Visual temporal attention is a special case of visual attention that involves directing attention to specific instant of time. Similar to its spatial counterpart visual spatial attention, these attention modules have been widely implemented in video analytics in computer vision to provide enhanced performance and human interpretable explanation of deep learning models. As visual spatial attention mechanism allows human and/or computer vision systems to focus more on semantically more substantial regions in space, visual temporal attention modules enable machine learning algorithms to emphasize more on critical video frames in video analytics tasks, such as human action recognition. In convolutional neural network-based systems, the prioritization introduced by the attention mechanism is regularly implemented as a linear weighting layer with parameters determined by labeled training data. == Application in Action Recognition == Recent video segmentation algorithms often exploits both spatial and temporal attention mechanisms. Research in human action recognition has accelerated significantly since the introduction of powerful tools such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). However, effective methods for incorporation of temporal information into CNNs are still being actively explored. Motivated by the popular recurrent attention models in natural language processing, the Attention-aware Temporal Weighted CNN (ATW CNN) is proposed in videos, which embeds a visual attention model into a temporal weighted multi-stream CNN. This attention model is implemented as temporal weighting and it effectively boosts the recognition performance of video representations. Besides, each stream in the proposed ATW CNN framework is capable of end-to-end training, with both network parameters and temporal weights optimized by stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with back-propagation. Experimental results show that the ATW CNN attention mechanism contributes substantially to the performance gains with the more discriminative snippets by focusing on more relevant video segments. == Literature == Seibold VC, Balke J and Rolke B (2023): Temporal attention. Front. Cognit. 2:1168320. doi: 10.3389/fcogn.2023.1168320.
Microsoft Forms
Microsoft Forms (formerly Office 365 Forms) is an online survey creator, part of Microsoft 365. == Usage == Forms allows users to create surveys and quizzes with automatic marking. The data can be exported to Microsoft Excel, Power BI dashboards and viewed live using the Present feature. == Phishing and fraud == Due to a wave of phishing attacks utilizing Microsoft 365 in early 2021, Microsoft uses algorithms to automatically detect and block phishing attempts with Microsoft Forms. Also, Microsoft advises Forms users not to submit personal information, such as passwords, in a form or survey. It also place a similar advisory underneath the “Submit” button in every form created with Forms, warning users not to give out their password.
Mean opinion score
Mean opinion score (MOS) is a measure used in the domain of Quality of Experience and telecommunications engineering, representing overall quality of a stimulus or system. It is the arithmetic mean over all individual "values on a predefined scale that a subject assigns to his opinion of the performance of a system quality". Such ratings are usually gathered in a subjective quality evaluation test, but they can also be algorithmically estimated. MOS is a commonly used measure for video, audio, and audiovisual quality evaluation, but not restricted to those modalities. ITU-T has defined several ways of referring to a MOS in Recommendation ITU-T P.800.1, depending on whether the score was obtained from audiovisual, conversational, listening, talking, or video quality tests. == Rating scales and mathematical definition == The MOS is expressed as a single rational number, typically in the range 1–5, where 1 is lowest perceived quality, and 5 is the highest perceived quality. Other MOS ranges are also possible, depending on the rating scale that has been used in the underlying test. The Absolute Category Rating scale is very commonly used, which maps ratings between Bad and Excellent to numbers between 1 and 5, as seen in below table. Other standardized quality rating scales exist in ITU-T Recommendations (such as ITU-T P.800 or ITU-T P.910). For example, one could use a continuous scale ranging between 1–100. Which scale is used depends on the purpose of the test. In certain contexts there are no statistically significant differences between ratings for the same stimuli when they are obtained using different scales. The MOS is calculated as the arithmetic mean over single ratings performed by human subjects for a given stimulus in a subjective quality evaluation test. Thus: M O S = ∑ n = 1 N R n N {\displaystyle MOS={\frac {\sum _{n=1}^{N}{R_{n}}}{N}}} Where R {\displaystyle R} are the individual ratings for a given stimulus by N {\displaystyle N} subjects. == Properties of the MOS == The MOS is subject to certain mathematical properties and biases. In general, there is an ongoing debate on the usefulness of the MOS to quantify Quality of Experience in a single scalar value. When the MOS is acquired using a categorical rating scales, it is based on – similar to Likert scales – an ordinal scale. In this case, the ranking of the scale items is known, but their interval is not. Therefore, it is mathematically incorrect to calculate a mean over individual ratings in order to obtain the central tendency; the median should be used instead. However, in practice and in the definition of MOS, it is considered acceptable to calculate the arithmetic mean. It has been shown that for categorical rating scales (such as ACR), the individual items are not perceived equidistant by subjects. For example, there may be a larger "gap" between Good and Fair than there is between Good and Excellent. The perceived distance may also depend on the language into which the scale is translated. However, there exist studies that could not prove a significant impact of scale translation on the obtained results. Several other biases are present in the way MOS ratings are typically acquired. In addition to the above-mentioned issues with scales that are perceived non-linearly, there is a so-called "range-equalization bias": subjects, over the course of a subjective experiment, tend to give scores that span the entire rating scale. This makes it impossible to compare two different subjective tests if the range of presented quality differs. In other words, the MOS is never an absolute measure of quality, but only relative to the test in which it has been acquired. For the above reasons – and due to several other contextual factors influencing the perceived quality in a subjective test – a MOS value should only be reported if the context in which the values have been collected in is known and reported as well. MOS values gathered from different contexts and test designs therefore should not be directly compared. Recommendation ITU-T P.800.2 prescribes how MOS values should be reported. Specifically, P.800.2 says:it is not meaningful to directly compare MOS values produced from separate experiments, unless those experiments were explicitly designed to be compared, and even then the data should be statistically analysed to ensure that such a comparison is valid. == MOS for speech and audio quality estimation == MOS historically originates from subjective measurements where listeners would sit in a "quiet room" and score a telephone call quality as they perceived it. This kind of test methodology had been in use in the telephony industry for decades and was standardized in Recommendation ITU-T P.800. It specifies that "the talker should be seated in a quiet room with volume between 30 and 120 m³ and a reverberation time less than 500 ms (preferably in the range 200–300 ms). The room noise level must be below 30 dBA with no dominant peaks in the spectrum." Requirements for other modalities were similarly specified in later ITU-T Recommendations. == MOS estimation using quality models == Obtaining MOS ratings may be time-consuming and expensive as it requires the recruitment of human assessors. For various use cases such as codec development or service quality monitoring purposes – where quality should be estimated repeatedly and automatically – MOS scores can also be predicted by objective quality models, which typically have been developed and trained using human MOS ratings. A question that arises from using such models is whether the MOS differences produced are noticeable to the users. For example, when rating images on a five point MOS scale, an image with a MOS equal to 5 is expected to be noticeably better in quality than one with a MOS equal to 1. Contrary to that, it is not evident whether an image with a MOS equal to 3.8 is noticeably better in quality than one with a MOS equal to 3.6. Research conducted on determining the smallest MOS difference that is perceptible to users for digital photographs showed that a MOS difference of approximately 0.46 is required in order for 75% of the users to be able to detect the higher quality image. Nevertheless, image quality expectation, and hence MOS, changes over time with the change of user expectations. As a result, minimum noticeable MOS differences determined using analytical methods such as in may change over time.
Hashtag
A hashtag is a metadata tag operator that is prefaced by the hash symbol, #. On social media, hashtags are used on microblogging and photo-sharing services–especially Twitter and Tumblr–as a form of user-generated tagging that enables cross-referencing of content by topic or theme. For example, a search within Instagram for the hashtag #flowers returns all posts that have been tagged with that term. After the initial hash symbol, a hashtag may include letters, numerals or other punctuation. The use of hashtags was first proposed by American blogger and product consultant Chris Messina in a 2007 tweet. Messina made no attempt to patent the use because he felt that "they were born of the internet, and owned by no one". Hashtags became entrenched in the culture of Twitter and soon emerged across Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. In June 2014, hashtag was added to the Oxford English Dictionary as "a word or phrase with the symbol # in front of it, used on social media websites and apps so that you can search for all messages with the same subject". == Origin and acceptance == The number sign or hash symbol, #, has long been used in information technology to highlight specific pieces of text. In 1970, the number sign was used to denote immediate address mode in the assembly language of the PDP-11 when placed next to a symbol or a number, and around 1973, '#' was introduced in the C programming language to indicate special keywords that the C preprocessor had to process first. The pound sign was adopted for use within IRC (Internet Relay Chat) networks around 1988 to label groups and topics. Channels or topics that are available across an entire IRC network are prefixed with a hash symbol # (as opposed to those local to a server, which uses an ampersand '&'). The use of the pound sign in IRC inspired Chris Messina to propose a similar system on Twitter to tag topics of interest on the microblogging network. He proposed the usage of hashtags on Twitter: How do you feel about using # (pound) for groups. As in #barcamp [msg]? According to Messina, he suggested use of the hashtag to make it easy for lay users without specialized knowledge of search protocols to find specific relevant content. Therefore, the hashtag "was created organically by Twitter users as a way to categorize messages". The first published use of the term "hash tag" was in a blog post "Hash Tags = Twitter Groupings" by Stowe Boyd, on August 26, 2007, according to lexicographer Ben Zimmer, chair of the American Dialect Society's New Words Committee. Messina's suggestion to use the hashtag was not immediately adopted by Twitter, but the convention gained popular acceptance when hashtags were used in tweets relating to the 2007 San Diego forest fires in Southern California. The hashtag gained international acceptance during the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests; Twitter users used both English- and Persian-language hashtags in communications during the events. Hashtags have since played critical roles in recent social movements such as #jesuischarlie, #BLM, and #MeToo. Beginning July 2, 2009, Twitter began to hyperlink all hashtags in tweets to Twitter search results for the hashtagged word (and for the standard spelling of commonly misspelled words). In 2010, Twitter introduced "Trending Topics" on the Twitter front page, displaying hashtags that are rapidly becoming popular, and the significance of trending hashtags has become so great that the company makes significant efforts to foil attempts to spam the trending list. During the 2010 World Cup, Twitter explicitly encouraged the use of hashtags with the temporary deployment of "hashflags", which replaced hashtags of three-letter country codes with their respective national flags. Other platforms such as YouTube and Gawker Media followed in officially supporting hashtags, and real-time search aggregators such as Google Real-Time Search began supporting hashtags. == Format == A hashtag must begin with a hash (#) character followed by other characters, and is terminated by a space or the end of the line. Some platforms may require the # to be preceded with a space. Most or all platforms that support hashtags permit the inclusion of letters (without diacritics), numerals, and underscores. Other characters may be supported on a platform-by-platform basis. Some characters, such as "&", are generally not supported as they may already serve other search functions. Hashtags are not case sensitive (a search for "#hashtag" will match "#HashTag" as well), but the use of embedded capitals (i.e., CamelCase) increases legibility and improves accessibility. Languages that do not use word dividers handle hashtags differently. In China, microblogs Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo use a double-hashtag-delimited #HashName# format, since the lack of spacing between Chinese characters necessitates a closing tag. Twitter uses a different syntax for Chinese characters and orthographies with similar spacing conventions: the hashtag contains unspaced characters, separated from preceding and following text by spaces (e.g., '我 #爱 你' instead of '我#爱你') or by zero-width non-joiner characters before and after the hashtagged element, to retain a linguistically natural appearance (displaying as unspaced '我#爱你', but with invisible non-joiners delimiting the hashtag). === Etiquette and regulation === Some communities may limit, officially or unofficially, the number of hashtags permitted on a single post. Misuse of hashtags can lead to account suspensions. Twitter warns that adding hashtags to unrelated tweets, or repeated use of the same hashtag without adding to a conversation can filter an account from search results, or suspend the account. Individual platforms may deactivate certain hashtags either for being too generic to be useful, such as #photography on Instagram, or due to their use to facilitate illegal activities. === Alternate formats === In 2009, StockTwits began using ticker symbols preceded by the dollar sign (e.g., $XRX). In July 2012, Twitter began supporting the tag convention and dubbed it the "cashtag". The convention has extended to national currencies, and Cash App has implemented the cashtag to mark usernames. == Function == Hashtags are particularly useful in unmoderated forums that lack a formal ontological organization. Hashtags help users find content similar interest. Hashtags are neither registered nor controlled by any one user or group of users. They do not contain any set definitions, meaning that a single hashtag can be used for any number of purposes, and that the accepted meaning of a hashtag can change with time. Hashtags intended for discussion of a particular event tend to use an obscure wording to avoid being caught up with generic conversations on similar subjects, such as a cake festival using #cakefestival rather than simply #cake. However, this can also make it difficult for topics to become "trending topics" because people often use different spelling or words to refer to the same topic. For topics to trend, there must be a consensus, whether silent or stated, that the hashtag refers to that specific topic. Hashtags may be used informally to express context around a given message, with no intent to categorize the message for later searching, sharing, or other reasons. Hashtags may thus serve as a reflexive meta-commentary. This can help express contextual cues or offer more depth to the information or message that appears with the hashtag. "My arms are getting darker by the minute. #toomuchfaketan". AnoHashtags can also be used to express personal feelings and emotions. ther function of the hashtag can be used to express personal feelings and emotions. For example, with "It's Monday!! #excited #sarcasm" in which the adjectives are directly indicating the emotions of the speaker. Verbal use of the word hashtag is sometimes used in informal conversations. Use may be humorous, such as "I'm hashtag confused!" By August 2012, use of a hand gesture, sometimes called the "finger hashtag", in which the index and middle finger both hands are extended and arranged perpendicularly to form the hash, was documented. === Co-optation by other industries === Companies, businesses, and advocacy organizations have taken advantage of hashtag-based discussions for promotion of their products, services or campaigns. In the early 2010s, some television broadcasters began to employ hashtags related to programs in digital on-screen graphics, to encourage viewers to participate in a backchannel of discussion via social media prior to, during, or after the program. Television commercials have sometimes contained hashtags for similar purposes. The increased usage of hashtags as brand promotion devices has been compared to the promotion of branded "keywords" by AOL in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as such keywords were also promoted at the end of television commercials and series episodes. Organized real-world events have used hashta
SPACEMAP
SPACEMAP (Korean: 스페이스맵) is a South Korean satellite orbit optimization and satellite communications company headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. The company was founded in 2021 by CEO, Douglas Deok-Soo Kim, as an offshoot of Hanyang University. It was funded by the Leader Research grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea with the goal of capitalizing on the growing space industry. == History == Kim initially began research into Voronoi diagrams at the University of Michigan. He met with Dr. Misoon Ma, former director of the Asia Division of the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) and was recruited to work with the U.S. Air force, using Voronoi diagrams for a satellite collision prevention program. After his work with the U.S. Air Force, Kim founded SPACEMAP Inc in September 2021. In 2023, the company was selected by Korea's Tech Incubator Program for Startups (TIPS) to be funded up to 17 billion KRW (approx. US$13 million) in 3 years. == Technology == The services provided by SPACEMAP are based on using dynamic Voronoi diagrams to predict satellite orbits with the aim of enhancing space mission safety and efficiency. For complex problems involving many moving points, Voronoi diagrams maintain a near-constant computation time regardless of the number of points involved. By utilizing Voronoi diagrams and artificial intelligence, the software can easily determine the number of neighboring satellites surrounding a specific satellite and calculate the distances between them, thereby predicting the probability of a collision. SPACEMAP claims their method to be superior in computational time and memory efficiency, compared to the previously established three-filter method. == Products == SPACEMAP offers satellite products and services including the following: AstroOne, a conjunction assessment, and optimal collision avoidance service for all space vehicles in both orbital and non-orbital motions. AstroOrca, providing data transmission for satellites in multiple orbits, launch optimization, shuttle logistics for space gas stations, and Active Debris Removal (ADR) itinerary. AstroLibrary, a library of RESTful APIs to access the C++ implementation of SPACEMAP's Voronoi diagram algorithms wrapped in a Python interface. It also provides real-time tracking of the North Korean reconnaissance satellite, Malligyong-1.
SmarterChild
SmarterChild was a chatbot available on AOL Instant Messenger and Windows Live Messenger (previously MSN Messenger) networks. == History == SmarterChild was an apparently intelligent agent or "bot" developed by ActiveBuddy, Inc., with offices in New York and Sunnyvale. It was widely distributed across global instant messaging networks. SmarterChild became very popular, attracting over 30 million Instant Messenger "buddies" on AIM (AOL), MSN and Yahoo Messenger over the course of its lifetime. Founded in 2000, ActiveBuddy was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer and Timothy Kay, who later brought seasoned advertising executive Peter Levitan on board as CEO. The concept for conversational instant messaging bots came from the founder's vision to add natural language comprehension functionality to the increasingly popular AIM instant messaging application. The original implementation took shape as a demo that Kay programmed in Perl in his Los Altos garage to connect a single buddy name, "ActiveBuddy", to look up stock symbols, and later allow AIM users to play Colossal Cave Adventure, a word-based adventure game, and MIT's Boris Katz Start Question Answering System but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications the company called 'knowledge domains' including instant access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, yellow pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (personal assistant, calculators, translator, etc.). None of the individual domains which the company had named “stocksBuddy”, “sportsBuddy”, etc. ever launched publicly. When Stephen Klein came on board as COO — and eventually CEO — he insisted that all of the disparate test “buddies” be launched together with the company’s highly-developed colloquial chat domain. He suggested using “SmarterChild”, a username coined by Tim Kay which Tim was using to test various things. The bundled domains were launched publicly as SmarterChild (on AIM initially) in June 2001. SmarterChild provided information wrapped in fun and quirky conversation. The company generated no revenue from SmarterChild, but used it as a demonstration of the power of what Klein called “conversational computing”. The company subsequently marketed Automated Service Agents—delivering immediate answers to customer service inquiries—-to large corporations, like Comcast, Cingular, TimeWarner Cable, etc. SmarterChild's popularity spawned targeted marketing-oriented bots for Radiohead, Austin Powers, Intel, Keebler, The Sporting News and others. ActiveBuddy co-founders, Kay and Hoffer, as co-inventors, were issued two controversial U.S. patents in 2002. ActiveBuddy changed its name to Colloquis (briefly Conversagent) and targeted development of consumer-facing enterprise customer service agents, which the company marketed as Automated Service Agents. Microsoft acquired Colloquis in October 2006 and proceeded to de-commission SmarterChild and kill off the Automated Service Agent business as well. Robert Hoffer, ActiveBuddy co-founder, licensed the technology from Microsoft after Microsoft abandoned the Colloquis technology.
HTTP cookie
An HTTP cookie (also called web cookie, Internet cookie, browser cookie, or simply cookie) is a small block of data created by a web server while a user is browsing a website and placed on the user's computer or other device by the user's web browser. Cookies are placed on the device used to access a website, and more than one cookie may be placed on a user's device during a session. Cookies serve useful and sometimes essential functions on the web. They enable web servers to store stateful information (such as items added in the shopping cart in an online store) on the user's device or to track the user's browsing activity (including clicking particular buttons, logging in, or recording which pages were visited in the past). They can also be used to save information that the user previously entered into form fields, such as names, addresses, passwords, and payment card numbers for subsequent use. Authentication cookies are commonly used by web servers to authenticate that a user is logged in, and with which account they are logged in. Without the cookie, users would need to authenticate themselves by logging in on each page containing sensitive information that they wish to access. The security of an authentication cookie generally depends on the security of the issuing website and the user's web browser, and on whether the cookie data is encrypted. Security vulnerabilities may allow a cookie's data to be read by an attacker, used to gain access to user data, or used to gain access (with the user's credentials) to the website to which the cookie belongs (see cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery for examples). Tracking cookies, and especially third-party tracking cookies, are commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories — a potential privacy concern that prompted European and U.S. lawmakers to take action in 2011. European law requires that all websites targeting European Union member states gain "informed consent" from users before storing non-essential cookies on their device. == Background == === Origin of the name === The term cookie was coined by web-browser programmer Lou Montulli. It was derived from the term magic cookie, which is a packet of data a program receives and sends back unchanged, used by Unix programmers. === History === Magic cookies were already used in computing when computer programmer Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in web communications in June 1994. At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for MCI. Vint Cerf and John Klensin represented MCI in technical discussions with Netscape Communications. MCI did not want its servers to have to retain partial transaction states, which led them to ask Netscape to find a way to store that state in each user's computer instead. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart. Together with John Giannandrea, Montulli wrote the initial Netscape cookie specification the same year. Version 0.9beta of Mosaic Netscape, released on 13 October 1994, supported cookies. The first use of cookies (out of the labs) was checking whether visitors to the Netscape website had already visited the site. Montulli applied for a patent for the cookie technology in 1995, which was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was integrated with Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995. The introduction of cookies was not widely known to the public at the time. In particular, cookies were accepted by default, and users were not notified of their presence. The public learned about cookies after the Financial Times published an article about them on 12 February 1996. In the same year, cookies received a lot of media attention, especially because of potential privacy implications. Cookies were discussed in two U.S. Federal Trade Commission hearings in 1996 and 1997. The development of the formal cookie specifications was already ongoing. In particular, the first discussions about a formal specification started in April 1995 on the www-talk mailing list. A special working group within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed. Two alternative proposals for introducing state in HTTP transactions had been proposed by Brian Behlendorf and David Kristol respectively. But the group, headed by Kristol himself and Lou Montulli, soon decided to use the Netscape specification as a starting point. In February 1996, the working group identified third-party cookies as a considerable privacy threat. The specification produced by the group was eventually published as RFC 2109 in February 1997. It specifies that third-party cookies were either not allowed at all, or at least not enabled by default. At this time, advertising companies were already using third-party cookies. The recommendation about third-party cookies of RFC 2109 was not followed by Netscape and Internet Explorer. RFC 2109 was superseded by RFC 2965 in October 2000. RFC 2965 added a Set-Cookie2 header field, which informally came to be called "RFC 2965-style cookies" as opposed to the original Set-Cookie header field which was called "Netscape-style cookies". Set-Cookie2 was seldom used, however, and was deprecated in RFC 6265 in April 2011 which was written as a definitive specification for cookies as used in the real world. No modern browser recognizes the Set-Cookie2 header field. == Terminology == === Session cookie === A session cookie (also known as an in-memory cookie, transient cookie or non-persistent cookie) exists only in temporary memory while the user navigates a website. Session cookies expire or are deleted when the user closes the web browser. Session cookies are identified by the browser by the absence of an expiration date assigned to them. === Persistent cookie === A persistent cookie expires at a specific date or after a specific length of time. For the persistent cookie's lifespan set by its creator, its information will be transmitted to the server every time the user visits the website that it belongs to, or every time the user views a resource belonging to that website from another website (such as an advertisement). For this reason, persistent cookies are sometimes referred to as tracking cookies because they can be used by advertisers to record information about a user's web browsing habits over an extended period of time. Persistent cookies are also used for reasons such as keeping users logged into their accounts on websites, to avoid re-entering login credentials at every visit. (See § Uses, below.) === Secure cookie === A secure cookie can only be transmitted over an encrypted connection (i.e. HTTPS). They cannot be transmitted over unencrypted connections (i.e. HTTP). This makes the cookie less likely to be exposed to cookie theft via eavesdropping. A cookie is made secure by adding the Secure flag to the cookie. === Http-only cookie === An http-only cookie cannot be accessed by client-side APIs, such as JavaScript. This restriction eliminates the threat of cookie theft via cross-site scripting (XSS). However, the cookie remains vulnerable to cross-site tracing (XST) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. A cookie is given this characteristic by adding the HttpOnly flag to the cookie. === Same-site cookie === In 2016 Google Chrome version 51 introduced a new kind of cookie with attribute SameSite with possible values of Strict, Lax or None. With attribute SameSite=Strict, the browsers would only send cookies to a target domain that is the same as the origin domain. This would effectively mitigate cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. With SameSite=Lax, browsers would send cookies with requests to a target domain even it is different from the origin domain, but only for safe requests such as GET (POST is unsafe) and not third-party cookies (inside iframe). Attribute SameSite=None would allow third-party (cross-site) cookies, however, most browsers require secure attribute on SameSite=None cookies. The Same-site cookie is incorporated into a new RFC draft for "Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism" to update RFC 6265 (if approved). Chrome, Firefox, and Edge started to support Same-site cookies. The key of rollout is the treatment of existing cookies without the SameSite attribute defined, Chrome has been treating those existing cookies as if SameSite=None, this would let all website/applications run as before. Google intended to change that default to SameSite=Lax in Chrome 80 planned to be released in February 2020, but due to potential for breakage of those applications/websites that rely on third-party/cross-site cookies and COVID-19 circumstances, Google postponed this change to Chrome 84. === Supercookie === A supercookie is a cookie with an origin of a top-level domain (such as .com) or a public suffix (such as .co.uk). Ordinary cookies, by contrast, have an origin of a specific domain name, such as ex