The creator economy, also known as influencer economy, is a platform-driven economy in which creators produce content, products, or services and distribute them directly to their audience through social media platforms and emerging technologies. This economic model is based on the ability of creators to build and maintain communities of users, monetizing their creative activity through multiple channels including advertising, sponsorships, product sales, crowdfunding, and subscription-based services. Creators include various professional categories such as social media influencers, YouTubers, bloggers, artists, online educators, podcasters, and independent professionals, who use platforms as infrastructure to reach their audience without necessarily relying on traditional intermediaries in the cultural and media industry. According to Goldman Sachs Research, the ongoing growth of the creator economy will likely benefit companies that possess a combination of factors, including a large global user base, access to substantial capital, robust AI-powered recommendation engines, versatile monetization tools, comprehensive data analytics, and integrated e-commerce options. Examples of creator economy software platforms include YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitch, Spotify, Substack, OnlyFans and Patreon. == History == The term "creator" was coined by YouTube in 2011 to be used instead of "YouTube star", an expression that at the time could only apply to famous individuals on the platform. The term has since become omnipresent and is used to describe anyone creating any form of online content. A number of platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and Facebook have set up funds with which to pay creators. == Criticism == The large majority of content creators derive no monetary gain for their creations, with most of the benefits accruing to the platforms who can make significant revenues from their uploads. As few as 0.1% of creators are able to earn a living through their channels.
EPages
ePages is an e-commerce software that allows merchants to create and run online shops in the cloud. The number of shops based on ePages is currently 140,000 worldwide. ePages software is regularly updated due to its Software-as-a-Service model. An investor in the company is United Internet, with a 25% stake. ePages focuses upon distributing its products mainly through hosting providers. ePages is headquartered in Hamburg, with additional offices Barcelona, Jena, and Bilbao. == History == The name ePages was used for the first time for software in 1997 to market "Intershop ePages". In 2002, the product line then called Intershop 4 was taken over by ePages GmbH and renamed to ePages. == Features == Depending on the ePages product and packages offered by hosting providers, merchants can sell up to an unlimited number of items. Users can offer their products and services in 15 languages and with all currencies. With ePages, merchants can use web marketing tools; e.g. newsletters, coupons or social media plug-ins for social commerce.
Run-time algorithm specialization
In computer science, run-time algorithm specialization is a methodology for creating efficient algorithms for costly computation tasks of certain kinds. The methodology originates in the field of automated theorem proving and, more specifically, in the Vampire theorem prover project. The idea is inspired by the use of partial evaluation in optimising program translation. Many core operations in theorem provers exhibit the following pattern. Suppose that we need to execute some algorithm a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} in a situation where a value of A {\displaystyle A} is fixed for potentially many different values of B {\displaystyle B} . In order to do this efficiently, we can try to find a specialization of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} for every fixed A {\displaystyle A} , i.e., such an algorithm a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} , that executing a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is equivalent to executing a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} . The specialized algorithm may be more efficient than the generic one, since it can exploit some particular properties of the fixed value A {\displaystyle A} . Typically, a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} can avoid some operations that a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} would have to perform, if they are known to be redundant for this particular parameter A {\displaystyle A} . In particular, we can often identify some tests that are true or false for A {\displaystyle A} , unroll loops and recursion, etc. == Difference from partial evaluation == The key difference between run-time specialization and partial evaluation is that the values of A {\displaystyle A} on which a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} is specialised are not known statically, so the specialization takes place at run-time. There is also an important technical difference. Partial evaluation is applied to algorithms explicitly represented as codes in some programming language. At run-time, we do not need any concrete representation of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . We only have to imagine a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} when we program the specialization procedure. All we need is a concrete representation of the specialized version a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} . This also means that we cannot use any universal methods for specializing algorithms, which is usually the case with partial evaluation. Instead, we have to program a specialization procedure for every particular algorithm a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . An important advantage of doing so is that we can use some powerful ad hoc tricks exploiting peculiarities of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} and the representation of A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , which are beyond the reach of any universal specialization methods. == Specialization with compilation == The specialized algorithm has to be represented in a form that can be interpreted. In many situations, usually when a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is to be computed on many values of B {\displaystyle B} in a row, a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} can be written as machine code instructions for a special abstract machine, and it is typically said that A {\displaystyle A} is compiled. The code itself can then be additionally optimized by answer-preserving transformations that rely only on the semantics of instructions of the abstract machine. The instructions of the abstract machine can usually be represented as records. One field of such a record, an instruction identifier (or instruction tag), would identify the instruction type, e.g. an integer field may be used, with particular integer values corresponding to particular instructions. Other fields may be used for storing additional parameters of the instruction, e.g. a pointer field may point to another instruction representing a label, if the semantics of the instruction require a jump. All instructions of the code can be stored in a traversable data structure such as an array, linked list, or tree. Interpretation (or execution) proceeds by fetching instructions in some order, identifying their type, and executing the actions associated with said type. In many programming languages, such as C and C++, a simple switch statement may be used to associate actions with different instruction identifiers. Modern compilers usually compile a switch statement with constant (e.g. integer) labels from a narrow range by storing the address of the statement corresponding to a value i {\displaystyle i} in the i {\displaystyle i} -th cell of a special array, as a means of efficient optimisation. This can be exploited by taking values for instruction identifiers from a small interval of values. == Data-and-algorithm specialization == There are situations when many instances of A {\displaystyle A} are intended for long-term storage and the calls of a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} occur with different B {\displaystyle B} in an unpredictable order. For example, we may have to check a l g ( A 1 , B 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{1})} first, then a l g ( A 2 , B 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{2},B_{2})} , then a l g ( A 1 , B 3 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{3})} , and so on. In such circumstances, full-scale specialization with compilation may not be suitable due to excessive memory usage. However, we can sometimes find a compact specialized representation A ′ {\displaystyle A^{\prime }} for every A {\displaystyle A} , that can be stored with, or instead of, A {\displaystyle A} . We also define a variant a l g ′ {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }} that works on this representation and any call to a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} is replaced by a l g ′ ( A ′ , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }(A^{\prime },B)} , intended to do the same job faster.
Manufacture Modules Technologies
Manufacture Modules Technologies Sarl (MMT) is a Swiss company established in Geneva in 2015 which originally specialised in the development and commercialization of "Horological Smartwatch modules", firmware, apps and cloud. Located at Geneva's Skylab high-tech hub, it expanded into the development and manufacturing of "E-Straps" operated with a mobile application. Philippe Fraboulet is the CEO. == History == In June 2015, Fullpower Technologies and Union Horlogère Suisse (Swiss Watchmakers Corporation) formed MMT as a joint venture, which then launched the MotionX Horological Smartwatch Open Platform for the Swiss watch industry. The initial licensees were Frederique Constant, Alpina and Mondaine, brands owned by Union Horlogère Suisse. Fullpower created and managed the circuit design, firmware, smartphone applications (including sleep activity), as well as the cloud Infrastructure. MMT managed the Swiss watch movement development and production as well as licensing and support. In July 2016, Union Horlogere Holding and MMT were spun-out of the Frédérique Constant Group. Fullpower Technologies' 19.99% share was acquired by Union Horlogere Holding BV, giving it 100% of MMT's shares. == Business == The company offers firmware, a cloud, manufacturing, service and over-the-air facilities for upgrades. The company also offers its own apps, which bear the label “Swiss Made software”.
Online analytical processing
In computing, online analytical processing (OLAP) (), is an approach to quickly answer multi-dimensional analytical (MDA) queries. The term OLAP was created as a slight modification of the traditional database term online transaction processing (OLTP). OLAP is part of the broader category of business intelligence, which also encompasses relational databases, report writing and data mining. Typical applications of OLAP include business reporting for sales, marketing, management reporting, business process management (BPM), budgeting and forecasting, financial reporting and similar areas, with new applications emerging, such as agriculture. OLAP tools enable users to analyse multidimensional data interactively from multiple perspectives. OLAP consists of three basic analytical operations: consolidation (roll-up), drill-down, and slicing and dicing. Consolidation involves the aggregation of data that can be accumulated and computed in one or more dimensions. For example, all sales offices are rolled up to the sales department or sales division to anticipate sales trends. By contrast, the drill-down is a technique that allows users to navigate through the details. For instance, users can view the sales by individual products that make up a region's sales. Slicing and dicing is a feature whereby users can take out (slicing) a specific set of data of the OLAP cube and view (dicing) the slices from different viewpoints. These viewpoints are sometimes called dimensions (such as looking at the same sales by salesperson, or by date, or by customer, or by product, or by region, etc.). Databases configured for OLAP use a multidimensional data model, allowing for complex analytical and ad hoc queries with a rapid execution time. They borrow aspects of navigational databases, hierarchical databases and relational databases. OLAP is typically contrasted to OLTP (online transaction processing), which is generally characterized by much less complex queries, in a larger volume, to process transactions rather than for the purpose of business intelligence or reporting. Whereas OLAP systems are mostly optimized for read, OLTP has to process all kinds of queries (read, insert, update and delete). == Overview of OLAP systems == At the core of any OLAP system is an OLAP cube (also called a 'multidimensional cube' or a hypercube). It consists of numeric facts called measures that are categorized by dimensions. The measures are placed at the intersections of the hypercube, which is spanned by the dimensions as a vector space. The usual interface to manipulate an OLAP cube is a matrix interface, like Pivot tables in a spreadsheet program, which performs projection operations along the dimensions, such as aggregation or averaging. The cube metadata is typically created from a star schema or snowflake schema or fact constellation of tables in a relational database. Measures are derived from the records in the fact table and dimensions are derived from the dimension tables. Each measure can be thought of as having a set of labels, or meta-data associated with it. A dimension is what describes these labels; it provides information about the measure. A simple example would be a cube that contains a store's sales as a measure, and Date/Time as a dimension. Each Sale has a Date/Time label that describes more about that sale. For example: Sales Fact Table +-------------+----------+ | sale_amount | time_id | +-------------+----------+ Time Dimension | 930.10| 1234 |----+ +---------+-------------------+ +-------------+----------+ | | time_id | timestamp | | +---------+-------------------+ +---->| 1234 | 20080902 12:35:43 | +---------+-------------------+ === Multidimensional databases === Multidimensional structure is defined as "a variation of the relational model that uses multidimensional structures to organize data and express the relationships between data". The structure is broken into cubes and the cubes are able to store and access data within the confines of each cube. "Each cell within a multidimensional structure contains aggregated data related to elements along each of its dimensions". Even when data is manipulated it remains easy to access and continues to constitute a compact database format. The data still remains interrelated. Multidimensional structure is quite popular for analytical databases that use online analytical processing (OLAP) applications. Analytical databases use these databases because of their ability to deliver answers to complex business queries swiftly. Data can be viewed from different angles, which gives a broader perspective of a problem unlike other models. === Aggregations === It has been claimed that for complex queries OLAP cubes can produce an answer in around 0.1% of the time required for the same query on OLTP relational data. The most important mechanism in OLAP which allows it to achieve such performance is the use of aggregations. Aggregations are built from the fact table by changing the granularity on specific dimensions and aggregating up data along these dimensions, using an aggregate function (or aggregation function). The number of possible aggregations is determined by every possible combination of dimension granularities. The combination of all possible aggregations and the base data contains the answers to every query which can be answered from the data. Because usually there are many aggregations that can be calculated, often only a predetermined number are fully calculated; the remainder are solved on demand. The problem of deciding which aggregations (views) to calculate is known as the view selection problem. View selection can be constrained by the total size of the selected set of aggregations, the time to update them from changes in the base data, or both. The objective of view selection is typically to minimize the average time to answer OLAP queries, although some studies also minimize the update time. View selection is NP-complete. Many approaches to the problem have been explored, including greedy algorithms, randomized search, genetic algorithms and A search algorithm. Some aggregation functions can be computed for the entire OLAP cube by precomputing values for each cell, and then computing the aggregation for a roll-up of cells by aggregating these aggregates, applying a divide and conquer algorithm to the multidimensional problem to compute them efficiently. For example, the overall sum of a roll-up is just the sum of the sub-sums in each cell. Functions that can be decomposed in this way are called decomposable aggregation functions, and include COUNT, MAX, MIN, and SUM, which can be computed for each cell and then directly aggregated; these are known as self-decomposable aggregation functions. In other cases, the aggregate function can be computed by computing auxiliary numbers for cells, aggregating these auxiliary numbers, and finally computing the overall number at the end; examples include AVERAGE (tracking sum and count, dividing at the end) and RANGE (tracking max and min, subtracting at the end). In other cases, the aggregate function cannot be computed without analyzing the entire set at once, though in some cases approximations can be computed; examples include DISTINCT COUNT, MEDIAN, and MODE; for example, the median of a set is not the median of medians of subsets. These latter are difficult to implement efficiently in OLAP, as they require computing the aggregate function on the base data, either computing them online (slow) or precomputing them for possible rollouts (large space). == Types == OLAP systems have been traditionally categorized using the following taxonomy. === Multidimensional OLAP (MOLAP) === MOLAP (multi-dimensional online analytical processing) is the classic form of OLAP and is sometimes referred to as just OLAP. MOLAP stores this data in an optimized multi-dimensional array storage, rather than in a relational database. Some MOLAP tools require the pre-computation and storage of derived data, such as consolidations – the operation known as processing. Such MOLAP tools generally utilize a pre-calculated data set referred to as a data cube. The data cube contains all the possible answers to a given range of questions. As a result, they have a very fast response to queries. On the other hand, updating can take a long time depending on the degree of pre-computation. Pre-computation can also lead to what is known as data explosion. Other MOLAP tools, particularly those that implement the functional database model do not pre-compute derived data but make all calculations on demand other than those that were previously requested and stored in a cache. Advantages of MOLAP Fast query performance due to optimized storage, multidimensional indexing and caching. Smaller on-disk size of data compared to data stored in relational database due to compression techniques. Automated computation of higher-level aggregates of the data. It is very compact for low dimension data se
Label noise
Label noise refers to errors or inaccuracies in the class labels of data instances. This is a widespread issue in machine learning datasets, arising from human annotator mistakes, unclear labeling instructions, automated labeling methods, or adversarial attacks in supervised learning. Label noise can be roughly divided into random noise, where labels are flipped independently of input features, and systematic noise, where mislabeling is dependent on certain patterns or biases in the data. Label noise can be damaging to model performance, especially for complex models that may overfit to noisy labels rather than generalizable patterns. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with the effects of label noise, including robust loss functions, noise-tolerant algorithms, data cleaning methods, and semi-supervised learning approaches. To reduce the impact of wrong labels during training, techniques like label smoothing, sample reweighting and using trusted validation sets are used. The role of noise-robust training paradigms and curriculum learning strategies to improve resilience against mislabeled data is also explored in recent research.
Rendezvous hashing
Rendezvous or highest random weight (HRW) hashing is an algorithm that allows clients to achieve distributed agreement on a set of k {\displaystyle k} options out of a possible set of n {\displaystyle n} options. A typical application is when clients need to agree on which sites (or proxies) objects are assigned to. Consistent hashing addresses the special case k = 1 {\displaystyle k=1} using a different method. Rendezvous hashing is both much simpler and more general than consistent hashing (see below). == History == Rendezvous hashing was invented by David Thaler and Chinya Ravishankar at the University of Michigan in 1996. Consistent hashing appeared a year later in the literature. Given its simplicity and generality, rendezvous hashing is now being preferred to consistent hashing in real-world applications. Rendezvous hashing was used very early on in many applications including mobile caching, router design, secure key establishment, and sharding and distributed databases. Other examples of real-world systems that use Rendezvous Hashing include the GitHub load balancer, the Apache Ignite distributed database, the Tahoe-LAFS file store, the CoBlitz large-file distribution service, Apache Druid, IBM's Cloud Object Store, the Arvados Data Management System, Apache Kafka, and the Twitter EventBus pub/sub platform. One of the first applications of rendezvous hashing was to enable multicast clients on the Internet (in contexts such as the MBONE) to identify multicast rendezvous points in a distributed fashion. It was used in 1998 by Microsoft's Cache Array Routing Protocol (CARP) for distributed cache coordination and routing. Some Protocol Independent Multicast routing protocols use rendezvous hashing to pick a rendezvous point. == Problem definition and approach == === Algorithm === Rendezvous hashing solves a general version of the distributed hash table problem: We are given a set of n {\displaystyle n} sites (servers or proxies, say). How can any set of clients, given an object O {\displaystyle O} , agree on a k-subset of sites to assign to O {\displaystyle O} ? The standard version of the problem uses k = 1. Each client is to make its selection independently, but all clients must end up picking the same subset of sites. This is non-trivial if we add a minimal disruption constraint, and require that when a site fails or is removed, only objects mapping to that site need be reassigned to other sites. The basic idea is to give each site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} a score (a weight) for each object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , and assign the object to the highest scoring site. All clients first agree on a hash function h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} . For object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , the site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} is defined to have weight w i , j = h ( O i , S j ) {\displaystyle w_{i,j}=h(O_{i},S_{j})} . Each client independently computes these weights w i , 1 , w i , 2 … w i , n {\displaystyle w_{i,1},w_{i,2}\dots w_{i,n}} and picks the k sites that yield the k largest hash values. The clients have thereby achieved distributed k {\displaystyle k} -agreement. If a site S {\displaystyle S} is added or removed, only the objects mapping to S {\displaystyle S} are remapped to different sites, satisfying the minimal disruption constraint above. The HRW assignment can be computed independently by any client, since it depends only on the identifiers for the set of sites S 1 , S 2 … S n {\displaystyle S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{n}} and the object being assigned. HRW easily accommodates different capacities among sites. If site S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} has twice the capacity of the other sites, we simply represent S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} twice in the list, say, as S k , 1 , S k , 2 {\displaystyle S_{k,1},S_{k,2}} . Clearly, twice as many objects will now map to S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} as to the other sites. === Properties === Consider the simple version of the problem, with k = 1, where all clients are to agree on a single site for an object O. Approaching the problem naively, it might appear sufficient to treat the n sites as buckets in a hash table and hash the object name O into this table. Unfortunately, if any of the sites fails or is unreachable, the hash table size changes, forcing all objects to be remapped. This massive disruption makes such direct hashing unworkable. Under rendezvous hashing, however, clients handle site failures by picking the site that yields the next largest weight. Remapping is required only for objects currently mapped to the failed site, and disruption is minimal. Rendezvous hashing has the following properties: Low overhead: The hash function used is efficient, so overhead at the clients is very low. Load balancing: Since the hash function is randomizing, each of the n sites is equally likely to receive the object O. Loads are uniform across the sites. Site capacity: Sites with different capacities can be represented in the site list with multiplicity in proportion to capacity. A site with twice the capacity of the other sites will be represented twice in the list, while every other site is represented once. High hit rate: Since all clients agree on placing an object O into the same site SO, each fetch or placement of O into SO yields the maximum utility in terms of hit rate. The object O will always be found unless it is evicted by some replacement algorithm at SO. Minimal disruption: When a site fails, only the objects mapped to that site need to be remapped. Disruption is at the minimal possible level. Distributed k-agreement: Clients can reach distributed agreement on k sites simply by selecting the top k sites in the ordering. == O(log n) running time via skeleton-based hierarchical rendezvous hashing == The standard version of Rendezvous Hashing described above works quite well for moderate n, but when n {\displaystyle n} is extremely large, the hierarchical use of Rendezvous Hashing achieves O ( log n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time. This approach creates a virtual hierarchical structure (called a "skeleton"), and achieves O ( log n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time by applying HRW at each level while descending the hierarchy. The idea is to first choose some constant m {\displaystyle m} and organize the n {\displaystyle n} sites into c = ⌈ n / m ⌉ {\displaystyle c=\lceil n/m\rceil } clusters C 1 = { S 1 , S 2 … S m } , C 2 = { S m + 1 , S m + 2 … S 2 m } … {\displaystyle C_{1}=\left\{S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{m}\right\},C_{2}=\left\{S_{m+1},S_{m+2}\dots S_{2m}\right\}\dots } Next, build a virtual hierarchy by choosing a constant f {\displaystyle f} and imagining these c {\displaystyle c} clusters placed at the leaves of a tree T {\displaystyle T} of virtual nodes, each with fanout f {\displaystyle f} . In the accompanying diagram, the cluster size is m = 4 {\displaystyle m=4} , and the skeleton fanout is f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} . Assuming 108 sites (real nodes) for convenience, we get a three-tier virtual hierarchy. Since f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} , each virtual node has a natural numbering in octal. Thus, the 27 virtual nodes at the lowest tier would be numbered 000 , 001 , 002 , . . . , 221 , 222 {\displaystyle 000,001,002,...,221,222} in octal (we can, of course, vary the fanout at each level - in that case, each node will be identified with the corresponding mixed-radix number). The easiest way to understand the virtual hierarchy is by starting at the top, and descending the virtual hierarchy. We successively apply Rendezvous Hashing to the set of virtual nodes at each level of the hierarchy, and descend the branch defined by the winning virtual node. We can in fact start at any level in the virtual hierarchy. Starting lower in the hierarchy requires more hashes, but may improve load distribution in the case of failures. For example, instead of applying HRW to all 108 real nodes in the diagram, we can first apply HRW to the 27 lowest-tier virtual nodes, selecting one. We then apply HRW to the four real nodes in its cluster, and choose the winning site. We only need 27 + 4 = 31 {\displaystyle 27+4=31} hashes, rather than 108. If we apply this method starting one level higher in the hierarchy, we would need 9 + 3 + 4 = 16 {\displaystyle 9+3+4=16} hashes to get to the winning site. The figure shows how, if we proceed starting from the root of the skeleton, we may successively choose the virtual nodes ( 2 ) 3 {\displaystyle (2)_{3}} , ( 20 ) 3 {\displaystyle (20)_{3}} , and ( 200 ) 3 {\displaystyle (200)_{3}} , and finally end up with site 74. The virtual hierarchy need not be stored, but can be created on demand, since the virtual nodes names are simply prefixes of base- f {\displaystyle f} (or mixed-radix) representations. We can easily create appropriately sorted strings from the digits, as required. In the example, we would be working with the strings 0 , 1 , 2 {\displaystyle 0,1,2} (at tier 1), 20 , 21 , 22 {\displaystyle 20,21,22} (at tier 2), and 200 , 201 , 202