Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet is a 2012 book by Julian Assange, in discussion with Internet activists and cypherpunks Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn and Jérémie Zimmermann. Its primary topic is society's relationship with information security. In the book, the authors warn that the Internet has become a tool of the police state, and that the world is inadvertently heading toward a form of totalitarianism. They promote the use of cryptography to protect against state surveillance. In the introduction, Assange says that the book is "not a manifesto [...] [but] a warning". He told Guardian journalist Decca Aitkenhead: A well-defined mathematical algorithm can encrypt something quickly, but to decrypt it would take billions of years – or trillions of dollars' worth of electricity to drive the computer. So cryptography is the essential building block of independence for organisations on the Internet, just like armies are the essential building blocks of states, because otherwise one state just takes over another. There is no other way for our intellectual life to gain proper independence from the security guards of the world, the people who control physical reality. Assange later wrote in The Guardian: "Strong cryptography is a vital tool in fighting state oppression." saying that was the message of his book, Cypherpunks. Cypherpunks is published by OR Books. It is primarily a transcript of World Tomorrow episode eight, a two-part interview between Assange, Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn, and Jérémie Zimmermann. In the foreword, Assange said, "the Internet, our greatest tool for emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen".
IMazing
iMazing is mobile device management software that allows users to transfer files and data between iOS devices (iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch) and macOS or Windows computers, in addition to many other features beyond the scope of what Apple's own tools enable. == History == Developed by DigiDNA, iMazing was initially released in 2008 as DiskAid, enabling users to transfer data and files from the iPhone or iPod Touch to Mac or Windows computers. DiskAid was renamed iMazing in 2014. Version 2.0 was released on September 13, 2016. In August 2021, version 2.14 of iMazing added a spyware detection feature. The feature is based on Amnesty International’s Mobile Verification Toolkit to detect Pegasus Spyware following the publication of Pegasus Project. == Description == With iMazing, an iPhone or iPad can be used similarly to an external hard drive. It performs tasks that iTunes doesn’t offer, including incremental backups of iOS devices, browsing and exporting text and voicemail messages, managing apps, encryption, and migrating data from an old phone to a new one. The menu bar app iMazing Mini enables automatic, wireless and encrypted backups of iPhones. The iMazing HEIC Converter is a free desktop app for Mac and PC that lets users convert photos from HEIC format to JPG or PNG.
Netomi
Netomi, formerly msg.ai, is an American artificial intelligence company and developer of chatbot technologies. == History == msg.ai was founded in May 2015 by Puneet Mehta. msg.ai worked with Sony Pictures to launch a chat bot on Facebook Messenger for a $100M film, Goosebumps and subsequently joined Y Combinator as a member of the Winter 2016 class. Later that year and in 2017, msg.ai completed two rounds of seed funding, led by Y Combinator and Index Ventures. In 2018, the company changed its name to Netomi. In 2019, the company raised $14.7 million in a Series A funding round also led by Index Ventures. In 2021, the company raised $30 million in a Series B funding round led by WndrCo LLC.
Grammar induction
Grammar induction (or grammatical inference) is the process in machine learning of learning a formal grammar (usually as a collection of re-write rules or productions or alternatively as a finite-state machine or automaton of some kind) from a set of observations, thus constructing a model which accounts for the characteristics of the observed objects. More generally, grammatical inference is that branch of machine learning where the instance space consists of discrete combinatorial objects such as strings, trees and graphs. == Grammar classes == Grammatical inference has often been very focused on the problem of learning finite-state machines of various types (see the article Induction of regular languages for details on these approaches), since there have been efficient algorithms for this problem since the 1980s. Since the beginning of the century, these approaches have been extended to the problem of inference of context-free grammars and richer formalisms, such as multiple context-free grammars and parallel multiple context-free grammars. Other classes of grammars for which grammatical inference has been studied are combinatory categorial grammars, stochastic context-free grammars, contextual grammars and pattern languages. == Learning models == The simplest form of learning is where the learning algorithm merely receives a set of examples drawn from the language in question: the aim is to learn the language from examples of it (and, rarely, from counter-examples, that is, example that do not belong to the language). However, other learning models have been studied. One frequently studied alternative is the case where the learner can ask membership queries as in the exact query learning model or minimally adequate teacher model introduced by Angluin. == Methodologies == There is a wide variety of methods for grammatical inference. Two of the classic sources are Fu (1977) and Fu (1982). Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) also devote a brief section to the problem, and cite a number of references. The basic trial-and-error method they present is discussed below. For approaches to infer subclasses of regular languages in particular, see Induction of regular languages. A more recent textbook is de la Higuera (2010), which covers the theory of grammatical inference of regular languages and finite state automata. D'Ulizia, Ferri and Grifoni provide a survey that explores grammatical inference methods for natural languages. === Induction of probabilistic grammars === There are several methods for induction of probabilistic context-free grammars. === Grammatical inference by trial-and-error === The method proposed in Section 8.7 of Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) suggests successively guessing grammar rules (productions) and testing them against positive and negative observations. The rule set is expanded so as to be able to generate each positive example, but if a given rule set also generates a negative example, it must be discarded. This particular approach can be characterized as "hypothesis testing" and bears some similarity to Mitchel's version space algorithm. The Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) text provide a simple example which nicely illustrates the process, but the feasibility of such an unguided trial-and-error approach for more substantial problems is dubious. === Grammatical inference by genetic algorithms === Grammatical induction using evolutionary algorithms is the process of evolving a representation of the grammar of a target language through some evolutionary process. Formal grammars can easily be represented as tree structures of production rules that can be subjected to evolutionary operators. Algorithms of this sort stem from the genetic programming paradigm pioneered by John Koza. Other early work on simple formal languages used the binary string representation of genetic algorithms, but the inherently hierarchical structure of grammars couched in the EBNF language made trees a more flexible approach. Koza represented Lisp programs as trees. He was able to find analogues to the genetic operators within the standard set of tree operators. For example, swapping sub-trees is equivalent to the corresponding process of genetic crossover, where sub-strings of a genetic code are transplanted into an individual of the next generation. Fitness is measured by scoring the output from the functions of the Lisp code. Similar analogues between the tree structured lisp representation and the representation of grammars as trees, made the application of genetic programming techniques possible for grammar induction. In the case of grammar induction, the transplantation of sub-trees corresponds to the swapping of production rules that enable the parsing of phrases from some language. The fitness operator for the grammar is based upon some measure of how well it performed in parsing some group of sentences from the target language. In a tree representation of a grammar, a terminal symbol of a production rule corresponds to a leaf node of the tree. Its parent nodes corresponds to a non-terminal symbol (e.g. a noun phrase or a verb phrase) in the rule set. Ultimately, the root node might correspond to a sentence non-terminal. === Grammatical inference by greedy algorithms === Like all greedy algorithms, greedy grammar inference algorithms make, in iterative manner, decisions that seem to be the best at that stage. The decisions made usually deal with things like the creation of new rules, the removal of existing rules, the choice of a rule to be applied or the merging of some existing rules. Because there are several ways to define 'the stage' and 'the best', there are also several greedy grammar inference algorithms. These context-free grammar generating algorithms make the decision after every read symbol: Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm creates a context-free grammar in a deterministic way such that it is necessary to store only the start rule of the generated grammar. Sequitur and its modifications. These context-free grammar generating algorithms first read the whole given symbol-sequence and then start to make decisions: Byte pair encoding and its optimizations. === Distributional learning === A more recent approach is based on distributional learning. Algorithms using these approaches have been applied to learning context-free grammars and mildly context-sensitive languages and have been proven to be correct and efficient for large subclasses of these grammars. === Learning of pattern languages === Angluin defines a pattern to be "a string of constant symbols from Σ and variable symbols from a disjoint set". The language of such a pattern is the set of all its nonempty ground instances i.e. all strings resulting from consistent replacement of its variable symbols by nonempty strings of constant symbols. A pattern is called descriptive for a finite input set of strings if its language is minimal (with respect to set inclusion) among all pattern languages subsuming the input set. Angluin gives a polynomial algorithm to compute, for a given input string set, all descriptive patterns in one variable x. To this end, she builds an automaton representing all possibly relevant patterns; using sophisticated arguments about word lengths, which rely on x being the only variable, the state count can be drastically reduced. Erlebach et al. give a more efficient version of Angluin's pattern learning algorithm, as well as a parallelized version. Arimura et al. show that a language class obtained from limited unions of patterns can be learned in polynomial time. === Pattern theory === Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach was novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was commonplace at the time. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with it. Broad in its mathematical coverage, pattern theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. == Applications == The principle of grammar induction has been applied to other aspects of natural language processing, and has been applied (among many other problems) to semantic parsing, natural language understanding, example-based translation, language acquisition, grammar-based compre
E-gree (app)
E-gree is a legal app that became well known in 2020. It was the first app of its kind to protect users against a number of dating-related issues, including revenge porn. == Background == The app was co-founded by Araz Mamet, Keith Fraser and Ilya Flaks. The app focuses on privacy, with users being able to set up various contracts to protect themselves following a breakup, or while dating. This notably included signing an NDA when sexting. The app received investment from a number of notable people and companies, including Natalia Vodianova.
Super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging
Super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging (SOFI) is a post-processing method for the calculation of super-resolved images from recorded image time series that is based on the temporal correlations of independently fluctuating fluorescent emitters. SOFI has been developed for super-resolution of biological specimen that are labelled with independently fluctuating fluorescent emitters (organic dyes, fluorescent proteins). In comparison to other super-resolution microscopy techniques such as STORM or PALM that rely on single-molecule localization and hence only allow one active molecule per diffraction-limited area (DLA) and timepoint, SOFI does not necessitate a controlled photoswitching and/ or photoactivation as well as long imaging times. Nevertheless, it still requires fluorophores that are cycling through two distinguishable states, either real on-/off-states or states with different fluorescence intensities. In mathematical terms SOFI-imaging relies on the calculation of cumulants, for what two distinguishable ways exist. For one thing an image can be calculated via auto-cumulants that by definition only rely on the information of each pixel itself, and for another thing an improved method utilizes the information of different pixels via the calculation of cross-cumulants. Both methods can increase the final image resolution significantly although the cumulant calculation has its limitations. Actually SOFI is able to increase the resolution in all three dimensions. == Principle == Likewise to other super-resolution methods SOFI is based on recording an image time series on a CCD- or CMOS camera. In contrary to other methods the recorded time series can be substantially shorter, since a precise localization of emitters is not required and therefore a larger quantity of activated fluorophores per diffraction-limited area is allowed. The pixel values of a SOFI-image of the n-th order are calculated from the values of the pixel time series in the form of a n-th order cumulant, whereas the final value assigned to a pixel can be imagined as the integral over a correlation function. The finally assigned pixel value intensities are a measure of the brightness and correlation of the fluorescence signal. Mathematically, the n-th order cumulant is related to the n-th order correlation function, but exhibits some advantages concerning the resulting resolution of the image. Since in SOFI several emitters per DLA are allowed, the photon count at each pixel results from the superposition of the signals of all activated nearby emitters. The cumulant calculation now filters the signal and leaves only highly correlated fluctuations. This provides a contrast enhancement and therefore a background reduction for good measure. As it is implied in the figure on the left the fluorescence source distribution: ∑ k = 1 N δ ( r → − r → k ) ⋅ ε k ⋅ s k ( t ) {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{N}\delta ({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\cdot \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}(t)} is convolved with the system's point spread function (PSF) U(r). Hence the fluorescence signal at time t and position r → {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}} is given by F ( r → , t ) = ∑ k = 1 N U ( r → − r → k ) ⋅ ε k ⋅ s k ( t ) . {\displaystyle F({\vec {r}},t)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}U({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\cdot \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}(t).} Within the above equations N is the amount of emitters, located at the positions r → k {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}_{k}} with a time-dependent molecular brightness ε k ⋅ s k {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}} where ε k {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k}} is a variable for the constant molecular brightness and s k ( t ) {\displaystyle s_{k}(t)} is a time-dependent fluctuation function. The molecular brightness is just the average fluorescence count-rate divided by the number of molecules within a specific region. For simplification it has to be assumed that the sample is in a stationary equilibrium and therefore the fluorescence signal can be expressed as a zero-mean fluctuation: δ F ( r → , t ) = F ( r → , t ) − ⟨ F ( r → , t ) ⟩ t {\displaystyle \delta F({\vec {r}},t)=F({\vec {r}},t)-\langle F({\vec {r}},t)\rangle _{t}} where ⟨ ⋯ ⟩ t {\displaystyle \langle \cdots \rangle _{t}} denotes time-averaging. The auto-correlation here e.g. the second-order can then be described deductively as follows for a certain time-lag τ {\displaystyle \tau } : δ F ( r → , t ) = ⟨ δ F ( r → , t + τ ) ⋅ δ F ( r → , t ) ⟩ t {\displaystyle \delta F({\vec {r}},t)=\langle \delta F({\vec {r}},t+\tau )\cdot \delta F({\vec {r}},t)\rangle _{t}} From these equations it follows that the PSF of the optical system has to be taken to the power of the order of the correlation. Thus in a second-order correlation the PSF would be reduced along all dimensions by a factor of 2 {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}} . As a result, the resolution of the SOFI-images increases according to this factor. === Cumulants versus correlations === Using only the simple correlation function for a reassignment of pixel values, would ascribe to the independency of fluctuations of the emitters in time in a way that no cross-correlation terms would contribute to the new pixel value. Calculations of higher-order correlation functions would suffer from lower-order correlations for what reason it is superior to calculate cumulants, since all lower-order correlation terms vanish. == Cumulant-calculation == === Auto-cumulants === For computational reasons it is convenient to set all time-lags in higher-order cumulants to zero so that a general expression for the n-th order auto-cumulant can be found: A C n ( r → , τ 1 … n − 1 = 0 ) = ∑ k = 1 N U n ( r → − r → k ) ε k n w k ( 0 ) {\displaystyle AC_{n}({\vec {r}},\tau _{1\ldots n-1}=0)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}U^{n}({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\varepsilon _{k}^{n}w_{k}(0)} w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} is a specific correlation based weighting function influenced by the order of the cumulant and mainly depending on the fluctuation properties of the emitters. Albeit there is no fundamental limitation in calculating very high orders of cumulants and thereby shrinking the FWHM of the PSF there are practical limitations according to the weighting of the values assigned to the final image. Emitters with a higher molecular brightness will show a strong increase in terms of the pixel cumulant value assigned at higher-orders as well as this performance can be expected from a diverse appearance of fluctuations of different emitters. A wide intensity range of the resulting image can therefore be expected and as a result dim emitters can get masked by bright emitters in higher-order images:. The calculation of auto-cumulants can be realized in a very attractive way in a mathematical sense. The n-th order cumulant can be calculated with a basic recursion from moments K n ( r → ) = μ n ( r → ) − ∑ i = 1 n − 1 ( n − 1 i ) K n − i ( r → ) μ i ( r → ) {\displaystyle K_{n}({\vec {r}})=\mu _{n}({\vec {r}})-\sum _{i=1}^{n-1}{\begin{pmatrix}n-1\\i\end{pmatrix}}K_{n-i}({\vec {r}})\mu _{i}({\vec {r}})} where K is a cumulant of the index's order, likewise μ {\displaystyle \mu } represents the moments. The term within the brackets indicates a binomial coefficient. This way of computation is straightforward in comparison with calculating cumulants with standard formulas. It allows for the calculation of cumulants with only little time of computing and is, as it is well implemented, even suitable for the calculation of high-order cumulants on large images. === Cross-cumulants === In a more advanced approach cross-cumulants are calculated by taking the information of several pixels into account. Cross-cumulants can be described as follows: C C n ( r → , τ 1 … n − 1 = 0 ) = ∏ j < l n U ( r → j − r → l n ) ⋅ ∑ i = 1 N U n ( r → i − ∑ k n r → k n ) ε i n w i ( 0 ) {\displaystyle CC_{n}({\vec {r}},\tau _{1\ldots n-1}=0)=\prod _{j Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) was an American computer company active from the mid-1970s to the 1980s and based in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was founded as John Peers and Company by the British entrepreneur John Peers in 1974. LOMAC developed the ADAM, a minicomputer which ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language. Throughout the late 1970s, the company acquired several technology firms, including Byte, Inc., the owner of the Byte Shop retail chain. Despite its unique approach to computing and earning $5 million in revenue in 1977, LOMAC struggled as the industry began to standardize around the IBM Personal Computer (IBM PC). Following Peers's departure in 1980, the company rebranded as Logical Business Machines, Inc. (LBM, or simply Logical), and attempted to pivot toward IBM PC–compatible hardware. However, financial difficulties led to the company filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984. After emerging from bankruptcy in 1985 with new investment, Logical ceased hardware manufacturing to focus exclusively on software development and value-added reselling. == History == John Peers (born 1942) founded Logical Machine Corporation as John Peers and Company in September 1974. The company originally occupied a 4,500-square-foot office in Burlingame, California. The company was Peers' fourth; he had recently sold off Allied Business Systems of London to Trafalgar House in 1974. Peers sought to set up manufacturing in an agricultural zone in Ukiah, California. Following a delay, caused in part by concerned residents, a 30,000-square-foot plant was raised in Burke Hill, three miles south of Ukiah. The Ukiah plant was built to mass manufacture the company's ADAM minicomputer. The ADAM computer ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language; that is to say, the programming language attempted to closely emulate English syntax. Prototypes of the ADAM were built in May 1974, based on specifications devised in October 1973. Peers had yet to patent the technology as of June 1975. The ADAM's central processing unit was bolted onto an 7-by-6-foot L-shaped desk, on which rested its terminal. Twenty units of the ADAM were installed between April 1975 and February 1976, out of a backlog of orders for 3,500 from 500 clients, manufactured out of the company's Burlingame headquarters. It cost US$40,000. A controversial print advertisement featuring a naked woman seated at an ADAM terminal—as a pastiche of Adam and Eve—was recalled in early 1976 as a result of outcry from the National Organization for Women. The company changed its name to Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) in October 1976 and moved its headquarters to a 26,000-square-foot building in Sunnyvale, California, in anticipation of a ramping up of orders for the ADAM. The company originally occupied half of the building; they later purchased the other half from the tenant in July 1977 to double its manufacturing output. For fiscal year 1977, the company earned $5 million in revenue. In December 1977, LOMAC acquired Byte, Inc.—the proprietor of The Byte Shop, the first computer retail chain—from Paul Terrell and Boyd Wilson for an unspecified amount. The Byte Shop had 65 locations in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1978; it catered mainly to hobbyists with low cost microcomputer kits, in contrast to the high cost of LOMAC's ADAM. By July 1978, however, LOMAC were able to reduce the price of the ADAM down to $15,000. The company by that point had shipped their 50th ADAM and expanded to 14 countries. Also in 1978, LOMAC acquired Mass Memory—a high-tech optical storage company based in Phoenix, Arizona, whose products had storage capacities on the order gigabytes and terabytes—and Centigram, makers of the Mike—a computer with speech recognition. Later that year, the company introduced Tina, a low-cost version of the ADAM. LOMAC suffered losses that year and appointed Jerry Brandt to the board of directions, naming him chief operating officer, in August 1978. Brandt had Logical absorb Mass Memory and Centigram into the parent operations, shutting down their respective plants in the process, converted 10 Byte Shops to franchises and opened 25 more franchised Byte locations, and stopped direct sales of LOMAC's business computer products. By the beginning of 1979, LOMAC was profitable once more, and Brandt was let go from LOMAC. Peers left LOMAC in 1980, following a slump in the company's sales. He became an executive director of the United States Robotics Society, a consortium for industrial automation companies, that year. Following Peers' departure, LOMAC changed its name to Logical Business Machines, adopting the name of its European subsidiary. In 1983, the company announced a 16-bit clone of the IBM PC, called the Logical L-XT, which featured a 10-MB hard drive, 320-KB floppy drive and 192 KB of RAM, and a real-time clock, and came shipped with various software (including MS-DOS, a word processor, and a spreadsheet application) and an amber CRT monitor. The following year, the company introduced L-NET, a local area network system based on the L-XT that could link up to 64 computers. L-NET came shipped with a natural programming language, Diplomat—a descendant of the programming language used on the ADAM. In June 1983, Logical sued Coleco Industries over trademark infringement with the latter's to-be-released Adam microcomputer. Logical cited confusion from their existing ADAM customer base caused by the announcement of the Coleco Adam as the basis for the suit. Coleco challenged Logical in the press, writing that Logical's rights to the Adam trademark for use in computers had lapsed earlier in the year. The two settled out of court, with Coleco agreeing to license the Adam name from Logical in exchange for unlimited rights to the Adam trademark. Logical halted development of the L-XT when they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 1984. The company had been $4 million in debt. They emerged from bankruptcy in September 1985, after being infused with $2 million from Carat Ltd. The latter immediately received a little less than 50 percent ownership in Logical—this stake set to grow to over 50 percent over the next six months. As part of the terms of exiting bankruptcy, Logical stopped manufacturing hardware and strictly became a software development company and value-added reseller of computer systems.Logical Machine Corporation