An Act Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages, also known as Texas House Bill 20 (HB20), is a Texas anti-deplatforming law enacted on September 9, 2021. It prohibits large social media platforms from removing, moderating, or labeling posts made by users in the state of Texas based on their "viewpoints", unless considered illegal under federal law or otherwise falling into exempted categories. It also requires them to make various public disclosures relating to their business practices (including the impact of algorithmic and moderation decisions on the content that is delivered to users). The bill is part of a wider array of Republican-backed legislation seeking to prohibit the censorship of political speech, based on allegations that the moderation policies of large social media platforms are not politically neutral. It has been challenged in NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, and is currently the subject of a circuit split between the Fifth Circuit, and a decision by the Eleventh Circuit that struck down a similar bill in the state of Florida. In September 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear NetChoice v. Paxton jointly with NetChoice v. Moody on questions of whether the Florida and Texas state laws are in compliance with the 1st Amendment. == Content == The law applies to "social media platforms" that serve users in the state of Texas, and have more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States. They are defined as any public internet website or application that allows users to "communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images", excluding internet service providers, electronic mail, and services where communication features are "incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on" content that is pre-selected by the operator. In the bill, to "censor" is defined as to "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against" expression. The law prohibits social media platforms from "censoring on the basis of user viewpoint, user expression, or the ability of a user to receive the expression of others", or on the basis of a user's geographic location in Texas. This includes removal or labeling posts with warnings and disclaimers. Social media platforms may only censor content if it is unlawful, they are "specifically authorized" to do so by federal law, based on requests from "an organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual exploitation of children or protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment", or "directly incites" criminal activity or contains threats of violence against persons based on protected categories. It is disputed over whether this provision is actually enforceable, as it may be preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which states that the operators of interactive computer services are not responsible for the actions of their users). Social media platforms must make public disclosures regarding the algorithmic techniques and moderation polices that are used to determine the content provided to users, must publish a compliant acceptable use policy (AUP), and must publish a biannual transparency report containing specific details on all actions made by the service regarding the moderation of users and content. The law also prohibits email providers from "intentionally imped[ing] the transmission of another person's electronic mail message based on the content." == Legislative history == Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law on September 9, 2021. Democrat-proposed amendments excluding Holocaust denial, terrorism content, and vaccine misinformation from the bill were rejected. Following a suit by the industry groups Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, the bill was blocked by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in December 2021, on First Amendment grounds. Texas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judges Edith Jones, Andrew Oldham, and Leslie H. Southwick, lifted the injunction on May 11, 2022, but the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which suspended the bill pending a full review in the Fifth Circuit. On September 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit reversed the injunction, allowing the bill to take effect; Judge Oldham stated that the bill "chills censorship" and "does not chill speech", and accused the plaintiffs of "attempt[ing] to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution's free speech guarantee. The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech." Southwick dissented, stating that "we are in a new arena, a very extensive one, for speakers and for those who would moderate their speech. None of the precedents fit seamlessly." The CCIA and NetChoice requested a stay on the ruling and that the case be taken to the Supreme Court, arguing that the reversal conflicts with an Eleventh Circuit decision in NetChoice v. Moody which struck down a similar anti-moderation bill imposed by the state of Florida. On October 12, 2022, the Fifth Circuit granted the stay.
T-vertices
T-vertices is a term used in computer graphics to describe a problem that can occur during mesh refinement or mesh simplification. The most common case occurs in naive implementations of continuous level of detail, where a finer-level mesh is "sewn" together with a coarser-level mesh by simply aligning the finer vertices on the edges of the coarse polygons. The result is a continuous mesh, however due to the nature of the z-buffer and certain lighting algorithms such as Gouraud shading, visual artifacts can often be detected. Some modeling algorithms such as subdivision surfaces will fail when a model contains T-vertices.
Sugeno integral
In mathematics, the Sugeno integral, introduced by Michio Sugeno as a fuzzy integral in work on fuzzy measures at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, is a type of integral with respect to a fuzzy measure. Let ( X , Ω ) {\displaystyle (X,\Omega )} be a measurable space and let h : X → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle h:X\to [0,1]} be an Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } -measurable function. The Sugeno integral over the crisp set A ⊆ X {\displaystyle A\subseteq X} of the function h {\displaystyle h} with respect to the fuzzy measure g {\displaystyle g} is defined by: ∫ A h ( x ) ∘ g = sup E ⊆ X [ min ( min x ∈ E h ( x ) , g ( A ∩ E ) ) ] = sup α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] [ min ( α , g ( A ∩ F α ) ) ] {\displaystyle \int _{A}h(x)\circ g={\sup _{E\subseteq X}}\left[\min \left(\min _{x\in E}h(x),g(A\cap E)\right)\right]={\sup _{\alpha \in [0,1]}}\left[\min \left(\alpha ,g(A\cap F_{\alpha })\right)\right]} where F α = { x | h ( x ) ≥ α } {\displaystyle F_{\alpha }=\left\{x|h(x)\geq \alpha \right\}} . The Sugeno integral over the fuzzy set A ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}} of the function h {\displaystyle h} with respect to the fuzzy measure g {\displaystyle g} is defined by: ∫ A h ( x ) ∘ g = ∫ X [ h A ( x ) ∧ h ( x ) ] ∘ g {\displaystyle \int _{A}h(x)\circ g=\int _{X}\left[h_{A}(x)\wedge h(x)\right]\circ g} where h A ( x ) {\displaystyle h_{A}(x)} is the membership function of the fuzzy set A ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}} . == Usage and Relationships == Sugeno integral is related to h-index.
Computational law
Computational law is the branch of legal informatics concerned with the automation of legal reasoning. What distinguishes Computational Law systems from other instances of legal technology is their autonomy, i.e. the ability to answer legal questions without additional input from human legal experts. While there are many possible applications of Computational Law, the primary focus of work in the field today is compliance management, i.e. the development and deployment of computer systems capable of assessing, facilitating, or enforcing compliance with rules and regulations. Some systems of this sort already exist. TurboTax is a good example. And the potential is particularly significant now due to recent technological advances – including the prevalence of the Internet in human interaction and the proliferation of embedded computer systems (such as smart phones, self-driving cars, and robots). There are also applications that do not involve governmental laws. The regulations can just as well be the terms of contracts (e.g. delivery schedules, insurance covenants, real estate transactions, financial agreements). They can be the policies of corporations (e.g. constraints on travel, expenditure reporting, pricing rules). They can even be the rules of games (embodied in computer game playing systems). == History == Speculation about potential benefits to legal practice through applying methods from computational science and AI research to automate parts of the law date back at least to the middle 1940s. Further, AI and law and computational law do not seem easily separable, as perhaps most of AI research focusing on the law and its automation appears to utilize computational methods. The forms that speculation took are multiple and not all related in ways to readily show closeness to one another. This history will sketch them as they were, attempting to show relationships where they can be found to have existed. By 1949, a minor academic field aiming to incorporate electronic and computational methods to legal problems had been founded by American legal scholars, called jurimetrics. Though broadly said to be concerned with the application of the "methods of science" to the law, these methods were actually of a quite specifically defined scope. Jurimetrics was to be "concerned with such matters as the quantitative analysis of judicial behavior, the application of communication and information theory to legal expression, the use of mathematical logic in law, the retrieval of legal data by electronic and mechanical means, and the formulation of a calculus of legal predictability". These interests led in 1959 to the founding a journal, Modern Uses of Logic in Law, as a forum wherein articles would be published about the applications of techniques such as mathematical logic, engineering, statistics, etc. to the legal study and development. In 1966, this Journal was renamed as Jurimetrics. Today, however, the journal and meaning of jurimetrics seems to have broadened far beyond what would fit under the areas of applications of computers and computational methods to law. Today the journal not only publishes articles on such practices as found in computational law, but has broadened jurimetrical concerns to mean also things like the use of social science in law or the "policy implications [of] and legislative and administrative control of science". Independently in 1958, at the Conference for the Mechanization of Thought held at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middlesex, UK, the French jurist Lucien Mehl presented a paper both on the benefits of using computational methods for law and on the potential means to use such methods to automate law for a discussion that included AI luminaries like Marvin Minsky. Mehl believed that the law could by automated by two basic distinct, though not wholly separable, types of machine. These were the "documentary or information machine", which would provide the legal researcher quick access to relevant case precedents and legal scholarship, and the "consultation machine", which would be "capable of answering any question put to it over a vast field of law". The latter type of machine would be able to basically do much of a lawyer's job by simply giving the "exact answer to a [legal] problem put to it". By 1970, Mehl's first type of machine, one that would be able to retrieve information, had been accomplished but there seems to have been little consideration of further fruitful intersections between AI and legal research. There were, however, still hopes that computers could model the lawyer's thought processes through computational methods and then apply that capacity to solve legal problems, thus automating and improving legal services via increased efficiency as well as shedding light on the nature of legal reasoning. By the late 1970s, computer science and the affordability of computer technology had progressed enough that the retrieval of "legal data by electronic and mechanical means" had been achieved by machines fitting Mehl's first type and were in common use in American law firms. During this time, research focused on improving the goals of the early 1970s occurred, with programs like Taxman being worked on in order to both bring useful computer technology into the law as practical aids and to help specify the exact nature of legal concepts. Nonetheless, progress on the second type of machine, one that would more fully automate the law, remained relatively inert. Research into machines that could answer questions in the way that Mehl's consultation machine would picked up somewhat in the late 1970s and 1980s. A 1979 convention in Swansea, Wales marked the first international effort solely to focus upon applying artificial intelligence research to legal problems in order to "consider how computers can be used to discover and apply the legal norms embedded within the written sources of the law". Considerable progress on the development of the second type of machine was made in the following decade, with the development of a variety of expert systems. According to Thorne McCarty, "these systems all have the following characteristics: They do backward chaining inference from a specified goal; they ask questions to elicit information from the user; and they produce a suggested answer along with a trace of the supporting legal rules." According to Prakken and Sartor the representation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program, which introduced this approach, was "hugely influential for the development of computational representations of legislation, showing how logic programming enables intuitively appealing representations that can be directly deployed to generate automatic inferences". In 2021, this work received the Inaugural CodeX Prize as "one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field." In a 1988 review of Anne Gardner's book An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning (1987), the Harvard academic legal scholar and computer scientist Edwina Rissland wrote that "She plays, in part, the role of pioneer; artificial intelligence ("AI") techniques have not yet been widely applied to perform legal tasks. Therefore, Gardner, and this review, first describe and define the field, then demonstrate a working model in the domain of contract offer and acceptance." Eight years after the Swansea conference had passed, and still AI and law researchers merely trying to delineate the field could be described by their own kind as "pioneer[s]". In the 1990s and early 2000s more progress occurred. Computational research generated insights for law. The First International Conference on AI and the Law occurred in 1987, but it is in the 1990s and 2000s that the biannual conference began to build up steam and to delve more deeply into the issues involved with work intersecting computational methods, AI, and law. Classes began to be taught to undergraduates on the uses of computational methods to automating, understanding, and obeying the law. Further, by 2005, a team largely composed of Stanford computer scientists from the Stanford Logic group had devoted themselves to studying the uses of computational techniques to the law. Computational methods in fact advanced enough that members of the legal profession began in the 2000s to both analyze, predict and worry about the potential future of computational law and a new academic field of computational legal studies seems to be now well established. As insight into what such scholars see in the law's future due in part to computational law, here is quote from a recent conference about the "New Normal" for the legal profession: "Over the last 5 years, in the fallout of the Great Recession, the legal profession has entered the era of the New Normal. Notably, a series of forces related to technological change, globalization, and the pressure to do more with less (in both corpo
Tip and cue
Tip and cue, sometimes referred to as tip and que, tipping and cueing, or tipping and queing, is a method for satellite imagery and reconnaissance satellites to automatically coordinate tracking of objects across different satellites in real or near real-time. This technique ensures continuous tracking of targets as they move across different regions by handing them off between satellites, sharing satellite imagery and collateral across discrete satellites. The coordination between various satellites and their complementary sensors allows for more accurate and efficient data collection. This system is particularly useful in scenarios requiring real-time monitoring and rapid response; the method significantly improves situational awareness and operational effectiveness. Tip and cue techniques involve integrating various sensor systems, each playing a specific role in the tracking process. As a target moves, it is handed off from one satellite to another, ensuring continuous monitoring. This coordination optimizes data collection and analysis, enhancing overall tracking accuracy. The real-time information gathered by these satellites is critical for decision-making in various applications, including defense and surveillance. By leveraging multiple satellites and their sensors, it provides broader coverage and more reliable tracking, and the continuous handoff between satellites ensures there are no gaps in monitoring, essential for high-stakes applications. The real-time data provided by this system allows for timely and informed decisions, improving response times and outcomes. Tip and cue methodologies are a part of geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT. Robert Cardillo, a former director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, highlighted the importance of tip and cue methods to their data collection efforts in 2015. == Historical Development == The concept of tip and cue in satellite monitoring has its origins in early military applications designed to enhance missile detection and tracking systems. During the Cold War, advancements in infrared sensing technologies laid the groundwork for more sophisticated tip and cue techniques. The integration of different sensor types, such as radar and optical sensors, in the 1990s expanded the capabilities of tip and cue systems beyond military applications. These advancements have made tip and cue techniques essential for various civilian uses, including disaster monitoring and environmental surveillance. Significant progress was made with the advent of high-speed data processing and communication technologies in the early 2000s, further refining the method. Advanced algorithms and data fusion techniques have been introduced to better integrate information from multiple sensors. Machine learning technologies now play a crucial role in improving detection and prediction capabilities, allowing for more adaptive and efficient tracking. Richmond and Brennan of Lockheed Martin, presenting to the annual technical conference of the Maui Space Surveillance Complex (formerly the Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS)), discussed the algorithms needed for 'tip and cue', to facilitate "multi-phenomenology data fusion." The Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) at Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Australia, operated by the United States Space Force and designed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, was reported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to be a leader in creating and improving tip and cue techniques, from a large library of orbital object data. == Technical overview == Tip and cue systems utilize a network of at least two satellites equipped with complementary sensor technologies to track moving objects in real-time. The method involves detecting a target with a primary sensor, such as an infrared or photographic sensor, which then cues secondary sensors on the same or other satellites for more detailed monitoring. This handoff process between discrete systems ensures continuous tracking as the target moves across different areas, leveraging each systems strengths. Data collected by these systems and sensors are rapidly processed and shared among the network, enhancing situational awareness. This coordination optimizes resource usage and improves the accuracy of tracking moving objects over large areas. The primary sensors detect initial targets based on specific signatures, such as heat or movement, and then cue secondary sensors to gather more precise data. This ensures that each sensor operates within its optimal range, maintaining high tracking accuracy and reliability. The integration of various sensor types, including optical, radar, and infrared, allows the system to function effectively under different conditions and environments. Real-time data processing and communication between satellites and ground stations are crucial for timely and accurate target tracking. Satellites using tip and cue processes may use either passive or active scanning methodoloigies. These systems may also leverage both orbital and ground-based ELINT (electronic signals intelligence). == Known use cases == Tip and cue systems have been extensively utilized in military applications, particularly for missile detection and defense. These systems enable early detection of missile launches using infrared sensors, which then cue other sensors to track the missile's trajectory more accurately. In environmental monitoring, tip and cue techniques help track natural disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes by coordinating various satellite sensors for comprehensive data collection and analysis. Surveillance and reconnaissance operations also benefit from tip and cue systems, which provide continuous and precise tracking of moving objects, enhancing situational awareness. Additionally, these systems are used in maritime surveillance to monitor ship movements and detect illegal activities such as smuggling and piracy. Tip and cue systems are used in disaster management. For instance, during wildfires, infrared sensors can detect heat signatures, prompting other sensors to gather detailed imagery and data on fire spread and intensity. This coordinated approach allows for real-time monitoring and rapid response, crucial for mitigating damage and saving lives. Similarly, in hurricane tracking, satellites equipped with various sensors can monitor storm development and progression, providing timely information for emergency management agencies. The integration of multiple sensor types ensures accurate and comprehensive coverage of these dynamic and fast-changing events. In maritime surveillance, or maritime domain awareness (MDA), tip and cue systems enhance the detection and monitoring of vessel movements, contributing to maritime security. By coordinating satellite sensors, these systems can track ships over vast ocean areas, identifying potential threats or illegal activities such as smuggling, piracy, and illegal fishing. The ability to maintain continuous surveillance and share data in real-time with maritime authorities improves response times and enforcement capabilities. This application of tip and cue systems not only aids in law enforcement but also supports environmental conservation efforts by monitoring protected marine areas. Automatic Identification System (AIS) is one of the most important sources of data for the MDA agencies. AIS is used in order for ships to know each other's whereabouts, they transmit a signal from ship to ship and to shore. Lately, the system has been developed into satellite system, so called satellite AIS, which makes the system more effective. All ocean-going vessels above 300 tons, are supposed to use and transmit via AIS according to the International Maritime Organization. The satellite constellations help facilitate this with tip and cue methodologies.
Shadow and highlight enhancement
Shadow and highlight enhancement refers to an image processing technique used to correct exposure. The use of this technique has been gaining popularity, making its way onto magazine covers, digital media, and photos. It is, however, considered by some to be akin to other destructive Photoshop filters, such as the Watercolor filter, or the Mosaic filter. == Shadow recovery == A conservative application of the shadow/highlight tool can be very useful in recovering shadows, though it tends to leave a telltale halo around the boundary between highlight and shadow if used incorrectly. A way to avoid this is to use the bracketing technique, although this usually requires a tripod. == Highlight recovery == Recovering highlights with this tool, however, has mixed results, especially when using it on images with skin in them, and often makes people look like they have been "sprayed with fake tan". == Shadow brightening - manual == One way to brighten shadows in image editing software such as GIMP or Adobe Photoshop is to duplicate the background layer, invert the copy and set the blend modes of that top layer to "Soft Light". You can also use an inverted black and white copy of the image as a mask on a brightening layer, such as Curves or Levels. == Shadow brightening - automatic == Several automatic computer image processing-based shadow recovery and dynamic range compression methods can yield a similar effect. Some of these methods include the retinex method and homomorphic range compression. The retinex method is based on work from 1963 by Edwin Land, the founder of Polaroid. Shadow enhancement can also be accomplished using adaptive image processing algorithms such as adaptive histogram equalization or contrast limiting adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE).
DEAP (software)
Distributed Evolutionary Algorithms in Python (DEAP) is an evolutionary computation framework for rapid prototyping and testing of ideas. It incorporates the data structures and tools required to implement most common evolutionary computation techniques such as genetic algorithm, genetic programming, evolution strategies, particle swarm optimization, differential evolution, traffic flow and estimation of distribution algorithm. It is developed at Université Laval since 2009. == Example == The following code gives a quick overview how the Onemax problem optimization with genetic algorithm can be implemented with DEAP.