AI For College Students Free

AI For College Students Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Framebuffer

  A framebuffer (frame buffer, or sometimes framestore) is a portion of random-access memory (RAM) containing a bitmap that drives a video display. It is a memory buffer containing data representing all the pixels in a complete video frame. Modern video cards contain framebuffer circuitry in their cores. This circuitry converts an in-memory bitmap into a video signal that can be displayed on a computer monitor. In computing, a screen buffer is a part of computer memory used by a computer application for the representation of the content to be shown on the computer display. The screen buffer may also be called the video buffer, the regeneration buffer, or regen buffer for short. The phrase "screen buffer” refers to a logical function, while video memory refers to a hardware storage location. In particular, the screen buffer may be placed in the main RAM, the video memory, or some other hardware location. To reduce latency and avoid screen tearing, multiple frames can be buffered, and this technique is called multiple buffering. When this is so, at any time, only one frame would be visible, and the others would not be. The currently invisible frames are located in the off-screen buffer. The information in the buffer typically consists of color values for every pixel to be shown on the display. Color values are commonly stored in 1-bit binary (monochrome), 4-bit palettized, 8-bit palettized, 16-bit high color and 24-bit true color formats. An additional alpha channel is sometimes used to retain information about pixel transparency. The total amount of memory required for the framebuffer depends on the resolution of the output signal, and on the color depth or palette size. == History == Computer researchers had long discussed the theoretical advantages of a framebuffer but were unable to produce a machine with sufficient memory at an economically practicable cost. In 1947, the Manchester Baby computer used a Williams tube, later the Williams-Kilburn tube, to store 1024 bits on a cathode-ray tube (CRT) memory and displayed on a second CRT. Other research labs were exploring these techniques with MIT Lincoln Laboratory achieving a 4096 display in 1950. A color-scanned display was implemented in the late 1960s, called the Brookhaven RAster Display (BRAD), which used a drum memory and a television monitor. In 1969, A. Michael Noll of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. implemented a scanned display with a frame buffer, using magnetic-core memory. A year or so later, the Bell Labs system was expanded to display an image with a color depth of three bits on a standard color TV monitor. The vector graphics used in the computer had to be converted for the scanned graphics of a TV display. In the early 1970s, the development of MOS memory (metal–oxide–semiconductor memory) integrated-circuit chips, particularly high-density DRAM (dynamic random-access memory) chips with at least 1 kb memory, made it practical to create, for the first time, a digital memory system with framebuffers capable of holding a standard video image. This led to the development of the SuperPaint system by Richard Shoup at Xerox PARC in 1972. Shoup was able to use the SuperPaint framebuffer to create an early digital video-capture system. By synchronizing the output signal to the input signal, Shoup was able to overwrite each pixel of data as it shifted in. Shoup also experimented with modifying the output signal using color tables. These color tables allowed the SuperPaint system to produce a wide variety of colors outside the range of the limited 8-bit data it contained. This scheme would later become commonplace in computer framebuffers. In 1974, Evans & Sutherland released the first commercial framebuffer, the Picture System, costing about $15,000. It was capable of producing resolutions of up to 512 by 512 pixels in 8-bit grayscale, and became a boon for graphics researchers who did not have the resources to build their own framebuffer. The New York Institute of Technology would later create the first 24-bit color system using three of the Evans & Sutherland framebuffers. Each framebuffer was connected to an RGB color output (one for red, one for green and one for blue), with a Digital Equipment Corporation PDP 11/04 minicomputer controlling the three devices as one. In 1975, the UK company Quantel produced the first commercial full-color broadcast framebuffer, the Quantel DFS 3000. It was first used in TV coverage of the 1976 Montreal Olympics to generate a picture-in-picture inset of the Olympic flaming torch while the rest of the picture featured the runner entering the stadium. The rapid improvement of integrated-circuit technology made it possible for many of the home computers of the late 1970s to contain low-color-depth framebuffers. Today, nearly all computers with graphical capabilities utilize a framebuffer for generating the video signal. Amiga computers, created in the 1980s, featured special design attention to graphics performance and included a unique Hold-And-Modify framebuffer capable of displaying 4096 colors. Framebuffers also became popular in high-end workstations and arcade system boards throughout the 1980s. SGI, Sun Microsystems, HP, DEC and IBM all released framebuffers for their workstation computers in this period. These framebuffers were usually of a much higher quality than could be found in most home computers, and were regularly used in television, printing, computer modeling and 3D graphics. Framebuffers were also used by Sega for its high-end arcade boards, which were also of a higher quality than on home computers. == Display modes == Framebuffers used in personal and home computing often had sets of defined modes under which the framebuffer can operate. These modes reconfigure the hardware to output different resolutions, color depths, memory layouts and refresh rate timings. In the world of Unix machines and operating systems, such conveniences were usually eschewed in favor of directly manipulating the hardware settings. This manipulation was far more flexible in that any resolution, color depth and refresh rate was attainable – limited only by the memory available to the framebuffer. An unfortunate side-effect of this method was that the display device could be driven beyond its capabilities. In some cases, this resulted in hardware damage to the display. More commonly, it simply produced garbled and unusable output. Modern CRT monitors fix this problem through the introduction of protection circuitry. When the display mode is changed, the monitor attempts to obtain a signal lock on the new refresh frequency. If the monitor is unable to obtain a signal lock or if the signal is outside the range of its design limitations, the monitor will ignore the framebuffer signal and possibly present the user with an error message. LCD monitors tend to contain similar protection circuitry, but for different reasons. Since the LCD must digitally sample the display signal (thereby emulating an electron beam), any signal that is out of range cannot be physically displayed on the monitor. == Color palette == Framebuffers have traditionally supported a wide variety of color modes. Due to the expense of memory, most early framebuffers used 1-bit (2 colors per pixel), 2-bit (4 colors), 4-bit (16 colors) or 8-bit (256 colors) color depths. The problem with such small color depths is that a full range of colors cannot be produced. The solution to this problem was indexed color, which adds a lookup table to the framebuffer. Each color stored in framebuffer memory acts as a color index. The lookup table serves as a palette with a limited number of different colors, while the rest is used as an index table. Here is a typical indexed 256-color image and its own palette (shown as a rectangle of swatches): In some designs, it was also possible to write data to the lookup table (or switch between existing palettes) on the fly, allowing dividing the picture into horizontal bars with their own palette and thus rendering an image that had a far wider palette. For example, viewing an outdoor shot photograph, the picture could be divided into four bars: the top one with emphasis on sky tones, the next with foliage tones, the next with skin and clothing tones, and the bottom one with ground colors. This required each palette to have overlapping colors, but, carefully done, allowed great flexibility. == Memory access == While framebuffers are commonly accessed via a memory mapping directly to the CPU memory space, this is not the only method by which they may be accessed. Framebuffers have varied widely in the methods used to access memory. Some of the most common are: Mapping the entire framebuffer to a given memory range. Port commands to set each pixel, range of pixels or palette entry. Mapping a memory range smaller than the framebuffer memory, then bank switching as necessary. The framebuffer organization may be packed pixel or planar. The framebuffer may be all

  Read more →
• 

  Data validation and reconciliation

  Industrial process data validation and reconciliation, or more briefly, process data reconciliation (PDR), is a technology that uses process information and mathematical methods in order to automatically ensure data validation and reconciliation by correcting measurements in industrial processes. The use of PDR allows for extracting accurate and reliable information about the state of industry processes from raw measurement data and produces a single consistent set of data representing the most likely process operation. == Models, data and measurement errors == Industrial processes, for example chemical or thermodynamic processes in chemical plants, refineries, oil or gas production sites, or power plants, are often represented by two fundamental means: Models that express the general structure of the processes, Data that reflects the state of the processes at a given point in time. Models can have different levels of detail, for example one can incorporate simple mass or compound conservation balances, or more advanced thermodynamic models including energy conservation laws. Mathematically the model can be expressed by a nonlinear system of equations F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,} in the variables y = ( y 1 , … , y n ) {\displaystyle y=(y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n})} , which incorporates all the above-mentioned system constraints (for example the mass or heat balances around a unit). A variable could be the temperature or the pressure at a certain place in the plant. === Error types === Data originates typically from measurements taken at different places throughout the industrial site, for example temperature, pressure, volumetric flow rate measurements etc. To understand the basic principles of PDR, it is important to first recognize that plant measurements are never 100% correct, i.e. raw measurement y {\displaystyle y\,} is not a solution of the nonlinear system F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,\!} . When using measurements without correction to generate plant balances, it is common to have incoherencies. Measurement errors can be categorized into two basic types: random errors due to intrinsic sensor accuracy and systematic errors (or gross errors) due to sensor calibration or faulty data transmission. Random errors means that the measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} is a random variable with mean y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} , where y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} is the true value that is typically not known. A systematic error on the other hand is characterized by a measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} which is a random variable with mean y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}\,\!} , which is not equal to the true value y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,} . For ease in deriving and implementing an optimal estimation solution, and based on arguments that errors are the sum of many factors (so that the Central limit theorem has some effect), data reconciliation assumes these errors are normally distributed. Other sources of errors when calculating plant balances include process faults such as leaks, unmodeled heat losses, incorrect physical properties or other physical parameters used in equations, and incorrect structure such as unmodeled bypass lines. Other errors include unmodeled plant dynamics such as holdup changes, and other instabilities in plant operations that violate steady state (algebraic) models. Additional dynamic errors arise when measurements and samples are not taken at the same time, especially lab analyses. The normal practice of using time averages for the data input partly reduces the dynamic problems. However, that does not completely resolve timing inconsistencies for infrequently-sampled data like lab analyses. This use of average values, like a moving average, acts as a low-pass filter, so high frequency noise is mostly eliminated. The result is that, in practice, data reconciliation is mainly making adjustments to correct systematic errors like biases. === Necessity of removing measurement errors === ISA-95 is the international standard for the integration of enterprise and control systems It asserts that: Data reconciliation is a serious issue for enterprise-control integration. The data have to be valid to be useful for the enterprise system. The data must often be determined from physical measurements that have associated error factors. This must usually be converted into exact values for the enterprise system. This conversion may require manual, or intelligent reconciliation of the converted values [...]. Systems must be set up to ensure that accurate data are sent to production and from production. Inadvertent operator or clerical errors may result in too much production, too little production, the wrong production, incorrect inventory, or missing inventory. == History == PDR has become more and more important due to industrial processes that are becoming more and more complex. PDR started in the early 1960s with applications aiming at closing material balances in production processes where raw measurements were available for all variables. At the same time the problem of gross error identification and elimination has been presented. In the late 1960s and 1970s unmeasured variables were taken into account in the data reconciliation process., PDR also became more mature by considering general nonlinear equation systems coming from thermodynamic models., , Quasi steady state dynamics for filtering and simultaneous parameter estimation over time were introduced in 1977 by Stanley and Mah. Dynamic PDR was formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem by Liebman et al. in 1992. == Data reconciliation == Data reconciliation is a technique that targets at correcting measurement errors that are due to measurement noise, i.e. random errors. From a statistical point of view the main assumption is that no systematic errors exist in the set of measurements, since they may bias the reconciliation results and reduce the robustness of the reconciliation. Given n {\displaystyle n} measurements y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} , data reconciliation can mathematically be expressed as an optimization problem of the following form: min x , y ∗ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 subject to F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 y min ≤ y ∗ ≤ y max x min ≤ x ≤ x max , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\min _{x,y^{}}&\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\\{\text{subject to }}&F(x,y^{})=0\\&y_{\min }\leq y^{}\leq y_{\max }\\&x_{\min }\leq x\leq x_{\max },\end{aligned}}\,\!} where y i ∗ {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}\,\!} is the reconciled value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), y i {\displaystyle y_{i}\,\!} is the measured value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), x j {\displaystyle x_{j}\,\!} is the j {\displaystyle j} -th unmeasured variable ( j = 1 , … , m {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,m\,\!} ), and σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}\,\!} is the standard deviation of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(x,y^{})=0\,\!} are the p {\displaystyle p\,\!} process equality constraints and x min , x max , y min , y max {\displaystyle x_{\min },x_{\max },y_{\min },y_{\max }\,\!} are the bounds on the measured and unmeasured variables. The term ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle \left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\,\!} is called the penalty of measurement i. The objective function is the sum of the penalties, which will be denoted in the following by f ( y ∗ ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle f(y^{})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}} . In other words, one wants to minimize the overall correction (measured in the least squares term) that is needed in order to satisfy the system constraints. Additionally, each least squares term is weighted by the standard deviation of the corresponding measurement. The standard deviation is related to the accuracy of the measurement. For example, at a 95% confidence level, the standard deviation is about half the accuracy. === Redundancy === Data reconciliation relies strongly on the concept of redundancy to correct the measurements as little as possible in order to satisfy the process constraints. Here, redundancy is defined differently from redundancy in information theory. Instead, redundancy arises from combining sensor data with the model (algebraic constraints), sometimes more specifically called "spatial redundancy", "analytical redundancy", or "topological redundancy". Redundancy can be due to sensor redundancy, where sensors are duplicated in order to have more than one measurement of the same quantity. Redundancy also arises when a single variable can be estimated in several independent ways from separate sets of measurements at a given time or time averaging period, using the algebraic constraints. Redundancy is linked to the concept

  Read more →
• 

  Social media use in African politics

  Since the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 and the Tunisian Revolution, social media, especially Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, began to gain traction as a political tool in Africa. Various political actors have used social media to pursue a wide range of political objectives. State actors can use social media to encourage political discourse, campaign, or implement censorship and surveillance. Non-state actors, such as civil society organizations and opposition movements, can use social media to address political concerns and to organize widespread uprisings, such as the 2014 Burkinabé uprising. Meanwhile, extremist organizations can use social media to further their propaganda and recruitment. However, social media has been criticized for its limited accessibility and for facilitating the spread of misinformation, causing some skepticism about its effectiveness. Due to low entry barriers and user-generated content, social media provides a platform where people from different social classes can engage and interact with one another. Under traditional media, the public had limited opportunities to voice their political opinions. Social media enables people to both create and consume content. The public has become increasingly comfortable and confident in expressing political opinions online, often away from government scrutiny. Scholars argue that social media use has democratizing effects in African countries. == State actors == === Promoting political discourse === Through social media, the government and its citizens can discuss policy ideas, policy implementation, and political actions. Regardless of geographical location and distance, people are able to voice their opinions to the government. Social media includes citizens who were previously not able to express their discontent or share their ideas to the government. As state actors keep the public informed, social media can increase civic engagement. With more civic engagement, policies can be discussed without politicization. Before the commonplace use of social media, African countries faced weak feedback mechanisms that effectively excluded the average African citizen from policy discourse. In South Africa, the government uses social media to connect with constituencies. The South African president runs an official Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr accounts to engage with the public. === Campaigning === Political parties also use social media for political campaigns during election periods. In South Africa, the ANC (African National Congress) and DA (Democratic Alliance) use social media for political purposes. These parties specifically use Facebook as a tool for campaigning and engaging with the public to improve their relationship with citizens. Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan employed social media to campaign for the presidential election in 2011, which he won. When President Goodluck Jonathan announced his bid for the presidency on social media in 2010, it reached about 217,000 people. As his campaign progressed, President Goodluck Jonathan was able to increase his followers to half a million by early 2011. === Censorship & Surveillance === While state actors can use social media to encourage their party or discourse, social media can be used to censor and surveil citizens. For example, the ANC and DA use Facebook to monitor South Africans. The government is able to track down people who have spoken against the government and translate this information into physical action to stop any possibility of a revolution. Social media platforms can be shut down to manipulate the flow of information. In Chad, citizens cannot access information through online platforms. This censorship blocked "Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Viber". In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the government shut down the internet before contested elections. In Zimbabwe, the government shut down the internet to hide civilian protests against fuel price increases. == Non-state actors == === Civil society organizations (CSOs) === Civil society organizations have also used social media networks in an effort to recruit supporters and communicate with the public. CSOs can use social media to mobilize people to support their cause, such as the Ghanaian Committee for Joint Action (CJA). In 2005 and 2006, the CJA gathered support to protest against the 50% fuel price increase. CSOs can play the role of a counterforce against state actors and state propaganda during times of crises, such as protests and military clashes. In some cases, CSOs release their own videos and photos on social media which challenges traditional forms of media. CSOs have also served to monitor elections to reduce corruption and violence during election day. For instance, the Zambian Bantu Watch started the #bantuwatch social media campaign to monitor the 2011 presidential election. Zambians used Facebook and Twitter to report polling station results to mitigate election fraud and election violence. In South Africa, CSOs created 'amandla.mobi' to campaign for public policies by creating petitions. Through 'amandla.mobi', CSOs are able to circulate petitions on social media to collect signatures. South African CSOs reported how social media helped their organizations to gain support and share ideas. However, CSOs struggle to attract media attention and often have to pay for media coverage. === Opposition forces against the government === Social media is also used by the public or opposition forces against the government. Through horizontal social media, organizing can lead to street protests and revolutions, some of which are successful. For instance, during the Egyptian revolution of 2011, "The Day of the Revolution Against Torture, Poverty, Corruption, and Unemployment" and "We Are All Khaled Said" gathered support against President Hosni Mubarak. In particular, "We Are All Khaled Said" had Egyptian citizens gather around the death of Khaled Said who was brutally tortured and killed by the Egyptian government because Said wanted to uncover government corruption. As unrest erupted into public demonstrations, President Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign. Witnessing the success of social media during the Egyptian revolution, the Tunisian Revolution, or the Jasmine Revolution, mobilized through Facebook and Twitter. Likewise, in South Africa, Malawi, and Mozambique, these countries have used social media as "new protest drums." Due to social media's low entry barrier, opposition forces against the government can facilitate political discourse that can lead to accountability. Whistleblowers and opposition forces are able to expose corruption through social media, where they face less repression while reaching a larger audience. For example, the youth of Zimbabwe and South Africa use Facebook to discuss politics without judgment. Specifically, in Zimbabwe, political youth used Facebook to avoid state surveillance. Social media is used as a supplemental tool for activism. In 2015, South African student activists started the hashtag #RhodesMustFall to push the issue of colonialism and racism at the forefront of the public. === Extremist organizations === Social media is easily accessible and created by user-based content. Therefore, marginalized groups are able to use social media to spread extremist ideas. For instance, Boko Haram created the Media Office of West Africa Province and perpetuated propaganda through Twitter and YouTube. Boko Haram's online propaganda campaign targets and persuades young dissuaded Nigerians to join their cause. It is important to note that social media has also been used against Boko Haram. In April 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls and an international campaign fought for their return through #BringBackOurGirls. Another extremist group, Al-Shabaab, has created an online presence through Twitter and YouTube. Through these social media networks, Al-Shabaab recruits new members to their extremist group through their propaganda which emphasizes the group's successes. Albeit their efforts, Al-Shabaab has not been very successful in coordinating their members but they are successful in financing their group. Furthermore, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) use social media to target and recruit individuals to their cause. ISIL's social media usage is more diverse compared to Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab; ISIL uses "Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, Telegram, JustPaste.it, Kik and Ask.fm." Since ISIL's Twitter accounts kept getting shut down, ISIL uses Telegram and WhatsApp chat rooms to privately conduct meetings. Due to the spread of extremist ideology, Zhuravskaya et al. acknowledge social media's potential to be misused. == Challenges == Although social media can be used as a political tool, it faces challenges in Africa. Due to low literacy rates in Africa, social media networks exclude many of the population members. In addition, lack of access to electricity and the internet can fur

  Read more →
• 

  Visual cryptography

  Visual cryptography is a cryptographic technique which allows visual information (pictures, text, etc.) to be encrypted in such a way that the decrypted information appears as a visual image. One of the best-known techniques has been credited to Moni Naor and Adi Shamir, who developed it in 1994. They demonstrated a visual secret sharing scheme, where a binary image was broken up into n shares so that only someone with all n shares could decrypt the image, while any n − 1 shares revealed no information about the original image. Each share was printed on a separate transparency, and decryption was performed by overlaying the shares. When all n shares were overlaid, the original image would appear. There are several generalizations of the basic scheme including k-out-of-n visual cryptography, and using opaque sheets but illuminating them by multiple sets of identical illumination patterns under the recording of only one single-pixel detector, which exposed the image. Using a similar idea, transparencies can be used to implement a one-time pad encryption, where one transparency is a shared random pad, and another transparency acts as the ciphertext. Normally, there is an expansion of space requirement in visual cryptography. But if one of the two shares is structured recursively, the efficiency of visual cryptography can be increased to 100%. Some antecedents of visual cryptography are in patents from the 1960s. Other antecedents are in the work on perception and secure communication. Visual cryptography can be used to protect biometric templates in which decryption does not require any complex computations. == Example == In this example, the binary image has been split into two component images. Each component image has a pair of pixels for every pixel in the original image. These pixel pairs are shaded black or white according to the following rule: if the original image pixel was black, the pixel pairs in the component images must be complementary; randomly shade one ■□, and the other □■. When these complementary pairs are overlapped, they will appear dark gray. On the other hand, if the original image pixel was white, the pixel pairs in the component images must match: both ■□ or both □■. When these matching pairs are overlapped, they will appear light gray. So, when the two component images are superimposed, the original image appears. However, without the other component, a component image reveals no information about the original image; it is indistinguishable from a random pattern of ■□ / □■ pairs. Moreover, if you have one component image, you can use the shading rules above to produce a counterfeit component image that combines with it to produce any image at all. == (2, n) visual cryptography sharing case == Sharing a secret with an arbitrary number of people, n, such that at least 2 of them are required to decode the secret is one form of the visual secret sharing scheme presented by Moni Naor and Adi Shamir in 1994. In this scheme we have a secret image which is encoded into n shares printed on transparencies. The shares appear random and contain no decipherable information about the underlying secret image, however if any 2 of the shares are stacked on top of one another the secret image becomes decipherable by the human eye. Every pixel from the secret image is encoded into multiple subpixels in each share image using a matrix to determine the color of the pixels. In the (2, n) case, a white pixel in the secret image is encoded using a matrix from the following set, where each row gives the subpixel pattern for one of the components: {all permutations of the columns of} : C 0 = [ 1 0 . . . 0 1 0 . . . 0 . . . 1 0 . . . 0 ] . {\displaystyle \mathbf {C_{0}=} {\begin{bmatrix}1&0&...&0\\1&0&...&0\\...\\1&0&...&0\end{bmatrix}}.} While a black pixel in the secret image is encoded using a matrix from the following set: {all permutations of the columns of} : C 1 = [ 1 0 . . . 0 0 1 . . . 0 . . . 0 0 . . . 1 ] . {\displaystyle \mathbf {C_{1}=} {\begin{bmatrix}1&0&...&0\\0&1&...&0\\...\\0&0&...&1\end{bmatrix}}.} For instance in the (2,2) sharing case (the secret is split into 2 shares and both shares are required to decode the secret) we use complementary matrices to share a black pixel and identical matrices to share a white pixel. Stacking the shares we have all the subpixels associated with the black pixel now black while 50% of the subpixels associated with the white pixel remain white. == Cheating the (2, n) visual secret sharing scheme == Horng et al. proposed a method that allows n − 1 colluding parties to cheat an honest party in visual cryptography. They take advantage of knowing the underlying distribution of the pixels in the shares to create new shares that combine with existing shares to form a new secret message of the cheaters choosing. We know that 2 shares are enough to decode the secret image using the human visual system. But examining two shares also gives some information about the 3rd share. For instance, colluding participants may examine their shares to determine when they both have black pixels and use that information to determine that another participant will also have a black pixel in that location. Knowing where black pixels exist in another party's share allows them to create a new share that will combine with the predicted share to form a new secret message. In this way a set of colluding parties that have enough shares to access the secret code can cheat other honest parties. == Visual steganography == 2×2 subpixels can also encode a binary image in each component image. For example, each white pixel of each component image could be represented by two black subpixels, while each black pixel represented by three black subpixels. When overlaid, each white pixel of the secret image is represented by three black subpixels, while each black pixel is represented by all four subpixels black. Each corresponding pixel in the component images is randomly rotated to avoid orientation leaking information about the secret image. == In popular culture == In "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling", a 1967 episode of TV series The Prisoner, the protagonist uses a visual cryptography overlay of multiple transparencies to reveal a secret message – the location of a scientist friend who had gone into hiding.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic decomposition (natural language processing)

  A semantic decomposition is an algorithm that breaks down the meanings of phrases or concepts into less complex concepts. The result of a semantic decomposition is a representation of meaning. This representation can be used for tasks, such as those related to artificial intelligence or machine learning. Semantic decomposition is common in natural language processing applications. The basic idea of a semantic decomposition is taken from the learning skills of adult humans, where words are explained using other words. It is based on Meaning-text theory. Meaning-text theory is used as a theoretical linguistic framework to describe the meaning of concepts with other concepts. == Background == Given that an AI does not inherently have language, it is unable to think about the meanings behind the words of a language. An artificial notion of meaning needs to be created for a strong AI to emerge. Creating an artificial representation of meaning requires the analysis of what meaning is. Many terms are associated with meaning, including semantics, pragmatics, knowledge and understanding or word sense. Each term describes a particular aspect of meaning, and contributes to a multitude of theories explaining what meaning is. These theories need to be analyzed further to develop an artificial notion of meaning best fit for our current state of knowledge. == Graph representations == Representing meaning as a graph is one of the two ways that both an AI cognition and a linguistic researcher think about meaning (connectionist view). Logicians utilize a formal representation of meaning to build upon the idea of symbolic representation, whereas description logics describe languages and the meaning of symbols. This contention between 'neat' and 'scruffy' techniques has been discussed since the 1970s. Research has so far identified semantic measures and with that word-sense disambiguation (WSD) - the differentiation of meaning of words - as the main problem of language understanding. As an AI-complete environment, WSD is a core problem of natural language understanding. AI approaches that use knowledge-given reasoning creates a notion of meaning combining the state of the art knowledge of natural meaning with the symbolic and connectionist formalization of meaning for AI. The abstract approach is shown in Figure. First, a connectionist knowledge representation is created as a semantic network consisting of concepts and their relations to serve as the basis for the representation of meaning. This graph is built out of different knowledge sources like WordNet, Wiktionary, and BabelNET. The graph is created by lexical decomposition that recursively breaks each concept semantically down into a set of semantic primes. The primes are taken from the theory of Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which has been analyzed for usefulness in formal languages. Upon this graph marker passing is used to create the dynamic part of meaning representing thoughts. The marker passing algorithm, where symbolic information is passed along relations form one concept to another, uses node and edge interpretation to guide its markers. The node and edge interpretation model is the symbolic influence of certain concepts. Future work uses the created representation of meaning to build heuristics and evaluate them through capability matching and agent planning, chatbots or other applications of natural language understanding.

  Read more →
• 

  Social network game

  A social network game (sometimes simply referred to as a social media game, social gaming, or online social game) is a type of online game that is played through social networks or social media. They typically feature gamification systems with multiplayer gameplay mechanics. Social network games were originally implemented as browser games. As mobile gaming took off, the games moved to mobile as well. While they share many aspects of traditional video games, social network games often employ additional ones that make them distinct. Traditionally they are oriented to be social games and casual games. The first cross-platform "Facebook-to-Mobile" social network game was developed in 2011 by a Finnish company Star Arcade. Social network games are amongst the most popular games played in the world, with several products with tens of millions of players. (Lil) Green Patch, Happy Farm, and Mob Wars were some of the first successful games of this genre. FarmVille, Mafia Wars, Kantai Collection, and The Sims Social are more recent examples of popular social network game. Major companies that made or published social network games include Zynga, Wooga and Bigpoint Games. == Demographics == As of 2010, it was reported that 55 percent of the social network gaming demographic in the United States consisted of women while in the United Kingdom, women made up nearly 60 percent of the demographic. In addition, most social gamers were around the 30 to 59 age range, with the average social gamer being 43 years old. Social gaming may appeal more to the older demographic because it is free, easier to advance through in a short period, does not involve as much violence as traditional video games, and is easier to grasp. Other games target certain demographics that use social media, such as Pot Farm creating a community by involving elements of cannabis subculture in its gameplay. == Technology and platforms == A social network video game is a client-server application. The client in the web era was implemented with a mix of web technologies like Flash, HTML5, PHP and JavaScript. When mobile games moved to mobile, social game front ends were developed using mobile platform technologies like Java, Objective-C, Swift and C++. The back end was a mix of programming languages and systems, including PHP, Ruby, C++ and go. Where social network video games diverged from traditional game development was the combination of real-time analytics to continuously optimize game mechanics to drive growth, revenue, and engagement. == Distinct features == The following table outlines common characteristics of social games, mentioned by Björk at the 2010 GCO Games Convention Online: A social network game may employ any of the following features: asynchronous gameplay, which allows rules to be resolved without needing players to play at the same time. gamification, which video game mechanics such as achievements and points are applied to those experienced when playing games in order to motivate and engage users. community, as one of the most distinct features of social video games is in leveraging the player's social network. Quests or game goals may only be possible if a player "shares" with friends connected by the social network hosting the game or gets them to play, as well as "neighbors" or "allies". a lack of victory conditions: there are generally no victory conditions since most developers count on users playing their games often. The game never ends and no one is ever declared winner. Instead, many casual games have "quests" or "missions" for players to complete. This is not true for board game-like social games, such as Scrabble. a virtual currency which players usually must purchase with real-world money. With the in-game currency, players can buy upgrades that would otherwise take much longer to earn through in-game achievements. In many cases, some upgrades are only available with the virtual currency. == Engagement strategies == Since social network games are often less challenging than console games and they have relatively shorter game play, they use different techniques to stretch game play and tools to retain users. Continuous goals: The games assign specific goals for users to achieve. As they advance in the game, the goals become more challenging and time-consuming. They also provide frequent feedback with their performance. Every action will translate towards a certain goal that will be used to attain higher gaming capitals. Gaming capitals: Players are encouraged to earn different badges, trophies, and accolades that indicate their progress and accomplishments. Some achievements are unlocked just by advancing in the game while others may significantly alter the rationale behind the game and require extensive investment from players. The ways of gaining gaming capital are not limited to playing games but the games-related productive activities that are appreciated in the player's social circle too. By accumulating gaming capitals, they provide an intrinsic benefit to gamers as there is an avenue to boost their accomplishment and showcase their expertise of the game. The achievements are visible to their network of friends. Gaming capitals are a way for developers to increase replay value provides extended play time, and players get more value from the game. Motivation for collecting gaming capitals: 1. Legitimization: refers to society's willingness to approve or condone certain behavior. Collecting is about channeling one's materialistic desires into more meaningful pursuits. Game achievements serve a similar purpose, allowing players to justify the hours spent playing the game. 2. Self-extension: Gathering and controlling meaningful objects or experiences can work to gain one an improved sense of self. The collector's goal to complete a collection is symbolically about completing the self too. Events timed to real world: Popular games such as Dragon City and Wild Ones require users to wait a certain time period before their "energy bars" replenish. Without energy, they are unable to conduct any form of action. Gamers are forced to wait and return after their energy replenishes to continue playing. == Monetization == Social network games frequently monetize based on virtual good transactions, but other games are emerging that utilize newer economic models. === Virtual goods === Gamers will be able to purchase in game items like power-ups, avatar accessories, or decorative items users purchase within the game itself. This is realized by monetize products that do not technically exist. Virtual goods account for over 90% of all revenue generated by the world's top social game developers. Designers optimize user experience through additional gameplay, missions, and quests, without having to worry about overhead or unused stock. == Advertising == The following are common ways of advertising in social network games: === Banner advertisements === As banner ads within social networks tend to be where ad response is low, they tend to be priced at bottom-of-the-barrel CPMs of around $2. However, because social games generate so many page views, they are the biggest part of advertising revenue for the social gaming industry. === Video ads === Videos are the ad format with the most revenue per view. They tend to be higher-priced, either by CPMs ($35+ CPM in social games) or cost-per-completed-view. According to studies, video ads result in highest brand recall thus a good return on investment for advertisers. Video ads are shown either in in-game interstitials (e.g. when the game is loading a new screen) or through incentive-based advertising, i.e. you will get either an in-game reward or Facebook credits for watching an advertisement. === Product placement === A brand or product will be injected in a game in some way. Due to the variety of ways in which product placement can be accomplished in any media, and because the category is nascent, this category is not standardized at all, but some examples include branded in-game goods or even in-game quests. For example, in a game where you run a restaurant, you might be asked to collect ingredients to make a Starbucks Frappuccino, and receive in-game rewards for doing so. As these product placement deals are non-standard, they are largely charged with a production fee, which can be $350,000 to $750,000 depending on the type of placement and the popularity of the game. === Lead generation offers === Another form of advertising that is prevalent in many social games are lead generation offers. In this form of advertising, companies, usually from different industries, aim to convince players to sign up for their goods or services and in exchange, players will receive virtual gifts or advance in the game as a reward. === Sponsorship === ==== White label games ==== Applications that are built once, then individualized and licensed again and again. Developer can create a quality app focused on fun while leaving the edge

  Read more →
• 

  Trusted Computing

  Trusted Computing (TC) is a technology developed and promoted by the Trusted Computing Group. The term is taken from the field of trusted systems and has a specialized meaning that is distinct from the field of confidential computing. With Trusted Computing, the computer will consistently behave in expected ways, and those behaviors will be enforced by computer hardware and software. Enforcing this behavior is achieved by loading the hardware with a unique encryption key that is inaccessible to the rest of the system and the owner. TC is controversial as the hardware is not only secured for its owner, but also against its owner, leading opponents of the technology like free software activist Richard Stallman to deride it as "treacherous computing", and certain scholarly articles to use scare quotes when referring to the technology. Trusted Computing proponents such as International Data Corporation, the Enterprise Strategy Group and Endpoint Technologies Associates state that the technology will make computers safer, less prone to viruses and malware, and thus more reliable from an end-user perspective. They also state that Trusted Computing will allow computers and servers to offer improved computer security over that which is currently available. Opponents often state that this technology will be used primarily to enforce digital rights management policies (imposed restrictions to the owner) and not to increase computer security. Chip manufacturers Intel and AMD, hardware manufacturers such as HP and Dell, and operating system providers such as Microsoft include Trusted Computing in their products if enabled. The U.S. Army requires that every new PC it purchases comes with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM). As of July 3, 2007, so does virtually the entire United States Department of Defense. == Key concepts == Trusted Computing encompasses six key technology concepts, of which all are required for a fully Trusted system, that is, a system compliant to the TCG specifications: Endorsement key Secure input and output Memory curtaining / protected execution Sealed storage Remote attestation Trusted Third Party (TTP) === Endorsement key === The endorsement key is a 2048-bit RSA public and private key pair that is created randomly on the chip at manufacture time and cannot be changed. The private key never leaves the chip, while the public key is used for attestation and for encryption of sensitive data sent to the chip, as occurs during the TPM_TakeOwnership command. This key is used to allow the execution of secure transactions: every Trusted Platform Module (TPM) is required to be able to sign a random number (in order to allow the owner to show that he has a genuine trusted computer), using a particular protocol created by the Trusted Computing Group (the direct anonymous attestation protocol) in order to ensure its compliance of the TCG standard and to prove its identity; this makes it impossible for a software TPM emulator with an untrusted endorsement key (for example, a self-generated one) to start a secure transaction with a trusted entity. The TPM should be designed to make the extraction of this key by hardware analysis hard, but tamper resistance is not a strong requirement. === Memory curtaining === Memory curtaining extends common memory protection techniques to provide full isolation of sensitive areas of memory—for example, locations containing cryptographic keys. Even the operating system does not have full access to curtained memory. The exact implementation details are vendor specific. === Sealed storage === Sealed storage protects private information by binding it to platform configuration information including the software and hardware being used. This means the data can be released only to a particular combination of software and hardware. Sealed storage can be used for DRM enforcing. For example, users who keep a song on their computer that has not been licensed to be listened will not be able to play it. Currently, a user can locate the song, listen to it, and send it to someone else, play it in the software of their choice, or back it up (and in some cases, use circumvention software to decrypt it). Alternatively, the user may use software to modify the operating system's DRM routines to have it leak the song data once, say, a temporary license was acquired. Using sealed storage, the song is securely encrypted using a key bound to the trusted platform module so that only the unmodified and untampered music player on his or her computer can play it. In this DRM architecture, this might also prevent people from listening to the song after buying a new computer, or upgrading parts of their current one, except after explicit permission of the vendor of the song. === Remote attestation === Remote attestation allows changes to the user's computer to be detected by authorized parties. For example, software companies can identify unauthorized changes to software, including users modifying their software to circumvent commercial digital rights restrictions. It works by having the hardware generate a certificate stating what software is currently running. The computer can then present this certificate to a remote party to show that unaltered software is currently executing. Numerous remote attestation schemes have been proposed for various computer architectures, including Intel, RISC-V, and ARM. Remote attestation is usually combined with public-key encryption so that the information sent can only be read by the programs that requested the attestation, and not by an eavesdropper. To take the song example again, the user's music player software could send the song to other machines, but only if they could attest that they were running an authorized copy of the music player software. Combined with the other technologies, this provides a more restricted path for the music: encrypted I/O prevents the user from recording it as it is transmitted to the audio subsystem, memory locking prevents it from being dumped to regular disk files as it is being worked on, sealed storage curtails unauthorized access to it when saved to the hard drive, and remote attestation prevents unauthorized software from accessing the song even when it is used on other computers. To preserve the privacy of attestation responders, Direct Anonymous Attestation has been proposed as a solution, which uses a group signature scheme to prevent revealing the identity of individual signers. Proof of space (PoS) have been proposed to be used for malware detection, by determining whether the L1 cache of a processor is empty (e.g., has enough space to evaluate the PoSpace routine without cache misses) or contains a routine that resisted being evicted. === Trusted third party === == Known applications == The Microsoft products Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows RT make use of a Trusted Platform Module to facilitate BitLocker Drive Encryption. Other known applications with runtime encryption and the use of secure enclaves include the Signal messenger and the e-prescription service ("E-Rezept") by the German government. == Possible applications == === Digital rights management === Trusted Computing would allow companies to create a digital rights management (DRM) system which would be very hard to circumvent, though not impossible. An example is downloading a music file. Sealed storage could be used to prevent the user from opening the file with an unauthorized player or computer. Remote attestation could be used to authorize play only by music players that enforce the record company's rules. The music would be played from curtained memory, which would prevent the user from making an unrestricted copy of the file while it is playing, and secure I/O would prevent capturing what is being sent to the sound system. Circumventing such a system would require either manipulation of the computer's hardware, capturing the analogue (and thus degraded) signal using a recording device or a microphone, or breaking the security of the system. New business models for use of software (services) over Internet may be boosted by the technology. By strengthening the DRM system, one could base a business model on renting programs for a specific time periods or "pay as you go" models. For instance, one could download a music file which could only be played a certain number of times before it becomes unusable, or the music file could be used only within a certain time period. === Preventing cheating in online games === Trusted Computing could be used to combat cheating in online games. Some players modify their game copy in order to gain unfair advantages in the game; remote attestation, secure I/O and memory curtaining could be used to determine that all players connected to a server were running an unmodified copy of the software. === Verification of remote computation for grid computing === Trusted Computing could be used to guarantee participants in a grid computing sys

  Read more →
• 

  Hyper-encryption

  Hyper-encryption is a form of encryption invented by Michael O. Rabin which uses a high-bandwidth source of public random bits, together with a secret key that is shared by only the sender and recipient(s) of the message. It uses the assumptions of Ueli Maurer's bounded-storage model as the basis of its secrecy. Although everyone can see the data, decryption by adversaries without the secret key is still not feasible, because of the space limitations of storing enough data to mount an attack against the system. Unlike almost all other cryptosystems except the one-time pad, hyper-encryption can be proved to be information-theoretically secure, provided the storage bound cannot be surpassed. Moreover, if the necessary public information cannot be stored at the time of transmission, the plaintext can be shown to be impossible to recover, regardless of the computational capacity available to an adversary in the future, even if they have access to the secret key at that future time. A highly energy-efficient implementation of a hyper-encryption chip was demonstrated by Krishna Palem et al. using the Probabilistic CMOS or PCMOS technology and was shown to be ~205 times more efficient in terms of Energy-Performance-Product.

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Honey encryption

  Honey encryption is a type of data encryption that "produces a ciphertext, which, when decrypted with an incorrect key as guessed by the attacker, presents a plausible-looking yet incorrect plaintext." == Creators == Ari Juels and Thomas Ristenpart of the University of Wisconsin, the developers of the encryption system, presented a paper on honey encryption at the 2014 Eurocrypt cryptography conference. == Method of protection == A brute-force attack involves repeated decryption with random keys; this is equivalent to picking random plaintexts from the space of all possible plaintexts with a uniform distribution. This is effective because even though the attacker is equally likely to see any given plaintext, most plaintexts are extremely unlikely to be legitimate i.e. the distribution of legitimate plaintexts is non-uniform. Honey encryption defeats such attacks by first transforming the plaintext into a space such that the distribution of legitimate plaintexts is uniform. Thus an attacker guessing keys will see legitimate-looking plaintexts frequently and random-looking plaintexts infrequently. This makes it difficult to determine when the correct key has been guessed. In effect, honey encryption "[serves] up fake data in response to every incorrect guess of the password or encryption key." The security of honey encryption relies on the fact that the probability of an attacker judging a plaintext to be legitimate can be calculated (by the encrypting party) at the time of encryption. This makes honey encryption difficult to apply in certain applications e.g. where the space of plaintexts is very large or the distribution of plaintexts is unknown. It also means that honey encryption can be vulnerable to brute-force attacks if this probability is miscalculated. For example, it is vulnerable to known-plaintext attacks: if the attacker has a crib that a plaintext must match to be legitimate, they will be able to brute-force even Honey Encrypted data if the encryption did not take the crib into account. == Example == An encrypted credit card number is susceptible to brute-force attacks because not every string of digits is equally likely. The number of digits can range from 13 to 19, though 16 is the most common. Additionally, it must have a valid IIN and the last digit must match the checksum. An attacker can also take into account the popularity of various services: an IIN from MasterCard is probably more likely than an IIN from Diners Club Carte Blanche. Honey encryption can protect against these attacks by first mapping credit card numbers to a larger space where they match their likelihood of legitimacy. Numbers with invalid IINs and checksums are not mapped at all (i.e. have probability 0 of legitimacy). Numbers from large brands like MasterCard and Visa map to large regions of this space, while less popular brands map to smaller regions, etc. An attacker brute-forcing such an encryption scheme would only see legitimate-looking credit card numbers when they brute-force, and the numbers would appear with the frequency the attacker would expect from the real world. == Application == Juels and Ristenpart aim to use honey encryption to protect data stored on password manager services. Juels stated that "password managers are a tasty target for criminals," and worries that "if criminals get a hold of a large collection of encrypted password vaults they could probably unlock many of them without too much trouble." Hristo Bojinov, CEO and founder of Anfacto, noted that "Honey Encryption could help reduce their vulnerability. But he notes that not every type of data will be easy to protect this way. … Not all authentication or encryption system yield themselves to being honeyed."

  Read more →
• 

  Yao's test

  In cryptography and the theory of computation, Yao's test is a test defined by Andrew Chi-Chih Yao in 1982, against pseudo-random sequences. A sequence of words passes Yao's test if an attacker with reasonable computational power cannot distinguish it from a sequence generated uniformly at random. == Formal statement == === Boolean circuits === Let P {\displaystyle P} be a polynomial, and S = { S k } k {\displaystyle S=\{S_{k}\}_{k}} be a collection of sets S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} of P ( k ) {\displaystyle P(k)} -bit long sequences, and for each k {\displaystyle k} , let μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} be a probability distribution on S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} , and P C {\displaystyle P_{C}} be a polynomial. A predicting collection C = { C k } {\displaystyle C=\{C_{k}\}} is a collection of boolean circuits of size less than P C ( k ) {\displaystyle P_{C}(k)} . Let p k , S C {\displaystyle p_{k,S}^{C}} be the probability that on input s {\displaystyle s} , a string randomly selected in S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} with probability μ ( s ) {\displaystyle \mu (s)} , C k ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle C_{k}(s)=1} , i.e. Moreover, let p k , U C {\displaystyle p_{k,U}^{C}} be the probability that C k ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle C_{k}(s)=1} on input s {\displaystyle s} a P ( k ) {\displaystyle P(k)} -bit long sequence selected uniformly at random in { 0 , 1 } P ( k ) {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{P(k)}} . We say that S {\displaystyle S} passes Yao's test if for all predicting collection C {\displaystyle C} , for all but finitely many k {\displaystyle k} , for all polynomial Q {\displaystyle Q} : === Probabilistic formulation === As in the case of the next-bit test, the predicting collection used in the above definition can be replaced by a probabilistic Turing machine, working in polynomial time. This also yields a strictly stronger definition of Yao's test (see Adleman's theorem). Indeed, one could decide undecidable properties of the pseudo-random sequence with the non-uniform circuits described above, whereas BPP machines can always be simulated by exponential-time deterministic Turing machines.

  Read more →
• 

  Social influence bias

  The social influence bias is an asymmetric herding effect on online social media platforms which makes users overcompensate for negative ratings but amplify positive ones. Driven by the desire to be accepted within a specific group, it surrounds the idea that people alter certain behaviors to be like those of the people within a group. Therefore, it is a subgroup term for various types of cognitive biases. Some social influence bias types include the bandwagon effect, authority bias, groupthinking effect, social comparison bias, social media bias and more. Understanding these biases helps us understand the term overall. However, the composition of the term "social influence bias" requires critical examination to understand the way that it affects individuals' and groups' lives. The term "influence" has 2 different types of stigma. For one, it surrounds the idea that people show their true inner selves when "under the influence". On the other end, it also proposes the idea that people are not their own selves when "under the influence". These tend to be constructions made by people, which also tend to fit the situation based on their own perspectives. So, even in social terms, it requires both sides to be examined to understand whether we truly are affected by context, or we remain to be and behave in terms of our own selves. The term "influence" doesn't necessarily say that there lies greater strength in our inner self's desires and decisions, nor does it say that external factors have the greater power. In a similar manner, both social and non-social judgments are to be associated with anxiety, but the same can't necessarily be said in the case of social conformity. So, the gray areas within this topic beg the question, "What does social influence bias say about us, and does it affect us all in the same way?" == Social media bias == Media bias is reflected in search systems in social media. Kulshrestha and her team found through research in 2018 that the top-ranked results returned by these search engines can influence users' perceptions when they conduct searches for events or people, which is particularly reflected in political bias and polarizing topics. Fueled by confirmation bias, online echo chambers allow users to be steeped within their own ideology. Because social media is tailored to your interests and your selected friends, it is an easy outlet for political echo chambers. Social media bias is also reflected in hostile media effect. Social media has a place in disseminating news in modern society, where viewers are exposed to other people's comments while reading news articles. In their 2020 study, Gearhart and her team showed that viewers' perceptions of bias increased and perceptions of credibility decreased after seeing comments with which they held different opinions. == In research context == In observational data, how social influence affects collected judgment is challenging to fully understand. Positive social influence can accumulate and result in a rating bubble, while negative social influence is neutralized by crowd correction. This phenomenon was first described in a paper written by Lev Muchnik, Sinan Aral and Sean J. Taylor in 2014, then the question was revisited by Cicognani et al., whose experiment reinforced Munchnik's and his co-authors' results. == Relevance == Online customer reviews are trusted sources of information in various contexts such as online marketplaces, dining, accommodation, movies, or digital products. However, these online ratings are not immune to herd behavior, which means that subsequent reviews are not independent from each other. As on many such sites, preceding opinions are visible to a new reviewer, he or she can be heavily influenced by the antecedent evaluations in his or her decision about the certain product, service or online content. This form of herding behavior inspired Muchnik, Aral and Taylor to conduct their experiment on influence in social contexts. == Experimental design == Muchnik, Aral, and Taylor designed a large-scale randomized experiment to measure social influence on user reviews. The experiment was conducted on social news aggregation website like Reddit. The study lasted for 5 months, the authors randomly assigned 101 281 comments to one of the following treatment groups: up-treated (4049), down-treated (1942), or control (the proportions reflect the observed ratio of up-and down-votes. Comments which fell to the first group were given an up-vote upon the creation of the comment, the second group got a down-vote upon creation, the comments in the control group remained untouched. A vote is equivalent to a single rating (+1 or -1). As other users are unable to trace a user’s votes, they were unaware of the experiment. Due to randomization, comments in the control and the treatment group were not different in terms of expected rating. The treated comments were viewed more than 10 million times and rated 308 515 times by successive users. == Results == The up-vote treatment increased the probability of up-voting by the first viewer by 32% over the control group, while the probability of down-voting did not change compared to the control group, which means that users did not correct the random positive rating. The upward bias remained inplace for the observed 5-month period. The accumulating herding effect increased the comment’s mean rating by 25% compared to the control group comments. Positively manipulated comments did receive higher ratings at all parts of the distribution, which means that they were also more likely to collect extremely high scores. The negative manipulation created an asymmetric herd effect: although the probability of subsequent down-votes was increased by the negative treatment, the probability of up-voting also grew for these comments. The community performed a correction which neutralized the negative treatment and resulted non-different final mean ratings from the control group. The authors also compared the final mean scores of comments across the most active topic categories on the website. The observed positive herding effect was present in the "politics," "culture and society," and "business" subreddits, but was not applicable for "economics," "IT," "fun," and "general news".- == Implications == The skewed nature of online ratings makes review outcomes different to what it would be without the social influence bias. In a 2009 experiment by Hu, Zhang and Pavlou showed that the distribution of reviews of a certain product made by unconnected individuals is approximately normal, however, the rating of the same product on Amazon followed a J-Shaped distribution with twice as much five-star ratings than others. Cicognani, Figini and Magnani came to similar conclusions after their experiment conducted on a tourism services website: positive preceding ratings influenced raters' behavior more than mediocre ones. Positive crowd correction makes community-based opinions upward-biased.

  Read more →
• 

  Google Messages

  Google Messages (formerly known as Messenger, Android Messages, and Messages by Google) is a text messaging software application developed by Google for its Android and Wear OS mobile operating systems. It is also available as a web app. Google's official universal messaging platform for the Android ecosystem, Messages employs SMS, MMS, and Rich Communication Services (RCS). Starting in 2023, Google has RCS activated by default on participating Android devices, similar to the implementation of iMessage on Apple devices. Samsung Messages will be discontinued on July 6th 2026, with Samsung transitioning users to Google Messages as the default messaging application. == History == The original code for Android SMS messaging was released in 2009 integrated into the operating system. It was released as a standalone application independent of Android with the release of Android 5.0 Lollipop in 2014, replacing Google Hangouts as the default SMS app on Google's Nexus line of phones. In 2018, Messages adopted RCS messages and evolved to send larger data files, sync with other apps, and even create mass messages. This was in preparation for when Google launched Messages for web. In December 2019, Google began to introduce support for Rich Communication Services (RCS) messaging via an RCS service hosted by Google, referred to in the user interface as "chat features". This was followed by a wider global rollout throughout 2020. The app surpassed 1 billion installs in April 2020, doubling its number of installs in less than a year. Initially, RCS did not support end-to-end encryption. In June 2021, Google introduced end-to-end encryption in Messages by default using the Signal Protocol, for all one-to-one RCS-based conversations, for all RCS group chats in December 2022 for beta users, and for all RCS users by August 2023, as well as enabling RCS for all users by default to encourage encryption. In July 2023, Google announced it would build the Message Layer Security (MLS) end-to-end encryption protocol into Google Messages. Beginning with the Samsung Galaxy S21, Messages replaces Samsung's in-house Messages app as the default text messaging app for One UI for some regions and carriers. In April 2021, the app began to receive UI modifications on Samsung devices to follow aspects of One UI, including pushing the top of the message list towards the middle of the screen to improve ergonomics. In February 2023, Google began to replace references to "chat features" in the Messages user interface with "RCS". In August 2023, Google announced that Messages will use RCS by default for all users unless they opt out, to allow them to benefit from secure messaging. In December 2023, with the arrival of several new features, the app was renamed "Google Messages". In July 2024, Samsung announced it would no longer pre-install Samsung Messages on its Galaxy devices in some regions, starting with the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip, favoring Google Messages instead. In April 2026, Samsung announced that Samsung Messages would be discontinued in July 2026. It encouraged users to switch to Google Messages. == Features == Some of the most important features in Google Messages are: Send instant text and voice messages in 1:1 or group chat conversations over mobile data and Wi-Fi, via Android, Wear OS or the web. End-to-end encryption for RCS chats. Typing, sent, delivered and read status Reply and react to specific messages Share files and high-resolution photos Voice message transcriptions Schedule messages In-app reminders for birthdays and messages you didn't respond to after some time with Nudges Tight integration with the Google ecosystem, e.g. Google Calendar, Meet, Maps, YouTube, Photos, Contacts, Assistant, Search, Safe Browsing etc. Web interface: Users can visit https://messages.google.com/web and either sign in with their Google account or scan the QR code that is shown with their smartphone to access a limited web version of the app that allows them to send and receive messages, provided the smartphone remains connected. Phone number recognition: The app shows the country and province of the caller. Additionally, it can show the company's name or a warning for spam calls if the number is registered in a data base. Access to the Gemini chatbot on select Pixel, Galaxy and Android devices.

  Read more →
• 

  Tableau de Concordance

  The Tableau de Concordance was the main French diplomatic code used during World War I; the term also refers to any message sent using the code. It was a superenciphered four-digit code that was changed three times between 1 August 1914 and 15 January 1915. The Tableau de Concordance is considered superenciphered because there is more than one step required to use it. First, each word in a message is replaced by four digits via a codebook. These four digits are divided into three groups (one digit, two digits, one digit) so that when the whole message has been translated into code, the four-digit sets can be put together so it looks like the entire message is made up of two-digit pairs. This is called a "Straddle Gimmick." Then, in turn, each of these two digit pairs (and the single digits at the beginning and end) are replaced by two letters. The letters are then combined with no spaces for the final ciphertext. The manual for the Tableau de Concordance included the instruction that if there was not adequate time for completely enciphering the message, it should simply be sent in clear, because a partially enciphered message would have provided insight into the inner workings of the code.

  Read more →
• 

  Upworthy

  Upworthy is a media brand that focuses on positive storytelling. It was started in March 2012 by Eli Pariser, the former executive director of MoveOn, and Peter Koechley, the former managing editor of The Onion. One of Facebook's co-founders, Chris Hughes, was an early investor. At its peak between 2012 and 2014, it reached up to 100 million people a month. In 2017, the company was acquired by Good Worldwide. == History == Upworthy was launched in 2012 with a focus on aggregating positive content, which aligned with Facebook's algorithm. Originally, Upworthy curators searched the internet for existing content to feature on the site. Once selected as an option, curators brainstormed different headlines and shareable images for the content, and tested it with a small sample of Upworthy's visitors before sharing it on the site. The site popularized a clickbait style of two-phrase headlines. The company simplifies issues that are controversial by nature, which are presented from a politically liberal point of view and are heavily fact-checked for accuracy. In June 2013, an article in Fast Company called Upworthy "the fastest growing media site of all time". It had 8.7 million unique monthly visitors in the first six months, and in November 2013, had a high of 87 million unique visitors in a single month. In 2013, Facebook changed its algorithm, leading to a significant decline in readers from that platform. Upworthy fired one round of writers in 2015, and another in 2016, after an unionization effort by some of the staff. The union involved, the Writers Guild of America, East, has organized several online "viral" news publishers. In January 2017, Upworthy was acquired by media company GOOD Worldwide. The newsrooms of the two organizations would merge as part of the acquisition. About 20 staffers were laid off as part of the merger. In March 2020, Upworthy saw a 65% increase in Instagram followers and a 47% increased interest in positive content on-site page views as a result of increased interest in positive content during the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2023, National Geographic Books bought Good People: Stories From the Best of Humanity from Upworthy, with a publication date of September 3, 2024. The book is described as "a heartwarming collection of first-person tales that will provide comfort and inspiration to anyone who could use a little dose of joy right now". It was created by two senior Upworthy team members, Gabriel Reilich and Lucia Knell, and features 101 stories from Upworthy's audience. The co-creators encouraged Upworthy followers to connect with the brand through questions on their posts, opening the door for organic and personal stories to be shared in the comment sections. The book debuted on The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list on September 22, 2024, and remained on the list for two weeks. The book is seen in the top 10 on Publishers Weekly Fall 2024 Adult Preview: Lifestyle and on The Washington Post's "5 feel-good books".

  Read more →