Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi (Italian pronunciation: [nikoˈlɔ tˈtʃɛːza ˈbjaŋki]) is an Italian computer scientist and Professor of Computer Science at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Milan. He is a researcher in the field of machine learning, and co-author of the books "Prediction, Learning, and Games" with Gabor Lugosi and "Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems" with Sébastien Bubeck == Education and career == Cesa-Bianchi graduated in Computer Science from the University of Milan in 1988 where he received a PhD in Computer Science in 1993 supervised by Alberto Bertoni. During his PhD, he visited UC Santa Cruz where he worked with Manfred Warmuth and David Haussler. He did his postdoctoral studies at Graz University of Technology under the supervision of Wolfgang Maass. == Research == His research contributions focus on the following areas: design and analysis of machine learning algorithms, especially in online machine learning algorithms for multi-armed bandit problems, with applications to recommender systems and online auctions graph analytics, with applications to social networks and bioinformatics == Awards and honors == Cesa-Bianchi received a Google Research Award in 2010, a Xerox University Affairs Committee Award in 2011, a Criteo Faculty Award in 2017, a Google Faculty Award in 2018, and a IBM Academic Award in 2021. Since 2023 he is corresponding member of the Accademia dei Lincei.
VoxForge
VoxForge is a free speech corpus and acoustic model repository for open source speech recognition engines. VoxForge was set up to collect transcribed speech to create a free GPL speech corpus in order to be uses with open source speech recognition engines. The speech audio files will be 'compiled' into acoustic models for use with open source speech recognition engines such as Julius, ISIP, and Sphinx and HTK (note: HTK has distribution restrictions). VoxForge has used LibriVox as a source of audio data since 2007.
Algorithmic management
Algorithmic management is a term used to describe certain labor management practices in the contemporary digital economy. In scholarly uses, the term was initially coined in 2015 by Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish to describe the managerial role played by algorithms on the Uber and Lyft platforms, but has since been taken up by other scholars to describe more generally the managerial and organisational characteristics of platform economies. However, digital direction of labor was present in manufacturing already since the 1970s and algorithmic management is becoming increasingly widespread across a wide range of industries. The concept of algorithmic management can be broadly defined as the delegation of managerial functions to algorithmic and automated systems. Algorithmic management has been enabled by "recent advances in digital technologies" which allow for the real-time and "large-scale collection of data" which is then used to "improve learning algorithms that carry out learning and control functions traditionally performed by managers". The term does not refer to a specific underlying technology, and encompasses the design choices, organisational policies, and governance that surround the managerial use of algorithms in workplaces. In the contemporary workplace, firms employ an ecology of accounting devices, such as "rankings, lists, classifications, stars and other symbols' in order to effectively manage their operations and create value without the need for traditional forms of hierarchical control." Many of these devices fall under the label of what is called algorithmic management, and were first developed by companies operating in the sharing economy or gig economy, functioning as effective labor and cost cutting measures. The Data&Society explainer of the term, for example, describes algorithmic management as 'a diverse set of technological tools and techniques that structure the conditions of work and remotely manage workforces. Data&Society also provides a list of five typical features of algorithmic management: Prolific data collection and surveillance of workers through technology; Real-time responsiveness to data that informs management decisions; Automated or semi-automated decision-making; Transfer of performance evaluations to rating systems or other metrics; and The use of "nudges" and penalties to indirectly incentivize worker behaviors. Proponents of algorithmic management claim that it "creates new employment opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labour market that are characterised by inefficiency, opacity and capricious human bosses." On the other hand, critics of algorithmic management claim that the practice leads to several issues, especially as it impacts the employment status of workers managed by its new array of tools and techniques. == History of the term == "Algorithmic management" was first described by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, and Dabbish in 2015 in their study of the Uber and Lyft platforms. In their study, Lee et al. termed "software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice" algorithmic management. Software algorithms, it was said, are increasingly used to "allocate, optimize, and evaluate work" by platforms in managing their vast workforces. In Lee et al.'s paper on Uber and Lyft this included the use of algorithms to assign work to drivers, as mechanisms to optimise pricing for services, and as systems for evaluating driver performance. In 2016, Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark sought to extend on this understanding of algorithmic management "to elucidate on the automated implementation of company policies on the behaviours and practices of Uber drivers." Rosenblat and Stark found in their study that algorithmic management practices contributed to a system beset by power asymmetries, where drivers had little control over "critical aspects of their work", whereas Uber had far greater control over the labor of its drivers. Since this time, studies of algorithmic management have extended the use of the term to describe the management practices of various firms, where, for example, algorithms "are taking over scheduling work in fast food restaurants and grocery stores, using various forms of performance metrics ad even mood... to assign the fastest employees to work in peak times." Algorithmic management is seen to be especially prevalent in gig work on platforms, such as on Upwork and Deliveroo, and in the sharing economy, such as in the case of Airbnb. Furthermore, recent research has defined sub-constructs that fall under the umbrella term of algorithmic management, for example, "algorithmic nudging". A Harvard Business Review article published in 2021 explains: "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way." While the concept builds on nudging theory popularized by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers' behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals' decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective." == Relationships with other labor management practices == Algorithmic management has been compared and contrasted with other forms of management, such as Scientific management approaches, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s. Henri Schildt has called algorithmic management "Scientific management 2.0", where management "is no longer a human practice, but a process embedded in technology." Similarly, Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman suggest that, while "algorithmic control over labor may be relatively new, it replicates many features of older mechanisms of labor control." On the other hand, some commentators have argued that algorithmic management is not simply a new form of Scientific management or digital Taylorism, but represents a distinct approach to labor control in platform economies. David Stark and Ivana Pais, for example, state that, "In contrast to Scientific Management at the turn of the twentieth century, in the algorithmic management of the twenty-first century there are rules but these are not bureaucratic, there are rankings but not ranks, and there is monitoring but it is not disciplinary. Algorithmic management does not automate bureaucratic structures and practices to create some new form of algorithmic bureaucracy. Whereas the devices and practices of Taylorism were part of a system of hierarchical supervision, the devices and practices of algorithmic management take place within a different economy of attention and a new regime of visibility. Triangular rather than vertical, and not as a panopticon, the lines of vision in algorithmic management are not lines of supervision." Similarly, Data&Society's explainer for algorithmic management claims that the practice represents a marked departure from earlier management structures that more strongly rely on human supervisors to direct workers. In analyzing the difference and the similarities to previous management styles, David Stark and Pieter Vanden Broeck expand the applicability of algorithmic management beyond the workplace. They develop a theory of algorithmic management in terms of broader changes in the shape and structure of organization in the 21st century, attentive to the erosion of organization's boundaries whereby heterogeneous actors, assets, and activities, are coopted regardless of their place in organizational space. Stark and Vanden Broeck propose the following means of differentiating algorithmic management from other historical managerial paradigms: == Issues == Algorithmic management can provide an effective and efficient means of workforce control and value creation in the contemporary digital economy. However, commentators have highlighted several issues that algorithmic management poses, especially for the workers it manages. Criticisms of the practice often highlight several key issues pertaining to algorithmic management practices, such as the imperfection and scope of its surveillance and control measures, which also threaten to lock workers out of key decision-making processes; its lack of transparency for users and information asymmetries; its potential for bias and discrimination; its dehumanizing tendencies; and its potential to create conditions which sidestep traditional employer-employee accountability. This last point has been especi
Query rewriting
Query rewriting is a typically automatic transformation that takes a set of database tables, views, and/or queries, usually indices, often gathered data and query statistics, and other metadata, and yields a set of different queries, which produce the same results but execute with better performance (for example, faster, or with lower memory use). Query rewriting can be based on relational algebra or an extension thereof (e.g. multiset relational algebra with sorting, aggregation and three-valued predicates i.e. NULLs as in the case of SQL). The equivalence rules of relational algebra are exploited, in other words, different query structures and orderings can be mathematically proven to yield the same result. For example, filtering on fields A and B, or cross joining R and S can be done in any order, but there can be a performance difference. Multiple operations may be combined, and operation orders may be altered. The result of query rewriting may not be at the same abstraction level or application programming interface (API) as the original set of queries (though often is). For example, the input queries may be in relational algebra or SQL, and the rewritten queries may be closer to the physical representation of the data, e.g. array operations. Query rewriting can also involve materialization of views and other subqueries; operations that may or may not be available to the API user. The query rewriting transformation can be aided by creating indices from which the optimizer can choose (some database systems create their own indexes if deemed useful), mandating the use of specific indices, creating materialized and/or denormalized views, or helping a database system gather statistics on the data and query use, as the optimality depends on patterns in data and typical query usage. Query rewriting may be rule based or optimizer based. Some sources discuss query rewriting as a distinct step prior to optimization, operating at the level of the user accessible algebra API (e.g. SQL). There are other, largely unrelated concepts also named similarly, for example, query rewriting by search engines.
Principles for a Data Economy
The Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transactions is a transatlantic legal project carried out jointly by the American Law Institute (ALI) and the European Law Institute (ELI). The Principles for a Data Economy deals with a range of different legal questions that arise in the data economy. Since data is different from other tradeable items, the Principles draw up legal rules for data transactions and data rights that take into account the interests of different stakeholders involved in the data economy. The Principles are designed to facilitate contractual relations as well as the drafting of model agreements and can guide courts and legislators worldwide. The project proposes a set of principles that can be implemented in any legal system and is designed to work in conjunction with any kind of data privacy/data protection law, intellectual property law or trade secret law. The Principles do not address or seek to change any of the substantive rules of these bodies of law. The Project Team consists of Neil B Cohen and Christiane Wendehorst (as Project Reporters) and Lord John Thomas as well as Steven O. Weise (as Project Chairs). == Characteristics of data == The law governing trades in commerce has historically focused on trade in items that are tangible like goods or on intangible assets, such as shares or licenses. However, data does not fit into any of these traditional categories, nor does it qualify as a service. It is often unclear how traditional legal rules and doctrines can apply to data, as data is different from other assets in many ways. For example, data can be multiplied at basically no cost and can be used in parallel for a variety of different purposes by many different people at the same time (data is a “non-rivalrous” resource). Uncertainty regarding the applicable rules to govern the data economy may inhibit innovation and growth and trouble stakeholders like data-driven industries, start-ups, and consumers. == Stakeholders in the data economy == The Principles have taken the basic types of players and relations which can be found in data ecosystems as a starting point to provide guidance in different situations. The central actors in the data economy are data controllers (also called “data holders”). They are in a position to access the data and decide for which purposes and means this data should be processed. A controller may exercise control all by itself or share it with co-controllers, such as under a data pooling arrangement. Data processors provide the processing of data on a controller’s behalf as a service. Another important group of stakeholders includes those that contribute to the generation of data (e.g. data subjects). Other players in the data economy include data assemblers or data intermediaries (e.g. data trusts). == History of the project and timeline == Before the official adoption of the project by ALI and ELI bodies in 2018, the project team carried out a Feasibility Study from October 2016 to February 2018. In the following years, the project team produced a number of drafts (e.g. “Preliminary Drafts” No. 1 to 4, “Tentative Draft No. 1”) and project progress were regularly discussed with advisory bodies and members of both the ALI and the ELI. The project reporters also included feedback and insights from industry stakeholders and experts that was gained after several meetings and workshops, hosted, inter alia by UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and several national governmental institutions. Tentative Draft No. 2 was presented at the ALI Annual Meeting in May 2021 and approved by ALI membership. The latest draft ("Final Council Draft") was also approved by the ELI Council and ELI Membership. The Principles for a Data Economy were presented at an international conference with representatives from institutions such as the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), the European Commission, UNIDROIT, the OECD, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in October 2021. == Project structure == The current draft (“Tentative Draft No. 2”) of the Principles consists of five Parts that each governs different aspects of the data economy: General Provisions, Data Contracts, Data Rights, Third Party Aspects of Data Activities, and Multi-State Issues. === General Provisions === Part I includes general provisions that apply to all other Parts of the Principles for a Data Economy. This Part sets out the purpose of the Principles: they aim to make existing law in the field of the data economy more coherent and support the development of the law in this field by courts and legislators worldwide. It is also clarified that the Principles have a wide scope of application and can be used in a variety of ways by stakeholders in the data economy. The Principles may, for example, serve private parties as a basis for contract formation, guide the deliberations of arbitral tribunals or inspire national legislation. Part I then defines several key terms, such as ‘digital data’ and ‘data right’. The scope of the Principles is limited to matters where information is recorded as an asset, resource or tradeable commodity and where large amounts of data, rather than single pieces of information, are concerned. This Part also clarifies that remedies with respect to data contracts and data rights are left to the applicable national law. === Data Contracts === Part II lists different types of contracts that often occur in the data economy and establishes two broad categories, namely contracts for the supply and sharing of data and contracts for services with regard to data. Contracts for the supply and sharing of data include, e.g. data transfer contracts or data pooling arrangements, while contracts for services with regard to data cover contracts for the processing of data or data intermediary contracts. The Principles provide default terms for each contract type, on issues such as the manner in which data should supply or which characteristics the data supplied should meet. These default terms 'automatically' become part of the contract unless the parties agree otherwise. === Data Rights === Part III governs legally protected interests of players in the data economy that stem from the characteristics of data as a resource (e.g. its non-rivalrous nature) or from public interest considerations. Such data rights may include the right to data access, the right to require the controller to desist from data activities or to correct incorrect/incomplete data, or even to receive an economic share in profits derived from the use of data. For example, the Principles deal with data rights of stakeholders that had a share in the co-generation of data and identify different factors to be considered in determining whether to afford a party a data right. The underlying idea that parties who have contributed to the generation of data should have some rights in the utilization of the data is also recognized by governmental institutions, such as by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), and the term co-generated data, which was coined by the Principles for a Data Economy, has been adopted, inter alia by the European Commission, the German Data Ethics Commission and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). This Part also deals with data rights for the public interest, such as data sharing rights in the field of innovation. === Third Party Aspects === Part IV governs different situations in which data transactions interfere with the rights of third parties. Such rights include intellectual property rights or rights derived from data privacy or data protection law. This Part sets out under which circumstances data activities should be considered wrongful vis à vis another party. For example, a data activity (like data processing or the onward supply of data) could be considered wrongful, if a controller interferes with the rights of data subjects that are protected by data-protection law. A data activity could also be wrongful if the controller is non-compliant with contractual limitations on data activities, enforceable by the protected party (e.g. a controller may only process data for a certain purpose). If someone obtained access to data by unauthorized means (i.e. data “theft”) this could also be considered wrongful. The Part on Third-Party Aspects also takes a detailed look at the effects of the onward supply of data can have on third parties, while balancing the protection of third parties on the one hand, with the interests of data recipients and the desire to encourage data sharing on the other. === Multi-State Issues === As transactions in the data economy are international by nature and hardly occur within one legal system alone, the Part V of the Principles also briefly touches upon the applicability of the rules and doctrines of private international law to such transactions. == Links == Website of the “Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transaction
MY F.C.
MY F.C. is a freemium app designed to organise and administer football teams. It is developed by MY F.C. Limited, a private company headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand. The app allows users to build a team by adding players and from there they can create trainings and matches, keep up with relevant news in the curated newsfeed, record statistics both individually and team based, follow the games live in the match-centre. The app also features integrated lineup builder with custom team kits. == History == Founders Sam Jenkins, Mike Simpson and Sam Jasper started MY F.C. in 2015 to help them "run their football lives". The app was launched on Android and iOS on 14 February 2017. == Accolades == MY F.C. won the first place prize at Bank of New Zealand Start-up Alley 2017 competition that aims to discover New Zealand start-ups who are doing innovative work and ready to establish themselves as long-term, sustainable businesses. The prize package included $15,000 and a trip to San Francisco.
NewSQL
NewSQL is a class of relational database management systems that seek to provide the scalability of NoSQL systems for online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads while maintaining the ACID guarantees of a traditional database system. Many enterprise systems that handle high-profile data (e.g., financial and order processing systems) are too large for conventional relational databases, but have transactional and consistency requirements that are not practical for NoSQL systems. The only options previously available for these organizations were to either purchase more powerful computers or to develop custom middleware that distributes requests over conventional DBMS. Both approaches feature high infrastructure costs and/or development costs. NewSQL systems attempt to reconcile the conflicts. == History == The term was first used by 451 Group analyst Matthew Aslett in a 2011 research paper discussing the rise of a new generation of database management systems. One of the first NewSQL systems was the H-Store parallel database system. == Applications == Typical applications are characterized by heavy OLTP transaction volumes. OLTP transactions; are short-lived (i.e., no user stalls) touch small amounts of data per transaction use indexed lookups (no table scans) have a small number of forms (a small number of queries with different arguments). However, some support hybrid transactional/analytical processing (HTAP) applications. Such systems improve performance and scalability by omitting heavyweight recovery or concurrency control. == List of NewSQL-databases == Apache Trafodion Clustrix CockroachDB Couchbase CrateDB Google Spanner MySQL Cluster NuoDB OceanBase Pivotal GemFire XD SequoiaDB SingleStore was formerly known as MemSQL. TIBCO Active Spaces TiDB TokuDB TransLattice Elastic Database VoltDB YDB YugabyteDB == Features == The two common distinguishing features of NewSQL database solutions are that they support online scalability of NoSQL databases and the relational data model (including ACID consistency) using SQL as their primary interface. NewSQL systems can be loosely grouped into three categories: === New architectures === NewSQL systems adopt various internal architectures. Some systems employ a cluster of shared-nothing nodes, in which each node manages a subset of the data. They include components such as distributed concurrency control, flow control, and distributed query processing. === SQL engines === The second category are optimized storage engines for SQL. These systems provide the same programming interface as SQL, but scale better than built-in engines. === Transparent sharding === These systems automatically split databases across multiple nodes using Raft or Paxos consensus algorithm.