AI For Business Development

AI For Business Development — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Coherent extrapolated volition

    Coherent extrapolated volition

    Coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) is a theoretical framework in the field of AI alignment describing an approach by which an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would act on a benevolent supposition of what humans would want if they were more knowledgeable, more rational, had more time to think, and had matured together as a society, as opposed to humanity's current individual or collective preferences. It was proposed by Eliezer Yudkowsky in 2004 as part of his work on friendly AI. == Concept == CEV proposes that an advanced AI system should derive its goals by extrapolating the idealized volition of humanity. This means aggregating and projecting human preferences into a coherent utility function that reflects what people would desire under ideal epistemic and moral conditions. The aim is to ensure that AI systems are aligned with humanity's true interests, rather than with transient or poorly informed preferences. In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted. == Debate == Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom note that CEV has several interesting properties. It is designed to be humane and self-correcting, by capturing the source of human values instead of trying to list them. It avoids the difficulty of laying down an explicit, fixed list of rules. It encapsulates moral growth, preventing flawed current moral beliefs from getting locked in. It limits the influence that a small group of programmers can have on what the ASI would value, thus also reducing the incentives to build ASI first. And it keeps humanity in charge of its destiny. CEV also faces significant theoretical and practical challenges. Bostrom notes that CEV has "a number of free parameters that could be specified in various ways, yielding different versions of the proposal." One such parameter is the extrapolation base (whose extrapolated volition is taken into account). For example, whether it should include people with severe dementia, patients in a vegetative state, foetuses, or embryos. He also notes that if CEV's extrapolation base only includes humans, there is a risk that the result would be ungenerous toward other animals and digital minds. One possible solution would be to include a mechanism to expand CEV's extrapolation base. == Variants and alternatives == A proposed theoretical alternative to CEV is to rely on an artificial superintelligence's superior cognitive capabilities to figure out what is morally right, and let it act accordingly. It is also possible to combine both techniques, for instance with the ASI following CEV except when it is morally impermissible. In another review, a philosophical analysis explores CEV through the lens of social trust in autonomous systems. Drawing on Anthony Giddens' concept of "active trust", the author proposes an evolution of CEV into "Coherent, Extrapolated and Clustered Volition" (CECV). This formulation aims to better reflect the moral preferences of diverse cultural groups, thus offering a more pragmatic ethical framework for designing AI systems that earn public trust while accommodating societal diversity.

    Read more →
  • Static web page

    Static web page

    A static web page, sometimes called a flat page or a stationary page, is a web page that is delivered to a web browser exactly as stored, in contrast to dynamic web pages which are generated by a web application. Consequently, a static web page displays the same information for all users, from all contexts, subject to modern capabilities of a web server to negotiate content-type or language of the document where such versions are available and the server is configured to do so. However, a webpage's JavaScript can introduce dynamic functionality which may make the static web page dynamic. == Overview == Static web pages are often HTML documents, stored as files in the file system and made available by the web server over HTTP (nevertheless URLs ending with ".html" are not always static). However, loose interpretations of the term could include web pages stored in a database, and could even include pages formatted using a template and served through an application server, as long as the page served is unchanging and presented essentially as stored. The content of static web pages remains stationary irrespective of the number of times it is viewed. Such web pages are suitable for the contents that rarely need to be updated, though modern web template systems are changing this. Maintaining large numbers of static pages as files can be impractical without automated tools, such as static site generators. Any personalization or interactivity has to run client-side, which is restricting. Cloud-based website builders, including Wix, Weebly, and Duda, offer no-code platforms for creating static and dynamic web pages through graphical interfaces, without requiring programming expertise. === Advantages === Provide improved security over dynamic websites (dynamic websites are at risk to web shell attacks if a vulnerability is present) Improved performance for end users compared to dynamic websites Fewer or no dependencies on systems such as databases or other application servers Cost savings from utilizing cloud storage, as opposed to a hosted environment Security configurations are easy to set up, which makes it more secure Static files can be cached by content delivery networks (CDNs) and other intermediate caches, which both reduces page load times at the user and also reduces load on the origin server. Static websites can have improved uptime, since they are still available through any available CDN exit node even when other CDN nodes or the origin webserver are temporarily offline. === Disadvantages === Dynamic functionality must be performed on the client side. After each update of a static website, some or all users may see old, stale, outdated previous versions instead of the latest version until the old version is flushed from CDNs and other caches. == Static site generators == Static site generators are applications that compile static websites - typically populating HTML templates in a predefined folder and file structure, with content supplied in a format such as Markdown or AsciiDoc. === Implementations === Jekyll (powers GitHub Pages) Middleman Hugo Next.js Astro.build Pelican Franklin

    Read more →
  • Single address space operating system

    Single address space operating system

    In computer science, a single address space operating system (or SASOS) is an operating system that provides only one globally shared address space for all processes. In a single address space operating system, numerically identical (virtual memory) logical addresses in different processes all refer to exactly the same byte of data. In a traditional OS with private per-process address space, memory protection is based on address space boundaries ("address space isolation"). Single address-space operating systems make translation and protection orthogonal, which in no way weakens protection. The core advantage is that pointers (i.e. memory references) have global validity, meaning their meaning is independent of the process using it. This allows sharing pointer-connected data structures across processes, and making them persistent, i.e. storing them on backup store. Some processor architectures have direct support for protection independent of translation. On such architectures, a SASOS may be able to perform context switches faster than a traditional OS. Such architectures include Itanium, and Version 5 of the Arm architecture, as well as capability architectures such as CHERI. A SASOS should not be confused with a flat memory model, which provides no address translation and generally no memory protection. In contrast, a SASOS makes protection orthogonal to translation: it may be possible to name a data item (i.e. know its virtual address) while not being able to access it. SASOS projects using hardware-based protection include the following: Angel IBM i (formerly called OS/400) Iguana at NICTA, Australia Mungi at NICTA, Australia Nemesis Opal Scout Sombrero Related are OSes that provide protection through language-level type safety: Br1X Genera JX a research Java OS Phantom OS Singularity Theseus OS Torsion

    Read more →
  • User-generated content

    User-generated content

    User-generated content (UGC), alternatively known as user-created content (UCC), is content generated by users of the Internet such as images, videos, audio, text, testimonials, software, and user interactions. Online content aggregation platforms such as social media, discussion forums and wikis by their interactive and social nature, no longer produce multimedia content but provide tools to produce, collaborate, and share a variety of content, which can affect the attitudes and behaviors of the audience in various aspects. This transforms the role of consumers from passive spectators to active participants. User-generated content is used for a wide range of applications, including problem processing, news, entertainment, customer engagement, advertising, gossip, research and more. It is an example of the democratization of content production and the flattening of traditional media hierarchies. The BBC adopted a user-generated content platform for its websites in 2005, and Time magazine named "You" as the Person of the Year in 2006, referring to the rise in the production of UGC on Web 2.0 platforms. CNN also developed a similar user-generated content platform, known as iReport. There are other examples of news channels implementing similar protocols, especially in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe or terrorist attack. Social media users can provide key eyewitness content and information that may otherwise have been inaccessible. Since 2020, there has been an increasing number of businesses who are utilizing User Generated Content (UGC) to promote their products and services. Several factors significantly influence how UGC is received, including the quality of the content, the credibility of the creator, and viewer engagement. These elements can impact users' perceptions and trust towards the brand, as well as influence the buying intentions of potential customers. UGC has proven to be an effective method for brands to connect with consumers, drawing their attention through the sharing of experiences and information on social media platforms. Due to new media and technology affordances, such as low cost and low barriers to entry, the Internet is an easy platform to create and dispense user-generated content, allowing the dissemination of information at a rapid pace in the wake of an event. == Definition == The advent of user-generated content marked a shift among media organizations from creating online content to providing facilities for amateurs to publish their own content. User-generated content has also been characterized as citizen media as opposed to the "packaged goods media" of the past century. Citizen Media is audience-generated feedback and news coverage. People give their reviews and share stories in the form of user-generated and user-uploaded audio and user-generated video. The former is a two-way process in contrast to the one-way distribution of the latter. Conversational or two-way media is a key characteristic of so-called Web 2.0, which encourages the publishing of one's own content and commenting on other people's content. The role of the passive audience, therefore, has shifted since the birth of new media, and an ever-growing number of participatory users are taking advantage of these interactive opportunities, especially on the Internet, to create independent content. Grassroots experimentation then generated an innovation in sounds, artists, techniques, and associations with audiences, which then are being used in mainstream media. The active, participatory, and creative audience is prevailing today with relatively accessible media, tools, and applications, and its culture is in turn affecting mass media corporations and global audiences. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined three core variables for UGC: Accessible Content: User-generated content (UGC) is publicly produced through platforms located on the Internet and is available to any individual browsing such a publicly accessible website or a public social media account. There are other contexts where users must remain in a community or closed group to access and publish on such platforms (for example, wikis). This is a way of differentiating that although the content is accessible to the audience, there are certain restrictions for the users who generates the content. Creative effort: Creative effort was put into creating the work or adapting existing works to construct a new one; i.e. users must add their own value to the work. UGC often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites that users can edit collaboratively. For example, merely copying a portion of a television show and posting it to an online video website (an activity frequently seen on the UGC sites) would not be considered UGC. However, uploading photographs, expressing one's thoughts in a blog post or creating a new music video could be considered UGC. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context. Creation outside of professional routines and practices: User-generated content is generally created outside of professional routines and practices. It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. In extreme cases, UGC may be produced by non-professionals without the expectation of profit or remuneration. Motivating factors include connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself. == Media pluralism == According to Cisco, in 2016 an average of 96,000 petabytes was transferred monthly over the Internet, more than twice as many as in 2012. In 2016, the number of active websites surpassed 1 billion, up from approximately 700 million in 2012. Reaching 1.66 billion daily active users in Q4 2019, Facebook has emerged as the most popular social media platform globally. Other social media platforms are also dominant at the regional level such as: Twitter in Japan, Naver in the Republic of Korea, Instagram (owned by Facebook) and LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) in Africa, VKontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki (eng. Classmates) in Russia and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, WeChat and QQ in China. However, a concentration phenomenon is occurring globally giving dominance to a few online platforms that become popular for some unique features they provide, most commonly for the added privacy they offer users through disappearing messages or end-to-end encryption (e.g. Jami, Signal, Snapchat, Telegram, Viber, and WhatsApp), but they have tended to occupy niches and to facilitate the exchanges of information that remain rather invisible to larger audiences. Production of freely accessible information has been increasing since 2012. In January 2017, Wikipedia had more than 43 million articles, almost twice as many as in January 2012. This corresponded to a progressive diversification of content and an increase in contributions in languages other than English. In 2017, less than 12 percent of Wikipedia content was in English, down from 18 percent in 2012. Graham, Straumann, and Hogan say that the increase in the availability and diversity of content has not radically changed the structures and processes for the production of knowledge. For example, while content on Africa has dramatically increased, a significant portion of this content has continued to be produced by contributors operating from North America and Europe, rather than from Africa itself. == History == The massive, multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary was exclusively composed of user-generated content. In 1857, Richard Chenevix Trench of the London Philological Society sought public contributions throughout the English-speaking world for the creation of the first edition of the OED. As Simon Winchester recounts: So what we're going to do, if I have your agreement that we're going to produce such a dictionary, is that we're going to send out invitations, were going to send these invitations to every library, every school, every university, every book shop that we can identify throughout the English-speaking world... everywhere where English is spoken or read with any degree of enthusiasm, people will be invited to contribute words. And the point is, the way they do it, the way they will be asked and instructed to do it, is to read voraciously and whenever they see a word, whether it's a preposition or a sesquipedalian monster, they are to... if it interests them and if where they read it, they see it in a sentence that illustrates the way that that word is used, offers the meaning of the day to that word, then they are to write it on a slip of paper... the top left-hand side you write the word, the chosen word, the catchword, which in this case is 'twilight'. Then the quotation, the quotation illustrates the meaning of the word. And underneath it, the citation, where it came from, whether it was printed or whether it was in manuscri

    Read more →
  • Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks

    Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks

    Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) are a type of artificial neural network architecture inspired by the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem, also known as the superposition theorem. Unlike traditional multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), which rely on fixed activation functions and linear weights, KANs replace each weight with a learnable univariate function, often represented using splines. == History == KANs (Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks) were proposed by Liu et al. (2024) as a generalization of the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem (KART), aiming to outperform MLPs in small-scale AI and scientific tasks. Before KANs, numerous studies explored KART's connections to neural networks or used it as a basis for designing new network architectures. In the 1980s and 1990s, early research applied KART to neural network design. Kůrková et al. (1992), Hecht-Nielsen (1987), and Nees (1994) established theoretical foundations for multilayer networks based on KART. Igelnik et al. (2003) introduced the Kolmogorov Spline Network using cubic splines to model complex functions. Sprecher (1996, 1997) introduced numerical methods for building network layers, while Nakamura et al. (1993) created activation functions with guaranteed approximation accuracy. These works linked KART's theoretical potential with practical neural network implementation. KART has also been used in other computational and theoretical fields. Coppejans (2004) developed nonparametric regression estimators using B-splines, Bryant (2008) applied it to high-dimensional image tasks, Liu (2015) investigated theoretical applications in optimal transport and image encryption, and more recently, Polar and Poluektov (2021) used Urysohn operators for efficient KART construction, while Fakhoury et al. (2022) introduced ExSpliNet, integrating KART with probabilistic trees and multivariate B-splines for improved function approximation. == Architecture == KANs are based on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem, which was linked to the 13th Hilbert problem. Given x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n})} consisting of n variables, a multivariate continuous function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} can be represented as: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , … , x n ) = ∑ q = 1 2 n + 1 Φ q ( ∑ p = 1 n φ q , p ( x p ) ) {\displaystyle f(x)=f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\sum _{q=1}^{2n+1}\Phi _{q}\left(\sum _{p=1}^{n}\varphi _{q,p}(x_{p})\right)} (1) This formulation contains two nested summations: an outer and an inner sum. The outer sum ∑ q = 1 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{q=1}^{2n+1}} aggregates 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle 2n+1} terms, each involving a function Φ q : R → R {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}:\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R} } . The inner sum ∑ p = 1 n {\displaystyle \sum _{p=1}^{n}} computes n terms for each q, where each term φ q , p : [ 0 , 1 ] → R {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}:[0,1]\to \mathbb {R} } is a continuous function of the single variable x p {\displaystyle x_{p}} . The inner continuous functions φ q , p {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}} are universal, independent of f {\displaystyle f} , while the outer functions Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} depend on the specific function f {\displaystyle f} being represented. The representation (1) holds for all multivariate functions f {\displaystyle f} as proved in . If f {\displaystyle f} is continuous, then the outer functions Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} are continuous; if f {\displaystyle f} is discontinuous, then the corresponding Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} are generally discontinuous, while the inner functions φ q , p {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}} remain the same universal functions. Liu et al. proposed the name KAN. A general KAN network consisting of L layers takes x to generate the output as: K A N ( x ) = ( Φ L − 1 ∘ Φ L − 2 ∘ ⋯ ∘ Φ 1 ∘ Φ 0 ) x {\displaystyle \mathrm {KAN} (x)=(\Phi ^{L-1}\circ \Phi ^{L-2}\circ \cdots \circ \Phi ^{1}\circ \Phi ^{0})x} (3) Here, Φ l {\displaystyle \Phi ^{l}} is the function matrix of the l-th KAN layer or a set of pre-activations. Let i denote the neuron of the l-th layer and j the neuron of the (l+1)-th layer. The activation function φ j , i l {\displaystyle \varphi _{j,i}^{l}} connects (l, i) to (l+1, j): φ j , i l , l = 0 , … , L − 1 , i = 1 , … , n l , j = 1 , … , n l + 1 {\displaystyle \varphi _{j,i}^{l},\quad l=0,\dots ,L-1,\;i=1,\dots ,n_{l},\;j=1,\dots ,n_{l+1}} (4) where nl is the number of nodes of the l-th layer. Thus, the function matrix Φ l {\displaystyle \Phi ^{l}} can be represented as an n l + 1 × n l {\displaystyle n_{l+1}\times n_{l}} matrix of activations: x l + 1 = ( φ 1 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ 1 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ 1 , n l l ( ⋅ ) φ 2 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ 2 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ 2 , n l l ( ⋅ ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ φ n l + 1 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ n l + 1 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ n l + 1 , n l l ( ⋅ ) ) x l {\displaystyle x^{l+1}={\begin{pmatrix}\varphi _{1,1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{1,2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{1,n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\\\varphi _{2,1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{2,2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{2,n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\\varphi _{n_{l+1},1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{n_{l+1},2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{n_{l+1},n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\end{pmatrix}}x^{l}} == Implementations == To make the KAN layers optimizable, the inner function is formed by the combination of spline and basic functions as the formula: φ ( x ) = w b b ( x ) + w s spline ( x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=w_{b}\,b(x)+w_{s}\,{\text{spline}}(x)} where b ( x ) {\displaystyle b(x)} is the basic function, usually defined as s i l u ( x ) = x / ( 1 + e x ) {\displaystyle silu(x)=x/(1+e^{x})} and w b {\displaystyle w_{b}} is the base weight matrix. Also, w s {\displaystyle w_{s}} is the spline weight matrix and spline ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{spline}}(x)} is the spline function. The spline function can be a sum of B-splines. spline ( x ) = ∑ i c i B i ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{spline}}(x)=\sum _{i}c_{i}B_{i}(x)} Many studies suggested to use other polynomial and curve functions instead of B-spline to create new KAN variants. == Functions used == The choice of functional basis strongly influences the performance of KANs. Common function families include: B-splines: Provide locality, smoothness, and interpretability; they are the most widely used in current implementations. RBFs (include Gaussian RBFs): Capture localized features in data and are effective in approximating functions with non-linear or clustered structures. Chebyshev polynomials: Offer efficient approximation with minimized error in the maximum norm, making them useful for stable function representation. Rational function: Useful for approximating functions with singularities or sharp variations, as they can model asymptotic behavior better than polynomials. Fourier series: Capture periodic patterns effectively and are particularly useful in domains such as physics-informed machine learning. Wavelet functions (DoG, Mexican hat, Morlet, and Shannon): Used for feature extraction as they can capture both high-frequency and low-frequency data components. Piecewise linear functions: Provide efficient approximation for multivariate functions in KANs. == Usage == In some modern neural architectures like convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and Transformers, KANs are typically used as drop-in substitutes for MLP layers. Despite KANs' general-purpose design, researchers have created and used them for a number of tasks: Scientific machine learning (SciML): Function fitting, partial differential equations (PDEs) and physical/mathematical laws. Continual learning: KANs better preserve previously learned information during incremental updates, avoiding catastrophic forgetting due to the locality of spline adjustments. Graph neural networks: Extensions such as Kolmogorov–Arnold Graph Neural Networks (KA-GNNs) integrate KAN modules into message-passing architectures, showing improvements in molecular property prediction tasks. Sensor data processing: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) have recently been applied to sensor data processing due to their ability to model complex nonlinear relationships with relatively few parameters and improved interpretability compared to conventional multilayer perceptrons. Applications include industrial soft sensors, biomedical signal analysis, remote sensing, and environmental monitoring systems. == Drawbacks == KANs can be computationally intensive and require a large number of parameters due to their use of polynomial functions to capture data.

    Read more →
  • Packingham v. North Carolina

    Packingham v. North Carolina

    Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience. Police then identified Packingham and charged him with violating North Carolina's law. Packingham moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state's law violated the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Packingham. A state appellate court initially reversed the trial court, holding that the law did violate the First Amendment, but the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, disagreed and reinstated the conviction. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD, among many others—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech. The Court offered that North Carolina could protect children through less restrictive means, such as prohibiting "conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor". == Background == === North Carolina statute === In 2008, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages". The law defined a "commercial social networking Web site" using four criteria. Specifically, the website must: be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site". facilitate "the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges". allow "users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site". provide "users or visitors... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger". The law exempted websites that "Provid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform", as well as websites that have as their primary purpose "the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors". === Facts of the case === In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. A North Carolina court sentenced him to 10–12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than to "remain away from" the minor. In 2010, after a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham, he submitted a post on Facebook under the name "J. R. Gerrard", stating: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" The Durham Police Department identified Packingham as the author of the post after cross-checking the time of the post with recently dismissed traffic tickets, and a grand jury indicted him for violating the North Carolina statute. === Lower court proceedings === Initially, Packingham moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. A North Carolina Superior Court judge denied this motion, and he was convicted of violating the North Carolina social media law. Packingham appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision in 2013. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat to minors. The appeals court also stated that the law had been defined broadly enough to prohibit a registered sex offender from conducting a wide array of Internet activity, such as "conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors". In 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the law was "constitutional in all respects". The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the statute was a "limitation on conduct" and did not impede any free speech. The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and upheld Packingham's conviction. == Supreme Court ruling == Packingham filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in October 2016. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors from being stalked online. === Oral argument === The oral argument took place in February 2017. Packingham’s lawyer, David T. Goldberg, argued that the law banned “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, went too far in restricting which Internet sites could be accessed, and forbade use of the Internet in general. The law targeted speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often, Goldberg noted, and that under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case. He further noted that the law imposes punishment without regard to whether the offender actually did anything wrong. North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer added that “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a 'clear and present danger'." === Opinion of the Court === In June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of Packingham, unanimously voting to reverse the state court's ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the decision, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. Kennedy explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as a precedent, Kennedy also wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'." === Concurring opinion === Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. While Alito agreed that the state statute at issue violated the First Amendment, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case. == Impact == Packingham v. North Carolina was one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases to ana

    Read more →
  • HTTP cookie

    HTTP cookie

    An HTTP cookie (also called web cookie, Internet cookie, browser cookie, or simply cookie) is a small block of data created by a web server while a user is browsing a website and placed on the user's computer or other device by the user's web browser. Cookies are placed on the device used to access a website, and more than one cookie may be placed on a user's device during a session. Cookies serve useful and sometimes essential functions on the web. They enable web servers to store stateful information (such as items added in the shopping cart in an online store) on the user's device or to track the user's browsing activity (including clicking particular buttons, logging in, or recording which pages were visited in the past). They can also be used to save information that the user previously entered into form fields, such as names, addresses, passwords, and payment card numbers for subsequent use. Authentication cookies are commonly used by web servers to authenticate that a user is logged in, and with which account they are logged in. Without the cookie, users would need to authenticate themselves by logging in on each page containing sensitive information that they wish to access. The security of an authentication cookie generally depends on the security of the issuing website and the user's web browser, and on whether the cookie data is encrypted. Security vulnerabilities may allow a cookie's data to be read by an attacker, used to gain access to user data, or used to gain access (with the user's credentials) to the website to which the cookie belongs (see cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery for examples). Tracking cookies, and especially third-party tracking cookies, are commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories — a potential privacy concern that prompted European and U.S. lawmakers to take action in 2011. European law requires that all websites targeting European Union member states gain "informed consent" from users before storing non-essential cookies on their device. == Background == === Origin of the name === The term cookie was coined by web-browser programmer Lou Montulli. It was derived from the term magic cookie, which is a packet of data a program receives and sends back unchanged, used by Unix programmers. === History === Magic cookies were already used in computing when computer programmer Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in web communications in June 1994. At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for MCI. Vint Cerf and John Klensin represented MCI in technical discussions with Netscape Communications. MCI did not want its servers to have to retain partial transaction states, which led them to ask Netscape to find a way to store that state in each user's computer instead. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart. Together with John Giannandrea, Montulli wrote the initial Netscape cookie specification the same year. Version 0.9beta of Mosaic Netscape, released on 13 October 1994, supported cookies. The first use of cookies (out of the labs) was checking whether visitors to the Netscape website had already visited the site. Montulli applied for a patent for the cookie technology in 1995, which was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was integrated with Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995. The introduction of cookies was not widely known to the public at the time. In particular, cookies were accepted by default, and users were not notified of their presence. The public learned about cookies after the Financial Times published an article about them on 12 February 1996. In the same year, cookies received a lot of media attention, especially because of potential privacy implications. Cookies were discussed in two U.S. Federal Trade Commission hearings in 1996 and 1997. The development of the formal cookie specifications was already ongoing. In particular, the first discussions about a formal specification started in April 1995 on the www-talk mailing list. A special working group within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed. Two alternative proposals for introducing state in HTTP transactions had been proposed by Brian Behlendorf and David Kristol respectively. But the group, headed by Kristol himself and Lou Montulli, soon decided to use the Netscape specification as a starting point. In February 1996, the working group identified third-party cookies as a considerable privacy threat. The specification produced by the group was eventually published as RFC 2109 in February 1997. It specifies that third-party cookies were either not allowed at all, or at least not enabled by default. At this time, advertising companies were already using third-party cookies. The recommendation about third-party cookies of RFC 2109 was not followed by Netscape and Internet Explorer. RFC 2109 was superseded by RFC 2965 in October 2000. RFC 2965 added a Set-Cookie2 header field, which informally came to be called "RFC 2965-style cookies" as opposed to the original Set-Cookie header field which was called "Netscape-style cookies". Set-Cookie2 was seldom used, however, and was deprecated in RFC 6265 in April 2011 which was written as a definitive specification for cookies as used in the real world. No modern browser recognizes the Set-Cookie2 header field. == Terminology == === Session cookie === A session cookie (also known as an in-memory cookie, transient cookie or non-persistent cookie) exists only in temporary memory while the user navigates a website. Session cookies expire or are deleted when the user closes the web browser. Session cookies are identified by the browser by the absence of an expiration date assigned to them. === Persistent cookie === A persistent cookie expires at a specific date or after a specific length of time. For the persistent cookie's lifespan set by its creator, its information will be transmitted to the server every time the user visits the website that it belongs to, or every time the user views a resource belonging to that website from another website (such as an advertisement). For this reason, persistent cookies are sometimes referred to as tracking cookies because they can be used by advertisers to record information about a user's web browsing habits over an extended period of time. Persistent cookies are also used for reasons such as keeping users logged into their accounts on websites, to avoid re-entering login credentials at every visit. (See § Uses, below.) === Secure cookie === A secure cookie can only be transmitted over an encrypted connection (i.e. HTTPS). They cannot be transmitted over unencrypted connections (i.e. HTTP). This makes the cookie less likely to be exposed to cookie theft via eavesdropping. A cookie is made secure by adding the Secure flag to the cookie. === Http-only cookie === An http-only cookie cannot be accessed by client-side APIs, such as JavaScript. This restriction eliminates the threat of cookie theft via cross-site scripting (XSS). However, the cookie remains vulnerable to cross-site tracing (XST) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. A cookie is given this characteristic by adding the HttpOnly flag to the cookie. === Same-site cookie === In 2016 Google Chrome version 51 introduced a new kind of cookie with attribute SameSite with possible values of Strict, Lax or None. With attribute SameSite=Strict, the browsers would only send cookies to a target domain that is the same as the origin domain. This would effectively mitigate cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. With SameSite=Lax, browsers would send cookies with requests to a target domain even it is different from the origin domain, but only for safe requests such as GET (POST is unsafe) and not third-party cookies (inside iframe). Attribute SameSite=None would allow third-party (cross-site) cookies, however, most browsers require secure attribute on SameSite=None cookies. The Same-site cookie is incorporated into a new RFC draft for "Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism" to update RFC 6265 (if approved). Chrome, Firefox, and Edge started to support Same-site cookies. The key of rollout is the treatment of existing cookies without the SameSite attribute defined, Chrome has been treating those existing cookies as if SameSite=None, this would let all website/applications run as before. Google intended to change that default to SameSite=Lax in Chrome 80 planned to be released in February 2020, but due to potential for breakage of those applications/websites that rely on third-party/cross-site cookies and COVID-19 circumstances, Google postponed this change to Chrome 84. === Supercookie === A supercookie is a cookie with an origin of a top-level domain (such as .com) or a public suffix (such as .co.uk). Ordinary cookies, by contrast, have an origin of a specific domain name, such as ex

    Read more →
  • Algorithmic amplification

    Algorithmic amplification

    Algorithmic amplification is the process by which automated ranking and recommendation systems on digital platforms increase the visibility of certain content beyond its initial audience. Major platforms including Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) use such systems to determine what appears in users' feeds and search results. The term is used in research on social media and digital media regulation to describe how platform design choices influence the distribution of online information. Unlike chronological feeds, algorithmic systems evaluate content using signals such as engagement rates, viewing duration, and predicted relevance to individual users. Content that performs strongly on these metrics may be promoted to progressively larger audiences through feeds, search rankings, or autoplay systems. The process is distinct from content moderation, which involves removing, labelling, or restricting content under platform rules, although the two can interact in practice. The concept is closely connected to the attention economy. Research has linked algorithmic amplification to the spread of misinformation and the circulation of political content, as well as to effects on young users' mental health. The scale and direction of those effects remain debated, in part because independent researchers have limited access to the internal workings of platform recommendation systems. Governments in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, and China have pursued differing regulatory approaches to recommendation algorithms. The EU's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 impose obligations on large platforms related to recommendation system transparency and risk, while China became the first country to enact binding legislation specifically targeting such systems. Internal documents and whistleblower testimony reported by the BBC in 2026 described how competitive pressure between Meta and TikTok led to trade-offs between engagement and user safety in the design of their recommendation systems. == Terminology == The term algorithmic amplification is used in media studies, platform governance scholarship and regulatory literature to describe how automated systems influence the distribution of content beyond what organic user sharing alone would produce. It is distinct from viral spread, which refers primarily to user-driven sharing behaviour, and from algorithmic bias, which describes systematic errors or unfairness in algorithmic outputs. The related term algorithmic curation is used for the broader process of selecting and ordering content, of which amplification is one possible outcome. The phrase also appears in regulatory and legislative discussion of recommendation systems. The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) identifies recommendation systems as a potential source of systemic risk, and the term appears frequently in academic and policy commentary on the regulation. In the United States, proposals including the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) have used it to frame requirements around recommendation system transparency. In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee used the term in a 2025 report on how recommendation algorithms contributed to the spread of misinformation during the 2024 Southport riots. A Joint Declaration on AI and Freedom of Expression adopted in October 2025 by four international freedom of expression mandate holders, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, stated that recommender systems and other AI-powered curation tools exert "a large hidden influence and gatekeeper role" over what information people access and consume. == Background == Early internet platforms typically displayed content in reverse-chronological order or through keyword-based search systems. Although the term is most often applied to social media, the underlying logic predates social media itself. A 2021 overview traced the origins of modern recommendation systems to the early 1990s, when they were first used experimentally for personal email and information filtering. The 1992 Tapestry mail system and the 1994 GroupLens news filtering system were early milestones before recommendation systems spread into e-commerce and other online services. As user bases and content volumes grew during the 2000s, major platforms including Google, YouTube, and Facebook developed machine-learning systems to personalise content delivery and prioritise material predicted to generate engagement. Facebook introduced its News Feed in 2006, which gradually shifted from chronological presentation towards algorithmically ranked content. YouTube altered its recommendation system in 2012 to prioritise watch time rather than clicks, a change the platform said was prompted by concerns that click-based metrics encouraged misleading thumbnails and low-quality videos. TikTok, launched internationally in 2018, adopted a model in which its primary content surface, the For You feed, is driven almost entirely by algorithmic recommendation rather than by a user's social graph. An internal document obtained by The New York Times in 2021 showed that the platform's algorithm optimised for retention and time spent, using signals such as watch duration, replays, likes, and comments to score and rank videos. Algorithmic recommendation also became central to platforms outside social media. Spotify's personalised features, including Discover Weekly, Release Radar, and Home recommendations, use behavioural signals and inferred "taste profiles" to surface tracks and artists beyond a listener's existing library. An ethnographic study of music curators at streaming platforms described this blend of algorithmic and human editorial selection as an "algo-torial" model of gatekeeping. Amazon adopted item-based collaborative filtering for product recommendations in 1998, and its recommendation engine has been described as one of the earliest large-scale deployments of recommendation technology in e-commerce. The same dynamics operate on adult content platforms. Law professor Amy Adler has argued that from 2007 onwards the pornography industry migrated to algorithm-driven streaming platforms, most of which are controlled by a single near-monopoly company, Aylo (formerly MindGeek). These platforms use algorithmic search engines, suggestions, rigid categorisation of content, and AI-driven search term optimisation in ways that produce the same distorting effects found on mainstream speech platforms, including filter bubbles, feedback loops, and the tendency of algorithmic recommendations to alter individual preferences. == Mechanisms == Recommendation systems commonly combine collaborative filtering, which predicts a user's preferences from the behaviour of similar users, with machine-learning models that predict which content a user is likely to engage with from their prior activity. In a common two-stage design, a platform first generates a set of candidate items from a large content pool and then ranks them using a scoring model with objectives such as predicted engagement or user satisfaction. Small changes in ranking criteria can shift exposure at scale, particularly when applied repeatedly across multiple browsing sessions. These systems typically rely on signals including engagement rates, viewing duration, click-through rates, and network relationships between users. Modern recommendation pipelines continuously update predictions as new behavioural data arrives, allowing platforms to adjust rankings in near real time. Users' revealed preferences, expressed through behaviour such as clicks and viewing time, do not always align with their stated preferences, expressed through explicit feedback such as surveys or content controls. Popularity signals can create feedback dynamics in which early engagement increases the likelihood that content will be shown to additional users. Experimental research on online cultural markets has demonstrated how such feedback processes can produce unequal visibility outcomes even when initial differences in content quality are small. == Beneficial and public-interest uses == Recommendation systems can help users navigate large volumes of content by surfacing material predicted to match their interests or needs, which can improve discoverability on platforms with large content libraries. In public health communication, platforms can help health authorities distribute timely information at scale, though the same recommendation systems also risk amplifying misinformation alongside official guidance. Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has argued that the shift from independent blogs to large centralised platforms transferred gatekeeping power from traditional media to corporate algorithms. In the case of the Egyptian uprising of 2011, she noted that ordinary users

    Read more →
  • Web application firewall

    Web application firewall

    A Web application firewall (WAF) is a specific form of application firewall that filters, monitors, and blocks HTTP traffic to and from a web service. By inspecting HTTP traffic, it can prevent attacks exploiting a Web application's known vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), file inclusion, and improper system configuration. Financial institutions often utilize WAFs to help in the mitigation of Web application zero-day vulnerabilities, as well as hard-to-patch bugs or weaknesses through custom attack signature strings. == History == Dedicated Web application firewalls entered the market in the late 1990s during a time when web server attacks were becoming more prevalent. Early WAF products, from Kavado and Gilian technologies, tried to solve the increasing amount of attacks on Web applications in the late 1990s. In 2002, the open-source project ModSecurity was formed in order to make WAF technology more accessible. They finalized a core rule set for protecting Web applications, based on OASIS Web Application Security Technical Committee’s (WAS TC) vulnerability work. In 2003, they expanded and standardized rules through the Open Web Application Security Project’s (OWASP) Top 10 List, an annual ranking for Web security vulnerabilities. This list would become the industry standard for Web application security compliance. Since then, the market has continued to grow and evolve, especially focusing on credit card fraud prevention. With the development of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), a standardization of control over cardholder data, security has become more regulated in this sector. == Description == A Web application firewall is a special type of application firewall that applies specifically to Web applications. It is deployed in front of Web applications and analyzes bi-directional web-based (HTTP) traffic – detecting and blocking anything malicious. The OWASP provides a broad technical definition for a WAF as “a security solution on the Web application level which – from a technical point of view – does not depend on the application itself”. According to the PCI DSS Information Supplement for requirement 6.6, a WAF is defined as “a security policy enforcement point positioned between a Web application and the client endpoint. This functionality can be implemented in software or hardware, running in an appliance device, or in a typical server running a common operating system. It may be a stand-alone device or integrated into other network components.” In other words, a WAF can be a virtual or physical appliance that prevents vulnerabilities in Web applications from being exploited by outside threats. These vulnerabilities may be because the application itself is a legacy type or was insufficiently coded by design. The WAF addresses these code shortcomings by special configurations of rule-sets, also known as policies. Previously unknown vulnerabilities can be discovered through penetration testing or via a vulnerability scanner. A Web application vulnerability scanner, also known as a web application security scanner, is defined in the SAMATE NIST 500-269 as “an automated program that examines Web applications for potential security vulnerabilities. In addition to searching for Web application-specific vulnerabilities, the tools also look for software coding errors.” Resolving vulnerabilities is commonly referred to as remediation. Corrections to the code can be made in the application, but typically a more prompt response is necessary. In these situations, the application of a custom policy for a unique Web application vulnerability to provide a temporary but immediate fix (known as a virtual patch) may be necessary. WAFs are not an ultimate security solution, rather they are meant to be used in conjunction with other network perimeter security solutions such as network firewalls and intrusion prevention systems to provide a holistic defense strategy. WAFs typically follow a positive security model, a negative security, or a combination of both as mentioned by the SANS Institute. WAFs use a combination of rule-based logic, parsing, and signatures to detect and prevent attacks such as cross-site scripting and SQL injection. In general, features like browser emulation, obfuscation and virtualization, and IP obfuscation are used to attempt to bypass WAFs. The OWASP produces a list of the top ten Web application security flaws. All commercial WAF offerings cover these ten flaws at a minimum. There are non-commercial options as well. As mentioned earlier, the well-known open-source WAF engine called ModSecurity is one of these options. A WAF engine alone is insufficient to provide adequate protection, therefore OWASP along with Trustwave's Spiderlabs help organize and maintain a Core-Rule Set via GitHub to use with the ModSecurity WAF engine. == Deployment options == Although the names for operating mode may differ, WAFs are basically deployed inline in three different ways. According to NSS Labs, deployment options are transparent bridge, transparent reverse proxy, and reverse proxy. "Transparent" refers to the fact that the HTTP traffic is sent straight to the Web application, therefore the WAF is transparent between the client and server. This is in contrast to reverse proxy, where the WAF acts as a proxy, and the client’s traffic is sent directly to the WAF. The WAF then separately sends filtered traffic to Web applications. This can provide additional benefits such as IP masking but may introduce disadvantages such as performance latencies. == JA3 fingerprint == JA3, developed by Salesforce in 2017, is a technique for generating a unique fingerprint for SSL/TLS traffic based on specific fields in the handshake, such as the version, cipher suites, and extensions used by the client. This fingerprint enables the identification and tracking of clients based on the characteristics of their encrypted traffic. In the context of distributed denial of service (DDoS) protection, JA3 fingerprints are used to detect and differentiate malicious traffic, often associated with attack bots, from legitimate traffic, allowing for more precise filtering of potential threats. In September 2023, AWS WAF announced built-in support for JA3, enabling customers to inspect the JA3 fingerprints of incoming requests. JA3 was deprecated in May 2025 in favor of JA4. JA4 is currently patent pending.

    Read more →
  • Hoopla (digital media service)

    Hoopla (digital media service)

    Hoopla Digital is a web and mobile streaming platform launched in 2013 that provides access to a wide range of digital media, including audiobooks, eBooks, comics, manga, music, movies, and TV shows. The service is available to users through participating public libraries, allowing library cardholders to borrow and stream digital media. Hoopla is a division of Midwest Tape. == History == Hoopla was launched in 2013. Its goal was for libraries to provide patrons with access to digital content such as audiobooks, music, movies, and TV shows, without the need for holds or waiting lists. Hoopla's model is a pay-per-use system, which means patrons can borrow items instantly. Since its inception, the service has expanded its offerings to include eBooks and comics. The app was built exclusively for public libraries and their patrons. Hoopla Digital is the only platform that combines all formats and all license models into one convenient app with no platform fees. In 2017, Hoopla became available on Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Android TV, and Roku, allowing users to stream content on larger screens. In 2020, Hoopla Flex and Bonus Borrows programs are introduced, enabling libraries to move their one copy/one user titles. At that time, there were 6.5 million library card holders and 2,700+ library partners. In 2021, the BingePass was introduced, offering patrons seven days to access entire collections with just one borrow. In 2022, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto become available, giving users safe and easy access while driving. In 2023, manga joins Hoopla's comic collection, adding 1.5 million titles to Hoopla's offerings. In January 2025, Hoopla introduced a new streaming feature called SeasonPass. Building on the existing BingePass model, SeasonPass allows users to borrow an entire season of a television series with a single borrow. == Business model == Hoopla is free-of-charge for patrons of participating libraries. The content is paid for by library systems, using a "per circulation transaction model". == Content == Hoopla claims to have over 500,000 content titles across six formats, including over 25,000 comic books. As of November 2016, Hoopla's content comprised 35% audiobooks (for which Hoopla has contracts with publishers such as Blackstone Audio, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster Audio, Tantor Audio, and others), followed by 22% movies (for which Hoopla has motion picture contracts with publishers such as Disney, Lionsgate, Starz, Warner Bros., and others), 19% music, 12% ebooks, 6% comics, and 6% television. One drawback is that Hoopla has few new bestsellers. In February 2025, 404 Media reported that Hoopla's collection includes books created by generative AI with fictional authors and dubious quality. Often not labeled as AI-produced or fact-checked, this AI slop can cost libraries money when checked out by unsuspecting patrons. Libraries like Sacramento Public library have questioned the sustainability of Hoopla's pay-per-use model and have considered transitioning to other digital platforms. === Areas served === Hoopla expanded to serve Australia and New Zealand in June 2021. == Technology == Hoopla content can be borrowed and consumed on the web, or via the native Android or iOS apps. Hoopla broadcasts only in Standard definition unlike most of its competitors such as Kanopy. == Parent company == John Eldred and Jeff Jankowski founded Hoopla's parent company, Midwest Tape, in 1989. Midwest Tape is a library vendor of physical media such as audiobooks, CDs, and DVD/Blu-ray. == Controversy == Hoopla and Midwest Tapes were censured by the Library Freedom Project and Library Futures in a joint statement for hosting what it described as "fascist propaganda", including a recent English translation of A New Nobility of Blood and Soil by Richard Walther Darré of the SS and books related to Holocaust denial, in public library collections without the input from the staff. Criticism was also directed at the inclusion of books on homosexuality, abortion, and vaccines claimed by the Library Freedom Project and Library Futures to be misinformation. On February 17, 2022, Hoopla removed a number of titles after public outcry about Holocaust denial books available on the app under non-fiction. The advocacy groups expressed appreciation for the response, however state that it is "insufficient," as they maintain concerns about the company's practices in selecting materials and lack of transparency.

    Read more →
  • TheFWA

    TheFWA

    FWA (Favourite Website Awards) is an international award platform that honors and rewards web designers, developers and agencies around the world for excellence within the field of web design and development. The FWA was founded in May 2000 by Rob Ford. In November 2012, The FWA was the most visited website award program in the history of the internet, with over 170 millions site visits. == Jury == The FWA jury is composed of more than 500 web professionals (200 women + 200 men) from 35 countries. == Awards granted == FWA of the Day (FOTD) : Every day, the FWA jury selects the best project, FWA of the Month (FOTM): Every month, the FWA jury selects the best project, People's Choice Award (PCA) : Every year, a public vote selects the people's favourite project, FWA of the Year (FOTY) : Every year, the FWA jury selects the best project. == Hall Of Fame == The FWA Hall of Fame was established in May 2007 (to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the FWA), as a recognition of web's greatest individuals and companies.

    Read more →
  • Web testing

    Web testing

    Web testing is software testing that focuses on web applications. Complete testing of a web-based system before going live can help address issues before the system is revealed to the public. Issues may include the security of the web application, the basic functionality of the site, its accessibility to disabled and fully able users, its ability to adapt to the multitude of desktops, devices, and operating systems, as well as readiness for expected traffic and number of users and the ability to survive a massive spike in user traffic, both of which are related to load testing. == Web application performance tool == A web application performance tool (WAPT) is used to test web applications and web related interfaces. These tools are used for performance, load and stress testing of web applications, web sites, web API, web servers and other web interfaces. WAPT tends to simulate virtual users which will repeat either recorded URLs or specified URL and allows the users to specify number of times or iterations that the virtual users will have to repeat the recorded URLs. By doing so, the tool is useful to check for bottleneck and performance leakage in the website or web application being tested. A WAPT faces various challenges during testing and should be able to conduct tests for: Browser compatibility Operating System compatibility Windows application compatibility where required WAPT allows a user to specify how virtual users are involved in the testing environment.ie either increasing users or constant users or periodic users load. Increasing user load, step by step is called RAMP where virtual users are increased from 0 to hundreds. Constant user load maintains specified user load at all time. Periodic user load tends to increase and decrease the user load from time to time. == Web security testing == Web security testing tells us whether Web-based applications requirements are met when they are subjected to malicious input data. There is a web application security testing plug-in collection for Fire Fox == Web API testing == An application programming interface API exposes services to other software components, which can query the API. The API implementation is in charge of computing the service and returning the result to the component that send the query. A part of web testing focuses on testing these web API implementations. GraphQL is a specific query and API language. It is the focus of tailored testing techniques. Search-based test generation yields good results to generate test cases for GraphQL APIs.

    Read more →
  • Pixelmator

    Pixelmator

    Pixelmator is a series of graphics editors developed by Apple for macOS, iOS, and iPadOS. Pixelmator apps leverage Apple-specific technologies such as CoreML and Metal. Pixelmator uses a proprietary format across their apps (.PXD), but supports editing a variety of file types including Photoshop, RAW, and WebP. == History == Pixelmator Team was founded in 2007 by Lithuanian brothers Saulius and Aidas Dailidė, and released Pixelmator (now Pixelmator Classic) 1.0 in September of the same year. The company resided in Vilnius, Lithuania. In November 2024, Pixelmator Team agreed to be acquired by Apple for an unknown monetary amount, which was completed on 11 February 2025, the company was later folded into Apple with its products coming under them fully. == Pixelmator Classic == Pixelmator Classic was the original version of Pixelmator released for Mac on 25 September 2007. It uses a palette-style interface with floating toolbars compared to Pixelmator Pro's single-window interface. It is no longer being updated and has been delisted from the Mac App Store. == Pixelmator iOS == Pixelmator for iOS launched on 23 October 2014 as an iPad-exclusive app with touch-optimized versions of Pixelmator's desktop features. In May 2015, Pixelmator for iOS 2.0 was released with support for the iPhone. Apple no longer updates Pixelmator for iOS as of 13 January 2026, shortly before the release of Pixelmator Pro for iPad. == Pixelmator Pro == Pixelmator Pro is an image, video, and vector editing software for macOS that launched on 29 November 2017. It was a paid upgrade for Pixelmator Classic users, featuring a redesigned interface, a graphics pipeline rewritten using Metal, Apple silicon support and a greater focus on ML/AI editing features. On 28 January 2026, Apple announced Apple Creator Studio, a subscription bundle for their professional software that contains Pixelmator Pro. They also brought Pixelmator Pro to iPad, shortly after discontinuing Pixelmator iOS. == Photomator == Photomator (formerly Pixelmator Photo) is a photo-oriented editing app which launched on iPad in 2019, on iOS in 2021, and macOS in 2022. After launching the macOS version, the app moved from a one-time purchase to a subscription; however, a lifetime license can still be purchased for $99. Photomator differentiates itself from other Pixelmator apps with features such as batch editing of full photoshoots and AI-powered color correction. Edits in Photomator are made on a single layer and are non-destructive.

    Read more →
  • Contact cleaner

    Contact cleaner

    Contact cleaner, also known as switch-cleaner, is any of various chemicals, or mixtures of chemicals, intended to remove or prevent the build-up of oxides or other unwanted substances on the conductive surfaces of connectors, switches, and other electronic components with moving surface-contacts, and thus reduce the contact resistance encountered. The use of contact cleaner can help to minimize the wetting current across a pair of contacts. An example of a simple contact cleaner is isopropyl alcohol Some contact cleaners are designed to evaporate completely and rapidly, leaving no residue. Others may contain lubricants. Lubricants themselves should not necessarily be used as contact cleaners, especially if they are designed to leave an unsuitable residue. However, appropriate lubricants may work well as contact cleaners.

    Read more →
  • News ticker

    News ticker

    A news ticker (sometimes called a crawler, crawl, slide, zipper, ticker tape, or chyron) is a horizontal or vertical (depending on the language's writing system) text-based display either in the form of a graphic that typically resides in the lower third of the screen space on a television station or network (usually during news programming) or as a long, thin scoreboard-style display seen around the facades of some offices or public buildings dedicated to presenting headlines or minor pieces of news. It is an evolution of the paper strips tapes, a continuous paper print-out of stock quotes from a printing telegraph which was mainly used to transmit companies' share price information over telegraph lines before the advance of technology in the 1960s. News tickers have been used in Europe in countries such as United Kingdom, Germany and Ireland for some years; they are also used in several Asian countries and Australia. In the United States, tickers were long used on a special event basis by broadcast television stations to disseminate weather warnings, school closings, and election results. Sports telecasts occasionally used a ticker to update other contests in progress before the expansion of cable news networks and the internet for news content. In addition, some ticker displays are used to relay continuous business and financial information. Most tickers are traditionally displayed in the form of scrolling text running from right to left across the screen or building display (or in the opposite direction for right-to-left writing systems such as Arabic script and Hebrew), allowing for headlines of varying degrees of detail; some used by television broadcasters, however, display stories in a static manner (allowing for the seamless switching of each story individually programmed for display) or utilize a "flipping" effect (in which each individual headline is shown for a few seconds before transitioning to the next, instead of scrolling across the screen, usually resulting in a relatively quicker run through of all of the information programmed into the ticker). Since the growth in usage of the World Wide Web, some news tickers have syndicated news stories posted largely on websites of broadcasters or by other independent news agencies. == Current uses == === Television === The presentation of headlines or other information in a news ticker has become a common element of many different news networks. The use of the ticker has differed on a number of channels: News networks and local newscasts commonly use a setup in which news headlines are scrolled across an area near the bottom of the screen, though some variations have formed, such as showing one headline at a time with a scrolling or "flipper" effect. Financial news channels use two or more tickers displaying company shares prices and business headlines. Networks with a focus on sports often use a slightly different system, where scores and statuses of ongoing and finished games are displayed one by one, along with minor sports highlights, statistics and sports news headlines. They are typically divided into categories devoted to specific leagues and events (with college basketball and football usually focusing on the top 25 ranked teams on the AP Poll, occasionally supplemented by sections for specific conferences). Some programs, including news-based programs emphasizing viewer interactivity, or special events, may also use tickers to display messages and reactions from viewers and others that relate to the program. These comments are often sourced from social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter, typically curating comments from a specific page or hashtag. Due to their current prevalence, they have been occasionally been made targets of pranks and vandalism. In one such example, News 14 Carolina allowed viewers to submit relevant information such as school closings or traffic delays via telephone or the Internet that would be incorporated into the ticker; the system was exploited in February 2004 to display humorous and crude messages, including the infamous "All your base are belong to us". Occasionally messages intended for training accidentally end up being put on the live ticker as happened on BBC News in 2022 when "Weather rain everywhere" and "Manchester United are rubbish" appeared on the live news ticker. Some businesses and organizations have utilized tickers intended for relaying weather-related closings as a surreptitious source for free guerrilla marketing, proclaiming they were open rather than closed and giving their phone number if possible, allowing them to 'advertise' on a television station all day for free. Since then, many stations have required pre-registration of businesses or organizations with an authorized representative and a signed affidavit on company letterhead affirming their authenticity, along with filtering out unfamiliar businesses and organizations, before being able to display their closing announcements. Stations also confirm all closings involving school districts with authorized officials to prevent situations in which students either show up to canceled classes in dangerous conditions, or do not attend school due to an erroneous, prank-submitted, or false listing. === On personal computers === Various applications have been developed over time to install news tickers on personal computer desktops using RSS feeds from news organizations, which are displayed in a fashion similar to those used by television channels but enable the user to access to underlying news stories, a feature not offered by traditional television channels. The Bloomberg Terminal and other financial information-tracking programs and devices also utilize tickers. A ticker may also be used as an unobtrusive method by businesses in order to deliver important information to their staff. The ticker can be set to reappear, stay on screen, or be put into a retractable mode (where a small tab is left visible on-screen). In the United Kingdom, broadcasters have stopped using this technology as other forms of communications have become available and increased in popularity. BBC News and Sky News discontinued their respective desktop tickers in March 2011 and 2012 to focus on other products, such as smartphone applications, to deliver updated information on breaking news and sport stories. === News tickers on buildings === Since the advent of the telegraph, newspapers commonly used their buildings to share the latest headlines. At first simple chalkboard signs were used for bulletins, but limelight illumination, electric lights, magic lantern projections, and other novel techniques were later employed. The method of using electric lights to spell out moving letters was invented by Frank C. Reilly (August 20, 1888 – April 10, 1947) and patented in 1923. Reilly called his invention the Motograph News Bulletin. In 1928, The New York Times installed a Motograph News Bulletin to display news headlines on the sides of Times Tower. The display was 388 feet (118 m) long, 5 feet (1.5 m) high, and employed over 14,800 light bulbs. Popularly known as the "Zipper", the sign remained in use until the building was sold in 1961. The sign was darkened during World War II to comply with wartime lighting restrictions. The Motograph operated until 1994 and was replaced by an electronic version in 1995, which was in turn removed in 2017 due to the replacement of all individual screens on the front of One Times Square with a 350 foot (110 m)-tall LED billboard in 2018. Ticker displays appear today on the exterior of the News Corp Building, which houses the headquarters for Fox News Channel/News Corp in the west extension of Manhattan's Rockefeller Center, as well as one that displays delayed stock market data that is located in Times Square. NASDAQ itself features a large display screen on the facade of the NASDAQ MarketSite building in Times Square. The Reuters buildings at Canary Wharf and in Toronto have news and stock tickers; the latter type features market data for the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and London Stock Exchange, while the Toronto building's ticker also includes quotes from the Toronto Stock Exchange. A red-LED ticker was added to the perimeter of 10 Rockefeller Center in 1994, as the building was being renovated to accommodate the studios for NBC's Today. Placed at the juncture of the first and second floors, the ticker is visible to spectators in Rockefeller Plaza and passersby on West 49th Street and updates continuously, even at times when Today is not being produced and broadcast. As of 2015, the ticker strip is only a small part of a large two-floor LCD video display that is placed within the window of the studio showing promotional information. The Martin Place Headquarters of Seven News, the news division of Australian television broadcaster Seven Network, also incorporates a ticker that wraps around the building. == In popular culture == The use of new

    Read more →