"TowIt" is a free, global, cross-platform mobile app, website, and Web API that allows civilians to report parking violations and dangerous driving in real-time. The mission is to remove the barriers required to make cities effectively fight and deter bad parking and dangerous driving habits. The company ultimately aims to better existing social controls in order to drive necessary behavioral change through increased education, real-time reporting, optimized enforcement, as well as the resulting reactivity. == User base and adoption == The application has users reporting vehicular infractions in upwards of 30 countries. The top reporting countries are: Portugal, Canada, United States of America and Australia. Users have adopted TowIt for a variety of reasons, usually central to their geographical location and the prominent offences in those specific areas. For instance, the majority of Portuguese reports are cars parked on sidewalks, footpaths and pedestrian crossings, Australian reports are largely focused on the abuse of disabled parking spaces, and in Toronto or San Francisco users generally capture cars parked in bicycle lanes. == Functions == === Data collection === TowIt gathers data on individual parking offences, the prominence of various offence types, as well as recurring offenders. This allows the company to identify trends and hotspots in order to take action against problem vehicles, as well as to help improve urban planning, traffic congestion and gridlock management. Individuals modify or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed, theoretically more so when demonstrating selfishness, egocentrism, narcissism and anti-social behavior. The company states that by becoming a user, one can "help TowIt relieve congestion, reduce collisions, open up economies, improve the environment and enhance the lives of urban residents and suburban commuters alike". The company has acknowledged that there are numerous legislative changes that would be required to integrate with governments at any level in many countries. A simple three-step process allows users to take a photo of an offending vehicle and subsequently verifying the offending vehicle's license plate information before submitting by tapping the TowIt (submit) button. Photographical evidence can only be captured with the camera from within the TowIt application. An Internet connection is required. The company has stated that this was purposefully done for quality control and report validation purposes. Users may only submit and view their own report history on either the iOS or Android applications. Globally submitted reports are displayed uncensored and in aggregate only on the Android application and the TowIt website. The "Global Feed" feature was removed from iOS (see iTunes Connect Acceptance Issues). TowIt's back-end automatically geotags the report and compares it to local parking by-law data, including by-law types, locations, times, side(s) of street, etc.- where available. Valid reports are posted to the global feed, to the TowIt website, and passed on to municipalities and police for enforcement (where connected). === Technologies used under license === TowIt currently utilizes the following software or software libraries under license: AngularJS, Apache Cordova, Apple iTunes Store EULA, Chart.js, Google Play Distribution Agreement, Ionic Framework, MongoDB, Moment.js, Python 2.7, Python Flask, and jQuery. == Company history == The TowIt application was conceived by Michael Duncan McArthur on December 5, 2014, as a response to Toronto Mayor John Tory's election mandate to "get this city moving". The application was announced via TowIt's official Twitter page on January 6, 2015. After the initial public announcement, Michael & Gregory were contacted by members of John Tory's staff on January 8, 2015, and invited to demo a prototype at Toronto City Hall on January 12, 2015. The two were also invited to meet with Toronto Councillor Norm Kelly, in his City Hall office, for a subsequent demo of the live Android application on January 28, 2015. A similar meeting and demo took place with members of the Traffic Services department of Toronto Police Service on February 2, 2015. Michael & Gregory teamed up with friends and Toronto-based developers Dae-Seon Moon, Jesse Malone, and Marcus Veres to complete the prototype in time to meet the city's imposed demo deadline and to launch the initial Android version of the application. TowIt officially launched on the Android platform on January 16, 2015. A subsequent iOS launch took place on March 19, 2015. === iTunes connect acceptance issues === The iOS version of the application was delayed for approximately two months, only after significant deliberation with Apple's iTunes Connect review board around (as then stated) rule: "14.1 - Any App that is defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited, or likely to place the targeted individual or group in harm's way will be rejected." The result was having to remove the "Global Feed" feature from the iOS platform, in which civilian users could view all recent reports from within the application. This feature still exists on the Android platform. === Business and legal === TowIt engaged Wildeboer Dellelce, one of Canada's leading business law and transactional corporate finance law firms, on January 17, 2015. The company filed for incorporation as "TowIt Solutions Inc." by both Michael & Gregory in the Canadian province of Ontario on January 22, 2015. TowIt continues to operate under a Freemium business model. The company is 100% bootstrapped and has received no outside investment to date. TowIt was accepted into the MaRS Discovery District's Venture Services program on March 4, 2015. === Lobbyist registration === After receiving initial press coverage in January and February 2015, an unknown entity reported Michael & Gregory's initial communications with city staff to the City of Toronto's Lobbyist Registrar. This complaint resulted in legal threats of fines received on February 10, 2015, for apparently and unknowingly breaking municipal lobbying by-laws. These fines (of up to $100,000) were eventually withdrawn after Michael & Gregory immediately provided all records of communication with city officials and registered as lobbyists in the City of Toronto on the subjects of By-law / Regulation, Parking, and Technology. Their registration was accepted by the Lobbyist Registrar on March 6, 2015. However, communication with Toronto city staff was reduced greatly as a result, which the company believes may have been the desired intent of the original complaint. === Outreach and activism === TowIt encourages its global user base to reach out to their local government representatives to promote the app at the users' own will. This tactic is used not only to demonstrate grassroots support, but also to avoid future lobbying issues. On June 2, 2015, the company officially partnered with Australian campaign "No Permit No Park" who advocate for the creation of inclusive communities. == Reception == The Best Planning Apps for 2016 by Planetizen, 5 Toronto apps you should be using by Indie88, 12 Best Apps Made In Canada by TechVibes.
Language-Theoretic Security
Language-theoretic security, or LangSec, is an approach to software security that focuses on input handling, complexity, and program design as strategies to improve the verifiability of computer programs. It was introduced in 2005 by Robert J. Hansen and Meredith L. Patterson at BlackHat and in 2011 by Len Sassaman and Patterson. It aims to create a formal description of which software is likely to have security vulnerabilities of particular classes, and why. It considers programs to have an inherent parser component, whether or not explicit, composed of that part of the program which operates on external input before that input is fully parsed. A central hypothesis of language-theoretic security is that vulnerabilities in software increase according to the computational power of the notional input-accepting automaton equivalent to this parser, using the definitions of automata theory. The lower bound on this computational power is the input language complexity of the program. The extent to which reducing this complexity is possible is a function of the specification of the communication protocol or file format the program takes as input. == Parsing as a security mechanism == The behaviour of a program is defined with reference to its expected input. Unexpected input being used by a program is a factor in numerous security bugs, including the so-called Android master key vulnerability (CVE-2013-4787), because accepting unexpected input renders the program's specification ambiguous. In that instance, the unexpected ambiguity came in the form of a ZIP file with duplicate filenames. If a program fully parses its input and only acts on input that unambiguously meets the specification, it follows that the program will avoid these types of vulnerabilities. This is an intentional inversion of the Postel principle. Accepting only unambiguous and valid input is a more formal requirement than input validation or sanitization, and narrows the number of possible but unanticipated program states that can be induced in an application via user input. Conversely, failure to do this is associated with security vulnerabilities. Input sanitization in particular is held to be an inadequate approach to avoiding malicious input because it inherently ignores context-sensitive properties of the input; it can therefore result in paradoxical effects, such as sanitization code activating otherwise inert cross-site scripting payloads in browsers. === Parser differentials === If the language of accepted program input is sufficiently simple, it is possible to verify that two implementations parse the same input language consistently. This is advantageous because it shows no parser differential exists between the two implementations. The requisite level of simplicity is theoretically that for which there is a solution to the equivalence problem. If the two parsers involved in CVE-2013-4787 were equivalent - that is, if they rendered the same output state given the same input state - the vulnerability could not have existed. One strategy for doing this is to publish machine-readable specifications of a format or protocol, and then use a parser generator to generate the parser code. An example of a parser generator built for this purpose is DaeDaLus. The combination of Lex with any of GNU Bison, ANTLR, or Yacc also accomplishes this. However, many parser generators allow the mixing of general purpose code with the parsing definitions, which weakens the guarantees provided by parsing. === Analysis of injection attacks === Injection attacks are generally the result of differences between the serializer (or "unparser") and the corresponding parser at a layer boundary in a system; therefore, they are a special case of parser differentials. In a SQL injection attack, for example, an attacker is able to cause the application with which they are interacting to serialize a SQL query that has different semantics than intended. In the simplest case where the payload ends a string and adds new code, the payload has crossed the code-data boundary in SQL. In language-theoretic security, this is treated as a bug in the serializer of the SQL query, which should instead be written in a way that constrains its possible outputs to those within the scope of the intended query. === Parser combinators === If a parser generator is not used, it is still possible to avoid implementation bugs by using parser combinator such as Nom to implement the parser code. This has the drawback of relying on a programmer correctly translating the specification into the language of the parser generator library, though this task is still less error-prone than hand-coding a parser. == Input format complexity == Complexity in computer programs is associated with security vulnerabilities. Within the domain of language-theoretic security, complexity is described with reference to the computational power of the abstract machine necessary to implement the program, or more particularly, to implement the parser for its input language. This complexity describes whether it is possible to show that there is no unintended or undesired functionality in the program which might be exploitable by an attacker. To be bounded in complexity, the program's input must be well-defined both in terms of form and of semantics. === Weird machines === A weird machine is a model of computation in a program that exists in parallel with, but is distinct from, the intended abstract model of computation in that program. Some classes of weird machine arise from the multi-layered nature of computer programs, or the context in which the programs run; others result from the unanticipated functionality a program has due to its complexity or to software bugs. The more complex the computation model of a program, the more likely it is to implement a weird machine. Depending on context, the weird machine may or may not be concretely useful for an attacker. Since the space of weird machines in the context of some program is the universe of all possible states that are not within the program's intended states, many exploited states including remote code execution and injection attacks belong to the domain of weird machines. A reduction in weird machines is therefore a likely correlate with reduced program vulnerability. === SafeDocs project === SafeDocs is a DARPA project undertaken in 2018 to take existing file formats, create safer subsets of them, and develop programming tools to work for the safer formats. The initial test case for this was PDF. The purpose of creating safer subsets in this case is to lower the minimum bound on parser complexity so that it becomes possible to create tools that will generate correct, normative parsers for them. == Relation to programming languages == The analytic framework of language-theoretic security assumes programs to be virtual machines that execute their input. A document that is read by an application is in this sense a form of machine code, in a generalization of the data as code idea, following the automata theory description of parsers. === Type-safe programming languages === Parsing input and serializing output are operations that consume one data type and emit another. A programming language can therefore check that data is correctly parsed and contains the expected structure by checking data types, and correct serializing (or unparsing) can be implemented as operations on the data types that are relevant to the program's output. This approach can be used to show that the recognizer and unparser patterns have been implemented. It is also possible to implement type checking across a distributed system to enforce parsing and unparsing of the expected structures and to verify that the assumptions made in designing the compositional properties of a distributed system have been followed. === Memory-safe programming languages === In the general case, spatial memory correctness is undecidable. If any proof of spatial memory correctness is to be made, it is therefore necessary to bound the complexity of the code. Interpreted languages such as Java and Python effectively accomplish this via runtime bounds checking, and frameworks for runtime bounds checking also exist for C. The effect of these strategies for spatial memory correctness are to create a halt state in place of a spatial memory correctness violation; therefore, it can be shown that the program will not violate spatial memory correctness, but in exchange, it cannot be shown in the general case that programs will not have runtime bounds checking exceptions. Some programming languages, such as Rust, accomplish this using borrow checking. The borrow checker acts to assure spatial memory correctness by compile-time reference counting. Code for which spatial memory correctness cannot be shown to not be violated therefore does not compile, inherently limiting the complexity of the spatial memory correctness of the program to what is decidable. Thi
Software bot
A software bot is a type of software agent in the service of software project management and software engineering. A software bot has an identity and potentially personified aspects in order to serve their stakeholders. Software bots often compose software services and provide an alternative user interface, which is sometimes, but not necessarily conversational. Software bots are typically used to execute tasks, suggest actions, engage in dialogue, and promote social and cultural aspects of a software project. The term bot is derived from robot. However, robots act in the physical world and software bots act only in digital spaces. Some software bots are designed and behave as chatbots, but not all chatbots are software bots. Discussions about the past and future of software bots show that software bots have been adopted for many years. == Usage == Software bots are used to support development activities, such as communication among software developers and automation of repetitive tasks. Software bots have been adopted by several communities related to software development, such as open-source communities on GitHub and Stack Overflow. GitHub bots have user accounts and can open, close, or comment on pull requests and issues. GitHub bots have been used to assign reviewers, ask contributors to sign the Contributor License Agreement, report continuous integration failures, review code and pull requests, welcome newcomers, run automated tests, merge pull requests, fix bugs and vulnerabilities, etc. The Slack tool includes an API for developing software bots. There are slack bots for keeping track of todo lists, coordinating standup meetings, and managing support tickets. The ChatBot company products further simplify the process of creating a custom Slack bot. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia bots automate a variety of tasks, such as creating stub articles, consistently updating the format of multiple articles, and so on. Bots like ClueBot NG are capable of recognizing vandalism and automatically remove disruptive content. == Taxonomies and Classification Frameworks == Lebeuf et al. provide a faceted taxonomy to characterize bots based on a literature review. It is composed of 3 main facets: (i) properties of the environment that the bot was created in; (ii) intrinsic properties of the bot itself; and (iii) the bot's interactions within its environment. They further detail the facets into sets of sub-facets under each of the main facets. Paikari and van der Hoek defined a set of dimensions to enable comparison of software bots, applied specifically to chatbots. It resulted in six dimensions: Type: the main purpose of the bot (information, collaboration, or automation) Direction of the "conversation" (input, output, or bi-directional) Guidance (human-mediated, or autonomous) Predictability (deterministic, or evolving) Interaction style (dull, alternate vocabulary, relationship-builder, human-like) Communication channel (text, voice, or both) Erlenhov et al. raised the question of the difference between a bot and simple automation, since much research done in the name of software bots uses the term bot to describe various different tools and sometimes things are "just" plain old development tools. After interviewing and surveying over 100 developers the authors found that not one, but three definitions dominated the community. They created three personas based on these definitions and the difference between what the three personas see as being a bot is mainly the association with a different set of human-like traits. The chat bot persona (Charlie) primarily thinks of bots as tools that communicates with the developer through a natural language interface (typically voice or chat), and caring little about what tasks the bot is used for or how it actually implements these tasks. The autonomous bot persona (Alex) thinks of bots as tools that work on their own (without requiring much input from a developer) on a task that would normally be done by a human. The smart bot persona (Sam) separates bots and plain old development tools through how smart (technically sophisticated) a tool is. Sam cares less about how the tool communicates, but more about if it is unusually good or adaptive at executing a task. The authors recommends that people doing research or writing about bots try to put their work in the context of one of the personas since the personas have different expectations and problems with the tools. == Example of notable bots == Dependabot and Renovatebot update software dependencies and detect vulnerabilities. (https://dependabot.com/) Probot is an organization that create and maintain bots for GitHub. The example bots using Probot are the following. Auto Assign (https://probot.github.io/apps/auto-assign/) license bot (https://probot.github.io/) Sentiment bot (https://probot.github.io/apps/sentiment-bot/) Untrivializer bot (https://probot.github.io/apps/untrivializer/) Refactoring-Bot (Refactoring-Bot): provides refactoring based on static code analysis Looks good to me bot (LGTM) is a Semmle product that inspects pull requests on GitHub for code style and unsafe code practices. == Issues and threats == Software bots may not be well accepted by humans. A study from the University of Antwerp has compared how developers active on Stack Overflow perceive answers generated by software bots. They find that developers perceive the quality of software bot-generated answers to be significantly worse if the identity of the software bot is made apparent. By contrast, answers from software bots with human-like identity were better received. In practice, when software bots are used on platforms like GitHub or Wikipedia, their username makes it clear that they are bots, e.g., DependaBot, RenovateBot, DatBot, SineBot. Bots may be subject to special rules. For instance, the GitHub terms of service does not allow 'bots' but accepts 'machine account', where a 'machine account' has two properties: 1) a human takes full responsibility of the bot's actions 2) it cannot create other accounts.
Wink Bingo
Wink Bingo is an online bingo website launched in 2008. It is part of Broadway Gaming Ireland DF Limited and is based and licensed in Ireland. == History == Wink Bingo launched in 2008 and under chief executive Eitan Boyd it grew to 60,000 active players within two years. It had an estimated £1.3 million profit in the first 11 months of trading, and by 2009 it had estimated annual revenue of £15 million. In 2009 Wink Bingo was purchased by 888 Holdings Plc, which operates a number of entertainment brands including 888casino, 888poker and 888sport. The initial up front fee was reported in the London Evening Standard to be £11 million, rising as high as £59.7 million depending on performance-based earn out arrangements. The acquisition included Daub Ltd’s other online bingo businesses Posh Bingo and Bingo Fabulous. In 2011, the sellers agreed to amend the terms and accept two subsequent payments in addition to the initial cost, of £9.2 million in May and £6.1 million in August. In 2011 Wink Bingo sponsored ITV2's The Only Way Is Essex, and other notable advertising campaigns have included sponsorship of Harry Hill's TV Burp. In 2014, Wink Bingo rebranded with an updated slogan 'Wink if you're in!', with an aim of creating a 'sunny, calm and inclusive' online destination, and an accompanying TV commercial featuring the Ottawan song D.I.S.C.O. re-recorded as B.I.N.G.O.. Wink also launched a new digital magazine, 'Winkly', and 'Winkipedia, a bingo encyclopedia'. Wink Bingo is available on desktop and as a mobile app. Wink launched Wink Slots in 2016 as a companion site to Wink Bingo. The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled on Wink Bingo's advertisements on a number of occasions. In August 2008, Wink ran a television ad which showed a midwife celebrating while at work at a hospital maternity unit. The ASA banned the ad, concluding that it condoned gambling in the workplace and suggested that it took priority over professional commitments. In June 2013, the Gambling Reform & Society Perception Group (GRASP) challenged the use of semi-naked "athletic" men together with the claim "Go on ... you know you want to" on an outdoor ad, suggesting it linked gambling to seduction and enhanced attractiveness. The complaint was not upheld. The site underwent another rebrand and pop art inspired redesign in April 2018, taking on a new tone of voice and a new slogan, "You’ve Earned It". An online shop was added, where players can redeem reward points for free play or vouchers for online high street retailers. In 2021 Wink Bingo was purchased by Saphalata Holdings, a company that forms part of the Broadway Gaming group. === Cancer Research UK campaign === In 2015 Wink Bingo began an open-ended partnership with the Peter Andre Fund to raise money for Cancer Research UK. Peter Andre also met with players who were selected in a raffle. == Awards ==
Drush
Drush (DRUpal SHell) is a computer software shell-based application used to control, manipulate, and administer Drupal websites. == Details == Drush was originally developed by Arto Bendiken for Drupal 4.7. In May 2007, it was partly rewritten and redesigned for Drupal 5 by Franz Heinzmann. Drush is maintained by Moshe Weitzman with the support of Owen Barton, greg.1.anderson, jonhattan, Mark Sonnabaum, Jonathan Hedstrom and Christopher Gervais.
Rule induction
Rule induction is an area of machine learning in which formal rules are extracted from a set of observations. The rules extracted may represent a full scientific model of the data, or merely represent local patterns in the data. Data mining in general and rule induction in detail are trying to create algorithms without human programming but with analyzing existing data structures. In the easiest case, a rule is expressed with “if-then statements” and was created with the ID3 algorithm for decision tree learning. Rule learning algorithm are taking training data as input and creating rules by partitioning the table with cluster analysis. A possible alternative over the ID3 algorithm is genetic programming which evolves a program until it fits to the data. Creating different algorithm and testing them with input data can be realized in the WEKA software. Additional tools are machine learning libraries for Python, like scikit-learn. == Paradigms == Some major rule induction paradigms are: Association rule learning algorithms (e.g., Agrawal) Decision rule algorithms (e.g., Quinlan 1987) Hypothesis testing algorithms (e.g., RULEX) Horn clause induction Version spaces Rough set rules Inductive Logic Programming Boolean decomposition (Feldman) == Algorithms == Some rule induction algorithms are: Charade Rulex Progol CN2
Suno (platform)
Suno is a generative artificial intelligence music creation platform. It is designed to generate music that can include vocals and instrumentation. The platform was initially developed by Suno, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Suno has been widely available since December 20, 2023, after the launch of a web application and a partnership with Microsoft, which included Suno as a plugin in Microsoft Copilot. The program operates by producing songs based on text or audio prompts provided by its users. Suno does not disclose the dataset used to train its artificial intelligence. == History == Suno, Inc., was founded by four people: Michael Shulman, Georg Kucsko, Martin Camacho, and Keenan Freyberg. They all worked for Kensho, an AI startup, before starting their own company in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In April 2023, Suno released their open-source text-to-speech and audio model called "Bark" on GitHub. On March 21, 2024, Suno released its V3 version for all users. The new version allowed users to create a limited number of four-minute songs using a free account. Users can pay for more features. In April 2024, a sentimental ballad was generated with Suno based on the text of the MIT License. In June 2024, a lawsuit, led by the Recording Industry Association of America, was filed against Suno and Udio alleging widespread infringement of copyrighted sound recordings. The lawsuit sought to bar the companies from training on copyrighted music, as well as damages of up to $150,000 per work from infringements that have already taken place. On July 1, 2024, a mobile app for Suno was released. On November 19, 2024, Suno upgraded its AI song model program to v4. In January 2025, Michael Shulman remarked on a podcast, "I think the majority of people don't enjoy the majority of the time they spend making music." In March 2025, one day after thousands of musicians including Thom Yorke and ABBA's Björn Ulvaeus signed a letter calling for Suno to stop training its model on copyrighted music, Timbaland endorsed Suno in a video on the company's website. In July 2025, Suno user imoliver signed a record deal with Hallwood Media, which became the first instance of a traditional music label signing an AI-based creator. Hallwood later signed with AI-artist Xania Monet for US$3 million. Monet's songs were generated by Suno AI by poet Telisha Jones. In November 2025, Suno agreed to a $500 million dollar lawsuit settlement, in which Suno would be allowed to train its models on Warner Music Group's music catalog, and WMG would control aspects of AI likeness, music, audio, software, copyrights, AI tools and music created by users on Suno. As part of the settlement, Suno also acquired the concert discovery platform Songkick from WMG. == Controversy == Suno, Inc., has been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for copyright infringement, and thousands of musicians have signed a letter demanding that the company cease using copyrighted music in their training data. Suno does not disclose the dataset used to train its artificial intelligence.