WebGPU Shading Language (WGSL, internet media type: text/wgsl) is a high-level shading language and the normative shader language for the WebGPU API on the web. WGSL's syntax is influenced by Rust and is designed with strong static validation, explicit resource binding, and portability in mind for secure execution in browsers. In web contexts, WebGPU implementations accept WGSL source and perform compilation to platform-specific intermediate forms (for example, to SPIR‑V, DXIL, or MSL via the user agent), but such backends are not exposed to web content. == History and background == Graphics on the web historically used WebGL, with shaders written in GLSL ES. As applications demanded more modern GPU features and finer control over compute and graphics pipelines, the W3C's GPU for the Web Community Group and Working Group created WebGPU and its companion shading language, WGSL, to provide a secure, portable model suitable for the web platform. WGSL was developed to be human-readable, avoid undefined behavior common in legacy shading languages, and align closely with WebGPU's resource and validation model. == Design goals == WGSL's design emphasizes: Safety and determinism suitable for web security constraints (extensive static validation and well-defined semantics). Portability across diverse GPU backends via an abstract resource model shared with WebGPU. Readability and explicitness (no preprocessor, minimal implicit conversions, explicit address spaces and bindings). Alignment with modern GPU features (compute, storage buffers, textures, atomics) while retaining a familiar C/Rust-like syntax. == Language overview == === Types and values === Core scalar types include bool, i32, u32, and f32. Vectors (e.g., vec2, vec3, vec4) and matrices (up to 4×4) are available for floating-point element types. Optional f16 (half precision) may be enabled via a WebGPU feature; availability is implementation-dependent. Atomic types (atomic
Audio inpainting
Audio inpainting (also known as audio interpolation) is an audio restoration task which deals with the reconstruction of missing or corrupted portions of a digital audio signal. Inpainting techniques are employed when parts of the audio have been lost due to various factors such as transmission errors, data corruption or errors during recording. The goal of audio inpainting is to fill in the gaps (i.e., the missing portions) in the audio signal seamlessly, making the reconstructed portions indistinguishable from the original content and avoiding the introduction of audible distortions or alterations. Many techniques have been proposed to solve the audio inpainting problem and this is usually achieved by analyzing the temporal and spectral information surrounding each missing portion of the considered audio signal. Classic methods employ statistical models or digital signal processing algorithms to predict and synthesize the missing or damaged sections. Recent solutions, instead, take advantage of deep learning models, thanks to the growing trend of exploiting data-driven methods in the context of audio restoration. Depending on the extent of the lost information, the inpainting task can be divided in three categories. Short inpainting refers to the reconstruction of few milliseconds (approximately less than 10) of missing signal, that occurs in the case of short distortions such as clicks or clipping. In this case, the goal of the reconstruction is to recover the lost information exactly. In long inpainting instead, with gaps in the order of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds, this goal becomes unrealistic, since restoration techniques cannot rely on local information. Therefore, besides providing a coherent reconstruction, the algorithms need to generate new information that has to be semantically compatible with the surrounding context (i.e., the audio signal surrounding the gaps). The case of medium duration gaps lays between short and long inpainting. It refers to the reconstruction of tens of millisecond of missing data, a scale where the non-stationary characteristic of audio already becomes important. == Definition == Consider a digital audio signal x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . A corrupted version of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , which is the audio signal presenting missing gaps to be reconstructed, can be defined as x ~ = m ∘ x {\displaystyle \mathbf {\tilde {x}} =\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {x} } , where m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is a binary mask encoding the reliable or missing samples of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , and ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } represents the element-wise product. Audio inpainting aims at finding x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } (i.e., the reconstruction), which is an estimation of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . This is an ill-posed inverse problem, which is characterized by a non-unique set of solutions. For this reason, similarly to the formulation used for the inpainting problem in other domains, the reconstructed audio signal can be found through an optimization problem that is formally expressed as x ^ ∗ = argmin X ^ L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) + R ( x ^ ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}={\underset {\hat {\mathbf {X} }}{\text{argmin}}}~L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )+R(\mathbf {\hat {x}} )} . In particular, x ^ ∗ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}} is the optimal reconstructed audio signal and L {\displaystyle L} is a distance measure term that computes the reconstruction accuracy between the corrupted audio signal and the estimated one. For example, this term can be expressed with a mean squared error or similar metrics. Since L {\displaystyle L} is computed only on the reliable frames, there are many solutions that can minimize L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) {\displaystyle L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )} . It is thus necessary to add a constraint to the minimization, in order to restrict the results only to the valid solutions. This is expressed through the regularization term R {\displaystyle R} that is computed on the reconstructed audio signal x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } . This term encodes some kind of a-priori information on the audio data. For example, R {\displaystyle R} can express assumptions on the stationarity of the signal, on the sparsity of its representation or can be learned from data. == Techniques == There exist various techniques to perform audio inpainting. These can vary significantly, influenced by factors such as the specific application requirements, the length of the gaps and the available data. In the literature, these techniques are broadly divided in model-based techniques (sometimes also referred as signal processing techniques) and data-driven techniques. === Model-based techniques === Model-based techniques involve the exploitation of mathematical models or assumptions about the underlying structure of the audio signal. These models can be based on prior knowledge of the audio content or statistical properties observed in the data. By leveraging these models, missing or corrupted portions of the audio signal can be inferred or estimated. An example of a model-based techniques are autoregressive models. These methods interpolate or extrapolate the missing samples based on the neighboring values, by using mathematical functions to approximate the missing data. In particular, in autoregressive models the missing samples are completed through linear prediction. The autoregressive coefficients necessary for this prediction are learned from the surrounding audio data, specifically from the data adjacent to each gap. Some more recent techniques approach audio inpainting by representing audio signals as sparse linear combinations of a limited number of basis functions (as for example in the Short Time Fourier Transform). In this context, the aim is to find the sparse representation of the missing section of the signal that most accurately matches the surrounding, unaffected signal. The aforementioned methods exhibit optimal performance when applied to filling in relatively short gaps, lasting only a few tens of milliseconds, and thus they can be included in the context of short inpainting. However, these signal-processing techniques tend to struggle when dealing with longer gaps. The reason behind this limitation lies in the violation of the stationarity condition, as the signal often undergoes significant changes after the gap, making it substantially different from the signal preceding the gap. As a way to overcome these limitations, some approaches add strong assumptions also about the fundamental structure of the gap itself, exploiting sinusoidal modeling or similarity graphs to perform inpainting of longer missing portions of audio signals. === Data-driven techniques === Data-driven techniques rely on the analysis and exploitation of the available audio data. These techniques often employ deep learning algorithms that learn patterns and relationships directly from the provided data. They involve training models on large datasets of audio examples, allowing them to capture the statistical regularities present in the audio signals. Once trained, these models can be used to generate missing portions of the audio signal based on the learned representations, without being restricted by stationarity assumptions. Data-driven techniques also offer the advantage of adaptability and flexibility, as they can learn from diverse audio datasets and potentially handle complex inpainting scenarios. As of today, such techniques constitute the state-of-the-art of audio inpainting, being able to reconstruct gaps of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds. These performances are made possible by the use of generative models that have the capability to generate novel content to fill in the missing portions. For example, generative adversarial networks, which are the state-of-the-art of generative models in many areas, rely on two competing neural networks trained simultaneously in a two-player minmax game: the generator produces new data from samples of a random variable, the discriminator attempts to distinguish between generated and real data. During the training, the generator's objective is to fool the discriminator, while the discriminator attempts to learn to better classify real and fake data. In GAN-based inpainting methods the generator acts as a context encoder and produces a plausible completion for the gap only given the available information surrounding it. The discriminator is used to train the generator and tests the consistency of the produced inpainted audio. Recently, also diffusion models have established themselves as the state-of-the-art of generative models in many fields, often beating even GAN-based solutions. For this reason they have also been used to solve the audio inpainting problem, obtaining valid results. These models generate new data instances by inverting the
Solid-state electronics
Solid-state electronics are semiconductor electronics: electronic equipment that use semiconductor devices such as transistors, diodes and integrated circuits (ICs). The term is also used as an adjective for devices in which semiconductor electronics that have no moving parts replace devices with moving parts, such as the solid-state relay, in which transistor switches are used in place of a moving-arm electromechanical relay, or the solid-state drive (SSD), a type of semiconductor memory used in computers to replace hard disk drives, which store data on rotating disks. == History == The term solid-state became popular at the beginning of the semiconductor era in the 1960s to distinguish this new technology. A semiconductor device works by controlling an electric current consisting of electrons or holes moving within a solid crystalline piece of semiconducting material such as silicon, while the thermionic vacuum tubes it replaced worked by controlling a current of electrons or ions in a vacuum within a sealed tube. Although the first solid-state electronic device was the cat's whisker detector, a crude semiconductor diode invented around 1904, solid-state electronics started with the invention of the transistor in 1947. Before that, all electronic equipment used vacuum tubes, because vacuum tubes were the only electronic components that could amplify—an essential capability in all electronics. The transistor, which was invented by John Bardeen and Walter Houser Brattain while working under William Shockley at Bell Laboratories in 1947, could also amplify, and replaced vacuum tubes. The first transistor hi-fi system was developed by engineers at GE and demonstrated at the University of Philadelphia in 1955. In terms of commercial production, The Fisher TR-1 was the first "all transistor" preamplifier, which became available mid-1956. In 1961, a company named Transis-tronics released a solid-state amplifier, the TEC S-15. The replacement of bulky, fragile, energy-hungry vacuum tubes by transistors in the 1960s and 1970s created a revolution not just in technology but in people's habits, making possible the first truly portable consumer electronics such as the transistor radio, cassette tape player, walkie-talkie and quartz watch, as well as the first practical computers and mobile phones. Other examples of solid state electronic devices are the microprocessor chip, LED lamp, solar cell, charge coupled device (CCD) image sensor used in cameras, and semiconductor laser. Also during the 1960s and 1970s, television set manufacturers switched from vacuum tubes to semiconductors, and advertised sets as "100% solid state" even though the cathode-ray tube (CRT) was still a vacuum tube. It meant only the chassis was 100% solid-state, not including the CRT. Early advertisements spelled out this distinction, but later advertisements assumed the audience had already been educated about it and shortened it to just "100% solid state". LED displays can be said to be truly 100% solid-state.
Friending and following
Friending is the act of adding someone to a list of "friends" on a social networking service. The notion does not necessarily involve the concept of friendship. It is also distinct from the idea of a "fan"—as employed on the WWW sites of businesses, bands, artists, and others—since it is more than a one-way relationship. A "fan" only receives things. A "friend" can communicate back to the person friending. The act of "friending" someone usually grants that person special privileges (on the service) with respect to oneself. On Facebook, for example, one's "friends" have the privilege of viewing and posting to one's "timeline". Following is a similar concept on other social network services, such as Twitter and Instagram, where a person (follower) chooses to add content from a person or page to their newsfeed. Unlike friending, following is not necessarily mutual, and a person can unfollow (stop following) or block another user at any time without affecting that user's following status. The first scholarly definition and examination of friending and defriending (the act of removing someone from one's friend list, also called unfriending) was David Fono and Kate Raynes-Goldie's "Hyperfriendship and beyond: Friends and Social Norms on LiveJournal" from 2005, which identified the use of the term as both a noun and a verb by users of early social network site and blogging platform LiveJournal, which was originally launched in 1999. == Friend/follower count, friend collecting, and multiple accounts == The addition of people to a friend list without regard to whether one actually is their friend is sometimes known as friend whoring. Matt Jones of Dopplr went so far as to coin the expression "friending considered harmful" to describe the problem of focusing upon the friending of more and more people at the expense of actually making any use of a social network. Friend collecting is the adding of hundreds or thousands of friends/followers, a not uncommon order of magnitude on some social sites. As a result, many teen users feel pressured to heavily curate their posts, posting only carefully posed and edited photographs with well-thought-out captions. Some Instagram users will create a second account, known as a Finsta (short for "Fake Instagram"). A Finsta is typically private, and the owner only allows close friends to follow it. Since the follower count is kept down, the posts can be more candid and silly in nature. Users may also create multiple accounts based on their interests. Someone with a personal social media account might be a photographer and maintain a separate account for that. There is risk associated with following large numbers of people: scholars say that social anxiety could be an effect of managing a large social media network, as users can feel jealous and have a "fear of missing out". == Unfriending and unfollowing == Unfriending is the act of removing someone from a friends list. On Facebook, this means the action is unilateral, meaning, the friendship is terminated on both sides. The act of unfriending is often used when one user was flirting and made the other uncomfortable. Unfollowing is a little different. When a user unfollows someone on Instagram or Twitter, it continues a one-sided relationship. Often, the unfollowed user doesn't realize they were unfollowed, so they continue the following. == Social network friending and friendship == There are distinct groups of "friends" that one can friend on a social networking service. The notion of a social network friend does not necessarily embody the concept of friendship. Although terminology has not yet evolved to distinguish the different types of social networking friends, they can be broken into the following three categories. friends who are actually known These are people that may be one's friends or family in real life, with whom one has regular interaction either on-line or off-line. organizational friends These are companies and other organizations who maintain a "friending" relationship as a contacts list. complete strangers These are social networking "friends" with whom one has no relationship at all. Within these categories "friends" can be made up of strong ties, weak existing ties, weak latent ties, and parasocial ties. Strong ties can be made up of close family members and friends where self-disclosure, intimacy and frequent content occur. Weak existing ties can be made up of acquaintances, co-workers and distance relatives with whom the user has inconsistent contact. Weak latent ties can be made up of people within a similar geographical location or profession that can be used as a potential future bridge to other connections. Parasocial ties can be made up of celebrities, public figures and media personas. Human nature is to reciprocate a friending, marking someone as a friend who has marked oneself as a friend. This is a social norm for social networking services. However, this leads to mixing up who is an actual friend, and who is a contact. Tagging someone as a "contact" who has marked one as a "friend" can be perceived as impolite. Other concerns about this issue are treated in Sherry Turkle's Alone Together which analyses many behavioral dynamics in social media friendships. Turkle defines herself as "cautiously optimistic", but expresses concern that distance communications may undermine genuine face-to-face spoken discourses, lessening people's expectations of one another. One social networking service, FriendFeed, allows one to friend someone as a "fake" friend. The person "fake" friended receives the usual notifications for friending, but that person's updates are not received. Gavin Bell, author of Building Social Web Applications, describes this mechanism as "ludicrous". Results from a 2007 survey the Center for the Digital Future stated that only 23% of internet users have at least one virtual friend whom they have only met online. Ideally the number of virtual friends is directly proportional to the use of the Internet, but the same survey showed 20% of heavy-users (more than 3 hours/day) who claimed an average of 8.7% online friends, reported at least one relationship that started virtually and migrated to in-person contact. This results and other concerning issues are included in the book Networked: The New Social Operating System co-written by Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman in 2012. == Ethical considerations == The act of "friending" someone on a social networking service has particular ethical implications for judges in the United States. Judicial codes of conducts in the various states generally incorporate some form of provision that judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Whether this regulates and even prohibits judges "friending" attorneys that appear before them, and law enforcement personnel, has been the subject of some analysis by the judicial ethics panels of the various states. They haven't all agreed on the guidance that they have given to judges: The New York state Judicial Ethics committee in 2009 simply advised judges to employ caution, noting that the issue of "friending" someone on a social networking service is a publicly observable act that has little difference from other public behavior concerns judges already face. The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory committee in 2009 noted that, judges being normal human beings, it was unavoidable for judges to form friendships without the responsibilities of their job. It prohibited judges from friending any attorneys that appeared before them, whilst allowing friending of those who do not, on the grounds that it may give the appearance to the general public (even if the substance is otherwise) that those attorneys who are friended hold special sway with the judge. A minority opinion of the committee asserted that there is a substantive difference between "friending" on a social networking service and actual friendship, and that the general public, being aware of the norms of social networking services, was capable of drawing this distinction and would not reasonably conclude either a special degree of influence or a violation of the code of judicial conduct. This minority opinion was outnumbered twice in 2009, both in the Judicial Ethics Advisory and in the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory committee. The South Carolina judicial conduct committee in 2009 permitted judges to friend attorneys and law enforcement personnel, with the proviso that no judicial business should be conducted upon nor discussed via the social networking service. "... a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives.", the committee stated. The Kentucky Judicial Ethics committee in 2010 took the same position as the minority opinion in Florida. It urged judges to exercise caution, but recognized that the act of friending "does not, in and of itself, indicate the degree or intensity of a judge's relationship with the person who is the 'friend'
Awwwards
Awwwards (Awwwards Online SL) is an organization that hosts web design competitions and conferences across Europe and the United States. Website owners and developers can participate by submitting their websites for review. Submissions are assessed by a jury, and top entries are presented and awarded prizes on a rotational basis. == Nomination process == Web designers submit their websites through Awwwards' platform for consideration for the Site of the Day. A jury, composed of industry professionals, and the Awwwards community evaluate the entries. The best daily sites are published annually in "The 365 Best Websites Around the World" book. == Jury == The jury consists of international designers, developers, and agencies who assess the creativity, technical skills, and insight of the submitted web projects. The panel's expertise ensures a comprehensive review process. === Developer Award === Awwwards, in partnership with Microsoft, created the Developer Award to recognize web developers who demonstrate excellence in creating websites that meet modern standards. The award highlights websites that work seamlessly across various platforms and devices, using best practices in HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS. == Annual winners == Some prominent Site of the Year winners include Mercedes-Benz, Bloomberg L.P., Bose Corporation, Warner Brothers, Volkswagen, Uber, and Google. == Awwwards conference == Awwwards also organizes two-day conferences featuring speakers from major tech companies and industry leaders such as Microsoft, Google, Spotify, Adobe, Opera, and Smashing Magazine. These events focus on the latest trends in web design and development. Speakers at Awwwards conferences have included notable figures in the design and technology industry such as Stefan Sagmeister, Paula Scher, and design leaders from companies including Wix. == Corporate affairs == === Platform === Awwwards operates an online platform where web designers and developers submit websites for evaluation and awards. Submitted projects are reviewed by a jury based on design, usability, creativity, and content. The platform also serves as a community hub for discovering digital trends, showcasing work, and accessing educational resources including talks and interviews. Design professionals from international companies have participated in Awwwards events and platform content. For example, Wix, a cloud-based web development company known for its website builder tools, has featured prominently in Awwwards conferences, with its design leadership contributing to discussions on design trends and creative thinking.
AlphaChip (controversy)
The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor
Digital journalism
Digital journalism, also known as netizen journalism or online journalism, is a contemporary form of journalism where editorial content is distributed via the Internet, as opposed to publishing via print or broadcast. What constitutes digital journalism is debated amongst scholars. However, the primary product of journalism, which is news and features on current affairs, is presented solely or in combination as text, audio, video, or some interactive forms like storytelling stories or newsgames and disseminated through digital media technology. Fewer barriers to entry, lowered distribution costs and diverse computer networking technologies have led to the widespread practice of digital journalism. It has democratized the flow of information that was previously controlled by traditional media including newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Most readers expect online journalists to be reliable and competent, but these journalists often fail to meet this standard because they have very short deadlines and do not have enough resources to produce decent work. Some have asserted that a greater degree of creativity can be exercised with digital journalism when compared to traditional journalism and traditional media. The digital aspect may be central to the journalistic message and remains, to some extent, within the creative control of the writer, editor and/or publisher. It has been acknowledged that reports of its growth have tended to be exaggerated. In fact, a 2019 Pew survey showed a 16% decline in the time spent on online news sites since 2016. In the United States, reports issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2011 and by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 2023 found that increases in newsroom staffing at digital-native news websites from 2008 to 2020 were not offsetting cuts in newsroom staffing among newspapers (which numbered in the tens of thousands of jobs), and that newspapers and television (which had been seeing declining newsroom staffing alongside newspapers) still employed the majority of payrolled newsroom staff in the United States in 2022 while online-only news websites employed less than 10%. The GAO and CRS reports noted further that the reduction in subscription and advertising revenue for the U.S. newspaper industry from 2000 to 2020 that constituted the overwhelming majority of its inflation-adjusted total revenue was not being offset by digital circulation or online advertising despite almost two-thirds of U.S. advertising spending in total by 2020 being online. Also, while the FCC report noted that local television stations in the United States had become some of the largest providers of local news online, the FCC found in a 2021 working paper that inflation-adjusted advertising revenue for television stations fell nationally from 2010 to 2018. == Overview == Digital journalism flows as journalism flows and is difficult to pinpoint where it is and where it is going. In partnership with digital media, digital journalism uses facets of digital media to perform journalist tasks, for example, using the internet as a tool rather than a singular form of digital media. There is no absolute agreement as to what constitutes digital journalism. Mu Lin argues that, "Web and mobile platforms demand us to adopt a platform-free mindset for an all-inclusive production approach – create the [digital] contents first, then distribute via appropriate platforms." The repurposing of print content for an online audience is sufficient for some, while others require content created with the digital medium's unique features like hypertextuality. Fondevila Gascón adds multimedia and interactivity to complete the digital journalism essence. For Deuze, online journalism can be functionally differentiated from other kinds of journalism by its technological component which journalists have to consider when creating or displaying content. Digital journalistic work may range from purely editorial content like CNN (produced by professional journalists) online to public-connectivity websites like Slashdot (communication lacking formal barriers of entry). The difference of digital journalism from traditional journalism may be in its re-conceptualised role of the reporter in relation to audiences and news organizations. The expectations of society for instant information was important for the evolution of digital journalism. However, it is likely that the exact nature and roles of digital journalism will not be fully known for some time. Some researchers even argue that the free distribution of online content, online advertisement and the new way recipients use news could undermine the traditional business model of mass media distributors that is based on single-copy sales, subscriptions and the selling of advertisement space. == History == The first type of digital journalism, called teletext, was invented in the UK in 1970. Teletext is a system allowing viewers to choose which stories they wish to read and see it immediately. The information provided through teletext is brief and instant, similar to the information seen in digital journalism today. The information was broadcast between the frames of a television signal in what was called the vertical blanking interval or VBI. American journalist Hunter S. Thompson relied on early digital communication technology beginning by using a fax machine to report from the 1971 US presidential campaign trail as documented in his book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. After the invention of teletext was the invention of videotex, of which Prestel was the world's first system, launching commercially in 1979 with various British newspapers, such as the Financial Times lining up to deliver newspaper stories online through it. Videotex closed down in 1986 due to failing to meet end-user demand. American newspaper companies took notice of the new technology and created their own videotex systems, the largest and most ambitious being Viewtron, a service of Knight-Ridder launched in 1981. Others were Keycom in Chicago and Gateway in Los Angeles. All of them had closed by 1986. Next came computer Bulletin Board Systems. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several smaller newspapers started online news services using BBS software and telephone modems. The first of these was the Albuquerque Tribune in 1989. Computer Gaming World in September 1992 broke the news of Electronic Arts' acquisition of Origin Systems on Prodigy, before its next issue went to press. Online news websites began to proliferate in the 1990s. An early adopter was The News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina which offered online news as Nando. Steve Yelvington wrote on the Poynter Institute website about Nando, owned by The N&O, by saying "Nando evolved into the first serious, professional news site on the World Wide Web". It originated in the early 1990s as "NandO Land". It is believed that a major increase in digital online journalism occurred around this time when the first commercial web browsers, Netscape Navigator (1994) and Internet Explorer (1995). By 1996, most news outlets had an online presence. Although journalistic content was repurposed from original text/video/audio sources without change in substance, it could be consumed in different ways because of its online form through toolbars, topically grouped content, and intertextual links. A twenty-four-hour news cycle and new ways of user-journalist interaction web boards were among the features unique to the digital format. Later, portals such as AOL and Yahoo! and their news aggregators (sites that collect and categorize links from news sources) led to news agencies such as The Associated Press to supplying digitally suited content for aggregation beyond the limit of what client news providers could use in the past. Also, Salon, was founded in 1995. In 2001, the American Journalism Review called Salon the Internet's "preeminent independent venue for journalism." In 2008, for the first time, more Americans reported getting their national and international news from the internet, rather than newspapers. Young people aged 18 to 29 now primarily get their news via the Internet, according to a Pew Research Center report. Audiences to news sites continued to grow due to the launch of new news sites, continued investment in news online by conventional news organizations, and the continued growth in internet audiences overall. Sixty-five percent of youth now primarily access the news online. Mainstream news sites are the most widespread form of online news media production. As of 2000, the vast majority of journalists in the Western world now use the internet regularly in their daily work. In addition to mainstream news sites, digital journalism is found in index and category sites (sites without much original content but multiple links to existing news sites), meta- and comment sites (sites about