Plant Nanny is a water tracker mobile application which reminds users to drink water. It was developed by Taiwanese app maker Fourdesire. The app was first released in 2013 and is available on the Apple App Store for iPhones and the Google Play Store for Android devices. == Description == Play Nanny uses a game method that allows users to turn their virtual selves into plants, which grows and thrives as the user drinks more water. The app sends occasional push notifications to remind users to drink water throughout the day. Users can choose from a wide range of plants, including cacti and carnations, and track their water intake. The app uses two resources, How to calculate how much water you should drink by Jennifer Stone (2018) and Human energy requirements by the Food and Agriculture Organization (2004), to calculate the recommended daily water intake for its users. Upon downloading the app, users are prompted to input basic personal information which is then used to calculate the recommended daily water intake and prompts them to drink the appropriate amount. == Accolades ==
WHATWG
The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) was founded by representatives from Apple Inc., the Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software, leading web browser vendors in 2004. WHATWG is responsible for maintaining multiple web-related technical standards, including the specifications for the HyperText Markup Language (HTML) and the Document Object Model (DOM). The central organizational membership and control of WHATWG – its "Steering Group" – consists of Apple, Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft. WHATWG editors of the specifications ensure correct implementation, in consultation with participants, but ultimately in accordance with Steering Group member objectives. == History == The WHATWG was formed in response to the slow development of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web standards and W3C's decision to abandon HTML in favor of XML-based technologies. The WHATWG mailing list was announced on 4 June 2004, two days after the initiatives of a joint Opera–Mozilla position paper had been voted down by the W3C members at the W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound Documents. On 10 April 2007, the Mozilla Foundation, Apple, and Opera Software proposed that the new HTML working group of the W3C adopt the WHATWG's HTML5 as the starting point of its work and name its future deliverable as "HTML5" (though the WHATWG specification was later renamed HTML Living Standard). On 9 May 2007, the new HTML working group of the W3C resolved to do that. An Internet Explorer platform architect from Microsoft was invited but did not join, citing the lack of a patent policy to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis. Since then, the W3C and the WHATWG had been developing HTML independently, at times causing specifications to diverge. In 2017, the WHATWG established an intellectual property rights agreement that includes a patent policy. This spurred a renewed attempt to allow the W3C and the WHATWG to work together on specifications. In 2019, the W3C and WHATWG agreed to a memorandum of understanding where development of HTML and DOM specifications would be done principally in the WHATWG. The editor has significant control over the specification, but the community can influence the decisions of the editor. In one case, editor Ian Hickson proposed replacing the
Operational data store
An operational data store (ODS) is used for operational reporting and as a source of data for the enterprise data warehouse (EDW). It is a complementary element to an EDW in a decision support environment, and is used for operational reporting, controls, and decision making, as opposed to the EDW, which is used for tactical and strategic decision support. An ODS is a database designed to integrate data from multiple sources for additional operations on the data, for reporting, controls and operational decision support. Unlike a production master data store, the data is not passed back to operational systems. It may be passed for further operations and to the data warehouse for reporting. An ODS should not be confused with an enterprise data hub (EDH). An operational data store will take transactional data from one or more production systems and loosely integrate it, in some respects it is still subject oriented, integrated and time variant, but without the volatility constraints. This integration is mainly achieved through the use of EDW structures and content. An ODS is not an intrinsic part of an EDH solution, although an EDH may be used to subsume some of the processing performed by an ODS and the EDW. An EDH is a broker of data. An ODS is certainly not. Because the data originates from multiple sources, the integration often involves cleaning, resolving redundancy and checking against business rules for integrity. An ODS is usually designed to contain low-level or atomic (indivisible) data (such as transactions and prices) with limited history that is captured "real time" or "near real time" as opposed to the much greater volumes of data stored in the data warehouse generally on a less-frequent basis. == General use == The general purpose of an ODS is to integrate data from disparate source systems in a single structure, using data integration technologies like data virtualization, data federation, or extract, transform, and load (ETL). This will allow operational access to the data for operational reporting, master data or reference data management. An ODS is not a replacement or substitute for a data warehouse or for a data hub but in turn could become a source.
Collective operation
Collective operations are building blocks for interaction patterns, that are often used in SPMD algorithms in the parallel programming context. Hence, there is an interest in efficient realizations of these operations. A realization of the collective operations is provided by the Message Passing Interface (MPI). == Definitions == In all asymptotic runtime functions, we denote the latency α {\displaystyle \alpha } (or startup time per message, independent of message size), the communication cost per word β {\displaystyle \beta } , the number of processing units p {\displaystyle p} and the input size per node n {\displaystyle n} . In cases where we have initial messages on more than one node we assume that all local messages are of the same size. To address individual processing units we use p i ∈ { p 0 , p 1 , … , p p − 1 } {\displaystyle p_{i}\in \{p_{0},p_{1},\dots ,p_{p-1}\}} . If we do not have an equal distribution, i.e. node p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} has a message of size n i {\displaystyle n_{i}} , we get an upper bound for the runtime by setting n = max ( n 0 , n 1 , … , n p − 1 ) {\displaystyle n=\max(n_{0},n_{1},\dots ,n_{p-1})} . A distributed memory model is assumed. The concepts are similar for the shared memory model. However, shared memory systems can provide hardware support for some operations like broadcast (§ Broadcast) for example, which allows convenient concurrent read. Thus, new algorithmic possibilities can become available. == Broadcast == The broadcast pattern is used to distribute data from one processing unit to all processing units, which is often needed in SPMD parallel programs to dispense input or global values. Broadcast can be interpreted as an inverse version of the reduce pattern (§ Reduce). Initially only root r {\displaystyle r} with i d {\displaystyle id} 0 {\displaystyle 0} stores message m {\displaystyle m} . During broadcast m {\displaystyle m} is sent to the remaining processing units, so that eventually m {\displaystyle m} is available to all processing units. Since an implementation by means of a sequential for-loop with p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} iterations becomes a bottleneck, divide-and-conquer approaches are common. One possibility is to utilize a binomial tree structure with the requirement that p {\displaystyle p} has to be a power of two. When a processing unit is responsible for sending m {\displaystyle m} to processing units i . . j {\displaystyle i..j} , it sends m {\displaystyle m} to processing unit ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil } and delegates responsibility for the processing units ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ . . j {\displaystyle \left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil ..j} to it, while its own responsibility is cut down to i . . ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ − 1 {\displaystyle i..\left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil -1} . Binomial trees have a problem with long messages m {\displaystyle m} . The receiving unit of m {\displaystyle m} can only propagate the message to other units, after it received the whole message. In the meantime, the communication network is not utilized. Therefore pipelining on binary trees is used, where m {\displaystyle m} is split into an array of k {\displaystyle k} packets of size ⌈ n / k ⌉ {\displaystyle \left\lceil n/k\right\rceil } . The packets are then broadcast one after another, so that data is distributed fast in the communication network. Pipelined broadcast on balanced binary tree is possible in O ( α log p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} , whereas for the non-pipelined case it takes O ( ( α + β n ) log p ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}((\alpha +\beta n)\log p)} cost. == Reduce == The reduce pattern is used to collect data or partial results from different processing units and to combine them into a global result by a chosen operator. Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} initially. All m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} are aggregated by ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } and the result is eventually stored on p 0 {\displaystyle p_{0}} . The reduction operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be associative at least. Some algorithms require a commutative operator with a neutral element. Operators like s u m {\displaystyle sum} , m i n {\displaystyle min} , m a x {\displaystyle max} are common. Implementation considerations are similar to broadcast (§ Broadcast). For pipelining on binary trees the message must be representable as a vector of smaller object for component-wise reduction. Pipelined reduce on a balanced binary tree is possible in O ( α log p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} . == All-Reduce == The all-reduce pattern (also called allreduce) is used if the result of a reduce operation (§ Reduce) must be distributed to all processing units. Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} initially. All m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} are aggregated by an operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } and the result is eventually stored on all p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . Analog to the reduce operation, the operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be at least associative. All-reduce can be interpreted as a reduce operation with a subsequent broadcast (§ Broadcast). For long messages a corresponding implementation is suitable, whereas for short messages, the latency can be reduced by using a hypercube (Hypercube (communication pattern) § All-Gather/ All-Reduce) topology, if p {\displaystyle p} is a power of two. All-reduce can also be implemented with a butterfly algorithm and achieve optimal latency and bandwidth. All-reduce is possible in O ( α log p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} , since reduce and broadcast are possible in O ( α log p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} with pipelining on balanced binary trees. All-reduce implemented with a butterfly algorithm achieves the same asymptotic runtime. == Prefix-Sum/Scan == The prefix-sum or scan operation is used to collect data or partial results from different processing units and to compute intermediate results by an operator, which are stored on those processing units. It can be seen as a generalization of the reduce operation (§ Reduce). Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be at least associative, whereas some algorithms require also a commutative operator and a neutral element. Common operators are s u m {\displaystyle sum} , m i n {\displaystyle min} and m a x {\displaystyle max} . Eventually processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} stores the prefix sum ⊗ i ′ <= i {\displaystyle \otimes _{i'<=i}} m i ′ {\displaystyle m_{i'}} . In the case of the so-called exclusive prefix sum, processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} stores the prefix sum ⊗ i ′ < i {\displaystyle \otimes _{i' ISO 15926 is a standard for data integration, sharing, exchange, and hand-over between computer systems. The title, "Industrial automation systems and integration—Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities", is regarded too narrow by the present ISO 15926 developers. Having developed a generic data model and reference data library for process plants, it turned out that this subject is already so wide, that actually any state information may be modelled with it. == History == In 1991 a European Union ESPRIT-, named ProcessBase, started. The focus of this research project was to develop a data model for lifecycle information of a facility that would suit the requirements of the process industries. At the time that the project duration had elapsed, a consortium of companies involved in the process industries had been established: EPISTLE (European Process Industries STEP Technical Liaison Executive). Initially individual companies were members, but later this changed into a situation where three national consortia were the only members: PISTEP (UK), POSC/Caesar (Norway), and USPI-NL (Netherlands). (later PISTEP merged into POSC/Caesar, and USPI-NL was renamed to USPI). EPISTLE took over the work of the ProcessBase project. Initially this work involved a standard called ISO 10303-221 (referred to as "STEP AP221"). In that AP221 we saw, for the first time, an Annex M with a list of standard instances of the AP221 data model, including types of objects. These standard instances would be for reference and would act as a knowledge base with knowledge about the types of objects. In the early nineties EPISTLE started an activity to extend Annex M to become a library of such object classes and their relationships: STEPlib. In the STEPlib activities a group of approx. 100 domain experts from all three member consortia, spread over the various expertises (e.g. Electrical, Piping, Rotating equipment, etc.), worked together to define the "core classes". The development of STEPlib was extended with many additional classes and relationships between classes and published as Open source data. Furthermore, the concepts and relation types from the AP221 and ISO 15926-2 data models were also added to the STEPlib dictionary. This resulted in the development of Gellish English, whereas STEPlib became the Gellish English dictionary. Gellish English is a structured subset of natural English and is a modeling language suitable for knowledge modeling, product modeling and data exchange. It differs from conventional modeling languages (meta languages) as used in information technology as it not only defines generic concepts, but also includes an English dictionary. The semantic expression capability of Gellish English was significantly increased by extending the number of relation types that can be used to express knowledge and information. For modelling-technical reasons POSC/Caesar proposed another standard than ISO 10303, called ISO 15926. EPISTLE (and ISO) supported that proposal, and continued the modelling work, thereby writing Part 2 of ISO 15926. This Part 2 has official ISO IS (International Standard) status since 2003. POSC/Caesar started to put together their own RDL (Reference Data Library). They added many specialized classes, for example for ANSI (American National Standards Institute) pipe and pipe fittings. Meanwhile, STEPlib continued its existence, mainly driven by some members of USPI. Since it was clear that it was not in the interest of the industry to have two libraries for, in essence, the same set of classes, the Management Board of EPISTLE decided that the core classes of the two libraries shall be merged into Part 4 of ISO 15926. This merging process has been finished. Part 4 should act as reference data for part 2 of ISO 15926 as well as for ISO 10303-221 and replaced its Annex M. On June 5, 2007 ISO 15926-4 was signed off as a TS (Technical Specification). In 1999 the work on an earlier version of Part 7 started. Initially this was based on XML Schema (the only useful W3C Recommendation available then), but when Web Ontology Language (OWL) became available it was clear that provided a far more suitable environment for Part 7. Part 7 passed the first ISO ballot by the end of 2005, and an implementation project started. A formal ballot for TS (Technical Specification) was planned for December 2007. However, it was decided then to split Part 7 into more than one part, because the scope was too wide. == Need for ISO15926 == In 2004, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a report on the impact of the lack of digital interoperability in the capital projects industry. The report estimated the cost of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry to be $15.8 billion per year. This was considered likely to be a conservative figure. == The standard == ISO 15926 has thirteen parts (as of February 2022): Part 1 - Overview and fundamental principles Part 2 - Data model Part 3 - Reference data for geometry and topology Part 4 - Reference Data, the terms used within facilities for the process industry Part 6 - Methodology for the development and validation of reference data (under development) Part 7 - Template methodology Part 8 - OWL/RDF implementation Part 9 - Implementation standards, with the focus on standard web servers, web services, and security (under development) Part 10 - Conformance testing Part 11 - Methodology for simplified industrial usage of reference data (under development) Part 12 - Life cycle integration ontology in Web Ontology Language (OWL2) Part 13 - Integrated lifecycle asset planning === Description === The model and the library are suitable for representing lifecycle information about technical installations and their components. They can also be used for defining the terms used in product catalogs in e-commerce. Another, more limited, use of the standard is as a reference classification for harmonization purposes between shared databases and product catalogues that are not based on ISO 15926. The purpose of ISO 15926 is to provide a Lingua Franca for computer systems, thereby integrating the information produced by them. Although set up for the process industries with large projects involving many parties, and involving plant operations and maintenance lasting decades, the technology can be used by anyone willing to set up a proper vocabulary of reference data in line with Part 4. In Part 7 the concept of Templates is introduced. These are semantic constructs, using Part 2 entities, that represent a small piece of information. These constructs then are mapped to more efficient classes of n-ary relations that interlink the Nodes that are involved in the represented information. In Part 8 the Part 7 Templates are defined in OWL and instantiated in RDF. For validation and reasoning purposes all are represented in First-Order Logic as well. In Part 9 these Node and Template instances are stored in an RDF triple store, set up to a standard schema and an API. Each participating computer system maps its data from its internal format to such ISO-standard Node and Template instances. Data can be "handed over" from one triple store to another in cases where data custodianship is handed over (e.g. from a contractor to a plant owner, or from a manufacturer to the owners of the manufactured goods). Hand-over can be for a part of all data, whilst maintaining full referential integrity. Documents are user-definable. They are defined in XML Schema and they are, in essence, only a structure containing cells that make reference to instances of Templates. This represents a view on all lifecycle data: since the data model is a 4D (space-time) model, it is possible to present the data that was valid at any given point in time, thus providing a true historical record. It is expected that this will be used for Knowledge Mining. Data can be queried by means of SPARQL. In any implementation a restricted number of triple stores can be involved, with different access rights. This is done by means of creating a CPF Server (= Confederation of Participating Façades). An Ontology Browser allows for access to one or more triple stores in a given CPF, depending on the access rights. == Projects and applications == There are a number of projects working on the extension of the ISO 15926 standard in different application areas. === Capital-intensive projects === Within the application of Capital Intensive projects, some cooperating implementation projects are running: The DEXPI project: The objective of DEXPI is to develop and promote a general standard for the process industry covering all phases of the lifecycle of a (petro-)chemical plant, ranging from specification of functional requirements to assets in operation. Finalised projects include: The EDRC Project of FIATECH Capturing Equipment Data Requirements Using ISO 15926 and Assessing Conforma The Israeli cybersecurity industry is a rapidly growing sector within Israel's technology and innovation ecosystem. Israel is internationally recognized as a powerhouse in the cybersecurity domain, with numerous cybersecurity startups, established companies, research institutions, and government initiatives. Tel Aviv itself is being ranked 7th in annual list of best global tech ecosystems, as reported by the Jerusalem Post. == History == The roots of Israel's cybersecurity industry can be traced back to the country's strong focus on national security and intelligence. The establishment of elite military units such as Unit 8200, the Israeli Intelligence Corps unit responsible for signals intelligence and code decryption, played a significant role in the development of cybersecurity expertise in the country. Many former members of Unit 8200 have gone on to establish successful cybersecurity companies or join existing organizations, bringing their unique skill sets and experience to the private sector. == Market overview == As of 2024, Israel housed more than 450 cybersecurity startups and companies. In 2023, the value of exits by Israeli tech companies reached $7.5 billion. Israel's cybersecurity industry is characterized by a high concentration of startups develop new technologies in areas such as network security, endpoint protection, data security, cloud security, and threat intelligence. In recent years, the sector has attracted significant investment from both local and international venture capital firms, as well as major technology companies such as Microsoft, Google, and IBM. Several Israeli cybersecurity companies have gained global recognition and success, with some being acquired by major corporations or conducting successful initial public offerings (IPOs). === Key Israeli cybersecurity companies === Some key Israeli cybersecurity companies include: Check Point Software Technologies CyberArk Cato Networks Radware Wiz === Financial activity === Israel’s cybersecurity sector has seen significant financial activity. As of 2023, mergers and acquisitions in the cybersecurity sector totaled $2.8 billion. In the first quarter of 2024, the sector secured $846 million in private funding. == Background == The military experience helped much. Israel's mandatory military service, combined with the expertise developed within elite units such as Unit 8200, has fostered a strong talent pool with practical experience in cybersecurity. Israel's thriving startup ecosystem, often referred to as the "Startup Nation," has fostered an environment of innovation and collaboration that has contributed to the growth of the cybersecurity industry. Israeli cybersecurity companies often collaborate with international partners, both in the private and public sectors, to share knowledge and develop joint solutions. === Government Initiatives and Support === The government also supported well through various initiatives, such as the Israel National Cyber Directorate (INCD), which works to strengthen cybersecurity defenses and promote the development of the sector. === Academic institutions === Israeli universities and research centers are involved in cybersecurity research and education, contributing to the development of new technologies and training the next generation of cybersecurity professionals. Academic Tech transfer offices in Israel also facilitate the commercialization of cybersecurity technologies. Some academic institutions with cybersecurity laboratories include: Tel Aviv University Technion Ben-Gurion University In coding theory, the Sardinas–Patterson algorithm is a classical algorithm for determining in polynomial time whether a given variable-length code is uniquely decodable, named after August Albert Sardinas and George W. Patterson, who published it in 1953. The algorithm carries out a systematic search for a string which admits two different decompositions into codewords. As Knuth reports, the algorithm was rediscovered about ten years later in 1963 by Floyd, despite the fact that it was at the time already well known in coding theory. == Idea of the algorithm == Consider the code { a ↦ 1 , b ↦ 011 , c ↦ 01110 , d ↦ 1110 , e ↦ 10011 } {\displaystyle \{\,{\texttt {a}}\mapsto {\texttt {1}},{\texttt {b}}\mapsto {\texttt {011}},{\texttt {c}}\mapsto {\texttt {01110}},{\texttt {d}}\mapsto {\texttt {1110}},{\texttt {e}}\mapsto {\texttt {10011}}\,\}} . This code, which is based on an example by Berstel, is an example of a code which is not uniquely decodable, since the string 011101110011 can be interpreted as the sequence of codewords 01110 – 1110 – 011, but also as the sequence of codewords 011 – 1 – 011 – 10011. Two possible decodings of this encoded string are thus given by cdb and babe. In general, a codeword can be found by the following idea: In the first round, we choose two codewords x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} and y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} such that x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} is a prefix of y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} , that is, x 1 w = y 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}w=y_{1}} for some "dangling suffix" w {\displaystyle w} . If one tries first x 1 = 011 {\displaystyle x_{1}={\texttt {011}}} and y 1 = 01110 {\displaystyle y_{1}={\texttt {01110}}} , the dangling suffix is w = 10 {\displaystyle {\texttt {w}}={\texttt {10}}} . If we manage to find two sequences x 2 , … , x p {\displaystyle x_{2},\ldots ,x_{p}} and y 2 , … , y q {\displaystyle y_{2},\ldots ,y_{q}} of codewords such that x 2 ⋯ x p = w y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle x_{2}\cdots x_{p}=wy_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , then we are finished: For then the string x = x 1 x 2 ⋯ x p {\displaystyle x=x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{p}} can alternatively be decomposed as y 1 y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , and we have found the desired string having at least two different decompositions into codewords. In the second round, we try out two different approaches: the first trial is to look for a codeword that has w as prefix. Then we obtain a new dangling suffix w, with which we can continue our search. If we eventually encounter a dangling suffix that is itself a codeword (or the empty word), then the search will terminate, as we know there exists a string with two decompositions. The second trial is to seek for a codeword that is itself a prefix of w. In our example, we have w = 10 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {10}}} , and the sequence 1 is a codeword. We can thus also continue with w = 0 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {0}}} as the new dangling suffix. == Precise description of the algorithm == The algorithm is described most conveniently using quotients of formal languages. In general, for two sets of strings D and N, the (left) quotient N − 1 D {\displaystyle N^{-1}D} is defined as the residual words obtained from D by removing some prefix in N. Formally, N − 1 D = { y ∣ x y ∈ D and x ∈ N } {\displaystyle N^{-1}D=\{\,y\mid xy\in D~{\textrm {and}}~x\in N\,\}} . Now let C {\displaystyle C} denote the (finite) set of codewords in the given code. The algorithm proceeds in rounds, where we maintain in each round not only one dangling suffix as described above, but the (finite) set of all potential dangling suffixes. Starting with round i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} , the set of potential dangling suffixes will be denoted by S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . The sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} are defined inductively as follows: S 1 = C − 1 C ∖ { ε } {\displaystyle S_{1}=C^{-1}C\setminus \{\varepsilon \}} . Here, the symbol ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } denotes the empty word. S i + 1 = C − 1 S i ∪ S i − 1 C {\displaystyle S_{i+1}=C^{-1}S_{i}\cup S_{i}^{-1}C} , for all i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle i\geq 1} . The algorithm computes the sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} in increasing order of i {\displaystyle i} . As soon as one of the S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} contains a word from C or the empty word, then the algorithm terminates and answers that the given code is not uniquely decodable. Otherwise, once a set S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} equals a previously encountered set S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} with j < i {\displaystyle jISO 15926
Israeli cybersecurity industry
Sardinas–Patterson algorithm