Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.
Argumentation framework
In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Server-sent events
Server-Sent Events (SSE) is a server push technology enabling a client to receive automatic updates from a server via an HTTP connection, and describes how servers can initiate data transmission towards clients once an initial client connection has been established. They are commonly used to send message updates or continuous data streams to a browser client and designed to enhance native, cross-browser streaming through a JavaScript API called EventSource, through which a client requests a particular URL in order to receive an event stream. The EventSource API is standardized as part of HTML Living Standard by the WHATWG. The media type for SSE is text/event-stream. All modern browsers support server-sent events: Firefox 6+, Google Chrome 6+, Opera 11.5+, Safari 5+, Microsoft Edge 79+, Brave. Since SSE does not use either persistent connections nor chunked transfer encoding, HTTP/1.1 is not a technical requirement. == History == The SSE mechanism was first specified by Ian Hickson as part of the "WHATWG Web Applications 1.0" proposal starting in 2004. In September 2006, the Opera web browser implemented the experimental technology in a feature called "Server-Sent Events". The W3C published Server-Sent Events as a Recommendation on February 3, 2015, after years of development through Working Drafts and Candidate Recommendations. == Example == == Technology == When sending high-frequency data , the server must manage backpressure to prevent saturating clients. This is mitigated in the following ways: Client-side buffering: Browsers have limited buffer space for incoming server-sent events Adaptive rate limiting: Servers can adjust event frequency and monitor connection health Event batching: Combining multiple events into larger and less frequent transmissions
Radio code
A radio code is any code that is commonly used over a telecommunication system such as Morse code, brevity codes and procedure words. == Brevity code == Brevity codes are designed to convey complex information with a few words or codes. Specific brevity codes include: ACP-131 Aeronautical Code signals ARRL Numbered Radiogram Multiservice tactical brevity code Ten-code Phillips Code NOTAM Code === Operating signals === Brevity codes that are specifically designed for use between communications operators and to support communication operations are referred to as "operating signals". These include: Prosigns for Morse code 92 Code, Western Union telegraph brevity codes Q code, initially developed for commercial radiotelegraph communication, later adopted by other radio services, especially amateur radio. Used since circa 1909. QN Signals, published by the ARRL and used by Amateur radio operators to assist in the transmission of ARRL Radiograms in the National Traffic System. R and S brevity codes, published by the British Post Office in 1908 for coastal wireless stations and ships, superseded in 1912 by Q codes X code, used by European military services as a wireless telegraphy code in the 1930s and 1940s Z code, also used in the early days of radiotelegraph communication. == Other == Morse code is commonly used in amateur radio. Morse code abbreviations are a type of brevity code. Procedure words used in radiotelephony procedure, are a type of radio code. Spelling alphabets, including the ICAO spelling alphabet, are commonly used in communication over radios and telephones. == Other meanings == Many car audio systems (car radios) have a so-called 'radio code' number which needs to be entered after a power disconnection. This was introduced as a measure to deter theft of these devices. If the code is entered correctly, the radio is activated for use. Entering the code incorrectly several times in a row will cause a temporary or permanent lockout. Some car radios have another check which operates in conjunction with car electronics. If the VIN or another vehicle ID matches the previously stored one, the radio is activated. If the radio cannot verify the vehicle, it is considered to be moved into another vehicle. The radio will then request for the code number or simply refuse to operate and display an error message such as "CANCHECK" or "SECURE".
Contact cleaner
Contact cleaner, also known as switch-cleaner, is any of various chemicals, or mixtures of chemicals, intended to remove or prevent the build-up of oxides or other unwanted substances on the conductive surfaces of connectors, switches, and other electronic components with moving surface-contacts, and thus reduce the contact resistance encountered. The use of contact cleaner can help to minimize the wetting current across a pair of contacts. An example of a simple contact cleaner is isopropyl alcohol Some contact cleaners are designed to evaporate completely and rapidly, leaving no residue. Others may contain lubricants. Lubricants themselves should not necessarily be used as contact cleaners, especially if they are designed to leave an unsuitable residue. However, appropriate lubricants may work well as contact cleaners.
The Triple Revolution
"The Triple Revolution" was an open memorandum sent to U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson and other government figures on March 22, 1964. It concerned three megatrends of the time: increasing use of automation, the nuclear arms race, and advancements in human rights. Drafted under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, it was signed by an array of noted social activists, professors, and technologists who identified themselves as the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution. The chief initiator of the proposal was W. H. "Ping" Ferry, at that time a vice-president of CSDI, basing it in large part on the ideas of the futurist Robert Theobald. == Overview == The statement identified three revolutions underway in the world: the cybernation revolution of increasing automation; the weaponry revolution of mutually assured destruction; and the human rights revolution. It discussed primarily the cybernation revolution. The committee claimed that machines would usher in "a system of almost unlimited productive capacity" while continually reducing the number of manual laborers needed, and increasing the skill needed to work, thereby producing increasing levels of unemployment. It proposed that the government should ease this transformation through large-scale public works, low-cost housing, public transit, electrical power development, income redistribution, union representation for the unemployed, and government restraint on technology deployment. == Legacy == Martin Luther King Jr.'s final Sunday sermon, delivered six days before his April 1968 assassination, explicitly references the thesis of "The Triple Revolution": There can be no gainsaying of the fact that a great revolution is taking place in the world today. In a sense it is a triple revolution: that is, a technological revolution, with the impact of automation and cybernation; then there is a revolution in weaponry, with the emergence of atomic and nuclear weapons of warfare; then there is a human rights revolution, with the freedom explosion that is taking place all over the world. Yes, we do live in a period where changes are taking place. And there is still the voice crying through the vista of time saying, "Behold, I make all things new; former things are passed away." In Harlan Ellison's 1967 anthology Dangerous Visions, Philip José Farmer's story "Riders of the Purple Wage" uses the Triple Revolution document as the premise of a future society, in which the "purple wage" of the title is a guaranteed income dole on which most of the population lives. At the 1968 World Science Fiction Convention in San Francisco, Farmer delivered a lengthy Guest of Honor speech in which he called for the founding of a grassroots activist organization called REAP which would work for implementation of the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations. Looking back on the proposal in his 2008 book, Daniel Bell wrote: "the cybernetic revolution quickly proved to be illusory. There were no spectacular jumps in productivity. ... Cybernation had proved to be one more instance of the penchant for overdramatizing a momentary innovation and blowing it up far out of proportion to its actuality. ... The image of a completely automated production economy—with an endless capacity to turn out goods—was simply a social-science fiction of the early 1960s. Paradoxically, the vision of Utopia was suddenly replaced by the spectre of Doomsday. In place of the early-sixties theme of endless plenty, the picture by the end of the decade was one of a fragile planet of limited resources whose finite stocks were being rapidly depleted, and whose wastes from soaring industrial production were polluting the air and waters." In his 2015 book Rise of the Robots, Martin Ford claims The Triple Revolution's predictions of steady decline in future employment were not wrong, but rather premature. He cites "Seven Deadly Trends" that began in the 1970s-1980s and by the mid-2010s appeared set to continue: Stagnation in real wages Decline in labor's share of national income in many countries (breakdown of Bowley's law), while corporate profits increased Declining labor force participation Diminishing job creation, lengthening jobless recoveries, and soaring long-term unemployment Rising inequality Declining incomes, and underemployment for recent college graduates Polarization and part-time jobs (middle-class jobs are disappearing, to be replaced by a small number of high-paying jobs and large number of low-paying jobs) According to Ford, the 1960s were part of what in retrospect seems like a golden age for labor in the United States, when productivity and wages rose together in near lockstep, and unemployment was low. But after about 1980, wages began stagnating while productivity continued to rise. Labor's share of the economic output began to decline. Ford describes the role that automation and information technology play in these trends, and how new technologies including narrow AI threaten to destroy jobs faster than displaced workers can be retrained for new jobs, before automation takes the new jobs as well. This includes many job categories, such as in transportation, that were never threatened by automation before. According to a 2013 study, about 47% of US jobs are susceptible to automation. == Signatories ==
Creepy treehouse
Creepy treehouse is a social media term, or internet slang, referring to websites or technologies that are used for educational purposes but regarded by students as an invasion of privacy. == History == The term was first described in 2008 by Utah Valley University instructional-design services director Jared Stein as "institutionally controlled technology/tool that emulates or mimics pre-existing [sic] technologies or tools that may already be in use by the learners, or by learners' peer groups." This was when social media such as Facebook was starting to become mainstream and professors would try and get students to interact with them on the site for educational purposes. Some professors would require their students to use Facebook or Twitter as part of class assignments. == Usage == The term was first described as "technological innovations by faculty members that make students’ skin crawl." The term also refers to online accounts and websites that users tend to avoid, especially young people who avoid visiting the pages of educators and other adults. Author Martin Weller defines creepy treehouse as a digital space where authority figures are viewed as invading younger people's privacy. One such example is a professor giving his students an option to use a popular video game to learn about history instead of writing an essay. Students in that class chose to write the essay instead as the method was previously unmentioned and it was not an unnatural method of interaction. Another example given was Blackboard Sync, a feature that was used to connect the school website Blackboard with students' Facebook accounts. == Solutions == University of Regina professor Alec Couros suggests that instead of "forcing" student participation with their own digital platforms, professors should use methods like online forums. Jason Jones of chronicle.com suggested letting students create social media groups for the class themselves and explaining why using technologies is required and important.