Behavior-based robotics (BBR) or behavioral robotics is an approach in robotics that focuses on robots that are able to exhibit complex-appearing behaviors despite little internal variable state to model its immediate environment, mostly gradually correcting its actions via sensory-motor links. == Principles == Behavior-based robotics sets itself apart from traditional artificial intelligence by using biological systems as a model. Classic artificial intelligence typically uses a set of steps to solve problems, it follows a path based on internal representations of events compared to the behavior-based approach. Rather than use preset calculations to tackle a situation, behavior-based robotics relies on adaptability. This advancement has allowed behavior-based robotics to become commonplace in researching and data gathering. Most behavior-based systems are also reactive, which means they need no programming of what a chair looks like, or what kind of surface the robot is moving on. Instead, all the information is gleaned from the input of the robot's sensors. The robot uses that information to gradually correct its actions according to the changes in immediate environment. Behavior-based robots (BBR) usually show more biological-appearing actions than their computing-intensive counterparts, which are very deliberate in their actions. A BBR often makes mistakes, repeats actions, and appears confused, but can also show the anthropomorphic quality of tenacity. Comparisons between BBRs and insects are frequent because of these actions. BBRs are sometimes considered examples of weak artificial intelligence, although some have claimed they are models of all intelligence. == Features == Most behavior-based robots are programmed with a basic set of features to start them off. They are given a behavioral repertoire to work with dictating what behaviors to use and when, obstacle avoidance and battery charging can provide a foundation to help the robots learn and succeed. Rather than build world models, behavior-based robots simply react to their environment and problems within that environment. They draw upon internal knowledge learned from their past experiences combined with their basic behaviors to resolve problems. == History == The school of behavior-based robots owes much to work undertaken in the 1980s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Rodney Brooks, who with students and colleagues built a series of wheeled and legged robots utilizing the subsumption architecture. Brooks' papers, often written with lighthearted titles such as "Planning is just a way of avoiding figuring out what to do next", the anthropomorphic qualities of his robots, and the relatively low cost of developing such robots, popularized the behavior-based approach. Brooks' work builds—whether by accident or not—on two prior milestones in the behavior-based approach. In the 1950s, W. Grey Walter, an English scientist with a background in neurological research, built a pair of vacuum tube-based robots that were exhibited at the 1951 Festival of Britain, and which have simple but effective behavior-based control systems. The second milestone is Valentino Braitenberg's 1984 book, "Vehicles – Experiments in Synthetic Psychology" (MIT Press). He describes a series of thought experiments demonstrating how simply wired sensor/motor connections can result in some complex-appearing behaviors such as fear and love. Later work in BBR is from the BEAM robotics community, which has built upon the work of Mark Tilden. Tilden was inspired by the reduction in the computational power needed for walking mechanisms from Brooks' experiments (which used one microcontroller for each leg), and further reduced the computational requirements to that of logic chips, transistor-based electronics, and analog circuit design. A different direction of development includes extensions of behavior-based robotics to multi-robot teams. The focus in this work is on developing simple generic mechanisms that result in coordinated group behavior, either implicitly or explicitly.
Articulatory speech recognition
Articulatory speech recognition means the recovery of speech (in forms of phonemes, syllables or words) from acoustic signals with the help of articulatory modeling or an extra input of articulatory movement data. Speech recognition (or automatic speech recognition, acoustic speech recognition) means the recovery of speech from acoustics (sound wave) only. Articulatory information is extremely helpful when the acoustic input is in low quality, perhaps because of noise or missing data. Measurable information from the articulatory system (e.g. tongue, jaw movements) can supplement acoustic signals to improve phone recognition accuracy by 2%. However, attempts to estimate articulatory data from acoustic signals alone have not significantly enhanced recognition performance.
UCSD Pascal
UCSD Pascal is a Pascal programming language system that runs on the UCSD p-System, a portable, highly machine-independent operating system. UCSD Pascal was first released in 1977. It was developed at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). == The p-System == In 1977, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Institute for Information Systems developed UCSD Pascal to provide students with a common environment that could run on any of the then available microcomputers as well as campus DEC PDP-11 minicomputers. The operating system became known as UCSD p-System. There were three operating systems that IBM offered for its original IBM PC: the UCSD p-System, CP/M-86, and IBM PC DOS. Vendor SofTech Microsystems emphasized p-System's application portability, with virtual machines for 20 CPUs as of the IBM PC's release. It predicted that users would be able to use applications they purchased on future computers running p-System; advertisements called it "the Universal Operating System". PC Magazine denounced UCSD p-System on the IBM PC, stating in a review of Context MBA, written in the language, that it "simply does not produce good code". The p-System did not sell very well for the IBM PC, because of a lack of applications and because it was more expensive than the other choices. Previously, IBM had offered the UCSD p-System as an option for IBM Displaywriter, an 8086-based dedicated word processing machine. (The Displaywriter's native operating system had been developed completely internally and was not opened for end-user programming.) Notable extensions to standard Pascal include separately compilable Units and a String type. Some intrinsics were provided to accelerate string processing (e.g. scanning in an array for a particular search pattern); other language extensions were provided to allow the UCSD p-System to be self-compiling and self-hosted. UCSD Pascal was based on a p-code machine architecture. Its contribution to these early virtual machines was to extend p-code away from its roots as a compiler intermediate language into a full execution environment. The UCSD Pascal p-Machine was optimized for the new small microcomputers with addressing restricted to 16-bit (only 64 KB of memory). James Gosling cites UCSD Pascal as a key influence (along with the Smalltalk virtual machine) on the design of the Java virtual machine. UCSD p-System achieved machine independence by defining a virtual machine, called the p-Machine (or pseudo-machine, which many users began to call the "Pascal-machine" like the OS—although UCSD documentation always used "pseudo-machine") with its own instruction set called p-code (or pseudo-code). Urs Ammann, a student of Niklaus Wirth, originally presented a p-code in his PhD thesis, from which the UCSD implementation was derived, the Zurich Pascal-P implementation. The UCSD implementation changed the Zurich implementation to be "byte oriented". The UCSD p-code was optimized for execution of the Pascal programming language. Each hardware platform then only needed a p-code interpreter program written for it to port the entire p-System and all the tools to run on it. Later versions also included additional languages that compiled to the p-code base. For example, Apple Computer offered a Fortran Compiler (written by Silicon Valley Software, Sunnyvale California) producing p-code that ran on the Apple version of the p-system. Later, TeleSoft (also located in San Diego) offered an early Ada development environment that used p-code and was therefore able to run on a number of hardware platforms including the Motorola 68000, the System/370, and the Pascal MicroEngine. UCSD p-System shares some concepts with the later Java platform. Both use a virtual machine to hide operating system and hardware differences, and both use programs written to that virtual machine to provide cross-platform support. Likewise both systems allow the virtual machine to be used either as the complete operating system of the target computer or to run in a "box" under another operating system. The UCSD Pascal compiler was distributed as part of a portable operating system, the p-System. == History == UCSD p-System began around 1974 as the idea of UCSD's Kenneth Bowles, who believed that the number of new computing platforms coming out at the time would make it difficult for new programming languages to gain acceptance. He based UCSD Pascal on the Pascal-P2 release of the portable compiler from Zurich. He was particularly interested in Pascal as a language to teach programming. UCSD introduced two features that were important improvements on the original Pascal: variable length strings, and "units" of independently compiled code (an idea included into the then-evolving Ada (programming language)). Niklaus Wirth credits the p-System, and UCSD Pascal in particular, with popularizing Pascal. It was not until the release of Turbo Pascal that UCSD's version started to slip from first place among Pascal users. The Pascal dialect of UCSD Pascal came from the subset of Pascal implemented in Pascal-P2, which was not designed to be a full implementation of the language, but rather "the minimum subset that would self-compile", to fit its function as a bootstrap kit for Pascal compilers. UCSD added strings from BASIC, and several other implementation dependent features. Although UCSD Pascal later obtained many of the other features of the full Pascal language, the Pascal-P2 subset persisted in other dialects, notably Borland Pascal, which copied much of the UCSD dialect. == Versions == There were four versions of UCSD p-code engine, each with several revisions of the p-System and UCSD Pascal. A revision of the p-code engine (i.e., the p-Machine) meant a change to the p-code language, and therefore compiled code is not portable between different p-Machine versions. Each revision was represented with a leading Roman Numeral, while operating system revisions were enumerated as the "dot" number following the p-code Roman Numeral. For example, II.3 represented the third revision of the p-System running on the second revision of the p-Machine. === Version I === Original version, never officially distributed outside of the University of California, San Diego. However, the Pascal sources for both Versions I.3 and I.5 were freely exchanged between interested users. Specifically, the patch revision I.5a was known to be one of the most stable. === Version II === Widely distributed, available on many early microcomputers. Numerous versions included Apple II ultimately Apple Pascal, DEC PDP-11, Intel 8080, Zilog Z80, and MOS 6502 based machines, Motorola 68000 and the IBM PC (Version II on the PC was restricted to one 64K code segment and one 64K stack/heap data segment; Version IV removed the code segment limit but cost a lot more). Project members from this era include Dr Kenneth L Bowles, Mark Allen, Richard Gleaves, Richard Kaufmann, Pete Lawrence, Joel McCormack, Mark Overgaard, Keith Shillington, Roger Sumner, and John Van Zandt. === Version III === Custom version written for Western Digital to run on their Pascal MicroEngine microcomputer. Included support for parallel processes for the first time. === Version IV === Commercial version, developed and sold by SofTech. Based on Version II; did not include changes from Version III. Did not sell well due to combination of their pricing structure, performance problems due to p-code interpreter, and competition with native operating systems (on top of which it often ran). After SofTech dropped the product, it was picked up by Pecan Systems, a relatively small company formed of p-System users and fans. Sales revived somewhat, due mostly to Pecan's reasonable pricing structure, but the p-System and UCSD Pascal gradually lost the market to native operating systems and compilers. Available for the TI-99/4A equipped with p-code card, Commodore CBM 8096, Sage II/IV, HP 9000, and BBC Micro with 6502 second processor. == Further use == The Corvus Systems computer used UCSD Pascal for all its user software. The "innovative concept" of the Constellation OS was to run Pascal (interpretively or compiled) and include all common software in the manual, so users could modify as needed.
List of search appliance vendors
A search appliance is a type of computer which is attached to a corporate network for the purpose of indexing the content shared across that network in a way that is similar to a web search engine. It may be made accessible through a public web interface or restricted to users of that network. A search appliance is usually made up of: a gathering component, a standardizing component, a data storage area, a search component, a user interface component, and a management interface component. == Vendors of search appliances == Fabasoft Google InfoLibrarian Search Appliance™ Maxxcat Searchdaimon Thunderstone == Former/defunct vendors of search appliances == Black Tulip Systems Google Search Appliance Index Engines Munax Perfect Search Appliance
HTTP cookie
An HTTP cookie (also called web cookie, Internet cookie, browser cookie, or simply cookie) is a small block of data created by a web server while a user is browsing a website and placed on the user's computer or other device by the user's web browser. Cookies are placed on the device used to access a website, and more than one cookie may be placed on a user's device during a session. Cookies serve useful and sometimes essential functions on the web. They enable web servers to store stateful information (such as items added in the shopping cart in an online store) on the user's device or to track the user's browsing activity (including clicking particular buttons, logging in, or recording which pages were visited in the past). They can also be used to save information that the user previously entered into form fields, such as names, addresses, passwords, and payment card numbers for subsequent use. Authentication cookies are commonly used by web servers to authenticate that a user is logged in, and with which account they are logged in. Without the cookie, users would need to authenticate themselves by logging in on each page containing sensitive information that they wish to access. The security of an authentication cookie generally depends on the security of the issuing website and the user's web browser, and on whether the cookie data is encrypted. Security vulnerabilities may allow a cookie's data to be read by an attacker, used to gain access to user data, or used to gain access (with the user's credentials) to the website to which the cookie belongs (see cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery for examples). Tracking cookies, and especially third-party tracking cookies, are commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories — a potential privacy concern that prompted European and U.S. lawmakers to take action in 2011. European law requires that all websites targeting European Union member states gain "informed consent" from users before storing non-essential cookies on their device. == Background == === Origin of the name === The term cookie was coined by web-browser programmer Lou Montulli. It was derived from the term magic cookie, which is a packet of data a program receives and sends back unchanged, used by Unix programmers. === History === Magic cookies were already used in computing when computer programmer Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in web communications in June 1994. At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for MCI. Vint Cerf and John Klensin represented MCI in technical discussions with Netscape Communications. MCI did not want its servers to have to retain partial transaction states, which led them to ask Netscape to find a way to store that state in each user's computer instead. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart. Together with John Giannandrea, Montulli wrote the initial Netscape cookie specification the same year. Version 0.9beta of Mosaic Netscape, released on 13 October 1994, supported cookies. The first use of cookies (out of the labs) was checking whether visitors to the Netscape website had already visited the site. Montulli applied for a patent for the cookie technology in 1995, which was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was integrated with Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995. The introduction of cookies was not widely known to the public at the time. In particular, cookies were accepted by default, and users were not notified of their presence. The public learned about cookies after the Financial Times published an article about them on 12 February 1996. In the same year, cookies received a lot of media attention, especially because of potential privacy implications. Cookies were discussed in two U.S. Federal Trade Commission hearings in 1996 and 1997. The development of the formal cookie specifications was already ongoing. In particular, the first discussions about a formal specification started in April 1995 on the www-talk mailing list. A special working group within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed. Two alternative proposals for introducing state in HTTP transactions had been proposed by Brian Behlendorf and David Kristol respectively. But the group, headed by Kristol himself and Lou Montulli, soon decided to use the Netscape specification as a starting point. In February 1996, the working group identified third-party cookies as a considerable privacy threat. The specification produced by the group was eventually published as RFC 2109 in February 1997. It specifies that third-party cookies were either not allowed at all, or at least not enabled by default. At this time, advertising companies were already using third-party cookies. The recommendation about third-party cookies of RFC 2109 was not followed by Netscape and Internet Explorer. RFC 2109 was superseded by RFC 2965 in October 2000. RFC 2965 added a Set-Cookie2 header field, which informally came to be called "RFC 2965-style cookies" as opposed to the original Set-Cookie header field which was called "Netscape-style cookies". Set-Cookie2 was seldom used, however, and was deprecated in RFC 6265 in April 2011 which was written as a definitive specification for cookies as used in the real world. No modern browser recognizes the Set-Cookie2 header field. == Terminology == === Session cookie === A session cookie (also known as an in-memory cookie, transient cookie or non-persistent cookie) exists only in temporary memory while the user navigates a website. Session cookies expire or are deleted when the user closes the web browser. Session cookies are identified by the browser by the absence of an expiration date assigned to them. === Persistent cookie === A persistent cookie expires at a specific date or after a specific length of time. For the persistent cookie's lifespan set by its creator, its information will be transmitted to the server every time the user visits the website that it belongs to, or every time the user views a resource belonging to that website from another website (such as an advertisement). For this reason, persistent cookies are sometimes referred to as tracking cookies because they can be used by advertisers to record information about a user's web browsing habits over an extended period of time. Persistent cookies are also used for reasons such as keeping users logged into their accounts on websites, to avoid re-entering login credentials at every visit. (See § Uses, below.) === Secure cookie === A secure cookie can only be transmitted over an encrypted connection (i.e. HTTPS). They cannot be transmitted over unencrypted connections (i.e. HTTP). This makes the cookie less likely to be exposed to cookie theft via eavesdropping. A cookie is made secure by adding the Secure flag to the cookie. === Http-only cookie === An http-only cookie cannot be accessed by client-side APIs, such as JavaScript. This restriction eliminates the threat of cookie theft via cross-site scripting (XSS). However, the cookie remains vulnerable to cross-site tracing (XST) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. A cookie is given this characteristic by adding the HttpOnly flag to the cookie. === Same-site cookie === In 2016 Google Chrome version 51 introduced a new kind of cookie with attribute SameSite with possible values of Strict, Lax or None. With attribute SameSite=Strict, the browsers would only send cookies to a target domain that is the same as the origin domain. This would effectively mitigate cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. With SameSite=Lax, browsers would send cookies with requests to a target domain even it is different from the origin domain, but only for safe requests such as GET (POST is unsafe) and not third-party cookies (inside iframe). Attribute SameSite=None would allow third-party (cross-site) cookies, however, most browsers require secure attribute on SameSite=None cookies. The Same-site cookie is incorporated into a new RFC draft for "Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism" to update RFC 6265 (if approved). Chrome, Firefox, and Edge started to support Same-site cookies. The key of rollout is the treatment of existing cookies without the SameSite attribute defined, Chrome has been treating those existing cookies as if SameSite=None, this would let all website/applications run as before. Google intended to change that default to SameSite=Lax in Chrome 80 planned to be released in February 2020, but due to potential for breakage of those applications/websites that rely on third-party/cross-site cookies and COVID-19 circumstances, Google postponed this change to Chrome 84. === Supercookie === A supercookie is a cookie with an origin of a top-level domain (such as .com) or a public suffix (such as .co.uk). Ordinary cookies, by contrast, have an origin of a specific domain name, such as ex
Josh (app)
Josh (stylized as JOSH) was a video-sharing social networking service but it has since evolved into a live call and chat application owned by VerSe Innovation – an Indian technology company based in Bangalore, India. Josh was an Indian short video app that was launched in immediately after the Indian Government banned TikTok and other Chinese apps in June 2020. The founders of the platform have promoted the app as the “Instagram for Bharat” referring to their focus on the Indian audience that speaks its own regional and state languages. Josh was among the top 10 most downloaded apps social and entertainment apps in India of 2021 and had 150 million monthly active users as per April 2022. The word 'Josh' translates to fervour or passion. The app was launched under the aegis of the Atmanirbhar Bharat campaign and to compete with the duopoly of Google and Facebook in India. Josh's parent company VerSe Innovations Pvt. Ltd. owns another startup Dailyhunt, which a content and news aggregator application. Both Dailyhunt and Josh are a part of the VerSe's focus on the "next billion" regional language users of India. Founders Virendra Gupta and Umang Bedi conceptualised Josh as a short-video platform that made content creation accessible to vernacular language users, essentially the non-English speaking audience in India. == Features == Josh is currently available in 12 Indian languages and allows users to upload, share, remix bite-sized videos of up to 120 seconds. There are various categories across the video section including viral, trending, glamour, dance, devotion, yoga and cooking among others. Similar to Instagram and TikTok, it has a video feed which is curated for individuals on the basis of their app behaviour. The app hosts many daily, weekly and monthly social media challenges. == Funding == In December 2020, within 3 months of its launch, Josh's parent app VerSe Innovation raised more than $100 million from investors including Alphabet Inc's Google and Microsoft. In February 2021, VerSe Innovation raised $100 million in Series H funding from Qatar Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund of the State of Qatar, and Glade Brook Capital Partners. In August 2021, VerSe raised over $450 million in its Series I financing round with a valuation of $1 billion. Investors included Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), Siguler Guff, Baillie Gifford, Carlyle Asia Partners Growth II affiliates, and others. The startup announced its plan to expand overseas and broaden its ecommerce play for both Dailyhunt and Josh. In April 2022, VerSe announced that it has raised $805 million in funding from investors at a valuation of nearly $5 billion. ByteDance Offloads Stake In Josh Parent VerSe, Exits At 56% Discount == Partnerships == In February 2021, Saregama and Josh signed a music licensing deal, wherein Josh expanded its musical library with 1.3 lakh songs from Saregama in 25 different languages. To improve their user experience, Josh partnered with computer vision company D-ID in August 2021. The company helped Josh introduce photo-to-video features, live portrait technology, animate their photos etc. In order to solidify their efforts in enhancing Josh, VerSe acquired Indian social networking platform GolBol in October 2021. The move came as an effort by the startup to strengthen their discovery initiatives on the platform and classify content at scale and understand the core behaviour of Indian regional audiences. Josh has also announced its plans to include live commerce as a potential revenue stream through its partnership with multiple large e-commerce players. == Notable campaigns == Say No To Dowry – In association with Josh, the Kerala Police partook in the #SayNo2Dowry online social media campaign that was started to highlight and stop the social evil in the state. Salute India – Josh entered the Guinness World Records by creating the largest online video album of people saluting (29,529). It organised an online campaign #SaluteIndia on the app during the 75th Independence Day of India during 10–15 August 2021.
Are We Dating The Same Guy?
Are We Dating The Same Guy?, also abbreviated AWDTSG is a series of over 200 individual Facebook groups where women share dating profiles of men they matched with on dating networks to seek the opinion of other women who may have dated the same man in the past. The first group was created by Paola Sanchez and aimed at women living in the New York City environs. The groups have over 3.5 million members as of January 2024. The group's function is to post screenshots of a man's dating profile to that city's designated Facebook group, after which the poster asks "any tea?". Other users in the group will then share information about the man and share warnings. The groups are moderated by volunteers, and have been described as a feminist group. The groups have rules saying that personal information such as addresses must not be included in the Facebook posts. Users attempting to join the group are also examined to prevent fake profiles. The group is mainly for straight women. According to Vice, the men being posted about have no way to defend against accusations made about them, and on the other hand, posters cannot prove their stories unless backed up by others. Often times, members post pictures alongside personal information such as names, which may infringe on subjects' legal right to privacy. Lawyers have said these issues can lead to defamation lawsuits, and members can make false allegations and create fabricated stories. If members tell a man that he's been talked about on the group, the "snitch" will be banned and be "exposed to the whole group". == History == The first Are We Dating The Same Guy group was created by Paola Sanchez. The first group was created in March 2022 in New York City. A male counterpart, named "Are We Dating the Same Girl NYC" was created for New York, with mostly the same guidelines and rules to the original. When the original Are We Dating The Same Guy group found it, they denounced the new group. == Operations == Administrators are told not to respond to men asking to have posts about them removed, and to not remove said posts. The people being posted about have reported being questioned by their employers about things they have not done. Members of the groups sometimes criticise the physical appearance of the men being posted about. According to the Evening Standard, the groups "frequent[ly] mock" the appearance or dating profiles of the men who are posted about, despite being against the rules. For this behaviour, women are sometimes kicked out, or the group is disciplined en masse by admins. The groups have rules against hate towards men, but the rules can be difficult to enforce in large groups, with some having over 100,000 members. Some men have also been able to join the groups without being noticed. == Reception == In October 2023, Sera Bozza of Body+Soul wrote that consistently using Are We Dating The Same Guy can "affect your real-world view". She wrote that "A few stories of cheating may persuade you to believe that all men are unfaithful". Some lawyers and commentators have expressed concern that the groups fail to acknowledge the legal right to privacy and users can create false allegations and fabricated stories, and cyberbully men without them being able to defend themselves. This may lead to civil lawsuits against the author for defamation, harassment, and other related privacy torts. Netsafe, an online safety organisation in New Zealand, advises users of a similar group to familiarise themselves with the Harmful Digital Communications Act to ensure that posts do not lead to "harmful consequences". The Independent reported that men who have been posted on the dating groups have felt violated, and that even if reviewed positively by potentially thousands of strangers, the men being discussed about may have their reputation slightly decreased due to the association with being on the groups. The Independent also reported that some men believe that the groups are created to spread lies or mock them. Mashable reported that the growth of AWDTSG in recent years has led to the rise of a small industry of online reputation and content removal services, as increasing numbers of men seek assistance. A co-founder of Maximatic Media, one such agency offering these removal services, stated that many of the men contacting the firm do so in a state of panic after learning that allegations about them have circulated among tens of thousands of participants without their knowledge. Mashable similarly reported that the growing visibility of AWDTSG and similar platforms has contributed to what commentators describe as a "public trial" dynamic, where subjective accounts about dating behavior are interpreted as factual assessments and can influence a person's reputation among large audiences within their locale. The Oklahoman reported that anonymous, unverified claims in these groups have led some men to experience social and dating repercussions, although legal analysts argue that the benefits of community-based safety networks still outweigh these concerns in modern, app based dating environments. UTV/ITV News reportedly spoke to a man who was posted who alleged he attempted suicide, was clinically dead for three minutes, and spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital as a result of the posts made about him. Many other men have talked about malicious false claims made about them. Self-described men’s rights activists have taken a dislike to these groups and have gotten multiple North American groups shut down by running campaigns, threatening lawsuits, and mass Facebook reporting. They also have Reddit communities dedicated to getting rid of such groups. Women who have posted in the groups have felt that they have put their safety at risk, with some having been confronted by the men they posted about. The group has been noted for exposing men who use dating apps while already in a relationship, misrepresent their ages, or repeatedly stand up the women they meet through apps, among other bad dating behaviors. For example, some members of the group had matched on a dating site with a man who had, several years prior, killed a stranger while having a mental break. After this information came to light, members of the group were warned. The group has also been noted to be complimentary of some men. == Lawsuits == In 2023, a 41-year-old man sued the administrators of the London group for $35,000 under defamation, alleging that the group "called names, accused of sending lewd photos and of being a bad parent". In January 2024 a man sued Meta, the owner of Facebook, along with Patreon, GoFundMe, and the AWDTSG website, as well as almost 30 group members due to alleged defamation, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. Claiming that the groups violate anti-doxxing laws and do not fact check, seeking $75,000 in damages. He claims that the group shared fake images of him sending women texts containing harassment, his name and photo. His attorneys claim that if the images were real, they would fall under free speech in the First Amendment. By February, groups had raised $80,000. The Washington Post said that this case caused AWDTSG to "explode into public view". The case was dismissed in 2025 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to renew the case in D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al. The plaintiff and his attorneys, Marc Trent and Aaron Walner of Trent Law Firm, were sanctioned "for frivolously appealing the dismissal of the claims," "misrepresentations of law," in connection with falsified citations included in the plaintiff's brief, and " disputing at oral argument without any evidentiary basis that [the plaintiff] client sent the text message she attributed to him." == By country == === Australia === In Australia, there are groups for multiple cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Rockhampton with many having several thousand members. The Sydney group has 30,000 members. In March 2023, the Adelaide version of the group, which had 7,000 members, was shut down. In 2024, groups titled "Sis, Are We Dating The Same Guy" stopped accepting new posts after an admin was sued for defamation and had to pay over AU$20,000 in legal fees. The case was settled out of court. The administrator announcing these closures cited a 2021 defamation High Court case involving detainee Dylan Voller, which led to the High Court saying that owners of Facebook groups can be held liable for defamatory comments, even if they did not know the comments had been made. === Canada === In 2023, a group was started for Ottawa. The founder previously was in a relationship full of "cheating and lies", which prompted her to creating the Facebook community. In 2023, the group for Vancouver and British Columbia was shut down after concerns about men being unable to protect themselves against fa