AI For Students Writing

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

• 

  Once (dating platform)

  Once is an online dating platform founded in 2015. The platform offers users one selected match per day for more meaningful connections. == History == Once was established in 2015, the founders included dating industry entrepreneur Jean Meyer, who became a CEO of the company, as well as Guillaume Sempe and Guilhem Duche. It focused on providing a single daily match to its users. On its early stages Once secured a $3.5 million seed round from Partech Ventures and some private investors. The same year, it opened offices in Paris, and London. By 2016, it reached 1 million users. In 2020, the company was acquired by Dating Group for $18 million. Following the acquisition, Once underwent rebranding. Alexandra Beaumont took over leadership of the brand in 2021, driving growth, rebranding, and innovation. == Overview == Once provides an online dating service with a focus on thoughtful connections. Users receive one selected match per day, which encourages meaningful interactions. The platform operates primarily in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Spain. The platform is supported by Android, iOS, and Apple Watch OS.

  Read more →
• 

  Filter (social media)

  Filters are digital image effects often used on social media. They initially simulated the effects of camera filters, and they have since developed with facial recognition technology and computer-generated augmented reality. Social media filters—especially beauty filters—are often used to alter the appearance of selfies taken on smartphones or other similar devices. While filters are commonly associated with beauty enhancement and feature alterations, there is a wide range of filters that have different functions. From adjusting photo tones to using face animations and interactive elements, users have access to a range of tools. These filters allow users to enhance photos and allow room for creative expression and fun interactions with digital content. == History == Beauty filters originate from Purikura ("print club"), a type of Japanese photographic arcade game machine conceived in 1994 by Sasaki Miho, a female employee at Atlus, and released in 1995 by Atlus and Sega primarily for female visitors at Japanese arcades. They allowed the manipulation of digital selfie photos with kawaii beauty filters similar to later Snapchat filters. Purikura filters included beautifying the image, cat whiskers, bunny ears, writing text, scribbling graffiti, selecting backdrops, borders, insertable decorations, icons, hair extensions, twinkling diamond tiaras, tenderized light effects, and predesigned decorative margins. To capitalize on the Purikura phenomenon in Japan during the late 1990s, Japanese mobile phones began including a front-facing camera, starting with the Kyocera Visual Phone VP‑210 in 1999. The Sanyo SCP-5300 released in 2002 was the first camera phone with filter effects, such as illumination, white‑balance control, sepia, black and white, and negative colors. Purikura-like beauty filters later appeared in smartphone apps such as Instagram and Snapchat in the 2010s. In 2010, Apple introduced the iPhone 4—the first iPhone model with a front-facing camera. It gave rise to a dramatic increase in selfies, which could be touched up with more flattering lighting effects with applications such as Instagram. The American photographer Cole Rise was involved in the creation of the original filters for Instagram around 2010, designing several of them himself, including Sierra, Mayfair, Sutro, Amaro, and Willow. However, the technology for virtual lens filters was invented and patented by Patrick Levy-Rosenthal in 2007. The patent received 100 citations, including Facebook, Nvidia, Microsoft, Samsung, and Snap. In September, 2011, the Instagram 2.0 update for the application introduced "live filters," which allowed the user to preview the effect of the filter while shooting with the application's camera. #NoFilter, a hashtag label to describe an image that had not been filtered, became popular around 2013. An update in 2014 allowed users to adjust the intensity of the filters as well as fine-tune other aspects of the image, features that had been available for years on applications such as VSCO and Litely. In 2014, Snapchat started releasing sponsored filters to monetize the participatory use of the application. In September 2015, Snapchat acquired Looksery and released a feature called "lenses," animated filters using facial recognition technology. Some of the early lenses available on Snapchat at the time were Heart Eyes, Terminator, Puke Rainbows, Old, Scary, Rage Face, Heart Avalanche. The Coachella filter released April 2016 was a popular early augmented reality filter. In April 2017, Facebook released the Camera Effects Platform, which is the first augmented reality platform that allows developers to create their own filters and effects on Facebook's Camera. In December 2017, Snapchat also launched their Lens Studio augmented reality developer tool that allows users and advertisers to do the same on the Snapchat application. In April 2022,TikTok joined the two, and launched their own augmented reality developer platform called Effect house. In February 2023, Effect House gave opened up the access to generative AI tools that allowed creators to change facial features in real time. In November 2023, TikTok released a feature where users no longer needed Effect House to create their own filters, as they are now able to create their own effects on the TikTok application. In August 2024, Meta announced that it would be removing third-party filter effects from its family of apps by January 14, 2025. The AR development software Meta Spark AR will also be retired at the same time; it was at one point the "world's largest mobile AR platform". Brand and creator effects represent the vast majority of filters available on Meta platforms, with over 2 million third-party filters available as of 2021. == Beauty filter == A beauty filter is a filter applied to still photographs, or to video in real time, to enhance the physical attractiveness of the subject. Typical effects of such filters include smoothing skin texture and modifying the proportions of facial features, for example enlarging the eyes or narrowing the nose. Filters may be included as a built-in feature of social media apps such as Instagram or Snapchat, or implemented through standalone applications such as Facetune. In 2020, the "Perfect Skin" filter for Snapchat and Instagram which was created by Brazilian augmented reality developer Brenno Faustino gained more than 36 million impressions in the first 24 hours of its release. In 2021, TikTok users pointed out how the default front-facing camera on the platform automatically applied the retouch and other feature-altering filters. Users noted that these filters slimmed down faces, smoothed skin, whitened teeth, and altered facial features such as nose and eye size, without the option to disable this feature through settings. In March 2023, the "Bold Glamour" filter was released on TikTok and instantly went viral with over 18 million videos created within its first week. This filter subtly enhances the user's facial features seamlessly, giving the illusion of fuller eyebrows, taller cheekbones, enhanced eye make up, a smaller nose, plumper lips, and clearer skin, giving off a natural yet distinct effect. As of May 2024, the filter has been used in over 220 million videos and has become a pivotal moment for beauty filters on digital platforms. Critics have raised concerns that the widespread use of such filters on social media may lead to negative body image, particularly among girls. Though Meta's intention of removing third-party filters will likely see all beauty filters removed, academics feel that the damage of beautifying filters is already done. === Background === The manipulation of photos to enhance attractiveness has long been possible using software such as Adobe Photoshop and, before that, analogue techniques such as airbrushing. However, such tools required considerable technical and artistic skill, and so their use was mostly limited to professional contexts, such as magazines or advertisements. By contrast, filters work in an automated fashion through the use of complex algorithms, requiring little or no input from the user. This ease of use, in combination with the increase in processing power of smartphones, and the rise of social media and selfie culture, have led to photographic manipulation occurring on a much wider scale than ever before. One of the earliest examples of a content-aware digital photographic filter is red-eye reduction. === Effects === Typical changes applied by beauty filters include: Smoothing skin texture; minimizing fine lines and blemishes Erasing under-eye bags Erasing naso-labial lines ("laugh lines") Application of virtual makeup, such as lipstick or eyeshadow Slimming the face; erasing double chins Enlarging the eyes Whitening teeth Narrowing the nose Increasing fullness of the lips Beauty filters most frequently target the face, though in some cases they may affect other body parts. For example, the app "Retouch Me" was reported to have a feature which allows users to superimpose visible abdominal muscles (a "six pack") onto photos featuring the subject's bare stomach. === Reception and psychological effects === Some commentators have expressed concern that beauty filters may create unrealistic beauty standards, particularly among girls, and contribute to rates of body dysmorphic disorder. A correlation has been established between negative body image and the use of beautifying filters, though the direction of causation is unknown. The inability to discern whether a particular image has been filtered is thought to exacerbate their negative psychological effects. Policymakers have advocated for social networks to disclose the use of filters; TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat all label filtered photos and videos with the name of the filter applied. It has also been noted that beauty filters on social media tend to highlight Eurocentric features, like lighter eyes, a smaller nose, and flushed ch

  Read more →
• 

  International World Wide Web Conference Committee

  The International World Wide Web Conference Committee (abbreviated as IW3C2 also written as IW3C2) is a professional non-profit organization registered in Switzerland (Article 60ff of the Swiss Civil Code) that promotes World Wide Web research and development. The IW3C2 organizes and hosts the annual World Wide Web Conference in conjunction with the W3C. The IW3C2 was founded by Joseph Hardin and Robert Cailliau at a meeting held in Boston, United States, on 14 August 1994 to prepare for the upcoming Second International World Wide Web Conference in Chicago. The IW3C2 formally became an incorporated entity in May 1996 at the fifth conference in Paris, France. The organization is governed by laws of the Swiss Confederation and the By-laws. == Abbreviation == The abbreviation for the International World Wide Web Conference Committee as IW3C2 is as follow: I- The I is represents the leading I in International. W3- The W3 represents the three 3 leading W's in World Wide Web. C2- The C2 represents the three 2 leading C's in Conference Committee. == Mission == The mission of the IW3C2 is: To coordinate the organization and planning of the international WWW conference series and ensure that it remains the foremost conference addressing World Wide Web research and development; To promote a collaborative spirit among conference attendees that is essential to the success of the series; To ensure the global geographical diversity of conference sites and provide support to local organizers at those sites; To make sure that all content arising from these conferences and forums is permanently and openly available on the widest possible scale; To preserve the history of the conference series; To encourage the global development of the World Wide Web through collaboration with WWW standards organizations; To provide a permanent, broad-based international body to achieve these purposes. == Conferences == The conferences are organized by the IW3C2 in collaboration with local organizing committees and technical program committees. The series provides an open forum in which all opinions can be presented, subject to a strict process of peer review. The proceedings of the conference are published in the ACM Digital Library. === Endorsed conferences === The IW3C2 has endorsed regional conferences devoted to a special topic of the Web by working with endorsed conferences on cross-promotion, publicity and programs. == Membership == Members of the IW3C2 are ordinary members, ex officio members, non-voting members, and officers. === Ordinary members === Ordinary members are elected for a period of 3 years during a general meeting. Members are nominated due to their recognition in the WWW community and represent themselves. Members can be re-elected only after at least one year of absence. The following are the founding members at the time when IW3C2 was officially incorporated in May 1996: Jean-François Abramatic Tim Berners-Lee Robert Cailliau Dale Dougherty Ira Goldstein Joseph Hardin Tim Krauskopf Detlef Krömker Corinne Moore R. P. Channing Rodgers Albert Vezza Stuart Weibel Yuri Rubinsky (died prior to incorporation) The following are the current (April 2016) ordinary members: Robin Chen Chin-Wan Chung Allan Ellis Wendy Hall - IW3C2 Chair Ivan Herman Arun Iyengar - IW3C2 Vice Chair Irwin King Yoelle Maarek Luc Mariaux - IW3C2 Treasurer Daniel Schwabe - IW3C2 Vice-Chair === Ex officio members === Ex officio members are selected from the immediate past conference general co-chairs and from future conference co-chairs. Their term expires one year after the conference they organized. Ex officio members can be elected as ordinary members. The following are current (April 2016) ex officio members and the conference with which they are affiliated: Jacqueline Bourdeau - WWW2016 James Hendler - WWW2016 Rick Barrett - WWW2017 Rick Cummings - WWW2017 Laurent Flory - WWW2018 Fabien Gandon - WWW2018 === Officers === The IW3C2 officers consist of a chairperson, a vice-chair (chairperson-elect), a secretary, a treasurer, and other appointees. Officers are elected during a general meeting (usually at the annual WWW conference) and serve for one year. They can be re-elected an indefinite number of times. == The Seoul Test of Time Award == This annual award, presented at the WWW conference, is made possible by a generous contribution from the organizers of WWW2014 (Seoul Korea). Recipients are determined by the IW3C2 and honor the author, or authors, of a paper presented at a previous WWW conference that has "stood the test of time." The first award, announced at WWW2015 (Florence Italy), recognized Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google. The recipients of the WWW2016 award are LinkIn scientist Dr. Badrul Sarwar and University of Minnesota professors George Karypis, Joseph Konstan, and John Riedl (posthumous) for their work in item-item collaborative filtering.

  Read more →
• 

  Mean opinion score

  Mean opinion score (MOS) is a measure used in the domain of Quality of Experience and telecommunications engineering, representing overall quality of a stimulus or system. It is the arithmetic mean over all individual "values on a predefined scale that a subject assigns to his opinion of the performance of a system quality". Such ratings are usually gathered in a subjective quality evaluation test, but they can also be algorithmically estimated. MOS is a commonly used measure for video, audio, and audiovisual quality evaluation, but not restricted to those modalities. ITU-T has defined several ways of referring to a MOS in Recommendation ITU-T P.800.1, depending on whether the score was obtained from audiovisual, conversational, listening, talking, or video quality tests. == Rating scales and mathematical definition == The MOS is expressed as a single rational number, typically in the range 1–5, where 1 is lowest perceived quality, and 5 is the highest perceived quality. Other MOS ranges are also possible, depending on the rating scale that has been used in the underlying test. The Absolute Category Rating scale is very commonly used, which maps ratings between Bad and Excellent to numbers between 1 and 5, as seen in below table. Other standardized quality rating scales exist in ITU-T Recommendations (such as ITU-T P.800 or ITU-T P.910). For example, one could use a continuous scale ranging between 1–100. Which scale is used depends on the purpose of the test. In certain contexts there are no statistically significant differences between ratings for the same stimuli when they are obtained using different scales. The MOS is calculated as the arithmetic mean over single ratings performed by human subjects for a given stimulus in a subjective quality evaluation test. Thus: M O S = ∑ n = 1 N R n N {\displaystyle MOS={\frac {\sum _{n=1}^{N}{R_{n}}}{N}}} Where R {\displaystyle R} are the individual ratings for a given stimulus by N {\displaystyle N} subjects. == Properties of the MOS == The MOS is subject to certain mathematical properties and biases. In general, there is an ongoing debate on the usefulness of the MOS to quantify Quality of Experience in a single scalar value. When the MOS is acquired using a categorical rating scales, it is based on – similar to Likert scales – an ordinal scale. In this case, the ranking of the scale items is known, but their interval is not. Therefore, it is mathematically incorrect to calculate a mean over individual ratings in order to obtain the central tendency; the median should be used instead. However, in practice and in the definition of MOS, it is considered acceptable to calculate the arithmetic mean. It has been shown that for categorical rating scales (such as ACR), the individual items are not perceived equidistant by subjects. For example, there may be a larger "gap" between Good and Fair than there is between Good and Excellent. The perceived distance may also depend on the language into which the scale is translated. However, there exist studies that could not prove a significant impact of scale translation on the obtained results. Several other biases are present in the way MOS ratings are typically acquired. In addition to the above-mentioned issues with scales that are perceived non-linearly, there is a so-called "range-equalization bias": subjects, over the course of a subjective experiment, tend to give scores that span the entire rating scale. This makes it impossible to compare two different subjective tests if the range of presented quality differs. In other words, the MOS is never an absolute measure of quality, but only relative to the test in which it has been acquired. For the above reasons – and due to several other contextual factors influencing the perceived quality in a subjective test – a MOS value should only be reported if the context in which the values have been collected in is known and reported as well. MOS values gathered from different contexts and test designs therefore should not be directly compared. Recommendation ITU-T P.800.2 prescribes how MOS values should be reported. Specifically, P.800.2 says:it is not meaningful to directly compare MOS values produced from separate experiments, unless those experiments were explicitly designed to be compared, and even then the data should be statistically analysed to ensure that such a comparison is valid. == MOS for speech and audio quality estimation == MOS historically originates from subjective measurements where listeners would sit in a "quiet room" and score a telephone call quality as they perceived it. This kind of test methodology had been in use in the telephony industry for decades and was standardized in Recommendation ITU-T P.800. It specifies that "the talker should be seated in a quiet room with volume between 30 and 120 m³ and a reverberation time less than 500 ms (preferably in the range 200–300 ms). The room noise level must be below 30 dBA with no dominant peaks in the spectrum." Requirements for other modalities were similarly specified in later ITU-T Recommendations. == MOS estimation using quality models == Obtaining MOS ratings may be time-consuming and expensive as it requires the recruitment of human assessors. For various use cases such as codec development or service quality monitoring purposes – where quality should be estimated repeatedly and automatically – MOS scores can also be predicted by objective quality models, which typically have been developed and trained using human MOS ratings. A question that arises from using such models is whether the MOS differences produced are noticeable to the users. For example, when rating images on a five point MOS scale, an image with a MOS equal to 5 is expected to be noticeably better in quality than one with a MOS equal to 1. Contrary to that, it is not evident whether an image with a MOS equal to 3.8 is noticeably better in quality than one with a MOS equal to 3.6. Research conducted on determining the smallest MOS difference that is perceptible to users for digital photographs showed that a MOS difference of approximately 0.46 is required in order for 75% of the users to be able to detect the higher quality image. Nevertheless, image quality expectation, and hence MOS, changes over time with the change of user expectations. As a result, minimum noticeable MOS differences determined using analytical methods such as in may change over time.

  Read more →
• 

  Developmental robotics

  Developmental robotics (DevRob), sometimes called epigenetic robotics, is a scientific field which aims at studying the developmental mechanisms, architectures and constraints that allow lifelong and open-ended learning of new skills and new knowledge in embodied machines. As in human children, learning is expected to be cumulative and of progressively increasing complexity, and to result from self-exploration of the world in combination with social interaction. The typical methodological approach consists in starting from theories of human and animal development elaborated in fields such as developmental psychology, neuroscience, developmental and evolutionary biology, and linguistics, then to formalize and implement them in robots, sometimes exploring extensions or variants of them. The experimentation of those models in robots allows researchers to confront them with reality, and as a consequence, developmental robotics also provides feedback and novel hypotheses on theories of human and animal development. Developmental robotics is related to but differs from evolutionary robotics (ER). ER uses populations of robots that evolve over time, whereas DevRob is interested in how the organization of a single robot's control system develops through experience, over time. DevRob is also related to work done in the domains of robotics and artificial life. == Background == Can a robot learn like a child? Can it learn a variety of new skills and new knowledge unspecified at design time and in a partially unknown and changing environment? How can it discover its body and its relationships with the physical and social environment? How can its cognitive capacities continuously develop without the intervention of an engineer once it is "out of the factory"? What can it learn through natural social interactions with humans? These are the questions at the center of developmental robotics. Alan Turing, as well as a number of other pioneers of cybernetics, already formulated those questions and the general approach in 1950, but it is only since the end of the 20th century that they began to be investigated systematically. Because the concept of adaptive intelligent machines is central to developmental robotics, it has relationships with fields such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, cognitive robotics or computational neuroscience. Yet, while it may reuse some of the techniques elaborated in these fields, it differs from them from many perspectives. It differs from classical artificial intelligence because it does not assume the capability of advanced symbolic reasoning and focuses on embodied and situated sensorimotor and social skills rather than on abstract symbolic problems. It differs from cognitive robotics because it focuses on the processes that allow the formation of cognitive capabilities rather than these capabilities themselves. It differs from computational neuroscience because it focuses on functional modeling of integrated architectures of development and learning. More generally, developmental robotics is uniquely characterized by the following three features: It targets task-independent architectures and learning mechanisms, i.e. the machine/robot has to be able to learn new tasks that are unknown by the engineer; It emphasizes open-ended development and lifelong learning, i.e. the capacity of an organism to acquire continuously novel skills. This should not be understood as a capacity for learning "anything" or even “everything”, but just that the set of skills that is acquired can be infinitely extended at least in some (not all) directions; The complexity of acquired knowledge and skills shall increase (and the increase be controlled) progressively. Developmental robotics emerged at the crossroads of several research communities including embodied artificial intelligence, enactive and dynamical systems cognitive science, connectionism. Starting from the essential idea that learning and development happen as the self-organized result of the dynamical interactions among brains, bodies and their physical and social environment, and trying to understand how this self-organization can be harnessed to provide task-independent lifelong learning of skills of increasing complexity, developmental robotics strongly interacts with fields such as developmental psychology, developmental and cognitive neuroscience, developmental biology (embryology), evolutionary biology, and cognitive linguistics. As many of the theories coming from these sciences are verbal and/or descriptive, this implies a crucial formalization and computational modeling activity in developmental robotics. These computational models are then not only used as ways to explore how to build more versatile and adaptive machines but also as a way to evaluate their coherence and possibly explore alternative explanations for understanding biological development. == Research directions == === Skill domains === Due to the general approach and methodology, developmental robotics projects typically focus on having robots develop the same types of skills as human infants. A first category that is important being investigated is the acquisition of sensorimotor skills. These include the discovery of one's own body, including its structure and dynamics such as hand-eye coordination, locomotion, and interaction with objects as well as tool use, with a particular focus on the discovery and learning of affordances. A second category of skills targeted by developmental robots are social and linguistic skills: the acquisition of simple social behavioural games such as turn-taking, coordinated interaction, lexicons, syntax and grammar, and the grounding of these linguistic skills into sensorimotor skills (sometimes referred as symbol grounding). In parallel, the acquisition of associated cognitive skills are being investigated such as the emergence of the self/non-self distinction, the development of attentional capabilities, of categorization systems and higher-level representations of affordances or social constructs, of the emergence of values, empathy, or theories of mind. === Mechanisms and constraints === The sensorimotor and social spaces in which humans and robot live are so large and complex that only a small part of potentially learnable skills can actually be explored and learnt within a life-time. Thus, mechanisms and constraints are necessary to guide developmental organisms in their development and control of the growth of complexity. There are several important families of these guiding mechanisms and constraints which are studied in developmental robotics, all inspired by human development: Motivational systems, generating internal reward signals that drive exploration and learning, which can be of two main types: extrinsic motivations push robots/organisms to maintain basic specific internal properties such as food and water level, physical integrity, or light (e.g. in phototropic systems); intrinsic motivations push robot to search for novelty, challenge, compression or learning progress per se, thus generating what is sometimes called curiosity-driven learning and exploration, or alternatively active learning and exploration; Social guidance: as humans learn a lot by interacting with their peers, developmental robotics investigates mechanisms that can allow robots to participate to human-like social interaction. By perceiving and interpreting social cues, this may allow robots both to learn from humans (through diverse means such as imitation, emulation, stimulus enhancement, demonstration, etc. ...) and to trigger natural human pedagogy. Thus, social acceptance of developmental robots is also investigated; Statistical inference biases and cumulative knowledge/skill reuse: biases characterizing both representations/encodings and inference mechanisms can typically allow considerable improvement of the efficiency of learning and are thus studied. Related to this, mechanisms allowing to infer new knowledge and acquire new skills by reusing previously learnt structures is also an essential field of study; The properties of embodiment, including geometry, materials, or innate motor primitives/synergies often encoded as dynamical systems, can considerably simplify the acquisition of sensorimotor or social skills, and is sometimes referred as morphological computation. The interaction of these constraints with other constraints is an important axis of investigation; Maturational constraints: In human infants, both the body and the neural system grow progressively, rather than being full-fledged already at birth. This implies, for example, that new degrees of freedom, as well as increases of the volume and resolution of available sensorimotor signals, may appear as learning and development unfold. Transposing these mechanisms in developmental robots, and understanding how it may hinder or on the contrary ease the acquisition of novel complex skills is a central questi

  Read more →
• 

  Digital media in education

  Digital media in education refers to the use of digital technologies to support and enhance teaching and learning processes. This includes the application of multiple digital software applications, devices, and online platforms as tools for learning. Learners interact with these technologies to access, analyze, evaluate, and create media content and communication in various forms. The integration of digital media in education has dramatically increased over time, significantly transforming traditional educational practices. When viewed through a global and inclusive lens, digital education should be guided by principles of equity, inclusion, and public infrastructure to ensure meaningful participation of all learners. == History == === 20th century === Technological advances in the 20th century, particularly the invention of the Internet, laid the foundation for incorporating technology into education. In the early 1900s, the overhead projector and instructional radio broadcasts were among the first technologies used for educational purposes. The introduction of computers in classrooms occurred in 1950, when a flight simulation program was developed to train pilots at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. However, access to computers remained extremely limited for several decades. In 1964, John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz developed the BASIC programming language, which simplified computer interaction and introduced time-sharing, enabling multiple users to work on the same system simultaneously. This innovation made computing increasingly accessible for educational settings. By the 1980s, schools began to show more interest in computers as companies released mass-market devices to the public. Networking further enabled the interconnection of computers into unified communication systems, which proved more efficient and cost-effective than previous stand-alone machines. This development prompted wider adoption of computing in educational institutions. The invention of the World Wide Web in 1992 further simplified internet navigation and sparked further interest in educational settings. Initially, computers were integrated into school curricula for tasks such as word processing, spreadsheet creation, and data organization. By the late 1990s, the Internet became a research tool, functioning as a vast library. By 1999, 99% of public school teachers in the United States reported having access to at least one computer in their schools, and 84% had a computer available in their classrooms. The emergence of World Wide Web also contributed to the development of learning management systems (LMS), which allowed educators to create online teaching environments for content storage, student activities, discussions, and assignments. Advances in digital compression and high-speed Internet made video creation and distribution more affordable, fostering the use of the systems designed for recording lectures. These tools were often incorporated into learning management platforms, supporting the expansion of fully online courses. === 21st century === By 2002, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began offering recorded lectures to the public, marking a significant milestone in the movement toward accessible online education. The launch of YouTube in 2005 further transformed educational content distribution. Educators increasingly uploaded lectures and instructional videos on platforms with initiatives like Khan Academy, which was active in 2006, contributing to You Tube's role as a prominent educational resource. In 2007, Apple launched iTunesU, another platform for sharing educational resources and videos. Meanwhile, learning management systems gained popularity, with Blackboard and Canvas becoming two of the most widely used platforms with Canvas's release in 2008. That same year also marked the introduction of the first Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), which provided open access to webinars and expert-led instructions for global learners. As technology evolved, traditional projectors were gradually replaced by interactive whiteboards, which enabled educators to integrate digital tools more effectively in their classrooms. By 2009, 97% of classrooms in the United States had at least one computer, and 93% had Internet access. The COVID-19 pandemic, which forced schools across the world to close, significantly impacted education with schools shifting to distance education. Students attended classes remotely using devices such as laptops, phones, and tablets, supported by digital platforms that facilitated at-home learning environments. However, adapting assessment methods to the new learning environment posed certain challenges. A study conducted by Eddie M. Mulenga and José M. Marbán on Zambian students during the pandemic revealed difficulties in adapting to digital learning, particularly in subjects like mathematics. Similar issues were reported among students in Romania, where the transition to virtual learning presented significant obstacles in engagement and adaptability. === Post-pandemic developments === In the period following the onset of COVID-19, education systems worldwide rapidly adopted digital solutions to maintain continuity of learning and teaching. By the end of March 2020, all 46 OECD and partners countries closed some or all of their schools nationwide. By June 2020, the length of school closures in these countries ranged from 7 to over 18 weeks. These disruptions in formal education prompted governments and educators to quickly adopt digital learning. This global shift to online education highlighted considerable inequalities in digital access, although many systems struggled with inequitable access, especially in regions lacking devices, stable internet connections, or conducive home learning environments. Stimultaneously, commercial educational technology (ed-tech) companies introduced rapid digital solutions to the disruption caused by the pandemic. This led to what has been described as a "seller's market," where the urgency of implementation may cause the prioritization of availability and scale over pedagogical and equity considerations. In the post-pandemic era, digital media in education continues to evolve. It increasingly intersects with artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as adaptive learning platforms, AI-enabled content generation, and personalized learning environments. These tools enhance global engagement and access but also raise concerns about infrastructure, inclusivity, ethical implementation as well as critical pedagogies. Scholars recommend that educators and policymakers adopt inclusive practices, prioritize equitable infrastructure, and develop critical digital literacy. Facer and Selwyn also emphasize the need for public digital infrastructure and sustainable and justice-oriented policies that empower all learners. Overall, these perspectives reflect a growing consensus that digital media in education should be implemented critically to promote inclusive, multimodal, and future-oriented learning environments.

  Read more →
• 

  Asynchronous module definition

  Asynchronous module definition (AMD) is a specification for the programming language JavaScript. It defines an application programming interface (API) that defines code modules and their dependencies, and loads them asynchronously if desired. Implementations of AMD provide the following benefits: Website performance improvements. AMD implementations load smaller JavaScript files, and then only when they are needed. Fewer page errors. AMD implementations allow developers to define dependencies that must load before a module is executed, so the module does not try to use outside code that is not available yet.... In addition to loading multiple JavaScript files at runtime, AMD implementations allow developers to encapsulate code in smaller, more logically-organized files, in a way similar to other programming languages such as Java. For production and deployment, developers can concatenate and minify JavaScript modules based on an AMD API into one file, the same as traditional JavaScript. AMD provides some CommonJS interoperability. It allows for using a similar exports and require() interface in the code, although its own define() interface is more basal and preferred. The AMD specification is implemented by Dojo Toolkit, RequireJS, and other libraries.

  Read more →
• 

  Fifth Estate

  The Fifth Estate is a socio-cultural reference to groupings of outlier viewpoints in contemporary society, and is most associated with bloggers, journalists publishing in non-mainstream media outlets, and online social networks. The "Fifth" Estate extends the sequence of the three classical estates (clergy (first), nobility (second), commoners (third)) and the preceding Fourth Estate, essentially the common press. The use of "fifth estate" dates to the 1960s counterculture, and in particular the influential Fifth Estate, an underground newspaper first published in Detroit in 1965. Web-based technologies have enhanced the scope and power of the Fifth Estate far beyond the modest and boutique conditions of its beginnings. Nimmo and Combs asserted in 1992 that political pundits constitute a Fifth Estate. Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper argued in 2006 that bloggers are the Fifth Estate. In 2009, William Dutton argued that the Fifth Estate is not just the blogging community, nor an extension of the media, but "networked individuals" enabled by the Internet, e.g. social media, in ways that can hold the other estates accountable.

  Read more →
• 

  NAPLPS

  NAPLPS (North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax) is a graphics language for use originally with videotex and teletext services. NAPLPS was developed from the Telidon system developed in Canada, with a small number of additions from AT&T Corporation. The basics of NAPLPS were later used as the basis for several other microcomputer-based graphics systems. == History == The Canadian Communications Research Centre (CRC), based in Ottawa, had been working on various graphics systems since the late 1960s, much of it led by Herb Bown. Through the 1970s they turned their attention to building out a system of "picture description instructions", which encoded graphics commands as a text stream. Graphics were encoded as a series of instructions (graphics primitives) each represented by a single ASCII character. Graphic coordinates were encoded in multiple 6-bit strings of XY coordinate data, flagged to place them in the printable ASCII range so that they could be transmitted with conventional text transmission techniques. ASCII SI/SO characters were used to differentiate the text from graphic portions of a transmitted "page". These instructions were decoded by separate programs to produce graphics output, on a plotter for instance. Other work produced a fully interactive version. In 1975, the CRC gave a contract to Norpak to develop an interactive graphics terminal that could decode the instructions and display them on a color display. During this period, a number of companies were developing the first teletext systems, notably the BBC's Ceefax system. Ceefax encoded character data into the lines in the vertical blanking interval of normal television signals where they could not be seen on-screen, and then used a buffer and decoder in the user's television to convert these into "pages" of text on the display. The Independent Broadcasting Authority quickly introduced their own ORACLE system, and the two organizations subsequently agreed to use a single standard, the "Broadcast Teletext Specification". This later became World System Teletext. At about the same time, other organizations were developing videotex systems, similar to teletext except they used modems to transmit their data instead of television signals. This was potentially slower and used up a telephone line, but had the major advantage of allowing the user to transmit data back to the sender. The UK's General Post Office developed a system using the Ceefax/ORACLE standard, launching it as Prestel, while France prepared the first steps for its ultimately very successful Minitel system, using a rival display standard called Antiope. By 1977, the Norpak system was running, and from this work the CRC decided to create their own teletext/videotext system. Unlike the systems being rolled out in Europe, the CRC decided from the start that the system should be able to run on any combination of communications links. For instance, it could use the vertical blanking interval to send data to the user, and a modem to return selections to the servers. It could be used in a one-way or two-way system. In teletext mode, character codes were sent to users' televisions by encoding them as dot patterns in the vertical blanking interval of the video signal. Various technical "tweaks" and details of the NTSC signals used by North American televisions allowed the downstream videotex channel to increase to 600 bit/s, about twice that used in the European systems. In videotext mode, Bell 202 modems were typical, offering a 1,200 bit/s download rate. A set top box attached to the TV decoded these signals back into text and graphics pages, which the user could select among. The system was publicly launched as Telidon on August 15, 1978. Compared to the European standards, the CRC system was faster, bi-directional, and offered real graphics as opposed to simple character graphics. The downside of the system was that it required much more advanced decoders, typically featuring Zilog Z80 or Motorola 6809 processors with RGB and/or RF output. The Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (then Department of Communications) launched a four-year plan to fund public roll-outs of the technology in an effort to spur the development of a commercial Telidon system. AT&T Corporation was so impressed by Telidon that they decided to join the project. They added a number of useful extensions, notably the ability to define original graphics commands (macro) and character sets (DRCS). They also tabled algorithms for proportionally spaced text, which greatly improved the quality of the displayed pages. A joint CSA/ANSI working group (X3L2.1) revised the specifications, which were submitted for standardization. In 1983, they became CSA T500 and ANSI X3.110, or NAPLPS. The data encoding system was also standardized as the NABTS (North American Broadcast Teletext Specification) protocol. Business models for Telidon services were poorly developed. Unlike the UK, where teletext was supported by one of only two large companies whose whole revenue model was based on a read-only medium (television), in North America Telidon was being offered by companies who worked on a subscriber basis. == One-way systems == Telidon-based teletext was tested in a few North American trials in the early 1980s — CBC IRIS, TVOntario, MTS-sponsored Project IDA, to name a few. NAPLPS was also part of the NABTS teletext standard, for the encoding and display of teletext pages. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, affiliates of the regional sports network group SportsChannel ran a service called Sports Plus Network, which ran sports news and scores while SportsChannel was not otherwise on the air. The screens, which frequently featured team logos or likenesses of players in addition to text, were drawn entirely with NAPLPS graphics and resembled the loading of Prodigy pages over a modem, though slightly faster. == Two-way systems == Various two-way systems using NAPLPS appeared in North America in the early 1980s. The biggest North American examples were Knight Ridder's Viewtron (based in Miami) and the Los Angeles Times' Gateway service (based in Orange County). Both used the Sceptre NAPLPS terminal from AT&T. The Sceptre contained a slow modem that connected over the consumer's telephone line to host computers. The Sceptre was expensive whether purchased or rented. Despite huge investments by their parent companies, neither Viewtron nor Gateway lasted into the second half of the decade. Another system, Keyfax, was developed by Keycom Electronic Publishing, a joint venture of Honeywell, Centel (since acquired by Sprint) and Field Enterprises, then-owner of the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper. Keyfax had originally been a WST teletext service, broadcast overnights on Field's Chicago television station WFLD-32 and through the VBI of both WFLD and national superstation WTBS; the decision was made to convert Keyfax into a subscription service, using a proprietary NAPLPS terminal device in a last-ditch effort to save the service. It did not work and Keyfax had ceased operations by the end of 1986. Other early-1980s NAPLPS technology was deployed in Canada, both as a way for rural Canadians to get news and weather information and as the platform for touchscreen information kiosks. In Vancouver these were featured at Expo 86. The kiosks became ubiquitous in Toronto under the name Teleguide, and were deployed in many shopping centres and at major tourist attractions. The latter city was the North American nexus of NAPLPS and the home of Norpak, the most successful of NAPLPS-oriented developers. Norpak created and sold hardware and software for NAPLPS development and display. TVOntario also developed NAPLPS content creation software. London, Ontario - based Cableshare used NAPLPS as the basis of touch-screen information kiosks for shopping malls, the flagship of which was deployed at Toronto's Eaton Centre. The system relied on an 8085-based microcomputer which drove several NAPLPS terminals fitted with touch screens, all communicating via Datapac to a back end database. The system offered news, weather and sports information along with shopping mall guides and coupons. Cableshare also developed and sold a leading NAPLPS page creation utility called the "Picture Painter." In the late 1980s, Tribune Media Services (TMS) and the Associated Press operated a cable television channel called AP News Plus that provided NAPLPS-based news screens to cable television subscribers in many U.S. cities. The news pages were created and edited by TMS staffers working on an Atex editing system in Orlando, Florida, and sent by satellite to NAPLPS decoder devices located at the local cable television companies. Among the firms providing technology to TMS and the Associated Press for the AP News Plus channel was Minneapolis-based Electronic Publishers Inc. (1985–1988). In 1981, two amateur radio operators (VE3FTT and VE3GQW) received special permission from the Canad

  Read more →
• 

  Plug compatibility

  Plug compatibility is a characteristic of computer hardware that performs exactly like that of another vendor. Manufacturers who made replacements for IBM peripherals were referred to as plug-compatible manufacturers (PCMs). Later plug-compatible mainframe (also PCM) referred to IBM-compatible mainframe computers. PCM can also mean plug-compatible machine or plug-compatible module. == Plug compatibility and peripherals == Before the rise of the plug-compatible peripheral industry, computing systems were either configured with peripherals designed and built by the CPU vendor or designed to use vendor-selected rebadged devices. The first examples of plug-compatible IBM subsystems were tape drives and controls offered by Telex beginning 1965. Memorex in 1968 was first to enter the IBM plug-compatible disk market, followed shortly thereafter by a number of suppliers such as CDC, Itel, and Storage Technology Corporation. This was boosted by the world's largest user of computing equipment, the US General Services Administration, buying plug-compatible equipment. Eventually there were third-party plug-compatible alternatives to most first-party peripherals and first-party system main memory. == Plug compatibility and computer systems == A plug-compatible machine is one that is backward compatible with a prior machine. In particular, a new computer system that is plug-compatible has not only the same connectors and protocol interfaces to peripherals, but also binary-code compatibility—it runs the same software as the old system. A plug compatible manufacturer, or PCM, is a company that makes such products. One recurring theme in plug-compatible systems is the ability to be bug compatible as well. That is, if the forerunner system had software or interface problems, then the successor must have (or simulate) the same problems. Otherwise, the new system may generate unpredictable results, defeating the objective of full compatibility. Thus, it is important for customers to understand the difference between a bug and a feature, where the latter is defined as an intentional modification to the previous system (e.g. higher speed, lighter weight, smaller package, better operator controls, etc.). === Plug compatibility and IBM mainframes === The original example of plug-compatible mainframes was the Amdahl 470 mainframe computer which was plug-compatible with the IBM System 360 and 370, costing millions of dollars to develop. Similar systems were available from Comparex, Fujitsu, and Hitachi. Not all were large systems. Most of these system vendors eventually left the PCM market. In late 1981, there were eight PCM companies, and collectively they had 36 IBM-compatible models. == Non-computer usage of plug compatibility == Plug compatibility may also be used to describe replacement criteria for other components available from multiple sources. For example, a plug-compatible cooling fan may need to have not only the same physical size and shape, but also similar capability, run from the same voltage, use similar power, attach with a standard electrical connector, and have similar mounting arrangements. Some non-conforming units may be re-packaged or modified to meet plug-compatible requirements, as where an adapter plate is provided for mounting, or a different tool and instructions are supplied for installation, and these modifications would be reflected in the bill of materials for such components. Similar issues arise for computer system interfaces when competitors wish to offer an easy upgrade path. In general, plug-compatible systems are designed where industry or de facto standards have rigorously defined the environment, and there is a large installed population of machines that can benefit from third-party enhancements. Plug compatible does not mean identical. However, nothing prevents a company from developing follow-on products that are backward-compatible with its own early products.

  Read more →
• 

  ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6

  ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 Telecommunications and information exchange between systems is a standardization subcommittee of the Joint Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC 1. It is part of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which develops and facilitates standards within the field of telecommunications and information exchange between systems. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 was established in 1964, following the creation of a Special Working Group under ISO/TC 97 on Data Link Control Procedures and Modem Interfaces. The international secretariat of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 is the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS), located in South Korea. == Scope == The scope of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 is “Standardization in the field of telecommunications dealing with the exchange of information between open systems including system functions, procedures, parameters as well as the conditions for their use. The standardization encompasses protocols and services of lower layers, including physical, data link, network, and transport as well as those of upper layers including but not limited to Directory and ASN.1.” Future Network has recently been added as an important work scope. A considerable part of the work is done in effective cooperation with ITU-T and other standardization bodies including IEEE 802 and Ecma International. == Structure == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 has three active working groups (WGs), each of which carries out specific tasks in standards development within the field of telecommunications and information exchange between systems. The focus of each working group is described in the group’s terms of reference. Working groups can be established if new working areas arise, or disbanded if the group’s working area is no longer relevant to standardization needs. Active working groups of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 are: == Collaborations == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 works in close collaboration with a number of other organizations or subcommittees, both internal and external to ISO or IEC. Organizations internal to ISO or IEC that collaborate with or are in liaison with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 include: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 7, Sensor networks ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17, Cards and personal identification ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25, Interconnection of information technology equipment ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27, IT security techniques ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, Coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 31, Automatic identification and data capture techniques ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38, Distributed application platforms & services (DAPS) ISO/TC 68, Financial services ISO/TC 122, Packaging ISO/TC 184/SC 5, Interoperability, integration, and architectures for enterprise systems and automation applications ISO/TC 215, Health Informatics IEC/SC 46A, Coaxial cables IEC/SC 46C, Wires and symmetric cables IEC/TC 48, Electrical connectors and mechanical structures for electrical and electronic equipment IEC/SC 48B, Electrical connectors IEC/TC 65, Industrial-process measurement, control and automation IEC/SC 65C, Industrial networks IEC/TC 86, Fibre optics IEC/SC 86C, Fibre optic systems and active devices IEC/TC 93, Design automation Some organizations external to ISO or IEC that collaborate with or are in liaison to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 include: European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) European Commission (EC) European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Ecma International International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) IEEE 802 LMSC (LAN/MAN Standards Committee) Internet Society (ISOC) International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO) ITU-T Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) NFC Forum MFA Forum United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Universal Postal Union (UPU) World Meteorological Organization (WMO) CEN/TC 247/WG 4 == Member countries == Countries pay a fee to ISO to be members of subcommittees. The 19 "P" (participating) members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 are: Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, and United States. The 31 "O" (observing) members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 are: Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, France, Ghana, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine. == Published standards == There are 365 published standards under the direct responsibility of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6. Published standards by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 include:

  Read more →
• 

  Acousto-electronics

  Acousto-electronics (also spelled 'Acoustoelectronics') is a branch of physics, acoustics and electronics that studies interactions of ultrasonic and hypersonic waves in solids with electrons and with electro-magnetic fields. Typical phenomena studied in acousto-electronics are acousto-electric effect and also amplification of acoustic waves by flows of electrons in piezoelectric semiconductors, when the drift velocity of the electrons exceeds the velocity of sound. The term 'acousto-electronics' is often understood in a wider sense to include numerous practical applications of the interactions of electro-magnetic fields with acoustic waves in solids. In particular, these are signal processing devices using surface acoustic waves (SAW), different sensors of temperature, pressure, humidity, acceleration, etc.

  Read more →
• 

  Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability

  Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA) is a dataset the primary purpose of which is to serve as a benchmark for evaluating the ability of artificial neural networks, including large language models, to judge the grammatical correctness of sentences. It consists of 10,657 English sentences from published linguistics literature that were manually labeled either as grammatical or ungrammatical. == Public version == The publicly available version of CoLA contains 9,594 sentences that belong to training and development sets. It excludes 1,063 sentences reserved for a held-out test set.

  Read more →
• 

  Digital journalism

  Digital journalism, also known as netizen journalism or online journalism, is a contemporary form of journalism where editorial content is distributed via the Internet, as opposed to publishing via print or broadcast. What constitutes digital journalism is debated amongst scholars. However, the primary product of journalism, which is news and features on current affairs, is presented solely or in combination as text, audio, video, or some interactive forms like storytelling stories or newsgames and disseminated through digital media technology. Fewer barriers to entry, lowered distribution costs and diverse computer networking technologies have led to the widespread practice of digital journalism. It has democratized the flow of information that was previously controlled by traditional media including newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Most readers expect online journalists to be reliable and competent, but these journalists often fail to meet this standard because they have very short deadlines and do not have enough resources to produce decent work. Some have asserted that a greater degree of creativity can be exercised with digital journalism when compared to traditional journalism and traditional media. The digital aspect may be central to the journalistic message and remains, to some extent, within the creative control of the writer, editor and/or publisher. It has been acknowledged that reports of its growth have tended to be exaggerated. In fact, a 2019 Pew survey showed a 16% decline in the time spent on online news sites since 2016. In the United States, reports issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2011 and by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 2023 found that increases in newsroom staffing at digital-native news websites from 2008 to 2020 were not offsetting cuts in newsroom staffing among newspapers (which numbered in the tens of thousands of jobs), and that newspapers and television (which had been seeing declining newsroom staffing alongside newspapers) still employed the majority of payrolled newsroom staff in the United States in 2022 while online-only news websites employed less than 10%. The GAO and CRS reports noted further that the reduction in subscription and advertising revenue for the U.S. newspaper industry from 2000 to 2020 that constituted the overwhelming majority of its inflation-adjusted total revenue was not being offset by digital circulation or online advertising despite almost two-thirds of U.S. advertising spending in total by 2020 being online. Also, while the FCC report noted that local television stations in the United States had become some of the largest providers of local news online, the FCC found in a 2021 working paper that inflation-adjusted advertising revenue for television stations fell nationally from 2010 to 2018. == Overview == Digital journalism flows as journalism flows and is difficult to pinpoint where it is and where it is going. In partnership with digital media, digital journalism uses facets of digital media to perform journalist tasks, for example, using the internet as a tool rather than a singular form of digital media. There is no absolute agreement as to what constitutes digital journalism. Mu Lin argues that, "Web and mobile platforms demand us to adopt a platform-free mindset for an all-inclusive production approach – create the [digital] contents first, then distribute via appropriate platforms." The repurposing of print content for an online audience is sufficient for some, while others require content created with the digital medium's unique features like hypertextuality. Fondevila Gascón adds multimedia and interactivity to complete the digital journalism essence. For Deuze, online journalism can be functionally differentiated from other kinds of journalism by its technological component which journalists have to consider when creating or displaying content. Digital journalistic work may range from purely editorial content like CNN (produced by professional journalists) online to public-connectivity websites like Slashdot (communication lacking formal barriers of entry). The difference of digital journalism from traditional journalism may be in its re-conceptualised role of the reporter in relation to audiences and news organizations. The expectations of society for instant information was important for the evolution of digital journalism. However, it is likely that the exact nature and roles of digital journalism will not be fully known for some time. Some researchers even argue that the free distribution of online content, online advertisement and the new way recipients use news could undermine the traditional business model of mass media distributors that is based on single-copy sales, subscriptions and the selling of advertisement space. == History == The first type of digital journalism, called teletext, was invented in the UK in 1970. Teletext is a system allowing viewers to choose which stories they wish to read and see it immediately. The information provided through teletext is brief and instant, similar to the information seen in digital journalism today. The information was broadcast between the frames of a television signal in what was called the vertical blanking interval or VBI. American journalist Hunter S. Thompson relied on early digital communication technology beginning by using a fax machine to report from the 1971 US presidential campaign trail as documented in his book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. After the invention of teletext was the invention of videotex, of which Prestel was the world's first system, launching commercially in 1979 with various British newspapers, such as the Financial Times lining up to deliver newspaper stories online through it. Videotex closed down in 1986 due to failing to meet end-user demand. American newspaper companies took notice of the new technology and created their own videotex systems, the largest and most ambitious being Viewtron, a service of Knight-Ridder launched in 1981. Others were Keycom in Chicago and Gateway in Los Angeles. All of them had closed by 1986. Next came computer Bulletin Board Systems. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several smaller newspapers started online news services using BBS software and telephone modems. The first of these was the Albuquerque Tribune in 1989. Computer Gaming World in September 1992 broke the news of Electronic Arts' acquisition of Origin Systems on Prodigy, before its next issue went to press. Online news websites began to proliferate in the 1990s. An early adopter was The News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina which offered online news as Nando. Steve Yelvington wrote on the Poynter Institute website about Nando, owned by The N&O, by saying "Nando evolved into the first serious, professional news site on the World Wide Web". It originated in the early 1990s as "NandO Land". It is believed that a major increase in digital online journalism occurred around this time when the first commercial web browsers, Netscape Navigator (1994) and Internet Explorer (1995). By 1996, most news outlets had an online presence. Although journalistic content was repurposed from original text/video/audio sources without change in substance, it could be consumed in different ways because of its online form through toolbars, topically grouped content, and intertextual links. A twenty-four-hour news cycle and new ways of user-journalist interaction web boards were among the features unique to the digital format. Later, portals such as AOL and Yahoo! and their news aggregators (sites that collect and categorize links from news sources) led to news agencies such as The Associated Press to supplying digitally suited content for aggregation beyond the limit of what client news providers could use in the past. Also, Salon, was founded in 1995. In 2001, the American Journalism Review called Salon the Internet's "preeminent independent venue for journalism." In 2008, for the first time, more Americans reported getting their national and international news from the internet, rather than newspapers. Young people aged 18 to 29 now primarily get their news via the Internet, according to a Pew Research Center report. Audiences to news sites continued to grow due to the launch of new news sites, continued investment in news online by conventional news organizations, and the continued growth in internet audiences overall. Sixty-five percent of youth now primarily access the news online. Mainstream news sites are the most widespread form of online news media production. As of 2000, the vast majority of journalists in the Western world now use the internet regularly in their daily work. In addition to mainstream news sites, digital journalism is found in index and category sites (sites without much original content but multiple links to existing news sites), meta- and comment sites (sites about

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized benchmarking

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

  Read more →