Turi is a graph-based, high performance, distributed computation framework written in C++. The GraphLab project was started by Prof. Carlos Guestrin of Carnegie Mellon University in 2009. It is an open source project that uses the Apache License. While GraphLab was originally developed for machine learning tasks, it has also been developed for other data-mining tasks. == Motivation == As the amounts of collected data and computing power grow (multicore, GPUs, clusters, clouds), modern datasets no longer fit into one computing node. Efficient distributed parallel algorithms for handling large-scale data are required. The GraphLab framework is a parallel programming abstraction targeted for sparse iterative graph algorithms. GraphLab provides a programming interface, allowing deployment of distributed machine learning algorithms. The main design considerations behind the design of GraphLab are: Sparse data with local dependencies Iterative algorithms Potentially asynchronous execution == GraphLab toolkits == On top of GraphLab, several implemented libraries of algorithms: Topic modeling - contains applications like LDA, which can be used to cluster documents and extract topical representations. Graph analytics - contains applications like pagerank and triangle counting, which can be applied to general graphs to estimate community structure. Clustering - contains standard data clustering tools such as Kmeans Collaborative filtering - contains a collection of applications used to make predictions about users interests and factorize large matrices. Graphical models - contains tools for making joint predictions about collections of related random variables. Computer vision - contains a collection of tools for reasoning about images. == Turi == Turi (formerly called Dato and before that GraphLab Inc.) is a company that was founded by Prof. Carlos Guestrin from University of Washington in May 2013 to continue development support of the GraphLab open source project. Dato Inc. raised a $6.75M Series A from Madrona Venture Group and New Enterprise Associates (NEA). They raised a $18.5M Series B from Vulcan Capital and Opus Capital, with participation from Madrona and NEA. On August 5, 2016, Turi was acquired by Apple Inc. for $200,000,000.
History of machine translation
Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex
Five safes
The Five Safes is a framework for helping make decisions about making effective use of data which is confidential or sensitive. It is mainly used to describe or design research access to statistical data held by government and health agencies, and by data archives such as the UK Data Service. It is not an internationally accepted standard. Two of the Five Safes refer to statistical disclosure control, and so the Five Safes is usually used to contrast statistical and non-statistical controls when comparing data management options. == Concept == The Five Safes proposes that data management decisions be considered as solving problems in five 'dimensions': projects, people, settings, data and outputs. The combination of the controls leads to 'safe use'. These are most commonly expressed as questions, for example: These dimensions are scales, not limits. That is, solutions can have a mix of more or fewer controls in each dimension, but the overall aim of 'safe use' independent of the particular mix. For example, a public use file available for open download cannot control who uses it, where or for what purpose, and so all the control (protection) must be in the data itself. In contrast, a file which is only accessed through a secure environment with certified users can contain very sensitive information: the non-statistical controls allow the data to be 'unsafe'. One academic likened the process to a graphic equalizer, where bass and treble can be combined independently to produce a sound the listener likes, which has proven to be a very useful metaphor. This 2023 Data Foundation webinar is an expert discussion of how the elements interact, including an excellent introductory representation. There is no 'order' to the Five Safes, in that one is necessarily more important than the others. However, Ritchie argued that the 'managerial' controls (projects, people, setting) should be addressed before the 'statistical' controls (data, output). The Five Safes concept is associated with other topics which developed from the same programme at ONS, although these are not necessarily implemented. Safe people is associated with 'active researcher management', while safe outputs is linked with principles-based output statistical disclosure control. The Five Safes is a positive framework, describing what is and is not. The EDRU ('evidence-based, default-open, risk-managed, user-centred') attitudinal model is sometimes used to give a normative context == The 'data access spectrum' == From 2003 the Five Safes was also represented in a simpler form as a 'Data Access Spectrum'. The non-data controls (project, people, setting, outputs) tend to work together, in that organisations often see these as a complementary set of restrictions on access. These can then be contrasted with choices about data anonymisation to present a linear representation of data access options. This presentation is consistent with the idea of 'data as a residual', as well as data protection laws of the time which often characterised data simply as anonymous or not anonymous. A similar idea had already been developed independently in 2001 by Chuck Humphrey of the Canadian RDC network, the 'continuum of access'. More recently, The Open Data Institute has developed a 'Data Spectrum toolkit' which includes industry-specific examples. == History and terminology == The Five Safes was devised in the winter of 2002/2003 by Felix Ritchie at the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) to describe its secure remote-access Virtual Microdata Laboratory (VML). It was described at this time as the 'VML Security Model'. This was adopted by the NORC data enclave, and more widely in the US, as the 'portfolio model' (although this is now also used to refer to a slightly different legal/statistical/educational breakdown). In 2012 the framework as was still being referred to as the 'VML security model', but its increasing use among non-UK organisations led to the adoption of the more general and informative phrase 'Five Safes'. The original framework only had four safes (projects, people, settings and outputs): the framework was used to describe highly detailed data access through a secure environment, and so the 'data' dimension was irrelevant. From 2007 onwards, 'safe data' was included as the framework was used to a describe a wider range of ONS activities. As the US version was based upon the 2005 specification, some US iterations uses have the original four dimensions (eg). Some discussions, such as the OECD, use the term 'secure' instead 'safe'. However, the use of both these terms can cause presentational problems: less control in a particular dimension could be seen to imply 'unsafe users' or 'insecure settings', for example, which distracts from the main message. Hence, the Australian government uses the term "five data sharing principles". The 'Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework' uses a framework based on the Five Safes but relabelling "projects", "people", and "settings" as "governance", "agency" and "infrastructure", respectively; "Output" is omitted, and "safe use" becomes "functional anonymisation". There is no reference to the Five Safes or any associated literature. The Australian version was required to include references to the Five Safes, and presented it as an alternative without comment. == Application == The framework has had three uses: pedagogical, descriptive, and design. Since 2016, it has also been used, directly and indirectly in legislation. See for more detailed examples. === Pedagogy === The first significant use of the framework, other than internal administrative use, was to structure researcher training courses at the UK Office for National Statistics from 2003. UK Data Archive, Administrative Data Research Network, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography, NORC, Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, amongst others, have also used this framework. Most of these courses are for researchers using restricted-access facilities; the Eurostat courses are unusual in that they are designed for all users of sensitive data. === Description === The framework is often used to describe existing data access solutions (e.g. UK HMRC Data Lab, UK Data Service, Statistics New Zealand) or planned/conceptualised ones (e.g. Eurostat in 2011). An early use was to help identify areas where ONS' still had 'irreducible risks' in its provision of secure remote access. The framework is mostly used for confidential social science data. To date it appears to have made little impact on medical research planning, although it is now included in the revised guidelines on implementing HIPAA regulations in the US, and by Cancer Research UK and the Health Foundation in the UK. It has also been used to describe a security model for the Scottish Health Informatics Programme. === Design === In general the Five Safes has been used to describe solutions post-factum, and to explain/justify choices made, but an increasing number of organisations have used the framework to design data access solutions. For example, the Hellenic Statistical Agency developed a data strategy built around the Five Safes in 2016; the UK Health Foundation used the Five Safes to design its data management and training programmes. Use in the private sector is less common but some organisations have incorporated the Five Safes into consulting services. In 2015 the UK Data Service organized a workshop to encourage data users from the academic and private sectors to think about how to manage confidential research data, using the Five Safes to demonstrate alternative options and best practice. Early adopters for strategic design use were in Australia: both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Department of Social Service used the Five Safes as an ex ante design tool. In 2017 the Australian Productivity Commission recommended adopting a version of the framework to support cross-government data sharing and re-use. This underwent extensive consultation and culminated in the DAT Act 2022. Since 2020 the Five Safes has been the overriding framework for the design of new secure facilities and data sharing arrangements in the UK for public health and social sciences. This has been promoted by the Office for Statistics Regulation, the UK Statistics Authority, NHS DIgital, and the research funding bodies Administrative Data Research UK and DARE UK. === Regulation and legislation === Three laws have incorporated the Fives Safes. They are explicit in the South Australian Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016, and implicit in the research provisions of the UK Digital Economy Act 2017. The Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 renames the Five Safes as the Five Data Sharing Principles.A 2025 statutory review of the DAT Act 2022 found "that the DAT Act has not been effective in achieving its objectives.". The review includes specific referen
Information access
Information access is the freedom or ability to identify, obtain and make use of database or information effectively. There are various research efforts in information access for which the objective is to simplify and make it more effective for human users to access and further process large and unwieldy amounts of data and information. == Technology == Several technologies applicable to the general area are Information Retrieval, Text Mining, Machine Translation, and Text Categorisation. During discussions on free access to information as well as on information policy, information access is understood as concerning the insurance of free and closed access to information. Information access covers many issues including copyright, open source, privacy, and security. == Groups == Groups such as the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, Ralph Nader's Taxpayers Assets Project have advocated for free access to legal information. The vendor neutral citation movement in the legal field is working to ensure that courts will accept citations from cases on the web which do not have the traditional (copyrighted) page numbers from the West Publishing company. There is a worldwide Free Access to Law Movement which advocates free access to legal information. The Wired article "Who Owns The Law" is an introduction to the access to legal information issue. Postsecondary organizations such as K-12 work to share information. They feel it is a legal and moral obligation to provide access (including to people with disabilities or impairments) to information through the services and programs they offer. Some effects of charging for information access, such as literature searches for physicians, is studied in the article "Fee or Free: The Effect of Charging on Information Demand". In this study, a $5 charge resulted in a 77% decrease in searches.
Coalition for App Fairness
The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) is a coalition comprised by companies, who aim to reach a fairer deal for the inclusion of their apps into the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. The organization's executive director is Meghan DiMuzio and its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. == Background == In July 2015, Spotify launched an email campaign to urge its App Store subscribers to cancel their subscriptions and start new ones through its website, bypassing the 30% transaction fee for in-app purchases required for iOS applications by technology company Apple Inc. A later update to the Spotify app on iOS was rejected by Apple, prompting Spotify's general counsel Horacio Gutierrez to write a letter to Apple's then-general counsel Bruce Sewell, stating: "This latest episode raises serious concerns under both U.S. and EU competition law. It continues a troubling pattern of behavior by Apple to exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS and as a rival to Apple Music, particularly when seen against the backdrop of Apple's previous anticompetitive conduct aimed at Spotify … we cannot stand by as Apple uses the App Store approval process as a weapon to harm competitors." In August 2020, Epic Games updated their Fortnite Battle Royale game app on both Apple's App Store and Google's Google Play to include its own storefront that offered a 20% discount on V-Bucks, the in-game currency, if players bought through there rather than through the app stores' storefront, both which take a 30% revenue cut of the sale. Both Apple and Google removed the Fortnite app within hours, as this alternate storefront violated their terms of use that required all in-app purchases to be made through their storefronts. Epic immediately filed lawsuits against both companies challenging their storefront policies on antitrust principles, arguing that their non-negotiable 30% revenue cut is too high and the restrictions against alternate storefronts anticompetitive. Apple countersued Epic over its behavior, leading to a highly publicized 2021 bench trial. Ultimately, Epic largely lost its lawsuit against Apple, though the court did order Apple to allow developers to point users to alternative payment methods. Conversely, Epic won its antitrust lawsuit against Google in late 2023. == Foundation == On 24 September 2020, Epic Games joined forces with thirteen other prominent companies—including the music streaming platform Spotify, Tinder owner Match Group, the encrypted mail service Proton Mail, and the crypto currency website Blockchain.com—to establish the Coalition for App Fairness. It also includes Basecamp. The coalition criticizes the fact that for now the app stores of both Apple and Google charge their clients a 30% fee on any purchases made over their stores. Apple and Google defended themselves by arguing that the 30% transaction fee is a standard in the industry while the Coalition for App Fairness states that there is no other transaction fee which is even close to the 30%. In October 2020, it was reported that the coalition grew from 13 to 40 members since its foundation and received more than 400 applications for membership. In October 2025, X (formerly Twitter) joined CAF. This was seen as a larger pushback in the industry against Apple and Google, and a step towards hopefully passing the Bipartisan Open App Markets Act. == Aims == The group has broadened their demands for the app stores and now also aim for a better treatment for the apps available in the App Store. They claim that Apple favors its own services before other services available on the market and unjustifiably excludes other apps from their App Store. The group has also been viewing other transaction fees like the 5% fee which is charged by credit card companies, and states that Apple charges up to 600% more and would like the 30% fee, which was only included in 2011 by Apple, adapted to a comparable percentage that charge other providers of payment solutions. Its demands are mainly directed at Apple's strict control over its App Store, but to a lesser extent are also directed towards Google. Google allows apps to be downloaded over an independent web link or also another App Store, such as the Epic Game App Store. The organization emphasizes that no app developer should come into the position in which they are discriminated and are not granted the same rights as to the developers of the owner of the app store. == Reactions == In October 2020, Microsoft presented a new framework concerning the access to its Windows 10 operating system by app stores other than the one offered by Microsoft. The new framework is based on the demands of the Coalition for App Fairness. Microsoft emphasized though, that these principles would not apply to the Xbox. In December 2020, Apple announced that they would be lowering the revenue cut Apple takes for app developers making $1M or less from 30% to 15% if app developers fill out an application for the lowered revenue cut. In March 2021, Google followed suit by also lowering the revenue cut from the Play Store from 30% to 15% for the first million in revenue earned by a developer each year. == Notable members == Members listed are notable companies listed as members the groups website: Blockchain.com Deezer Epic Games European Digital SME Alliance Fanfix Life360 Masimo Nium Proton Mail Spotify TapTap Threema Vipps
Collision problem
The r-to-1 collision problem is an important theoretical problem in complexity theory, quantum computing, and computational mathematics. The collision problem most often refers to the 2-to-1 version: given n {\displaystyle n} even and a function f : { 1 , … , n } → { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle f:\,\{1,\ldots ,n\}\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , we are promised that f is either 1-to-1 or 2-to-1. We are only allowed to make queries about the value of f ( i ) {\displaystyle f(i)} for any i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} . The problem then asks how many such queries we need to make to determine with certainty whether f is 1-to-1 or 2-to-1. == Classical solutions == === Deterministic === Solving the 2-to-1 version deterministically requires n 2 + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{2}}+1} queries, and in general distinguishing r-to-1 functions from 1-to-1 functions requires n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries. This is a straightforward application of the pigeonhole principle: if a function is r-to-1, then after n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries we are guaranteed to have found a collision. If a function is 1-to-1, then no collision exists. Thus, n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries suffice. If we are unlucky, then the first n / r {\displaystyle n/r} queries could return distinct answers, so n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries is also necessary. === Randomized === If we allow randomness, the problem is easier. By the birthday paradox, if we choose (distinct) queries at random, then with high probability we find a collision in any fixed 2-to-1 function after Θ ( n ) {\displaystyle \Theta ({\sqrt {n}})} queries. == Quantum solution == The BHT algorithm, which uses Grover's algorithm, solves this problem optimally by only making O ( n 1 / 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{1/3})} queries to f. The matching lower bound of Ω ( n 1 / 3 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (n^{1/3})} was proved by Aaronson and Shi using the polynomial method.