Monitoring as a service (MaaS) is a cloud-based framework for the deployment of monitoring functionalities for various other services and applications within the cloud. The most common application for MaaS is online state monitoring, which continuously tracks certain states of applications, networks, systems, instances or any element that may be deployable within the cloud.
Friendica
Friendica (formerly Friendika, originally Mistpark) is a free and open-source software distributed social network. It forms one part of the Fediverse, an interconnected and decentralized network of independently operated servers. == Features == Friendica users can connect with others via their own Friendica server, but may also fully integrate contacts from other platforms including Diaspora, Pump.io, GNU social, email, Discourse and more recently ActivityPub (including Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed) and Bluesky into their 'newsfeed'. In addition to these two way connections, users can also use Friendica as a publishing platform to post content to WordPress, Tumblr, Insanejournal and Libertree. Posting to Google+ was also supported until that service was shut down. In addition, RSS feeds can be ingested. Because users are distributed across many servers, their "addresses" consist of a username, the "@" symbol, and the domain name of the Friendica instance in the same manner email addresses are formed. Twitter support was available but was deprecated due to API changes under Elon Musk's leadership rendering it unusable. Most of the functionality from major microblogging and social networking platforms are available in Friendica; for example, tagging users and groups via "@ mentions"; direct messages; hashtags; photo albums; "likes"; "dislikes"; comments; and re-shares of publicly visible posts. Published items can be edited and updated across the network. Comprehensive settings for privacy and the public visibility of posts allow users to regulate who can read which contributions, or see specific information about the user. Users can also create multiple profiles, allowing different groups of people (such as friends, or work mates) to see a different profile entirely when viewing the same page. User accounts can be downloaded or deleted, and can be imported to a different Friendica server if so required. Public forums can be created under different accounts, which can be switched between if the accounts are registered with the same email address. == Development == There is no corporation behind Friendica. The developers work on a voluntary basis and the project is run informally; the platform itself is used for the communication between the developers. There are different forums within Friendica, such as "Friendica Developers" and "Friendica Support". The source code of Friendica is hosted on GitHub. == Installation == The developers aim to make installation of the software as simple as possible for technical laymen. They argue that decentralization on small servers is a key condition for the freedom of users and their self-determination. The difficulty level is similar to an installation of WordPress. However, the installing on shared hosting is sometimes difficult because of missing PHP5 modules. Some volunteers also run public servers so that newcomers can also avoid the installation of their own software. == List of clients == Friendica implements multiple client-server API variants simultaneously. Along with endpoints needed to use enhanced Friendica features, it also implements the API used by GNU social, Twitter and since version 2021.06 also the one used by Mastodon. As a result, most GNU social and Mastodon clients can be used for Friendica. Examples of Friendica compatible clients include: Raccoon for Friendica, Friendiqa, Fedilab, AndStatus, Twidere and DiCa for Android, friendly for Sailfish OS, friclicli (CLI client), choqok and Friendiqa for Linux and Friendica Mobile for Windows 10. == Reception == Friendica was cited in January 2012 by Infoshop News as an "alternative to Google+ and Facebook" to be used on the Occupy Nigeria movement. In January 2012 Free Software Foundation Europe's blog cited Friendica as a reasonable alternative to centralized and controlled social networks such as Facebook or Google+. Biblical Notes writer J. Randal Matheny described Friendica in January 2012 as "One social networking option flying under the radar until recently deserves consideration as an already stable platform with a wide range of options, applications, plug-ins, and possibilities for opening up the Internet." In February 2012, the German computer magazine c't wrote: "Friendica demonstrates how decentralized social networks can become widely accepted." Another German publication, the professional magazine t3n listed Friendica as a Facebook rival in an online article in March 2012 about Facebook alternatives. It compared Friendica with similar social networks like Diaspora and identi.ca. MSN Tech & Gadgets contributor Emma Boyes wrote about Friendica in May 2012: "why you'll love it: you can use it to access all the other social networks and get recommendations of new friends and groups to join. Friendica is open source and decentralised. There's no corporation behind it and there are extensive privacy settings. You can choose from a variety of user interfaces and it boasts some cool features—for instance, being able to key in a list of your interests and use the 'profile match' feature to recommend other users who share them with you. A word of warning, though, the site is not as user-friendly as the others on this list, so it may be this one is one for the geeks." == Later reviews == Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk had revitalized public interest in Fediverse technologies in April 2022. Friendica received favorable reviews, with a PCMag article describing it as "mostly comparable to Facebook", drawing a parallel to Google+ and highlighting using it "for planning events, and its multiple profile feature means you can show a different face to your friends, coworkers, and family". The September 2022 issue of Linux Magazine contains a detailed comparison and walk-through of registering to and using basic functions of Diaspora, Friendica and Mastodon. They describe Friendica as "intuitive" and highlight the "huge choice of account settings" and that "Friendica does not require any specific hardware, so you can use an old computer system as a server." == Vulnerabilities == In September 2020, a hotfix was released to patch a security vulnerability that could leak sensitive information from the server environment since versions released in April 2019 (develop branch) and June 2019 (stable).
Information seeking
Information seeking is the process or activity of attempting to obtain information in both human and technological contexts. Information seeking is related to, but different from, information retrieval (IR). == Compared to information retrieval == Traditionally, IR tools have been designed for IR professionals to enable them to effectively and efficiently retrieve information from a source. It is assumed that the information exists in the source and that a well-formed query will retrieve it (and nothing else). It has been argued that laypersons' information seeking on the internet is very different from information retrieval as performed within the IR discourse. Yet, internet search engines are built on IR principles. Since the late 1990s a body of research on how casual users interact with internet search engines has been forming, but the topic is far from fully understood. IR can be said to be technology-oriented, focusing on algorithms and issues such as precision and recall. Information seeking may be understood as a more human-oriented and open-ended process than information retrieval. In information seeking, one does not know whether there exists an answer to one's query, so the process of seeking may provide the learning required to satisfy one's information need. == In different contexts == Much library and information science (LIS) research has focused on the information-seeking practices of practitioners within various fields of professional work. Studies have been carried out into the information-seeking behaviors of librarians, academics, medical professionals, engineers, lawyers and mini-publics(among others). Much of this research has drawn on the work done by Leckie, Pettigrew (now Fisher) and Sylvain, who in 1996 conducted an extensive review of the LIS literature (as well as the literature of other academic fields) on professionals' information seeking. The authors proposed an analytic model of professionals' information seeking behaviour, intended to be generalizable across the professions, thus providing a platform for future research in the area. The model was intended to "prompt new insights... and give rise to more refined and applicable theories of information seeking" (1996, p. 188). The model has been adapted by Wilkinson (2001) who proposes a model of the information seeking of lawyers. Recent studies in this topic address the concept of information-gathering that "provides a broader perspective that adheres better to professionals' work-related reality and desired skills." (Solomon & Bronstein, 2021). == Theories of information-seeking behavior == A variety of theories of information behavior – e.g. Zipf's Principle of Least Effort, Brenda Dervin's Sense Making, Elfreda Chatman's Life in the Round – seek to understand the processes that surround information seeking. In addition, many theories from other disciplines have been applied in investigating an aspect or whole process of information seeking behavior. A review of the literature on information seeking behavior shows that information seeking has generally been accepted as dynamic and non-linear (Foster, 2005; Kuhlthau 2006). People experience the information search process as an interplay of thoughts, feelings and actions (Kuhlthau, 2006). Donald O. Case (2007) also wrote a good book that is a review of the literature. Information seeking has been found to be linked to a variety of interpersonal communication behaviors beyond question-asking, to include strategies such as candidate answers. Robinson's (2010) research suggests that when seeking information at work, people rely on both other people and information repositories (e.g., documents and databases), and spend similar amounts of time consulting each (7.8% and 6.4% of work time, respectively; 14.2% in total). However, the distribution of time among the constituent information seeking stages differs depending on the source. When consulting other people, people spend less time locating the information source and information within that source, similar time understanding the information, and more time problem solving and decision making, than when consulting information repositories. Furthermore, the research found that people spend substantially more time receiving information passively (i.e., information that they have not requested) than actively (i.e., information that they have requested), and this pattern is also reflected when they provide others with information. == Wilson's nested model of conceptual areas == The concepts of information seeking, information retrieval, and information behaviour are objects of investigation of information science. Within this scientific discipline a variety of studies has been undertaken analyzing the interaction of an individual with information sources in case of a specific information need, task, and context. The research models developed in these studies vary in their level of scope. Wilson (1999) therefore developed a nested model of conceptual areas, which visualizes the interrelation of the here mentioned central concepts. Wilson defines models of information behavior to be "statements, often in the form of diagrams, that attempt to describe an information-seeking activity, the causes and consequences of that activity, or the relationships among stages in information-seeking behaviour" (1999: 250).
Single-source publishing
Single-source publishing, also known as single-sourcing publishing, is a content management method which allows the same source content to be used across different forms of media and more than one time. The labor-intensive and expensive work of editing need only be carried out once, on only one document; that source document (the single source of truth) can then be stored in one place and reused. This reduces the potential for error, as corrections are only made one time in the source document. The benefits of single-source publishing primarily relate to the editor rather than the user. The user benefits from the consistency that single-sourcing brings to terminology and information. This assumes the content manager has applied an organized conceptualization to the underlying content (A poor conceptualization can make single-source publishing less useful). Single-source publishing is sometimes used synonymously with multi-channel publishing though whether or not the two terms are synonymous is a matter of discussion. == Definition == While there is a general definition of single-source publishing, there is no single official delineation between single-source publishing and multi-channel publishing, nor are there any official governing bodies to provide such a delineation. Single-source publishing is most often understood as the creation of one source document in an authoring tool and converting that document into different file formats or human languages (or both) multiple times with minimal effort. Multi-channel publishing can either be seen as synonymous with single-source publishing, or similar in that there is one source document but the process itself results in more than a mere reproduction of that source. == History == The origins of single-source publishing lie, indirectly, with the release of Windows 3.0 in 1990. With the eclipsing of MS-DOS by graphical user interfaces, help files went from being unreadable text along the bottom of the screen to hypertext systems such as WinHelp. On-screen help interfaces allowed software companies to cease the printing of large, expensive help manuals with their products, reducing costs for both producer and consumer. This system raised opportunities as well, and many developers fundamentally changed the way they thought about publishing. Writers of software documentation did not simply move from being writers of traditional bound books to writers of electronic publishing, but rather they became authors of central documents which could be reused multiple times across multiple formats. The first single-source publishing project was started in 1993 by Cornelia Hofmann at Schneider Electric in Seligenstadt, using software based on Interleaf to automatically create paper documentation in multiple languages based on a single original source file. XML, developed during the mid- to late-1990s, was also significant to the development of single-source publishing as a method. XML, a markup language, allows developers to separate their documentation into two layers: a shell-like layer based on presentation and a core-like layer based on the actual written content. This method allows developers to write the content only one time while switching it in and out of multiple different formats and delivery methods. In the mid-1990s, several firms began creating and using single-source content for technical documentation (Boeing Helicopter, Sikorsky Aviation and Pratt & Whitney Canada) and user manuals (Ford owners manuals) based on tagged SGML and XML content generated using the Arbortext Epic editor with add-on functions developed by a contractor. The concept behind this usage was that complex, hierarchical content that did not lend itself to discrete componentization could be used across a variety of requirements by tagging the differences within a single document using the capabilities built into SGML and XML. Ford, for example, was able to tag its single owner's manual files so that 12 model years could be generated via a resolution script running on the single completed file. Pratt & Whitney, likewise, was able to tag up to 20 subsets of its jet engine manuals in single-source files, calling out the desired version at publication time. World Book Encyclopedia also used the concept to tag its articles for American and British versions of English. Starting from the early 2000s, single-source publishing was used with an increasing frequency in the field of technical translation. It is still regarded as the most efficient method of publishing the same material in different languages. Once a printed manual was translated, for example, the online help for the software program which the manual accompanies could be automatically generated using the method. Metadata could be created for an entire manual and individual pages or files could then be translated from that metadata with only one step, removing the need to recreate information or even database structures. Although single-source publishing is now decades old, its importance has increased urgently as of the 2010s. As consumption of information products rises and the number of target audiences expands, so does the work of developers and content creators. Within the industry of software and its documentation, there is a perception that the choice is to embrace single-source publishing or render one's operations obsolete. == Criticism == Editors using single-source publishing have been criticized for below-standard work quality, leading some critics to describe single-source publishing as the "conveyor belt assembly" of content creation. While heavily used in technical translation, there are risks of error in regard to indexing. While two words might be synonyms in English, they may not be synonyms in another language. In a document produced via single-sourcing, the index will be translated automatically and the two words will be rendered as synonyms. This is because they are synonyms in the source language, while in the target language they are not.
Information seeking
Information seeking is the process or activity of attempting to obtain information in both human and technological contexts. Information seeking is related to, but different from, information retrieval (IR). == Compared to information retrieval == Traditionally, IR tools have been designed for IR professionals to enable them to effectively and efficiently retrieve information from a source. It is assumed that the information exists in the source and that a well-formed query will retrieve it (and nothing else). It has been argued that laypersons' information seeking on the internet is very different from information retrieval as performed within the IR discourse. Yet, internet search engines are built on IR principles. Since the late 1990s a body of research on how casual users interact with internet search engines has been forming, but the topic is far from fully understood. IR can be said to be technology-oriented, focusing on algorithms and issues such as precision and recall. Information seeking may be understood as a more human-oriented and open-ended process than information retrieval. In information seeking, one does not know whether there exists an answer to one's query, so the process of seeking may provide the learning required to satisfy one's information need. == In different contexts == Much library and information science (LIS) research has focused on the information-seeking practices of practitioners within various fields of professional work. Studies have been carried out into the information-seeking behaviors of librarians, academics, medical professionals, engineers, lawyers and mini-publics(among others). Much of this research has drawn on the work done by Leckie, Pettigrew (now Fisher) and Sylvain, who in 1996 conducted an extensive review of the LIS literature (as well as the literature of other academic fields) on professionals' information seeking. The authors proposed an analytic model of professionals' information seeking behaviour, intended to be generalizable across the professions, thus providing a platform for future research in the area. The model was intended to "prompt new insights... and give rise to more refined and applicable theories of information seeking" (1996, p. 188). The model has been adapted by Wilkinson (2001) who proposes a model of the information seeking of lawyers. Recent studies in this topic address the concept of information-gathering that "provides a broader perspective that adheres better to professionals' work-related reality and desired skills." (Solomon & Bronstein, 2021). == Theories of information-seeking behavior == A variety of theories of information behavior – e.g. Zipf's Principle of Least Effort, Brenda Dervin's Sense Making, Elfreda Chatman's Life in the Round – seek to understand the processes that surround information seeking. In addition, many theories from other disciplines have been applied in investigating an aspect or whole process of information seeking behavior. A review of the literature on information seeking behavior shows that information seeking has generally been accepted as dynamic and non-linear (Foster, 2005; Kuhlthau 2006). People experience the information search process as an interplay of thoughts, feelings and actions (Kuhlthau, 2006). Donald O. Case (2007) also wrote a good book that is a review of the literature. Information seeking has been found to be linked to a variety of interpersonal communication behaviors beyond question-asking, to include strategies such as candidate answers. Robinson's (2010) research suggests that when seeking information at work, people rely on both other people and information repositories (e.g., documents and databases), and spend similar amounts of time consulting each (7.8% and 6.4% of work time, respectively; 14.2% in total). However, the distribution of time among the constituent information seeking stages differs depending on the source. When consulting other people, people spend less time locating the information source and information within that source, similar time understanding the information, and more time problem solving and decision making, than when consulting information repositories. Furthermore, the research found that people spend substantially more time receiving information passively (i.e., information that they have not requested) than actively (i.e., information that they have requested), and this pattern is also reflected when they provide others with information. == Wilson's nested model of conceptual areas == The concepts of information seeking, information retrieval, and information behaviour are objects of investigation of information science. Within this scientific discipline a variety of studies has been undertaken analyzing the interaction of an individual with information sources in case of a specific information need, task, and context. The research models developed in these studies vary in their level of scope. Wilson (1999) therefore developed a nested model of conceptual areas, which visualizes the interrelation of the here mentioned central concepts. Wilson defines models of information behavior to be "statements, often in the form of diagrams, that attempt to describe an information-seeking activity, the causes and consequences of that activity, or the relationships among stages in information-seeking behaviour" (1999: 250).
Once (dating platform)
Once is an online dating platform founded in 2015. The platform offers users one selected match per day for more meaningful connections. == History == Once was established in 2015, the founders included dating industry entrepreneur Jean Meyer, who became a CEO of the company, as well as Guillaume Sempe and Guilhem Duche. It focused on providing a single daily match to its users. On its early stages Once secured a $3.5 million seed round from Partech Ventures and some private investors. The same year, it opened offices in Paris, and London. By 2016, it reached 1 million users. In 2020, the company was acquired by Dating Group for $18 million. Following the acquisition, Once underwent rebranding. Alexandra Beaumont took over leadership of the brand in 2021, driving growth, rebranding, and innovation. == Overview == Once provides an online dating service with a focus on thoughtful connections. Users receive one selected match per day, which encourages meaningful interactions. The platform operates primarily in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Spain. The platform is supported by Android, iOS, and Apple Watch OS.
Algorithmic Puzzles
Algorithmic Puzzles is a book of puzzles based on computational thinking. It was written by computer scientists Anany and Maria Levitin, and published in 2011 by Oxford University Press. == Topics == The book begins with a "tutorial" introducing classical algorithm design techniques including backtracking, divide-and-conquer algorithms, and dynamic programming, methods for the analysis of algorithms, and their application in example puzzles. The puzzles themselves are grouped into three sets of 50 puzzles, in increasing order of difficulty. A final two chapters provide brief hints and more detailed solutions to the puzzles, with the solutions forming the majority of pages of the book. Some of the puzzles are well known classics, some are variations of known puzzles making them more algorithmic, and some are new. They include: Puzzles involving chessboards, including the eight queens puzzle, knight's tours, and the mutilated chessboard problem Balance puzzles River crossing puzzles The Tower of Hanoi Finding the missing element in a data stream The geometric median problem for Manhattan distance == Audience and reception == The puzzles in the book cover a wide range of difficulty, and in general do not require more than a high school level of mathematical background. William Gasarch notes that grouping the puzzles only by their difficulty and not by their themes is actually an advantage, as it provides readers with fewer clues about their solutions. Reviewer Narayanan Narayanan recommends the book to any puzzle aficionado, or to anyone who wants to develop their powers of algorithmic thinking. Reviewer Martin Griffiths suggests another group of readers, schoolteachers and university instructors in search of examples to illustrate the power of algorithmic thinking. Gasarch recommends the book to any computer scientist, evaluating it as "a delight".