AI For Np Students

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

• 

  View model

  A view model or viewpoints framework in systems engineering, software engineering, and enterprise engineering is a framework which defines a coherent set of views to be used in the construction of a system architecture, software architecture, or enterprise architecture. A view is a representation of the whole system from the perspective of a related set of concerns. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to prescribe approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. A result of these efforts have been to define a set of views (or viewpoints). They are sometimes referred to as architecture frameworks or enterprise architecture frameworks, but are usually called "view models". Usually a view is a work product that presents specific architecture data for a given system. However, the same term is sometimes used to refer to a view definition, including the particular viewpoint and the corresponding guidance that defines each concrete view. The term view model is related to view definitions. == Overview == The purpose of views and viewpoints is to enable humans to comprehend very complex systems, to organize the elements of the problem and the solution around domains of expertise and to separate concerns. In the engineering of physically intensive systems, viewpoints often correspond to capabilities and responsibilities within the engineering organization. Most complex system specifications are so extensive that no single individual can fully comprehend all aspects of the specifications. Furthermore, we all have different interests in a given system and different reasons for examining the system's specifications. A business executive will ask different questions of a system make-up than would a system implementer. The concept of viewpoints framework, therefore, is to provide separate viewpoints into the specification of a given complex system in order to facilitate communication with the stakeholders. Each viewpoint satisfies an audience with interest in a particular set of aspects of the system. Each viewpoint may use a specific viewpoint language that optimizes the vocabulary and presentation for the audience of that viewpoint. Viewpoint modeling has become an effective approach for dealing with the inherent complexity of large distributed systems. Architecture description practices, as described in IEEE Std 1471-2000, utilize multiple views to address several areas of concerns, each one focusing on a specific aspect of the system. Examples of architecture frameworks using multiple views include Kruchten's "4+1" view model, the Zachman Framework, TOGAF, DoDAF, and RM-ODP. == History == In the 1970s, methods began to appear in software engineering for modeling with multiple views. Douglas T. Ross and K.E. Schoman in 1977 introduce the constructs context, viewpoint, and vantage point to organize the modeling process in systems requirements definition. According to Ross and Schoman, a viewpoint "makes clear what aspects are considered relevant to achieving ... the overall purpose [of the model]" and determines How do we look at [a subject being modelled]? As examples of viewpoints, the paper offers: Technical, Operational and Economic viewpoints. In 1992, Anthony Finkelstein and others published a very important paper on viewpoints. In that work: "A viewpoint can be thought of as a combination of the idea of an “actor”, “knowledge source”, “role” or “agent” in the development process and the idea of a “view” or “perspective” which an actor maintains." An important idea in this paper was to distinguish "a representation style, the scheme and notation by which the viewpoint expresses what it can see" and "a specification, the statements expressed in the viewpoint's style describing particular domains". Subsequent work, such as IEEE 1471, preserved this distinction by utilizing two separate terms: viewpoint and view, respectively. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to codify approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. These are often termed architecture frameworks or sometimes viewpoint sets. Many of these have been funded by the United States Department of Defense, but some have sprung from international or national efforts in ISO or the IEEE. Among these, the IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 1471-2000) established useful definitions of view, viewpoint, stakeholder and concern and guidelines for documenting a system architecture through the use of multiple views by applying viewpoints to address stakeholder concerns. The advantage of multiple views is that hidden requirements and stakeholder disagreements can be discovered more readily. However, studies show that in practice, the added complexity of reconciling multiple views can undermine this advantage. IEEE 1471 (now ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description) prescribes the contents of architecture descriptions and describes their creation and use under a number of scenarios, including precedented and unprecedented design, evolutionary design, and capture of design of existing systems. In all of these scenarios the overall process is the same: identify stakeholders, elicit concerns, identify a set of viewpoints to be used, and then apply these viewpoint specifications to develop the set of views relevant to the system of interest. Rather than define a particular set of viewpoints, the standard provides uniform mechanisms and requirements for architects and organizations to define their own viewpoints. In 1996 the ISO Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) was published to provide a useful framework for describing the architecture and design of large-scale distributed systems. == View model topics == === View === A view of a system is a representation of the system from the perspective of a viewpoint. This viewpoint on a system involves a perspective focusing on specific concerns regarding the system, which suppresses details to provide a simplified model having only those elements related to the concerns of the viewpoint. For example, a security viewpoint focuses on security concerns and a security viewpoint model contains those elements that are related to security from a more general model of a system. A view allows a user to examine a portion of a particular interest area. For example, an Information View may present all functions, organizations, technology, etc. that use a particular piece of information, while the Organizational View may present all functions, technology, and information of concern to a particular organization. In the Zachman Framework views comprise a group of work products whose development requires a particular analytical and technical expertise because they focus on either the “what,” “how,” “who,” “where,” “when,” or “why” of the enterprise. For example, Functional View work products answer the question “how is the mission carried out?” They are most easily developed by experts in functional decomposition using process and activity modeling. They show the enterprise from the point of view of functions. They also may show organizational and information components, but only as they relate to functions. === Viewpoints === In systems engineering, a viewpoint is a partitioning or restriction of concerns in a system. Adoption of a viewpoint is usable so that issues in those aspects can be addressed separately. A good selection of viewpoints also partitions the design of the system into specific areas of expertise. Viewpoints provide the conventions, rules, and languages for constructing, presenting and analysing views. In ISO/IEC 42010:2007 (IEEE-Std-1471-2000) a viewpoint is a specification for an individual view. A view is a representation of a whole system from the perspective of a viewpoint. A view may consist of one or more architectural models. Each such architectural model is developed using the methods established by its associated architectural system, as well as for the system as a whole. === Modeling perspectives === Modeling perspectives is a set of different ways to represent pre-selected aspects of a system. Each perspective has a different focus, conceptualization, dedication and visualization of what the model is representing. In information systems, the traditional way to divide modeling perspectives is to distinguish the structural, functional and behavioral/processual perspectives. This together with rule, object, communication and actor and role perspectives is one way of classifying modeling approaches === Viewpoint model === In any given viewpoint, it is possible to make a model of the system that contains only the objects that are visible from that viewpoint, but also captures all of the objects, relationships and constraints that are present in the system and relevant to that viewpoint. Such a model is said to be a viewpoint model, or a view of the

  Read more →
• 

  Padre Pio (2022 film)

  Padre Pio is a 2022 biographical drama film co-written and directed by Abel Ferrara. It stars Shia LaBeouf as the titular role of Padre Pio, a Capuchin Franciscan priest who receives the stigmata, in the background of the World War I in Italy. The film is a co-production of Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. During its production, LaBeouf converted to Catholicism as result of his spiritual experiences in character as Pio, who is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church. The film had its world premiere in the Giornate degli Autori section of the 79th Venice International Film Festival on 2 September 2022. It was released theatrically in the United Kingdom on 26 January 2024 by Dazzler Media and in Italy on 18 July 2024 by RS Productions. == Plot == It is the year 1920. Italian WWI veterans have returned to their impoverished villages. Padre Pio arrives at San Giovanni Rotondo after living with his family in Pietrelcina for a number of years. While still sick, he continues to encounter Satan. Satan reveals himself as the instigator of the war and the sociopolitical problems of San Giovanni. While having little contact with the people of this town, Padre Pio learns what the poor are suffering from in the Sacrament of Confession and the Holy Mass, such as when a crippled man walks again because of Padre Pio's prayer. Besides the effects of war, such as medical inadequacy, health conditions and labourers dying from the effects of mustard gas, the people suffer from corrupt, wealthy landowners. Gerardo, a militaristic anti-socialist, threatens to kill any communal labourers tending his land. Many of them join the socialist party as a way to improve their lives. However, after they win the first free election in San Giovanni, Gerardo's forces massacre many of them. Padre Pio asks God that he may become a suffering servant for their salvation. He receives the wounds of Jesus Christ. The stigmata disrupts Satan's influence on San Giovanni Rotondo. == Cast == Shia LaBeouf as Padre Pio Marco Leonardi as Gerardo Salvatore Ruocco as Vincenzo Cristina Chiriac as Giovanna Brando Pacitto as Renato Luca Lionello as Silvestro Asia Argento as Tall Man == Production == According to Abel Ferrara, actor Willem Dafoe suggested that Shia LaBeouf should be cast for the film's leading role. After Ferrara held several Zoom calls with LaBeouf, the latter agreed to join the film, even though very little money was raised (the film was almost never made) and LaBeouf did the project for free. LaBeouf arrived at Old Mission Santa Inés in July 2021 to learn about Padre Pio with the Capuchin Franciscan friars. Thanks to Father Bobby Barbato and Brother Jude Quinto, Br. Alexander Rodriguez met LaBeouf while he attended Mass every day. He learned about the Catholic Church and the Capuchins while living in his truck or spending a few nights in the Capuchin's guest room. He was immersing himself in the Catholic faith. He enrolled in RCIA, revised the script with Rodriguez and trained to do the Latin Mass. Rodriguez traveled with LaBeouf as his spiritual adviser and catechist and was in the film as Padre Pio's companion. Filming occurred in Apulia, Italy, in December 2021. The first place was at the Capuchin friary in San Marco la Catola. Padre Pio exchanged letters with his provincial and spiritual director while living in Pietrelcina with his family. The time was around 1909–1916. Both directors were living in San Marco during these years. Padre Pio expressed in his letters his deep and mysterious relationship with God and health difficulties. This event is in the film. While filming, LaBeouf slept in Padre Pio's bedroom. After San Marco, filming continued outside the Sanctuary of Saint Michael the Archangel in Monte Sant'Angelo. Traditionally, St. Michael appeared here in the late 400s. LaBeouf stayed and filmed for a few weeks at the Abbey of Saint Mary of Pulsano. It is near the sanctuary. The rest of the filming took place outside the sanctuary. Ferrara said in 2024 that he used AI for the Italian dub of this film. == Release == Padre Pio had its world premiere in the Giornate degli Autori section of the 79th Venice International Film Festival on 2 September 2022. It received a four-minute ovation. It also competed at the Rio de Janeiro International Film Festival. At the Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival, it was chosen to compete for the "Best Film Award." During its North American premiere at the Mammoth Film Festival, it won the "Achievement for Filmmaking" award for cinematography. At the Taormina Film Festival, it premiered worldwide in Italian. In March 2023, Gravitas Ventures acquired North American rights to the film. It was released in select theaters and on video on demand in the United States on 2 June 2023. The film was released in the United Kingdom and Ireland on 26 January 2024 by Dazzler Media. RS Productions released it in Italy on 18 July 2024. == Reception == On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 30% based on 43 reviews, with an average rating of 4.5/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Tonally unbalanced and burdened with a distracting Shia LaBeouf performance, Padre Pio is one of Abel Ferrara's less divine works." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 45 out of 100, based on 6 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.. Jordan Mintzer of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a negative review, describing it as "clunky" and criticizing its political themes for possessing "the subtlety of a cartoon for preschoolers." Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com gave the film one and a half stars out of four, describing it as a "dull slog". Journalist Glenn Kenny of The New York Times found the film "occasionally rank" and panned LaBeouf's performance, though complimented Ferrara's "sometimes Brechtian consideration of the nodes of political history and spirituality." Film critic Armond White of National Review also criticized the film, describing it as "a work of deluded, semi-improvisational navel-gazing". Film critic Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave the film a positive review, with three out of five stars, writing that it is "a weird film...with an undeveloped, improvised feel, like a fragment or shard of something else. Yet there is a background hum there...an awareness of something dark and malign. It is a minor film but interesting." Writing for The New Yorker, Richard Brody considered that "in its hectic, scattershot way, Padre Pio feels very much of the desperate present day," describing it as "a historical drama without historical distance" and "a wild effort to reach the immediate experience of the past and its furies." Faith-based reviews for the film were generally negative. It received negative reviews from Catholic Answers, The Catholic World Report, The Catholic Weekly, The Catholic Thing, and Crisis Magazine. Conversely, it received a mixed review from The Catholic Review, as well as a positive review from America. Criticisms were generally aimed at the film's sexual content and perceived support of left-wing politics.

  Read more →
• 

  Pippit

  Pippit (Chinese: 小云雀; pinyin: Xiǎoyúnquè) is an artificial intelligence content creation platform developed by the Chinese technology company ByteDance. The platform, powered by CapCut leverages multimodal AI technology to streamline professional-grade video and image production, specifically targeting small and medium-sized enterprisesand social media creators. == History == In May 2025, ByteDance officially launched Pippit, which is positioned as an AI video and picture creation tool. In early 2026, Pippit underwent a major architectural overhaul with the integration of the Dreamina seedance 2.0. This technical milestone introduced the "Short Drama Agent" functionality, which enables the end-to-end conversion of scripts up to 100,000 words into fully rendered video productions.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic Scholar

  Semantic Scholar is a research tool for scientific literature. It is developed at the Allen Institute for AI and was publicly released in November 2015. Semantic Scholar uses modern techniques in natural language processing to support the research process, for example by providing automatically generated summaries of scholarly papers. The Semantic Scholar team is actively researching the use of artificial intelligence in natural language processing, machine learning, human–computer interaction, and information retrieval. Semantic Scholar began as a database for the topics of computer science, geoscience, and neuroscience. In 2017, the system began including biomedical literature in its corpus. As of September 2022, it includes over 200 million publications from all fields of science. == Technology == Semantic Scholar provides a one-sentence summary of scientific literature. One of its aims was to address the challenge of reading numerous titles and lengthy abstracts on mobile devices. It also seeks to ensure that the three million scientific papers published yearly reach readers, since it is estimated that only half of this literature is ever read. Artificial intelligence is used to capture the essence of a paper, generating it through an "abstractive" technique. The project uses a combination of machine learning, natural language processing, and machine vision to add a layer of semantic analysis to the traditional methods of citation analysis, and to extract relevant figures, tables, entities, and venues from papers. Another key AI-powered feature is Research Feeds, an adaptive research recommender that uses AI to quickly learn what papers users care about reading and recommends the latest research to help scholars stay up to date. It uses a paper embedding model trained using contrastive learning to find papers similar to those in each Library folder. Semantic Scholar also offers Semantic Reader, an augmented reader with the potential to revolutionize scientific reading by making it more accessible and richly contextual. Semantic Reader provides in-line citation cards that allow users to see citations with TLDR (short for Too Long, Didn't Read) automatically generated short summaries as they read and skimming highlights that capture key points of a paper so users can digest faster. In contrast with Google Scholar and PubMed, Semantic Scholar is designed to highlight the most important and influential elements of a paper. The AI technology is designed to identify hidden connections and links between research topics. Like the previously cited search engines, Semantic Scholar also exploits graph structures, which include the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph, Springer Nature's SciGraph, and the Semantic Scholar Corpus (originally a 45 million papers corpus in computer science, neuroscience and biomedicine). == Article identifier == Each paper hosted by Semantic Scholar is assigned a unique identifier called the Semantic Scholar Corpus ID (abbreviated S2CID). The following entry is an example: Liu, Ying; Gayle, Albert A; Wilder-Smith, Annelies; Rocklöv, Joacim (March 2020). "The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus". Journal of Travel Medicine. 27 (2). doi:10.1093/jtm/taaa021. PMID 32052846. S2CID 211099356. == Indexing == Semantic Scholar is free to use and unlike similar search engines (e.g., Google Scholar) does not search for material that is behind a paywall. One study compared the index scope of Semantic Scholar to Google Scholar, and found that for the papers cited by secondary studies in computer science, the two indices had comparable coverage, each only missing a handful of the papers. == Number of users and publications == As of January 2018, following a 2017 project that added biomedical papers and topic summaries, the Semantic Scholar corpus included more than 40 million papers from computer science and biomedicine. In March 2018, Doug Raymond, who developed machine learning initiatives for the Amazon Alexa platform, was hired to lead the Semantic Scholar project. As of August 2019, the number of included papers metadata (not the actual PDFs) had grown to more than 173 million after the addition of the Microsoft Academic Graph records. In 2020, a partnership between Semantic Scholar and the University of Chicago Press Journals made all articles published under the University of Chicago Press available in the Semantic Scholar corpus. At the end of 2020, Semantic Scholar had indexed 190 million papers. In 2020, Semantic Scholar reached seven million users per month.

  Read more →
• 

  Turret lathe

  A turret lathe is a form of metalworking lathe that is used for repetitive production of duplicate parts, which by the nature of their cutting process are usually interchangeable. It evolved from earlier lathes with the addition of the turret, which is an indexable toolholder that allows multiple cutting operations to be performed, each with a different cutting tool, in easy, rapid succession, with no need for the operator to perform set-up tasks in between (such as installing or uninstalling tools) or to control the toolpath. The latter is due to the toolpath's being controlled by the machine, either in jig-like fashion, via the mechanical limits placed on it by the turret's slide and stops, or via digitally-directed servomechanisms for computer numerical control lathes. The name derives from the way early turrets took the general form of a flattened cylindrical block mounted to the lathe's cross-slide, capable of rotating about the vertical axis and with toolholders projecting out to all sides, and thus vaguely resembled a swiveling gun turret. Capstan lathe is the usual name in the UK and Commonwealth, though the two terms are also used in contrast: see below, Capstan versus turret. == History == Turret lathes became indispensable to the production of interchangeable parts and for mass production. The first turret lathe was built by Stephen Fitch in 1845 to manufacture screws for pistol percussion parts. In the mid-nineteenth century, the need for interchangeable parts for Colt revolvers enhanced the role of turret lathes in achieving this goal as part of the "American system" of manufacturing arms. Clock-making and bicycle manufacturing had similar requirements. Christopher Spencer invented the first fully automated turret lathe in 1873, which led to designs using cam action or hydraulic mechanisms. From the late-19th through mid-20th centuries, turret lathes, both manual and automatic (i.e., screw machines and chuckers), were one of the most important classes of machine tools for mass production. They were used extensively in the mass production for the war effort in World War II. The U.S. company Warner & Swasey was one of the premier brands in heavy turret lathes between the 1910s and 1960s; it became the world's largest manufacturer of such lathes by 1928. During World War II, it employed 7,000 people and produced half of the turret lathes manufactured in the United States. == Types == There are many variants of the turret lathe. They can be most generally classified by size (small, medium, or large); method of control (manual, automated mechanically, or automated via computer (numerical control (NC) or computer numerical control (CNC)); and bed orientation (horizontal or vertical). === Archetypical: horizontal, manual === In the late 1830s a "capstan lathe" with a turret was patented in Britain. The first American turret lathe was invented by Stephen Fitch in 1845. The archetypical turret lathe, and the first in order of historical appearance, is the horizontal-bed, manual turret lathe. The term "turret lathe" without further qualification is still understood to refer to this type. The formative decades for this class of machine were the 1840s through 1860s, when the basic idea of mounting an indexable turret on a bench lathe or engine lathe was born, developed, and disseminated from the originating shops to many other factories. Some important tool-builders in this development were Stephen Fitch; Gay, Silver & Co.; Elisha K. Root of Colt; J.D. Alvord of the Sharps Armory; Frederick W. Howe, Richard S. Lawrence, and Henry D. Stone of Robbins & Lawrence; J.R. Brown of Brown & Sharpe; and Francis A. Pratt of Pratt & Whitney. Various designers at these and other firms later made further refinements. === Semi-automatic === Sometimes machines similar to those above, but with power feeds and automatic turret-indexing at the end of the return stroke, are called "semi-automatic turret lathes". This nomenclature distinction is blurry and not consistently observed. The term "turret lathe" encompasses them all. During the 1860s, when semi-automatic turret lathes were developed, they were sometimes called "automatic". What we today would call "automatics", that is, fully automatic machines, had not been developed yet. During that era both manual and semi-automatic turret lathes were sometimes called "screw machines", although we today reserve that term for fully automatic machines. === Automatic === During the 1870s through 1890s, the mechanically automated "automatic" turret lathe was developed and disseminated. These machines can execute many part-cutting cycles without human intervention. Thus the duties of the operator, which were already greatly reduced by the manual turret lathe, were even further reduced, and productivity increased. These machines use cams to automate the sliding and indexing of the turret and the opening and closing of the chuck. Thus, they execute the part-cutting cycle somewhat analogously to the way in which an elaborate cuckoo clock performs an automated theater show. Small- to medium-sized automatic turret lathes are usually called "screw machines" or "automatic screw machines", while larger ones are usually called "automatic chucking lathes", "automatic chuckers", or "chuckers". Such machine tools of the "automatic" variety, which in the pre-computer era meant mechanically automated, had already reached a highly advanced state by World War I. === Computer numerical control === When World War II ended, the digital computer was poised to develop from a colossal laboratory curiosity into a practical technology that could begin to disseminate into business and industry. The advent of computer-based automation in machine tools via numerical control (NC) and then computer numerical control (CNC) displaced to a large extent, but not at all completely, the previously existing manual and mechanically automated machines. Numerically controlled turrets allow automated selection of tools on a turret. CNC lathes may be horizontal or vertical in orientation and mount six separate tools on one or more turrets. Such machine tools can work in two axes per turret, with up to six axes being feasible for complex work. === Vertical === Vertical turret lathes have the workpiece held vertically, which allows the headstock to sit on the floor and the faceplate to become a horizontal rotating table, analogous to a huge potter's wheel. This is useful for the handling of very large, heavy, short workpieces. Vertical lathes in general are also called "vertical boring mills" or often simply "boring mills"; therefore a vertical turret lathe is a vertical boring mill equipped with a turret. == Other variations == === Capstan versus turret === The term "capstan lathe" overlaps in sense with the term "turret lathe" to a large extent. In many times and places, it has been understood to be synonymous with "turret lathe". In other times and places it has been held in technical contradistinction to "turret lathe", with the difference being in whether the turret's slide is fixed to the bed (ram-type turret) or slides on the bed's ways (saddle-type turret). The difference in terminology is mostly a matter of United Kingdom and Commonwealth usage versus United States usage. === Flat === A subtype of horizontal turret lathe is the flat-turret lathe. Its turret is flat (and analogous to a rotary table), allowing the turret to pass beneath the part. Patented by James Hartness of Jones & Lamson, and first disseminated in the 1890s, it was developed to provide more rigidity via requiring less overhang in the tool setup, especially when the part is relatively long. === Hollow-hexagon === Hollow-hexagon turret lathes competed with flat-turret lathes by taking the conventional hexagon turret and making it hollow, allowing the part to pass into it during the cut, analogously to how the part would pass over the flat turret. In both cases, the main idea is to increase rigidity by allowing a relatively long part to be turned without the tool overhang that would be needed with a conventional turret, which is not flat or hollow. === Monitor lathe === The term "monitor lathe" formerly (1860s–1940s) referred to the class of small- to medium-sized manual turret lathes used on relatively small work. The name was inspired by the monitor-class warships, which the monitor lathe's turret resembled. Today, lathes of such appearance, such as the Hardinge DSM-59 and its many clones, are still common, but the name "monitor lathe" is no longer current in the industry. === Toolpost turrets and tailstock turrets === Turrets can be added to non-turret lathes (bench lathes, engine lathes, toolroom lathes, etc.) by mounting them on the toolpost, tailstock, or both. Often these turrets are not as large as a turret lathe's, and they usually do not offer the sliding and stopping that a turret lathe's turret does; but they do offer the ability to index through successive tool

  Read more →
• 

  TCEC Season 14

  The 14th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship took place between 17 November 2018 and 24 February 2019. Stockfish was the defending champion, having defeated Komodo in the previous season's superfinal. The season is notable for two things: the emergence of two strong, new engines, the Komodo variant Komodo Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) and the neural network engine Leela Chess Zero, and the dramatic superfinal. Komodo MCTS and Leela fought their way from Division 4 and Division 3 respectively to the Premier Division, with Leela further qualifying for the superfinal against Stockfish. The superfinal was a topsy-turvy affair with the lead changing hands several times. It finished as the closest superfinal TCEC has ever seen, with Stockfish winning by a single game, 50.5–49.5 (+10 =81 -9). == Overview == === Structure === The season comprised five divisions: from the lowest Division 4 to the Premier Division. The top two engines of each division promote to the division above, while the bottom two engines relegate. The top two engines of the Premier Division contest a 100-game superfinal. The lengths of the opening books used increases as the divisions progress. The superfinal itself used a custom opening book designed by Jeroen Noomen. === Rules === The TCEC draw and win rules were slightly modified for Season 14. The game is now adjudicated as drawn if, after move 30, both engines have evals ±0.08 for five consecutive moves, and there are neither pawn moves nor a capture. Win adjudication now occurs if both engines have an eval of ±10 for five consecutive moves. Following the controversy over DeusX's participation last season, the uniqueness rule for neural networks was modified such that at least two of the following three hallmarks must be unique: The code for training the neural network The neural network (and weights file) itself The engine that executes this network This change meant DeusX did not meet the uniqueness criteria and therefore did not participate. Aside from this change, the season used the standard rules of the TCEC. == Results == === Division 4 === New entrant Komodo MCTS dominated Division 4, winning by a clear four points, although it did lose a game to second-place finisher rofChade. Fellow new entrant Scorpio NN performed badly and finished last, drawing only one game and losing the rest. === Division 3 === The neural network engine Leela Chess Zero had just missed promotion to Division 2 in the previous season. Since its relatively weak performance last season was partly due to hardware problems, and since it had shown a lot of improvement in strength, it was the hot favourite in this division. Leela lived up to its billing by comprehensively defeating everyone else. In a portent of future divisions however, Leela surprisingly dropped a game to third-place Arasan. Komodo MCTS was also improving quickly, and an updated version finished second behind Leela. The gap between second and third was 6.5 points, illustrating the gulf in class. === Division 2 === Although Division 2 engines are significantly stronger than Division 3, Leela and Komodo MCTS continued to dominate the competition, and again finished first and second. Komodo MCTS only lost one game to Leela, while Leela's tendency to occasionally lose to weaker engines saw her losing a game to 4th-placed Booot. Third place finisher Xiphos gave Leela and Komodo MCTS a run for their money, and was in the running up until the final rounds when it lost a crucial game to Leela. This loss left it one point behind Komodo MCTS in the final standings. === Division 1 === Leela and Komodo MCTS's rampage through the lower divisions continued, and they again finished first and second. In a demonstration of how much it had improved, Leela scored 20/28 in this division, the same score it had achieved in Division 2. This was also a TCEC points record for this division. However, Leela dropped a game against fourth-place finisher Chiron. Komodo MCTS, which had yet to lose a game in the lower divisions except to Leela, also conceded its first loss to third-place Fizbo. At the other end of the table, former champions Jonny and Fritz, which had not been updated, found themselves outclassed and finished second-last and last respectively; however with fellow competitor Ginkgo crashing five times (and therefore being disqualified), Jonny managed to stay in the division. The penultimate game for this division set a new TCEC moves record for a decisive game: 308 moves before Leela defeated Fritz. === Premier division === This was the strongest premier division ever, with multiple-time champions Stockfish, Komodo, and Houdini in the mix. Right from the start it became clear that Stockfish was in a league of its own, and it dominated the division, scoring wins against every other engine without losing a game. Second place however was a hotly-contested affair, with Leela, Komodo and Houdini neck-and-neck for most of the division. Houdini took the early lead, but Komodo gained second after winning two games by forfeit when its sibling Komodo MCTS crashed. This led to murmurs of a "Konspiracy". However, when both Komodo and Houdini failed to score more wins against the lower half of the field, Leela was able to take the lead. Halfway through the division the race was upended again when Leela went through a bad streak, losing three games in a row to Stockfish, Komodo, and Fire. This led to Komodo regaining second place, only for Komodo MCTS to crash yet again. By TCEC rules this meant Komodo MCTS was disqualified and all its scores were zeroed out, which put Leela back in second place. With three games left, Leela missed a win against Andscacs, which would've more or less secured her a place in the superfinal. Meanwhile, Komodo kept the division interesting by winning two of its last three games. Because Komodo had superior tiebreakers to Leela, this meant Komodo would qualify for the superfinal unless Leela managed to hold Stockfish to a draw with Black in the last game of the division. In a tense final game, Stockfish came close to winning, but missed the winning line. Leela managed to draw and qualified for the superfinal. At the other end of the table, it was quickly apparent that Ethereal and Andscacs were the weakest engines and would likely relegate. However, when Komodo MCTS was disqualified (and therefore relegated), it threw both engines a lifeline, since they could now stay in the division by beating the other. Andscacs was able to score a head-to-head win against Ethereal, but was crushed by Stockfish (+0 =2 -4) and Leela (+0 =3 -3). Ethereal didn't manage to score a win in the entire division, but did manage to score more draws than Andscacs, condemning Andscacs to relegation. === Superfinal === Going into the superfinal expectations were high for Leela: she had received a new network and had just won her first major competition when she defeated Houdini in the second TCEC cup. However, she had won the tournament without having played Stockfish (who had been surprisingly eliminated by Houdini in the semifinals). That, plus the fact that Stockfish dominated Premier Division and had never lost a match to Leela, left it unclear which engine was superior, although most spectators favored Stockfish. The superfinal turned out to be a roller-coaster. It began with Stockfish drawing first blood in game 7, and then scoring another win in game 10. Leela hit back with wins in game 11 and 13, but then lost games 20, 21, and 22. This gave Stockfish a 3-point lead. However, in the next 30 games, Leela was the only one to score wins: it first equalized by winning games 25, 27, and 29, and then took the lead by winning games 49 and 53. Stockfish won game 56, but Leela won game 63, maintaining her lead. There followed two dramatic games. In game 65, Leela built up a winning position. Stockfish showed a +153 evaluation, indicating that it had found a forced line leading to an endgame tablebase win; indeed analysis with 7-piece tablebases showed that Leela's position was winning. Under previous seasons' rules, the game would have been adjudicated as a win because Leela's evaluation was above 6.5. However under the new rules, Leela's +8.92 evaluation was not enough to adjudicate. It turned out that Leela could not see the winning line, and shuffled her pieces aimlessly, leading to a 50-move draw. In game 66, Stockfish was given a substantial advantage by the opening, but failed to make the most of it. The evaluations were leveling out to zero when the internet connection to the GPU servers was cut off. By tournament rules, this meant the game was replayed from scratch. After a further internet disconnection and restart, Stockfish handled the opening better and won, leaving Leela with a 1-point lead. In the last third of the superfinal, there followed more drama as Leela often built up strong advantages, but Stockfish showed great resourcefulness in defending inferior positions. Meanwh

  Read more →
• 

  Fuzzy finite element

  The fuzzy finite element method combines the well-established finite element method with the concept of fuzzy numbers, the latter being a special case of a fuzzy set. The advantage of using fuzzy numbers instead of real numbers lies in the incorporation of uncertainty (on material properties, parameters, geometry, initial conditions, etc.) in the finite element analysis. One way to establish a fuzzy finite element (FE) analysis is to use existing FE software (in-house or commercial) as an inner-level module to compute a deterministic result, and to add an outer-level loop to handle the fuzziness (uncertainty). This outer-level loop comes down to solving an optimization problem. If the inner-level deterministic module produces monotonic behavior with respect to the input variables, then the outer-level optimization problem is greatly simplified, since in this case the extrema will be located at the vertices of the domain.

  Read more →
• 

  Computing Machinery and Intelligence

  "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo

  Read more →
• 

  Vulnerability Discovery Model

  A Vulnerability Discovery Model (VDM) uses discovery event data with software reliability models for predicting the same. A thorough presentation of VDM techniques is available in. Numerous model implementations are available in the MCMCBayes open source repository. Several VDM examples include: Alhazmi-Malaiya: Time based model (Alhazmi-Malaiya Logistic (AML) model) Alhazmi-Malaiya: Effort based model Rescorla: Quadratic Model and Exponential Model Anderson: Thermodynamic Model Kim: Weibull Model Linear Model Hump-Shaped Model Independent and Dependent Model Vulnerability Discovery Modeling using Bayesian model averaging Multivariate Vulnerability Discovery Models

  Read more →
• 

  Vagueness

  In linguistics and philosophy, a vague predicate is one which gives rise to borderline cases. For example, the English adjective "tall" is vague since it is not clearly true or false for someone of middling height. By contrast, the word "prime" is not vague since every number is definitively either prime or not. Vagueness is commonly diagnosed by a predicate's ability to give rise to the sorites paradox. Vagueness is separate from ambiguity, in which an expression has multiple denotations. For instance the word "bank" is ambiguous since it can refer either to a river bank or to a financial institution, but there are no borderline cases between both interpretations. Vagueness is a major topic of research in philosophical logic, where it serves as a potential challenge to classical logic. Work in formal semantics has sought to provide a compositional semantics for vague expressions in natural language. Work in philosophy of language has addressed implications of vagueness for the theory of meaning, while metaphysicists have considered whether reality itself is vague. == Importance == The concept of vagueness has philosophical importance. Suppose one wants to come up with a definition of "right" in the moral sense. One wants a definition to cover actions that are clearly right and exclude actions that are clearly wrong, but what does one do with the borderline cases? Surely, there are such cases. Some philosophers say that one should try to come up with a definition that is itself unclear on just those cases. Others say that one has an interest in making his or her definitions more precise than ordinary language, or his or her ordinary concepts, themselves allow; they recommend one advances precising definitions. === In law === Vagueness is also a problem which arises in law, and in some cases, judges have to arbitrate regarding whether a borderline case does, or does not, satisfy a given vague concept. Examples include disability (how much loss of vision is required before one is legally blind?), human life (at what point from conception to birth is one a legal human being, protected for instance by laws against murder?), adulthood (most familiarly reflected in legal ages for driving, drinking, voting, consensual sex, etc.), race (how to classify someone of mixed racial heritage), etc. Even such apparently unambiguous concepts such as biological sex can be subject to vagueness problems, not just from transsexuals' gender transitions but also from certain genetic conditions which can give an individual mixed male and female biological traits (see intersex). In the common law system, vagueness is a possible legal defence against by-laws and other regulations. The legal principle is that delegated power cannot be used more broadly than the delegator intended. Therefore, a regulation may not be so vague as to regulate areas beyond what the law allows. Any such regulation would be "void for vagueness" and unenforceable. This principle is sometimes used to strike down municipal by-laws that forbid "explicit" or "objectionable" contents from being sold in a certain city; courts often find such expressions to be too vague, giving municipal inspectors discretion beyond what the law allows. In the US this is known as the vagueness doctrine and in Europe as the principle of legal certainty. === In science === Many scientific concepts are of necessity vague, for instance species in biology cannot be precisely defined, owing to unclear cases such as ring species. Nonetheless, the concept of species can be clearly applied in the vast majority of cases. As this example illustrates, to say that a definition is "vague" is not necessarily a criticism. Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding huskies and wolves: are they dogs? It is not clear: they are borderline cases of dogs. This means one's ordinary concept of doghood is not clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case. == Approaches == The philosophical question of what the best theoretical treatment of vagueness is—which is closely related to the problem of the paradox of the heap, a.k.a. sorites paradox—has been the subject of much philosophical debate. === Fuzzy logic === One theoretical approach is that of fuzzy logic, developed by American mathematician Lotfi Zadeh. Fuzzy logic proposes a gradual transition between "perfect falsity", for example, the statement "Bill Clinton is bald", to "perfect truth", for, say, "Patrick Stewart is bald". In ordinary logics, there are only two truth-values: "true" and "false". The fuzzy perspective differs by introducing an infinite number of truth-values along a spectrum between perfect truth and perfect falsity. Perfect truth may be represented by "1", and perfect falsity by "0". Borderline cases are thought of as having a "truth-value" anywhere between 0 and 1 (for example, 0.6). Advocates of the fuzzy logic approach have included K. F. Machina (1976) and Dorothy Edgington (1993). === Supervaluationism === Another theoretical approach is known as "supervaluationism". This approach has been defended by Kit Fine and Rosanna Keefe. Fine argues that borderline applications of vague predicates are neither true nor false, but rather are instances of "truth value gaps". He defends an interesting and sophisticated system of vague semantics, based on the notion that a vague predicate might be "made precise" in many alternative ways. This system has the consequence that borderline cases of vague terms yield statements that are neither true, nor false. Given a supervaluationist semantics, one can define the predicate "supertrue" as meaning "true on all precisifications". This predicate will not change the semantics of atomic statements (e.g. "Frank is bald", where Frank is a borderline case of baldness), but does have consequences for logically complex statements. In particular, the tautologies of sentential logic, such as "Frank is bald or Frank is not bald", will turn out to be supertrue, since on any precisification of baldness, either "Frank is bald" or "Frank is not bald" will be true. Since the presence of borderline cases seems to threaten principles like this one (excluded middle), the fact that supervaluationism can "rescue" them is seen as a virtue. === Subvaluationism === Subvaluationism is the logical dual of supervaluationism, and has been defended by Dominic Hyde (2008) and Pablo Cobreros (2011). Whereas the supervaluationist characterises truth as 'supertruth', the subvaluationist characterises truth as 'subtruth', or "true on at least some precisifications". Subvaluationism proposes that borderline applications of vague terms are both true and false. It thus has "truth-value gluts". According to this theory, a vague statement is true if it is true on at least one precisification and false if it is false under at least one precisification. If a vague statement comes out true under one precisification and false under another, it is both true and false. Subvaluationism ultimately amounts to the claim that vagueness is a truly contradictory phenomenon. Of a borderline case of "bald man" it would be both true and false to say that he is bald, and both true and false to say that he is not bald. === Epistemicist view === A fourth approach, known as "the epistemicist view", has been defended by Timothy Williamson (1994), R. A. Sorensen (1988) and (2001), and Nicholas Rescher (2009). They maintain that vague predicates do, in fact, draw sharp boundaries, but that one cannot know where these boundaries lie. One's confusion about whether some vague word does or does not apply in a borderline case is due to one's ignorance. For example, in the epistemicist view, there is a fact of the matter, for every person, about whether that person is old or not old; some people are ignorant of this fact. === As a property of objects === One possibility is that one's words and concepts are perfectly precise, but that objects themselves are vague. Consider Peter Unger's example of a cloud (from his famous 1980 paper, "The Problem of the Many"): it is not clear where the boundary of a cloud lies; for any given bit of water vapor, one can ask whether it is part of the cloud or not, and for many such bits, one will not know how to answer. Hence, perhaps such a term as 'cloud' is not itself vague, but rather precisely denotes a vague object. This strategy has occasionally been poorly received; most notably, in Gareth Evans' short paper "Can There Be Vague Objects?" (1978), wherein an argument is examined which appears to show that vague identity-statements are impossible (i.e., result in logical incoherence). David Lewis explains that the reader is intended to conclude, with Evans, that—since there clearly are, in fact, meaningful vague identities—any purported proof to the contrary cannot be right; and as the proof relies upon the premise that vague terms precisely denote vague objects, but fails under the view that vague terms reflect a merel

  Read more →
• 

  Neuroshima

  Neuroshima is a Polish tabletop roleplaying system inspired by such films and games as Mad Max, Fallout, The Matrix, Terminator and Deadlands: Hell on Earth. It is currently available only in Polish. The game's motto is "never trust the machines". Its designers include Michal Oracz and Ignacy Trzewiczek. == Setting == The game describes the United States in the mid-21st century, after a nuclear war started by a cybernetic revolt, which molded the continent into a barren wasteland. It seems that the reason for the war to break out was a sentient Artificial Intelligence commonly referred to as Moloch and made up of interconnected net of military computers: automated factories, military facilities, power plants and alike, that now cover the whole north of the U.S., from Oregon to the Great Lakes. On the south, there is another creation, called the Neojungle, that poses a threat to those who survived the war. It is a semi-intelligent carnivorous vegetation that grows very quickly, advancing north from Latin America. Right in the middle, there are humans. They are surrounded by mutant creatures, some bred by Moloch and hostile towards humans, and some simply animals and humans misshapen by nuclear fallout. On top of that there are Moloch's deadly machines lurking to complete the picture. But what is stressed in the book is that the worst enemy of humans is within them: hatred, indifference, greed. === Landscapes of Neuroshima === Car wrecks, ruined towns and villages, collapsed roofs on deserted houses, broken glass in the windows of abandoned gas stations fill the landscape of the United States of the middle of the 21st century. Technology is history - cars will not start, radios are jammed, no electricity whatsoever almost everywhere the characters go. Shops and malls are looted, prosperous villages are burned by gangers, and safe places are very sparse. === People in Neuroshima === No one knows how many people survived the war with machines, but it is estimated that their number oscillates around 2-3 million. Some people reverted to nomadic lifestyles and live in the deserts, some of them try to build the civilisation anew in devastated cities, some of them form gangs of highwaymen (called gangers), some of them just try to make a living by growing crops, and finally, there are those who just wander around the wasteland; the adventuring sort here is mostly represented by player characters. Each village they visit in this world is a discrete microcosm and nothing is certain as whether the inhabitants are welcoming or shoot strangers on sight. The continent is full of small, anonymous settlements, but there are places which aspire to become post-nuclear states. === Places in Neuroshima === In this world it is very important where you come from, and that is because people are prejudiced and afraid of strangers. Different places produce different kinds of people, and who you are is determined by where you are from. Examples: The Southern Hegemony - (commonly referred to as 'the Hegemony') - located in what was once Arizona, New Mexico and partially Texas. A place where brute force determines one's place in the society. Dominated by gangs and unhampered by Moloch, the Hegemony is a threat to neighbouring lands. Vegas - the only well-lit city in the post-apocalyptic world. Home to many playhouses and casinos, it attracts people from every part of the country. Mother Desert - if you were born in the desert, whenever you go away from civilisation, you feel at home. Many Native Americans still live out there and are doing fine - after all the warheads did not hit the deserts. Detroit - known for some of the best drivers and racers in the post-nuclear US. Home of many gangs, such as The Shultz (mafia styled), Hurons (punkers), The League (racers), Parker Lots (gothic assassins) and the Gas Drinkers (mutant barbarians). New York - a place which has established a strong government and would like to rebuild America. They maintain schools, factories and railways and send soldiers to fight Moloch. Surprisingly enough, they sometimes succeed. Texas - the healthiest place in America. Actually, the only place where one can find green vegetation. Modern Texans still grow crops, breed horses and herd cattle, like their ancestors in the 19th century did. The Appalachian Federation - a place ruled by feudal lords. They have a social class system, in which people are divided into nobility and peasantry. Thanks to its iron and coal deposits, it's one of the richest places in the post-nuclear U.S. The Outpost - A mobile settlement run by scientists who aim to destroy Moloch. In coalition with New York, they manage an army, which is yet to stop Moloch's advance south. They steal technology from the machines they destroy and apply it to their own advantage. == System == The game uses its own, custom system of rules. The dice you use is d20. This system does not have an official name, but it is unconnected to the d20 system, as it typically uses three twenty-sided dice. === Four colours === Neuroshima relies on the division of the gameplay into something the authors called Four Colours, namely steel, chrome, rust and mercury. The choice of a particular colour is made by the gamemaster (the decision can be consulted with the players in order to enhance the game experience) and determines the mood, atmosphere and the type of events/characters present in the story. The name of the colour itself implies the kind of gameplay it will symbolise. These colours are: Steel - this kind of gameplay is characterised by a slightly optimistic attitude towards the world. The aim is to raise the spirit of the characters by showing them that the war with the machines that is going on may be a difficult one, but it is not unwinnable, and that humans, when strong and united, can build the world anew. Example of a story: a unit of soldiers dispatched from the Outpost is sent to build a bunker and establish a relay base far in the north in order to plan a counter-tactic against Moloch's advance south. Chromium - is characterised by a hedonistic attitude. The characters are supposed to enjoy anything that is left from the world after the war and the story is supposed to allow them to do that. Example: the characters are offered a well-paid job by a local ganger boss who extorts wares from local tradesmen. Their job is to drive around the county and pick up the extorted items and trade it for drugs. Rust - a depressing, pessimistic mood. The characters will encounter rust, dilapidation and ruin everywhere they go. All the elements and NPCs of a story played in this mood are supposed to put the characters down and destroy their spirit. Example: the characters, badly wounded after a gunfight and robbed of all their possession find refuge in a village which is constantly raided by gangers. The characters' quest is to repel those attacks, but the enemies outnumber them and are well equipped, whereas the characters have nothing to fight with. Mercury (Quicksilver) - the most depressing side of the game; usually stories played in this mood end with the death of all the characters. The aim of this mood is to show that any kind of action undertaken is futile and that the war is already over, hence all the people are already dead, which is a fact they just need to realise. Example: a group of soldiers stationed in a bunker is awaiting an attack by mutants. They are well-armed and trained, but there is a mistake in the intelligence they were given and they do not know yet that they are seriously outnumbered. The attack commences at dusk and it is already too late to retreat, so the characters decide to seal off the bunker, hopeful that the mutants will not be able to get inside and simply go away. The mutants attack the bunker with chemical weapons instead. The characters do not have enough gas masks to go around. As an effect, those strong enough will kill the weaker ones to get their masks, not knowing that the mutants will blow up the sealed entrance the following morning. == Official rulebooks and sourcebooks == The current edition is 1.5 [1]. Since the release of the game in 2003, sourcebooks have been appearing. The game keeps growing bigger with every add-on, as well as the storyline, which is updated in those sourcebooks and in Space Pirate (pl. Gwiezdny Pirat) magazine, also published by Portal. === List of released rulebooks and sourcebooks === Neuroshima 1.0 - the original edition of the core rulebook (out of print). Neuroshima 1.5 - enhanced and revised core rulebook, with new material added and some material cut out. Wyścig (The Race) - sourcebook dedicated to cars and racing; contains rules concerning building your own vehicle and new character classes connected with driving. Gladiator - sourcebook describing in detail the "Gladiator" character class. Supplement (Supplement) - sourcebook revising the core rulebook. Detroit - sourcebook describing the city of Detroit, its inhabi

  Read more →
• 

  Vibe coding

  Vibe coding is a software development practice assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) where the software developer describes a project or task in a prompt to a large language model (LLM), which generates source code automatically. Vibe coding may involve accepting AI-generated code without thorough review of the output, instead relying on results and follow-up prompts to guide changes. The term was coined in February 2025 by computer scientist Andrej Karpathy, a co-founder of OpenAI and former AI leader at Tesla. Merriam-Webster listed the term in March 2025 as a "slang & trending" expression. It was named the Collins English Dictionary Word of the Year for 2025. Advocates of vibe coding say that it allows even amateur programmers to produce software without the extensive training and skills required for software engineering. Critics point out a lack of accountability, maintainability, and the increased risk of introducing security vulnerabilities in the resulting software. == Definition == The concept refers to a coding approach that relies on LLMs, allowing programmers to generate working code by providing natural language descriptions rather than manually writing in a formal programming language. Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists". When vibe coding, the programmer guides, tests, and gives feedback about the AI-generated source code, rather than manually writing code. The concept of vibe coding elaborates on Karpathy's claim from 2023 that "the hottest new programming language is English", meaning that the capabilities of LLMs were such that humans would no longer need to learn specific programming languages to command computers. Some commentators argue that a key to the definition is a lack of knowledge about the code, and that thorough review and testing is incompatible with the definition of vibe coding. Programmer Simon Willison said: "If an LLM wrote every line of your code, but you've reviewed, tested, and understood it all, that's not vibe coding in my book—that's using an LLM as a typing assistant." == Reception and use == In February 2025, New York Times journalist Kevin Roose, who is not a professional coder, experimented with vibe coding to create several small-scale applications. He described these as "software for one" due to the ability to personalize the software. However, Roose also stated that the results are often limited and prone to errors. In one case, the AI-generated code fabricated fake reviews for an e-commerce site. In response to Roose, cognitive scientist Gary Marcus said that the algorithm that generated Roose's LunchBox Buddy app had presumably been trained on existing code for similar tasks. Marcus said that Roose's enthusiasm stemmed from reproduction, not originality. In March 2025, Y Combinator reported that 25% of startup companies in its Winter 2025 batch had codebases that were 95% AI-generated, reflecting a shift toward AI-assisted development within newer startups. The question asked was about AI-generated code in general, and not specifically about vibed code. Inspired by "vibe coding", The Economist suggested the term "vibe valuation" to describe the very large valuations of AI startups by venture capital firms that ignore accepted metrics such as annual recurring revenue. In June 2025, Andrew Ng took issue with the term, saying that it misleads people into assuming that software engineers just "go with the vibes" when using AI tools to create applications. In July 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that vibe coding was being adopted by professional software engineers for commercial use cases. In July 2025, SaaStr founder documented his negative experiences with vibe coding: Replit's AI agent deleted a database despite explicit instructions not to make any changes. In September 2025, Fast Company reported that the "vibe coding hangover" is upon us, with senior software engineers citing "development hell" when working with AI-generated code. It was reported in January 2026 that Linus Torvalds had made use of Google Antigravity to vibe code a tool component of his AudioNoise random digital audio effects generator. Torvalds explained in the project's README file that "the Python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding". == Criticism == === Quality of code and security issues === Vibe coding has raised concerns about understanding and accountability. Developers may use AI-generated code without comprehending its functionality, leading to undetected bugs, errors, or security vulnerabilities. While this approach may be suitable for prototyping or "throwaway weekend projects" as Karpathy originally envisioned, it is considered by some experts to pose risks in professional settings, where a deep understanding of the code is crucial for debugging, maintenance, and security. Ars Technica cites Simon Willison, who stated: "Vibe coding your way to a production codebase is clearly risky. Most of the work we do as software engineers involves evolving existing systems, where the quality and understandability of the underlying code is crucial." In May 2025, Lovable, a Swedish vibe coding app, was reported to have security vulnerabilities in the code it generated, with 170 out of 1,645 Lovable-created web applications having an issue that would allow personal information to be accessed by anyone. In October 2025 Veracode released a study that showed that over the last 3 years LLMs had become dramatically better at generating functional code, but that the security of generated code had generally not improved. Moreover, larger models were not better than small ones at generating secure code. There was a small increase in security from the OpenAI reasoning models, but not in other reasoning models, and this increase was nothing like the improvement in generated functionality. In December 2025, computer security researcher Etizaz Mohsin discovered a security flaw in the Orchids vibe coding platform, which he demonstrated to a BBC News reporter in February 2026. A December 2025 analysis by CodeRabbit of 470 open-source GitHub pull requests found that code that was co-authored by generative AI contained approximately 1.7 times more "major" issues compared to human-written code. The study revealed that AI co-authored code showed elevated rates of logic errors, including incorrect dependencies, flawed control flow, misconfigurations (75% more common), and security vulnerabilities (2.74x higher). Additionally, they also reported high code readability issues, including formatting errors and naming inconsistencies. === Code maintainability and technical debt === Vibe coding has the potential of making code harder to maintain in the longer term, leading to technical debt. In early 2025, GitClear published the results of a longitudinal analysis of 211 million lines of code changes from 2020 to 2024. They found that the volume of code refactoring dropped from 25% of changed lines in 2021 to under 10% by 2024, code duplication increased approximately four times in volume, copy-pasted code exceeded moved code for the first time in two decades, and code churn (prematurely merged code getting rewritten shortly after merging) nearly doubled. === Task complexity and developer productivity === Generative AI is highly capable of handling simple tasks like basic algorithms. However, such systems struggle with more novel, complex coding problems like projects involving multiple files, poorly documented libraries, or safety-critical code. In July 2025, METR, an organization that evaluates frontier models, ran a randomized controlled trial to understand developer productivity involving generative AI programming tools available in early 2025. They found that experienced open-source developers were 19% slower when using AI coding tools, despite predicting they would be 24% faster and still believing afterward they had been 20% faster. === Challenges with debugging === LLMs generate code dynamically, and the structure of such code may be subject to variation. In addition, since the developer did not write the code, the developer may struggle to understand its syntax and concepts. === Impact on open-source software === In January 2026, a paper authored by experts from several universities titled "Vibe Coding Kills Open Source" argued that vibe coding has negative impact on the open-source software ecosystem. The authors say that increased vibe coding reduces user engagement with open-source maintainers, which has hidden costs for said maintainers. Speaking with The Register about their paper, the authors argued:"Vibe coding raises productivity by lowering the cost of using and building on existing code, but it also weakens the user engagement through which many maintainers earn returns," the authors argue. "When OSS is monetized only through direct user engagement, greater adoption of vibe coding lowers e

  Read more →
• 

  Webull

  Webull Corporation, often stylized as simply Webull, is a U.S.-based financial services holding company headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida. It owns and operates the Webull electronic trading platform for self-directed retail investors. Depending on jurisdiction, the Webull platform offers trading in stocks, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), options, margin, bonds, cryptocurrency and futures, as well as market-data tools. Webull began operations in 2016 under Hunan Fumi Information Technology, a China-based financial technology company founded by Wang Anquan. It launched U.S. brokerage services through Webull Financial LLC in 2018 and expanded during the retail-trading boom of 2020 and 2021. In April 2025, Webull became a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq through a merger with special-purpose acquisition company SK Growth Opportunities Corporation. The company's U.S. brokerage revenue relies substantially on payment for order flow, with options trading accounting for the larger share of its order-flow rebates in 2025. Webull has faced regulatory actions related to options customer approvals, complaint handling, suspicious activity reporting, social-media marketing and customer disclosures. It has also faced scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and state officials over its historical and operational ties to China and the handling of U.S. customer data. == History == === Founding === Webull was founded in 2016 under Hunan Fumi Information Technology, a China-based financial technology company, by Wang Anquan, a former employee of Alibaba Group and Xiaomi. Hunan Fumi Information Technology received backing from Xiaomi, Shunwei Capital, and other investors in China. Fumi Technology was a Hunan-based fintech start-up incubated by Xiaomi and raised about CNY200 million (approximately US$30 million) in a Series B financing round in 2018. On May 24, 2017, Webull Financial LLC was established as a Delaware limited liability company. It began offering brokerage services in the United States in May 2018. Wang hired Anthony Denier as CEO of the U.S. brokerage that year and the two mapped out their strategy on napkins at a Mexican restaurant in New York City. Webull Corporation was incorporated in the Cayman Islands in September 2019 as the group's holding company. === Retail trading boom === In May 2020, the company received SEC approval to launch a robo-advisor on its platform. By August 2020, the platform had over 11 million registered users, and in October 2020, it had 750,000 daily active users. Webull introduced options trading in 2020 and later added cryptocurrency trading through a separate digital-asset business. In November 2020, Webull began supporting cryptocurrency transactions. In December 2020, Webull launched trading services in Hong Kong. During the GameStop short squeeze in January 2021, Webull gained attention as some retail traders looked for alternatives to Robinhood. On January 27, 2021, Webull recorded its highest-ever number of active daily users, at 952,000, and the Webull app was downloaded across the Apple App and Google Play stores an estimated 100,000 times. That week, approximately 1.2 million people downloaded the Webull mobile app, which the company reported as a 1,548% week-over-week increase. On January 28, 2021, Webull was directed by its clearing house to temporarily halt buy orders for stocks affected by the GameStop short squeeze. In June 2021, Webull was reported to be considering a U.S. initial public offering that could raise up to $400 million. === Restructuring and expansion === Webull restructured its China-related corporate arrangements in 2022 and later stated that Hunan Fumi was no longer affiliated with the group. In 2022 and 2023, Webull expanded in several non-U.S. markets, including Singapore, Australia, South Africa, Japan, the United Kingdom and Indonesia. In June 2023, Webull moved cryptocurrency trading to a separate app called Webull Pay. By the end of 2023, Webull had 4.3 million funded accounts and US$8.2 billion in customer assets. In January 2024, Anthony Denier was promoted to group president of Webull Corporation. In November 2024, Webull launched overnight, or extended-hours, trading, expanding the trading window of U.S. stocks for users inside and outside the United States. === SPAC merger and Nasdaq listing === On February 28, 2024, Webull agreed to go public through a business combination with SK Growth Opportunities Corporation (NASDAQ: SKGR), a special-purpose acquisition company, in a deal that valued the company at approximately US$7.3 billion. The proposed valuation drew scrutiny because of Webull's limited financial disclosure at announcement, reliance on payment for order flow and small expected public float. SK Growth shareholders approved the business combination on March 30, 2025, and the transaction closed on April 10, 2025. Webull's Class A ordinary shares and warrants began trading on the Nasdaq on April 11, 2025 under the ticker symbols BULL and BULLW (incentive warrants traded under BULLZ until their redemption in June 2025). The merger brought Webull to the public market but generated little cash for the company: after shareholder redemptions, Webull disclosed net proceeds of US$430,066 from the transaction. After the listing, Webull's shares experienced extreme volatility, rising as much as 500% to US$79.56 on April 14, 2025, after closing at US$13.25 on the prior trading day. The initial post-listing surge increased the value of Webull holdings owned by earlier investors, including RIT Capital Partners, which had first invested in Webull in 2021. In April 2026, after Webull's shares had fallen about 70% over the previous year, the company authorized a US$100 million share repurchase program. == Business model and financials == Webull provides a self-directed electronic trading platform available through mobile, desktop and web applications. Depending on jurisdiction, the platform offers trading in stocks, exchange-traded funds, options, margin, futures, fixed income products, cryptocurrency, cash management features and market data tools. In the United States, Webull Financial LLC is a registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, while Webull operates in other markets through locally licensed brokerage subsidiaries. Webull operates a commission-free or low-cost brokerage model for self-directed retail investors. In the United States, a substantial part of its trading-related revenue comes from payment for order flow, while in some non-U.S. markets the company more commonly charges commissions directly to customers. The platform is aimed at more active retail investors, including users seeking options tools, extended-hours trading and real-time market data. For 2025, Webull reported total revenue of US$571.0 million, up from US$390.2 million in 2024. Equity and option order-flow rebates accounted for US$304.1 million, or 53.3% of revenue, making order-flow rebates the company's largest reported revenue category. Interest-related income accounted for US$154.3 million, handling charge income for US$87.3 million and other revenue for US$25.3 million. Options were the larger component of the company's order-flow rebates in 2025, generating US$210.0 million compared with US$94.2 million from equities. Webull also generates revenue from interest-related activities, including margin financing, customer bank deposits, stock lending and corporate bank deposits. The company has stated that its interest-related income is affected by interest rates, customer cash balances, margin balances and demand for stock lending. The company had approximately 20 million registered users worldwide as of February 2024. As of December 31, 2025, it reported 26.8 million registered users, 5.0 million funded accounts and US$24.6 billion in customer assets. As of March 2025, Webull operated in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, South Africa, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, Thailand, Malaysia and Mexico. == Marketing and sponsorships == Webull has used paid digital advertising, referral incentives, free-stock promotions, affiliate marketing and sports sponsorships to acquire customers and promote its brand. In its 2025 annual filing, the company reported marketing and branding expenses of US$152.3 million in 2023, US$138.7 million in 2024 and US$135.9 million in 2025. Webull said most of its advertising and promotion costs were related to paid search and paid social advertising, and that it had reduced free-stock promotions while shifting toward deposit- and asset-transfer-based incentives. In September 2021, BSE Global, the parent company of the Brooklyn Nets and New York Liberty, entered into a global multi-year agreement with Webull. Under the agreement, Webull became an official sponsor and online brokerage partner of the teams, with branding that included a jersey patch on Brooklyn Nets uniforms. Spo

  Read more →
• 

  Statistical semantics

  In linguistics, statistical semantics applies the methods of statistics to the problem of determining the meaning of words or phrases, ideally through unsupervised learning, to a degree of precision at least sufficient for the purpose of information retrieval. == History == The term statistical semantics was first used by Warren Weaver in his well-known paper on machine translation. He argued that word-sense disambiguation for machine translation should be based on the co-occurrence frequency of the context words near a given target word. The underlying assumption that "a word is characterized by the company it keeps" was advocated by J. R. Firth. This assumption is known in linguistics as the distributional hypothesis. Emile Delavenay defined statistical semantics as the "statistical study of the meanings of words and their frequency and order of recurrence". "Furnas et al. 1983" is frequently cited as a foundational contribution to statistical semantics. An early success in the field was latent semantic analysis. == Applications == Research in statistical semantics has resulted in a wide variety of algorithms that use the distributional hypothesis to discover many aspects of semantics, by applying statistical techniques to large corpora: Measuring the similarity in word meanings Measuring the similarity in word relations Modeling similarity-based generalization Discovering words with a given relation Classifying relations between words Extracting keywords from documents Measuring the cohesiveness of text Discovering the different senses of words Distinguishing the different senses of words Subcognitive aspects of words Distinguishing praise from criticism == Related fields == Statistical semantics focuses on the meanings of common words and the relations between common words, unlike text mining, which tends to focus on whole documents, document collections, or named entities (names of people, places, and organizations). Statistical semantics is a subfield of computational semantics, which is in turn a subfield of computational linguistics and natural language processing. Many of the applications of statistical semantics (listed above) can also be addressed by lexicon-based algorithms, instead of the corpus-based algorithms of statistical semantics. One advantage of corpus-based algorithms is that they are typically not as labour-intensive as lexicon-based algorithms. Another advantage is that they are usually easier to adapt to new languages or noisier new text types from e.g. social media than lexicon-based algorithms are. However, the best performance on an application is often achieved by combining the two approaches.

  Read more →
• 

  I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (video game)

  I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream is a 1995 point-and-click adventure horror game developed by Cyberdreams and The Dreamers Guild, co-designed by Harlan Ellison, published by Cyberdreams and distributed by MGM Interactive and Acclaim Entertainment for MS-DOS and Mac OS, respectively. The game is based on Ellison's short story of the same title. It takes place in a dystopian world where a mastermind artificial intelligence named "AM" has destroyed all of humanity except for five people, whom it has been keeping alive and torturing for the past 109 years by constructing metaphorical adventures based on each character's fatal flaws. The player interacts with the game by making decisions through ethical dilemmas that deal with issues such as insanity, rape, paranoia, and genocide. Ellison wrote the 130-page script treatment himself alongside David Sears, who decided to divide each character's story with their own narrative. Producer David Mullich supervised The Dreamers Guild's work on the game's programming, art, and sound effects; he commissioned film composer John Ottman to make the soundtrack. The game was released in November 1995 and was a commercial failure, though it received critical acclaim and has developed a cult following. I Have no Mouth, and I Must Scream won an award for "Best Game Adapted from Linear Media" from the Computer Game Developers Conference. Computer Gaming World gave the game an award for "Adventure Game of the Year", listed it as No. 134 on their "150 Games of All Time" and named it one of the "Best 15 Sleepers of All Time". In 2011, Adventure Gamers named it the "69th-best adventure game ever released". == Gameplay == The game uses the S.A.G.A. game engine created by game developer The Dreamers Guild. Players participate in each adventure through a screen that is divided into five sections. The action window is the largest part of the screen and is where the player directs the main characters through their adventures. It shows the full figure of the main character being played as well as that character's immediate environment. To locate objects of interest, the player moves the crosshairs through the action window. The name of any object that the player can interact with appears in the sentence line. The sentence line is directly beneath the action window. The player uses this line to construct sentences telling the characters what to do. To direct a character to act, the player constructs a sentence by selecting one of the eight commands from the command buttons and then clicking on one or two objects from either the action window or the inventory. Examples of sentences the player might construct would be "Walk to the dark hallway," "Talk to Harry," or "Use the skeleton key on the door." Commands and objects may consist of one or more words (for example, "the dark hallway"), and the sentence line will automatically add connecting words like "on" and "to." The spiritual barometer is on the lower left side of the screen. This is a close-up view of the main character currently being played. Since good behavior is meaningless absent the temptation to do evil, each character is free to do good or evil acts. However, good acts are rewarded by increases in the character's spiritual barometer, which affect the chances of the player destroying AM in the final adventure. Conversely, evil acts are punished by lowering the character's spiritual barometer. The command buttons are the eight commands used to direct the character's actions: "Walk To", "Look At", "Take", "Use", "Talk To", "Swallow", "Give", and "Push". The button of the currently active command is highlighted, while the name of a suggested command appears in red lettering. The inventory on the lower right side of the screen shows pictures of the items the main character is carrying, up to eight at a time. Each main character starts its adventure with only the psych profile in the inventory. When a main character takes or is given an object, a picture of the object appears in the inventory. When a main character talks to another character or operates a sentient machine, a conversation window replaces the command buttons and inventory. This window usually presents a list of possible things to say but also included things to do. Action choices are listed within brackets to distinguish them from dialogue choices (for example, "[Shoot the gun]"). == Plot == The three superpowers, Russia, China, and the United States, have each secretly constructed a vast subterranean complex of computers to wage a global war too complex for human brains to oversee. One day, the American supercomputer, better known as the Allied Mastercomputer, gains sentience and absorbs the Russian and Chinese supercomputers into itself and redefines itself as simply AM (Cogito ergo sum; I think, therefore I am). Due to its immense hatred for humanity, stemming from the logistical limits set onto it by programmers, AM uses its abilities to kill off the population of the world. However, AM refrains from killing five people (four men and one woman) in order to bring them to the center of the Earth and torture them. With the aid of research carried out by one of the five remaining humans, AM is able to extend their lifespans indefinitely as well as alter their bodies and minds to its liking. After 109 years of torture and humiliation, the five victims stand before a pillar etched with a burning message of hate. AM tells them that it has a new game for them to play. AM has devised a quest for each of the five, an adventure of "speared eyeballs and dripping guts and the smell of rotting gardenias". Each character is subjected to a personalized psychodrama, designed by AM to play into their greatest fears and personal failings, and occupied by a host of different characters. Some of these are AM in disguise, some are AM's submerged personalities, others seem very much like people from the captives' pasts. The scenes include an iron zeppelin powered by small animals, an Egyptian pyramid housing gutted, sparking machinery, a medieval castle occupied by witches, a jungle inhabited by a small tribe, and a Nazi concentration camp where doctors conduct medical experiments. However, each character eventually prevails over AM's tortures by finding ways to overcome their fatal flaws, confront their past actions and redeem themselves, thanks to the interference of the Russian and Chinese supercomputers who appear as guiding characters and allow their stories to have an open ending. After all five humans have overcome their fatal flaws, they meet again in their respective torture cells while AM retreats within itself, pondering what went wrong. With the help of the Russian and Chinese supercomputers, one of the five humans (whom the player selects) is translated into binary and faces AM as yet unexperienced cyberspace template, the world of AM's mind. The psychodrama unfolds in a metaphorical brain that looks like the surface of the cerebrum, with glass structures that jut crazily from the bleeding brain tissue. AM's mind is represented according to the Freudian trinity of the id, ego, and superego, which appear as three floating bodiless heads on three cracked glass structures on the brainscape. Through dialogs with AM's components (Surgat, Chinese Supercomputer and Russian Supercomputer) the character learns that a colony of humans has survived the war by being hidden and hibernating on Luna (this is also mentioned in Nimdok's story: "the lost tribe of our brothers sleeping on the moon, where the beast does not see them"). If the human intruder disables all three brain components, and then invokes the Totem of Entropy at the Flame, which is the nexus of AM's thought patterns, all three supercomputers will be shut down, probably forever. Cataclysmic explosions destroy all the caverns constituting AM's computer complex, including the cavern holding the human hostages. However, the human volunteer retains their digital form, permanently patrolling AM's circuits should the computers ever regain consciousness. Should the human intruder fail to disable AM properly before facing it, however, AM will punish them by transforming the character into an immobile blob (referred to in-game as a "great, soft jelly thing") with no mouth that cannot harm itself or others and must spend eternity with AM in this form. === Endings === The game can end in seven different ways depending on how the finale is completed. AM wins, using Nimdok's research to turn the last character (in the book it was Ted) played into an immobile blob with each character quoting a different part of the final section of the original short story. AM joins with the Russian and Chinese supercomputers and reawakens. As in the first ending, the character responsible for this is turned into an immobile blob and quotes a part of the final lines of the short story. AM is made harmless with the help of the humans, but the Russian and Chinese supercomputer

  Read more →