AI Email Lead Generation Business

AI Email Lead Generation Business — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Mojito (framework)

  Mojito is an environment agnostic, Model-View-Controller (MVC) web application framework. It was designed by Yahoo. == Features == Mojito supports agile development of web applications. Mojito has built-in support for unit testing, Internationalization, syntax and coding convention checks. Both server and client components are written in JavaScript. Mojito allows developers designing web applications to leverage the utilities of both configuration and MVC framework. Mojito is capable of running on both JavaScript-enabled web browsers and servers using Node.js because they both utilize JavaScript. Mojito applications mainly consist of two components: JSON Configuration files: these define relationships between code components, assets, routing paths, and framework defaults and are available at the application and mojit level. Directories: these reflect MVC architecture and are used to separate resources such as assets, libraries, middleware, etc. == Architecture == In Mojito, both server and "client" side scripting is done in JavaScript, allowing it to run on both client and server thereby breaking the "front-end back-end barrier." It has both client and server runtimes. === Server runtime === This block houses operations needed by server side components. Services include: Routing rules, HTTP Server, config loader and disk-based loader. === Client runtime === This block houses operations called upon while running client sides components. Services include local storage/cache access and JSON based /URL based loader === Core === Core function can be accessed on client or server. Services include Registry, Dispatcher, Front controller, Resource store. === Container === mojit object comes into the picture. This container also include the services used by mojits. API and Mojito services are the blocks which caters to services needed for execution of mojits. === API (Action Context) === Mojito services are a customizable service block. It offers mojits a range of services which might be needed by mojit to carry out certain actions. These services can be availed at both client and server side. Reusable services can be created and aggregated to the core here. == Mojits == Mojits are the modules of a Mojito application. An application consists of one or more mojits. A mojit encompasses a Model, Views and a Controller defined by JSON configuration files. It includes a View factory where views are created according to the model and a View cache that holds frequently requested views to aid performance. === Application Architecture === A Mojito application is a set of mojits facilitated by configurable JSON files which define the code for model, view and controller. This MVC structure works with API block and Mojito services, and can be deployed at both client and server side. While the application is deployed at client side, it can call server-side modules using binders. Binders are mojit codes that let mojits request services from each other. Mojit Proxy acts as an intermediary between binders and mojit's API (application context) block and other mojits. Controllers are command-issuing units of mojits. Models mirror the core logic and hold data. Applications can have multiple models. They can be centrally accessed from controllers. View files are created in accordance with controllers and models, and are marked-up before they are sent to users as output. === Application Directory Structure === Directory structure of a Mojito application with one mojit: [mojito_app]/ |-- application.json |-- assets/ | `-- favicon.icon |-- yui_modules/ | `-- .{affinity}.js |-- index.js |-- mojits/ | `-- [mojit_name | |-- assets/ | |-- yui_modules/ | | `-- .{affinity}.js | |-- binders/ | | `-- {view_name}.js | |-- controller.{affinity}.js | |-- defaults.json | |-- definition.json | |-- lang/ | | `-- {mojit_name}_{lang}.js | |-- models/ | | `-- {model_name}.{affinity}.js | |-- tests/ | | |-- yui_modules/ | | | `-- {module_name}.{affinity}-tests.js | | |-- controller.{affinity}-tests.js | | `-- models/ | | `-- {model_name}.{affinity}-tests.js | `-- views/ | |-- {view_name}.{view_engine}.html | `-- {view_name}.{device}.{view_engine}.html |-- package.json |-- routes.json (deprecated) |-- server.js == Model, View and Controller == The Model hosts data, which is accessed by the Controller and presented to the View. Controller also handles any client requests for data, in which case controller fetches data from the model and passes the data to the client. All three components are clustered in the mojit. Mojits are physically illustrated by directory structures and an application can have multiple mojits. Every mojit can have one controller, one or more views and zero or more models. === Model === The model it represents the application data and is independent of view or controller. Model contains code to manipulate the data. They are found in the models directory of each mojit. Functions include: Storing information for access by controller. Validation and error handling. Metadata required by the view === Controller === The controller acts like a connecting agent between model and view. It supplies input to Model and after fetching data from model, passes it to View. Functions include Redirection Monitors authentication Web safety Encoding === View === The view acts as a presentation filter by highlighting some model attributes and suppressing others. A view can be understood as a visual permutation of the model. The view renders data received from controller and displays it to the end user.

  Read more →
• 

  Maritime Informatics

  Maritime Informatics is a thematic topic within the broader discipline of informatics. It can be considered as both a field of study and domain of application. As an application domain, it is the outlet of innovations originating from data science and artificial intelligence; as a field of study, it is positioned between computer science and marine engineering. == Beginnings of maritime informatics == As a result of the increasing levels of digitalisation occurring in the maritime sector starting around 2010 and stimulated by the EU-endorsed MonaLisa project for sea traffic management (STM), a number of academics and shipping industry leaders recognised that the maritime transportation sector would benefit from a specific field of study and application to be known as Maritime Informatics - the use of information systems, data sharing and data analytics in the business and operations of maritime transportation. They considered that it would lead to improvements in efficiency, safety, resilience, and ecological sustainability - all of which are currently lacking for many aspects of sea transport. One of the first public airings of the concept of Maritime Informatics was a presentation delivered on 11 September 2014 in Gothenburg, Sweden. A proposal for an inaugural minitrack on Maritime Informatics was accepted for the 2015 Americas Conference on Information Systems in Puerto Rico where three papers were presented. Since then numerous publications has been brought forward captured at www.maritimeinformatics.org and in late 2020 the first reference book on Maritime Informatics was co-written by 81 expert contributors (47 practitioners and 34 researchers) from 20 countries. Most impactful authors and journals in the domain have been documented in a review paper. Dimitrios Zissis, Luca Cazzanti and Leonardo M. Millefiori are the top three authors; top journals and conferences include Ocean Engineering, Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems, Sensors, the international Conference On Engineering, Technology And Innovation, Expert Systems With Applications, IEEE Access, and Journal of Navigation. == Background == The shipping industry has several particular organisational aspects that are recognised and taken into account in maritime informatics: It is predominantly a self-organising ecosystem Many activities are undertaken as part of episodic tight coupling There is a so-called maritime stack There is increasing pressure to balance capital productivity and energy efficiency There is the potential virtuous interplay between different types of systems == Data sharing == Digital data sharing is key to the all-important, arguably fundamental, data analytics aspects of maritime informatics because it opens the way for better access to relevant and reliable data. As in land-based commerce, digital data sharing is a growing phenomenon in maritime operations - though there is a way to go. It is enabling greater transparency for all those involved in the transportation of goods and passengers, not least being the end-customer. This leads to better and more informed decision-making and planning by all those involved. The push for digitalisation and data sharing is being pursued both by governments and the commercial sector. For example, the Member States of the IMO agreed a mandatory requirement for their governments to introduce electronic information exchange between ships and ports as from 8 April 2019. Meanwhile, commercial operators, particularly in the container lines are putting systems in place for sharing data for mutual benefit in their operations. Data sharing is an important aspect of the Port Collaborative Decision Making (PortCDM) and Port Call Optimization initiatives, both of which seek to improve the coordination, synchronization and efficiency of the port call process by enabling a common and shared situational awareness among all those involved. == Standardisation == The availability and sharing of relevant digital data underpins maritime informatics and is key to more effective and efficient coordination and synchronisation in the predominantly self-organising ecosystem that is maritime transportation. For this to occur, a high priority underpinning maritime informatics is the encouragement of standardised digital data exchange and data sharing, leading, in turn, to improvements in shipping analytics. Improved availability of data will support better historical analysis, now-casting and forecasting. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) FAL Committee is taking the lead in ensuring that the common terms used in the various standards being developed or in use in the maritime sector are compatible and therefore interoperable as far as is practicable, by creating and maintaining The IMO Compendium on Facilitation and Electronic Business. The IMO Compendium consists of an IMO Data Set and IMO Reference Data Model agreed by the main organisations involved in the development of standards for the electronic exchange of information related to the FAL Convention: the World Customs Organization (WCO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). There are several other prominent international governmental and non-governmental organisations actively contributing to the ongoing standardisation and harmonisation process including the UN Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport (UN EDIFACT), the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), the International Harbour Masters Association (IHMA) and BIMCO - the world's largest direct-membership organisation for shipowners, charterers, shipbrokers and agents.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence industry in Italy

  The artificial intelligence industry in Italy is growing and supports industrial development. In 2024 it reached a new record, reaching 1.2 billion euros with a growth of +58% compared to 2023. While in 2025, the growth of artificial intelligence in the industrial application was even greater than in 2024 both in terms of value and application to industrial sectors. == History == The roots of AI research in Italy extend back to the 1970s, when Italian scholars began exploring automated reasoning, programming language semantics, and pattern recognition. Researchers such as those involved in early projects at the National Research Council and various universities laid the groundwork for subsequent academic and industrial developments in the field. During this period, the focus was predominantly on developing algorithms for automated theorem proving and building systems to reason about complex mathematical problems. This era witnessed the birth of methodologies that would later influence numerous AI subfields, from natural language processing (NLP) to robotics. === Institutional milestones and academic contributions === A turning point in the Italian AI landscape was the formation of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AIxIA) in 1988. Founded by academics, including Luigia Carlucci Aiello, the association established a platform for collaboration between universities, research centers, and industry. Led by Aiello, AIIA played a role in promoting research, organizing national conferences, and fostering international partnerships that connected Italy's AI community to global networks. At the same time, professors such as Roberto Navigli and numerous practitioners contributed to the advancement of AI in Italy. Navigli has worked in multilingual NLP, including the creation of BabelNet, and led the Minerva project. === Industrial AI === Over recent decades, numerous national and European initiatives supported by funding from programs such as the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) have spurred the transition from theoretical research to practical applications. Industrial sectors including manufacturing, banking, and healthcare increasingly embraced AI-driven automation, while research institutions collaborated with industrial partners to deploy cutting-edge solutions. In recent years, Italy has also seen the establishment of specialized research centers and institutes aimed at bridging the gap between academic innovation and industrial application. These initiatives indicate a broader national commitment to integrating AI into the fabric of Italian industry. == Recent developments == === Emergence of generative AI === A landmark in Italy's modern AI evolution is the development of Minerva AI. Developed by the Sapienza NLP research group at Sapienza University of Rome and led by Professor Roberto Navigli, Minerva represents the first family of large language models (LLMs) trained from scratch with a primary focus on the Italian language. ==== Minerva 7B ==== The latest iteration, Minerva 7B, has 7 billion parameters and has been trained on an extensive corpus of over 1.5 trillion words. By using advanced instruction tuning techniques, Minerva 7B is able to produce highly accurate, coherent, and contextually sensitive responses addressing common issues such as hallucinations and inappropriate content generation. This breakthrough sets a benchmark for transparent, open-source AI development in the country. Minerva's development, carried out within the FAIR (Future Artificial Intelligence Research) project in collaboration with CINECA and supported by supercomputing resources like the Leonardo (supercomputer), aligns closely with Italy's cultural and linguistic heritage. === Establishment of AI4I === The recent establishment of the Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale (AI4I) is part of Italy's strategy to improve its industrial competitiveness in AI. This dedicated institute aims to bridge the gap between research institutions and industrial enterprises; promote training and R&D support to nurture the next generation of Italian AI experts; and enhance national competitiveness. This initiative is expected to serve as a hub for applied AI research, driving innovations that are tailored to the specific needs of Italian industry and public administration. === Benefits of InvestAI === Italy's AI industry stands to benefit from the European InvestAI initiative, a plan unveiled at the recent AI Action Summit in Paris. InvestAI is an effort by the European Commission to mobilize €200 billion for AI investments, with a dedicated €20 billion fund earmarked for building AI gigafactories. These gigafactories are planned as large-scale hubs for training advanced, complex AI models using approximately 100,000 last-generation AI chips. For Italy, this investment presents several major opportunities: Access to State-of-the-Art Infrastructure: Italian companies, research institutions, and start-ups can leverage the gigafactories’ immense computational resources, enabling them to train highly sophisticated language models and other AI systems. Enhanced Competitiveness and Collaboration: With InvestAI's layered funding model where EU funds help de-risk private investments Italian firms can access capital more readily. This will bolster public–private partnerships and create a more dynamic AI ecosystem that spans from academic research to industrial applications. Alignment with National and Regional Initiatives: The Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale (AI4I), based in Turin, is already recognized as a strategic asset by both Italy and the European Union. As the main recipient of InvestAI funds in Italy, AI4I will play a pivotal role in implementing these investments locally, fostering innovation in sectors like manufacturing, healthcare and aerospace. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized that InvestAI is designed to democratize AI innovation throughout Europe by ensuring that even smaller companies have access to high-performance computing power. For Italy, this means not only keeping pace with global leaders but also harnessing European-scale investments to transform its AI industry and drive economic growth.

  Read more →
• 

  External memory algorithm

  In computing, external memory algorithms or out-of-core algorithms are algorithms that are designed to process data that are too large to fit into a computer's main memory at once. Such algorithms must be optimized to efficiently fetch and access data stored in slow bulk memory (auxiliary memory) such as hard drives or tape drives, or when memory is on a computer network. External memory algorithms are analyzed in the external memory model. == Model == External memory algorithms are analyzed in an idealized model of computation called the external memory model (or I/O model, or disk access model). The external memory model is an abstract machine similar to the RAM machine model, but with a cache in addition to main memory. The model captures the fact that read and write operations are much faster in a cache than in main memory, and that reading long contiguous blocks is faster than reading randomly using a disk read-and-write head. The running time of an algorithm in the external memory model is defined by the number of reads and writes to memory required. The model was introduced by Alok Aggarwal and Jeffrey Vitter in 1988. The external memory model is related to the cache-oblivious model, but algorithms in the external memory model may know both the block size and the cache size. For this reason, the model is sometimes referred to as the cache-aware model. The model consists of a processor with an internal memory or cache of size M, connected to an unbounded external memory. Both the internal and external memory are divided into blocks of size B. One input/output or memory transfer operation consists of moving a block of B contiguous elements from external to internal memory, and the running time of an algorithm is determined by the number of these input/output operations. == Algorithms == Algorithms in the external memory model take advantage of the fact that retrieving one object from external memory retrieves an entire block of size B. This property is sometimes referred to as locality. Searching for an element among N objects is possible in the external memory model using a B-tree with branching factor B. Using a B-tree, searching, insertion, and deletion can be achieved in O ( log B ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O(\log _{B}N)} time (in Big O notation). Information theoretically, this is the minimum running time possible for these operations, so using a B-tree is asymptotically optimal. External sorting is sorting in an external memory setting. External sorting can be done via distribution sort, which is similar to quicksort, or via a M B {\displaystyle {\tfrac {M}{B}}} -way merge sort. Both variants achieve the asymptotically optimal runtime of O ( N B log M B ⁡ N B ) {\displaystyle O\left({\frac {N}{B}}\log _{\frac {M}{B}}{\frac {N}{B}}\right)} to sort N objects. This bound also applies to the fast Fourier transform in the external memory model. The permutation problem is to rearrange N elements into a specific permutation. This can either be done either by sorting, which requires the above sorting runtime, or inserting each element in order and ignoring the benefit of locality. Thus, permutation can be done in O ( min ( N , N B log M B ⁡ N B ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\min \left(N,{\frac {N}{B}}\log _{\frac {M}{B}}{\frac {N}{B}}\right)\right)} time. == Applications == The external memory model captures the memory hierarchy, which is not modeled in other common models used in analyzing data structures, such as the random-access machine, and is useful for proving lower bounds for data structures. The model is also useful for analyzing algorithms that work on datasets too big to fit in internal memory. A typical example is geographic information systems, especially digital elevation models, where the full data set easily exceeds several gigabytes or even terabytes of data. This methodology extends beyond general purpose CPUs and also includes GPU computing as well as classical digital signal processing. In general-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU), powerful graphics cards (GPUs) with little memory (compared with the more familiar system memory, which is most often referred to simply as RAM) are utilized with relatively slow CPU-to-GPU memory transfer (when compared with computation bandwidth). == History == An early use of the term "out-of-core" as an adjective is in 1962 in reference to devices that are other than the core memory of an IBM 360. An early use of the term "out-of-core" with respect to algorithms appears in 1971.

  Read more →
• 

  Griffon (framework)

  Griffon is an open source rich client platform framework which uses the Java, Apache Groovy, and/or Kotlin programming languages. Griffon is intended to be a high-productivity framework by rewarding use of the Model-View-Controller paradigm, providing a stand-alone development environment and hiding much of the configuration detail from the developer. The first release is the fruit of the effort by the Groovy Swing team and an attempt to take the best of rapid application development, as indicated by its Grails-like structure, the agility of Groovy, and the availability of components for Swing. The framework was redesign from scratch for version 2, allowing different JVM programming languages to be used either in isolation or in conjunction. Supported UI toolkits are Java Swing JavaFX Apache Pivot Lanterna == Overview == Griffon aims to reduce the typical confusion that occurs with traditional Java UI development. Due to the MVC structure of Griffon, developers never have to go searching for files or be confused on how to start a new project. Everything begins with: lazybones create The generated project follows this structure: %PROJECT_HOME% + griffon-app + conf ---> location of configuration artifacts like builder configuration + controllers ---> location of controller classes + i18n ---> location of message bundles for i18n + lifecycle ---> location of lifecycle scripts + models ---> location of model classes + resources ---> location of non code resources (images, etc) + views ---> location of view classes + src + main ---> optional; location for Groovy and Java source files (of types other than those in griffon-app/) The builder infrastructure enables seamless integration of different widget libraries such as Swing, JIDE, and SwingX. In the first release, three sample applications are included : Greet, a Groovy Twitter client featured in the JavaOne 2009 Script Bowl, FontPicker, an application to view the available fonts on one's machine, SwingPad, a lightweight designer application for Griffon user interfaces. == Plugins == Griffon can be extended with the use of plugins. Plugins provide run-time access to testing libraries such as Easyb and FEST, and all widget libraries besides core Swing are provided as plugins. The plugin system allows for a wide range of additions, for example Polyglot Programming with Java, Apache Groovy, Kotlin. SQL and NoSQL datastores like Berkleydb, CouchDB, Db4O, Neo4j, NeoDatis, Memcached and Riak. == Publications == === Books === Features that would eventually become integral parts of Griffon (UI builders) were featured in these books: Groovy In Action (published by Manning) Beginning Groovy and Grails Books that cover Griffon: Griffon In Action (published by Manning) Beginning Groovy, Grails and Griffon === Magazine === GroovyMag for Groovy and Grails developers

  Read more →
• 

  Operational historian

  In manufacturing, an operational historian is a time-series database application that is developed for operational process data. Historian software is often embedded or used in conjunction with standard DCS and PLC control systems to provide enhanced data capture, validation, compression, and aggregation capabilities. Historians have been deployed in almost every industry and contribute to functions such as supervisory control, performance monitoring, quality assurance, and, more recently, machine learning applications which can learn from vast quantities of historical data. These systems were originally developed to capture instrumentation and control data, which led many to use the term "tag" for a stream of process data, referring to the physical "tags" which had been placed on instrumentation for manually capturing data. Raw data may be accessed via OPC HDA, SQL, or REST API interfaces. == Operational Support == Operational historians are typically used within the manufacturing facility by engineers and operators for supervisory functions and analysis. An operational historian will typically capture all instrumentation and control data, whereas an enterprise historian that is deployed to support business functions will capture only a subset of the plant data. Typically, these applications offer data access through dedicated APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) and SDKs (Software Development Kits) which offer high-performance read and write operations. These operate through vendor-specific or custom applications. Front-end tools for trending process data over time are the most common interfaces to these databases. Because these applications are typically deployed next to or near the source of their process data, they are often marketed and sold as 'real-time database systems.' This distinction varies among vendors, who often have to make tradeoffs in performance between data capture and presentation, and application and analysis functionality. The following is a list of typical challenges for operational historians: data collection from instrumentation and controls storage and archiving of very large volumes of data organization of data in the form of "tags" or "points" limiting of monitoring (alarms) and validation aggregation and interpolation manual data entry (MDE) == Data access == As opposed to enterprise historians, the data access layer in the operational historian is designed to offer sophisticated data fetching modes without complex information analysis facilities. The following settings are typically available for data access operations: Data scope (single point or tag, history based on time range, history based on sample count) Request modes (raw data, last-known value, aggregation, interpolation) Sampling (single point, all points without sampling, all points with interval sampling) Data omission (based on the sample quality, based on the sample value, based on the count) Even though the operational historians are rarely relational database management systems, they often offer SQL-based interfaces to query the database. In most of such implementations, the dialect does not follow the SQL standard in order to provide syntax for specifying data access operations parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  Uncertain database

  An uncertain database is a kind of database studied in database theory. The goal of uncertain databases is to manage information on which there is some uncertainty. Uncertain databases make it possible to explicitly represent and manage uncertainty on the data, usually in a succinct way. == Formal definition == At the basis of uncertain databases is the notion of possible world. Specifically, a possible world of an uncertain database is a (certain) database which is one of the possible realizations of the uncertain database. A given uncertain database typically has more than one, and potentially infinitely many, possible worlds. A formalism to represent uncertain databases then explains how to succinctly represent a set of possible worlds into one uncertain database. == Types of uncertain databases == Uncertain database models differ in how they represent and quantify these possible worlds: Incomplete databases are a compact representation of the set of possible worlds – the use of NULL in SQL, arguably the most commonplace instantiation of uncertain databases, is an example of incomplete database model. Probabilistic databases are a compact representation of a probability distribution over the set of possible worlds. Fuzzy databases are a compact representation of a fuzzy set of the possible worlds. Though mostly studied in the relational setting, uncertain database models can also be defined in other relational models such as graph databases or XML databases. === Incomplete database === The most common database model is the relational model. Multiple incomplete database models have been defined over the relational model, that form extensions to the relational algebra. These have been called Imieliński–Lipski algebras: Relations with NULL values, also called Codd tables c-tables v-tables === Example === The following table is a relation of an incomplete database, described in the formalism of NULL values: There are infinitely many possible worlds for this incomplete database, obtained by replacing the "NULL" values with concrete values. For instance, the following relation is a possible world:

  Read more →
• 

  Pointer algorithm

  In computer science, a pointer algorithm (sometimes called a pointer machine, or a reference machine; see the article Pointer machine for a close but non-identical concept) is a type of algorithm that manages a linked data structure. This concept is used as a model for lower-bound proofs and specific restrictions on the linked data structure and on the algorithm's access to the structure vary. This model has been used extensively with problems related to the disjoint-set data structure. Thus, Tarjan and La Poutré used this model to prove lower bounds on the amortized complexity of a disjoint-set data structure (La Poutré also addressed the interval split-find problem). Blum used this model to prove a lower bound on the single operation worst-case time of disjoint set data structure. Blum and Rochow proved a worst-case lower bound for the interval union-find problem. == Example == In Tarjan's lower bound for the disjoint set union problem, the assumptions on the algorithm are: The algorithm maintains a linked structure of nodes. Each element of the problem is associated with a node. Each set is represented by a node. The nodes of each set constitute a distinct connected component in the structure (this property is called separability). The find operation is performed by following links from the element node to the set node. Under these assumptions, the lower bound of Ω ( m α ( m , n ) ) {\displaystyle \Omega (m\alpha (m,n))} on the cost of a sequence of m operations is proven.

  Read more →
• 

  Cloud-native computing

  Cloud native computing is an approach in software development that utilizes cloud computing to "build and run scalable applications in modern, dynamic environments such as public, private, and hybrid clouds". These technologies, such as containers, microservices, serverless functions, cloud native processors and immutable infrastructure, deployed via declarative code are common elements of this architectural style. Cloud native technologies focus on minimizing users' operational burden. Cloud native techniques "enable loosely coupled systems that are resilient, manageable, and observable. Combined with robust automation, they allow engineers to make high-impact changes frequently and predictably with minimal toil." This independence contributes to the overall resilience of the system, as issues in one area do not necessarily cripple the entire application. Additionally, such systems are easier to manage, and monitor, given their modular nature, which simplifies tracking performance and identifying issues. Frequently, cloud-native applications are built as a set of microservices that run in Open Container Initiative compliant containers, such as Containerd, and may be orchestrated in Kubernetes and managed and deployed using DevOps and Git CI workflows (although there is a large amount of competing open source that supports cloud-native development). The advantage of using containers is the ability to package all software needed to execute into one executable package. The container runs in a virtualized environment, which isolates the contained application from its environment.

  Read more →
• 

  Ubiquitous robot

  Ubiquitous robot is a term used in an analogous way to ubiquitous computing. Software useful for "integrating robotic technologies with technologies from the fields of ubiquitous and pervasive computing, sensor networks, and ambient intelligence". The emergence of mobile phone, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing makes it likely that human beings will live in a ubiquitous world in which all devices are fully networked. The existence of ubiquitous space resulting from developments in computer and network technology will provide motivations to offer desired services by any IT device at any place and time through user interactions and seamless applications. This shift has hastened the ubiquitous revolution, which has further manifested itself in the new multidisciplinary research area, ubiquitous robotics. It initiates the third generation of robotics following the first generation of the industrial robot and the second generation of the personal robot. Ubiquitous robot (Ubibot) is a robot incorporating three components including virtual software robot or avatar, real-world mobile robot and embedded sensor system in surroundings. Software robot within a virtual world can control a real-world robot as a brain and interact with human beings. Researchers of KAIST, Korea describe these three components as a Sobot (Software robot), Mobot (Mobile robot), and Embot (Embedded robot).

  Read more →
• 

  Proof of authority

  Proof of authority (PoA) is a category of consensus protocols used with blockchains based on reputation and identity as a stake that delivers comparatively fast and efficient transactions (compared to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake). The most notable platforms using PoA are VeChain, Bitgert, Palm Network and Xodex. == Description == Proof-of-authority is a category of consensus protocols for networks and blockchains where transactions and blocks are built and validated by approved entities known as validators. Their permissions are often granted through a centralized authority, but they can also be granted through a council or decentralized organization. The term "proof-of-authority" was coined by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum and Parity Technologies. With PoA, validators are incentivized to maintain good behavior and honesty when validating blocks to avoid developing a negative reputation. PoA can have higher security than PoW and even PoS due to validators wanting to avoid damaging their reputation. Because PoA is permissioned, it is not fully trustless. Validators without good reputation may risk having their validator permissions removed. PoA is generally more efficient than PoW and PoS because it operates with fewer nodes and validators, thus requiring fewer duplicated resources.

  Read more →
• 

  Harold Borko

  Harold Borko (1922-2012) was an American psychologist and researcher working primarily in the field of information science. == Biography == Borko was born in 1922 in New York City, New York. After serving in the US Army from 1942 to 1946 he obtained a BA in Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1948 and both his MA and PhD from the University of Southern California in Psychology in 1952. He returned to the army as a psychologist until 1956 after which he began a career working in and teaching information science. He died in California in 2012. == Information Science Career == After leaving the military Borko began working at the RAND Corporation as a Systems Training Specialist in 1956 and moved to the Systems Development Corporation a year later working in the Language Processing and Retrieval department. Alongside this work he taught Psychology at USC from 1957-65 and then moved into teaching Library Science at UCLA from 1965. In 1967 Borko left his role at the Systems Development Corporation and continued as a full-time professor at UCLA until his retirement in 1993.. From 1961 to 1995 Borko authored and co-authored over 100 articles on new developments in the field as well as the historiography of information science. He served as an editor of the Journal of Educational Data Processing from 1963-1975 and as President of the American Society for Information Science in 1966 == Partial list of works == Borko, H. (1962, May). The construction of an empirically based mathematically derived classification system. In Proceedings of the May 1-3, 1962, spring joint computer conference (pp. 279-289). Borko, H., & Bernick, M. (1963). Automatic document classification. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 10(2), 151-162. Borko, H. (1964). The Storage and Retrieval of Educational Information. Journal of Teacher Education, 15(4), 449-452. Borko, H. (1964). Measuring the reliability of subject classification by men and machines. American Documentation, 15(4), 268-273. Borko, H. (1965). The conceptual foundations of information systems. Borko, H. (1968), Information science: What is it?†. Amer. Doc., 19: 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090190103 Borko, H. (1970). Experiments in book indexing by computer. Information storage and retrieval, 6(1), 5-16. Borko, H. (1985). An introduction to computer-based library systems (Lucy A. Tedd). Education for Information, 3(1), 61.

  Read more →
• 

  Agent verification

  Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithm IMED

  In multi-armed bandit problems, IMED (for Indexed Minimum Empirical Divergence) is an algorithm developed in 2015 by Junya Honda and Akimichi Takemura. It is the first algorithm proved to be asymptotically optimal respect to the problem-dependant Lai–Robbins lower bound for distributions in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} . == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]),\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} is the set of distribution in [ − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-\infty ,1]} ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} is the highest empirical mean of turn t {\displaystyle t} Remark : For arms a {\displaystyle a} that verify μ ^ a ( t ) = μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} we have K i n f ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ ^ ∗ ( t ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle K_{inf}({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),{\hat {\mu }}^{}(t))=0} . Then there index is equal to ln ⁡ ( N a ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \ln(N_{a}(t))} === Pseudocode === for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; mu[i] ← None for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution mu[t] ← update empirical mean for t from K+1 to T do: mu ← highest mu for each arm i do: scoreK[i] ← n[i] K_inf(nu[i],mu) scoreN[i] ← ln(n[i]) index[i] ← scoreK[i] + scoreN[i] select arm a with smallest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution mu[a] ← update empirical mean == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the asymptotic Lai–Robbins lower bound asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm IMED is the first algorithm that matches this lower bound for distribution in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} in the first order. If the distribution are also bounded then it also match the second order. It is the first algorithm that match the second under of this lower bound. === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. In 2018, Aurelien Garivier, Pierre Menard and Gilles Stoltz proved a refined lower bound that gives the second order It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − Ω T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-\Omega _{T\to +\infty }(\ln \ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it and the second order in − Ω ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle -\Omega (\ln \ln T)} . === Regret bound for IMED === If the distribution of every arm a {\displaystyle a} is ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} ( i.e. ν a ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]))} then the regret of the algorithm IMED verify R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T + O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T+O(1)} If all the distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} are bounded then it exists a constant C > 0 {\displaystyle C>0} such that for T {\displaystyle T} large enough the regret of IMED is upper bounded by R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − C ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-C\ln \ln T} == Computation time == The algorithm only requiere to compute the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} for suboptimal arms who are pulled O ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle O(\ln T)} times, which make it a lot faster than KL-UCB. A faster version of IMED was developed in 2023 to make it even faster, using a Taylor development of the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} in the first order .

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic management

  Algorithmic management is a term used to describe certain labor management practices in the contemporary digital economy. In scholarly uses, the term was initially coined in 2015 by Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish to describe the managerial role played by algorithms on the Uber and Lyft platforms, but has since been taken up by other scholars to describe more generally the managerial and organisational characteristics of platform economies. However, digital direction of labor was present in manufacturing already since the 1970s and algorithmic management is becoming increasingly widespread across a wide range of industries. The concept of algorithmic management can be broadly defined as the delegation of managerial functions to algorithmic and automated systems. Algorithmic management has been enabled by "recent advances in digital technologies" which allow for the real-time and "large-scale collection of data" which is then used to "improve learning algorithms that carry out learning and control functions traditionally performed by managers". The term does not refer to a specific underlying technology, and encompasses the design choices, organisational policies, and governance that surround the managerial use of algorithms in workplaces. In the contemporary workplace, firms employ an ecology of accounting devices, such as "rankings, lists, classifications, stars and other symbols' in order to effectively manage their operations and create value without the need for traditional forms of hierarchical control." Many of these devices fall under the label of what is called algorithmic management, and were first developed by companies operating in the sharing economy or gig economy, functioning as effective labor and cost cutting measures. The Data&Society explainer of the term, for example, describes algorithmic management as 'a diverse set of technological tools and techniques that structure the conditions of work and remotely manage workforces. Data&Society also provides a list of five typical features of algorithmic management: Prolific data collection and surveillance of workers through technology; Real-time responsiveness to data that informs management decisions; Automated or semi-automated decision-making; Transfer of performance evaluations to rating systems or other metrics; and The use of "nudges" and penalties to indirectly incentivize worker behaviors. Proponents of algorithmic management claim that it "creates new employment opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labour market that are characterised by inefficiency, opacity and capricious human bosses." On the other hand, critics of algorithmic management claim that the practice leads to several issues, especially as it impacts the employment status of workers managed by its new array of tools and techniques. == History of the term == "Algorithmic management" was first described by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, and Dabbish in 2015 in their study of the Uber and Lyft platforms. In their study, Lee et al. termed "software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice" algorithmic management. Software algorithms, it was said, are increasingly used to "allocate, optimize, and evaluate work" by platforms in managing their vast workforces. In Lee et al.'s paper on Uber and Lyft this included the use of algorithms to assign work to drivers, as mechanisms to optimise pricing for services, and as systems for evaluating driver performance. In 2016, Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark sought to extend on this understanding of algorithmic management "to elucidate on the automated implementation of company policies on the behaviours and practices of Uber drivers." Rosenblat and Stark found in their study that algorithmic management practices contributed to a system beset by power asymmetries, where drivers had little control over "critical aspects of their work", whereas Uber had far greater control over the labor of its drivers. Since this time, studies of algorithmic management have extended the use of the term to describe the management practices of various firms, where, for example, algorithms "are taking over scheduling work in fast food restaurants and grocery stores, using various forms of performance metrics ad even mood... to assign the fastest employees to work in peak times." Algorithmic management is seen to be especially prevalent in gig work on platforms, such as on Upwork and Deliveroo, and in the sharing economy, such as in the case of Airbnb. Furthermore, recent research has defined sub-constructs that fall under the umbrella term of algorithmic management, for example, "algorithmic nudging". A Harvard Business Review article published in 2021 explains: "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way." While the concept builds on nudging theory popularized by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers' behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals' decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective." == Relationships with other labor management practices == Algorithmic management has been compared and contrasted with other forms of management, such as Scientific management approaches, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s. Henri Schildt has called algorithmic management "Scientific management 2.0", where management "is no longer a human practice, but a process embedded in technology." Similarly, Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman suggest that, while "algorithmic control over labor may be relatively new, it replicates many features of older mechanisms of labor control." On the other hand, some commentators have argued that algorithmic management is not simply a new form of Scientific management or digital Taylorism, but represents a distinct approach to labor control in platform economies. David Stark and Ivana Pais, for example, state that, "In contrast to Scientific Management at the turn of the twentieth century, in the algorithmic management of the twenty-first century there are rules but these are not bureaucratic, there are rankings but not ranks, and there is monitoring but it is not disciplinary. Algorithmic management does not automate bureaucratic structures and practices to create some new form of algorithmic bureaucracy. Whereas the devices and practices of Taylorism were part of a system of hierarchical supervision, the devices and practices of algorithmic management take place within a different economy of attention and a new regime of visibility. Triangular rather than vertical, and not as a panopticon, the lines of vision in algorithmic management are not lines of supervision." Similarly, Data&Society's explainer for algorithmic management claims that the practice represents a marked departure from earlier management structures that more strongly rely on human supervisors to direct workers. In analyzing the difference and the similarities to previous management styles, David Stark and Pieter Vanden Broeck expand the applicability of algorithmic management beyond the workplace. They develop a theory of algorithmic management in terms of broader changes in the shape and structure of organization in the 21st century, attentive to the erosion of organization's boundaries whereby heterogeneous actors, assets, and activities, are coopted regardless of their place in organizational space. Stark and Vanden Broeck propose the following means of differentiating algorithmic management from other historical managerial paradigms: == Issues == Algorithmic management can provide an effective and efficient means of workforce control and value creation in the contemporary digital economy. However, commentators have highlighted several issues that algorithmic management poses, especially for the workers it manages. Criticisms of the practice often highlight several key issues pertaining to algorithmic management practices, such as the imperfection and scope of its surveillance and control measures, which also threaten to lock workers out of key decision-making processes; its lack of transparency for users and information asymmetries; its potential for bias and discrimination; its dehumanizing tendencies; and its potential to create conditions which sidestep traditional employer-employee accountability. This last point has been especi

  Read more →