AI Coding Unlimited

AI Coding Unlimited — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

How Data Happened

How Data Happened: A History from the Age of Reason to the Age of Algorithms is a 2023 non-fiction book written by Columbia University professors Chris Wiggins and Matthew L. Jones. The book explores the history of data and statistics from the end of the 18th century to the present day. == Content == The book starts at the end of the 18th century, when European states began tabulating physical resources, and ends at the present day, when algorithms manipulate our personal information as a commodity. It looks at the rise of data and statistics, and how early statistical methods were used to justify eugenics, quantify supposed racial differences, and develop military and industrial applications. The authors also discuss the impact of the internet and e-commerce on data collection, the rise of data science, and the consequences of government-run surveillance systems collecting vast amounts of personal data for customized, targeted advertising. They emphasize the importance of privacy and democracy and propose remedies to the problems caused by mass data collection, including stronger regulation of the tech industry and collective action by its employees. The book is a historical analysis that provides context for understanding the debates surrounding data and its control. The book has 336 pages and was published in 2023 by W. W. Norton & Company.
Read more →
Living lab

The concept of the living lab has been defined in multiple ways. A definition from the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is used most widely, describing them as "user-centred open innovation ecosystems” that integrate research and innovation through co-creation in real-world environments.[1] Emerging at the intersection of ambient intelligence research and user experience methodologies in the late 1990s, the concept was pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as a way to study human interaction with new technologies in natural settings. Over time, living labs have evolved beyond their origins as controlled research environments, becoming dynamic platforms for participatory design, collaborative experimentation, and iterative innovation across various domains, including urban development, healthcare, sustainability, and digital technology. Characterized by principles such as real-world experimentation, active user involvement, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, living labs enable the continuous adaptation and validation of solutions in everyday contexts. Today, they are implemented globally, supported by networks like the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), and increasingly recognized as vital tools for addressing local and global transformation agendas. == Background == The term "living lab" has emerged in parallel from the ambient intelligence (AmI) research communities context and from the discussion on experience and application research (EAR). The emergence of the term is based on the concept of user experience and ambient intelligence. The term dates back to the late 1990s when Professor William J. Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex (Sandy) Pentland at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were credited with first exploring the concept of a living laboratory. It was first associated with MIT's Media Lab as a concept for studying real-life contexts, where they described a living lab as a controlled environment designed to test new information and communication technology (ICT) innovations in a simulated home setting. This was also when some of the key characteristics often assigned to living labs today began to take shape. They argued that a living lab represents a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts. Research on living labs has expanded since the 1990s, especially in the 2010s, with growing interest in co-creation and participatory design. Particularly in Europe, the living lab evolved into a model that focused on studying user interactions with technology in real-world environments. This shift was influenced by earlier experiences in participatory design and social experiments with ICT. As interest grew, the term began to encompass a broader array of initiatives and projects, leading to variations in its interpretation and implementation. Today, living labs are used in various fields, such as technology, healthcare, and urban sustainability, showing a transition from a narrow focus on their role as controlled environments to a more wide-ranging understanding of collaborative innovation addressing real societal challenges, while also being referred to with various descriptions and definitions available from different sources. == Description == The ENoLL definition that refers to living labs as "user-centred open innovation ecosystems” that integrate research and innovation through co-creation in real-world environments is the most widely accepted description of living labs in academic literature. In simple terms, living labs can be described as an organization or experimental space, that can be both virtually or physically located, bringing different stakeholders from research, business, government, and citizens together to design and test solutions to be implemented in a real world environment. A common definition for the living lab term still does not exist to this day, which is due to the fact that living labs are interpreted and implemented across different contexts and can cover a wide range of activities and organizations, leading to different understandings of how living labs should function. Living labs also often operate in various territorial contexts (e.g. city, agglomeration, region, campus), and can vary in their methodological approach integrating concurrent research and innovation processes within a public-private-people partnership. Despite these variations, common characteristics include user-centricity, real-world experimentation, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and iterative innovation processes. The systematic user co-creation approach refers to integrating research and innovation processes through the co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios, concepts and related technological artefacts in real life use cases. Such use cases involve user communities, not only as observed subjects but also as a source of creation. This approach allows all involved stakeholders to concurrently consider both the global performance of a product or service and its potential adoption by users. This consideration may be made at the earlier stage of research and development and through all elements of the product life-cycle, from design up to recycling. User-centred research methods, such as action research, community informatics, contextual design, user-centered design, participatory design, empathic design, emotional design, and other usability methods, already exist but fail to sufficiently empower users for co-creating into open development environments. More recently, the Web 2.0 has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities in new product development (NPD) such as mass collaboration projects (e.g. crowdsourcing, Wisdom of Crowds) in collectively creating new contents and applications. Real-world experimentation emphasizes conducting activities in real-life settings to ensure that the results of the projects and solutions are applicable to actual market conditions. Multi-stakeholder collaboration refers to an approach that involved various stakeholders, such as users, businesses, researchers, and government entities, working together towards a common goal. This is an important characteristics of living lab because collaboration of these diverse groups allows for exchange of ideas and perspectives, which are thought to enhance innovation processes. Iterative innovation processes involve a cyclical method of developing products or services, where stages such as research, development, testing, and implementation are revisited multiple times based on feedback and evaluation. This process allows for continuous improvement of the innovation, product, or service being developed. In particular, the ongoing involvement of the user creates feedback mechanisms that are ultimately key to successful development and implementation of products and services. A living lab is not similar to a testbed as its philosophy is to turn users, from being traditionally considered as observed subjects for testing modules against requirements, into value creation in contributing to the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related artefacts. Hence, a living lab rather constitutes an experiential environment, which could be compared to the concept of experiential learning, where users are immersed in a creative social space for designing and experiencing their own future. Living labs could also be used by policy makers and users/citizens for designing, exploring, experiencing and refining new policies and regulations in real-life scenarios for evaluating their potential impacts before their implementations. == European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) == The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is an international, non-profit, independent association of certified living labs, which popularized the living lab concept in the aim to increase user involvement in innovation. Formed in November 2006 under the guidance of the Finnish European Presidency, ENoLL is composed of a variety of stakeholders, including municipalities and research institutes, businesses, and users. Its primary role is to support the collaboration among living labs across Europe and includes many living labs focused on user-driven innovation across sectors. ENoLL focuses on facilitating knowledge exchange, joint actions and project partnerships among its historically labelled +/- 500 members, influencing EU policies, promoting living labs and enabling their implementation worldwide. ENoLL serves as a platform for linking living labs around the globe, which enables knowledge sharing and collaborative learning among diverse cultural environments. Membership to the platform is open to organizations worldwide, and ENoLL has expanded beyond Europe to include global members. ENoLL follows an application and accreditation pro
Read more →
Living lab

The concept of the living lab has been defined in multiple ways. A definition from the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is used most widely, describing them as "user-centred open innovation ecosystems” that integrate research and innovation through co-creation in real-world environments.[1] Emerging at the intersection of ambient intelligence research and user experience methodologies in the late 1990s, the concept was pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as a way to study human interaction with new technologies in natural settings. Over time, living labs have evolved beyond their origins as controlled research environments, becoming dynamic platforms for participatory design, collaborative experimentation, and iterative innovation across various domains, including urban development, healthcare, sustainability, and digital technology. Characterized by principles such as real-world experimentation, active user involvement, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, living labs enable the continuous adaptation and validation of solutions in everyday contexts. Today, they are implemented globally, supported by networks like the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), and increasingly recognized as vital tools for addressing local and global transformation agendas. == Background == The term "living lab" has emerged in parallel from the ambient intelligence (AmI) research communities context and from the discussion on experience and application research (EAR). The emergence of the term is based on the concept of user experience and ambient intelligence. The term dates back to the late 1990s when Professor William J. Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex (Sandy) Pentland at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were credited with first exploring the concept of a living laboratory. It was first associated with MIT's Media Lab as a concept for studying real-life contexts, where they described a living lab as a controlled environment designed to test new information and communication technology (ICT) innovations in a simulated home setting. This was also when some of the key characteristics often assigned to living labs today began to take shape. They argued that a living lab represents a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts. Research on living labs has expanded since the 1990s, especially in the 2010s, with growing interest in co-creation and participatory design. Particularly in Europe, the living lab evolved into a model that focused on studying user interactions with technology in real-world environments. This shift was influenced by earlier experiences in participatory design and social experiments with ICT. As interest grew, the term began to encompass a broader array of initiatives and projects, leading to variations in its interpretation and implementation. Today, living labs are used in various fields, such as technology, healthcare, and urban sustainability, showing a transition from a narrow focus on their role as controlled environments to a more wide-ranging understanding of collaborative innovation addressing real societal challenges, while also being referred to with various descriptions and definitions available from different sources. == Description == The ENoLL definition that refers to living labs as "user-centred open innovation ecosystems” that integrate research and innovation through co-creation in real-world environments is the most widely accepted description of living labs in academic literature. In simple terms, living labs can be described as an organization or experimental space, that can be both virtually or physically located, bringing different stakeholders from research, business, government, and citizens together to design and test solutions to be implemented in a real world environment. A common definition for the living lab term still does not exist to this day, which is due to the fact that living labs are interpreted and implemented across different contexts and can cover a wide range of activities and organizations, leading to different understandings of how living labs should function. Living labs also often operate in various territorial contexts (e.g. city, agglomeration, region, campus), and can vary in their methodological approach integrating concurrent research and innovation processes within a public-private-people partnership. Despite these variations, common characteristics include user-centricity, real-world experimentation, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and iterative innovation processes. The systematic user co-creation approach refers to integrating research and innovation processes through the co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios, concepts and related technological artefacts in real life use cases. Such use cases involve user communities, not only as observed subjects but also as a source of creation. This approach allows all involved stakeholders to concurrently consider both the global performance of a product or service and its potential adoption by users. This consideration may be made at the earlier stage of research and development and through all elements of the product life-cycle, from design up to recycling. User-centred research methods, such as action research, community informatics, contextual design, user-centered design, participatory design, empathic design, emotional design, and other usability methods, already exist but fail to sufficiently empower users for co-creating into open development environments. More recently, the Web 2.0 has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities in new product development (NPD) such as mass collaboration projects (e.g. crowdsourcing, Wisdom of Crowds) in collectively creating new contents and applications. Real-world experimentation emphasizes conducting activities in real-life settings to ensure that the results of the projects and solutions are applicable to actual market conditions. Multi-stakeholder collaboration refers to an approach that involved various stakeholders, such as users, businesses, researchers, and government entities, working together towards a common goal. This is an important characteristics of living lab because collaboration of these diverse groups allows for exchange of ideas and perspectives, which are thought to enhance innovation processes. Iterative innovation processes involve a cyclical method of developing products or services, where stages such as research, development, testing, and implementation are revisited multiple times based on feedback and evaluation. This process allows for continuous improvement of the innovation, product, or service being developed. In particular, the ongoing involvement of the user creates feedback mechanisms that are ultimately key to successful development and implementation of products and services. A living lab is not similar to a testbed as its philosophy is to turn users, from being traditionally considered as observed subjects for testing modules against requirements, into value creation in contributing to the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related artefacts. Hence, a living lab rather constitutes an experiential environment, which could be compared to the concept of experiential learning, where users are immersed in a creative social space for designing and experiencing their own future. Living labs could also be used by policy makers and users/citizens for designing, exploring, experiencing and refining new policies and regulations in real-life scenarios for evaluating their potential impacts before their implementations. == European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) == The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is an international, non-profit, independent association of certified living labs, which popularized the living lab concept in the aim to increase user involvement in innovation. Formed in November 2006 under the guidance of the Finnish European Presidency, ENoLL is composed of a variety of stakeholders, including municipalities and research institutes, businesses, and users. Its primary role is to support the collaboration among living labs across Europe and includes many living labs focused on user-driven innovation across sectors. ENoLL focuses on facilitating knowledge exchange, joint actions and project partnerships among its historically labelled +/- 500 members, influencing EU policies, promoting living labs and enabling their implementation worldwide. ENoLL serves as a platform for linking living labs around the globe, which enables knowledge sharing and collaborative learning among diverse cultural environments. Membership to the platform is open to organizations worldwide, and ENoLL has expanded beyond Europe to include global members. ENoLL follows an application and accreditation pro
Read more →
Information audit

The information audit (IA) extends the concept of auditing from a traditional scope of accounting and finance to the organisational information management system. Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA. Prior the 1990s and the methodologies of Orna, Henczel, Wood, Buchanan and Gibb, IA approaches and methodologies focused mainly upon an identification of formal information resources (IR). Later approaches included an organisational analysis and the mapping of the information flow. This gave context to analysis within an organisation's information systems and a holistic view of their IR and as such could contribute to the development of the information systems architecture (ISA). In recent years the IA has been overlooked in favour of the systems development process which can be less expensive than the IA, yet more heavily technically focused, project specific (not holistic) and does not favour the top-down analysis of the IA. == Definition == A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting, the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task. == Role and scope of an IA == In much the same way as the IA is difficult to define, it can be utilised in a range of contexts by the information professional, from complying with freedom of information legislation to identifying any existing gaps, duplications, bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in information flows and to understand how existing channels can be used for knowledge transfer In 2007 Buchanan and Gibb developed upon their 1998 examination of the IA process by outlining a summary of its main objectives: To identify an organisation’s information resource To identify an organisation’s information needs Furthermore, Buchanan and Gibb went on to state that the IA also had to meet the following additional objectives: To identify the cost/benefits of information resources To identify the opportunities to use the information resources for strategic competitive advantage To integrate IT investment with strategic business initiatives To identify information flow and processes To develop an integrated information strategy and/or policy To create an awareness of the importance of Information Resource Management (IRM) To monitor/evaluate conformance to information related standards, legislations, policy and guidelines. == Methodology evolution == === Overview === In 1976 Riley first published a definition of IA as a way of analysing IR based on a cost-benefit model. Since Riley, scholars have outlined further developed methodologies. Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked. In 1985 Gillman focused upon identifying the relationships which existed between various components in order to map them to one another. Neither Henderson nor Gillman’s methods offered alternative approaches beyond the existing organisational frameworks. Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock. The differentiator between Quinn and Worlock lay in Worlock’s consideration of solutions outside of the current organisational structure. These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy. Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology. === Burk and Horton === In 1988 Burk and Horton developed InfoMap, the first IA methodology developed for widespread use. It aimed to discover, map and evaluate the IR within an organisation using a 4-stage process: Survey staff using questionnaires/interviews Measure the IR against cost/value Analyse resources Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the IR against the objectives of the organisation. Although the method inventoried all IR (and therefore met standard ISO 1779) this bottom-up approach revealed limited analysis of the organisation holistically and the steps were not explicit enough. === Orna === Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy. Initially the method had just 4-stages, this later revised to a 10-stage process which included pre and post-audit stages as below: Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction Gain support/resource from management Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff) Planning including the project, team, tools and techniques Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state Produce a report to present findings Implement recommendations Monitor effects of change Repeat the IA Orna’s method introduced the need for a cyclical IA to be put in place in order for the IR to be continually tracked and improvements made regularly. Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem === Buchanan and Gibb === In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals. This set of techniques was a notable contribution to IA methodologies and understood the need to be flexible for each organisation. Theirs was a 5-stage process: Promote benefits of the IA through seminars/surveys/CEO letter for cooperation Identify the mission objectives of the organisation, define environment (PEST), map information flow and examine organisation culture. Analyse and formulate action plan for problem areas, flow diagrams and a report of findings and recommendations Account for cost of IR and related services using Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Output Based Specification (OBS). Synthesise the whole process in final audit report and provide an information strategy (strategic direction) in relation to the organisation’s mission statement. This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations. === Henczel === Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process: Planning and submission of business case for approval to proceed Data collection and development of an IR database and population through survey techniques Structured data analysis Data evaluation, interpretation and formulation of recommendations Communication of recommendations through a report Implementing recommendations through a devised programme The IA as a continuum-establishment of a cyclical process Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA. Furthermore, Henczel made examination into the use of the IA as a first-step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy as discussed in the later section. == Case studies == Scholars and information professionals have since tested the above methodologies with varied results. An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period. Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy. In addition the IA report suggested that the process would need to be continual (cyclical as Orna, Henczel and Buchanan and Gibb suggest). Conclusions of this case-study stated that th
Read more →
Perplexity AI

Perplexity AI, Inc., or simply Perplexity, is an American privately held software company offering a web search engine that processes user queries and synthesizes responses. Perplexity products use large language models and incorporate real-time web search capabilities, providing responses based on current Internet content, citing sources used. Its real-time search engine is called Sonar and is based on Meta's Llama model. A free public version is available, while a paid Pro subscription offers access to more advanced language models and additional features. Perplexity AI, Inc., was founded in August 2022 by Aravind Srinivas, Denis Yarats, Johnny Ho, and Andy Konwinski. As of September 2025, the company was valued at US$20 billion. Perplexity AI has attracted legal scrutiny over allegations of copyright infringement, unauthorized content use, and trademark issues from several major media organizations, including the BBC, Dow Jones, and The New York Times. According to separate analyses by Wired and later Cloudflare, Perplexity uses undisclosed web crawlers with spoofed user-agent strings to scrape the content of websites which prohibit, or explicitly block, web scraping. == History == In August 2022, Perplexity AI, Inc., was founded by Aravind Srinivas, Denis Yarats, Johnny Ho, and Andy Konwinski, engineers with backgrounds in back-end systems, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. It launched its main search engine on December 7, 2022, and has since released a Google Chrome extension and apps for iOS and Android. In February 2023, Perplexity reported two million unique visitors. By April 2024, Perplexity had raised $165 million in funding, valuing the company at over $1 billion. As of June 2025, Perplexity closed a $500 million round of funding that elevated its valuation to $14 billion. Investors in Perplexity AI have included Jeff Bezos, Tobias Lütke, Nat Friedman, Nvidia, and Databricks. Perplexity has also received funding from 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm notable for its association with Donald Trump Jr. During Bloomberg’s Tech Summit 2025, Srinivas shared that the company processed 780 million queries in May 2025, experiencing more than 20% month-over-month growth, processing around 30 million queries daily. In July 2024, Perplexity announced the launch of a new publishers' program to share advertising revenue with partners. On January 18, 2025, the day before the impending U.S. ban on the social media app TikTok, Perplexity submitted a proposal for a merger with TikTok US. On August 12, 2025, Perplexity made a bid to buy Chrome from Google for $34.5 billion. Perplexity stated that the sale could remedy anti-trust litigation against Google, in which a judge was considering compelling the sale of Chrome. In December 2025, Cristiano Ronaldo took an undisclosed stake in Perplexity AI and entered a global brand partnership with the company. === Business Strategy and Finance (2026) === As of early 2026, Perplexity AI reached a valuation of $21.21 billion following its Series E-6 funding round. The company's Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) grew from $80 million in late 2024 to an estimated $200 million by February 2026. In January 2026, the company entered into a three-year, $750 million commitment with Microsoft Azure to secure the GPU capacity required for its advanced "Deep Research" and "Model Council" features. In February 2026, Perplexity transitioned to a subscription-first model by discontinuing its AI-integrated advertising strategy. Leadership stated the move was intended to preserve user trust in the "answer engine," prioritizing objective results over ad revenue. The company also introduced the "Model Council" feature on February 5, 2026, which allows users to compare outputs from multiple large language models, such as GPT-5.2 and Claude 4.6, simultaneously. To expand its user base, Perplexity began offering a free year of Pro access to students, U.S. Military Veterans, and government employees. == Products and services == === Search engine web portal === Perplexity’s primary offering is an online information retrieval system (search engine) that uses large language models to generate responses to user queries by searching and summarizing web-based content. Perplexity offers a feature known as Perplexity Pages that generates structured summaries and report-like content from user queries by aggregating cited sources. Perplexity is available without charge or registration to Web users, a freemium model. === Perplexity Pro === Perplexity Pro is a subscription tier, a more capable paid "enterprise" service, including stronger security and data protection and additional tools, including the ability to search uploaded documents alongside web content and access to a programmatic application programming interface (API). It allows the user to select between backend models such as GPT-5.4, Claude 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro. The company has also developed its own models, Sonar (based on Llama 3.3) and R1 1776 (based on DeepSeek R1). === Internal Knowledge Search === Internal Knowledge Search enables Pro and Enterprise Pro users to simultaneously search across web content and internal documents. Users can upload and search through Excel, Word, PDF, and other common file formats. Enterprise Pro users can upload and index up to 500 files. === Search API === Perplexity's Search API provides AI developers with programmatic access to the company's search infrastructure. The September 2025 release includes a software development kit, an open-source evaluation framework called search_evals, and documentation detailing the API's design and optimization. === Shopping hub === Perplexity's Shopping Hub is an online shopping platform that provides AI-generated product recommendations, and enables users to purchase products directly through Perplexity's interface. It was launched in November 2024 with backing by Amazon and Nvidia. === Finance === In October 2024, Perplexity AI introduced new finance-related features, including looking up stock prices and company earnings data. The tool provides real-time stock quotes and price tracking, industry peer comparisons and basic financial analysis tools. The platform sources its financial data from Financial Modeling Prep. === Assistant === In January 2025, Perplexity launched the Perplexity Assistant, an AI-powered tool designed to enhance the functionality of its search engine. It can perform tasks across multiple apps, such as hailing a ride or searching for a song, and can maintain context across actions. The assistant is also multi-modal, meaning it can use a phone's camera to provide answers about the user's surroundings or on-screen content. Perplexity has acknowledged that the assistant is still in development and may not always function as expected. For instance, certain features, such as summarizing unread emails or upcoming calendar events, require users to enable a workaround based on notifications. === Comet === In July 2025, Perplexity launched Comet, an AI browser based on Chromium. Initially, access to the browser was limited to users subscribed to the most expensive subscription tier. The browser was later released for free download in October 2025. A key feature is integration of the Perplexity search engine, which can perform a variety of tasks such as generating article summaries, describing an image, conducting research about a topic and composing emails. === Truth Social chatbot === Perplexity has been contracted to produce a chatbot for Donald Trump's social media platform Truth Social. == Leadership == Aravind Srinivas is the CEO and co-founder of Perplexity AI. He previously held research positions at OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and other AI research institutions focusing on machine learning and artificial intelligence. In a March 2026 All-In episode, Srinivas said the incoming AI-related layoffs were "glorious future" to "look forward", as it freed people from jobs they didn't like and gave them opportunities to pursue entrepreneurship. == Controversies == === Copyright and trademark infringement allegations === In June 2024, Forbes publicly criticized Perplexity for using their content. According to Forbes, Perplexity published a story largely copied from a proprietary Forbes article without mentioning or prominently citing Forbes. In response, Srinivas said that the feature had some "rough edges" and accepted feedback but maintained that Perplexity only "aggregates" rather than plagiarizes information. In October 2024, The New York Times sent a cease-and-desist notice to Perplexity to stop accessing and using NYT content, claiming that Perplexity is violating its copyright by scraping data from its website. In June 2024, Dow Jones and New York Post filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, alleging copyright infringement. The lawsuit also alleged that Perplexity harmed their brand by attributing hallucinated quotes, for example on F-16 jets for Ukraine, to artic
Read more →
Bibliographic database

A bibliographic database is a database of bibliographic records. This is an organised online collection of references to published written works like journal and newspaper articles, conference proceedings, reports, government and legal publications, patents and books. In contrast to library catalogue entries, a majority of the records in bibliographic databases describe articles and conference papers rather than complete monographs, and they generally contain very rich subject descriptions in the form of keywords, subject classification terms, or abstracts. A bibliographic database may cover a wide range of topics or one academic field like computer science. A significant number of bibliographic databases are marketed under a trade name by licensing agreement from vendors, or directly from their makers: the indexing and abstracting services. Many bibliographic databases have evolved into digital libraries, providing the full text of the organised contents:for instance CORE also organises and mirrors scholarly articles and OurResearch develops a search engine for open access content in Unpaywall. Others merge with non-bibliographic and scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez. == History == Prior to the mid-20th century, individuals searching for published literature had to rely on printed bibliographic indexes, generated manually from index cards. During the early 1960s computers were used to digitize text for the first time; the purpose was to reduce the cost and time required to publish two American abstracting journals, the Index Medicus of the National Library of Medicine and the Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By the late 1960s, such bodies of digitized alphanumeric information, known as bibliographic and numeric databases, constituted a new type of information resource. Online interactive retrieval became commercially viable in the early 1970s over private telecommunications networks. The first services offered a few databases of indexes and abstracts of scholarly literature. These databases contained bibliographic descriptions of journal articles that were searchable by keywords in author and title, and sometimes by journal name or subject heading. The user interfaces were crude, the access was expensive, and searching was done by librarians on behalf of "end users".
Read more →
Vinberg's algorithm

In mathematics, Vinberg's algorithm is an algorithm, introduced by Ernest Borisovich Vinberg, for finding a fundamental domain of a hyperbolic reflection group. Conway (1983) used Vinberg's algorithm to describe the automorphism group of the 26-dimensional even unimodular Lorentzian lattice II25,1 in terms of the Leech lattice. == Description of the algorithm == Let Γ < I s o m ( H n ) {\displaystyle \Gamma <\mathrm {Isom} (\mathbb {H} ^{n})} be a hyperbolic reflection group. Choose any point v 0 ∈ H n {\displaystyle v_{0}\in \mathbb {H} ^{n}} ; we shall call it the basic (or initial) point. The fundamental domain P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} of its stabilizer Γ v 0 {\displaystyle \Gamma _{v_{0}}} is a polyhedral cone in H n {\displaystyle \mathbb {H} ^{n}} . Let H 1 , . . . , H m {\displaystyle H_{1},...,H_{m}} be the faces of this cone, and let a 1 , . . . , a m {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{m}} be outer normal vectors to it. Consider the half-spaces H k − = { x ∈ R n , 1 | ( x , a k ) ≤ 0 } . {\displaystyle H_{k}^{-}=\{x\in \mathbb {R} ^{n,1}|(x,a_{k})\leq 0\}.} There exists a unique fundamental polyhedron P {\displaystyle P} of Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } contained in P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} and containing the point v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} . Its faces containing v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} are formed by faces H 1 , . . . , H m {\displaystyle H_{1},...,H_{m}} of the cone P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} . The other faces H m + 1 , . . . {\displaystyle H_{m+1},...} and the corresponding outward normals a m + 1 , . . . {\displaystyle a_{m+1},...} are constructed by induction. Namely, for H j {\displaystyle H_{j}} we take a mirror such that the root a j {\displaystyle a_{j}} orthogonal to it satisfies the conditions (1) ( v 0 , a j ) < 0 {\displaystyle (v_{0},a_{j})<0} ; (2) ( a i , a j ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle (a_{i},a_{j})\leq 0} for all i < j {\displaystyle i Read more →
Object storage

Object storage (also known as object-based storage or blob storage) is a computer data storage approach that manages data as "blobs" or "objects", as opposed to other storage architectures like file systems, which manage data as a file hierarchy, and block storage, which manages data as blocks within sectors and tracks. Each object is typically associated with a variable amount of metadata, and a globally unique identifier. Object storage can be implemented at multiple levels, including the device level (object-storage device), the system level, and the interface level. In each case, object storage seeks to enable capabilities not addressed by other storage architectures, like interfaces that are directly programmable by the application, a namespace that can span multiple instances of physical hardware, and data-management functions like data replication and data distribution at object-level granularity. Object storage systems allow retention of massive amounts of unstructured data in which data is written once and read once (or many times). Object storage is used for purposes such as storing objects like videos and photos on Facebook, songs on Spotify, or files in online collaboration services, such as Dropbox. One of the limitations with object storage is that it is not intended for transactional data, as object storage was not designed to replace NAS file access and sharing; it does not support the locking and sharing mechanisms needed to maintain a single, accurately updated version of a file. == History == === Origins === Jim Starkey coined the term blob working at Digital Equipment Corporation to refer to opaque data entities. The terminology was adopted for Rdb/VMS. Blob is often humorously explained to be an abbreviation for binary large object. According to Starkey, this backronym arose when Terry McKiever, working in marketing at Apollo Computer felt that the term needed to be an abbreviation. McKiever began using the expansion basic large object. This was later eclipsed by the retroactive explanation of blobs as binary large objects. According to Starkey, "Blob don't stand for nothin'." Rejecting the acronym, he explained his motivation behind the coinage, saying, "A blob is the thing that ate Cincinnatti [sic], Cleveland, or whatever", referring to the 1958 science fiction film The Blob. In 1995, research led by Garth Gibson on Network-Attached Secure Disks first promoted the concept of splitting less common operations, like namespace manipulations, from common operations, like reads and writes, to optimize the performance and scale of both. In the same year, a Belgian company – FilePool – was established to build the basis for archiving functions. Object storage was proposed at Gibson's Carnegie Mellon University lab as a research project in 1996. Another key concept was abstracting the writes and reads of data to more flexible data containers (objects). Fine grained access control through object storage architecture was further described by one of the NASD team, Howard Gobioff, who later was one of the inventors of the Google File System. Other related work includes the Coda filesystem project at Carnegie Mellon, which started in 1987, and spawned the Lustre file system. There is also the OceanStore project at UC Berkeley, which started in 1999 and the Logistical Networking project at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, which started in 1998. In 1999, Gibson founded Panasas to commercialize the concepts developed by the NASD team. === Development === Seagate Technology played a central role in the development of object storage. According to the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), "Object storage originated in the late 1990s: Seagate specifications from 1999 Introduced some of the first commands and how operating system effectively removed from consumption of the storage." A preliminary version of the "OBJECT BASED STORAGE DEVICES Command Set Proposal" dated 10/25/1999 was submitted by Seagate as edited by Seagate's Dave Anderson and was the product of work by the National Storage Industry Consortium (NSIC) including contributions by Carnegie Mellon University, Seagate, IBM, Quantum, and StorageTek. This paper was proposed to INCITS T-10 (International Committee for Information Technology Standards) with a goal to form a committee and design a specification based on the SCSI interface protocol. This defined objects as abstracted data, with unique identifiers and metadata, how objects related to file systems, along with many other innovative concepts. Anderson presented many of these ideas at the SNIA conference in October 1999. The presentation revealed an IP Agreement that had been signed in February 1997 between the original collaborators (with Seagate represented by Anderson and Chris Malakapalli) and covered the benefits of object storage, scalable computing, platform independence, and storage management. == Architecture == === Abstraction of storage === One of the design principles of object storage is to abstract some of the lower layers of storage away from the administrators and applications. Thus, data is exposed and managed as objects instead of blocks or (exclusively) files. Objects contain additional descriptive properties which can be used for better indexing or management. Administrators do not have to perform lower-level storage functions like constructing and managing logical volumes to utilize disk capacity or setting RAID levels to deal with disk failure. Object storage also allows the addressing and identification of individual objects by more than just file name and file path. Object storage adds a unique identifier within a bucket, or across the entire system, to support much larger namespaces and eliminate name collisions. === Inclusion of rich custom metadata within the object === Object storage explicitly separates file metadata from data to support additional capabilities. As opposed to fixed metadata in file systems (filename, creation date, type, etc.), object storage provides for full function, custom, object-level metadata in order to: Capture application-specific or user-specific information for better indexing purposes Support data-management policies (e.g. a policy to drive object movement from one storage tier to another) Centralize management of storage across many individual nodes and clusters Optimize metadata storage (e.g. encapsulated, database or key value storage) and caching/indexing (when authoritative metadata is encapsulated with the metadata inside the object) independently from the data storage (e.g. unstructured binary storage) Additionally, in some object-based file-system implementations: The file system clients only contact metadata servers once when the file is opened and then get content directly via object-storage servers (vs. block-based file systems which would require constant metadata access) Data objects can be configured on a per-file basis to allow adaptive stripe width, even across multiple object-storage servers, supporting optimizations in bandwidth and I/O Object-based storage devices (OSD) as well as some software implementations (e.g., DataCore Swarm) manage metadata and data at the storage device level: Instead of providing a block-oriented interface that reads and writes fixed sized blocks of data, data is organized into flexible-sized data containers, called objects Each object has both data (an uninterpreted sequence of bytes) and metadata (an extensible set of attributes describing the object); physically encapsulating both together benefits recoverability. The command interface includes commands to create and delete objects, write bytes and read bytes to and from individual objects, and to set and get attributes on objects Security mechanisms provide per-object and per-command access control === Programmatic data management === Object storage provides programmatic interfaces to allow applications to manipulate data. At the base level, this includes Create, read, update and delete (CRUD) functions for basic read, write and delete operations. Some object storage implementations go further, supporting additional functionality like object/file versioning, object replication, life-cycle management and movement of objects between different tiers and types of storage. Most API implementations are REST-based, allowing the use of many standard HTTP calls. == Implementation == === Cloud storage === The vast majority of cloud storage available in the market leverages an object-storage architecture. Some notable examples are Amazon S3, which debuted in March 2006, Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, IBM Cloud Object Storage, Rackspace Cloud Files (whose code was donated in 2010 to Openstack project and released as OpenStack Swift), and Google Cloud Storage released in May 2010. === Object-based file systems === Some distributed file systems use an object-based architecture, where file metadata is stored in metadata servers and file data is stored i
Read more →
Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)

Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is used in imaging to characterize image quality. The sensitivity of a (digital or film) imaging system is typically described in the terms of the signal level that yields a threshold level of SNR. Industry standards define sensitivity in terms of the ISO film speed equivalent, using SNR thresholds (at average scene luminance) of 40:1 for "excellent" image quality and 10:1 for "acceptable" image quality. SNR is sometimes quantified in decibels (dB) of signal power relative to noise power, though in the imaging field the concept of "power" is sometimes taken to be the power of a voltage signal proportional to optical power; so a 20 dB SNR may mean either 10:1 or 100:1 optical power, depending on which definition is in use. == Definition of SNR == Traditionally, SNR is defined to be the ratio of the average signal value μ s i g {\displaystyle \mu _{\mathrm {sig} }} to the standard deviation of the signal σ s i g {\displaystyle \sigma _{\mathrm {sig} }} : S N R = μ s i g σ s i g {\displaystyle \mathrm {SNR} ={\frac {\mu _{\mathrm {sig} }}{\sigma _{\mathrm {sig} }}}} when the signal is an optical intensity, or as the square of this value if the signal and noise are viewed as amplitudes (field quantities).
Read more →
Conceptualization (information science)

In information science, a conceptualization is an abstract simplified view of some selected parts of the world, containing the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed of interest for some particular purpose and the relationships between them. An explicit specification of a conceptualization is an ontology, and it may occur that a conceptualization can be realized by several distinct ontologies. An ontological commitment in describing ontological comparisons is taken to refer to that subset of elements of an ontology shared with all the others. "An ontology is language-dependent", its objects and interrelations described within the language it uses, while a conceptualization is always the same, more general, its concepts existing "independently of the language used to describe it". The relation between these terms is shown in the figure to the right. Not all workers in knowledge engineering use the term "conceptualization", but instead refer to the conceptualization itself, or to the ontological commitment of all its realizations, as an overarching ontology. == Purpose and implementation == As a higher level abstraction, a conceptualization facilitates the discussion and comparison of its various ontologies, facilitating knowledge sharing and reuse. Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization maps the conceptualization into specific elements and their relationships. The question then arises as to how to describe the "conceptualization" in terms that can encompass multiple ontologies. This issue has been called the Tower of Babel problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology? This problem is easily grasped, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a "bottom-up" or a "top-down" approach, or something in between. However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a "conceptualization" and the "ontological commitment" of various ontologies that realize the "conceptualization" is possible. The formation of a conceptualization and its ontologies involves these steps: specification of the conceptualization ontology concepts: every definition involves the definitions of other terms relationships between the concepts: this step maps conceptual relationships onto the ontology structure groups of concepts: this step may lead to the creation of sub-ontologies formal description of ontology commitments, for example, to make them computer readable An example of moving conception into a language leading to a variety of ontologies is the expression of a process in pseudocode (a strictly structured form of ordinary language) leading to implementation in several different formal computer languages like Lisp or Fortran. The pseudocode makes it easier to understand the instructions and compare implementations, but the formal languages make possible the compilation of the ideas as computer instructions. Another example is mathematics, where a very general formulation (the analog of a conceptualization) is illustrated with "applications" that are more specialized examples. For instance, aspects of a function space can be illustrated using a vector space or a topological space that introduce interpretations of the "elements" of the conceptualization and additional relationships between them but preserve the connections required in the function space.
Read more →
Sedona Canada Principles

The Sedona Canada Principles are a set of authoritative guidelines published by The Sedona Conference to aid members of the Canadian legal community involved in the identification, collection, preservation, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI). The principles were drafted by a small group of lawyers, judges and technologists called the Sedona Working Group 7 or Sedona Canada. Sedona Canada is an offshoot of The Sedona Conference which is an American "non-profit ... research and educational institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights". == Background == Civil procedure in Canada is jurisdictional with each province following its own rules of civil procedure. However, each province must address the fact that due to the advancement of technology the discovery process enshrined in the rules of civil procedure can be potentially derailed due to the sheer volume of electronically stored information (ESI). When dealing with litigation matters that involve electronically stored information (ESI), the discovery process is commonly called e-discovery. The problems associated with e-discovery in Canada led to the creation of the Sedona Canada Principles. Rule 29.1.03(4) of the wikibooks:Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure specifically refers to the Sedona Canada Principles in referencing Principles re Electronic Discovery although it has been reported that this rule has been largely ignored in practice. == Summary == The Sedona Canada Principles largely refer to the processes found in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model. The principles urge proportionality due to the potentially enormous volumes of documents that may be discoverable when dealing with ESI. They also encourage good faith in the document preservation stage and regular meetings between parties to discuss the scope of the litigation. Parties are urged to be aware of the potential costs involved in producing relevant ESI but are advised that only reasonably accessible ESI need be produced. The principles stipulate that parties should not be required to search for or collect deleted material unless there is an agreement or court order related to those terms. The use of electronic tools and processes such as data sampling and web harvesting are acceptable practices. Parties are encouraged to agree early in the litigation process on production format required for the exchange of relevant documents as part of the discovery process (native files, pdf, tiff, metadata requirements etc.). Agreements or direction should be sought, if necessary, with respect to privilege or other confidential information related to production of electronic documents and data. Parties should be aware that legal precedents can be formed as a result of e-discovery practices and sanctions can be considered for a party's failure to meet their discovery obligations unless it can be demonstrated that the failure was not intentional. All parties must bear the “reasonable” costs associated with e-discovery but other arrangements can be agreed upon by the parties or by court order. == Caselaw == In Warman v. National Post Company proportionality was at issue in a case where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for libel. A motion was brought by the defendant to have the plaintiff provide a mirror image of his hard drive in an effort to prove an internet article was indeed authored by the plaintiff. Issues of proportionality and the work of the Sedona Conference and Sedona Canada Principles were factored in to the decision to grant the defendant only limited access to the hard drive. In Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region the plaintiff's legal obligation to produce imaged hard drives is in question. Justice Conrad refers to the advice of Sedona Canada on proportionality and problems associated with time and expense related to the difficulties associated with electronically stored information. In York University v. Michael Markicevic Justice Brown specifically refers to the need for the parties to agree upon a formal e-discovery plan to be drafted in consultation with Sedona Canada Principles. In Friends of Lansdowne v. Ottawa Master MacLeod refers to the need for Sedona Canada principles and states “This is particularly true in the current information age when e-mail is ubiquitous and multiple copies or variants of messages may be held on various kinds of data storage devices including individual hard drives, e-mail and Blackberry servers. Even documents that ultimately exist in paper form normally begin their life on computers and negotiations frequently involve exchanges of electronic drafts. To find every scrap of paper and every electronic trace of relevant information has become a nightmarish task that threatens to render any kind of litigation extravagantly expensive.” == Criticism == Critics of the Sedona Canada Principles believe they should address system integrity and that the true history of any file preserved cannot be identified without proof of the integrity of the electronic record systems management it comes from. Other criticism is more directed to the Sedona Canada working group and complaints that it is insular and irrelevant.
Read more →
Novell Storage Manager

Novell Storage Manager is a system software package released by Novell in 2004 that uses identity, policy and directory events to automate full lifecycle management of file storage for individual users and organizational groups. By tying storage management to an organization's existing identity infrastructure, it has been pointed out, Novell Storage Manager enables the administration of users across all file servers "as a single pool rather than [in] separate independently managed domains." Novell Storage Manager is a component of the Novell File Management Suite. == How It Works == Novell Storage Manager dynamically manages and provisions storage based on user and group events that occur in the directory, including user creations, group assignments, moves, renames, and deletions. When a change happens in the directory that affects a user’s file storage needs or user storage policy, Storage Manager applies the appropriate policy and makes the necessary changes at the file system level to address those storage needs. The following key components comprise Novell Storage Manager's identity and policy-driven state machine architecture: Directory services; Storage policies; Novell Storage Manager event monitors; Novell Storage Manager policy engine; Novell Storage Manager agents; and Action objects. This state machine architecture enables the engine to properly deal with transient waits with directory synchronization issues. It also allows recovery from failures involving network communications, a target server or a server running a component of Storage Manager—including the policy engine itself. If a failure or interruption occurs at any point during operation, Storage Manager will be able to successfully continue the operation from where it was when the interruption occurred. == Reviews == Jon Toigo called Novell Storage Manager "a robust and smart approach to corralling user files... into an organized and efficient management scheme". He also said it was "best in class" of the products he'd reviewed.
Read more →
SWIG

The Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator (SWIG) is an open-source software tool used to connect computer programs or libraries written in C or C++ with scripting languages such as Lua, Perl, PHP, Python, R, Ruby, Tcl, and other language implementations like C#, Java, JavaScript, Go, D, OCaml, Octave, Scilab and Scheme. Output can also be in the form of XML. == Function == The aim is to allow the calling of native functions (that were written in C or C++) by other programming languages, passing complex data types to those functions, keeping memory from being inappropriately freed, inheriting object classes across languages, etc. The programmer writes an interface file containing a list of C/C++ functions to be made visible to an interpreter. SWIG will compile the interface file and generate code in regular C/C++ and the target programming language. SWIG will generate conversion code for functions with simple arguments; conversion code for complex types of arguments must be written by the programmer. The SWIG tool creates source code that provides the glue between C/C++ and the target language. Depending on the language, this glue comes in three forms: a shared library that an extant interpreter can link to as some form of extension module, or a shared library that can be linked to other programs compiled in the target language (for example, using Java Native Interface (JNI) in Java). a shared dynamic library source code that should be compiled and dynamically loaded (e.g. Node.js native extensions) SWIG is not used for calling interpreted functions by native code; this must be done by the programmer manually. == Example == SWIG wraps simple C declarations by creating an interface that closely matches the way in which the declarations would be used in a C program. For example, consider the following interface file: In this file, there are two functions sin() and strcmp(), a global variable Foo, and two constants STATUS and VERSION. When SWIG creates an extension module, these declarations are accessible as scripting language functions, variables, and constants respectively. In Python: == Purpose == There are two main reasons to embed a scripting engine in an existing C/C++ program: The program can then be customized far faster, via a scripting language instead of C/C++. The scripting engine may even be exposed to the end-user, so that they can automate common tasks by writing scripts. Even if the final product is not to contain the scripting engine, it may nevertheless be very useful for writing test scripts. There are several reasons to create dynamic libraries that can be loaded into extant interpreters, including: Provide access to a C/C++ library which has no equivalent in the scripting language. Write the whole program in the scripting language first, and after profiling, rewrite performance-critical code in C or C++. == History == SWIG is written in C and C++ and has been publicly available since February 1996. The initial author and main developer was David M. Beazley who developed SWIG while working as a graduate student at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Utah and while on the faculty at the University of Chicago. Development is currently supported by an active group of volunteers led by William Fulton. SWIG has been released under a GNU General Public License. == Google Summer of Code == SWIG was a successful participant of Google Summer of Code in 2008, 2009, 2012. In 2008, SWIG got four slots. Haoyu Bai spent his summers on SWIG's Python 3.0 Backend, Jan Jezabek worked on Support for generating COM wrappers, Cheryl Foil spent her time on Comment 'Translator' for SWIG, and Maciej Drwal worked on a C backend. In 2009, SWIG again participated in Google Summer of Code. This time four students participated. Baozeng Ding worked on a Scilab module. Matevz Jekovec spent time on C++0x features. Ashish Sharma spent his summer on an Objective-C module, Miklos Vajna spent his time on PHP directors. In 2012, SWIG participated in Google Summer of Code. This time four out of five students successfully completed the project. Leif Middelschulte worked on a C target language module. Swati Sharma enhanced the Objective-C module. Neha Narang added the new module on JavaScript. Dmitry Kabak worked on source code documentation and Doxygen comments. == Alternatives == For Python, similar functionality is offered by SIP, Pybind11, and Boost's Boost.python library. == Projects using SWIG == ZXID (Apache License, Version 2.0) Symlabs SFIS (commercial) LLDB GNU Radio up to (including) version 3.8.x.x; later versions use Pybind11 Xapian TensorFlow Apache SINGA QuantLib Babeltrace
Read more →
Small Data

Small Data: the Tiny Clues that Uncover Huge Trends is Martin Lindstrom's seventh book. It chronicles his work as a branding expert, working with consumers across the world to better understand their behavior. The theory behind the book is that businesses can better create products and services based on observing consumer behavior in their homes, as opposed to relying solely on big data. == Content == The book is based on a several year period of consumer studies for major corporations across the globe. It features case studies of the author's work interviewing consumers in their homes and using his observations to create hypotheses as to why they use products the way that they do. == Public reception == The book was a New York Times Bestseller upon release and was positively reviewed on several websites, Including Entrepreneur and Forbes. In 2016, it was named a Best Business Book by strategy+business and one of Inc. Magazine's Best Sales and Marketing books.
Read more →
Automatic image annotation

Automatic image annotation (also known as automatic image tagging or linguistic indexing) is the process by which a computer system automatically assigns metadata in the form of captioning or keywords to a digital image. This application of computer vision techniques is used in image retrieval systems to organize and locate images of interest from a database. This method can be regarded as a type of multi-class image classification with a very large number of classes - as large as the vocabulary size. Typically, image analysis in the form of extracted feature vectors and the training annotation words are used by machine learning techniques to attempt to automatically apply annotations to new images. The first methods learned the correlations between image features and training annotations. Subsequently, techniques were developed using machine translation to attempt to translate the textual vocabulary into the 'visual vocabulary,' represented by clustered regions known as blobs. Subsequent work has included classification approaches, relevance models, and other related methods. The advantages of automatic image annotation versus content-based image retrieval (CBIR) are that queries can be more naturally specified by the user. At present, Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) generally requires users to search by image concepts such as color and texture or by finding example queries. However, certain image features in example images may override the concept that the user is truly focusing on. Traditional methods of image retrieval, such as those used by libraries, have relied on manually annotated images, which is expensive and time-consuming, especially given the large and constantly growing image databases in existence.
Read more →