AI Grammar Sentence Checker

AI Grammar Sentence Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Showcase Workshop

    Showcase Workshop

    Showcase Workshop, also referred to as Showcase, is a SaaS company that develops a presentation-building application for business use. Users upload files and images to a web platform which generates presentations viewable on a suite of mobile apps. Showcase was founded in 2011. The company’s headquarters are in Wellington, New Zealand. == History == Showcase Workshop was originally developed in response to dynamically changing content being presented on iPads at the 2012 Olympics. After market-testing a beta version of the core application, Showcase Workshop launched commercially in 2012. In 2014 Showcase partnered with Vodafone Global Enterprise. == Product == Users upload pre-existing PDFs, videos, images and Microsoft Office documents to a secure server, building presentations or ‘showcases’ which can then be downloaded via the mobile apps. The presentations are used for mobile sales enablement, training, or operational/health and safety purposes. == Reception == Reviewers have praised the ease of use of Showcase, calling it a “better alternative to developing a native app” and “intuitive”. Criticisms include the lack of differing templates and a lack of complex customisation controls. Showcase was nominated for a Tabby Award in 2014 and won a Tabby Award in 2015 for its Windows app.

    Read more →
  • Pinoy baiting

    Pinoy baiting

    Pinoy baiting is a phrase that has been used to refer to acts by non-Filipino individuals, usually celebrities or YouTubers, of posting content online purportedly with the intention of getting the attention of Filipinos, by being surprised about the Philippines or its people. Pinoy baiters are defined as giving superficial and allegedly insincere praises and similar reactions that give recognition to the Philippines or its people. Subsequent responses by Filipinos to what have been referred to as acts of Pinoy baiting have been criticized as a form of cultural cringe. This criticism would subsequently give the advice that Filipinos should not constantly require validation from non-Filipinos about themselves or their country. == Pinoy baiting mediums == === Reaction videos === On social media such as YouTube, channels with specific focus on showing their reaction towards and opinions about certain videos or topics are called reaction channels. Reaction videos are very popular and require minimal effort to create, and thus made it easy for alleged Pinoy baiting to thrive within this video-making genre. === Travel vlogs === Vlogging, short for video blogging, grew in popularity in the 2020s. Most of the popular alleged Pinoy-baiting channels tend to be vlog channels, normally following the same script under such titles as "The Philippines changed us/me", "First impression of the Philippines", "Is this really Manila?" and "Filipinos are such Kind/Good People!", and made while travelling to touristy areas such as Boracay or Bonifacio Global City and taste-testing the fast food chain Jollibee, among others. == Criticism of the phrase == Philippines-based Korean vlogger Jessica Lee had been accused by some YouTube viewers of engaging in Pinoy baiting. In a response vlog, Lee acknowledged that there may be individuals engaging in this "business strategy" of gaining views and subscribers from one of the largest communities online. However, she questioned the objectivity of some use of the phrase, citing any vlogging subject as fair game for a negative impression of being a "baiting" tool for the vlogger treating of that subject. She also invoked vloggers' freedom to choose whatever subject they want to talk about in a deep or shallow manner, while enjoining citizens to exercise their free-market right to unfollow vloggers they hate and follow those vloggers that "make them happy". She also gave her critics an explanation why she ended up vlogging about Philippine and Filipino subjects.

    Read more →
  • Content management

    Content management

    Content management (CM) are a set of processes and technologies that support the collection, managing, and publishing of information in any form or medium. When stored and accessed via computers, this information may be more specifically referred to as digital content, or simply as content. Digital content may take the form of text (such as electronic documents), images, multimedia files (such as audio or video files), or any other file type that follows a content lifecycle requiring management. The process of content development and management is complex enough that various commercial software vendors (large and small), such as Interwoven and Microsoft, offer content management software to control and automate significant aspects of the content lifecycle. == Process == Content management practices and goals vary by mission and by organizational governance structure. News organizations, e-commerce websites, and educational institutions all use content management, but in different ways. This leads to differences in terminology and in the names and number of steps in the process. For example, some digital content is created by one or more authors. Over time that content may be edited. One or more individuals may provide some editorial oversight, approving the content for publication. Publishing may take many forms: it may be the act of "pushing" content out to others, or simply granting digital access rights to certain content to one or more individuals. Later that content may be superseded by another version of the content and thus retired or removed from use (as when this wiki page is modified). Content management is an inherently collaborative process. It often consists of the following basic roles and responsibilities: Creator – responsible for creating and editing content. Editor – responsible for tuning the content message and the style of delivery, including translation and localization. Publisher – responsible for releasing the content for use. Administrator – responsible for managing access permissions to folders, collections and files, usually accomplished by assigning access rights to user groups or roles. Admins may also assist and support users in various ways. Consumer, viewer or guest – the person who reads or otherwise consumes the content after it is published or shared. A critical aspect of content management is the ability to manage versions of content as it evolves (see also version control). Authors and editors often need to restore older versions of edited products due to a process failure or an undesirable series of edits. Time-sensitive content may also require updates as the subject matter evolves over time. Another equally important aspect of content management involves the creation, maintenance, and application of review standards. Each member of the content creation and review process has a unique role and set of responsibilities in the development or publication of the content. Each review team member requires clear and concise review standards. These must be maintained on an ongoing basis to ensure the long-term consistency and health of the knowledge base. A content management system is a set of automated processes that may support the following features: Import and creation of documents and multimedia material Identification of all key users and their roles The ability to assign roles and responsibilities to different instances of content categories or types Definition of workflow tasks often coupled with messaging so that content managers are alerted to changes in content The ability to track and manage multiple versions of a single instance of content The ability to publish the content to a repository to support access The ability to personalize content based on a set of rules Increasingly, the repository is an inherent part of the system, and incorporates enterprise search and retrieval. Content management systems take the following forms: Web content management system—software for web site management (often what content management implicitly means) Output of a newspaper editorial staff organization Workflow for article publication Document management systems Knowledge management software Single source content management system—content stored in chunks within a relational database Variant management system—where personnel tag source content (usually text and graphics) to represent variants stored as single source "master" content modules, resolved to the desired variant at publication (for example: automobile owners manual content for 12 model years stored as single master content files and "called" by model year as needed)—often used in concert with database chunk storage (see above) for large content objects == Governance structures == Content management expert Marc Feldman defines three primary content management governance structures: localized, centralized, and federated—each having its unique strengths and weaknesses. === Localized governance === By putting control in the hands of those closest to the content, the context experts, localized governance models empower and unleash creativity. These benefits come, however, at the cost of a partial-to-total loss of managerial control and oversight. === Centralized governance === When the levers of control are strongly centralized, content management systems are capable of delivering an exceptionally clear and unified brand message. Moreover, centralized content management governance structures allow for a large number of cost-savings opportunities in large enterprises, realized, for example, through (1) the avoidance of duplicated efforts in creating, editing, formatting, repurposing and archiving content; (2) process management and the streamlining of all content related labor; and/or (3) an orderly deployment or updating of the content management system. === Federated governance === Federated governance models potentially realize the benefits of both localized and centralized control while avoiding the weaknesses of both. While content management software systems are inherently structured to enable federated governance models, realizing these benefits can be difficult because it requires, for example, negotiating the boundaries of control with local managers and content creators. In the case of larger enterprises, in particular, the failure to fully implement or realize a federated governance structure equates to a failure to realize the full return on investment and cost savings that content management systems enable. == Implementation == Content management implementations must be able to manage content distributions and digital rights in content life cycle. Content management systems are usually involved with digital rights management in order to control user access and digital rights. In this step, the read-only structures of digital rights management systems force some limitations on content management, as they do not allow authors to change protected content in their life cycle. Creating new content using managed (protected) content is also an issue that gets protected contents out of management controlling systems. A few content management implementations cover all these issues.

    Read more →
  • InfiniBand

    InfiniBand

    InfiniBand (IB) is a computer networking standard used in high-performance computing that features very high throughput and very low latency. It is used for data interconnect both among and within computers. InfiniBand is also used as either a direct or switched interconnect between servers and storage systems, as well as an interconnect between storage systems. It is designed to be scalable and uses a switched fabric network topology. Between 2014 and June 2016, it was the most commonly used interconnect in the TOP500 list of supercomputers. Mellanox (acquired by Nvidia) manufactures InfiniBand host bus adapters and network switches, which are used by large computer system and database vendors in their product lines. As a computer cluster interconnect, IB competes with Ethernet, Fibre Channel, and Intel Omni-Path. The technology is promoted by the InfiniBand Trade Association. == History == InfiniBand originated in 1999 from the merger of two competing designs: Future I/O and Next Generation I/O (NGIO). NGIO was led by Intel, with a specification released in 1998, and joined by Sun Microsystems and Dell. Future I/O was backed by Compaq, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard. This led to the formation of the InfiniBand Trade Association (IBTA), which included both sets of hardware vendors as well as software vendors such as Microsoft. At the time it was thought some of the more powerful computers were approaching the interconnect bottleneck of the PCI bus, in spite of upgrades like PCI-X. Version 1.0 of the InfiniBand Architecture Specification was released in 2000. Initially the IBTA vision for IB was simultaneously a replacement for PCI in I/O, Ethernet in the machine room, cluster interconnect and Fibre Channel. IBTA also envisaged decomposing server hardware on an IB fabric. Mellanox had been founded in 1999 to develop NGIO technology, but by 2001 shipped an InfiniBand product line called InfiniBridge at 10 Gbit/second speeds. Following the burst of the dot-com bubble there was hesitation in the industry to invest in such a far-reaching technology jump. By 2002, Intel announced that instead of shipping IB integrated circuits ("chips"), it would focus on developing PCI Express, and Microsoft discontinued IB development in favor of extending Ethernet. Sun Microsystems and Hitachi continued to support IB. In 2003, the System X supercomputer built at Virginia Tech used InfiniBand in what was estimated to be the third largest computer in the world at the time. The OpenIB Alliance (later renamed OpenFabrics Alliance) was founded in 2004 to develop an open set of software for the Linux kernel. By February, 2005, the support was accepted into the 2.6.11 Linux kernel. In November 2005 storage devices finally were released using InfiniBand from vendors such as Engenio. Cisco, desiring to keep technology superior to Ethernet off the market, adopted a "buy to kill" strategy. Cisco successfully killed InfiniBand switching companies such as Topspin via acquisition. Of the top 500 supercomputers in 2009, Gigabit Ethernet was the internal interconnect technology in 259 installations, compared with 181 using InfiniBand. In 2010, market leaders Mellanox and Voltaire merged, leaving just one other IB vendor, QLogic, primarily a Fibre Channel vendor. At the 2011 International Supercomputing Conference, links running at about 56 gigabits per second (known as FDR, see below), were announced and demonstrated by connecting booths in the trade show. In 2012, Intel acquired QLogic's InfiniBand technology, leaving only one independent supplier. By 2014, InfiniBand was the most popular internal connection technology for supercomputers, although within two years, 10 Gigabit Ethernet started displacing it. In 2016, it was reported that Oracle Corporation (an investor in Mellanox) might engineer its own InfiniBand hardware. In 2019 Nvidia acquired Mellanox, the last independent supplier of InfiniBand products. == Specification == Specifications are published by the InfiniBand trade association. === Performance === Original names for speeds were single-data rate (SDR), double-data rate (DDR) and quad-data rate (QDR) as given below. Subsequently, other three-letter initialisms were added for even higher data rates. Notes Each link is duplex. Links can be aggregated: most systems use a 4 link/lane connector (QSFP). HDR often makes use of 2x links (aka HDR100, 100 Gb link using 2 lanes of HDR, while still using a QSFP connector). NDR introduced OSFP connectors which host one or two links at 2x (NDR200) or 4x (NDR400). They are not logically configured as a single 8x link, even when connecting switches together with an OSFP cable. InfiniBand provides remote direct memory access (RDMA) capabilities for low CPU overhead. === Topology === InfiniBand uses a switched fabric topology, as opposed to early shared medium Ethernet. All transmissions begin or end at a channel adapter. Each processor contains a host channel adapter (HCA) and each peripheral has a target channel adapter (TCA). These adapters can also exchange information for security or quality of service (QoS). === Messages === InfiniBand transmits data in packets of up to 4 KB that are taken together to form a message. A message can be: a remote direct memory access read or write a channel send or receive a transaction-based operation (that can be reversed) a multicast transmission an atomic operation === Physical interconnection === In addition to a board form factor connection, it can use both active and passive copper (up to 10 meters) and optical fiber cable (up to 10 km). QSFP connectors are used. The InfiniBand Association also specified the CXP connector system for speeds up to 120 Gbit/s over copper, active optical cables, and optical transceivers using parallel multi-mode fiber cables with 24-fiber MPO connectors. === Software interfaces === Mellanox operating system support is available for Solaris, FreeBSD, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES), Windows, HP-UX, VMware ESX, and AIX. InfiniBand has no specific standard application programming interface (API). The standard only lists a set of verbs such as ibv_open_device or ibv_post_send, which are abstract representations of functions or methods that must exist. The syntax of these functions is left to the vendors. Sometimes for reference this is called the verbs API. The de facto standard software is developed by OpenFabrics Alliance and called the Open Fabrics Enterprise Distribution (OFED). It is released under two licenses GPL2 or BSD license for Linux and FreeBSD, and as Mellanox OFED for Windows (product names: WinOF / WinOF-2; attributed as host controller driver for matching specific ConnectX 3 to 5 devices) under a choice of BSD license for Windows. It has been adopted by most of the InfiniBand vendors, for Linux, FreeBSD, and Microsoft Windows. IBM refers to a software library called libibverbs, for its AIX operating system, as well as "AIX InfiniBand verbs". The Linux kernel support was integrated in 2005 into the kernel version 2.6.11. === Ethernet over InfiniBand === Ethernet over InfiniBand, abbreviated to EoIB, is an Ethernet implementation over the InfiniBand protocol and connector technology. EoIB enables multiple Ethernet bandwidths varying on the InfiniBand (IB) version. Ethernet's implementation of the Internet Protocol Suite, usually referred to as TCP/IP, is different in some details compared to the direct InfiniBand protocol in IP over IB (IPoIB).

    Read more →
  • Image destriping

    Image destriping

    Image destriping is the process of removing stripes or streaks from images and videos without disrupting the original image/video. These artifacts plague a range of fields in scientific imaging including atomic force microscopy, light sheet fluorescence microscopy, and planetary satellite imaging. The most common image processing techniques to reduce stripe artifacts is with Fourier filtering. Unfortunately, filtering methods risk altering or suppressing useful image data. Methods developed for multiple-sensor imaging systems in planetary satellites use statistical-based methods to match signal distribution across multiple sensors. More recently, a new class of approaches leverage compressed sensing, to regularize an optimization problem, and recover stripe free images. In many cases, these destriped images have little to no artifacts, even at low signal to noise ratios.

    Read more →
  • Chaffing and winnowing

    Chaffing and winnowing

    Chaffing and winnowing is a cryptographic technique to achieve confidentiality without using encryption when sending data over an insecure channel. The name is derived from agriculture: after grain has been harvested and threshed, it remains mixed together with inedible fibrous chaff. The chaff and grain are then separated by winnowing, and the chaff is discarded. The cryptographic technique was conceived by Ron Rivest and published in an on-line article on 18 March 1998. Although it bears similarities to both traditional encryption and steganography, it cannot be classified under either category. This technique allows the sender to deny responsibility for encrypting their message. When using chaffing and winnowing, the sender transmits the message unencrypted, in clear text. Although the sender and the receiver share a secret key, they use it only for authentication. However, a third party can make their communication confidential by simultaneously sending specially crafted messages through the same channel. == How it works == The sender (Alice) wants to send a message to the receiver (Bob). In the simplest setup, Alice enumerates the symbols in her message and sends out each in a separate packet. If the symbols are complex enough, such as natural-language text, an attacker may be able to distinguish the real symbols from poorly faked chaff symbols, posing a similar problem as steganography in needing to generate highly realistic fakes; to avoid this, the symbols can be reduced to just single 0/1 bits, and realistic fakes can then be simply randomly generated 50:50 and are indistinguishable from real symbols. In general, the method requires each symbol to arrive in-order and to be authenticated by the receiver. When implemented over networks that may change the order of packets, the sender places the symbol's serial number in the packet, the symbol itself (both unencrypted), and a message authentication code (MAC). Many MACs use a secret key Alice shares with Bob, but it is sufficient that the receiver has a method to authenticate the packets. Rivest notes an interesting property of chaffing-and-winnowing is that third parties (such as an ISP) can opportunistically add it to communications without needing permission or coordination with the sender/recipient. A third-party (Charles) who transmits Alice's packets to Bob, interleaves the packets with corresponding bogus packets (called "chaff") with corresponding serial numbers, arbitrary symbols, and a random number in place of the MAC. Charles does not need to know the key to do that (real MACs are large enough that it is extremely unlikely to generate a valid one by chance, unlike in the example). Bob uses the MAC to find the authentic messages and drops the "chaff" messages. This process is called "winnowing". An eavesdropper located between Alice and Charles can easily read Alice's message. But an eavesdropper between Charles and Bob would have to tell which packets are bogus and which are real (i.e. to winnow, or "separate the wheat from the chaff"). That is infeasible if the MAC used is secure and Charles does not leak any information on packet authenticity (e.g. via timing). If a fourth party joins the example (named Darth) who wants to send counterfeit messages to impersonate Alice, it would require Alice to disclose her secret key. If Darth cannot force Alice to disclose an authentication key (the knowledge of which would enable him to forge messages from Alice), then her messages will remain confidential. Charles, on the other hand, is no target of Darth's at all, since Charles does not even possess any secret keys that could be disclosed. == Variations == The simple variant of the chaffing and winnowing technique described above adds many bits of overhead per bit of original message. To make the transmission more efficient, Alice can process her message with an all-or-nothing transform and then send it out in much larger chunks. The chaff packets will have to be modified accordingly. Because the original message can be reconstructed only by knowing all of its chunks, Charles needs to send only enough chaff packets to make finding the correct combination of packets computationally infeasible. Chaffing and winnowing lends itself especially well to use in packet-switched network environments such as the Internet, where each message (whose payload is typically small) is sent in a separate network packet. In another variant of the technique, Charles carefully interleaves packets coming from multiple senders. That eliminates the need for Charles to generate and inject bogus packets in the communication. However, the text of Alice's message cannot be well protected from other parties who are communicating via Charles at the same time. This variant also helps protect against information leakage and traffic analysis. == Implications for law enforcement == Ron Rivest suggests that laws related to cryptography, including export controls, would not apply to chaffing and winnowing because it does not employ any encryption at all. The power to authenticate is in many cases the power to control, and handing all authentication power to the government is beyond all reason The author of the paper proposes that the security implications of handing everyone's authentication keys to the government for law-enforcement purposes would be far too risky, since possession of the key would enable someone to masquerade and communicate as another entity, such as an airline controller. Furthermore, Ron Rivest contemplates the possibility of rogue law enforcement officials framing up innocent parties by introducing the chaff into their communications, concluding that drafting a law restricting chaffing and winnowing would be far too difficult. == Trivia == The term winnowing was suggested by Ronald Rivest's father. Before the publication of Rivest's paper in 1998 other people brought to his attention a 1965 novel, Rex Stout's The Doorbell Rang, which describes the same concept and was thus included in the paper's references.

    Read more →
  • Star Awards for Social Media Award

    Star Awards for Social Media Award

    The Star Awards for Social Media Award was an award presented annually from 2014 to 2016 at the Star Awards, where Mediacorp of Singapore recognises entertainers under their employment with awards for artistic and technical merit for outstanding performances of the year. == History == The category was introduced in 2014, at the 20th Star Awards ceremony; Jeanette Aw received the award and it is given in honour of a Mediacorp artiste with the most social media engagement. The results are based on the calculations from three international social media analysis systems; artistes must be active on at least one of the following platforms in order to qualify: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Since its inception, the award has been given to two artistes. Carrie Wong is the most recent and final winner in this category. Since the ceremony held in 2016, Aw remains as the only artiste to win in this category twice, surpassing Wong who has one win. The award was discontinued from 2017 onwards as the popularity element of the award is already represented in the Top 10 Most Popular Male Artistes and Top 10 Most Popular Female Artistes awards. == Recipients ==

    Read more →
  • Locally recoverable code

    Locally recoverable code

    Locally recoverable codes are a family of error correction codes that were introduced first by D. S. Papailiopoulos and A. G. Dimakis and have been widely studied in information theory due to their applications related to distributive and cloud storage systems. An [ n , k , d , r ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d,r]_{q}} LRC is an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} linear code such that there is a function f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} that takes as input i {\displaystyle i} and a set of r {\displaystyle r} other coordinates of a codeword c = ( c 1 , … , c n ) ∈ C {\displaystyle c=(c_{1},\ldots ,c_{n})\in C} different from c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} , and outputs c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} . == Overview == Erasure-correcting codes, or simply erasure codes, for distributed and cloud storage systems, are becoming more and more popular as a result of the present spike in demand for cloud computing and storage services. This has inspired researchers in the fields of information and coding theory to investigate new facets of codes that are specifically suited for use with storage systems. It is well-known that LRC is a code that needs only a limited set of other symbols to be accessed in order to restore every symbol in a codeword. This idea is very important for distributed and cloud storage systems since the most common error case is when one storage node fails (erasure). The main objective is to recover as much data as possible from the fewest additional storage nodes in order to restore the node. Hence, Locally Recoverable Codes are crucial for such systems. The following definition of the LRC follows from the description above: an [ n , k , r ] {\displaystyle [n,k,r]} -Locally Recoverable Code (LRC) of length n {\displaystyle n} is a code that produces an n {\displaystyle n} -symbol codeword from k {\displaystyle k} information symbols, and for any symbol of the codeword, there exist at most r {\displaystyle r} other symbols such that the value of the symbol can be recovered from them. The locality parameter satisfies 1 ≤ r ≤ k {\displaystyle 1\leq r\leq k} because the entire codeword can be found by accessing k {\displaystyle k} symbols other than the erased symbol. Furthermore, Locally Recoverable Codes, having the minimum distance d {\displaystyle d} , can recover d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} erasures. == Definition == Let C {\displaystyle C} be a [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} linear code. For i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , let us denote by r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} the minimum number of other coordinates we have to look at to recover an erasure in coordinate i {\displaystyle i} . The number r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} is said to be the locality of the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of the code. The locality of the code is defined as An [ n , k , d , r ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d,r]_{q}} locally recoverable code (LRC) is an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} linear code C ∈ F q n {\displaystyle C\in \mathbb {F} _{q}^{n}} with locality r {\displaystyle r} . Let C {\displaystyle C} be an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} -locally recoverable code. Then an erased component can be recovered linearly, i.e. for every i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , the space of linear equations of the code contains elements of the form x i = f ( x i 1 , … , x i r ) {\displaystyle x_{i}=f(x_{i_{1}},\ldots ,x_{i_{r}})} , where i j ≠ i {\displaystyle i_{j}\neq i} . == Optimal locally recoverable codes == Theorem Let n = ( r + 1 ) s {\displaystyle n=(r+1)s} and let C {\displaystyle C} be an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} -locally recoverable code having s {\displaystyle s} disjoint locality sets of size r + 1 {\displaystyle r+1} . Then An [ n , k , d , r ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d,r]_{q}} -LRC C {\displaystyle C} is said to be optimal if the minimum distance of C {\displaystyle C} satisfies == Tamo–Barg codes == Let f ∈ F q [ x ] {\displaystyle f\in \mathbb {F} _{q}[x]} be a polynomial and let ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } be a positive integer. Then f {\displaystyle f} is said to be ( r {\displaystyle r} , ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } )-good if • f {\displaystyle f} has degree r + 1 {\displaystyle r+1} , • there exist distinct subsets A 1 , … , A ℓ {\displaystyle A_{1},\ldots ,A_{\ell }} of F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} such that – for any i ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} , f ( A i ) = { t i } {\displaystyle f(A_{i})=\{t_{i}\}} for some t i ∈ F q {\displaystyle t_{i}\in \mathbb {F} _{q}} , i.e., f {\displaystyle f} is constant on A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} , – # A i = r + 1 {\displaystyle \#A_{i}=r+1} , – A i ∩ A j = ∅ {\displaystyle A_{i}\cap A_{j}=\varnothing } for any i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . We say that { A 1 , … , A ℓ {\displaystyle A_{1},\ldots ,A_{\ell }} } is a splitting covering for f {\displaystyle f} . === Tamo–Barg construction === The Tamo–Barg construction utilizes good polynomials. • Suppose that a ( r , ℓ ) {\displaystyle (r,\ell )} -good polynomial f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} over F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} is given with splitting covering i ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} . • Let s ≤ ℓ − 1 {\displaystyle s\leq \ell -1} be a positive integer. • Consider the following F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} -vector space of polynomials V = { ∑ i = 0 s g i ( x ) f ( x ) i : deg ⁡ ( g i ( x ) ) ≤ deg ⁡ ( f ( x ) ) − 2 } . {\displaystyle V=\left\{\sum _{i=0}^{s}g_{i}(x)f(x)^{i}:\deg(g_{i}(x))\leq \deg(f(x))-2\right\}.} • Let T = ⋃ i = 1 ℓ A i {\textstyle T=\bigcup _{i=1}^{\ell }A_{i}} . • The code { ev T ⁡ ( g ) : g ∈ V } {\displaystyle \{\operatorname {ev} _{T}(g):g\in V\}} is an ( ( r + 1 ) ℓ , ( s + 1 ) r , d , r ) {\displaystyle ((r+1)\ell ,(s+1)r,d,r)} -optimal locally coverable code, where ev T {\displaystyle \operatorname {ev} _{T}} denotes evaluation of g {\displaystyle g} at all points in the set T {\displaystyle T} . === Parameters of Tamo–Barg codes === • Length. The length is the number of evaluation points. Because the sets A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} are disjoint for i ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} , the length of the code is | T | = ( r + 1 ) ℓ {\displaystyle |T|=(r+1)\ell } . • Dimension. The dimension of the code is ( s + 1 ) r {\displaystyle (s+1)r} , for s {\displaystyle s} ≤ ℓ − 1 {\displaystyle \ell -1} , as each g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} has degree at most deg ⁡ ( f ( x ) ) − 2 {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-2} , covering a vector space of dimension deg ⁡ ( f ( x ) ) − 1 = r {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-1=r} , and by the construction of V {\displaystyle V} , there are s + 1 {\displaystyle s+1} distinct g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} . • Distance. The distance is given by the fact that V ⊆ F q [ x ] ≤ k {\displaystyle V\subseteq \mathbb {F} _{q}[x]_{\leq k}} , where k = r + 1 − 2 + s ( r + 1 ) {\displaystyle k=r+1-2+s(r+1)} , and the obtained code is the Reed-Solomon code of degree at most k {\displaystyle k} , so the minimum distance equals ( r + 1 ) ℓ − ( ( r + 1 ) − 2 + s ( r + 1 ) ) {\displaystyle (r+1)\ell -((r+1)-2+s(r+1))} . • Locality. After the erasure of the single component, the evaluation at a i ∈ A i {\displaystyle a_{i}\in A_{i}} , where | A i | = r + 1 {\displaystyle |A_{i}|=r+1} , is unknown, but the evaluations for all other a ∈ A i {\displaystyle a\in A_{i}} are known, so at most r {\displaystyle r} evaluations are needed to uniquely determine the erased component, which gives us the locality of r {\displaystyle r} . To see this, g {\displaystyle g} restricted to A j {\displaystyle A_{j}} can be described by a polynomial h {\displaystyle h} of degree at most deg ⁡ ( f ( x ) ) − 2 = r + 1 − 2 = r − 1 {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-2=r+1-2=r-1} thanks to the form of the elements in V {\displaystyle V} (i.e., thanks to the fact that f {\displaystyle f} is constant on A j {\displaystyle A_{j}} , and the g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} 's have degree at most deg ⁡ ( f ( x ) ) − 2 {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-2} ). On the other hand | A j ∖ { a j } | = r {\displaystyle |A_{j}\backslash \{a_{j}\}|=r} , and r {\displaystyle r} evaluations uniquely determine a polynomial of degree r − 1 {\displaystyle r-1} . Therefore h {\displaystyle h} can be constructed and evaluated at a j {\displaystyle a_{j}} to recover g ( a j ) {\displaystyle g(a_{j})} . === Example of Tamo–Barg construction === We will use x 5 ∈ F 41 [ x ] {\displaystyle x^{5}\in \mathbb {F} _{41}[x]} to construct [ 15 , 8 , 6 , 4 ] {\displaystyle [15,8,6,4]} -LRC. Notice that the degree of this polynomial is 5, and it is constant on A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} for i ∈ { 1 , … , 8 } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,8\}} , where A 1 = { 1 , 10 , 16 , 18 , 37 } {\displaystyle A_{1}=\{1,10,16,18,37\}} , A 2 = 2 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{2}=2A_{1}} , A 3 = 3 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{3}=3A_{1}} , A 4 = 4 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{4}=4A_{1}} , A 5 = 5 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{5}=5A_{1}} , A 6 = 6 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{6}=6A_{1}}

    Read more →
  • Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

    Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

    In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos

    Read more →
  • Memory-hard function

    Memory-hard function

    In cryptography, a memory-hard function (MHF) is a function that costs a significant amount of memory to efficiently evaluate. It differs from a memory-bound function, which incurs cost by slowing down computation through memory latency. MHFs have found use in key stretching and proof of work as their increased memory requirements significantly reduce the computational efficiency advantage of custom hardware over general-purpose hardware compared to non-MHFs. == Introduction == MHFs are designed to consume large amounts of memory on a computer in order to reduce the effectiveness of parallel computing. In order to evaluate the function using less memory, a significant time penalty is incurred. As each MHF computation requires a large amount of memory, the number of function computations that can occur simultaneously is limited by the amount of available memory. This reduces the efficiency of specialised hardware, such as application-specific integrated circuits and graphics processing units, which utilise parallelisation, in computing a MHF for a large number of inputs, such as when brute-forcing password hashes or mining cryptocurrency. == Motivation and examples == Bitcoin's proof-of-work uses repeated evaluation of the SHA-256 function, but modern general-purpose processors, such as off-the-shelf CPUs, are inefficient when computing a fixed function many times over. Specialized hardware, such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed for Bitcoin mining, can use 30,000 times less energy per hash than x86 CPUs whilst having much greater hash rates. This led to concerns about the centralization of mining for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Because of this inequality between miners using ASICs and miners using CPUs or off-the shelf hardware, designers of later proof-of-work systems utilised hash functions for which it was difficult to construct ASICs that could evaluate the hash function significantly faster than a CPU. As memory cost is platform-independent, MHFs have found use in cryptocurrency mining, such as for Litecoin, which uses scrypt as its hash function. They are also useful in password hashing because they significantly increase the cost of trying many possible passwords against a leaked database of hashed passwords without significantly increasing the computation time for legitimate users. == Measuring memory hardness == There are various ways to measure the memory hardness of a function. One commonly seen measure is cumulative memory complexity (CMC). In a parallel model, CMC is the sum of the memory required to compute a function over every time step of the computation. Other viable measures include integrating memory usage against time and measuring memory bandwidth consumption on a memory bus. Functions requiring high memory bandwidth are sometimes referred to as "bandwidth-hard functions". == Variants == MHFs can be categorized into two different groups based on their evaluation patterns: data-dependent memory-hard functions (dMHF) and data-independent memory-hard functions (iMHF). As opposed to iMHFs, the memory access pattern of a dMHF depends on the function input, such as the password provided to a key derivation function. Examples of dMHFs are scrypt and Argon2d, while examples of iMHFs are Argon2i and catena. Many of these MHFs have been designed to be used as password hashing functions because of their memory hardness. A notable problem with dMHFs is that they are prone to side-channel attacks such as cache timing. This has resulted in a preference for using iMHFs when hashing passwords. However, iMHFs have been mathematically proven to have weaker memory hardness properties than dMHFs.

    Read more →
  • Content management

    Content management

    Content management (CM) are a set of processes and technologies that support the collection, managing, and publishing of information in any form or medium. When stored and accessed via computers, this information may be more specifically referred to as digital content, or simply as content. Digital content may take the form of text (such as electronic documents), images, multimedia files (such as audio or video files), or any other file type that follows a content lifecycle requiring management. The process of content development and management is complex enough that various commercial software vendors (large and small), such as Interwoven and Microsoft, offer content management software to control and automate significant aspects of the content lifecycle. == Process == Content management practices and goals vary by mission and by organizational governance structure. News organizations, e-commerce websites, and educational institutions all use content management, but in different ways. This leads to differences in terminology and in the names and number of steps in the process. For example, some digital content is created by one or more authors. Over time that content may be edited. One or more individuals may provide some editorial oversight, approving the content for publication. Publishing may take many forms: it may be the act of "pushing" content out to others, or simply granting digital access rights to certain content to one or more individuals. Later that content may be superseded by another version of the content and thus retired or removed from use (as when this wiki page is modified). Content management is an inherently collaborative process. It often consists of the following basic roles and responsibilities: Creator – responsible for creating and editing content. Editor – responsible for tuning the content message and the style of delivery, including translation and localization. Publisher – responsible for releasing the content for use. Administrator – responsible for managing access permissions to folders, collections and files, usually accomplished by assigning access rights to user groups or roles. Admins may also assist and support users in various ways. Consumer, viewer or guest – the person who reads or otherwise consumes the content after it is published or shared. A critical aspect of content management is the ability to manage versions of content as it evolves (see also version control). Authors and editors often need to restore older versions of edited products due to a process failure or an undesirable series of edits. Time-sensitive content may also require updates as the subject matter evolves over time. Another equally important aspect of content management involves the creation, maintenance, and application of review standards. Each member of the content creation and review process has a unique role and set of responsibilities in the development or publication of the content. Each review team member requires clear and concise review standards. These must be maintained on an ongoing basis to ensure the long-term consistency and health of the knowledge base. A content management system is a set of automated processes that may support the following features: Import and creation of documents and multimedia material Identification of all key users and their roles The ability to assign roles and responsibilities to different instances of content categories or types Definition of workflow tasks often coupled with messaging so that content managers are alerted to changes in content The ability to track and manage multiple versions of a single instance of content The ability to publish the content to a repository to support access The ability to personalize content based on a set of rules Increasingly, the repository is an inherent part of the system, and incorporates enterprise search and retrieval. Content management systems take the following forms: Web content management system—software for web site management (often what content management implicitly means) Output of a newspaper editorial staff organization Workflow for article publication Document management systems Knowledge management software Single source content management system—content stored in chunks within a relational database Variant management system—where personnel tag source content (usually text and graphics) to represent variants stored as single source "master" content modules, resolved to the desired variant at publication (for example: automobile owners manual content for 12 model years stored as single master content files and "called" by model year as needed)—often used in concert with database chunk storage (see above) for large content objects == Governance structures == Content management expert Marc Feldman defines three primary content management governance structures: localized, centralized, and federated—each having its unique strengths and weaknesses. === Localized governance === By putting control in the hands of those closest to the content, the context experts, localized governance models empower and unleash creativity. These benefits come, however, at the cost of a partial-to-total loss of managerial control and oversight. === Centralized governance === When the levers of control are strongly centralized, content management systems are capable of delivering an exceptionally clear and unified brand message. Moreover, centralized content management governance structures allow for a large number of cost-savings opportunities in large enterprises, realized, for example, through (1) the avoidance of duplicated efforts in creating, editing, formatting, repurposing and archiving content; (2) process management and the streamlining of all content related labor; and/or (3) an orderly deployment or updating of the content management system. === Federated governance === Federated governance models potentially realize the benefits of both localized and centralized control while avoiding the weaknesses of both. While content management software systems are inherently structured to enable federated governance models, realizing these benefits can be difficult because it requires, for example, negotiating the boundaries of control with local managers and content creators. In the case of larger enterprises, in particular, the failure to fully implement or realize a federated governance structure equates to a failure to realize the full return on investment and cost savings that content management systems enable. == Implementation == Content management implementations must be able to manage content distributions and digital rights in content life cycle. Content management systems are usually involved with digital rights management in order to control user access and digital rights. In this step, the read-only structures of digital rights management systems force some limitations on content management, as they do not allow authors to change protected content in their life cycle. Creating new content using managed (protected) content is also an issue that gets protected contents out of management controlling systems. A few content management implementations cover all these issues.

    Read more →
  • Business intelligence

    Business intelligence

    Business intelligence (BI) consists of strategies, methodologies, and technologies used by enterprises for data analysis and management of business information to inform business strategies and business operations. Common functions of BI technologies include reporting, online analytical processing, analytics, dashboard development, data mining, process mining, complex event processing, business performance management, benchmarking, text mining, predictive analytics, and prescriptive analytics. BI tools can handle large amounts of structured and sometimes unstructured data to help organizations identify, develop, and otherwise create new strategic business opportunities. They aim to allow for the easy interpretation of these big data. Identifying new opportunities and implementing an effective strategy based on insights is assumed to potentially provide businesses with a competitive market advantage and long-term stability, and help them take strategic decisions. Business intelligence can be used by enterprises to support a wide range of business decisions ranging from operational to strategic. Basic operating decisions include product positioning or pricing. Strategic business decisions involve priorities, goals, and directions at the broadest level. In all cases, business intelligence is considered most effective when it combines data from the market in which a company operates (external data) with data from internal company sources, such as financial and operational information. When integrated, external and internal data provide a comprehensive view that creates ‘intelligence’ not possible from any single data source alone. Among their many uses, business intelligence tools empower organizations to gain insight into new markets, to assess demand and suitability of products and services for different market segments, and to gauge the impact of marketing efforts. BI applications use data gathered from a data warehouse (DW) or from a data mart, and the concepts of BI and DW combine as "BI/DW" or as "BIDW". A data warehouse contains a copy of analytical data that facilitates decision support. == History == The earliest known use of the term business intelligence is in Richard Millar Devens' Cyclopædia of Commercial and Business Anecdotes (1865). Devens used the term to describe how the banker Sir Henry Furnese gained profit by receiving and acting upon information about his environment, prior to his competitors: Throughout Holland, Flanders, France, and Germany, he maintained a complete and perfect train of business intelligence. The news of the many battles fought was thus received first by him, and the fall of Namur added to his profits, owing to his early receipt of the news. The ability to collect and react accordingly based on the information retrieved, Devens says, is central to business intelligence. When Hans Peter Luhn, a researcher at IBM, used the term business intelligence in an article published in 1958, he employed the Webster's Dictionary definition of intelligence: "the ability to apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action towards a desired goal." In 1989, Howard Dresner (later a Gartner analyst) proposed business intelligence as an umbrella term to describe "concepts and methods to improve business decision making by using fact-based support systems." It was not until the late 1990s that this usage was widespread. == Definition == According to Solomon Negash and Paul Gray, business intelligence (BI) can be defined as systems that combine: Data gathering Data storage Knowledge management with analysis to evaluate complex corporate and competitive information for presentation to planners and decision makers, with the objective of improving the timeliness and the quality of the input to the decision process." According to Forrester Research, business intelligence is "a set of methodologies, processes, architectures, and technologies that transform raw data into meaningful and useful information used to enable more effective strategic, tactical, and operational insights and decision-making." Under this definition, business intelligence encompasses information management (data integration, data quality, data warehousing, master-data management, text- and content-analytics, et al.). Therefore, Forrester refers to data preparation and data usage as two separate but closely linked segments of the business-intelligence architectural stack. Some elements of business intelligence are: Multidimensional aggregation and allocation Denormalization, tagging, and standardization Realtime reporting with analytical alert A method of interfacing with unstructured data sources Group consolidation, budgeting, and rolling forecasts Statistical inference and probabilistic simulation Key performance indicators optimization Version control and process management Open item management Forrester distinguishes this from the business-intelligence market, which is "just the top layers of the BI architectural stack, such as reporting, analytics, and dashboards." === Compared with competitive intelligence === Though the term business intelligence is sometimes a synonym for competitive intelligence (because they both support decision making), BI uses technologies, processes, and applications to analyze mostly internal, structured data and business processes while competitive intelligence gathers, analyzes, and disseminates information with a topical focus on company competitors. If understood broadly, competitive intelligence can be considered as a subset of business intelligence. === Compared with business analytics === Business intelligence and business analytics are sometimes used interchangeably, but there are alternate definitions. Thomas Davenport, professor of information technology and management at Babson College argues that business intelligence should be divided into querying, reporting, Online analytical processing (OLAP), an "alerts" tool, and business analytics. In this definition, business analytics is the subset of BI focusing on statistics, prediction, and optimization, rather than the reporting functionality. == Unstructured data == Business operations can generate a very large amount of data in the form of emails, memos, notes from call centers, news, user groups, chats, reports, web pages, presentations, image files, video files, and marketing material. According to Merrill Lynch, more than 85% of all business information exists in these forms; a company might only use such a document a single time. Because of the way it is produced and stored, this information is either unstructured or semi-structured. The management of semi-structured data is an unsolved problem in the information technology industry. According to projections from Gartner (2003), white-collar workers spend 30–40% of their time searching, finding, and assessing unstructured data. BI uses both structured and unstructured data. The former is easy to search, and the latter contains a large quantity of the information needed for analysis and decision-making. Because of the difficulty of properly searching, finding, and assessing unstructured or semi-structured data, organizations may not draw upon these vast reservoirs of information, which could influence a particular decision, task, or project. This can ultimately lead to poorly informed decision-making. Therefore, when designing a business intelligence/DW solution, the specific problems associated with semi-structured and unstructured data must be accommodated, as well as those associated with structured data. === Limitations of semi-structured and unstructured data === There are several challenges to developing BI with semi-structured data. According to Inmon & Nesavich, some of those are: Physically accessing unstructured textual data – unstructured data is stored in a huge variety of formats. Terminology – Among researchers and analysts, there is a need to develop standardized terminology. Volume of data – As stated earlier, up to 85% of all data exists as semi-structured data. Couple that with the need for word-to-word and semantic analysis. Searchability of unstructured textual data – A simple search on some data, e.g. apple, results in links where there is a reference to that precise search term. (Inmon & Nesavich, 2008) gives an example: "a search is made on the term felony. In a simple search, the term felony is used, and everywhere there is a reference to felony, a hit to an unstructured document is made. But a simple search is crude. It does not find references to crime, arson, murder, embezzlement, vehicular homicide, and such, even though these crimes are types of felonies". === Metadata === To solve problems with searchability and assessment of data, it is necessary to know something about the content. This can be done by adding context through the use of metadata. Many systems already capture some metadata (e.g. filename, author, size, etc.), but more usef

    Read more →
  • Docic

    Docic

    Docic is a Tunisian digital health platform available as a web and mobile application, headquartered in Tunis, Tunisia. Founded in 2022 by Sami Kallel, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sofiane Trabelsi. The service helps patients and healthcare professionals store, organize, and share medical records digitally and to connect with the doctor online. == History == Docic was founded in 2022 as a health-technology company based in Tunisia, after which the mobile application was subsequently developed and made available to users. The platform was designed to provide healthcare professionals with access to patients’ complete medical history, including updates and recent changes, aiming at supporting clinical decision-making and reducing the risk of medical errors. In January 2025, Docic was listed amongst companies that have received the Startup Act label, which is a recognition under the Tunisian legal framework made to support innovative startups.

    Read more →
  • CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance

    CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance

    The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance are a set of principles intended to guide open data projects in engaging Indigenous Peoples rights and interests. CARE was created in 2019 by the International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group, a group that is a part of the Research Data Alliance. It outlines collective rights related to open data in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous data sovereignty. CARE is an acronym which stands for Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics. The CARE Principles are 'people and purpose-oriented, reflecting the crucial role of data in advancing Indigenous innovation and self-determination', and intended as a complement to the data-oriented perspective of other standards such as FAIR data (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable). The CARE principles have been embedded into the Beta version of Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT). CARE principles were the basis of a submission to the UN's Global Digital Compact.

    Read more →
  • HTTP Strict Transport Security

    HTTP Strict Transport Security

    HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is a policy mechanism that helps to protect websites against man-in-the-middle attacks such as protocol downgrade attacks and cookie hijacking. It allows web servers to declare that web browsers (or other complying user agents) should automatically interact with it using only HTTPS connections, which provide Transport Layer Security (TLS/SSL), unlike the insecure HTTP used alone. HSTS is an IETF standards track protocol and is specified in RFC 6797. The HSTS Policy is communicated by the server to the user agent via an HTTP response header field named Strict-Transport-Security. HSTS Policy specifies a period of time during which the user agent should only access the server in a secure fashion. Websites using HSTS often do not accept clear text HTTP, either by rejecting connections over HTTP or systematically redirecting users to HTTPS (though this is not required by the specification). The consequence of this is that a user-agent not capable of doing TLS will not be able to connect to the site. The protection normally only applies after a user has visited the site at least once, relying on the principle of "trust on first use". The way this protection works is that when a user entering or selecting an HTTP (not HTTPS) URL to the site, the client, such as a Web browser, will automatically upgrade to HTTPS without making an HTTP request, thereby preventing any HTTP man-in-the-middle attack from occurring. To counteract this problem, an HSTS preload list maintained by Google Chrome and used by other major web browsers is maintained. If a domain is on this list, the browser skips the initial request and encrypts all communication immediately. Additional domains can be registered at no cost. == Specification history == The HSTS specification was published as RFC 6797 on 19 November 2012 after being approved on 2 October 2012 by the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. The authors originally submitted it as an Internet Draft on 17 June 2010. With the conversion to an Internet Draft, the specification name was altered from "Strict Transport Security" (STS) to "HTTP Strict Transport Security", because the specification applies only to HTTP. The HTTP response header field defined in the HSTS specification however remains named "Strict-Transport-Security". The last so-called "community version" of the then-named "STS" specification was published on 18 December 2009, with revisions based on community feedback. The original draft specification by Jeff Hodges from PayPal, Collin Jackson, and Adam Barth was published on 18 September 2009. The HSTS specification is based on original work by Jackson and Barth as described in their paper "ForceHTTPS: Protecting High-Security Web Sites from Network Attacks". Additionally, HSTS is the realization of one facet of an overall vision for improving web security, put forward by Jeff Hodges and Andy Steingruebl in their 2010 paper The Need for Coherent Web Security Policy Framework(s). == HSTS mechanism overview == A server implements an HSTS policy by supplying a header over an HTTPS connection (HSTS headers over HTTP are ignored). For example, a server could send a header such that future requests to the domain for the next year (max-age is specified in seconds; 31,536,000 is equal to one non-leap year) use only HTTPS: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000. When a web application issues HSTS Policy to user agents, conformant user agents behave as follows: Automatically turn any insecure links referencing the web application into secure links (e.g. http://example.com/some/page/ will be modified to https://example.com/some/page/ before accessing the server). If the security of the connection cannot be ensured (e.g. the server's TLS certificate is not trusted), the user agent must terminate the connection and should not allow the user to access the web application. This helps protect web application users against some passive (eavesdropping) and active network attacks. A man-in-the-middle attacker has a greatly reduced ability to intercept requests and responses between a user and a web application server while the user's browser has HSTS Policy in effect for that web application. == Applicability == The most important security vulnerability that HSTS can fix is SSL-stripping man-in-the-middle attacks, first publicly introduced by Moxie Marlinspike in his 2009 BlackHat Federal talk "New Tricks For Defeating SSL In Practice". The SSL (and TLS) stripping attack works by transparently converting a secure HTTPS connection into a plain HTTP connection. The user can see that the connection is insecure, but crucially there is no way of knowing whether the connection should be secure. At the time of Marlinspike's talk, many websites did not use TLS/SSL, therefore there was no way of knowing (without prior knowledge) whether the use of plain HTTP was due to an attack, or simply because the website had not implemented TLS/SSL. Additionally, no warnings are presented to the user during the downgrade process, making the attack fairly subtle to all but the most vigilant. Marlinspike's sslstrip tool, presented at Black Hat DC 2009, fully automates the attack. HSTS addresses this problem by informing the browser that connections to the site should always use TLS/SSL. The HSTS header can be stripped by the attacker if this is the user's first visit. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Edge attempt to limit this problem by including a "pre-loaded" list of HSTS sites. Unfortunately this solution cannot scale to include all websites on the internet. See limitations, below. HSTS can also help to prevent having one's cookie-based website login credentials stolen by widely available tools such as Firesheep. Because HSTS is time limited, it is sensitive to attacks involving shifting the victim's computer time e.g. using false NTP packets. == Limitations == The initial request remains unprotected from active attacks if it uses an insecure protocol such as plain HTTP or if the URI for the initial request was obtained over an insecure channel. The same applies to the first request after the activity period specified in the advertised HSTS Policy max-age (sites should set a period of several days or months depending on user activity and behavior). === Solutions with preload list === Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Internet Explorer/Microsoft Edge address this limitation by implementing a "HSTS preloaded list", which is a list that contains known sites supporting HSTS. This list is distributed with the browser so that it uses HTTPS for the initial request to the listed sites as well. As previously mentioned, these pre-loaded lists cannot scale to cover the entire Web. A potential solution might be achieved by using DNS records to declare HSTS Policy, and accessing them securely via DNSSEC, optionally with certificate fingerprints to ensure validity (which requires running a validating resolver to avoid last mile issues). Junade Ali has noted that HSTS is ineffective against the use of false domains; by using DNS-based attacks, it is possible for a man-in-the-middle interceptor to serve traffic from an artificial domain which is not on the HSTS Preload list, this can be made possible by DNS Spoofing Attacks, or simply a domain name that misleadingly resembles the real domain name such as www.example.org instead of www.example.com. Even with an HSTS preloaded list, HSTS cannot prevent advanced attacks against TLS itself, such as the BEAST or CRIME attacks introduced by Juliano Rizzo and Thai Duong. Attacks against TLS itself are orthogonal to HSTS policy enforcement. Neither can it protect against attacks on the server - if someone compromises it, it will happily serve any content over TLS. === Privacy issues === HSTS can be used to near-indelibly tag visiting browsers with recoverable identifying data (supercookies) which can persist in and out of browser "incognito" privacy modes. By creating a web page that makes multiple HTTP requests to selected domains, for example, if twenty browser requests to twenty different domains are used, theoretically over one million visitors can be distinguished (220) due to the resulting requests arriving via HTTP vs. HTTPS; the latter being the previously recorded binary "bits" established earlier via HSTS headers. == Browser support == Chromium and Google Chrome since version 4.0.211.0 Firefox since version 4; with Firefox 17, Mozilla integrates a list of websites supporting HSTS. Opera since version 12 Safari since OS X Mavericks (version 10.9, late 2013) Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 with KB3058515 installed (Released as a Windows Update in June 2015) Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 10 BlackBerry 10 Browser and WebView since BlackBerry OS 10.3.3. == Deployment best practices == Depending on the actual deployment there are certain threats (e.g. cookie injection attacks) t

    Read more →