AI Assistant Jetbrains Plugin

AI Assistant Jetbrains Plugin — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Software bot

A software bot is a type of software agent in the service of software project management and software engineering. A software bot has an identity and potentially personified aspects in order to serve their stakeholders. Software bots often compose software services and provide an alternative user interface, which is sometimes, but not necessarily conversational. Software bots are typically used to execute tasks, suggest actions, engage in dialogue, and promote social and cultural aspects of a software project. The term bot is derived from robot. However, robots act in the physical world and software bots act only in digital spaces. Some software bots are designed and behave as chatbots, but not all chatbots are software bots. Discussions about the past and future of software bots show that software bots have been adopted for many years. == Usage == Software bots are used to support development activities, such as communication among software developers and automation of repetitive tasks. Software bots have been adopted by several communities related to software development, such as open-source communities on GitHub and Stack Overflow. GitHub bots have user accounts and can open, close, or comment on pull requests and issues. GitHub bots have been used to assign reviewers, ask contributors to sign the Contributor License Agreement, report continuous integration failures, review code and pull requests, welcome newcomers, run automated tests, merge pull requests, fix bugs and vulnerabilities, etc. The Slack tool includes an API for developing software bots. There are slack bots for keeping track of todo lists, coordinating standup meetings, and managing support tickets. The ChatBot company products further simplify the process of creating a custom Slack bot. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia bots automate a variety of tasks, such as creating stub articles, consistently updating the format of multiple articles, and so on. Bots like ClueBot NG are capable of recognizing vandalism and automatically remove disruptive content. == Taxonomies and Classification Frameworks == Lebeuf et al. provide a faceted taxonomy to characterize bots based on a literature review. It is composed of 3 main facets: (i) properties of the environment that the bot was created in; (ii) intrinsic properties of the bot itself; and (iii) the bot's interactions within its environment. They further detail the facets into sets of sub-facets under each of the main facets. Paikari and van der Hoek defined a set of dimensions to enable comparison of software bots, applied specifically to chatbots. It resulted in six dimensions: Type: the main purpose of the bot (information, collaboration, or automation) Direction of the "conversation" (input, output, or bi-directional) Guidance (human-mediated, or autonomous) Predictability (deterministic, or evolving) Interaction style (dull, alternate vocabulary, relationship-builder, human-like) Communication channel (text, voice, or both) Erlenhov et al. raised the question of the difference between a bot and simple automation, since much research done in the name of software bots uses the term bot to describe various different tools and sometimes things are "just" plain old development tools. After interviewing and surveying over 100 developers the authors found that not one, but three definitions dominated the community. They created three personas based on these definitions and the difference between what the three personas see as being a bot is mainly the association with a different set of human-like traits. The chat bot persona (Charlie) primarily thinks of bots as tools that communicates with the developer through a natural language interface (typically voice or chat), and caring little about what tasks the bot is used for or how it actually implements these tasks. The autonomous bot persona (Alex) thinks of bots as tools that work on their own (without requiring much input from a developer) on a task that would normally be done by a human. The smart bot persona (Sam) separates bots and plain old development tools through how smart (technically sophisticated) a tool is. Sam cares less about how the tool communicates, but more about if it is unusually good or adaptive at executing a task. The authors recommends that people doing research or writing about bots try to put their work in the context of one of the personas since the personas have different expectations and problems with the tools. == Example of notable bots == Dependabot and Renovatebot update software dependencies and detect vulnerabilities. (https://dependabot.com/) Probot is an organization that create and maintain bots for GitHub. The example bots using Probot are the following. Auto Assign (https://probot.github.io/apps/auto-assign/) license bot (https://probot.github.io/) Sentiment bot (https://probot.github.io/apps/sentiment-bot/) Untrivializer bot (https://probot.github.io/apps/untrivializer/) Refactoring-Bot (Refactoring-Bot): provides refactoring based on static code analysis Looks good to me bot (LGTM) is a Semmle product that inspects pull requests on GitHub for code style and unsafe code practices. == Issues and threats == Software bots may not be well accepted by humans. A study from the University of Antwerp has compared how developers active on Stack Overflow perceive answers generated by software bots. They find that developers perceive the quality of software bot-generated answers to be significantly worse if the identity of the software bot is made apparent. By contrast, answers from software bots with human-like identity were better received. In practice, when software bots are used on platforms like GitHub or Wikipedia, their username makes it clear that they are bots, e.g., DependaBot, RenovateBot, DatBot, SineBot. Bots may be subject to special rules. For instance, the GitHub terms of service does not allow 'bots' but accepts 'machine account', where a 'machine account' has two properties: 1) a human takes full responsibility of the bot's actions 2) it cannot create other accounts.
Read more →
Mike Little

Mike Little (born 12 May 1962) is an English web developer and writer. He is the co-founder of the free and open source web publishing software WordPress. == Biography == Mike Little was born in Manchester, England in 1962 to a Nigerian father, who was a mathematics lecturer and musician, and an English mother who worked as a primary school teacher. Little was placed into foster care when he was four months of age, and was later adopted by the same family. He grew up on a council estate in Brinnington, Stockport, and was educated at Stockport School. In 2003, Little and Matt Mullenweg started working on a project in which they built on b2/cafelog and later named it WordPress, releasing the first version on 27 May 2003. Little states that, despite not being invited to join his co-founder's for-profit business Automattic, he and Mullenweg remain on good terms. He clarified: "I don’t want it to sound like he cheated me out of something or ripped me off in some way. He didn’t." In June 2013, Little was awarded the SAScon's "Outstanding Contribution to Digital" award for his part in co-founding and developing WordPress. Little has been described as "modest" and living in "virtual anonymity". He has one daughter. He identifies as a follower of Stoicism and a humanist, and in 2021, he became a patron of charity Humanists UK.
Read more →
Are We Dating The Same Guy?

Are We Dating The Same Guy?, also abbreviated AWDTSG is a series of over 200 individual Facebook groups where women share dating profiles of men they matched with on dating networks to seek the opinion of other women who may have dated the same man in the past. The first group was created by Paola Sanchez and aimed at women living in the New York City environs. The groups have over 3.5 million members as of January 2024. The group's function is to post screenshots of a man's dating profile to that city's designated Facebook group, after which the poster asks "any tea?". Other users in the group will then share information about the man and share warnings. The groups are moderated by volunteers, and have been described as a feminist group. The groups have rules saying that personal information such as addresses must not be included in the Facebook posts. Users attempting to join the group are also examined to prevent fake profiles. The group is mainly for straight women. According to Vice, the men being posted about have no way to defend against accusations made about them, and on the other hand, posters cannot prove their stories unless backed up by others. Often times, members post pictures alongside personal information such as names, which may infringe on subjects' legal right to privacy. Lawyers have said these issues can lead to defamation lawsuits, and members can make false allegations and create fabricated stories. If members tell a man that he's been talked about on the group, the "snitch" will be banned and be "exposed to the whole group". == History == The first Are We Dating The Same Guy group was created by Paola Sanchez. The first group was created in March 2022 in New York City. A male counterpart, named "Are We Dating the Same Girl NYC" was created for New York, with mostly the same guidelines and rules to the original. When the original Are We Dating The Same Guy group found it, they denounced the new group. == Operations == Administrators are told not to respond to men asking to have posts about them removed, and to not remove said posts. The people being posted about have reported being questioned by their employers about things they have not done. Members of the groups sometimes criticise the physical appearance of the men being posted about. According to the Evening Standard, the groups "frequent[ly] mock" the appearance or dating profiles of the men who are posted about, despite being against the rules. For this behaviour, women are sometimes kicked out, or the group is disciplined en masse by admins. The groups have rules against hate towards men, but the rules can be difficult to enforce in large groups, with some having over 100,000 members. Some men have also been able to join the groups without being noticed. == Reception == In October 2023, Sera Bozza of Body+Soul wrote that consistently using Are We Dating The Same Guy can "affect your real-world view". She wrote that "A few stories of cheating may persuade you to believe that all men are unfaithful". Some lawyers and commentators have expressed concern that the groups fail to acknowledge the legal right to privacy and users can create false allegations and fabricated stories, and cyberbully men without them being able to defend themselves. This may lead to civil lawsuits against the author for defamation, harassment, and other related privacy torts. Netsafe, an online safety organisation in New Zealand, advises users of a similar group to familiarise themselves with the Harmful Digital Communications Act to ensure that posts do not lead to "harmful consequences". The Independent reported that men who have been posted on the dating groups have felt violated, and that even if reviewed positively by potentially thousands of strangers, the men being discussed about may have their reputation slightly decreased due to the association with being on the groups. The Independent also reported that some men believe that the groups are created to spread lies or mock them. Mashable reported that the growth of AWDTSG in recent years has led to the rise of a small industry of online reputation and content removal services, as increasing numbers of men seek assistance. A co-founder of Maximatic Media, one such agency offering these removal services, stated that many of the men contacting the firm do so in a state of panic after learning that allegations about them have circulated among tens of thousands of participants without their knowledge. Mashable similarly reported that the growing visibility of AWDTSG and similar platforms has contributed to what commentators describe as a "public trial" dynamic, where subjective accounts about dating behavior are interpreted as factual assessments and can influence a person's reputation among large audiences within their locale. The Oklahoman reported that anonymous, unverified claims in these groups have led some men to experience social and dating repercussions, although legal analysts argue that the benefits of community-based safety networks still outweigh these concerns in modern, app based dating environments. UTV/ITV News reportedly spoke to a man who was posted who alleged he attempted suicide, was clinically dead for three minutes, and spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital as a result of the posts made about him. Many other men have talked about malicious false claims made about them. Self-described men’s rights activists have taken a dislike to these groups and have gotten multiple North American groups shut down by running campaigns, threatening lawsuits, and mass Facebook reporting. They also have Reddit communities dedicated to getting rid of such groups. Women who have posted in the groups have felt that they have put their safety at risk, with some having been confronted by the men they posted about. The group has been noted for exposing men who use dating apps while already in a relationship, misrepresent their ages, or repeatedly stand up the women they meet through apps, among other bad dating behaviors. For example, some members of the group had matched on a dating site with a man who had, several years prior, killed a stranger while having a mental break. After this information came to light, members of the group were warned. The group has also been noted to be complimentary of some men. == Lawsuits == In 2023, a 41-year-old man sued the administrators of the London group for $35,000 under defamation, alleging that the group "called names, accused of sending lewd photos and of being a bad parent". In January 2024 a man sued Meta, the owner of Facebook, along with Patreon, GoFundMe, and the AWDTSG website, as well as almost 30 group members due to alleged defamation, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. Claiming that the groups violate anti-doxxing laws and do not fact check, seeking $75,000 in damages. He claims that the group shared fake images of him sending women texts containing harassment, his name and photo. His attorneys claim that if the images were real, they would fall under free speech in the First Amendment. By February, groups had raised $80,000. The Washington Post said that this case caused AWDTSG to "explode into public view". The case was dismissed in 2025 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to renew the case in D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al. The plaintiff and his attorneys, Marc Trent and Aaron Walner of Trent Law Firm, were sanctioned "for frivolously appealing the dismissal of the claims," "misrepresentations of law," in connection with falsified citations included in the plaintiff's brief, and " disputing at oral argument without any evidentiary basis that [the plaintiff] client sent the text message she attributed to him." == By country == === Australia === In Australia, there are groups for multiple cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Rockhampton with many having several thousand members. The Sydney group has 30,000 members. In March 2023, the Adelaide version of the group, which had 7,000 members, was shut down. In 2024, groups titled "Sis, Are We Dating The Same Guy" stopped accepting new posts after an admin was sued for defamation and had to pay over AU$20,000 in legal fees. The case was settled out of court. The administrator announcing these closures cited a 2021 defamation High Court case involving detainee Dylan Voller, which led to the High Court saying that owners of Facebook groups can be held liable for defamatory comments, even if they did not know the comments had been made. === Canada === In 2023, a group was started for Ottawa. The founder previously was in a relationship full of "cheating and lies", which prompted her to creating the Facebook community. In 2023, the group for Vancouver and British Columbia was shut down after concerns about men being unable to protect themselves against fa
Read more →
Nitro Zeus

Nitro Zeus is the project name for a well funded comprehensive cyber attack plan created as a mitigation strategy after the Stuxnet malware campaign and its aftermath. Unlike Stuxnet, that was loaded onto a system after the design phase to affect its proper operation, Nitro Zeus's objectives are built into a system during the design phase unbeknownst to the system users. This built-in feature allows a more assured and effective cyber attack against the system's users. The information about its existence was raised during research and interviews carried out by Alex Gibney for his Zero Days documentary film. The proposed long term widespread infiltration of major Iranian systems would disrupt and degrade communications, power grid, and other vital systems as desired by the cyber attackers. This was to be achieved by electronic implants in Iranian computer networks. The project was seen as one pathway in alternatives to full-scale war.
Read more →
Adrozek

Adrozek is malware that injects fake ads into online search results. Microsoft announced the malware threat on 10 December 2020, and noted that many different browsers are affected, including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox and Yandex Browser. The malware was first detected in May 2020 and, at its peak in August 2020, controlled over 30,000 devices a day. But during the December 2020 announcement, Microsoft claimed "hundreds of thousands" of infected devices worldwide between May and September 2020. According to Microsoft, if not detected and blocked, Adrozek adds browser extensions, modifies a specific DLL per target browser, and changes browser settings to insert additional, unauthorized ads into web pages, often on top of legitimate ads from search engines. For each user tricked into clicking on the fake ads, the scammers earn affiliate advertising dollars. The malware has been observed to extract device data and, in some cases, steal credentials, sending them to remote servers. Users may unintentionally install the malware because of a drive-by download, by visiting a tampered website, opening an e-mail attachment, or clicking on a deceptive link or a deceptive pop-up window. The main malware program is downloaded to the “Programs Files” folder using file names such as Audiolava.exe, QuickAudio.exe, and converter.exe. According to PC Magazine, a good way to avoid, or mitigate, infection by Adrozek is to keep browser and related software programs up to date.
Read more →
Matt Mullenweg

Matthew Charles Mullenweg (born January 11, 1984) is an American web developer and entrepreneur. He is known as a co-founder of the free and open-source web publishing software WordPress, and the founder of Automattic. == Early life and education == Mullenweg was born January 11, 1984, in Houston, Texas, to Chuck and Kathleen Mullenweg and grew up in the Willowbend neighborhood. His older sister was born in 1974. His father, who died in 2016, was a computer programmer who worked for Brown & Root, and encouraged his children to start using home computers at an early age. His mother was a stay-at-home mother. The Mullenwegs were raised Catholic. He attended Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, studying jazz and playing the saxophone. Mullenweg suffered from migraines as a child that forced him to miss extended periods of school. He attended the University of Houston for two years, studying philosophy and political science. He dropped out after his sophomore year in 2004 to work for CNET, which promised him that he could allocate time to the development of WordPress. == Career == Mullenweg began blogging in 2002 on the open source platform b2. B2 developer Michael Valdrighi abandoned the project and Mullenweg took it over in 2003. He and Mike Little created a b2 fork that year they called WordPress and published it under the GNU General Public License. In March 2003, he co-founded the Global Multimedia Protocols Group (GMPG) with Eric A. Meyer and Tantek Çelik. In April 2004, he helped launch Ping-O-Matic, a mechanism for notifying search engines about blog updates. In October 2004, he was hired by CNET who would allow him to develop WordPress part-time as part of his job. He dropped out of college and moved to San Francisco for the position. === Automattic === After leaving CNET in 2005, Mullenweg founded Automattic as a fully distributed company. Toni Schneider was hired as CEO so Mullenweg could learn how to manage a large organization. During this period, Mullenweg focused on product development while Schneider managed the company. In January 2014, Mullenweg resumed the role of CEO, replacing Schneider. He led Automattic's expansion and a series of acquisitions, including WooCommerce in 2015, The Atavist Magazine in 2018, Tumblr in 2019, Pocket Casts in 2021, and Beeper in 2024. Mullenweg received the Heinz Award for Technology, the Economy and Employment in 2016, for "helping to democratize online publishing". Automattic's valuation reached $7.5 billion in 2021. At the time, WordPress hosted 28 million websites, or 40 percent of all websites on the Internet. == Public disputes == On several occasions, Mullenweg has publicly challenged competitors to WordPress and WordPress.com. He has stated that he prefers to settle disputes in the court of public opinion and described his approach as "brinksmanship", noting that the potential cost of legal action could put Automattic in a "tough spot". In 2008, shortly before WordPress 2.5's release, Six Apart's Movable Type published "A WordPress 2.5 Upgrade Guide"—a comparison of their CMS with their rival, WordPress—as a company blog article that Mullenweg characterized as "desperate and dirty". In 2013, developers on the digital marketplace Envato were banned from speaking at WordPress events after he criticized the platform for selling WordPress themes with the graphics and CSS components under a proprietary license instead of the GPL. In 2016, Mullenweg accused Wix.com, a competitor to WordPress.com, of reusing WordPress's mobile text editor code in Wix's own mobile app without adhering to the terms of the GPL. Despite the license's requirement to publish anything built with GPL code under the GPL, Wix's CEO claimed that the company open-sourced their forked version of the component and satisfied the license's terms before the app switched to its own fork of the MIT-licensed text editor that the WordPress editor was based upon. The new fork added a clause to the MIT license that forbids redistribution under any other license. In 2022, Mullenweg criticized GoDaddy for not reinvesting in the WordPress project sufficiently. On January 9, 2025, the representative of the WordPress Sustainability team, Thijs Buijs, resigned via WordPress.org’s Slack channel, citing dissatisfaction with Matt Mullenweg’s December 24, 2024, Reddit post titled “What drama should I create in 2025?” highlighting concerns about what he described as “unsustainable leadership”. In response, Matt Mullenweg thanked Thijs Buijs for reminding him of the existence of a sustainability team, announced its disbanding, and subsequently closed Wordpress.org's #sustainability Slack channel. === Tumblr === Mullenweg began a three-month sabbatical from his role as CEO at the beginning of February 2024. During that time, Mullenweg engaged in a public feud with a transgender Tumblr user who, frustrated with the failure of Tumblr (owned by Automattic) to address transphobic harassment, posted that she wished Mullenweg would die in a comedic way. The user was subsequently banned. Responding to user uproar, Mullenweg addressed the ban in posts on his personal Tumblr blog, in which he characterized the post as a death threat, and shared private account information about the user. Mullenweg also responded to individual commenters on Tumblr in posts and direct messages, and went to Twitter to respond to the banned user's tweets about the situation. A few days later, transgender employees of Tumblr and Automattic made a post on the official Tumblr staff blog characterizing his response as "unwarranted and harmful" and stating that he did not speak on their behalf. They also said that the user's post was not a realistic threat of violence and not the reason for her ban. === WP Engine dispute === == Audrey Capital == Mullenweg is a principal at angel investment firm Audrey Capital, which he co-founded in 2008 alongside Naveen Selvadurai and Audrey Kim. As of 2024, the company lists investments in companies such as CoinDesk, MakerBot, Sonos, SpaceX, Ring, as well as software companies including Calm, Chartbeat, DailyBurn, Memrise, Genius, Nord Security and Telegram. It has also funded startups that provide services to web developers including Creative Market, GitLab, NPM, SendGrid, Stripe and Typekit. From 2017 to 2019, Mullenweg also served as a board member for GitLab. Mullenweg has employed a team of contributors to WordPress through Audrey Capital since 2010, who work separately from Automattic. On the 20th anniversary of WordPress' initial release, Mullenweg announced a scholarship program aimed at the children of significant contributors to open-source projects.
Read more →
Media Auxiliary Memory

Media Auxiliary Memory or Medium Auxiliary Memory (MAM) refers to a chip embedded into a digital media device (usually a tape cartridge) that stores a small amount of data or metadata that a computer can read without having to read the actual tape. MAMs can be used by the tape driver to increase efficiency, or by custom software to store & retrieve custom data. Some examples of MAM's are Cartridge Memory (HP/Seagate/IBM LTO) and MIC (Sony AIT).
Read more →
Horus Music

Horus Music Limited is a global digital distribution and label services company. Established in 2006, Horus Music allows artists, labels and right-holders to send their music to over 200 download, streaming, and interactive platforms including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, VEVO, 7digital, Spotify, Beatport, Deezer, Tidal, as well as offering digital marketing and playlisting opportunities. == History == The company were named Best Business Partner of 2014 by Huawei Technology of China, and were also a finalist in the International Trade category as part of the Leicester Mercury Business Awards during that same year. Their client base consists of unsigned and independent musicians and record labels, as well as well known recording artists. In November 2015, Horus Music sponsored the UK’s first Independent Label Week, in order to highlight the music that is released by the UK’s indie labels. In 2016, Horus Music celebrated their 10th anniversary Horus Music's sister companies Help for Bands and Help For Writers, provide advice and opportunities for musicians and E-book distribution for writers, respectively. Anara Publishing opened in 2017 which allows the company to work closely with a handpicked roster of musicians to provide royalty administration and sync licensing services. On 21 April 2017, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s 91st birthday, Horus Music was awarded with the Queen’s Award for Enterprise in International Trade. In 2021, Horus Music, UnitedMasters, and Symphonic Distribution partnered with pioneering music fintech company, beatBread, to offer clients access to more capital. beatBread's chordCashAI technology provides an automated advance experience for independent musicians while enable clients to choose their own terms and retain ownership of their music. == Clients == Horus Music has partnered with a number of charities including Save the Children, for the recording "Look into Your Heart", featuring Beverley Knight with Rolling Stones' Mick Jagger and Ronnie Wood, 100% of proceeds from the single were donated to the charity. The Pixel Project, who produced songs about violence against women and the blood cancer charity Bloodwise. The company have spoken openly about the state of the music industry and artists' rights and were one of the first distributors to remove their catalogue from Rdio after the streaming service was acquired by Pandora. Their relationships with artists and labels, as well as leading industry contacts, means they have the ability to work with musicians in a myriad of ways, including offering performance opportunities and even local auditions for TV shows such as The Voice UK. == Horus Music India == Horus Music India opened in 2016 and is based in Mumbai. By opening Horus Music India, the company are able to expand on their local connections as well as to provide a much more personalised service to musicians based in this area. The appointment of two Business Development Managers in India cemented their move.
Read more →
Robot learning

Robot learning is a research field at the intersection of machine learning and robotics. It studies techniques allowing a robot to acquire novel skills or adapt to its environment through learning algorithms. The embodiment of the robot, situated in a physical embedding, provides at the same time specific difficulties (e.g. high-dimensionality, real time constraints for collecting data and learning) and opportunities for guiding the learning process (e.g. sensorimotor synergies, motor primitives). Example of skills that are targeted by learning algorithms include sensorimotor skills such as locomotion, grasping, active object categorization, as well as interactive skills such as joint manipulation of an object with a human peer, and linguistic skills such as the grounded and situated meaning of human language. Learning can happen either through autonomous self-exploration or through guidance from a human teacher, like for example in robot learning by imitation. Robot learning can be closely related to adaptive control, reinforcement learning as well as developmental robotics which considers the problem of autonomous lifelong acquisition of repertoires of skills. While machine learning is frequently used by computer vision algorithms employed in the context of robotics, these applications are usually not referred to as "robot learning". == Imitation learning == Many research groups are developing techniques where robots learn by imitating. This includes various techniques for learning from demonstration (sometimes also referred to as "programming by demonstration") and observational learning. == Sharing learned skills and knowledge == In Tellex's "Million Object Challenge", the goal is robots that learn how to spot and handle simple items and upload their data to the cloud to allow other robots to analyze and use the information. RoboBrain is a knowledge engine for robots which can be freely accessed by any device wishing to carry out a task. The database gathers new information about tasks as robots perform them, by searching the Internet, interpreting natural language text, images, and videos, object recognition as well as interaction. The project is led by Ashutosh Saxena at Stanford University. RoboEarth is a project that has been described as a "World Wide Web for robots" − it is a network and database repository where robots can share information and learn from each other and a cloud for outsourcing heavy computation tasks. The project brings together researchers from five major universities in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain and is backed by the European Union. Google Research, DeepMind, and Google X have decided to allow their robots share their experiences. == Vision-language-action model == Research groups and companies are developing vision-language-action models, foundation models that allow robotic control through the combination of vision and language. Google DeepMind, Figure AI and Hugging Face are actively working on that.
Read more →
Rider Spoke

Rider Spoke developed by Blast Theory in collaboration with the Mixed Reality Lab was first staged at the Barbican, London in October 2007. Created for cyclists, it combines elements of theatre, performance, game play and state of the art technology. Rider Spoke was built in the IPerG project on the EQUIP architecture. Rider Spoke has since been presented in Athens (2008), Brighton (2008), Budapest (2008), Sydney (2009, Adelaide (2009) and Liverpool (2010).
Read more →
Hardware trojan

A hardware trojan (HT) is a malicious modification of the circuitry of an integrated circuit. A hardware trojan is completely characterized by its physical representation and its behavior. The payload of an HT is the entire activity that the Trojan executes when it is triggered. In general, trojans try to bypass or disable the security fence of a system: for example, leaking confidential information by radio emission. HTs also could disable, damage or destroy the entire chip or components of it. Hardware trojans may be introduced as hidden front-doors that are inserted while designing a computer chip, by using a pre-made application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) semiconductor intellectual property core (IP core) that have been purchased from a non-reputable source, or inserted internally by a rogue employee, either acting on their own, or on behalf of rogue special interest groups, or state sponsored spying and espionage. One paper published by IEEE in 2015 explains how a hardware design containing a trojan could leak a cryptographic key leaked over an antenna or network connection, provided that the correct "easter egg" trigger is applied to activate the data leak. In high security governmental IT departments, hardware trojans are a well known problem when buying hardware such as: a KVM switch, keyboards, mice, network cards, or other network equipment. This is especially the case when purchasing such equipment from non-reputable sources that could have placed hardware trojans to leak keyboard passwords, or provide remote unauthorized entry. == Background == In a diverse global economy, outsourcing of production tasks is a common way to lower a product's cost. Embedded hardware devices are not always produced by the firms that design and/or sell them, nor in the same country where they will be used. Outsourced manufacturing can raise doubt about the evidence for the integrity of the manufactured product (i.e., one's certainty that the end-product has no design modifications compared to its original design). Anyone with access to the manufacturing process could, in theory, introduce some change to the final product. For complex products, small changes with large effects can be difficult to detect. The threat of a serious, malicious, design alteration can be especially relevant to government agencies. Resolving doubt about hardware integrity is one way to reduce technology vulnerabilities in the military, finance, energy and political sectors of an economy. Since fabrication of integrated circuits in untrustworthy factories is common, advanced detection techniques have emerged to discover when an adversary has hidden additional components in, or otherwise sabotaged, the circuit's function. == Characterization of hardware trojans == An HT can be characterized by several methods such as by its physical representation, activation phase and its action phase. Alternative methods characterize the HT by trigger, payload and stealth. === Physical characteristics === One of this physical trojan characteristics is the type. The type of a trojan can be either functional or parametric. A trojan is functional if the adversary adds or deletes any transistors or gates to the original chip design. The other kind of trojan, the parametric trojan, modifies the original circuitry, e.g. thinning of wires, weakening of flip-flops or transistors, subjecting the chip to radiation, or using focused ion-beams (FIB) to reduce the reliability of a chip. The size of a trojan is its physical extension or the number of components it is made of. Because a trojan can consist of many components, the designer can distribute the parts of a malicious logic on the chip. The additional logic can occupy the chip wherever it is needed to modify, add, or remove a function. Malicious components can be scattered, called loose distribution, or consist of only few components, called tight distribution, so the area is small where the malicious logic occupies the layout of the chip. In some cases, high-effort adversaries in may regenerate the layout so that the placement of the components of the IC is altered. In rare cases the chip dimension is altered. These changes are structural alterations. === Activation characteristics === The typical trojan is condition-based: It is triggered by sensors, internal logic states, a particular input pattern or an internal counter value. Condition-based trojans are detectable with power traces to some degree when inactive. That is due to the leakage currents generated by the trigger or counter circuit activating the trojan. Hardware trojans can be triggered in different ways. A trojan can be internally activated, which means it monitors one or more signals inside the IC. The malicious circuitry could wait for a count down logic an attacker added to the chip, so that the trojan awakes after a specific time-span. The opposite is externally activated. There can be malicious logic inside a chip, that uses an antenna or other sensors the adversary can reach from outside the chip. For example, a trojan could be inside the control system of a cruising missile. The owner of the missile does not know, that the enemy will be able to switch off the rockets by radio. A trojan which is always-on can be a reduced wire. A chip that is modified in this way produces errors or fails every time the wire is used intensely. Always-on circuits are hard to detect with power trace. In this context combinational trojans and sequential trojans are distinguished. A combinational trojan monitors internal signals until a specific condition happens. A sequential trojan is also an internally activated condition-based circuit, but it monitors the internal signals and searches for sequences not for a specific state or condition like the combinational trojans do. ==== Cryptographic key extraction ==== Extraction of secret keys by means of a hardware trojan without detecting the trojan requires that the trojan uses a random signal or some cryptographic implementation itself. To avoid storing a cryptographic key in the trojan itself and reduction, a physical unclonable function can be used. Physical unclonable functions are small in size and can have an identical layout while the cryptographic properties are different. === Action characteristics === A HT could modify the chip's function or could change the chip's parametric properties (e.g. provokes a process delay). Confidential information can also be transmitted to the adversary (transmission of key information). === Peripheral device hardware trojans === A relatively new threat vector to networks and network endpoints is a HT appearing as a physical peripheral device that is designed to interact with the network endpoint using the approved peripheral device's communication protocol. For example, a USB keyboard that hides all malicious processing cycles from the target network endpoint to which it is attached by communicating with the target network endpoint using unintended USB channels. Once sensitive data is ex-filtrated from the target network endpoint to the HT, the HT can process the data and decide what to do with the data: store the data to memory for later physical retrieval of the HT or possibly ex-filtrate the data to the internet using wireless or using the compromised network endpoint as a pivot. == Potential of threat == A common trojan is passive most of the time-span an altered device is in use. If a trojan is activated the device functionality can be changed, the device can be destroyed or disabled, the device can leak confidential information or the HT may tear down the security and safety of the device. Trojans are stealthy, to avoid detection of the trojan the precondition for activation is a very rare event. Traditional testing techniques are not sufficient. A manufacturing fault happens at a random position while malicious changes are well placed to avoid detection. == Detection == === Physical inspection === First, the molding coat is cut to reveal the circuitry. Then, the engineer repeatedly scans the surface while grinding the layers of the chip. There are several operations to scan the circuitry. Typical visual inspection methods are: scanning optical microscopy (SOM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), pico-second imaging circuit analysis (PICA), voltage contrast imaging (VCI), light induced voltage alteration (LIVA) or charge induced voltage alteration (CIVA). To compare the floor plan of the chip has to be compared with the image of the actual chip. This is still quite challenging to do. To detect Trojan hardware which include (crypto) keys which are different, an image diff can be taken to reveal the different structure on the chip. The only known hardware Trojan using unique crypto keys but having the same structure is. This property enhances the undetectability of the trojan. === Functional testing === This detection method stimulates the input ports of a chip and monitors the output
Read more →
Mini-STX

Mini-STX (mSTX, Mini Socket Technology EXtended, originally "Intel 5x5") is a computer motherboard form factor that was released by Intel in 2015 (as "Intel 5x5"). These motherboards measure 147mm by 140mm (5.8" x 5.5"), making them larger than "4x4" NUC (102x102mm / 4.01" x 4.01" inches) and Nano-ITX (120x120mm / 4.7" x 4.7") boards, but notably smaller than the more common Mini-ITX (170x170mm / 6.7" x 6.7") boards. Unlike these standards, which use a square shape, the Mini-STX form factor is 7mm longer from front-to-rear, making it slightly rectangular. == Mini-STX design elements == The Mini-STX design suggests (but does not require) support for: Socketed processors (e.g. LGA or PGA CPUs) Onboard power regulation circuitry, enabling direct DC power input IO ports embedded on the front and rear of the motherboard (akin to NUC, but unlike typical motherboards which often use headers instead to connect built-in ports on enclosures) == Adoption by manufacturers == This motherboard form factor is still not in particularly common use with consumer-PC manufacturers, although there are a few offerings: ASRock offers both DeskMini kits (that use mini-STX boards) and standalone motherboards, Asus offer VivoMini kits (that use mini-STX boards) and standalone motherboards, Gigabyte offers a few motherboards, and industrial PC suppliers (e.g. Kontron, Iesy, ASRock Industrial) also provide some options for mini-STX equipment. == Derivatives == ASRock developed a derivative of mini-STX, dubbed micro-STX, for their 'DeskMini GTX/RX' small form-factor PCs and industrial motherboards. Micro-STX adds an MXM slot which allows the use of special PCI Express expansion cards, including graphics or machine learning accelerators, but increases the width of the board to be extended two inches, resulting in measurements of 147 x 188 mm (5.8" x 7.4")
Read more →
Alias Eclipse

Eclipse was a professional 2D image editing program available on Silicon Graphics and Windows workstations. Designed to manipulate high-resolution images like digitized movie frames and photographs for print, it offered color correction tools, image processing effects, rudimentary paint features, and spline-based drawing and masking. == History == Eclipse was originally developed in the late 1980s by Full Color Computing, an early provider of photo retouch and color prepress software for Silicon Graphics workstations. Alias Research (later Alias Systems Corporation), a developer of professional 3D graphics applications for the SGI platform, purchased the rights to Eclipse in fall 1990. Alias developed Eclipse through the early to mid-1990s, releasing version 2.5 in 1995 with improvements to the speed of color correction, effects, and rendering. Xyvision's Contex Prepress division purchased exclusive rights to Eclipse from Alias in 1996, and released version 3.0 the following year. Eclipse was subsequently sold to German developer Form & Vision GmbH, which continued development and ported it to the Windows platform. In 1999, Form & Vision released a demo of Eclipse 3.1.3 on the SGI platform which was limited to 1600 x 1600 pixel images, then ceased development of Eclipse on the SGI platform. Eclipse was thereafter developed exclusively for the Windows platform, culminating with version 3.1.4 in 2001. In the same year the firm went bankrupt. == Features == Eclipse was designed to work with very large images that could not be manipulated in real time on contemporary computer systems due to memory limitations, and thus allowed the user to make modifications to a lower-resolution copy of the original image in "proxy mode." Brush strokes, color corrections, and other edits were saved in proxy mode, then applied to the full-size image in post processing. This method also allowed for batch processing of a high-resolution image sequence using the edits applied to the original proxy image. Other features included color correction and separation, warping, special effects, text, and shape masking. Wavelet image compression created by LuraTech was added to Eclipse 3.1.4
Read more →
Quality of experience

Quality of experience (QoE) is a measure of the delight or annoyance of a customer's experiences with a service (e.g., web browsing, phone call, TV broadcast). QoE focuses on the entire service experience; it is a holistic concept, similar to the field of user experience, but with its roots in telecommunication. QoE is an emerging multidisciplinary field based on social psychology, cognitive science, economics, and engineering science, focused on understanding overall human quality requirements. == Definition and concepts == In 2013, within the context of the COST Action QUALINET, QoE has been defined as:The degree of delight or annoyance of the user of an application or service. It results from the fulfillment of his or her expectations with respect to the utility and / or enjoyment of the application or service in the light of the user’s personality and current state.This definition has been adopted in 2016 by the International Telecommunication Union in Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100. Before, various definitions of QoE had existed in the domain, with the above-mentioned definition now finding wide acceptance in the community. QoE has historically emerged from Quality of Service (QoS), which attempts to objectively measure service parameters (such as packet loss rates or average throughput). QoS measurement is most of the time not related to a customer, but to the media or network itself. QoE however is a purely subjective measure from the user's perspective of the overall quality of the service provided, by capturing people's aesthetic and hedonic needs. QoE looks at a vendor's or purveyor's offering from the standpoint of the customer or end user, and asks, "What mix of goods, services, and support, do you think will provide you with the perception that the total product is providing you with the experience you desired and/or expected?" It then asks, "Is this what the vendor/purveyor has actually provided?" If not, "What changes need to be made to enhance your total experience?" In short, QoE provides an assessment of human expectations, feelings, perceptions, cognition and satisfaction with respect to a particular product, service or application. QoE is a blueprint of all human subjective and objective quality needs and experiences arising from the interaction of a person with technology and with business entities in a particular context. Although QoE is perceived as subjective, it is an important measure that counts for customers of a service. Being able to measure it in a controlled manner helps operators understand what may be wrong with their services and how to improve them. == QoE factors == QoE aims at taking into consideration every factor that contributes to a user's perceived quality of a system or service. This includes system, human and contextual factors. The following so-called "influence factors" have been identified and classified by Reiter et al.: Human Influence Factors Low-level processing (visual and auditory acuity, gender, age, mood, …) Higher-level processing (cognitive processes, socio-cultural and economic background, expectations, needs and goals, other personality traits…) System Influence Factors Content-related Media-related (encoding, resolution, sample rate, …) Network-related (bandwidth, delay, jitter, …) Device-related (screen resolution, display size, …) Context Influence Factors Physical context (location and space) Temporal context (time of day, frequency of use, …) Social context (inter-personal relations during experience) Economic context Task context (multitasking, interruptions, task type) Technical and information context (relationship between systems) Studies in the field of QoE have typically focused on system factors, primarily due to its origin in the QoS and network engineering domains. Through the use of dedicated test laboratories, the context is often sought to be kept constant. == QoE versus User Experience == QoE is strongly related to but different from the field of User Experience (UX), which also focuses on users' experiences with services. Historically, QoE has emerged from telecommunication research, while UX has its roots in Human–Computer Interaction. Both fields can be considered multi-disciplinary. In contrast to UX, the goal of improving QoE for users was more strongly motivated by economic needs. Wechsung and De Moor identify the following key differences between the fields: == QoE measurement == As a measure of the end-to-end performance at the service level from the user's perspective, QoE is an important metric for the design of systems and engineering processes. This is particularly relevant for video services because – due to their high traffic demands –, bad network performance may highly affect the user's experience. So, when designing systems, the expected output, i.e. the expected QoE, is often taken into account – also as a system output metric and optimization goal. To measure this level of QoE, human ratings can be used. The mean opinion score (MOS) is a widely used measure for assessing the quality of media signals. It is a limited form of QoE measurement, relating to a specific media type, in a controlled environment and without explicitly taking into account user expectations. The MOS as an indicator of experienced quality has been used for audio and speech communication, as well as for the assessment of quality of Internet video, television and other multimedia signals, and web browsing. Due to inherent limitations in measuring QoE in a single scalar value, the usefulness of the MOS is often debated. Subjective quality evaluation requires a lot of human resources, establishing it as a time-consuming process. Objective evaluation methods can provide quality results faster, but require dedicated computing resources. Since such instrumental video quality algorithms are often developed based on a limited set of subjective data, their QoE prediction accuracy may be low when compared to human ratings. QoE metrics are often measured at the end devices and can conceptually be seen as the remaining quality after the distortion introduced during the preparation of the content and the delivery through the network, until it reaches the decoder at the end device. There are several elements in the media preparation and delivery chain, and some of them may introduce distortion. This causes degradation of the content, and several elements in this chain can be considered as "QoE-relevant" for the offered services. The causes of degradation are applicable for any multimedia service, that is, not exclusive to video or speech. Typical degradations occur at the encoding system (compression degradation), transport network, access network (e.g., packet loss or packet delay), home network (e.g. WiFi performance) and end device (e.g. decoding performance). == QoE management == Several QoE-centric network management and bandwidth management solutions have been proposed, which aim to improve the QoE delivered to the end-users. When managing a network, QoE fairness may be taken into account in order to keep the users sufficiently satisfied (i.e., high QoE) in a fair manner. From a QoE perspective, network resources and multimedia services should be managed in order to guarantee specific QoE levels instead of classical QoS parameters, which are unable to reflect the actual delivered QoE. A pure QoE-centric management is challenged by the nature of the Internet itself, as the Internet protocols and architecture were not originally designed to support today's complex and high demanding multimedia services. As an example for an implementation of QoE management, network nodes can become QoE-aware by estimating the status of the multimedia service as perceived by the end-users. This information can then be used to improve the delivery of the multimedia service over the network and proactively improve the users' QoE. This can be achieved, for example, via traffic shaping. QoE management gives the service provider and network operator the capability to minimize storage and network resources by allocating only the resources that are sufficient to maintain a specific level of user satisfaction. As it may involve limiting resources for some users or services in order to increase the overall network performance and QoE, the practice of QoE management requires that net neutrality regulations are considered.
Read more →
Outline of web design and web development

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to web design and web development, two very related fields: Web design – field that encompasses many different skills and disciplines in the production and maintenance of websites. The different areas of web design include web graphic design; interface design; authoring, including standardized code and proprietary software; user experience design; and search engine optimization. Often many individuals will work in teams covering different aspects of the design process, although some designers will cover them all. The term web design is normally used to describe the design process relating to the front-end (client side) design of a website including writing markup. Web design partially overlaps web engineering in the broader scope of web development. Web designers are expected to have an awareness of usability and if their role involves creating markup then they are also expected to be up to date with web accessibility guidelines. Web development – work involved in developing a web site for the Internet (World Wide Web) or an intranet (a private network). Web development can range from developing a simple single static page of plain text to complex web-based internet applications (web apps), electronic businesses, and social network services. A more comprehensive list of tasks to which web development commonly refers, may include web engineering, web design, web content development, client liaison, client-side/server-side scripting, web server and network security configuration, and e-commerce development. Among web professionals, "web development" usually refers to the main non-design aspects of building web sites: writing markup and coding. Web development may use content management systems (CMS) to make content changes easier and available with basic technical skills. For larger organizations and businesses, web development teams can consist of hundreds of people (web developers) and follow standard methods like Agile methodologies while developing websites. Smaller organizations may only require a single permanent or contracting developer, or secondary assignment to related job positions such as a graphic designer or information systems technician. Web development may be a collaborative effort between departments rather than the domain of a designated department. There are three kinds of web developer specialization: front-end developer, back-end developer, and full-stack developer. Front-end developers are responsible for behaviour and visuals that run in the user browser, back-end developers deal with the servers and full-stack developers are responsible for both. Currently, the demand for React and Node.JS developers are very high all over the world. == Web design == Graphic design Typography Page layout User experience design (UX design) User interface design (UI design) Web Design techniques Responsive web design (RWD) Adaptive web design (AWD) Progressive enhancement Tableless web design Software Adobe Photoshop Adobe Illustrator Adobe XD Figma Sketch (software) Affinity Designer Inkscape == Web development == Front-end web development – the practice of converting data to a graphical interface, through the use of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, so that users can view and interact with that data. HyperText Markup Language (HTML) (.html) Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) (.css) CSS framework JavaScript (.js) Package managers for JavaScript npm (originally short for Node Package Manager) Server-side scripting (also known as "Server-side (web) development" or "Back-end (web) development") ASP (.asp) ASP.NET Web Forms (.aspx) ASP.NET Web Pages (.cshtml, .vbhtml) ColdFusion Markup Language (.cfm) Go (.go) Google Apps Script (.gs) Hack (.php) Haskell (.hs) (example: Yesod) Java (.jsp) via JavaServer Pages JavaScript or TypeScript using Server-side JavaScript (.ssjs, .js, .ts) (example: Node.js) Lasso (.lasso) Lua (.lp .op .lua) Node.js (.node) Parser (.p) Perl via the CGI.pm module (.cgi, .ipl, .pl) PHP (.php, .php3, .php4, .phtml) Progress WebSpeed (.r,.w) Python (.py) (examples: Pyramid, Flask, Django) R (.rhtml) – (example: rApache) React (.jsx, .tsx) Ruby (.rb, .rbw) (example: Ruby on Rails) SMX (.smx) Tcl (.tcl) Full stack web development – involves both front-end and back-end (server-side) development Web framework Types of framework architectures Model–view–controller Three-tier architecture Software Atom IntelliJ IDEA Sublime Text Visual Studio Code
Read more →