The Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine (sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine or MENACE) was a mechanical computer made from 304 matchboxes designed and built by artificial intelligence researcher Donald Michie and his colleague Roger Chambers, in 1961. It was designed to play human opponents in games of noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) by returning a move for any given state of play and to refine its strategy through reinforcement learning. This was one of the first types of artificial intelligence. Michie and Chambers did not have immediate access to a computer; they worked around this by building the engine out of matchboxes. The matchboxes they used each represented a single possible layout of a noughts and crosses grid. When the computer first played, it would randomly choose moves based on the current layout. As it played more games, through a reinforcement loop, it disqualified strategies that led to losing games, and supplemented strategies that led to winning games. Michie held a tournament against MENACE in 1961, wherein he experimented with different openings. Following MENACE's maiden tournament against Michie, it demonstrated successful artificial intelligence in its strategy. Michie's essays on MENACE's weight initialisation and the BOXES algorithm used by MENACE became popular in the field of computer science research. Michie was honoured for his contribution to machine learning research, and was twice commissioned to program a MENACE simulation on an actual computer. == Origin == Donald Michie (1923–2007) had been on the team decrypting the German Tunny Code during World War II. Fifteen years later, he wanted to further display his mathematical and computational prowess with an early convolutional neural network. Since computer equipment was not obtainable for such uses, and Michie did not have a computer readily available, he decided to display and demonstrate artificial intelligence in a more esoteric format and constructed a functional mechanical computer out of matchboxes and beads. MENACE was constructed as the result of a bet with a computer science colleague who postulated that such a machine was impossible. Michie undertook the task of collecting and defining each matchbox as a "fun project", later turned into a demonstration tool. Michie completed his essay on MENACE in 1963, "Experiments on the mechanization of game-learning", as well as his essay on the BOXES Algorithm, written with R. A. Chambers and had built up an AI research unit in Hope Park Square, Edinburgh, Scotland. MENACE learned by playing successive matches of noughts and crosses. Each time, it would eliminate a losing strategy by the human player confiscating the beads that corresponded to each move. It reinforced winning strategies by making the moves more likely, by supplying extra beads. This was one of the earliest versions of the Reinforcement Loop, the schematic algorithm of looping the algorithm, dropping unsuccessful strategies until only the winning ones remain. This model starts as completely random, and gradually learns. == Composition == MENACE was made from 304 matchboxes glued together in an arrangement similar to a chest of drawers. Each box had a code number, which was keyed into a chart. This chart had drawings of tic-tac-toe game grids with various configurations of X, O, and empty squares, corresponding to all possible permutations a game could go through as it progressed. After removing duplicate arrangements (ones that were simply rotations or mirror images of other configurations), MENACE used 304 permutations in its chart and thus that many matchboxes. Each individual matchbox tray contained a collection of coloured beads. Each colour represented a move on a square on the game grid, and so matchboxes with arrangements where positions on the grid were already taken would not have beads for that position. Additionally, at the front of the tray were two extra pieces of card in a "V" shape, the point of the "V" pointing at the front of the matchbox. Michie and his artificial intelligence team called MENACE's algorithm "Boxes", after the apparatus used for the machine. The first stage "Boxes" operated in five phases, each setting a definition and a precedent for the rules of the algorithm in relation to the game. == Operation == MENACE played first, as O, since all matchboxes represented permutations only relevant to the "X" player. To retrieve MENACE's choice of move, the opponent or operator located the matchbox that matched the current game state, or a rotation or mirror image of it. For example, at the start of a game, this would be the matchbox for an empty grid. The tray would be removed and lightly shaken so as to move the beads around. Then, the bead that had rolled into the point of the "V" shape at the front of the tray was the move MENACE had chosen to make. Its colour was then used as the position to play on, and, after accounting for any rotations or flips needed based on the chosen matchbox configuration's relation to the current grid, the O would be placed on that square. Then the player performed their move, the new state was located, a new move selected, and so on, until the game was finished. When the game had finished, the human player observed the game's outcome. As a game was played, each matchbox that was used for MENACE's turn had its tray returned to it ajar, and the bead used kept aside, so that MENACE's choice of moves and the game states they belonged to were recorded. Michie described his reinforcement system with "reward" and "punishment". Once the game was finished, if MENACE had won, it would then receive a "reward" for its victory. The removed beads showed the sequence of the winning moves. These were returned to their respective trays, easily identifiable since they were slightly open, as well as three bonus beads of the same colour. In this way, in future games MENACE would become more likely to repeat those winning moves, reinforcing winning strategies. If it lost, the removed beads were not returned, "punishing" MENACE, and meaning that in future it would be less likely, and eventually incapable if that colour of bead became absent, to repeat the moves that cause a loss. If the game was a draw, one additional bead was added to each box. == Results in practice == === Optimal strategy === Noughts and crosses has a well-known optimal strategy. A player must place their symbol in a way that blocks the other player from achieving any rows while simultaneously making a row themself. However, if both players use this strategy, the game always ends in a draw. If the human player is familiar with the optimal strategy, and MENACE can quickly learn it, then the games will eventually only end in draws. The likelihood of the computer winning increases quickly when the computer plays against a random-playing opponent. When playing against a player using optimal strategy, the odds of a draw grow to 100%. In Donald Michie's official tournament against MENACE in 1961 he used optimal strategy, and he and the computer began to draw consistently after twenty games. Michie's tournament had the following milestones: Michie began by consistently opening with "Variant 0", the middle square. At 15 games, MENACE abandoned all non-corner openings. At just over 20, Michie switched to consistently using "Variant 1", the bottom-right square. At 60, he returned to Variant 0. As he neared 80 games, he moved to "Variant 2", the top-middle. At 110, he switched to "Variant 3", the top right. At 135, he switched to "Variant 4", middle-right. At 190, he returned to Variant 1, and at 210, he returned to Variant 0. The trend in changes of beads in the "2" boxes runs: === Correlation === Depending on the strategy employed by the human player, MENACE produces a different trend on scatter graphs of wins. Using a random turn from the human player results in an almost-perfect positive trend. Playing the optimal strategy returns a slightly slower increase. The reinforcement does not create a perfect standard of wins; the algorithm will draw random uncertain conclusions each time. After the j-th round, the correlation of near-perfect play runs: 1 − D D − D ( j + 2 ) ∑ i = 0 j D ( j i + 1 ) V i {\displaystyle {1-D \over D-D^{(j+2)}}\sum _{i=0}^{j}D^{(ji+1)}V_{i}} Where Vi is the outcome (+1 is win, 0 is draw and -1 is loss) and D is the decay factor (average of past values of wins and losses). Below, Mn is the multiplier for the n-th round of the game. == Legacy == Donald Michie's MENACE proved that a computer could learn from failure and success to become good at a task. It used what would become core principles within the field of machine learning before they had been properly theorised. For example, the combination of how MENACE starts with equal numbers of types of beads in each matchbox, and how these are then selected at random, creates a learning behaviour similar to weight initialisation
Admissible heuristic
In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.
Digital anthropology
Digital anthropology is the anthropological study of the relationship between humans and digital-era technology. The field is new, and thus has a variety of names with a variety of emphases. These include techno-anthropology, digital ethnography, cyberanthropology, and virtual anthropology. == Definition and scope == Most anthropologists who use the phrase "digital anthropology" are specifically referring to online and Internet technology. The study of humans' relationship to a broader range of technology may fall under other subfields of anthropological study, such as cyborg anthropology. The Digital Anthropology Group (DANG) is classified as an interest group in the American Anthropological Association. DANG's mission includes promoting the use of digital technology as a tool of anthropological research, encouraging anthropologists to share research using digital platforms, and outlining ways for anthropologists to study digital communities. Cyberspace or the "virtual world" itself can serve as a "field" site for anthropologists, allowing the observation, analysis, and interpretation of the sociocultural phenomena springing up and taking place in any interactive space. National and transnational communities, enabled by digital technology, establish a set of social norms, practices, traditions, storied history and associated collective memory, migration periods, internal and external conflicts, potentially subconscious language features and memetic dialects comparable to those of traditional, geographically confined communities. This includes the various communities built around free and open-source software, online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram, 4chan and Reddit and their respective sub-sites, and politically motivated groups like Anonymous, WikiLeaks, or the Occupy movement. A number of academic anthropologists have conducted traditional ethnographies of virtual worlds, such as Bonnie Nardi's study of World of Warcraft or Tom Boellstorff's study of Second Life. Academic Gabriella Coleman has done ethnographic work on the Debian software community and the Anonymous hacktivist network. Theorist Nancy Mauro-Flude conducts ethnographic field work on computing arts and computer subcultures such as systerserver.net a part of the communities of feminist web servers and the Feminist Internet network. Eitan Y. Wilf examines the intersection of artists' creativity and digital technology and artificial intelligence. Yongming Zhou studied how in China the internet is used to participate in politics. Eve M. Zucker and colleagues study the shift to digital memorialization of mass atrocities and the emergent role of artificial intelligence in these processes. Victoria Bernal conducted ethnographic research on the themes of nationalism and citizenship among Eritreans participating in online political engagement with their homeland. Anthropological research can help designers adapt and improve technology. Australian anthropologist Genevieve Bell did extensive user experience research at Intel that informed the company's approach to its technology, users, and market. == Methodology == === Digital fieldwork === Many digital anthropologists who study online communities use traditional methods of anthropological research. They participate in online communities in order to learn about their customs and worldviews, and back their observations with private interviews, historical research, and quantitative data. Their product is an ethnography, a qualitative description of their experience and analyses. Other anthropologists and social scientists have conducted research that emphasizes data gathered by websites and servers. However, academics often have trouble accessing user data on the same scale as social media corporations like Facebook and data mining companies like Acxiom. In terms of method, there is a disagreement in whether it is possible to conduct research exclusively online or if research will only be complete when the subjects are studied holistically, both online and offline. Tom Boellstorff, who conducted a three-year research as an avatar in the virtual world Second Life, defends the first approach, stating that it is not just possible, but necessary to engage with subjects “in their own terms”. Others, such as Daniel Miller, have argued that an ethnographic research should not exclude learning about the subject's life outside the internet. === Digital technology as a tool of anthropology === The American Anthropological Association offers an online guide for students using digital technology to store and share data. Data can be uploaded to digital databases to be stored, shared, and interpreted. Text and numerical analysis software can help produce metadata, while a codebook may help organize data. == Ethics == Online fieldwork offers new ethical challenges. According to the American Anthropological Association's ethics guidelines, anthropologists researching a community must make sure that all members of that community know they are being studied and have access to data the anthropologist produces. However, many online communities' interactions are publicly available for anyone to read, and may be preserved online for years. Digital anthropologists debate the extent to which lurking in online communities and sifting through public archives is ethical. The Association also asserts that anthropologists' ability to collect and store data at all is "a privilege", and researchers have an ethical duty to store digital data responsibly. This means protecting the identity of participants, sharing data with other anthropologists, and making backup copies of all data. == Prominent figures == Genevieve Bell is an Australian cultural anthropologist credited for pioneering the User Experience field. During her time working for Intel Corporation, Bell studied how various cultures from around the world interacted with and experienced technology. Researching and improving user experience allows companies and designers to gather data regarding how users utilize their digital products and what requires improvement or expansion. Tom Boellstorff is an anthropologist known for Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human where he conducted research on how engaging in virtual worlds affects the player’s sense of self. Gabriella Coleman is an American anthropologist concerned with the politics, ethics, and culture of hacking and online activism. Coleman’s most notable ethnography features the hacktivist collective Anonymous, where she argues that various genres of hacking exist according to the social conditions at play. Coleman is dedicated to making her ethnography accessible to a diverse audience, including academics and non-academics. Diana E. Forsythe was an American anthropologist of science and technology and the author of the essays featured in Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence. She asked relevant questions such as how should humans interact with computers and how gender roles are maintained in technology-oriented occupations. Heather Horst is a sociocultural anthropologist interested in the relationship between digital social relations and material culture. Nancy Mauro-Flude is a design anthropologist whose work explores the tacit relations between embodied cognition, computational materiality, maker culture, self-hosted webserver cooperatives, creative practice, and artistic research in digital infrastructure and Internet publishing. Mizuko Ito is a Japanese cultural anthropologist specializing in technology use and the intersection between computers and the social sciences. Her primary interest is in how young people utilize media technology and how it can be used to engage students in education. Daniel Miller is an anthropologist with a concentration in digital anthropology. His research includes the smartphone and perpetual opportunism, the intent and consequences of posting on social media in various geographical locations, and how hospice patients use media to socialize in the last stage of their lives. Mike Wesch is a cultural anthropologist interested in how people share their lives, cultures, and beliefs through digital media.
Supercomputer operating system
A supercomputer operating system is an operating system intended for supercomputers. Since the end of the 20th century, supercomputer operating systems have undergone major transformations, as fundamental changes have occurred in supercomputer architecture. While early operating systems were custom tailored to each supercomputer to gain speed, the trend has been moving away from in-house operating systems and toward some form of Linux, with it running all the supercomputers on the TOP500 list in November 2017. In 2021, top 10 computers run for instance Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), or some variant of it or other Linux distribution e.g. Ubuntu. Given that modern massively parallel supercomputers typically separate computations from other services by using multiple types of nodes, they usually run different operating systems on different nodes, e.g., using a small and efficient lightweight kernel such as Compute Node Kernel (CNK) or Compute Node Linux (CNL) on compute nodes, but a larger system such as a Linux distribution on server and input/output (I/O) nodes. While in a traditional multi-user computer system job scheduling is in effect a tasking problem for processing and peripheral resources, in a massively parallel system, the job management system needs to manage the allocation of both computational and communication resources, as well as gracefully dealing with inevitable hardware failures when tens of thousands of processors are present. Although most modern supercomputers use the Linux operating system, each manufacturer has made its own specific changes to the Linux distribution they use, and no industry standard exists, partly because the differences in hardware architectures require changes to optimize the operating system to each hardware design. == Context and overview == In the early days of supercomputing, the basic architectural concepts were evolving rapidly, and system software had to follow hardware innovations that usually took rapid turns. In the early systems, operating systems were custom tailored to each supercomputer to gain speed, yet in the rush to develop them, serious software quality challenges surfaced and in many cases the cost and complexity of system software development became as much an issue as that of hardware. In the 1980s the cost for software development at Cray came to equal what they spent on hardware and that trend was partly responsible for a move away from the in-house operating systems to the adaptation of generic software. The first wave in operating system changes came in the mid-1980s, as vendor specific operating systems were abandoned in favor of Unix. Despite early skepticism, this transition proved successful. By the early 1990s, major changes were occurring in supercomputing system software. By this time, the growing use of Unix had begun to change the way system software was viewed. The use of a high level language (C) to implement the operating system, and the reliance on standardized interfaces was in contrast to the assembly language oriented approaches of the past. As hardware vendors adapted Unix to their systems, new and useful features were added to Unix, e.g., fast file systems and tunable process schedulers. However, all the companies that adapted Unix made unique changes to it, rather than collaborating on an industry standard to create "Unix for supercomputers". This was partly because differences in their architectures required these changes to optimize Unix to each architecture. As general purpose operating systems became stable, supercomputers began to borrow and adapt critical system code from them, and relied on the rich set of secondary functions that came with them. However, at the same time the size of the code for general purpose operating systems was growing rapidly. By the time Unix-based code had reached 500,000 lines long, its maintenance and use was a challenge. This resulted in the move to use microkernels which used a minimal set of the operating system functions. Systems such as Mach at Carnegie Mellon University and ChorusOS at INRIA were examples of early microkernels. The separation of the operating system into separate components became necessary as supercomputers developed different types of nodes, e.g., compute nodes versus I/O nodes. Thus modern supercomputers usually run different operating systems on different nodes, e.g., using a small and efficient lightweight kernel such as CNK or CNL on compute nodes, but a larger system such as a Linux-derivative on server and I/O nodes. == Early systems == The CDC 6600, generally considered the first supercomputer in the world, ran the Chippewa Operating System, which was then deployed on various other CDC 6000 series computers. The Chippewa was a rather simple job control oriented system derived from the earlier CDC 3000, but it influenced the later KRONOS and SCOPE systems. The first Cray-1 was delivered to the Los Alamos Lab with no operating system, or any other software. Los Alamos developed the application software for it, and the operating system. The main timesharing system for the Cray 1, the Cray Time Sharing System (CTSS), was then developed at the Livermore Labs as a direct descendant of the Livermore Time Sharing System (LTSS) for the CDC 6600 operating system from twenty years earlier. In developing supercomputers, rising software costs soon became dominant, as evidenced by the 1980s cost for software development at Cray growing to equal their cost for hardware. That trend was partly responsible for a move away from the in-house Cray Operating System to UNICOS system based on Unix. In 1985, the Cray-2 was the first system to ship with the UNICOS operating system. Around the same time, the EOS operating system was developed by ETA Systems for use in their ETA10 supercomputers. Written in Cybil, a Pascal-like language from Control Data Corporation, EOS highlighted the stability problems in developing stable operating systems for supercomputers and eventually a Unix-like system was offered on the same machine. The lessons learned from developing ETA system software included the high level of risk associated with developing a new supercomputer operating system, and the advantages of using Unix with its large extant base of system software libraries. By the middle 1990s, despite the extant investment in older operating systems, the trend was toward the use of Unix-based systems, which also facilitated the use of interactive graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for scientific computing across multiple platforms. The move toward a commodity OS had opponents, who cited the fast pace and focus of Linux development as a major obstacle against adoption. As one author wrote "Linux will likely catch up, but we have large-scale systems now". Nevertheless, that trend continued to gain momentum and by 2005, virtually all supercomputers used some Unix-like OS. These variants of Unix included IBM AIX, the open source Linux system, and other adaptations such as UNICOS from Cray. By the end of the 20th century, Linux was estimated to command the highest share of the supercomputing pie. == Modern approaches == The IBM Blue Gene supercomputer uses the CNK operating system on the compute nodes, but uses a modified Linux-based kernel called I/O Node Kernel (INK) on the I/O nodes. CNK is a lightweight kernel that runs on each node and supports a single application running for a single user on that node. For the sake of efficient operation, the design of CNK was kept simple and minimal, with physical memory being statically mapped and the CNK neither needing nor providing scheduling or context switching. CNK does not even implement file I/O on the compute node, but delegates that to dedicated I/O nodes. However, given that on the Blue Gene multiple compute nodes share a single I/O node, the I/O node operating system does require multi-tasking, hence the selection of the Linux-based operating system. While in traditional multi-user computer systems and early supercomputers, job scheduling was in effect a task scheduling problem for processing and peripheral resources, in a massively parallel system, the job management system needs to manage the allocation of both computational and communication resources. It is essential to tune task scheduling, and the operating system, in different configurations of a supercomputer. A typical parallel job scheduler has a master scheduler which instructs some number of slave schedulers to launch, monitor, and control parallel jobs, and periodically receives reports from them about the status of job progress. Some, but not all supercomputer schedulers attempt to maintain locality of job execution. The PBS Pro scheduler used on the Cray XT3 and Cray XT4 systems does not attempt to optimize locality on its three-dimensional torus interconnect, but simply uses the first available processor. On the other hand, IBM's scheduler on the Blue Gene supercomputers aims to exploit locality a
Creator economy
The creator economy, also known as influencer economy, is a platform-driven economy in which creators produce content, products, or services and distribute them directly to their audience through social media platforms and emerging technologies. This economic model is based on the ability of creators to build and maintain communities of users, monetizing their creative activity through multiple channels including advertising, sponsorships, product sales, crowdfunding, and subscription-based services. Creators include various professional categories such as social media influencers, YouTubers, bloggers, artists, online educators, podcasters, and independent professionals, who use platforms as infrastructure to reach their audience without necessarily relying on traditional intermediaries in the cultural and media industry. According to Goldman Sachs Research, the ongoing growth of the creator economy will likely benefit companies that possess a combination of factors, including a large global user base, access to substantial capital, robust AI-powered recommendation engines, versatile monetization tools, comprehensive data analytics, and integrated e-commerce options. Examples of creator economy software platforms include YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitch, Spotify, Substack, OnlyFans and Patreon. == History == The term "creator" was coined by YouTube in 2011 to be used instead of "YouTube star", an expression that at the time could only apply to famous individuals on the platform. The term has since become omnipresent and is used to describe anyone creating any form of online content. A number of platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and Facebook have set up funds with which to pay creators. == Criticism == The large majority of content creators derive no monetary gain for their creations, with most of the benefits accruing to the platforms who can make significant revenues from their uploads. As few as 0.1% of creators are able to earn a living through their channels.
Jeremy Renner Official
Jeremy Renner Official (or Jeremy Renner on the Google Play Store) was a mobile app created by American actor Jeremy Renner. He created the app in March 2017 to hear the input and comments of his fans. The app was shut down in September 2019 in part due to the frequent bullying and trolling that the platform had experienced. The app featured optional microtransactions, with some ranging up to roughly US$400 despite the app itself being free. Upon shutting down the app, Renner issued a mass-refund for the collectible "stars" in the app for purchases made within the last ninety days, from the day the announcement was posted. He then posted an apology to the app itself, and the app was deleted from both the Google Play Store and the App Store shortly after. == Usage == Upon downloading the app, the user was faced with a video of Renner speaking about his fans and superfans, regular giveaways, and real-life updates. While the app was active, Renner posted regular questions and comments for fans. Renner occasionally livestreamed about his work and day-to-day life. The community developed to include memes, selfies, and a "Happy Rennsday" event on Wednesdays. == History == === 2017–2019 === The app launched in March 2017 with a promotional contest. Renner's fans were encouraged to download the app and create comments about being Renner's biggest fan; Renner would then choose a winner and transport the winner and a guest to have lunch with him at the Calgary Expo. In the first few months Renner teased behind-the-scenes of projects he was working on, which he now sporadically does on Instagram. The app was similarly designed to Instagram as well, with a near identically styled layout. Around midway through 2019, a hoax account of Renner was made to mock the celebrity, joking about masturbating to porn and defending another hoax account of Casey Anthony. FastCompany wrote extensively about Renner's app in April 2019, calling it "a surprising new kind of social media". The Ringer stated "Jeremy Renner's Jeremy Renner app is the Jeremy Renner of apps." === After deletion (2019–2020) === After the shutdown of the app, a comedy-based pseudo-app with modular endings was released, called "The Jeremy Renner App Experience", in which the player plays as Jeremy Renner on the day of the Jeremy Renner Official app's shutdown. The app details several different choices on how Renner handles the situation. A six-part podcast was also created to mock the app's deletion, called The Renner Files, featuring Carolyn Goldfarb and Sarah Ramos. == Controversies == === Marketing === One of the main controversies of Renner's app was its marketing. The app's developers, Escapex, specialized in and grew famous for making similar monetized apps for celebrities. The marketing campaign was based on direct contact with Renner, whose chances were increased with regular payments for "stars", although very few encounters seemed to happen with Renner himself. The multiple problems with the app led the CEO of Escapex, Sephi Shapira, to call the app a "freak situation", and added "Am I concerned about this? Not more than I'm concerned about 50 other things I'm dealing with as a startup company." Along with the marketing failures, the app was seen as misrepresenting itself as seemingly erotic with some advertisements featuring Renner suggestively staring at the camera, despite the actual app being initially considered safe for children. === Harassment === After its release in 2017, the app was met with waves of harassment and bullying by many users on the app, most frequently by using impersonation — referenced in Renner's apology/deletion notice. Some death threats were made across the app by fraud accounts pretending to be several controversial celebrities, including O. J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. As early as October 2017, there were claims of censorship, bullying, and "contest-rigging". In September 2019, comedian Stefan Heck publicized his discovery of the fact that replies through the app appeared as if they were sent by Renner himself in push notifications. After several users abused this feature, Renner asked Escapex to shut down the app.
Digital media service
A digital media service (DMS) is an online service provider that sells access to digital library of content such as films, software, games, images, literature, etc. While no transfer of property is made, a nearly perfect duplicate of the data (song movie, etc.) is made on a customer's computer. Content is either primarily hosted on a dedicated server, which is owned by the service provider, or it is hosted primarily on the hard drives of its customers using a P2P protocol with, perhaps, a dedicated server to supplement. == History == One example of the older business model is the iTunes Store, which still markets and prices data as individual retail products. There are no examples of the latter business model in operation yet, but one is currently in development by Global Gaming Factory X and expected to begin operation some time after they acquire The Pirate Bay domain on August 27, 2009. A key difference between the two models is that the model which relies on its customer base for offering their bandwidth for other customers to access customer hosted data can operate at significantly lower costs than a company that seeks to limit data access to a per-download fee in order to supplement the cost of using its own hosting and bandwidth. The P2P model holds the potential for companies to offer unlimited access to the largest data library in the history of the internet to its customers for a reasonably low membership rate that is relevant to the cost of operation. While the market is virtually untouched, the P2P supplemented model will need entrepreneurs who are able to overcome a series of challenges in order to compete with the older business model as well as that which is offered for free (and often against the wishes of copyright holders) by hundreds of P2P communities on the internet. These challenges include, but are not limited to: Offering better data quality, speed, convenience and ease of use, protocol, sense of security, indexing and search organization, site up time, data library size, customer support, advertising, artist/copyright holder incentives and compensation, incentives and compensation for customers hosting data and providing bandwidth, guaranteed seeding (available access to indexed data at all times), than competitors.