In software engineering, gold is a linker for ELF files. It became an official GNU package and was added to binutils in March 2008 and first released in binutils version 2.19. gold was developed by Ian Lance Taylor and a small team at Google. The motivation for writing gold was to make a linker that is faster than the GNU linker, especially for large applications coded in C++. Unlike the GNU linker, gold does not use the BFD library to process object files. While this limits the object file formats it can process to ELF only, it is also claimed to result in a cleaner and faster implementation without an additional abstraction layer. The author cited complete removal of BFD as a reason to create a new linker from scratch rather than incrementally improve the GNU linker. This rewrite also fixes some bugs in old ld that break ELF files in various minor ways. To specify gold in a makefile, one sets the LD or LD environment variable to ld.gold. To specify gold through a compiler option, one can use the gcc option -fuse-ld=gold. Fedora has moved gold from binutils into its own package due to concerns it is suffering from bitrot after Google's interest has moved to LLVM. In particular, gold does not read LDFLAGS variable, so cannot see libraries in folders like /usr/local/lib. On 2025-02-02 the 2.44 version of GNU Binutils removed gold from the default source distribution and into a separate package, stating that "the gold linker is now deprecated and will eventually be removed unless volunteers step forward and offer to continue development and maintenance".
Self-management (computer science)
Self-management is the process by which computer systems manage their own operation without human intervention. Self-management technologies are expected to pervade the next generation of network management systems. The growing complexity of modern networked computer systems is a limiting factor in their expansion. The increasing heterogeneity of corporate computer systems, the inclusion of mobile computing devices, and the combination of different networking technologies like WLAN, cellular phone networks, and mobile ad hoc networks make the conventional, manual management difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone. More recently, self-management has been suggested as a solution to increasing complexity in cloud computing. An industrial initiative towards realizing self-management is the Autonomic Computing Initiative (ACI) started by IBM in 2001. The ACI defines the following four functional areas: Self-configuration Auto-configuration of components Self-healing Automatic discovery, and correction of faults; automatically applying all necessary actions to bring system back to normal operation Self-optimization Automatic monitoring and control of resources to ensure the optimal functioning with respect to the defined requirements Self-protection Proactive identification and protection from arbitrary attacks
Basic Formal Ontology
Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a top-level ontology developed by Barry Smith and colleagues to promote interoperability among domain ontologies. The BFO methodology accomplishes this through a process of downward population. BFO is a formal ontology. The structure of BFO is based on a division of entities into two disjoint categories of continuant and occurrent, the former consists of objects and spatial regions, the latter contains processes conceived as extended through (or spanning) time. BFO thereby seeks to consolidate both time and space within a single framework A guide to building BFO-conformant domain ontologies was published by MIT Press in 2015. In 2021, the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 Information Technology — Top-level Ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) was published by the Joint Technical Committee of the International Standards Organization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 21838 is a multi-part standard. Part 1 of the standard specifies the requirements that must be met if an ontology is to be classified as a top-level ontology by the standard. == History == BFO arose against the background of research in ontologies in the domain of geospatial information science by David Mark, Pierre Grenon, Achille Varzi and others, with a special role for the study of vagueness and of the ways sharp boundaries in the geospatial and other domains are created by fiat. BFO has passed through four major releases. 2001: release of BFO 1 2007: release of BFO 1.1 2015: release of BFO 2.0 2020: release of BFO 2020 2021: release of BFO 2020 as an ISO/IEC Standard The current revision was released in 2020, and this forms the basis of the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2, which was released by the Joint Committee of the International Standards Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission in 2021. == Applications == BFO has been adopted as a foundational ontology by over 650 ontology projects, principally in the areas of biomedical ontology, security and defense (intelligence) ontology, and industry ontologies. Example applications of BFO can be seen in the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). In January 2024, BFO and the Common Core Ontologies (CCO), a suite of BFO-extension ontologies, were adopted as the "baseline standards for formal DOD and IC ontology" development work in the DOD and Intelligence Community. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the chief data officers of the DOD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.
Affective computing
Affective computing is the study and development of systems and devices that can recognize, interpret, process, and simulate human affects. It is an interdisciplinary field spanning computer science, psychology, and cognitive science. While some core ideas in the field may be traced as far back as to early philosophical inquiries into emotion, the modern idea originated with Rosalind Picard's 1995 paper entitled "Affective Computing" and her 1997 book of the same name published by MIT Press. One motivation for researching affective computing is the ability to give machines emotional intelligence, including simulating empathy. The goal is that a machine should interpret the emotional state of humans and adapt its behavior to those emotions, responding appropriately. Recent experimental research has shown that subtle affective haptic feedback can shape human reward learning and mobile interaction behavior, suggesting that affective computing systems may not only interpret emotional states but also actively modulate user actions through emotion-laden outputs. == Areas == === Detecting and recognizing emotional information === Detecting emotional information usually begins with passive sensors that capture data about the user's physical state or behavior without interpreting the input. The data gathered is analogous to the cues humans use to perceive emotions in others. For example, a video camera might capture facial expressions, body posture, and gestures, while a microphone might capture speech. Other sensors detect emotional cues by directly measuring physiological data, such as skin temperature and galvanic resistance. Recognizing emotional information requires the extraction of meaningful patterns from the gathered data. This is done using machine learning techniques that process different modalities, such as speech recognition, natural language processing, or facial expression detection. The goal of most of these techniques is to produce labels that would match the labels a human would give in the same situation. For example, if a person makes a facial expression furrowing their brow, then the computer vision system might be trained to label their face as appearing "confused" or as "concentrating" or "slightly negative" (as opposed to positive, which it might say if they were smiling in a happy-appearing way). This response is based on the data used to train the system. These labels may or may not correspond to what the person is actually feeling. === Emotion in machines === Another area within affective computing is the design of computational devices proposed to exhibit either innate emotional capabilities or that are capable of convincingly simulating emotions. A more practical approach, based on current technological capabilities, is the simulation of emotions in conversational agents in order to enrich and facilitate interactivity between human and machine. Marvin Minsky, one of the pioneering computer scientists in artificial intelligence, relates emotions to the broader issues of machine intelligence stating in The Emotion Machine that emotion is "not especially different from the processes that we call 'thinking.'" The innovative approach "digital humans" or virtual humans includes an attempt to give these programs, which simulate humans, an emotional dimension as well, including reactions, facial expressions, and gestures in accordance with the reaction that a real person would have in certain emotionally stimulating situations. Emotion in machines often refers to emotion in computational, often AI-based, systems. As a result, the terms 'emotional AI' is being used. Some modern large language models simulate emotions in their chats with humans. ChatGPT's simulated emotion leans more positive than that of most human responses. == Technologies == In psychology, cognitive science, and in neuroscience, there have been two main approaches for describing how humans perceive and classify emotion: continuous or categorical. The continuous approach tends to use dimensions such as negative vs. positive, calm vs. aroused. The categorical approach tends to use discrete classes such as happy, sad, angry, fearful, surprise, and disgust. Different kinds of machine learning regression and classification models are used for machines to produce continuous or discrete labels. Sometimes, models are also built that allow combinations across the categories (e.g. a happy-surprised face or a fearful-surprised face). The following sections consider many of the kinds of input data used for the task of emotion recognition. === Emotional speech === Various changes in the autonomic nervous system can indirectly alter a person's speech, and affective technologies can leverage this information to recognize emotion. For example, speech produced in a state of fear, anger, or joy becomes fast, loud, and precisely enunciated, with a higher and wider range in pitch, whereas emotions such as tiredness, boredom, or sadness tend to generate slow, low-pitched, and slurred speech. Some emotions have been found to be more easily computationally identified, such as anger or approval. Emotional speech processing technologies recognize the user's emotional state using computational analysis of speech features. Vocal parameters and prosodic features such as pitch variables and speech rate can be analyzed through pattern recognition techniques. Speech analysis is an effective method of identifying affective state, having an average reported accuracy of 70-80% in research from 2003 and 2006. These systems tend to outperform average human accuracy (approximately 60%) but are less accurate than systems which employ other modalities for emotion detection, such as physiological states or facial expressions. However, since many speech characteristics are independent of semantics or culture, this technique is considered to be a promising route for further research. ==== Algorithms ==== The process of speech/text affect detection requires the creation of a reliable database, knowledge base, or vector space model, broad enough to fit every need for its application, as well as the selection of a successful classifier which will allow for quick and accurate emotion identification. As of 2010, the most frequently used classifiers were linear discriminant classifiers (LDC), k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), Gaussian mixture model (GMM), support vector machines (SVM), artificial neural networks (ANN), decision tree algorithms, and hidden Markov models (HMMs). Various studies showed that choosing the appropriate classifier can significantly enhance the overall performance of the system. The list below gives a brief description of each algorithm: LDC – Classification happens based on the value obtained from the linear combination of the feature values, which are usually provided in the form of vector features. k-NN – Classification happens by locating the object in the feature space, and comparing it with the k nearest neighbors (training examples). The majority vote decides on the classification. GMM – A probabilistic model used for representing the existence of subpopulations within the overall population. Each sub-population is described using the mixture distribution, which allows for classification of observations into the sub-populations. SVM – A type of (usually binary) linear classifier which decides in which of the two (or more) possible classes, each input may fall into. ANN – is a mathematical model, inspired by biological neural networks, that can better grasp possible non-linearities of the feature space. Decision tree algorithms – work based on following a decision tree in which leaves represent the classification outcome, and branches represent the conjunction of subsequent features that lead to the classification. HMMs – a statistical Markov model in which the states and state transitions are not directly available to observation. Instead, the series of outputs dependent on the states are visible. In the case of affect recognition, the outputs represent the sequence of speech feature vectors, which allow the deduction of states' sequences through which the model progressed. The states can consist of various intermediate steps in the expression of an emotion, and each of them has a probability distribution over the possible output vectors. The states' sequences allow us to predict the affective state which we are trying to classify, and this is one of the most commonly used techniques within the area of speech affect detection. It has been proven that having enough acoustic evidence available the emotional state of a person can be classified by a set of majority voting classifiers. The proposed set of classifiers is based on three main classifiers: kNN, C4.5 and SVM-RBF Kernel. This set achieves better performance than each basic classifier taken separately. It is compared with two other sets of classifiers: one-against-all (OAA) multiclass SVM with Hybrid kernels and th
Exploratory search
Exploratory search is a specialization of information exploration which represents the activities carried out by searchers who are: unfamiliar with the domain of their goal (i.e. need to learn about the topic in order to understand how to achieve their goal) or unsure about the ways to achieve their goals (either the technology or the process) or unsure about their goals in the first place. Exploratory search is distinguished from known-item search, for which the searcher has a particular target in mind. Consequently, exploratory search covers a broader class of activities than typical information retrieval, such as investigating, evaluating, comparing, and synthesizing, where new information is sought in a defined conceptual area; exploratory data analysis is another example of an information exploration activity. Typically, therefore, such users generally combine querying and browsing strategies to foster learning and investigation. == History == Exploratory search is a topic that has grown from the fields of information retrieval and information seeking but has become more concerned with alternatives to the kind of search that has received the majority of focus (returning the most relevant documents to a Google-like keyword search). The research is motivated by questions like "What if the user doesn't know which keywords to use?" or "What if the user isn't looking for a single answer?" Consequently, research has begun to focus on defining the broader set of information behaviors in order to learn about the situations when a user is, or feels, limited by only having the ability to perform a keyword search. In the last few years, a series of workshops has been held at various related and key events. In 2005, the Exploratory Search Interfaces workshop focused on beginning to define some of the key challenges in the field. Since then a series of other workshops has been held at related conferences: Evaluating Exploratory Search at SIGIR06 and Exploratory Search and HCI at CHI07 (in order to meet with the experts in human–computer interaction). In March 2008, an Information Processing and Management special issue focused particularly on the challenges of evaluating exploratory search, given the reduced assumptions that can be made about scenarios of use. In June 2008, the National Science Foundation sponsored an invitational workshop to identify a research agenda for exploratory search and similar fields for the coming years. == Research challenges == === Important scenarios === With the majority of research in the information retrieval community focusing on typical keyword search scenarios, one challenge for exploratory search is to further understand the scenarios of use for when keyword search is not sufficient. An example scenario, often used to motivate the research by mSpace, states: if a user does not know much about classical music, how should they even begin to find a piece that they might like. Similarly, for patients or their carers, if they don't know the right keywords for their health problems, how can they effectively find useful health information for themselves? === Designing new interfaces === With one of the motivations being to support users when keyword search is not enough, some research has focused on identifying alternative user interfaces and interaction models that support the user in different ways. An example is faceted search which presents diverse category-style options to the users, so that they can choose from a list instead of guess a possible keyword query. Many of the interactive forms of search, including faceted browsers, are being considered for their support of exploratory search conditions. Computational cognitive models of exploratory search have been developed to capture the cognitive complexities involved in exploratory search. Model-based dynamic presentation of information cues are proposed to facilitate exploratory search performance. === Evaluating interfaces === As the tasks and goals involved with exploratory search are largely undefined or unpredictable, it is very hard to evaluate systems with the measures often used in information retrieval. Accuracy was typically used to show that a user had found a correct answer, but when the user is trying to summarize a domain of information, the correct answer is near impossible to identify, if not entirely subjective (for example: possible hotels to stay in Paris). In exploration, it is also arguable that spending more time (where time efficiency is typically desirable) researching a topic shows that a system provides increased support for investigation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, giving study participants a well specified task could immediately prevent them from exhibiting exploratory behavior. === Models of exploratory search behavior === There have been recent attempts to develop a process model of exploratory search behavior, especially in social information system (e.g., see models of collaborative tagging. The process model assumes that user-generated information cues, such as social tags, can act as navigational cues that facilitate exploration of information that others have found and shared with other users on a social information system (such as social bookmarking system). These models provided extension to existing process model of information search that characterizes information-seeking behavior in traditional fact-retrievals using search engines. Recent development in exploratory search is often concentrated in predicting users' search intents in interaction with the user. Such predictive user modeling, also referred as intent modeling, can help users to get accustomed to a body of domain knowledge and help users to make sense of the potential directions to be explored around their initial, often vague, expression of information needs. == Major figures == Key figures, including experts from both information seeking and human–computer interaction, are: Marcia Bates Nicholas Belkin Gary Marchionini m.c. schraefel Ryen W. White
MetaMask
MetaMask is a software cryptocurrency wallet developed by ConsenSys for interacting with the Ethereum blockchain and other EVM-compatible networks. It enables users to manage Ethereum accounts and connect to decentralized applications (dApps) via a browser extension or mobile app. As of early 2026, MetaMask reports over 100 million users worldwide. == Overview == MetaMask allows users to store and manage private keys, send and receive Ethereum-based cryptocurrencies and tokens (including ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards), broadcast transactions, and interact with dApps. dApps connect to the wallet via JavaScript interfaces, prompting users to approve signatures or transactions. The wallet features MetaMask Swaps, an in-app token swap aggregator sourcing liquidity from multiple decentralized exchanges (DEXs), with a service fee of 0.875%. In 2025, MetaMask introduced the MetaMask Rewards program (initially mobile-only), where users earn points for activities such as swaps, bridging, and referrals. Season 1 (October 2025 – January 2026) distributed over $30 million in Linea tokens and other perks to participants. == History == MetaMask launched in 2016 as open-source software under the MIT license. It initially supported browser extensions for Chrome and Firefox. Mobile versions were in closed beta from 2019 and publicly released for iOS and Android in September 2020. In August 2020, the license changed to a custom proprietary one. MetaMask Swaps launched on desktop in October 2020 and on mobile in March 2021. The Rewards program launched in late 2025 with Linea integration. == Criticism == MetaMask has faced criticism over privacy, including default analytics settings that share some user data (which can be disabled). Its reliance on Infura (acquired by ConsenSys in 2019) has raised concerns about centralization in Ethereum infrastructure. The wallet regularly issues warnings about phishing scams and fake airdrops impersonating MetaMask.
ARMA International
ARMA International (formerly the Association of Records Managers and Administrators) is an American not-for-profit professional association for information professionals – primarily information management (including records management) and information governance, and related industry practitioners and vendors. The association provides educational opportunities and publications covering aspects of information management broadly. == History == The Association was founded in 1955. In 1975, the Association of Records Executives and Administrators (AREA) and the American Records Management Association merged to form ARMA International. The headquarters for ARMA International is located in Overland Park, Kansas. == Operations == ARMA International services professionals in the United States, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Its members include records managers, attorneys, information technology professionals, consultants, and archivists involved in various aspects of managing records and information assets. ARMA hosts an annual conference with the goal of bringing together record and information management professionals from around the world – In 2023, ARMA hosted conferences in both the United States and Canada. Topics addressed in the 120+ educational sessions include advanced technology, creating information structure, ediscovery and information law, information management fundamentals, information project management, and reducing organizational information risk. The expo features exhibitors displaying records and information technologies, products, and services.