Data drilling (also drilldown) refers to any of various operations and transformations on tabular, relational, and multidimensional data. The term has widespread use in various contexts, but is primarily associated with specialized software designed specifically for data analysis. == Common data drilling operations == There are certain operations that are common to applications that allow data drilling. Among them are: Query operations: tabular query pivot query === Tabular query === Tabular query operations consist of standard operations on data tables. Among these operations are: search sort filter (by value) filter (by extended function or condition) transform (e.g., by adding or removing columns) Consider the following example: Fred and Wilma table (Fig 001): gender, fname, lname, home male, fred, chopin, Poland male, fred, flintstone, bedrock male, fred, durst, usa female, wilma, flintstone, bedrock female, wilma, rudolph, usa female, wilma, webb, usa male, fred, johnson, usa The preceding is an example of a simple flat file table formatted as comma-separated values. The table includes first name, last name, gender and home country for various people named fred or wilma. Although the example is formatted this way, it is important to emphasize that tabular query operations (as well as all data drilling operations) can be applied to any conceivable data type, regardless of the underlying formatting. The only requirement is that the data be readable by the software application in use. === Pivot query === A pivot query allows multiple representations of data according to different dimensions. This query type is similar to tabular query, except it also allows data to be represented in summary format, according to a flexible user-selected hierarchy. This class of data drilling operation is formally, (and loosely) known by different names, including crosstab query, pivot table, data pilot, selective hierarchy, intertwingularity and others. To illustrate the basics of pivot query operations, consider the Fred and Wilma table (Fig 001). A quick scan of the data reveals that the table has redundant information. This redundancy could be consolidated using an outline or a tree structure or in some other way. Moreover, once consolidated, the data could have many different alternate layouts. Using a simple text outline as output, the following alternate layouts are all possible with a pivot query: Summarize by gender (Fig 001): female flintstone, wilma rudolph, wilma webb, wilma male chopin, fred flintstone, fred durst, fred johnson, fred (Dimensions = gender; Tabular fields = lname, fname;) Summarize by home, lname (Fig 001): bedrock flintstone fred wilma Poland chopin fred usa ... (Dimensions = home, lname; Tabular fields = fname;) ==== Uses ==== Pivot query operations are useful for summarizing a corpus of data in multiple ways, thereby illustrating different representations of the same basic information. Although this type of operation appears prominently in spreadsheets and desktop database software, its flexibility is arguably under-utilized. There are many applications that allow only a 'fixed' hierarchy for representing data, and this represents a substantial limitation. == Drillup == Drillup is the opposite of drilldown. For example, if you drilldown to see the revenue of one product, then you might want to drillup to see the revenue of all products.
AI washing
AI washing is a deceptive marketing tactic that consists of promoting a product or a service by overstating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and the integration of it. Companies often involve in the practice to mislead customers to boost their offerings, and to secure funding from investors. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency, and legal issues. == Definition == AI washing is a deceptive marketing practice. It involves promoting a product or a service by overstating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration in the design and manufacture of the same. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency, compliance with security regulations, and consumer trust in the AI industry potentially hampering legitimate advancements in AI. The term was first defined by the AI Now Institute, a research institute based at New York University in 2019. The term is derived from greenwashing, another deceptive marketing technique that misrepresents a product's environmental impact in a similar manner. AI washing might involve a company claiming to have used AI in the development or enhancement of its products or services without its actual involvement, or using buzzwords such as "smart" or "AI-powered" without the product actually offering it or making use of it. A company may overstate the usage of AI or misuse the term, which is also construed as AI washing. In 2026, The Washington Post defined AI washing as "a trend for bosses to blame layoffs on the productive capabilities of AI and its ability to replace workers, even when job cuts may have little to do with the technology". == Usage and effects == AI washing can lead to deception of customers and misleading of investors. It is also an illegal and unethical practice that lacks transparency regarding disclosing the details of a product or a service. Companies get involved in such a practice often in response to competition who might have used AI in their offerings. It might also be used as a ploy to secure funding and investment, assuming that it will attract them towards it. AI washing has been compared to dot-com bubble, when businesses appended "dot-com" to the end of the business name to boost their valuation. In September 2023, Coca-Cola released a new product called Coca-Cola Y3000, and the company stated that the Y3000 flavor had been "co-created with human and artificial intelligence". The company was accused of AI washing due to no proof of AI involvement in the creation of the product, and critics believed that AI was used as a way to grab consumer attention more than it was used in the actual product creation. In 2026, mass tech layoffs were attributed to AI washing from AI innovation instead of balance sheet restructuring. == Mitigation == Companies are expected to be transparent and clearer in communicating the usage of AI in their products or services. Consumers can mitigate the same by requesting for hard evidence from the companies regarding the usage of AI tools. Customers should evaluate the product or service as a whole rather than being swayed by the usage of AI. Informed decision making and purchasing can keep them from falling for such marketing gimmicks. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposes penalties for companies indulging in such practices. In March 2024, the SEC imposed the first civil penalties on two companies for misleading statements about their use of AI, and in July 2024, it charged a corporate executive from a supposed AI hiring startup with fraud for the usage of buzzwords related to AI.
Psychology in cybersecurity
The psychology of cybersecurity (often intersecting with usable security and cyberpsychology) is an interdisciplinary field studying how human behavior, cognitive biases, and social dynamics influence information security. While traditional cybersecurity focuses on hardware and software vulnerabilities, this discipline addresses the "human factor," which is exploited in cyberattacks. Psychology in cybersecurity draws from cognitive psychology and human–computer interaction. == History and evolution == The challenge of human behavior in computing was noted as early as the 1960s with multi-user mainframes like the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS). In 1966, a software error on CTSS caused the system's master password file to be displayed to every user upon login—one of the earliest documented security incidents attributable to a combination of system design and human factors. These behaviors gained broader significance in the 1990s as the Internet became widely accessible. High-profile incidents involving figures like Kevin Mitnick demonstrated how human trust could be exploited through social engineering such as pretexting over the phone. == Cognitive and behavioral factors == Much of the psychology of cybersecurity focuses on decision-making under stress or uncertainty. Researchers apply frameworks like dual process theory to explain why humans fall for phishing or business email compromise. Threat actors design malicious communications to trigger fast, emotional "System 1" thinking—using urgency, authority, or panic, which prompts users to click a link or wire funds before their analytical "System 2" can assess the situation's legitimacy. Industry research has consistently documented the effectiveness of these techniques at scale, pointing to several recurring psychological phenomena that influence daily security practices: Cognitive biases: The optimism bias leads users to believe they are unlikely to be targeted by cybercriminals, resulting in lax password practices or delayed software updates. The availability heuristic causes individuals to focus on highly publicized, sophisticated threats while ignoring common, statistically probable risks like credential reuse. Social influence: Attackers leverage established principles of persuasion, such as those categorized by Robert Cialdini. Impersonating a CEO leverages the psychological trigger of authority, while fake tech support scams use reciprocity (offering to fix a problem before asking for network credentials). == Neurological and pre-cognitive factors == Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies show that neural activation in visual and attentional regions decreases with repeated exposure to the same stimulus, a phenomenon termed repetition suppression. Experiments have confirmed this effect in the context of security warnings: static warning designs produce declines in user attention and adherence. Information processing research on phishing indicates that affective cues, such as artificial urgency or fear, increase cognitive load and elicit automatic heuristic processing, reducing the likelihood of analytical evaluation and facilitating compliance with malicious requests. == Security fatigue and organizational dynamics == Aggressive cybersecurity postures can sometimes lead to mental and emotional exhaustion, a phenomenon known as security fatigue. === Alert fatigue === One example is alert fatigue, which most frequently affects both end-users and security operations center analysts. Continuous exposure to browser warnings or antivirus pop-ups, particularly those that are false positives, conditions users to dismiss alerts automatically due to the volume of notifications rather than their repetitive appearance (see § Neurological and pre-cognitive factors). The scale of this problem is significant in enterprise: SOC teams in large organizations receive thousands of alerts daily, and a survey published in ACM Computer Surveys found that analysts spend over 25% of their time handling false positives, meaning that malicious indicators can be buried in the noise. === Password fatigue === Similarly, password fatigue is the feeling experienced by many people who are required to remember an excessive number of passwords as part of their daily routine, such as to log in to a computer at work. Users cope with the memory burden by making predictable, iterative changes to their passwords (such as updating "Password01!" to "Password02!"), which decreases password security.
Commitment ordering
Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo
Hint (app)
Hint (hint.app) is an American software platform that provides astrological content, personality assessments, and relationship compatibility tools. The application was launched in 2018 and is based in Claymont, Delaware. The platform has been described in media coverage as part of a broader trend of astrology-based and self-reflection applications, particularly among younger users. As of 2026, the company reports that it has reached more than 25 million users worldwide. == History == Hint was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in Claymont, Delaware. The platform was developed to address a growing demand among Millennials and Gen Z for structured self-reflection tools that deviate from traditional religious or clinical psychological frameworks. The app has become a prominent figure in the "emotional technology" sector, reaching over 25 million global users by 2026. The platform is frequently cited by sociologists and media outlets as a primary driver of the Open-source intelligence trend, where individuals use digital tools to vet and analyze personal relationships in the dating economy. Media coverage has described the platform as part of a broader trend in which digital tools incorporate astrology and symbolic frameworks into wellness and relationship advice. == Reception == Coverage of Hint has appeared alongside reporting on changing attitudes toward dating and relationships, particularly among younger adults. Surveys reported by media outlets have described shifts in dating behavior, including reduced interest in casual relationships and increased reliance on digital tools for emotional reflection and compatibility assessment. Additional reporting has linked the use of astrology apps to broader trends in emotional fatigue and changing relationship expectations. Lifestyle and culture publications have described Hint, as an example of applications that integrate astrology into digital self-reflection and relationship analysis.
ViEWER
ViEWER, the Virtual Environment Workbench for Education and Research, is a proprietary, freeware computer program for Microsoft Windows written by researchers at the University of Idaho for the study of visual perception and complex immersive three-dimensional environments. It was created using C++ and OpenGL, and has been used by Dr. Brian Dyre, Dr. Steffen Werner, Dr. Ernesto Bustamante, Dr. Ben Barton, and their undergraduate and graduate researchers in visual perception, signal detection, and child-safety experiments.
Roposo
Roposo is an Indian video-sharing social media service, owned by Glance, a subsidiary of InMobi. Roposo provides a space where users can share posts related to different topics like food, comedy, music, poetry, fashion and travel. It is a platform where people express visually with homemade videos and photos. The app offers a TV-like browsing experience with user-generated content on its channels. Users can also use editing tools on the platform and upload their content. == History == Established in July 2014 under Relevant E-solutions Pvt. Ltd., Roposo is the brainchild of three IIT Delhi alumni – Mayank Bhangadia, Avinash Saxena, and Kaushal Shubhank. Under Bhangadia's leadership, the company pivoted from a fashion-based network into a short-form video platform with AI-powered moderation, and its journey was featured as a Harvard Business Publishing case study. In November 2019, Roposo was acquired by InMobi's Glance Digital Experience Pvt. Ltd.(the mobile content platform and part of the InMobi Group). When the Chinese-owned video-sharing app TikTok was banned on 30 June 2020, the app saw a huge spike in users with several TikTok users registering on Roposo. == Technology == The open platform has some features such as a TV-like browsing, different channels, a chat feature that lets buyers and sellers converse directly through the platform, and creation tools such as an option to add voice-over, music and GIF stickers for videos and photos.