Zesta is an online food ordering and delivery platform operating across the African region. Formerly known as Square Eats, the company rebranded to Zesta in 2025. Zesta connects customers with restaurants and stores, offering delivery services for food, groceries, parcel delivery and other essentials. == History == Zesta was originally founded as Square Eats in 2020 by twin brothers Henry Newman and Randall Newman when they were 21 years old. It was launched in Gaborone, Botswana, and quickly gained traction as a leading food delivery service in the country. The company halted operations and took a strategic decision to reinvent the business in 2022. In 2025, the company announced its rebranding to Zesta, highlighting its commitment to evolving beyond food delivery to become a super app. === COVID-19 initiative === During the COVID-19 pandemic, Zesta (then Square Eats) implemented measures to ensure safety and hygiene, including providing free gloves and hand sanitizer to drivers and introducing contactless delivery options. These efforts positioned the platform as a trusted service during the pandemic. == Service == Zesta facilitates delivery from a wide range of merchant partners via a smartphone app, available on iOS and Android platforms, or through its website. Customers can browse their favorite restaurants, place orders, and have meals delivered to their doorstep efficiently.
Rule induction
Rule induction is an area of machine learning in which formal rules are extracted from a set of observations. The rules extracted may represent a full scientific model of the data, or merely represent local patterns in the data. Data mining in general and rule induction in detail are trying to create algorithms without human programming but with analyzing existing data structures. In the easiest case, a rule is expressed with “if-then statements” and was created with the ID3 algorithm for decision tree learning. Rule learning algorithm are taking training data as input and creating rules by partitioning the table with cluster analysis. A possible alternative over the ID3 algorithm is genetic programming which evolves a program until it fits to the data. Creating different algorithm and testing them with input data can be realized in the WEKA software. Additional tools are machine learning libraries for Python, like scikit-learn. == Paradigms == Some major rule induction paradigms are: Association rule learning algorithms (e.g., Agrawal) Decision rule algorithms (e.g., Quinlan 1987) Hypothesis testing algorithms (e.g., RULEX) Horn clause induction Version spaces Rough set rules Inductive Logic Programming Boolean decomposition (Feldman) == Algorithms == Some rule induction algorithms are: Charade Rulex Progol CN2
White-box cryptography
In cryptography, the white-box model refers to an extreme attack scenario, in which an adversary has full unrestricted access to a cryptographic implementation, most commonly of a block cipher such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). A variety of security goals may be posed (see the section below), the most fundamental being "unbreakability", requiring that any (bounded) attacker should not be able to extract the secret key hardcoded in the implementation, while at the same time the implementation must be fully functional. In contrast, the black-box model only provides an oracle access to the analyzed cryptographic primitive (in the form of encryption and/or decryption queries). There is also a model in-between, the so-called gray-box model, which corresponds to additional information leakage from the implementation, more commonly referred to as side-channel leakage. White-box cryptography is a practice and study of techniques for designing and attacking white-box implementations. It has many applications, including digital rights management (DRM), pay television, protection of cryptographic keys in the presence of malware, mobile payments and cryptocurrency wallets. Examples of DRM systems employing white-box implementations include CSS and Widevine. White-box cryptography is closely related to the more general notions of obfuscation, in particular, to Black-box obfuscation, proven to be impossible, and to Indistinguishability obfuscation, constructed recently under well-founded assumptions but so far being infeasible to implement in practice. As of January 2023, there are no publicly known unbroken white-box designs of standard symmetric encryption schemes. On the other hand, there exist many unbroken white-box implementations of dedicated block ciphers designed specifically to achieve incompressibility (see § Security goals). == Security goals == Depending on the application, different security goals may be required from a white-box implementation. Specifically, for symmetric-key algorithms the following are distinguished: Unbreakability is the most fundamental goal requiring that a bounded attacker should not be able to recover the secret key embedded in the white-box implementation. Without this requirement, all other security goals are unreachable since a successful attacker can simply use a reference implementation of the encryption scheme together with the extracted key. One-wayness requires that a white-box implementation of an encryption scheme can not be used by a bounded attacker to decrypt ciphertexts. This requirement essentially turns a symmetric encryption scheme into a public-key encryption scheme, where the white-box implementation plays the role of the public key associated to the embedded secret key. This idea was proposed already in the famous work of Diffie and Hellman in 1976 as a potential public-key encryption candidate. Code lifting security is an informal requirement on the context, in which the white-box program is being executed. It demands that an attacker can not extract a functional copy of the program. This goal is particularly relevant in the DRM setting. Code obfuscation techniques are often used to achieve this goal. A commonly used technique is to compose the white-box implementation with so-called external encodings. These are lightweight secret encodings that modify the function computed by the white-box part of an application. It is required that their effect is canceled in other parts of the application in an obscure way, using code obfuscation techniques. Alternatively, the canceling counterparts can be applied on a remote server. Incompressibility requires that an attacker can not significantly compress a given white-box implementation. This can be seen as a way to achieve code lifting security (see above), since exfiltrating a large program from a constrained device (for example, an embedded or a mobile device) can be time-consuming and may be easy to detect by a firewall. Examples of incompressible designs include SPACE cipher, SPNbox, WhiteKey and WhiteBlock. These ciphers use large lookup tables that can be pseudorandomly generated from a secret master key. Although this makes the recovery of the master key hard, the lookup tables themselves play the role of an equivalent secret key. Thus, unbreakability is achieved only partially. Traceability (Traitor tracing) requires that each distributed white-box implementation contains a digital watermark allowing identification of the guilty user in case the white-box program is being leaked and distributed publicly. == History == The white-box model with initial attempts of white-box DES and AES implementations were first proposed by Chow, Eisen, Johnson and van Oorshot in 2003. The designs were based on representing the cipher as a network of lookup tables and obfuscating the tables by composing them with small (4- or 8-bit) random encodings. Such protection satisfied a property that each single obfuscated table individually does not contain any information about the secret key. Therefore, a potential attacker has to combine several tables in their analysis. The first two schemes were broken in 2004 by Billet, Gilbert, and Ech-Chatbi using structural cryptanalysis. The attack was subsequently called "the BGE attack". The numerous consequent design attempts (2005-2022) were quickly broken by practical dedicated attacks. In 2016, Bos, Hubain, Michiels and Teuwen showed that an adaptation of standard side-channel power analysis attacks can be used to efficiently and fully automatically break most existing white-box designs. This result created a new research direction about generic attacks (correlation-based, algebraic, fault injection) and protections against them. == Competitions == Four editions of the WhibOx contest were held in 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2024 respectively. These competitions invited white-box designers both from academia and industry to submit their implementation in the form of (possibly obfuscated) C code. At the same time, everyone could attempt to attack these programs and recover the embedded secret key. Each of these competitions lasted for about 4-5 months. WhibOx 2017 / CHES 2017 Capture the Flag Challenge targeted the standard AES block cipher. Among 94 submitted implementations, all were broken during the competition, with the strongest one staying unbroken for 28 days. WhibOx 2019 / CHES 2019 Capture the Flag Challenge again targeted the AES block cipher. Among 27 submitted implementations, 3 programs stayed unbroken throughout the competition, but were broken after 51 days since the publication. WhibOx 2021 / CHES 2021 Capture the Flag Challenge changed the target to ECDSA, a digital signature scheme based on elliptic curves. Among 97 submitted implementations, all were broken within at most 2 days. WhibOx 2024 / CHES 2024 Capture the Flag Challenge again targeted ECDSA. Among 47 submitted implementations, all were broken during the competition, with the strongest one staying unbroken for almost 5 days.
IEBus
IEBus (Inter Equipment Bus) is a communication bus specification "between equipments within a vehicle or a chassis" of Renesas Electronics. It defines OSI model layer 1 and layer 2 specification. IEBus is mainly used for car audio and car navigations, which established de facto standard in Japan, though SAE J1850 is major in United States. IEBus is also used in some vending machines, which major customer is Fuji Electric. Each button on the vending machine has an IEBus ID, i.e. has a controller. Detailed specification is disclosed to licensees only, but protocol analyzers are provided from some test equipment vendors. Its modulation method is PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation) with 6.00 MHz base clock originally, but most of automotive customers use 6.291 MHz, and physical layer is a pair of differential signalling harness. Its physical layer adopts half-duplex, asynchronous, and multi-master communication with carrier-sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) for medium access control. It allows for up to fifty units on one bus over a maximum length of 150 meters. Two differential signalling lines are used with Bus+ / Bus− naming, sometimes labeled as Data(+) / Data(−). It is sometimes described as "IE-BUS", "IE-Bus," or "IE Bus," but these are incorrect. In formal, it is "IEBus." IEBus® and Inter Equipment Bus® are registered trademark symbols of Renesas Electronics Corporation, formerly NEC Electronics Corporation, (JPO: Reg. No.2552418 and 2552419, respectively). == History == In the middle of '80s, semiconductor unit of NEC Corporation, currently Renesas Electronics, started the study for increasing demands for automotive audio systems. IEBus is introduced as a solution for the distributed control system. In the late 1980s, several similar specifications, including the Domestic Digital Bus (D2B), the Japanese Home Bus (HBS), and the European Home System (EHS) are proposed by different companies or organizations. These were once discussed as IEC 61030, but it was withdrawn in 2006. IEBus is also a similar specification (refer to "Transfer signal format" section), but not listed in these criteria. As the result, IEBus becomes a de facto standard of car audio in Japan. Regarding the Domestic Digital Bus (D2B), it is re-defined as D2B Optical by Mercedes-Benz independently. As for Japanese Home Bus System (HBS), it is defined in 1988 as Home Bus System Standard Specification, ET-2101 by JEITA and REEA (Radio Engineering & Electronics Assiation) in Japan. It is being used by several Japanese air conditioner manufacturers (for example, M-Net from Mitsubishi and the P1/P2 or F1/F2 bus from Daikin). Fujitsu provided HBPC (Home Bus Protocol Controller) chip as MB86046B. But it is unclear whether Fujitsu (currently, Cypress) still manufactures this HBPC LSI as of 2018. Mitsumi Electric provides the MM1007 and MM1192 driver ICs for HBS. The HBS specification is also discussed in the Echonet Consortium. In 2014, a utility model patent for protocol converter from HBS to RS-485 is granted in China as "CN204006496U." Regarding the replacement of IEBus, a paper by Hyundai Autonet, currently Hyundai Mobis, describes as follows. "In communication methods for digital input capable amplifiers, Inter Equipment Bus (IEBus) was used in early times, but for now, Controller Area Network (CAN) is mainly used." == Protocol overview == A master talks to a slave. Each unit has a master and a slave address register. Only one device can talk on the bus at any given time. There is a pecking order for the types of communications which will take precedence over another. Each communication from master to slave must be replied to by the slave going back to the master with acknowledge bits each of those show ACK or NAK. If the master does not receive the ACK within a predefined time allowance for a mode, it drops the communication and returns to its standby (listen) mode. Detailed specification of OSI model layer 2 is disclosed to licensees only, but protocol analyzers are provided from some test equipment vendors. In 2012, one of Chinese manufacturer's patent is granted as "CN202841169U". An open-source software emulator called "IEBus Studio" exists on a repository of SourceForge, but the last update was on 2008-02-24. Another open-source analyzer software called "IEBusAnalyzer" is available on GitHub repository. Some hobbyist made some tools also. === Physical layer (OSI model layer 1) specification overview === From μPD6708 data sheet. and μPD78098B Subseries user's manual, hardware. Communication system Half-duplex asynchronous communication Multi-master system All the units connected to the IEBus can transfer data to the other units. Broadcast communication function (communication between one unit and multiple units) Normally, communication is individually carried out from one unit to another. By using the broadcast communication function, however, communication can be executed from one unit to plural units as follows: Group broadcast communication: Broadcast communication to group units Simultaneous broadcast communication: Broadcast communication to all units Effective transmission rate The effective transmission rate can be selected from the following three communication modes: Mixture of the plural of modes in the same bus line is not allowed. Correct communication between different base clock is not possible. Access control CSMA/CD (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection) The priority of occupying IEBus is as follows: «1» Broadcast communication takes precedence over individual communication. «2» The lower the master address, the higher the priority. Communication scale Number of units: 50 MAX. Cable length: 150 m MAX. (when a twisted pair cable is used) Load capacity: MAX. 8000 pF; between Bus+ and Bus−, (6.000000 MHz base clock) MAX. 7100 pF; between Bus+ and Bus−, (6.291456 MHz base clock) Terminating resistor: 120 Ω Logic level Logic 1: Low level. Voltage difference between Bus+ and Bus− is under 20mV Logic 0: High Level. Voltage difference between Bus+ and Bus− is over 120mV In-phase input voltage high: Bus+ ≤ (VDD-1.0) V, Bus− ≥ 1.0 V === Transfer signal format === From μPD6708 data sheet. and μPD78098B Subseries user's manual, hardware. This frame format is much similar to that of Domestic Digital Bus (D2B). All fields are MSB first. ==== Functions of Control bits ==== === Bit format === Each IEBus bit consists of four periods. Preparation period: The first or subsequent low-level (logic "1") period Synchronization period: Next high-level (logic "0") period Data period: Period indicating value of bit; ether low-level (logic "1") or high-level (logic "0") Stop period: The last low-level (logic "1") period Synchronization is done by each bit. Time lengths of the synchronization period and data period are almost the same. The time of the entire bits' and each bit's specification, related to the time of each period allocated to it, differ depending both on the type of the transmit bit and on whether the unit is the master or a slave unit. == Automotive manufacturers using IEBus == Each manufacturer has its own name, but it is not an alias of IEBus. Those are specifications of wire harness which comprise control cables based on IEBus, OSI model layer 3 and above communication protocol, audio cables, interconnection couplers, and so on. === Pioneer === Pioneer Corporation employed IEBus for its original branded car audio in early '90s. In its earlier stage, it was used just for control bus between the head unit in dashboard and the CD changer usually placed in trunk room. Nowadays, the specification includes connection between head units, navigation systems, rear speaker systems, and so on. IP-Bus: Wire harness specification. === Toyota === Pioneer Corporation pushed Toyota Motor Corporation to adopt IEBus as the genuine parts. In 1994, Toyota decided to employ IEBus for its genuine specification, but it is slightly different from that of Pioneer. It is named as AVC-LAN. AVC-LAN: Wire harness specification, based on mode 2. === Honda/Acura === Pioneer Corporation also pushed Honda Motor. Honda also decided to adopt IEBus as its genuine parts specification just after Toyota do so. GA-NET II: Wire harness specification. Honda Music Link: Honda genuine gadget to connect Apple Inc. products. A hobbyist made touch screen controller on Acura TSX for a Car PC installed in the trunk. === Sirius XM Satellite Radio === Sirius XM Satellite Radio is a satellite broadcasting radio operator in US. Its digital media receiver equipment utilizes IEBus. == Evaluation boards == === SAKURA board === GR-SAKUKRA board and GR-SAKURA-FULL board are Renesas official promotion boards of RX63N chip, which enables IEBus mode 0 and 1, but not mode 2, i.e. not available for Toyota AVC-LAN. They are an Arduino pin compatible low-price ones, suitable for hobbyists. Their color of printed circuit board is SAKURA in Japanese, which means cherry blossom. To e
Semi-Automatic Ground Environment
The Semi-Automated Ground Environment (SAGE) was a system of large computers and associated networking equipment that coordinated data from many radar sites and processed it to produce a single unified image of the airspace over a wide area. SAGE directed and controlled the NORAD response to a possible Soviet air attack, operating in this role from the late 1950s into the 1980s. The processing power behind SAGE was supplied by the largest discrete component-based computer ever built, the AN/FSQ-7, manufactured by IBM. Each SAGE Direction Center (DC) housed an FSQ-7 which occupied an entire floor, approximately 22,000 square feet (2,000 m2) not including supporting equipment. The FSQ-7 was actually two computers, "A" side and "B" side. Computer processing was switched from "A" side to "B" side on a regular basis, allowing maintenance on the unused side. Information was fed to the DCs from a network of radar stations as well as readiness information from various defense sites. The computers, based on the raw radar data, developed "tracks" for the reported targets, and automatically calculated which defenses were within range. Operators used light guns to select targets on-screen for further information, select one of the available defenses, and issue commands to attack. These commands would then be automatically sent to the defense site via teleprinter. Connecting the various sites was an enormous network of telephones, modems and teleprinters. Later additions to the system allowed SAGE's tracking data to be sent directly to CIM-10 Bomarc missiles and some of the US Air Force's interceptor aircraft in-flight, directly updating their autopilots to maintain an intercept course without operator intervention. Each DC also forwarded data to a Combat Center (CC) for "supervision of the several sectors within the division" ("each combat center [had] the capability to coordinate defense for the whole nation"). SAGE became operational in the late 1950s and early 1960s at an estimated total cost between 8 and 12 billion dollars, four times the cost of the Manhattan Project. Throughout its development, there were continual concerns about its real ability to deal with large attacks, and the Operation Sky Shield tests showed that only about one-fourth of enemy bombers would have been intercepted. Nevertheless, SAGE was the backbone of NORAD's air defense system into the 1980s, by which time the tube-based FSQ-7s were increasingly costly to maintain and completely outdated. Today the same command and control task is carried out by microcomputers, based on the same basic underlying data. == Background == === Earlier systems === Just prior to World War II, Royal Air Force (RAF) tests with the new Chain Home (CH) radars had demonstrated that relaying information to the fighter aircraft directly from the radar sites was not feasible. The radars determined the map coordinates of the enemy, but could generally not see the fighters at the same time. This meant the fighters had to be able to determine where to fly to perform an interception but were often unaware of their own exact location and unable to calculate an interception while also flying their aircraft. The solution was to send all of the radar information to a central control station where operators collated the reports into single tracks, and then reported these tracks to the airbases, or sectors. The sectors used additional systems to track their own aircraft, plotting both on a single large map. Operators viewing the map could then see what direction their fighters would have to fly to approach their targets and relay that simply by telling them to fly along a certain heading or vector. This Dowding system was the first ground-controlled interception (GCI) system of large scale, covering the entirety of the UK. It proved enormously successful during the Battle of Britain, and is credited as being a key part of the RAF's success. The system was slow, often providing information that was up to five minutes out of date. Against propeller driven bombers flying at perhaps 225 miles per hour (362 km/h) this was not a serious concern, but it was clear the system would be of little use against jet-powered bombers flying at perhaps 600 miles per hour (970 km/h). The system was extremely expensive in manpower terms, requiring hundreds of telephone operators, plotters and trackers in addition to the radar operators. This was a serious drain on manpower, making it difficult to expand the network. The idea of using a computer to handle the task of taking reports and developing tracks had been explored beginning late in the war. By 1944, analog computers had been installed at the CH stations to automatically convert radar readings into map locations, eliminating two people. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy began experimenting with the Comprehensive Display System (CDS), another analog computer that took X and Y locations from a map and automatically generated tracks from repeated inputs. Similar systems began development with the Royal Canadian Navy, DATAR, and the US Navy, the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS). A similar system was also specified for the Nike SAM project, specifically referring to a US version of CDS, coordinating the defense over a battle area so that multiple batteries did not fire on a single target. All of these systems were relatively small in geographic scale, generally tracking within a city-sized area. === Valley Committee === When the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in August 1949, the topic of air defense of the US became important for the first time. A study group, the "Air Defense Systems Engineering Committee", was set up under the direction of Dr. George Valley to consider the problem and is known to history as the "Valley Committee". Their December report noted a key problem in air defense using ground-based radars. A bomber approaching a radar station would detect the signals from the radar long before the reflection off the bomber was strong enough to be detected by the station. The committee suggested that when this occurred, the bomber would descend to low altitude, thereby greatly limiting the radar horizon, allowing the bomber to fly past the station undetected. Although flying at low altitude greatly increased fuel consumption, the team calculated that the bomber would only need to do this for about 10% of its flight, making the fuel penalty acceptable. The only solution to this problem was to build a huge number of stations with overlapping coverage. At that point the problem became one of managing the information. Manual plotting was ruled out as too slow, and a computerized solution was the only possibility. To handle this task, the computer would need to be fed information directly, eliminating any manual translation by phone operators, and it would have to be able to analyze that information and automatically develop tracks. A system tasked with defending cities against the predicted future Soviet bomber fleet would have to be dramatically more powerful than the models used in the NTDS or DATAR. The Committee then had to consider whether or not such a computer was possible. The Valley Committee was introduced to Jerome Wiesner, associate director of the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT. Wiesner noted that the Servomechanisms Laboratory had already begun development of a machine that might be fast enough. This was the Whirlwind I, originally developed for the Office of Naval Research as a general purpose flight simulator that could simulate any current or future aircraft by changing its software. Wiesner introduced the Valley Committee to Whirlwind's project lead, Jay Forrester, who convinced him that Whirlwind was sufficiently capable. In September 1950, an early microwave early-warning radar system at Hanscom Field was connected to Whirlwind using a custom interface developed by Forrester's team. An aircraft was flown past the site, and the system digitized the radar information and successfully sent it to Whirlwind. With this demonstration, the technical concept was proven. Forrester was invited to join the committee. === Project Charles === With this successful demonstration, Louis Ridenour, chief scientist of the Air Force, wrote a memo stating "It is now apparent that the experimental work necessary to develop, test, and evaluate the systems proposals made by ADSEC will require a substantial amount of laboratory and field effort." Ridenour approached MIT President James Killian with the aim of beginning a development lab similar to the war-era Radiation Laboratory that made enormous progress in radar technology. Killian was initially uninterested, desiring to return the school to its peacetime civilian charter. Ridenour eventually convinced Killian the idea was sound by describing the way the lab would lead to the development of a local electronics industry based on the needs of the lab and the students who would leave the lab to start their
Local-first software
Local-first software is a software engineering approach in which an application stores its data primarily on the user's own device rather than on remote servers. Users can read and write data without an Internet connection, and changes are synchronized across devices in the background when connectivity is available. The approach differs from conventional cloud-based applications, where the server holds the authoritative copy of user data and the client acts as a thin client. The term was coined in a 2019 paper published by researchers at Ink & Switch, an independent research lab, and presented at the Onward! conference at ACM SIGPLAN. The paper, sometimes referred to as a manifesto, was authored by Martin Kleppmann, Adam Wiggins, Peter van Hardenberg, and Mark McGranaghan. == Background == Before the widespread adoption of Internet-connected software in the 2000s, most desktop applications stored data as files on the user's local disk. Users had direct access to their files and could copy, back up, or delete them at will. The rise of software as a service (SaaS) and cloud-based applications like Google Docs shifted data storage to centralized servers. While cloud applications made real-time collaboration across devices straightforward, they introduced a dependency on the service provider: if the provider discontinued the service or experienced an outage, users could lose access to their data. A related concept, "offline-first," emerged in the early 2010s and focused on making web applications resilient to network interruptions. The local-first approach built on these earlier efforts while placing greater emphasis on long-term data ownership and end-to-end encryption. == Origins == === Ink & Switch manifesto === Ink & Switch is an industrial research lab co-founded by Adam Wiggins, who had earlier co-founded Heroku. Martin Kleppmann, an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science and Technology at the University of Cambridge, was a co-author of the 2019 paper. The manifesto proposed seven "ideals" for local-first software: Fast — Operations respond without network round-trips. Multi-device — Data synchronizes across a user's devices. Offline — Users can read and write data without a network connection. Collaboration — Multiple users can work on the same data concurrently. Longevity — Data remains accessible even if the software vendor ceases operation. Privacy — End-to-end encryption protects user data. User control — The vendor cannot restrict how users access or use their data. The paper surveyed existing approaches to data storage and collaboration — ranging from email attachments and Dropbox-style file synchronization to web applications and mobile backends — and argued that none of them satisfied all seven ideals simultaneously. === Role of CRDTs === The manifesto identified conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs) as a promising technical foundation for local-first applications. CRDTs are data structures that allow multiple replicas to be edited independently and then merged without conflicts, a property first formalized in research by Marc Shapiro and colleagues around 2011. Kleppmann and collaborators at Ink & Switch developed Automerge, an open-source CRDT library for JSON documents, to make these algorithms available to application developers. == Adoption and community == Developer interest in the local-first approach grew after the 2019 paper spread on Hacker News and at developer conferences In August 2023, Wired published a feature article on the movement, describing it as an effort to reduce reliance on large cloud providers. The first Local-First Conf took place on 30 May 2024 in Berlin, with talks by Kleppmann and developers from companies including Linear and Anytype. The community has continued to expand, with regular "LoFi" meetups, a podcast (localfirst.fm), and a third edition of the conference planned for Berlin in July 2026. == Criticisms and limitations == Developers and commentators have pointed out practical difficulties with the local-first approach. Synchronizing data between multiple devices that may be offline for extended periods introduces complexity that cloud-based architectures avoid. Conflict resolution, even with CRDTs, can produce results that are technically consistent but semantically unexpected to users. Schema migrations across thousands of client devices running different application versions pose another difficulty that does not arise with server-side databases. Web browsers impose storage limits and may evict locally stored data. Safari, for instance, has been reported to clear IndexedDB data after seven days of inactivity on a given site, which undermines the assumption that local data is persistent. There is also disagreement within the local-first community about whether a fully decentralized architecture is required. The original manifesto described decentralization as the "logical end goal," but a number of products that identify as local-first still depend on centralized servers for authentication, backup, or synchronization. In a talk at Local-First Conf 2024, Kleppmann said the seven ideals are better understood as a "gradient" rather than a strict checklist.
Why We Post
Why We Post is a research project funded by the European Research Council and launched in 2012 by Daniel Miller with the objective of examining the global impact of new social media. The study is based on ethnographic data collected through the course of 15 months in China, India, Turkey, Italy, United Kingdom, Trinidad, Chile and Brazil. The results of this project were released on 29 February 2016. This included the first three of eleven Open Access books (available via UCL Press), a five-week e-course (MOOC) on FutureLearn in English, also available in Chinese, Portuguese, Hindi, Tamil, Italian, Turkish, and Spanish on UCLeXtend. In addition a website containing key discoveries, stories and over 100 films is available in the same 8 languages.