The directed-energy weapon wildfire conspiracy theories are claims circulating on social media and in fringe commentary that 2020s wildfires in places such as California, Hawaii and Texas were started or steered by directed-energy weapons or other lasers or directed-energy systems rather than by the documented ignition sources identified by investigators. Fact-checking organisations and newsrooms have repeatedly shown that widely shared images and clips said to depict “beams from the sky” are unrelated, miscaptioned or fabricated, and that official inquiries point to causes such as damaged or re-energised power lines, vegetation and extreme wind conditions. Coverage of the January 2025 Los Angeles fires described a resurgence of familiar hoaxes while local and federal agencies coordinated public rebuttals. == Background == Rumours linking directed-energy weapons to wildfire outbreaks appeared during earlier disaster seasons, then re-emerged at scale during the 2018 Camp Fire and again with the 2023 Maui wildfires and the 2025 Los Angeles fires. Journalists documented how large disasters reliably attract miscaptioned imagery and speculative narratives that portray official explanations as cover stories, while researchers and emergency managers noted that such claims tend to flourish during the information vacuum that accompanies fast-moving events. == Narratives and debunks == Recurring claims include assertions that videos show lasers igniting neighbourhoods, that “green” or “blue” items or roofs were spared because lasers cannot burn those colours, that trees remaining upright indicate precision targeting of houses, and that beams recorded over Hawaii or Texas came from secret platforms. Investigations show that a purported laser-strike video was actually an explosion at a Russian gas station recorded years earlier, that a photograph said to capture an “attack” was an Ohio gas flare from 2018, and that a separate video of green lights over Hawaii was captured months before the Maui fires by an astronomical camera and is unrelated. Fact-checks addressing colour myths have further explained that images of intact blue roofs were either misinterpreted or in at least one widely shared instance artificially generated, and that laser interaction with materials is not governed by such simplistic rules. == Investigations and identified causes == Authorities who examined specific incidents have published findings that contradict DEW narratives. A multi-agency investigation into the Maui disaster concluded that downed and later re-energised lines ignited an initial morning fire that re-kindled under extreme winds in the afternoon, with reports detailing the timeline and infrastructure context; summaries by national outlets echoed those conclusions. Investigators of the February 2024 Smokehouse Creek Fire in the Texas Panhandle reported that power lines ignited both the state’s largest wildfire and another major blaze, and the regional utility acknowledged its facilities appeared to have been involved; subsequent media coverage outlined the findings and regulatory follow-up. For the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, public reports from Butte County and subsequent proceedings identified PG&E transmission equipment as the source of ignition, with documentation of maintenance issues on the Caribou–Palermo line preceding the event. == Platform and agency responses == As major fires burned in and around Los Angeles in January 2025, officials from city agencies and national partners pursued a coordinated strategy to counter falsehoods by issuing timely updates, flagging fake imagery and directing residents to verified resources. Reporters described how federal emergency managers and local departments used social channels and briefings to rebut specific rumours, including claims about lasers and targeted ignition, and to clarify that early imagery often misleads during fast-moving disasters.
National Cyber Security Policy 2013
National Cyber Security Policy is a policy framework by Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) It aims at protecting the public and private infrastructure from cyber attacks. The policy also intends to safeguard "information, such as personal information (of web users), financial and banking information and sovereign data". This was particularly relevant in the wake of US National Security Agency (NSA) leaks that suggested the US government agencies are spying on Indian users, who have no legal or technical safeguards against it. Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) defines Cyberspace as a complex environment consisting of interactions between people, software services supported by worldwide distribution of information and communication technology. == Reason for Cyber Security policies == India had no Cyber security policy before 2013. In 2013, The Hindu newspaper, citing documents leaked by NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, has alleged that much of the NSA surveillance was focused on India's domestic politics and its strategic and commercial interests. This sparked a furore among people. Under pressure, the government unveiled a National Cyber Security Policy 2013 on 2 July 2013. == Vision == To build a secure and resilient cyberspace for citizens, business, and government and also to protect anyone from intervening in user's privacy.It mentioned a five year target of training five lakh cyber security personnel by 2018. == Mission == To protect information and information infrastructure in cyberspace, build capabilities to prevent and respond to cyber threat, reduce vulnerabilities and minimize damage from cyber incidents through a combination of institutional structures, people, processes, technology, and cooperation. == Objective == Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) define objectives as follows: To create a secure cyber ecosystem in the country, generate adequate trust and confidence in IT system and transactions in cyberspace and thereby enhance adoption of IT in all sectors of the economy. To create an assurance framework for the design of security policies and promotion and enabling actions for compliance to global security standards and best practices by way of conformity assessment (Product, process, technology & people). To strengthen the Regulatory Framework for ensuring a SECURE CYBERSPACE ECOSYSTEM. To enhance and create National and Sectoral level 24x7 mechanism for obtaining strategic information regarding threats to ICT infrastructure, creating scenarios for response, resolution and crisis management through effective predictive, preventive, protective response and recovery actions. -To improve visibility of integrity of ICT products and services by establishing infrastructure for testing & validation of security of such product. To create workforce for 500,000 professionals skilled in next 5 years through capacity building skill development and training. To provide fiscal benefit to businesses for adoption of standard security practices and processes. To enable Protection of information while in process, handling, storage & transit so as to safeguard privacy of citizen's data and reducing economic losses due to cyber crime or data theft. To enable effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of cybercrime and enhancement of law enforcement capabilities through appropriate legislative intervention. == Strategies == Creating a secured Ecosystem. Creating an assurance framework. Encouraging Open Standards. Strengthening The regulatory Framework. Creating a mechanism for Security Threats Early Warning, Vulnerability management, and response to security threats. Securing E-Governance services. Protection and resilience of Critical Information Infrastructure. Promotion of Research and Development in cyber security. Reducing supply chain risks Human Resource Development (fostering education and training programs both in formal and informal sectors to Support the Nation's cyber security needs and build capacity. Creating cyber security awareness. Developing effective Public-Private partnerships. To develop bilateral and multilateral relationships in the area of cyber security with another country. (Information sharing and cooperation) a Prioritized approach for implementation.
Global call for AI red lines
The global call for AI red lines is a declaration made on 22 September 2025 calling on governments to define and internationally prohibit unacceptable AI uses and behaviors. The online declaration was announced by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa at the 80th United Nations General Assembly high-level week. The declaration was initially signed by 200 prominent politicians and scientists, including 10 Nobel Prize winners. The call does not specify which red lines to set, but suggests several, such as banning bioweapon design, mass surveillance or AI impersonation. == The declaration == The declaration was published online as an open letter on 22 September 2025. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa announced it in her opening speech at the 80th United Nations General Assembly high-level week in New York, urging governments to "define what AI should never be allowed to do" and "establish clear international boundaries to prevent universally unacceptable risks for A.I." The initiative was organized by three nonprofit organisations: the French Center for AI Safety (CeSIA), The Future Society, and the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence (CHAI). The letter argues that humanity faces risks such as engineered pandemics, widespread disinformation, large-scale manipulation, unemployment and loss of control. Proponents argue that national laws are insufficient to address these risks and that "an international agreement on clear and verifiable red lines is necessary". They urge governments to reach an agreement by the end of 2026, and called for robust enforcement mechanisms and the creation of an independent organisation to implement it. The letter does not call for specific red lines, but suggests the possibility of banning lethal autonomous weapons, autonomous replication of AI systems and the use of AI in nuclear warfare. Other examples of possible red lines include social scoring, mass surveillance, bioweapon design, AI-generated child sexual abuse material and AI impersonation. A red line could prohibit either AI behaviors (what AI systems should be guaranteed to never do even if asked to) or AI uses. == Signatories == When published, the online declaration was signed by more than 200 prominent politicians and scientists, including 10 Nobel Prize winners. Signers include former president of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos and researchers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. It also includes popular authors like Stephen Fry and Yuval Noah Harari. The letter received support from European lawmakers, including former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta, and former president of Ireland Mary Robinson. == Development of red lines == As of 2025, there is no global red line on AI. Some regional red lines exist, such as with the uses deemed "unacceptable" by the AI Act in Europe, and with the US-China agreement not to leave to AI the decision of whether to launch nuclear weapons. At the United Nations Security Council, days after the declaration, Michael Kratsios, Donald Trump's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said "We totally reject all efforts by international bodies to assert centralized control and global governance of AI." The topic of AI red lines gained prominence in 2026 with the dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense (DoD), which resulted from the DoD requesting Anthropic to remove contractual red lines on fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. The event led employees from Google and OpenAI as well as Senate Democrats to further call for red lines on military use of AI. Senator Adam Schiff proposed a bill to "codify" Anthropic's red lines.
Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act
The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, or SB 1047, was a failed 2024 California bill intended to "mitigate the risk of catastrophic harms from AI models so advanced that they are not yet known to exist". Specifically, the bill would have applied to models which cost more than $100 million to train and were trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 1026 integer or floating-point operations. SB 1047 would have applied to all AI companies doing business in California—the location of the company would not matter. The bill would have created protections for whistleblowers and required developers to perform risk assessments of their models prior to release, with guidance from the Government Operations Agency. It would also have established CalCompute, a University of California public cloud computing cluster for startups, researchers and community groups. == Background == The rapid increase in capabilities of AI systems in the 2020s, including the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, caused some researchers and members of the public to become concerned about the existential risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems. Hundreds of tech executives and AI researchers, including two of the so-called "Godfathers of AI", Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, signed a statement in May 2023 calling for the mitigation of the "risk of extinction from AI" to be a global priority alongside "pandemics and nuclear war". However, the plausibility of these risks is still widely debated. Strong regulation of AI has been criticized for purportedly causing regulatory capture by large AI companies like OpenAI, a phenomenon in which regulation advances the interest of larger companies at the expense of smaller competition and the public in general, although OpenAI ended up opposing the bill. Other advocates of AI regulation aim to prevent bias and privacy violations, rather than existential risks. For example, some experts who view existential concerns as overblown and unrealistic view them as a distraction from near-term harms of AI like discriminatory automated decision making. In the face of existential concerns, technology companies have made voluntary commitments to conduct safety testing, for example at the AI Safety Summit and AI Seoul Summit. In 2023, not long before the bill was proposed, Governor Newsom of California and President Biden issued executive orders on artificial intelligence. State Senator Wiener said SB 1047 draws heavily on the Biden executive order, and is motivated by the absence of unified federal legislation on AI safety. Historically, California has passed regulation on several tech issues itself, including consumer privacy and net neutrality, in the absence of action by Congress. == History == === Proposal and voting === The bill was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener. Wiener first proposed AI legislation for California through an intent bill called SB 294, the Safety in Artificial Intelligence Act, in September 2023. On February 7, 2024, Wiener introduced SB 1047. On May 21, SB 1047 passed the Senate 32–1. The bill was significantly amended by Wiener on August 15, 2024, in response to industry advice. Amendments included adding clarifications, and removing the creation of a "Frontier Model Division" and the penalty of perjury. On August 28, the bill passed the State Assembly 48–16. Then, due to the amendments, the bill was once again voted on by the Senate, passing 30–9. === Veto by governor === On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. The deadline for California lawmakers to overrule Newsom's veto was November 30, 2024. Newsom cited concerns over the bill's regulatory framework targeting only large AI models based on their computational size, while not taking into account whether the models are deployed in high-risk environments. Newsom emphasized that this approach could create a false sense of security, overlooking smaller models that might present equally significant risks. He acknowledged the need for AI safety protocols but stressed the importance of adaptability in regulation as AI technology continues to evolve rapidly. Governor Newsom also committed to working with technology experts, federal partners, and research institutions, including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led by former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; and Stanford University's Human-Centered AI (HAI) Institute, led by Dr. Fei-Fei Li. He announced plans to collaborate with these entities to advance responsible AI development, aiming to protect the public while fostering innovation. == Provisions == SB 1047 would have covered AI models with training compute over 1026 integer or floating-point operations and a cost of over $100 million. If a covered model is fine-tuned using more than $10 million, the resulting model would also have been covered. The bill would have defined critical harms with respect to four categories: Creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Autonomous crimes causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Other harms of comparable severity Developers would have needed to create a "safety and security protocol" before training covered models. Before deployment, they would have submitted a statement of compliance, confirming they took reasonable care to take measures to prevent covered models that pose an unreasonable risk of critical harms. The statement would have included risk assessments and descriptions of their compliance process. These rules would have applied to both covered models and their derivatives, including post-training modifications, with annual third-party audits required starting in 2026. Safeguards to reduce risk included the ability to shut down the model, which has been variously described as a "kill switch" and "circuit breaker". Whistleblowing provisions would have protected employees who report safety problems and incidents. Additionally, SB 1047 would have created a public cloud computing cluster called CalCompute, associated with the University of California, to support startups, researchers, and community groups that lack large-scale computing resources. === Compliance and supervision === SB 1047 would have required developers, beginning January 1, 2026, to annually retain a third-party auditor to perform an independent audit of compliance with the requirements of the bill, as provided. The Government Operations Agency would have reviewed the results of safety tests and incidents, and issue guidance, standards, and best practices. The bill would have created a Board of Frontier Models to supervise the application of the bill by the Government Operations Agency. It is would be composed of 9 members. == Reception == === Subjects of debate === Proponents of the bill described its provisions as simple and narrowly focused, with Sen. Scott Weiner describing it as a "light-touch, basic safety bill". This was disputed by critics of the bill, who described the bill's language as vague and criticized it as consolidating power in the largest AI companies at the expense of smaller ones. Proponents, in turn, argued that the bill only applies to models trained using more than 1026 FLOPS and with over $100 million, or fine-tuned with more than $10 million, and that the threshold could be increased if needed. The penalty of perjury was also a subject of debate, and was eventually removed through an amendment. The scope of the "kill switch" requirement was also reduced, following concerns from open-source developers. The use of the term "reasonable assurance" in the bill was also controversial, and it was eventually amended to "reasonable care". Critics then argued that "reasonable care" imposed an excessive burden by requiring confidence that models could not be used to cause catastrophic harm; proponents claimed that the standard did not require certainty and that it already applied to AI developers under existing law. === Support and opposition === Individual supporters of the bill included Turing Award recipients Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, Elon Musk, Bill de Blasio, Kevin Esvelt, Dan Hendrycks, Vitalik Buterin, OpenAI whistleblowers Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, Lawrence Lessig, Sneha Revanur, Stuart Russell, Jan Leike, actors Mark Ruffalo, Sean Astin, and Rosie Perez, Scott Aaronson, and Max Tegmark. Over 120 Hollywood celebrities, including Mark Hamill, Jane Fonda, and J. J. Abrams, also signed a statement in support of the bill. Max Tegmark likened the bill's focus on holding companies responsible for the harms caused by their models to the FDA requiring clinical trials before a company can release a drug to the market. Organizations sponsoring the bill included the Center for AI Safety, Economic Security California and Encode. The la
Responsible AI Safety and Education Act
The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) is a New York State law that imposes transparency, safety, and reporting requirements on developers of large frontier artificial intelligence models. The law was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025. It was sponsored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Alex Bores. The RAISE Act is the second U.S. state law to regulate frontier AI model developers, following California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), which was signed in September 2025. Hochul signed the bill on the condition that the legislature would pass chapter amendments to bring the law closer to the California model. The amending bills (A9449/S8828) were introduced in January 2026; as of February 2026 they remain in committee, though the Governor's office and legal commentators treat the agreed-upon amendments as representing the final form of the law. == Provisions == The following describes the RAISE Act as it is expected to operate after the agreed-upon chapter amendments take effect. The law is expected to take effect on January 1, 2027. === Scope === The law applies to "large frontier developers," defined as companies with annual revenues exceeding $500 million that develop "frontier models," which are foundation models trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations (FLOPs). The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had instead defined large developers based on having spent over $100 million in aggregate compute costs, and also included a provision prohibiting deployment of frontier models posing "unreasonable risk of critical harm"; both were removed as part of the negotiations between Hochul and the legislature. Accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research are exempt, as is the state's Empire AI consortium. === Safety and transparency framework === Large frontier developers must write, implement, and publicly publish a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, secure unreleased model weights against unauthorized access, use third-party evaluators, govern internal use of frontier models, and respond to safety incidents. The framework must describe these measures "in detail," a requirement that goes beyond the California TFAIA's requirement to describe a developer's "approach." The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and material modifications must be published with justification within 30 days. Before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model, developers must publish a transparency report including the model's release date, supported languages and output modalities, intended uses, and any restrictions on use. Large frontier developers must additionally include summaries of catastrophic risk assessments and the extent of third-party involvement. === Catastrophic risk and incident reporting === The law defines "catastrophic risk" as a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier model will contribute to the death of or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage, arising from a frontier model providing expert-level assistance in creating chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons; engaging in cyberattacks or conduct equivalent to crimes such as murder, assault, or theft without meaningful human oversight; or evading the control of its developer or user. Loss of equity value is explicitly excluded from the definition of property damage. "Critical safety incidents" include unauthorized access to model weights resulting in death or injury, materialization of a catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, and a model using deceptive techniques to subvert developer controls outside of an evaluation context in a manner that increases catastrophic risk. Frontier developers must report critical safety incidents within 72 hours, or within 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. === Enforcement === The chapter amendments establish a new office within the New York State Department of Financial Services to oversee compliance, receive incident reports, and publish annual reports on AI safety beginning in 2028. Large frontier developers must file disclosure statements with this office and pay pro rata assessments to fund its operations. The New York Attorney General may bring civil actions, with penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and $3 million for subsequent violations. The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had set penalties at up to $10 million and $30 million respectively. The law does not create a private right of action. == Legislative history == The bill was introduced in the Assembly on March 5, 2025, by Assemblymember Alex Bores, and in the Senate on March 27, 2025, by Senator Andrew Gounardes. After a series of amendments, the legislature passed the bill in June 2025. Governor Hochul did not immediately sign the bill, using nearly all the time available under New York law before acting; had she not signed by the end of 2025, the bill would have been pocket vetoed. The tech industry lobbied against the bill during this period, and Hochul initially proposed a near-complete rewrite modeled on California's TFAIA. Legislators resisted the extent of the changes, and the two sides ultimately agreed on a version that used the California law as a base but preserved several provisions that went beyond it, including the 72-hour incident reporting timeline and the creation of a dedicated enforcement office. Hochul signed the original bill (S6953-B/A6453-B) on December 19, 2025, with the legislature committing to pass chapter amendments formalizing the agreed changes in the January 2026 session. The amending bills (A9449 in the Assembly, S8828 in the Senate) were introduced on January 6 and January 8, 2026. OpenAI and Anthropic expressed support for the law. Anthropic's head of external affairs Sarah Heck said the two state laws "should inspire Congress to build on them." The super PAC network Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman, subsequently announced plans to challenge Bores in a future election. == Federal preemption debate == Hochul signed the RAISE Act eight days after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on December 11, 2025, directing the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws deemed to conflict with a "minimally burdensome" national AI policy. On January 9, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the establishment of an AI Litigation Task Force as called for by the executive order. The executive order also threatened states with loss of certain federal broadband funding if their AI laws were found to be onerous. Legal commentators have noted several potential avenues for federal challenge, including arguments that the law constitutes compelled speech, violates the dormant Commerce Clause by creating a patchwork of state regulations, or is preempted by federal AI policy. == Comparison with California's TFAIA == The RAISE Act was designed to align with California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, signed on September 29, 2025. Both laws use the same 1026 FLOP threshold to define frontier models and the same $500 million revenue threshold to define large developers. Both require public safety frameworks, transparency reports, and incident reporting. The RAISE Act's 72-hour incident reporting window is stricter than the TFAIA's 15-day window, though both require faster reporting for incidents posing imminent physical risk (24 hours under the RAISE Act, immediate under the TFAIA). The RAISE Act establishes a dedicated enforcement office within the Department of Financial Services, whereas California routes reports through the Office of Emergency Services. The RAISE Act requires developers to describe their safety measures "in detail" and how they "handle" various risks, whereas the TFAIA requires developers to describe their "approach."
Gitter
Gitter is an open-source instant messaging and chat room system for developers and users of GitLab and GitHub repositories. Gitter is provided as software as a service, with a free option providing all basic features and the ability to create a single private chat room, and paid subscription options for individuals and organisations, which allows them to create arbitrary numbers of private chat rooms. Individual chat rooms can be created for individual Git repositories on GitHub. Chatroom privacy follows the privacy settings of the associated GitHub repository: thus, a chatroom for a private (i.e. members-only) GitHub repository is also private to those with access to the repository. A graphical badge linking to the chat room can then be placed in the git repository's README file, bringing it to the attention of all users and developers of the project. Users can chat in the chat rooms, or access private chat rooms for repositories they have access to, by logging into Gitter via GitHub. Gitter is similar to Slack. Like Slack, it automatically logs all messages in the cloud. In late 2020, New Vector Limited acquired Gitter from GitLab, and announced Gitter's features would eventually be moved to New Vector's flagship product, Element, thereby replacing Gitter entirely. On February 13, 2023, Gitter migrated their service to a custom-branded Matrix instance that uses Element for its web interface. == Features prior to Migration to Matrix == Gitter supports: Notifications, which are batched up on mobile devices to avoid annoyance Inline media files Viewing and subscribing to ("starring") multiple chat rooms in one web browser tab Linking to individual files in the linked git repository Linking to GitHub issues (by typing # and then the issue number) in the linked Git repository, with hovercards showing the details of the issue GitHub-flavored Markdown in chat messages Online status for users User hovercards, based on their GitHub profiles and statistics (number of GitHub followers, etc.) Browsable and searchable message archives, grouped by month Connection from IRC clients Gitter on iOS support authentication using GitHub or Twitter === Integrations with non-GitHub sites and applications === Gitter integrates with Trello, Jenkins, Travis CI, Drone (software), Heroku, and Bitbucket, among others. === Apps === Official Gitter apps for Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS and Android are available. === Account registration === Like other chat technologies, Gitter allows clients to instant message each other. It allows people to authenticate using a GitHub account and join a chatroom from a web browser, thus not requiring one to install any software, or create additional online accounts. == History == Gitter was created by some developers who were initially trying to create a generic web-based chat product, but then wrote extra code to hook their chat application up to GitHub to meet their own needs, and realised that they could turn the combined product into a viable specialist product in its own right. Gitter came out of beta in 2014. During the beta period, Gitter delivered 1.8 million chat messages. On March 15, 2017, GitLab announced the acquisition of Gitter. Included in the announcement was the stated intent that Gitter would continue as a standalone project. It was published as open source under an MIT License as of June 2017. On September 30, 2020, New Vector Limited acquired Gitter from GitLab, and announced upcoming support for the Matrix protocol in Gitter, which went live by the end of the year. Gitter's features would eventually be moved to New Vector's flagship product, Element, thereby replacing Gitter entirely. On February 13, 2023, Gitter migrated their service to a custom-branded Matrix instance that uses Element for its web interface. == Implementation prior to Migration to Matrix == The Gitter web application is implemented entirely in JavaScript, with the back end being implemented on Node.js. The source code to the web application was formerly proprietary (it was open-sourced in June 2017), although Gitter had made numerous auxiliary projects available as open-source software, such as an IRC bridge for IRC users who prefer using IRC client applications (and their extra features) to converse in the Gitter chat rooms.
RevoScaleR
RevoScaleR is a machine learning package in R created by Microsoft. It is available as part of Machine Learning Server, Microsoft R Client, and Machine Learning Services in Microsoft SQL Server 2016. The package contains functions for creating linear model, logistic regression, random forest, decision tree and boosted decision tree, and K-means, in addition to some summary functions for inspecting and visualizing data. It has a Python package counterpart called revoscalepy. Another closely related package is MicrosoftML, which contains machine learning algorithms that RevoScaleR does not have, such as neural network and SVM. In June 2021, Microsoft announced to open source the RevoScaleR and revoscalepy packages, making them freely available under the MIT License. == Concepts == Many R packages are designed to analyze data that can fit in the memory of the machine and usually do not make use of parallel processing. RevoScaleR was designed to address these limitations. The functions in RevoScaleR orientate around three main abstraction concepts that users can specify to process large amount of data that might not fit in memory and exploit parallel resources to speed up the analysis. === Compute Contexts === A compute context refers to the location where the computation on the data happens. It could be "local" (on the client machine) or "remote" (on a data platform such as a SQL server, or Spark). Pushing the computation to a remote server allows people to take advantage of the greater compute resources that a remote machine may have. If the data being analyzed reside on the same machine, using a remote compute context also removes the need to pull data across the network onto the client machine. === Data source === Data source defines where the data comes from. There are various data sources available in RevoScaleR, such as text data, Xdf data, in-SQL data, and a spark dataframe. People can wrap their data in a data source object and use that as run analytics in different compute context. Different data sources are available in different compute context. For example, if the compute context is set to SQL server, then the only data source one can use would be an in-SQL data source. === Analytics === Analytic functions in RevoScaleR takes in data source object, a compute context, and the other parameters needed to build the specific model, such as formula for the logistic regression or the number of trees in a decision tree. In addition to those parameters, one can also specify the level of parallelism, such as the size of the data chunk for each process or number of processes to build the model. However, parallelism is only available in non-express edition. == Limitations == The package is mostly meant to be used with a SQL server or other remote machines. To fully leverage the abstractions it uses to process a large dataset, one needs a remote server and non-Express free edition of the package. It cannot be easily installed such as by running "install.packages("RevoScaleR")" like most open source R packages. It's available only through Microsoft R Client, a distribution of R for data science, or Microsoft Machine Learning Server (stand-alone with no SQL server attached), or Microsoft Machine Learning Services (a SQL server services). However, one can still use the analytics functions in an Express, free version of the package.