Stanza Living

Stanza Living is the common brand name for Dtwelve Spaces Private Limited. It provides fully-managed shared living accommodations to students and young professionals. Founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia, the company is present across 23 cities including Delhi, NCR, Bangalore, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore, Indore, Pune, Baroda, Vijayawada, and Dehradun, Kota in India, with a capacity of 70,000 beds. Stanza Living is a technology-enabled housing concept which provides fully-furnished residences with amenities like meals, internet, laundry services, housekeeping, security and community engagement programmes. The company has an asset-light business model under which it engages in long-term lease agreements with property owners/developers, who convert their assets into shared living residences as per company guidelines. These assets are subsequently operated by Stanza Living. == Industry background == A report by Cushman & Wakefield (C&W) titled 'Exploring the Student Housing Universe in India City Insights', estimates that there were over 9.08 million migrant student enrolments in India's higher educational institutions (HEIs) for the year 2018-19 who need quality accommodation facilities. According to the report, Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, and Pune are the three biggest markets for student housing in the country, and these cities require an additional 4.75 lakh beds from organized co-living operators to meet the current demand. == History == Stanza Living provides tech-enabled, fully managed community living facilities for students and working professionals. The company was launched as a student housing business in Delhi NCR with a capacity of 100 beds, and grew to 14 cities by 2019. By early 2020, the company began catering to working professionals as well. The company has a combined inventory of 70,000 beds under management for both students and working professionals. Stanza Living is currently valued at $300 million. It has raised a capital of about $70 million from leading global investors like Falcon Edge Capital, Sequoia Capital, Matrix Partners and Accel Partners. November 2017 – Seed funding, September 2018 – Series A, March 2019 – Debt financing, July 2019 – Series C round, December 2019 - Debt financing. The company has invested in building technology products for business efficiency and consumer experience, like the Stanza Resident App and Stanza Real Estate App. Stanza Living has close to 1,500 employees across India. It is recognized among Top Real Estate Tech Startups of 2020 across the globe by research and analysis company Tracxn. The company has been shortlisted among Top 25 Start-ups of India in 2019 by LinkedIn == Founders == Stanza Living was co-founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia. Sandeep Dalmia is an alumnus of Delhi College of Engineering and IIM Ahmedabad. Prior to Stanza, he was a Principal at Boston Consulting Group, working across India, US and South East Asia markets. Anindya Dutta was previously a Real Estate investor with Oaktree Capital and prior to that, he worked at Goldman Sachs in London. He is an alumnus of IIT Kharagpur and IIM Ahmedabad.

Morphological antialiasing

Morphological antialiasing (MLAA) is a spatial anti-aliasing technique used in real-time computer graphics. It reduces artifacts, such as jaggies, when representing a high-resolution image at a lower resolution. MLAA is a post-process filtering which detects borders in the resulting image and then finds specific patterns in these. Anti-aliasing is achieved by blending pixels in these borders, according to the pattern they belong to and their position within the pattern. Introduced in 2009, MLAA was an early and influential example of anti-aliasing techniques done in post-processing, which makes them suitable for deferred shading. A similar method in this class is fast approximate anti-aliasing (FXAA). Temporal anti-aliasing, also a post-process, has become the most common anti-aliasing method for real-time rendering and video games. Enhanced subpixel morphological antialiasing, or SMAA, is an image-based GPU-based implementation of MLAA developed by Universidad de Zaragoza and Crytek.

Intrapixel and Interpixel processing

Intrapixel and Interpixel processing is used in the processing of computers graphics, as well as sensors and images in equipment such as cameras. For computer graphics, CMOS sensor processing is done in pixel level. This process includes two general categories: intrapixel processing, where the processing is performed on the individual pixel signals, and interpixel processing, where the processing is performed locally or globally on signals from several pixels. The purpose of interpixel processing is to perform early vision processing, not merely to capture images. Intrapixel and Interpixel processing is an integral part of spatial processing within the earth Mixed Spatial Attraction Model. This also includes use within hyperspectral image processing.

Confused deputy problem

In information security, a confused deputy is a computer program that is tricked by another program (with fewer privileges or less rights) into misusing its authority on the system. It is a specific type of privilege escalation. The confused deputy problem is often cited as an example of why capability-based security is important. Capability systems protect against the confused deputy problem, whereas access-control list–based systems do not. Such systems can mitigate the confused deputy problem by eliminating ambient authority, allowing programs to act only on resources for which they hold explicit capabilities, whereas access-control list–based systems are more susceptible to it. However, this protection depends on correct implementation; in formally verified capability systems such as seL4, it can be shown that the kernel enforces capability constraints correctly, preventing such behavior at the system level. == Example == In the original example of a confused deputy, there was a compiler program provided on a commercial timesharing service. Users could run the compiler and optionally specify a filename where it would write debugging output, and the compiler would be able to write to that file if the user had permission to write there. The compiler also collected statistics about language feature usage. Those statistics were stored in a file called "(SYSX)STAT", in the directory "SYSX". To make this possible, the compiler program was given permission to write to files in SYSX. But there were other files in SYSX: in particular, the system's billing information was stored in a file "(SYSX)BILL". A user ran the compiler and named "(SYSX)BILL" as the desired debugging output file. This produced a confused deputy problem. The compiler made a request to the operating system to open (SYSX)BILL. Even though the user did not have access to that file, the compiler did, so the open succeeded. The compiler wrote the compilation output to the file (here "(SYSX)BILL") as normal, overwriting it, and the billing information was destroyed. === The confused deputy === In this example, the compiler program is the deputy because it is acting at the request of the user. The program is seen as 'confused' because it was tricked into overwriting the system's billing file. Whenever a program tries to access a file, the operating system needs to know two things: which file the program is asking for, and whether the program has permission to access the file. In the example, the file is designated by its name, “(SYSX)BILL”. The program receives the file name from the user, but does not know whether the user had permission to write the file. When the program opens the file, the system uses the program's permission, not the user's. When the file name was passed from the user to the program, the permission did not go along with it; the permission was increased by the system silently and automatically. It is not essential to the attack that the billing file be designated by a name represented as a string. The essential points are that: the designator for the file does not carry the full authority needed to access the file; the program's own permission to access the file is used implicitly. == Other examples == A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) is an example of a confused deputy attack that uses the web browser to perform sensitive actions against a web application. A common form of this attack occurs when a web application uses a cookie to authenticate all requests transmitted by a browser. Using JavaScript, an attacker can force a browser into transmitting authenticated HTTP requests. The Samy computer worm used cross-site scripting (XSS) to turn the browser's authenticated MySpace session into a confused deputy. Using XSS the worm forced the browser into posting an executable copy of the worm as a MySpace message which was then viewed and executed by friends of the infected user. Clickjacking is an attack where the user acts as the confused deputy. In this attack a user thinks they are harmlessly browsing a website (an attacker-controlled website) but they are in fact tricked into performing sensitive actions on another website. An FTP bounce attack can allow an attacker to connect indirectly to TCP ports to which the attacker's machine has no access, using a remote FTP server as the confused deputy. Another example relates to personal firewall software. It can restrict Internet access for specific applications. Some applications circumvent this by starting a browser with instructions to access a specific URL. The browser has authority to open a network connection, even though the application does not. Firewall software can attempt to address this by prompting the user in cases where one program starts another which then accesses the network. However, the user frequently does not have sufficient information to determine whether such an access is legitimate—false positives are common, and there is a substantial risk that even sophisticated users will become habituated to clicking "OK" to these prompts. Not every program that misuses authority is a confused deputy. Sometimes misuse of authority is simply a result of a program error. The confused deputy problem occurs when the designation of an object is passed from one program to another, and the associated permission changes unintentionally, without any explicit action by either party. It is insidious because neither party did anything explicit to change the authority. Another example is when an administrator authorizes an AI agent to act on their behalf, and that AI subsequently delegates authority to another AI agent neither vetted nor authorized by the original administrator. The unvetted AI can then act without permissions or oversight from the original developer. == Solutions == In some systems it is possible to ask the operating system to open a file using the permissions of another client. This solution has some drawbacks: It requires explicit attention to security by the server. A naive or careless server might not take this extra step. It becomes more difficult to identify the correct permission if the server is in turn the client of another service and wants to pass along access to the file. It requires the client to trust the server to not abuse the borrowed permissions. Note that intersecting the server and client's permissions does not solve the problem either, because the server may then have to be given very wide permissions (all of the time, rather than those needed for a given request) in order to act for arbitrary clients. The simplest way to solve the confused deputy problem is to bundle together the designation of an object and the permission to access that object. This is exactly what a capability is. Using capability security in the compiler example, the client would pass to the server a capability to the output file, such as a file descriptor, rather than the name of the file. Since it lacks a capability to the billing file, it cannot designate that file for output. In the cross-site request forgery example, a URL supplied "cross"-site would include its own authority independent of that of the client of the web browser.

Tokken

Tokken is a payment system and mobile app most known for being a legal and secure option for businesses transactions within the cannabis industry, because of its compliance with bank requirements. The startup company was created by Lamine Zarrad, a former regulator at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. == Operability == In order for a person to start using the app, they need to provide evidence, in the form of bioidentification data and mobile carrier records, that they can legally purchase weed. After they have been verified, customers can pay directly through the app at any dispensary that is using Tokken. Tokken turns credit card transactions into a digital token, which can be exchanged back for money that can later be deposited into a bank account. All transactions are logged publicly through a blockchain leger, making the process both anonymous and verified. === Banking services === Tokken has a "pay taxes" function which enables dispensaries to pay their taxes directly to the department.

Learning to rank

Learning to rank (LTR) or machine-learned ranking (MLR) is the application of machine learning, often supervised, semi-supervised or reinforcement learning, in the construction of ranking models for information retrieval and recommender systems. Training data may, for example, consist of lists of items with some partial order specified between items in each list. This order is typically induced by giving a numerical or ordinal score or a binary judgment (e.g. "relevant" or "not relevant") for each item. The goal of constructing the ranking model is to rank new, unseen lists in a similar way to rankings in the training data. == Applications == === In information retrieval === Ranking is a central part of many information retrieval problems, such as document retrieval, collaborative filtering, sentiment analysis, and online advertising. A possible architecture of a machine-learned search engine is shown in the accompanying figure. Training data consists of queries and documents matching them together with the relevance degree of each match. It may be prepared manually by human assessors (or raters, as Google calls them), who check results for some queries and determine relevance of each result. It is not feasible to check the relevance of all documents, and so typically a technique called pooling is used — only the top few documents, retrieved by some existing ranking models are checked. This technique may introduce selection bias. Alternatively, training data may be derived automatically by analyzing clickthrough logs (i.e. search results which got clicks from users), query chains, or such search engines' features as Google's (since-replaced) SearchWiki. Clickthrough logs can be biased by the tendency of users to click on the top search results on the assumption that they are already well-ranked. Training data is used by a learning algorithm to produce a ranking model which computes the relevance of documents for actual queries. Typically, users expect a search query to complete in a short time (such as a few hundred milliseconds for web search), which makes it impossible to evaluate a complex ranking model on each document in the corpus, and so a two-phase scheme is used. First, a small number of potentially relevant documents are identified using simpler retrieval models which permit fast query evaluation, such as the vector space model, Boolean model, weighted AND, or BM25. This phase is called top- k {\displaystyle k} document retrieval and many heuristics were proposed in the literature to accelerate it, such as using a document's static quality score and tiered indexes. In the second phase, a more accurate but computationally expensive machine-learned model is used to re-rank these documents. === In other areas === Learning to rank algorithms have been applied in areas other than information retrieval: In machine translation for ranking a set of hypothesized translations; In computational biology for ranking candidate 3-D structures in protein structure prediction problems; In recommender systems for identifying a ranked list of related news articles to recommend to a user after he or she has read a current news article. == Feature vectors == For the convenience of MLR algorithms, query-document pairs are usually represented by numerical vectors, which are called feature vectors. Such an approach is sometimes called bag of features and is analogous to the bag of words model and vector space model used in information retrieval for representation of documents. Components of such vectors are called features, factors or ranking signals. They may be divided into three groups (features from document retrieval are shown as examples): Query-independent or static features — those features, which depend only on the document, but not on the query. For example, PageRank or document's length. Such features can be precomputed in off-line mode during indexing. They may be used to compute document's static quality score (or static rank), which is often used to speed up search query evaluation. Query-dependent or dynamic features — those features, which depend both on the contents of the document and the query, such as TF-IDF score or other non-machine-learned ranking functions. Query-level features or query features, which depend only on the query. For example, the number of words in a query. Some examples of features, which were used in the well-known LETOR dataset: TF, TF-IDF, BM25, and language modeling scores of document's zones (title, body, anchors text, URL) for a given query; Lengths and IDF sums of document's zones; Document's PageRank, HITS ranks and their variants. Selecting and designing good features is an important area in machine learning, which is called feature engineering. == Evaluation measures == There are several measures (metrics) which are commonly used to judge how well an algorithm is doing on training data and to compare the performance of different MLR algorithms. Often a learning-to-rank problem is reformulated as an optimization problem with respect to one of these metrics. Examples of ranking quality measures: Mean average precision (MAP); DCG and NDCG; Precision@n, NDCG@n, where "@n" denotes that the metrics are evaluated only on top n documents; Mean reciprocal rank; Kendall's tau; Spearman's rho. DCG and its normalized variant NDCG are usually preferred in academic research when multiple levels of relevance are used. Other metrics such as MAP, MRR and precision, are defined only for binary judgments. Recently, there have been proposed several new evaluation metrics which claim to model user's satisfaction with search results better than the DCG metric: Expected reciprocal rank (ERR); Yandex's pfound. Both of these metrics are based on the assumption that the user is more likely to stop looking at search results after examining a more relevant document, than after a less relevant document. == Approaches == Learning to Rank approaches are often categorized using one of three approaches: pointwise (where individual documents are ranked), pairwise (where pairs of documents are ranked into a relative order), and listwise (where an entire list of documents are ordered). Tie-Yan Liu of Microsoft Research Asia has analyzed existing algorithms for learning to rank problems in his book Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval. He categorized them into three groups by their input spaces, output spaces, hypothesis spaces (the core function of the model) and loss functions: the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approach. In practice, listwise approaches often outperform pairwise approaches and pointwise approaches. This statement was further supported by a large scale experiment on the performance of different learning-to-rank methods on a large collection of benchmark data sets. In this section, without further notice, x {\displaystyle x} denotes an object to be evaluated, for example, a document or an image, f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} denotes a single-value hypothesis, h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} denotes a bi-variate or multi-variate function and L ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle L(\cdot )} denotes the loss function. === Pointwise approach === In this case, it is assumed that each query-document pair in the training data has a numerical or ordinal score. Then the learning-to-rank problem can be approximated by a regression problem — given a single query-document pair, predict its score. Formally speaking, the pointwise approach aims at learning a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} predicting the real-value or ordinal score of a document x {\displaystyle x} using the loss function L ( f ; x j , y j ) {\displaystyle L(f;x_{j},y_{j})} . A number of existing supervised machine learning algorithms can be readily used for this purpose. Ordinal regression and classification algorithms can also be used in pointwise approach when they are used to predict the score of a single query-document pair, and it takes a small, finite number of values. === Pairwise approach === In this case, the learning-to-rank problem is approximated by a classification problem — learning a binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} that can tell which document is better in a given pair of documents. The classifier shall take two documents as its input and the goal is to minimize a loss function L ( h ; x u , x v , y u , v ) {\displaystyle L(h;x_{u},x_{v},y_{u,v})} . The loss function typically reflects the number and magnitude of inversions in the induced ranking. In many cases, the binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} is implemented with a scoring function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . As an example, RankNet adapts a probability model and defines h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} as the estimated probability of the document x u {\displaystyle x_{u}} has higher quality than x v {\displaystyle x_{v}} : P u , v ( f ) = CDF ( f ( x u ) − f ( x v ) ) , {\displaystyle P_{u,v}(f)={\text{CDF}