information_schema.tables; count ------- 99 (1 row) => SELECT column_name, data_type, column_default, is_nullable FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name='alpha'; column_name | data_type | column_default | is_nullable -------------+-----------+----------------+------------- foo | integer | | YES bar | character | | YES (2 rows) => SELECT FROM information_schema.information_schema_catalog_name; catalog_name -------------- johnd (1 row) == Implementation == As a notable exception among major database systems, Oracle does not as of 2015 implement the information schema. An open-source project exists to address this. RDBMSs that support information_schema include: Amazon Redshift Apache Hive Microsoft SQL Server MonetDB Snowflake MySQL PostgreSQL H2 Database HSQLDB InterSystems Caché MariaDB SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) Mimer SQL Snowflake Trino Presto CrateDB ClickHouse CockroachDB Kinetica DB TiDB RDBMSs that do not support information_schema include: Apache Derby Apache Ignite Firebird Microsoft Access IBM Informix Ingres IBM Db2 Oracle Database SAP HANA SQLite Sybase ASE Sybase SQL Anywhere Teradata Vertica
Read more →
Computational heuristic intelligence

Computational heuristic intelligence (CHI) refers to specialized programming techniques in computational intelligence (also called artificial intelligence, or AI). These techniques have the express goal of avoiding complexity issues, also called NP-hard problems, by using human-like techniques. They are best summarized as the use of exemplar-based methods (heuristics), rather than rule-based methods (algorithms). Hence the term is distinct from the more conventional computational algorithmic intelligence, or symbolic AI. An example of a CHI technique is the encoding specificity principle of Tulving and Thompson. In general, CHI principles are problem solving techniques used by people, rather than programmed into machines. It is by drawing attention to this key distinction that the use of this term is justified in a field already replete with confusing neologisms. Note that the legal systems of all modern human societies employ both heuristics (generalisations of cases) from individual trial records as well as legislated statutes (rules) as regulatory guides. Another recent approach to the avoidance of complexity issues is to employ feedback control rather than feedforward modeling as a problem-solving paradigm. This approach has been called computational cybernetics, because (a) the term 'computational' is associated with conventional computer programming techniques which represent a strategic, compiled, or feedforward model of the problem, and (b) the term 'cybernetic' is associated with conventional system operation techniques which represent a tactical, interpreted, or feedback model of the problem. Of course, real programs and real problems both contain both feedforward and feedback components. A real example which illustrates this point is that of human cognition, which clearly involves both perceptual (bottom-up, feedback, sensor-oriented) and conceptual (top-down, feedforward, motor-oriented) information flows and hierarchies. The AI engineer must choose between mathematical and cybernetic problem solution and machine design paradigms. This is not a coding (program language) issue, but relates to understanding the relationship between the declarative and procedural programming paradigms. The vast majority of STEM professionals never get the opportunity to design or implement pure cybernetic solutions. When pushed, most responders will dismiss the importance of any difference by saying that all code can be reduced to a mathematical model anyway. Unfortunately, not only is this belief false, it fails most spectacularly in many AI scenarios. Mathematical models are not time agnostic, but by their very nature are pre-computed, i.e. feedforward. Dyer [2012] and Feldman [2004] have independently investigated the simplest of all somatic governance paradigms, namely control of a simple jointed limb by a single flexor muscle. They found that it is impossible to determine forces from limb positions- therefore, the problem cannot have a pre-computed (feedforward) mathematical solution. Instead, a top-down command bias signal changes the threshold feedback level in the sensorimotor loop, e.g. the loop formed by the afferent and efferent nerves, thus changing the so-called ‘equilibrium point’ of the flexor muscle/ elbow joint system. An overview of the arrangement reveals that global postures and limb position are commanded in feedforward terms, using global displacements (common coding), with the forces needed being computed locally by feedback loops. This method of sensorimotor unit governance, which is based upon what Anatol Feldman calls the ‘equilibrium Point’ theory, is formally equivalent to a servomechanism such as a car's ‘cruise control’.
Read more →
Transparency in the software supply chain

Transparency in the software supply chain is a condition in which participants involved in the development, procurement, operation, auditing, or regulation of software can determine which components, dependencies, build stages, identifiers, and relationships within the supply chain make up the delivered product. The disclosure of information about software components, their interrelationships, origins, and development methods—for the purposes of risk management, vulnerability detection, and compliance—takes place throughout the software lifecycle. Transparency is one of the key security attributes of the software supply chain, as a deeper understanding of the chain enables participants to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate threats. Problems in the software supply chain can cause billions in losses and create operational challenges for government and commercial entities, as demonstrated by incidents involving SolarWinds, Bybit, 3CX, Jaguar Land Rover, GitHub, and NotPetya. Modern software is often assembled from third-party libraries and open-source components. According to research by the Linux Foundation and Synopsys, 96% of the commercial codebases analyzed contained open-source software, and 70–90% of a typical codebase may consist of open-source components. Without transparency, any software component can become a threat. As a result, companies may spend billions of dollars building robust external defenses, but this will not protect against vulnerabilities in legitimate software inside the perimeter. At the same time, supply chain attacks also erode trust between customers and their IT providers, as malicious code is often embedded in official updates with certificates and digital signatures. One of the primary ways to ensure transparency is through a software bill of materials, which documents the components used to create the software and the relationships within the supply chain. == Concept == The software supply chain is the collection of systems, devices, people, artifacts, and processes involved in the creation of the final software product. Attacks on the software supply chain differ from conventional attacks in that they follow a four-stage pattern: compromise, modification, distribution, and subsequent exploitation of the compromised or modified component. A defining feature of a supply chain attack is the introduction or manipulation of a change at an upstream stage, which is subsequently exploited at a downstream stage. Transparency refers to the availability of knowledge about the chain, while validity concerns the integrity of operations and artifacts and the authentication of participants, and separation involves reducing unnecessary trust relationships and the radius of impact through compartmentalization. In this framework, transparency primarily helps during the pre-compromise and detection phases, as a clearer understanding of participants, operations, and artifacts makes it easier to identify weak links before attackers exploit them. Current major attack vectors include dependencies and containers, build infrastructure, and human participants, such as maintainers or developers. == History == Software supply-chain transparency developed from earlier efforts to document software components, long before the term came into widespread use in the cybersecurity field. Early component-documentation formats included SPDX, first published in 2011, and CycloneDX, first published in 2017. Initially, these formats were created to support license compliance, package identification, and tool compatibility. Their development helped shape a broader concept of software supply chain transparency, encompassing component documentation, disclosure practices, risk management, security analysis, and regulatory compliance. In 2018, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration launched a multistakeholder process on promoting software component transparency. This process helped move work on SBOMs from a specialized technical practice into the realm of policy and procurement to identify components used in software products. The 2020 compromise of the SolarWinds Orion platform made software supply chain security a central issue in government cybersecurity policy. An analysis of the “Sunburst” campaign prepared by the Atlantic Council noted that the vulnerability of the software supply chain had become a realized risk for national-security agencies. In May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14028, which directed federal agencies to improve cybersecurity and increase transparency in the software supply chain, including requirements related to SBOMs. Reuters reported that the executive order required software developers selling their products to the federal government to provide greater visibility into their software and make security data available. In July 2021, the NTIA published the document “The Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)”, defining the basic data fields and practices for creating SBOMs. Between 2021 and 2025, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency updated its guidance on “Framing Software Component Transparency”, expanding the set of SBOM attributes, metadata requirements, and operational recommendations for the creation, exchange, and use of SBOMs. Major incidents that occurred following the SolarWinds attack have underscored the importance of transparency in vulnerability management and supply chain security. The Log4Shell vulnerability in the Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, demonstrated how difficult it can be for organizations to identify a vulnerable component deeply embedded within applications and services. In 2024, an attempt to plant a backdoor in XZ Utils showed how attackers could exploit trust in open-source maintenance processes to introduce malicious code into widely used infrastructure software. By the mid-2020s, software supply chain transparency had become part of international cybersecurity coordination and regulation. On September 3, 2025, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the National Cybersecurity Office, in collaboration with cybersecurity agencies from 15 countries, released the document “A Shared Vision of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Cybersecurity.” In the European Union, the Cyber Resilience Act required manufacturers of products with digital elements to create, maintain, and retain SBOMs as part of the technical documentation for software placed on the EU market. == Transparency mechanisms == The primary mechanism for ensuring transparency is the software bill of materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a structured list of components, libraries, and tools used to build and distribute a software product, and it records dependencies in a way that helps organizations understand and assess their software supply chains. It can also be described as a formal record of components and their interdependencies, which gives users insight into their actual exposure to risks and threats. Five key areas of SBOM application in software supply chain security have been identified: vulnerability management, ensuring transparency, component evaluation, risk assessment, and ensuring supply chain integrity. In software supply chains, an SBOM documents all components, both open-source and proprietary. Under Executive Order 14028, U.S. federal agencies require software suppliers to provide SBOMs for government-procured software. The list of minimum required SBOM elements defined by NTIA includes three main categories: required data fields for describing each component (name, version, identifiers), automation support (machine-readable format, generation tools), and recommendations for creating SBOMs during development and purchasing. The post-2021 push for SBOMs was intended to provide visibility into the components used within software and to expose parts of an application that would otherwise remain hidden. This information can be used to prioritize patches, manage vulnerabilities, and support compliance work. Transparency also supports software traceability, which is becoming a standard feature of developer platforms. Traceability has become important because organizations are increasingly required to demonstrate how software was created, rather than simply listing its components. Higher levels of assurance require signed, tamper-proof traceability and more isolated, verifiable build environments. A related mechanism is build reproducibility. Reproducible builds are defined as build processes that make the compilation process deterministic, ensuring that the same source code always produces the same binary file. These builds are considered a foundational element for distributed verification, transparency-log maintenance, supply-chain workflow integration, and the creation of keyless signatures based on verifiable logs. Although reproducibility does not replace inventory or attestation, it gives external par
Read more →
IPUMS

IPUMS, originally the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, is the world's largest individual-level population database. IPUMS consists of microdata samples from United States (IPUMS-USA) and international (IPUMS-International) census records, as well as data from U.S. and international surveys. The records are converted into a consistent format and made available to researchers through a web-based data dissemination and analysis system. IPUMS is housed at the Institute for Social Research and Data Innovation (ISRDI), an interdisciplinary research center at the University of Minnesota, under the direction of Professor Steven Ruggles. == Description == IPUMS includes all persons enumerated in the United States censuses from 1850 to 1950 (though, the 1890 census is missing because it was destroyed in a fire) and from the American Community Survey since 2000 and the Current Population Survey since 1962. IPUMS includes household-level data for United States Censuses from 1790 to 1840, due to the first six censuses only including the name of the head of household, with tallied household totals following. IPUMS provides consistent variable names, coding schemes, and documentation across all the samples, facilitating the analysis of long-term change. IPUMS-International includes countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America for 1960 forward. The database currently includes more than a billion individuals enumerated in 365 censuses from 94 countries around the world. IPUMS-International converts census microdata for multiple countries into a consistent format, allowing for comparisons across countries and time periods. Special efforts are made to simplify use of the data while losing no meaningful information. Comprehensive documentation is provided in a coherent form to facilitate comparative analyses of social and economic change. Additional databases in the IPUMS family include the: North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) IPUMS Health Surveys IPUMS Global Health IPUMS Time Use The Journal of American History described the effort as "One of the great archival projects of the past two decades." Liens Socio, the French portal for the social sciences, gave IPUMS the only “best site” designation that has gone to any non-French website, writing “IPUMS est un projet absolument extraordinaire...époustouflante [mind-blowing]!” The official motto of IPUMS is "use it for good, never for evil." All public IPUMS data and documentation are available online free of charge.
Read more →
Security information management

Security information management (SIM) is an information security industry term for the collection of data such as log files into a central repository for trend analysis. == Overview == SIM products generally are software agents running on the computer systems that are monitored. The recorded log information is then sent to a centralized server that acts as a "security console". The console typically displays reports, charts, and graphs of that information, often in real time. Some software agents can incorporate local filters to reduce and manipulate the data that they send to the server, although typically from a forensic point of view you would collect all audit and accounting logs to ensure you can recreate a security incident. The security console is monitored by an administrator who reviews the consolidated information and takes action in response to any alerts issued. The data that is sent to the server to be correlated and analyzed are normalized by the software agents into a common form, usually XML. Those data are then aggregated in order to reduce their overall size. == Terminology == The terminology can easily be mistaken as a reference to the whole aspect of protecting one's infrastructure from any computer security breach. Due to historic reasons of terminology evolution; SIM refers to just the part of information security which consists of discovery of 'bad behavior' or policy violations by using data collection techniques. The term commonly used to represent an entire security infrastructure that protects an environment is commonly called information security management (InfoSec). Security information management is also referred to as log management and is different from SEM (security event management), but makes up a portion of a SIEM (security information and event management) solution. == Regulatory compliance == Security information management systems support compliance with regulatory frameworks that require centralized collection and analysis of security data. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to implement audit controls that record and examine activity in information systems containing electronic protected health information (45 CFR 164.312(b))."45 CFR § 164.312 - Technical safeguards". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2026. SIM platforms aggregate these audit records to support the required regular review of information system activity records (45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)). The December 2024 HIPAA Security Rule NPRM proposed requiring regulated entities to deploy automated systems capable of monitoring and recording access to ePHI, including the ability to detect unauthorized access attempts in near real-time."HIPAA Security Rule To Strengthen the Cybersecurity of Electronic Protected Health Information". Federal Register. January 6, 2025. Retrieved April 1, 2026. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) similarly requires centralized log management and daily review of security events (Requirements 10.4 and 10.6)."PCI DSS v4.0" (PDF). PCI Security Standards Council. March 2022. Retrieved April 1, 2026. NIST Special Publication 800-53 addresses security information management through the AU (Audit and Accountability) control family, which specifies requirements for audit event generation, content, storage, and analysis."NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: Security and Privacy Controls". National Institute of Standards and Technology. September 2020. Retrieved April 1, 2026.
Read more →

Retrieval-augmented generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a technique that enables large language models (LLMs) to retrieve and incorporate new information from external data sources. With RAG, LLMs first refer to a specified set of documents, then respond to user queries. These documents supplement information from the LLM's pre-existing training data. This allows LLMs to use domain-specific and/or updated information that is not available in the training data. For example, this enables LLM-based chatbots to access internal company data or generate responses based on authoritative sources. RAG improves LLMs by incorporating information retrieval before generating responses. Unlike LLMs that rely on static training data, RAG pulls relevant text from databases, uploaded documents, or web sources. According to Ars Technica, "RAG is a way of improving LLM performance, in essence by blending the LLM process with a web search or other document look-up process to help LLMs stick to the facts." This method helps reduce AI hallucinations, which have caused chatbots to describe policies that don't exist, or recommend nonexistent legal cases to lawyers that are looking for citations to support their arguments. RAG also reduces the need to retrain LLMs with new data, saving on computational and financial costs. Beyond efficiency gains, RAG also allows LLMs to include sources in their responses, so users can verify the cited sources. This provides greater transparency, as users can cross-check retrieved content to ensure accuracy and relevance. The term retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) was introduced in a 2020 paper that described combining a parametric language model with a non-parametric external memory accessed through retrieval at inference time. == RAG and LLM limitations == LLMs can provide incorrect information. For example, when Google first demonstrated its LLM tool "Google Bard" (later re-branded to Gemini), the LLM provided incorrect information about the James Webb Space Telescope. This error contributed to a $100 billion decline in Google's stock value. RAG is used to prevent these errors, but it does not solve all the problems. For example, LLMs can generate misinformation even when pulling from factually correct sources if they misinterpret the context. MIT Technology Review gives the example of an AI-generated response stating, "The United States has had one Muslim president, Barack Hussein Obama." The model retrieved this from an academic book rhetorically titled Barack Hussein Obama: America's First Muslim President? The LLM did not "know" or "understand" the context of the title, generating a false statement. LLMs with RAG are programmed to prioritize new information. This technique has been called "prompt stuffing." Without prompt stuffing, the LLM's input is generated by a user; with prompt stuffing, additional relevant context is added to this input to guide the model's response. This approach provides the LLM with key information early in the prompt, encouraging it to prioritize the supplied data over pre-existing training knowledge. == Process == Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by incorporating an information-retrieval mechanism that allows models to access and utilize additional data beyond their original training set. Ars Technica notes that "when new information becomes available, rather than having to retrain the model, all that's needed is to augment the model's external knowledge base with the updated information" ("augmentation"). IBM states that "in the generative phase, the LLM draws from the augmented prompt and its internal representation of its training data to synthesize" an answer. === RAG key stages === Typically, the data to be referenced is converted into LLM embeddings, numerical representations in the form of a large vector space. RAG can be used on unstructured (usually text), semi-structured, or structured data (for example knowledge graphs). These embeddings are then stored in a vector database to allow for document retrieval. Given a user query, a document retriever is first called to select the most relevant documents that will be used to augment the query. This comparison can be done using a variety of methods, which depend in part on the type of indexing used. The model feeds this relevant retrieved information into the LLM via prompt engineering of the user's original query. Newer implementations (as of 2023) can also incorporate specific augmentation modules with abilities such as expanding queries into multiple domains and using memory and self-improvement to learn from previous retrievals. Finally, the LLM can generate output based on both the query and the retrieved documents. Some models incorporate extra steps to improve output, such as the re-ranking of retrieved information, context selection, and fine-tuning. == Applications == Retrieval-augmented generation is used in applications where generated responses need to be grounded in external or frequently updated information. Commonly cited use cases include search engines, question-answering systems, customer support chatbots, enterprise knowledge assistants, content generation, recommendation systems, retail and e-commerce, and industrial or manufacturing workflows. In healthcare, RAG has been studied as a way to ground large language model outputs in external medical knowledge sources, although reviews have noted continuing challenges around evaluation, ethics, and clinical reliability. == Improvements == Improvements to the basic process above can be applied at different stages in the RAG flow. === Encoder === These methods focus on the encoding of text as either dense or sparse vectors. Sparse vectors, which encode the identity of a word, are typically dictionary-length and contain mostly zeros. Dense vectors, which encode meaning, are more compact and contain fewer zeros. Various enhancements can improve the way similarities are calculated in the vector stores (databases). Performance improves by optimizing how vector similarities are calculated. Dot products enhance similarity scoring, while approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) searches improve retrieval efficiency over K-nearest neighbors (KNN) searches. Accuracy may be improved with Late Interactions, which allow the system to compare words more precisely after retrieval. This helps refine document ranking and improve search relevance. Hybrid vector approaches may be used to combine dense vector representations with sparse one-hot vectors, taking advantage of the computational efficiency of sparse dot products over dense vector operations. Other retrieval techniques focus on improving accuracy by refining how documents are selected. Some retrieval methods combine sparse representations, such as SPLADE, with query expansion strategies to improve search accuracy and recall. === Retriever-centric methods === These methods aim to enhance the quality of document retrieval in vector databases: Pre-training the retriever using the Inverse Cloze Task (ICT), a technique that helps the model learn retrieval patterns by predicting masked text within documents. Supervised retriever optimization aligns retrieval probabilities with the generator model's likelihood distribution. This involves retrieving the top-k vectors for a given prompt, scoring the generated response's perplexity, and minimizing KL divergence between the retriever's selections and the model's likelihoods to refine retrieval. Reranking techniques can refine retriever performance by prioritizing the most relevant retrieved documents during training. === Language model === By redesigning the language model with the retriever in mind, a 25-time smaller network can get comparable perplexity as its much larger counterparts. Because it is trained from scratch, this method (Retro) incurs the high cost of training runs that the original RAG scheme avoided. The hypothesis is that by giving domain knowledge during training, Retro needs less focus on the domain and can devote its smaller weight resources only to language semantics. The redesigned language model is shown here. It has been reported that Retro is not reproducible, so modifications were made to make it so. The more reproducible version is called Retro++ and includes in-context RAG. === Chunking === Chunking involves various strategies for breaking up the data into vectors so the retriever can find details in it. Three types of chunking strategies are: Fixed length with overlap. This is fast and easy. Overlapping consecutive chunks helps to maintain semantic context across chunks. Syntax-based chunks can break the document up into sentences. Libraries such as spaCy or NLTK can also help. File format-based chunking. Certain file types have natural chunks built in, and it's best to respect them. For example, code files are best chunked and vectorized as whole functions or classes. HTML files should leave

or base64 encoded elements

Zé Delivery

Zé Delivery is a startup developed by Brazilian drinks company AmBev which offers an app for delivering drinks. The app is available for Android and iOS. Created in 2016 by AmBev's ZX Ventures hub, the service has an international presence in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Panama and the Dominican Republic. It is also present in more than 300 Brazilian cities. Because it has an extensive category of alcoholic beverages, the service is only used by people over 18. It also offers soft drinks, juices, energy drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages.

Vulnerabilities Equities Process

The Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP) is a process used by the U.S. federal government to determine on a case-by-case basis how it should treat zero-day computer security vulnerabilities: whether to disclose them to the public to help improve general computer security, or to keep them secret for offensive use against the government's adversaries. The VEP was first developed during the period 2008–2009, but only became public in 2016, when the government released a redacted version of the VEP in response to a FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Following public pressure for greater transparency in the wake of the Shadow Brokers affair, the U.S. government made a more public disclosure of the VEP process in November 2017. == Participants == According to the VEP plan published in 2017, the Equities Review Board (ERB) is the primary forum for interagency deliberation and determinations concerning the VEP. The ERB meets monthly, but may also be convened sooner if an immediate need arises. The ERB consists of representatives from the following agencies: Office of Management and Budget Office of the Director of National Intelligence (including the Intelligence Community-Security Coordination Center) United States Department of the Treasury United States Department of State United States Department of Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force) Department of Homeland Security (including the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and the United States Secret Service) United States Department of Energy United States Department of Defense (to include the National Security Agency, including Information Assurance and Signals Intelligence elements), United States Cyber Command, and DoD Cyber Crime Center) United States Department of Commerce Central Intelligence Agency The National Security Agency serves as the executive secretariat for the VEP. == Process == According to the November 2017 version of the VEP, the process is as follows: === Submission and notification === When an agency finds a vulnerability, it will notify the VEP secretariat as soon as is possible. The notification will include a description of the vulnerability and the vulnerable products or systems, together with the agency's recommendation to either disseminate or restrict the vulnerability information. The secretariat will then notify all participants of the submission within one business day, requesting them to respond if they have an relevant interest. === Equity and discussions === An agency expressing an interest must indicate whether it concurs with the original recommendation to disseminate or restrict within five business days. If it does not, it will hold discussions with the submitting agency and the VEP secretariat within seven business days to attempt to reach consensus. If no consensus is reached, the participants will suggest options for the Equities Review Board. === Determination to disseminate or restrict === Decisions whether to disclose or restrict a vulnerability should be made quickly, in full consultation with all concerned agencies, and in the overall best interest of the competing interests of the missions of the U.S. government. As far as possible, determinations should be based on rational, objective methodologies, taking into account factors such as prevalence, reliance, and severity. If the review board members cannot reach consensus, they will vote on a preliminary determination. If an agency with an equity disputes that decision, they may, by providing notice to the VEP secretariat, elect to contest the preliminary determination. If no agency contests a preliminary determination, it will be treated as a final decision. === Handling and follow-on actions === If vulnerability information is released, this will be done as quickly as possible, preferably within seven business days. Disclosure of vulnerabilities will be conducted according to guidelines agreed on by all members. The submitting agency is presumed to be most knowledgeable about the vulnerability and, as such, will be responsible for disseminating vulnerability information to the vendor. The submitting agency may elect to delegate dissemination responsibility to another agency on its behalf. The releasing agency will promptly provide a copy of the disclosed information to the VEP secretariat for record keeping. Additionally, the releasing agency is expected to follow up so the ERB can determine whether the vendor's action meets government requirements. If the vendor chooses not to address a vulnerability, or is not acting with urgency consistent with the risk of the vulnerability, the releasing agency will notify the secretariat, and the government may take other mitigation steps. == Criticism == The VEP process has been criticized for a number of deficiencies, including restriction by non-disclosure agreements, lack of risk ratings, special treatment for the NSA, and less than whole-hearted commitment to disclosure as the default option. == UK equivalent == British intelligence agencies—GCHQ in particular—follow a similar approach, also known as the Equities Process, to determine whether to disclose or retain security vulnerabilities. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was amended in 2022 to bring oversight of the operation of the process within the remit of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Details of the process were made public in 2018.

2018 Google data breach

The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.

Content Disarm and Reconstruction

Content Disarm and Reconstruction (CDR) is a computer security technology for removing potentially malicious code from files. Unlike malware analysis, CDR technology does not determine or detect malware's functionality but removes all file components that are not approved within the system's definitions and policies. It is used to prevent cyber security threats from entering a corporate network perimeter. Channels that CDR can be used to protect include email and website traffic. Advanced solutions can also provide similar protection on computer endpoints, or cloud email and file sharing services. There are three levels of CDR; 1) flattening and converting the original file to a PDF, 2) stripping active content while keeping the original file type, and 3) eliminating all file-borne risk while maintaining file type, integrity and active content. Beyond these three levels, there are also more advanced forms of CDR that is able to perform "soft conversion" and "hard conversion", based on the user's preference in balancing usability and security. == Applications == CDR works by processing all incoming files of an enterprise network, deconstructing them, and removing the elements that do not match the file type's standards or set policies. CDR technology then rebuilds the files into clean versions that can be sent on to end users as intended. Because CDR removes all potentially malicious code, it can be effective against zero-day vulnerabilities that rely on being an unknown threat that other security technologies would need to patch against to maintain protection. CDR can be used to prevent cyber threats from variety of sources: Email Data Diodes Web Browsers Endpoints File Servers FTP Cloud email or webmail programs SMB/CIFS Removable media scanning (CDR Kiosk) CDR can be applied to a variety of file formats including: Images Office documents PDF Audio/video file formats Archives HTML == Open source implementations == DocBleach ExeFilter

Joint constraints

Joint constraints are rotational constraints on the joints of an artificial system. They are used in an inverse kinematics chain, in fields including 3D animation or robotics. Joint constraints can be implemented in a number of ways, but the most common method is to limit rotation about the X, Y and Z axis independently. An elbow, for instance, could be represented by limiting rotation on X and Z axis to 0 degrees, and constraining the Y-axis rotation to 130 degrees. To simulate joint constraints more accurately, dot-products can be used with an independent axis to repulse the child bones orientation from the unreachable axis. Limiting the orientation of the child bone to a border of vectors tangent to the surface of the joint, repulsing the child bone away from the border, can also be useful in the precise restriction of shoulder movement.

Imieliński–Lipski algebra

In database theory, Imieliński–Lipski algebra is an extension of relational algebra onto tables with different types of null values. It is used to operate on relations with incomplete information. Imieliński–Lipski algebras are defined to satisfy precise conditions for semantically meaningful extension of the usual relational operators, such as projection, selection, union, and join, from operators on relations to operators on relations with various kinds of "null values". These conditions require that the system be safe in the sense that no incorrect conclusion is derivable by using a specified subset F of the relational operators; and that it be complete in the sense that all valid conclusions expressible by relational expressions using operators in F are in fact derivable in this system. For example, it is well known that the three-valued logic approach to deal with null values, supported treatment of nulls values by SQL is not complete, see Ullman book. To show this, let T be: Take SQL query Q SQL query Q will return empty set (no results) under 3-valued semantics currently adopted by all variants of SQL. This is the case because in SQL, NULL is never equal to any constant – in this case, neither to “Spring” nor “Fall” nor “Winter” (if there is Winter semester in this school). NULL='Spring' will evaluate to MAYBE and so will NULL='Fall'. The disjunction MAYBE OR MAYBE evaluates to MAYBE (not TRUE). Thus Igor will not be part of the answer (and of course neither will Rohit). But Igor should be returned as the answer. Indeed, regardless what semester Igor took the Networks class (no matter what was the unknown value of NULL), the selection condition will be true. This “Igor” will be missed by SQL and the SQL answer would be incomplete according to completeness requirements specified in Tomasz Imieliński, Witold Lipski, 'Incomplete Information in Relational Databases'. It is also argued there that 3-valued logic (TRUE, FALSE, MAYBE) can never provide guarantee of complete answer for tables with incomplete information. Three algebras which satisfy conditions of safety and completeness are defined as Imielinski–Lipski algebras: the Codd-Tables algebra, the V-tables algebra and the Conditional tables (C-tables) algebra. == Codd-tables algebra == Codd-tables algebra is based on the usual Codd's single NULL values. The table T above is an example of Codd-table. Codd-table algebra supports projection and positive selections only. It is also demonstrated in [IL84 that it is not possible to correctly extend more relational operators over Codd-Tables. For example, such basic operation as join is not extendable over Codd-tables. It is not possible to define selections with Boolean conditions involving negation and preserve completeness. For example, queries like the above query Q cannot be supported. In order to be able to extend more relational operators, more expressive form of null value representation is needed in tables which are called V-table. == V-tables algebra == V-tables algebra is based on many different ("marked") null values or variables allowed to appear in a table. V-tables allow to show that a value may be unknown but the same for different tuples. For example, in the table below Gaurav and Igor order the same (but unknown) beer in two unknown bars (which may, or may not be different – but remain unknown). Gaurav and Jane frequent the same unknown bar (Y1). Thus, instead one NULL value, we use indexed variables, or Skolem constants . V-tables algebra is shown to correctly support projection, positive selection (with no negation occurring in the selection condition), union, and renaming of attributes, which allows for processing arbitrary conjunctive queries. A very desirable property enjoyed by the V-table algebra is that all relational operators on tables are performed in exactly the same way as in the case of the usual relations. === Conditional tables (c-tables) algebra === Example of conditional table (c-table) is shown below. It has additional column “con” which is a Boolean condition involving variables, null values – same as in V-tables. over the following table c-table Conditional tables algebra, mainly of theoretical interest, supports projection, selection, union, join, and renaming. Under closed-world assumption, it can also handle the operator of difference, thus it can support all relational operators. == History == Imieliński–Lipski algebras were introduced by Tomasz Imieliński and Witold Lipski Jr. in Incomplete Information in Relational Databases.