The netX network controller family (based on ASICs), developed by Hilscher Gesellschaft für Systemautomation mbH, is a solution for implementing all proven Fieldbus and Real-Time Ethernet systems. It was the first Multi-Protocol ASIC which combines Real-Time-Ethernet and Fieldbus System in one solution. The Multiprotocol functionality is done over a flexible cpu sub system called XC. Through exchanging some microcode the XC is able to realize beside others a PROFINET IRT Switch, EtherCAT Slave, Ethernet Powerlink HUB, PROFIBUS, CAN bus, CC-Link Industrial Networks Interface. == The Hilscher netX family == === Multiplex Matrix IOs (MMIO) === The Multiplex Matrix is a set of PINs which could be configured freely with peripheral functions. Options are CAN, UART, SPI, I2C, GPIOs, PIOs and SYNC Trigger. === GPIOs === The GPIOs from Hilscher are able to generate Interrupts, could count level or flags, or could be connected to a timer unit to auto generate a PWM. The Resolution of the PWM is normally 10ns. In some netX ASICS is a dedicated Motion unit with a resolution if 1ns is available.
Zé Delivery
Zé Delivery is a startup developed by Brazilian drinks company AmBev which offers an app for delivering drinks. The app is available for Android and iOS. Created in 2016 by AmBev's ZX Ventures hub, the service has an international presence in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Panama and the Dominican Republic. It is also present in more than 300 Brazilian cities. Because it has an extensive category of alcoholic beverages, the service is only used by people over 18. It also offers soft drinks, juices, energy drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages.
Generative literature
Generative literature is poetry or fiction that is automatically generated, often using computers. It is a genre of electronic literature, and also related to generative art. John Clark's Latin Verse Machine (1830–1843) is probably the first example of mechanised generative literature, while Christopher Strachey's love letter generator (1952) is the first digital example. With the large language models (LLMs) of the 2020s, generative literature is becoming increasingly common. == Definitions == Hannes Bajohr defines generative literature as literature involving "the automatic production of text according to predetermined parameters, usually following a combinatory, sometimes aleatory logic, and it emphasizes the production rather than the reception of the work (unlike, say, hypertext)." In his book Electronic Literature, Scott Rettberg connects generative literature to avant-garde literary movements like Dada, Surrealism, Oulipo and Fluxus. Bajohr argues that conceptual art is also an important reference. == Paradigms of generative literature == Bajohr describes two main paradigms of generative literature: the sequential paradigm, where the text generation is "executed as a sequence of rule-steps" and employs linear algorithms, and the connectionist paradigm, which is based on neural nets. The latter leads to what Bajohr calls a algorithmic empathy: "a non-anthropocentric empathy aimed not at the psychological states of the artists but at understanding the process of the work’s material production." == Poetry generation == The first examples of automated generative literature are poetry: John Clark's mechanical Latin Verse Machine (1830–1843) produced lines of hexameter verse in Latin, and Christopher Strachey's love letter generator (1952), programmed on the Manchester Mark 1 computer, generated short, satirical love letters. Examples of generative poetry using artificial neural networks include David Jhave Johnston's ReRites. == Narrative generation == Story generators have often followed specific narratological theories of how stories are constructed. An early example is Grimes' Fairy Tales, the "first to take a grammar-based approach and the first to operationalize Propp's famous model." Mike Sharples and Rafael Peréz y Peréz's book Story Machines gives a detailed history of story generation. Storyland by Nanette Wylde is an example of generative narrative. Jonathan Baillehache compares Storyland to Surrealist writing. Baillehache states, "When compared to earlier uses of chance operation in literature, a piece like this one resembles some of the automatic writings produced by André Breton and Philippe Soupault in their collective work The Magnetic Fields. . . The difference between Nanette Wylde’s Storyland and Breton and Soupault’s Magnetic Fields is that the former is produced according to a computational algorithm involving randomizers and user interaction, and the latter by two free-wheeling human subjects."
SF8
SF8 (Korean: 에스 에프 에잇) is a South Korean science fiction anthology television series. It is a movie-drama crossover project between MBC, the Directors Guild of Korea, the OTT platform Wavve and the production company Soo Film. The director's cuts of all episodes were released on Wavve on July 10, 2020 while MBC TV aired one episode a week from August 14 to October 9, 2020. The series has been regarded as a Korean equivalent of the British series Black Mirror as they have the same format and similar themes, though Min Kyu-dong believes that SF8 is more diversified since eight different filmmakers were involved in the project. SF8 was screened at the 24th Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival. == Synopsis == SF8 revolves around people who dream of a perfect society. It tackles the themes of artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality, robots, games, fantasy, horror, superpowers and disasters. == Episodes == Short summaries adapted from BiFan. == Production == === Development === Min Kyu-dong, creator of the series, said that "sci-fi movies were the driving force behind many movie directors' dreams. Unfortunately, due to the relatively high budget and narrow market limitations, various works were not able to be produced." He had been working on this project for two years before he partnered with Wavve and MBC. He also took charge of casting the actors, which lasted for a year. During a press conference held at CGV Yongsan I'Park Mall in Seoul on July 8, 2020, Min Kyu-dong said that all the episodes were produced with an equal amount of budget and that the overall budget was lower than one of a small commercial film. Roh Deok, who co-wrote and directed the "Manxin" episode, mentioned that "while commercial film productions [...] inevitably limit the directors' freedom as a creator, [they] had more independence in production" and "although there were physical limits, [he] thinks [they] went through the process of discovering what [they] can do inside those boundaries." === Filming === Eight directors from the Directors Guild of Korea (DGK) each directed an episode from the series. Filming began on February 21, 2020 with Jang Cheol-soo's "White Crow" and ended on May 7 with Kim Ui-seok's "Empty Body". Filming was completed within 10 filming sessions for each episode. === Credits === Credits adapted from BiFan. == Release == The director's cut was released on the OTT platform Wavve on July 10, 2020 and the original episodes were aired on MBC TV from August 14 to October 9.
Fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation
The fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation (FPOM or pay-off method) is a method for valuing real options, developed by Mikael Collan, Robert Fullér, and József Mezei; and published in 2009. It is based on the use of fuzzy logic and fuzzy numbers for the creation of the possible pay-off distribution of a project (real option). The structure of the method is similar to the probability theory based Datar–Mathews method for real option valuation, but the method is not based on probability theory and uses fuzzy numbers and possibility theory in framing the real option valuation problem. == Method == The Fuzzy pay-off method derives the real option value from a pay-off distribution that is created by using three or four cash-flow scenarios (most often created by an expert or a group of experts). The pay-off distribution is created simply by assigning each of the three cash-flow scenarios a corresponding definition with regards to a fuzzy number (triangular fuzzy number for three scenarios and a trapezoidal fuzzy number for four scenarios). This means that the pay-off distribution is created without any simulation whatsoever. This makes the procedure easy and transparent. The scenarios used are a minimum possible scenario (the lowest possible outcome), the maximum possible scenario (the highest possible outcome) and a best estimate (most likely to happen scenario) that is mapped as a fully possible scenario with a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes, or in the case of four scenarios used - two best estimate scenarios that are the upper and lower limit of the interval that is assigned a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes. The main observations that lie behind the model for deriving the real option value are the following: The fuzzy NPV of a project is (equal to) the pay-off distribution of a project value that is calculated with fuzzy numbers. The mean value of the positive values of the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values. Real option value, ROV, calculated from the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values multiplied with the positive area of the fuzzy NPV over the total area of the fuzzy NPV. The real option formula can then be written simply as: R O V = A ( P o s ) A ( P o s ) + A ( N e g ) × E [ A + ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {ROV} ={\frac {A(\mathrm {Pos} )}{A(\mathrm {Pos} )+A(\mathrm {Neg} )}}\times E[A_{+}]} where A(Pos) is the area of the positive part of the fuzzy distribution, A(Neg) is the area of the negative part of the fuzzy distribution, and E[A+] is the mean value of the positive part of the distribution. It can be seen that when the distribution is totally positive, the real options value reduces to the expected (mean) value, E[A+]. As can be seen, the real option value can be derived directly from the fuzzy NPV, without simulation. At the same time, simulation is not an absolutely necessary step in the Datar–Mathews method, so the two methods are not very different in that respect. But what is totally different is that the Datar–Mathews method is based on probability theory and as such has a very different foundation from the pay-off method that is based on possibility theory: the way that the two models treat uncertainty is fundamentally different. == Use of the method == The pay-off method for real option valuation is very easy to use compared to the other real option valuation methods and it can be used with the most commonly used spreadsheet software without any add-ins. The method is useful in analyses for decision making regarding investments that have an uncertain future, and especially so if the underlying data is in the form of cash-flow scenarios. The method is less useful if optimal timing is the objective. The method is flexible and accommodates easily both one-stage investments and multi-stage investments (compound real options). The method has been taken into use in some large international industrial companies for the valuation of research and development projects and portfolios. In these analyses triangular fuzzy numbers are used. Other uses of the method so far are, for example, R&D project valuation IPR valuation, valuation of M&A targets and expected synergies, valuation and optimization of M&A strategies, valuation of area development (construction) projects, valuation of large industrial real investments. The use of the pay-off method is lately taught within the larger framework of real options, for example at the Lappeenranta University of Technology and at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland.
Identity column
An identity column is a column (also known as a field) in a database table that is made up of values generated by the database. This is much like an AutoNumber field in Microsoft Access or a sequence in Oracle. Because the concept is so important in database science, many RDBMS systems implement some type of generated key, although each has its own terminology. Today a popular technique for generating identity is to generate a random UUID. An identity column differs from a primary key in that its values are managed by the server and usually cannot be modified. In many cases an identity column is used as a primary key; however, this is not always the case. It is a common misconception that an identity column will enforce uniqueness; however, this is not the case. If you want to enforce uniqueness on the column you must include the appropriate constraint too. In Microsoft SQL Server you have options for both the seed (starting value) and the increment. By default the seed and increment are both 1. == Code samples == or In PostgreSQL == Related functions == It is often useful or necessary to know what identity value was generated by an INSERT command. Microsoft SQL Server provides several functions to do this: @@IDENTITY provides the last value generated on the current connection in the current scope, while IDENT_CURRENT(tablename) provides the last value generated, regardless of the connection or scope it was created on. Example:
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A