Infogram is a web-based data visualization and infographics platform, created in Riga, Latvia. It allows people to make and share digital charts, infographics and maps. Infogram offers an intuitive WYSIWYG editor that converts users’ data into infographics that can be published, embedded or shared. Users do not need coding skills to use this tool; users include newsrooms, marketing teams, governments, educators and students. The company that created Infogram, also called Infogram, was founded in 2012 in Riga, Latvia and has another office in San Francisco. As of October 2017, Infogram says it has 3 million users who have created charts and infographics that have been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Infogram was bought by Prezi, a web-based presentation software company, in May 2017. == History == Infogram was founded in February 2012 in Riga, Latvia by Uldis Leiterts, Raimonds Kaže and Alise Dīrika. In January 2013, Infogram won the international Hy Berlin pitch contest. During his pitch, Infogram CEO Uldis Leiterts announced that the company had created more templates and was working with Microsoft to integrate its platform with the contemporaneous version of Microsoft Office. The company also won the 2013 Kantar Information Is Beautiful Award, which “celebrates excellence and beauty in data visualizations, infographics, interactives & information art.” In December 2014, Infogram acquired the Brazil-based data visualization blog, Visualoop. In an effort to expand sales and marketing in the U.S., Infogram secured $1.8 million in funding in February 2014. The announcement was made at TechChill, a startup conference for the Baltics in Riga, Latvia. At the time, the funding was believed to be the largest to date for the company. Infogram won the 2017 National Design Award of Latvia. == Acquisition by Prezi == Prezi, a web-based presentation software company, acquired Infogram in May 2017. Infogram is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Prezi. Infogram was rated #1 on Forbes’ list of “The Best Infographic Tools for 2017,” which was published in September 2017. In October 2017, Infogram announced a new version of its data visualization platform, including a drag-and-drop editor, over 40 new designer templates and social media support.
Sanchar Saathi
Sanchar Saathi (lit. 'Communication Partner' or 'Communication Companion') is an Indian state-owned app and web portal, operated by the Department of Telecommunications, designed to assist Indian mobile users in tracking and blocking stolen or lost mobile devices. In late 2025, a government order requiring Sanchar Saathi to be pre-installed on all mobile devices sold nationwide, with explicit provisions on preventing users from deleting the app or disabling any of its broad functionalities, triggered widespread backlash. The order was subsequently withdrawn. == Background == The Telecommunications Act 2023 introduced an exceptionally broad definition of the term "telecommunications" and conferred wide-ranging powers on the government. Although the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) assured reporters that this definition would not be used to justify government overreach, a November 2024 amendment to the Telecom Cyber Security Rules expanded it further and introduced the concept of the Telecommunication Identifier User Entity (TIEU), enabling users to be personally identified through their phone numbers. Sanchar Saathi was launched amid a widespread rise in cybercrime and hacking, as part of the Indian government's effort to prevent stolen phones from being used for fraud and to promote a state-backed application. In an official statement, the DoT said, "India has big second-hand mobile device market. Cases have also been observed where stolen or blacklisted devices are being re-sold. It makes the purchaser abettor in crime and causes financial loss to them." == Launch == Sanchar Saathi was originally launched as a web portal in May 2023. It was later launched as a mobile app in January 2025. Describing itself as a "citizen-centric" safety tool, Sanchar Saathi allows users to check a device's IMEI, report and block lost or stolen phones, and flag suspected fraud communications. Under Sanchar Saathi's privacy policy, it can make and manage phone calls, view and send messages, read call logs, access photos and files, access the location and camera of the device in which the app is used, as well as read and write into the device's storage. According to official government data, by December 2025, the Sanchar Saathi app had helped recover more than 700,000 lost and stolen mobile devices across India. Users report around 2,000 fraud incidents through the app each day. == Pre-installation controversy == On 28 November 2025, the Bharatiya Janata Party government, led by prime minister Narendra Modi, privately ordered phone manufacturers, including Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, among others, to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app on new devices sold in the country, alongside mandating that old devices get issued a software update for the installation of the app. The order had a 90-day deadline and further included explicit provisions to ensure that the app is to be "readily visible and accessible to the end users at the time of first use or device setup" and that users should neither be able to delete the app nor disable or restrict any of its broad functionalities. The order caused widespread political backlash. K. C. Venugopal, a general secretary of the main opposition party, the Indian National Congress (or simply the Congress), called the order "beyond unconstitutional" and said, "A pre-loaded government app that cannot be uninstalled is a dystopian tool to monitor every Indian. It is a means to watch over every movement, interaction and decision of each citizen", adding, "Big Brother cannot watch us." Another Congress general secretary, Priyanka Gandhi, termed Sanchar Saathi a "snooping app", and attacked the government for "turning this country into a dictatorship". Uddhav Thackeray, former chief minister of Maharashtra, compared Sanchar Saathi to the Pegasus spyware. Sanjay Hegde, a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India, said "Here in the garb of security, the intrusion is vast, unfettered, unguided and is totally disproportionate. The app ought to be struck down on that account". The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), an Indian digital rights advocacy organisation, said, "Forcing every smartphone to carry a permanent government app for a simple verification task is excessive and violates the Puttaswamy proportionality standard", referring to Puttaswamy v. Union of India, a 2017 landmark decision of the Supreme Court, which asserted that the right to privacy should be protected as a fundamental right. The IFF further said, "For this to work in practice, the app will almost certainly need system level or root level access, similar to carrier or OEM system apps, so that it cannot be disabled. That design choice erodes the protections that normally prevent one app from peering into the data of others, and turns Sanchar Saathi into a permanent, non-consensual point of access sitting inside the operating system of every Indian smartphone user." Moreover, the organisation said that while the app was being "framed as a benign IMEI checker", a server-side update could allow the app to engage in "client side scanning for 'banned' applications, flag VPN usage, correlate SIM activity, or trawl SMS logs in the name of fraud detection. Nothing in the order constrains these possibilities." In reaction to the controversy, Jyotiraditya Scindia, the union minister of communications, said, "There is no snooping or call monitoring", adding, "Obviously you can delete it. There is no problem. This is a matter of customer protection. It is not mandatory. If you don't want to register, and don't want to use the app, don't use it; don't register, and it will lay dormant." Scindia compared the app to other pre-installed mobile apps such as Google Maps, which he said could be deleted if users wished so. However, contrary to Scindia's statement, on many phone brands, such pre-installed apps cannot be deleted, although users can disable them. Furthermore, upon enquiry, Scindia did not clarify whether his remarks applied to the app after the order took effect, making no comment on the provision in the order that would prevent users from deleting the app. When Congress member Renuka Chowdhury submitted an adjournment motion notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking the suspension of all other matters to discuss the Sanchar Saathi issue, Kiren Rijiju, the union minister of parliamentary affairs, accused the opposition of "manufacturing issues" to stall session proceedings. By 2 December, it had been reported that Apple did not plan to comply with the order, citing privacy and security concerns for the iOS ecosystem and the fact that the order would violate its internal policy against the pre-installation of third-party software in iPhones. Although it was clarified that Apple did not intend to take the matter to court or publicly oppose the government, it was said that Apple "can't do this. Period." The order would have also required Google to create a custom version of Android solely for India which would include the Sanchar Saathi app, a requirement described to "not be acceptable to the company". Following the backlash, the order was revoked on 3 December 2025. In a press release, the government said, "Given Sanchar Saathi's increasing acceptance, Government has decided not to make the pre-installation mandatory for mobile manufacturers".
Corinna Cortes
Corinna Cortes (born 31 March 1961) is a Danish computer scientist known for her contributions to machine learning. She is a Vice President at Google Research in New York City. Cortes is an ACM Fellow and a recipient of the Paris Kanellakis Award for her work on theoretical foundations of support vector machines. == Early life and education == Corinna Cortes was born in 1961 in Denmark. Cortes received her Master of Science degree in physics from University of Copenhagen in 1989. She received her PhD in computer science from the University of Rochester in 1993 for research supervised by Randal C. Nelson. == Career and research == Cortes joined AT&T Bell Labs as a researcher in 1993. Since 2003, she has served as Vice President of Google Research, New York City, and since 2011, as adjunct professor at the UCPH Department of Computer Science. She is serves as an editorial board member of the journal Machine Learning. Cortes' research covers a wide range of topics in machine learning, including support vector machines (SVM) and data mining. SVM is one of the most frequently used algorithms in machine learning, which is used in many practical applications, including medical diagnosis and weather forecasting. At AT&T, Cortes was a contributor to the design of Hancock programming language. === Awards and honours === In 2008, she jointly with Vladimir Vapnik received the Paris Kanellakis Award for the development of a highly effective algorithm for supervised learning known as support vector machines (SVM). She was named an ACM Fellow in 2023 for theoretical and practical contributions to machine learning, industrial leadership and service to the field. == Personal life == Corinna has two children and is also a competitive runner.
Bonnie Webber
Bonnie Lynn Nash-Webber (born August 30, 1946) is a computational linguist. She is an honorary professor of intelligent systems in the Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation (ILCC) at the University of Edinburgh. == Education and career == Webber completed her PhD at Harvard University in 1978, advised by Bill Woods, while at the same time working with Woods at Bolt Beranek and Newman. == Career and research == Webber was appointed a professor at the University of Pennsylvania for 20 years before moving to Edinburgh in 1998. She has many academic descendants through her student at Pennsylvania, Martha E. Pollack. After retiring from the University of Edinburgh in 2016, she was listed by the university as an honorary professor. === Publications === Webber's doctoral dissertation, A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora, used formal logic to model the meanings of natural-language statements; it was published by Garland Publishers in 1979 in their Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. With Norman Badler and Cary Phillips, Webber is a co-author of the book Simulating Humans: Computer Graphics Animation and Control (Oxford University Press, 1993). With Aravind Joshi and Ivan Sag she is a co-editor of Elements of Discourse Understanding, with Nils Nilsson she is co-editor of Readings in Artificial Intelligence, and with Barbara Grosz and Karen Spärck Jones she is co-editor of Readings in Natural Language Processing. === Awards and honours === Webber was appointed a Founding Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) in 1990, and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (FRSE) in 2004. She served as president of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) in 1980, and became a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2012, "for significant contributions to discourse structure and discourse-based interpretation". In 2020, she was awarded the Association for Computational Linguistics Lifetime Achievement Award.
Trie
In computer science, a trie (, ), also known as a digital tree or prefix tree, is a specialized search tree data structure used to store and retrieve strings from a dictionary or set. Unlike a binary search tree, nodes in a trie do not store their associated key. Instead, each node's position within the trie determines its associated key, with the connections between nodes defined by individual characters rather than the entire key. Tries are particularly effective for tasks such as autocomplete, spell checking, and IP routing, offering advantages over hash tables due to their prefix-based organization and lack of hash collisions. Every child node shares a common prefix with its parent node, and the root node represents the empty string. While basic trie implementations can be memory-intensive, various optimization techniques such as compression and bitwise representations have been developed to improve their efficiency. A notable optimization is the radix tree, which provides more efficient prefix-based storage. While tries store character strings, they can be adapted to work with any ordered sequence of elements, such as permutations of digits or shapes. A notable variant is the bitwise trie, which uses individual bits from fixed-length binary data (such as integers or memory addresses) as keys. == History, etymology, and pronunciation == The idea of a trie for representing a set of strings was first abstractly described by Axel Thue in 1912. Tries were first described in a computer context by René de la Briandais in 1959. The idea was independently described in 1960 by Edward Fredkin, who coined the term trie, pronouncing it (as "tree"), after the middle syllable of retrieval. However, other authors pronounce it (as "try"), in an attempt to distinguish it verbally from "tree". == Overview == Tries are a form of string-indexed look-up data structure, which is used to store a dictionary list of words that can be searched on in a manner that allows for efficient generation of completion lists. A prefix trie is an ordered tree data structure used in the representation of a set of strings over a finite alphabet set, which allows efficient storage of words with common prefixes. Tries can be efficacious on string-searching algorithms such as predictive text, approximate string matching, and spell checking in comparison to binary search trees. A trie can be seen as a tree-shaped deterministic finite automaton. == Operations == Tries support various operations: insertion, deletion, and lookup of a string key. Tries are composed of nodes that contain links, which either point to other suffix child nodes or null. As for every tree, each node except the root is pointed to by only one other node, called its parent. Each node contains as many links as the number of characters in the applicable alphabet (although tries tend to have a substantial number of null links). In some cases, the alphabet used is simply that of the character encoding—resulting in, for example, a size of 128 in the case of ASCII. The null links within the children of a node emphasize the following characteristics: Characters and string keys are implicitly stored in the trie, and include a character sentinel value indicating string termination. Each node contains one possible link to a prefix of strong keys of the set. A basic structure type of nodes in the trie is as follows: Node {\displaystyle {\text{Node}}} may contain an optional Value {\displaystyle {\text{Value}}} , which is associated with the key that corresponds to the node. === Searching === Searching for a value in a trie is guided by the characters in the search string key, as each node in the trie contains a corresponding link to each possible character in the given string. Thus, following the string within the trie yields the associated value for the given string key. A null link during the search indicates the inexistence of the key. The following pseudocode implements the search procedure for a given string key in a rooted trie x. In the above pseudocode, x and key correspond to the pointer of the trie's root node and the string key, respectively. The search operation takes O ( m ) {\displaystyle O(m)} time, where m {\displaystyle m} is the size of the string parameter key. In a balanced binary search tree, on the other hand, it takes O ( m log n ) {\displaystyle O(m\log n)} time, in the worst case, since key needs to be compared with O ( log n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} other keys and each comparison takes O ( m ) {\displaystyle O(m)} time, in the worst case. The trie occupies less space, in comparison with a binary search tree, in the case of a large number of short strings, since nodes share common initial string subsequences and store the keys implicitly. === Insertion === Insertion into a trie is guided by using the character sets as indexes to the children array until the last character of the string key is reached. Each node in the trie corresponds to one call of the radix sorting routine, as the trie structure reflects the execution pattern of the top-down radix sort. If null links are encountered before reaching the last character of the string key, new nodes are created. The input value is assigned to the value of the last node traversed, which is the node that corresponds to the key. === Deletion === Deletion of a key–value pair from a trie involves finding the node corresponding to the key, setting its value to null, and recursively removing nodes that have no children. The procedure begins by examining key; an empty string indicates arrival at the node corresponding to the (original) key, in which case its value is set to null. If the node, then, has null value and no children, it is removed from the trie by returning null; otherwise, the node is kept by returning the node itself. == Replacing other data structures == === Replacement for hash tables === A trie can be used to replace a hash table, over which it has the following advantages: Searching for a node with an associated key of size m {\displaystyle m} has the complexity of O ( m ) {\displaystyle O(m)} , whereas an imperfect hash function may have numerous colliding keys, and the worst-case lookup speed of such a table would be O ( N ) {\displaystyle O(N)} , where N {\displaystyle N} denotes the total number of nodes within the table. Tries do not need a hash function for the operation, unlike a hash table; there are also no collisions of different keys in a trie. Within a trie, keys can be efficiently sorted lexicographically. However, tries are less efficient than a hash table when the data is directly accessed on a secondary storage device such as a hard disk drive that has higher random access time than the main memory. == Implementation strategies == Tries can be represented in several ways, corresponding to different trade-offs between memory use and speed of the operations. Using a vector of pointers for representing a trie consumes enormous space; however, memory space can be reduced at the expense of running time if a singly linked list is used for each node vector, as most entries of the vector contains nil {\displaystyle {\text{nil}}} . Techniques such as alphabet reduction may reduce the large space requirements by reinterpreting the original string as a longer string over a smaller alphabet. For example, a string of n bytes can alternatively be regarded as a string of 2n four-bit units. This can reduce memory usage by a factor of eight; but lookups need to visit twice as many nodes in the worst case. Another technique includes storing a vector of 256 ASCII pointers as a bitmap of 256 bits representing ASCII alphabet, which reduces the size of individual nodes dramatically. === Bitwise tries === Bitwise tries are used to address the enormous space requirement for the trie nodes in a naive simple pointer vector implementations. Each character in the string key set is represented via individual bits, which are used to traverse the trie over a string key. The implementations for these types of trie use vectorized CPU instructions to find the first set bit in a fixed-length key input (e.g. GCC's __builtin_clz() intrinsic function). Accordingly, the set bit is used to index the first item, or child node, in the 32- or 64-entry based bitwise tree. Search then proceeds by testing each subsequent bit in the key. This procedure is also cache-local and highly parallelizable due to register independency, and thus performant on out-of-order execution CPUs. === Compressed tries === Radix tree, also known as a compressed trie, is a space-optimized variant of a trie in which any node with only one child gets merged with its parent; elimination of branches of the nodes with a single child results in better metrics in both space and time. This works best when the trie remains static and set of keys stored are very sparse within their representation space. One more approach for static tries is to "pack" the trie by storing disjoint
History of machine translation
Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
AI Headshot Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)
Curious about the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.