Switch was a mobile-only job-matching app that connected candidates directly to hiring managers. Candidates could upload their resumes and connect their social and professional media profiles, but remain anonymous while searching. Users received a daily set of job recommendations that fit their backgrounds and salary criteria, and swipe right to apply. Employers post many jobs on Switch directly, which eliminates the need for third-party job boards and recruiters, and connects job seekers to hiring managers. Switch reveals a candidate’s identity to one employer at a time, only after the candidate matches with that employer. When candidates and employers match, they can chat within the app. Switch is available for iOS, with an Android version in development. == History == === Founding === Yarden Tadmor founded Switch in New York City in January 2014. For the first 10 months, Tadmor funded the company himself. By December 2014, Switch had raised $1.4 million in funding from venture capitals firms Metamorphic Ventures, SG VC, BAM and Rhodium. Tadmor's inspiration for Switch came after being frustrated by his experience both as a job seeker, and also as a supervisor hiring at numerous technology startup companies. Tadmor has said of Switch, “We operate on the five-second resume principle, which is usually the amount of time a recruiter spends on a resume. They scan through the typical data points and move on.” Switch was designed for passive job seekers to browse openings discreetly and connect quickly. Originally, Switch served only the New York metro area technology sector while in early beta, but Tadmor always intended to expand into national coverage. Soon, the company started including all major metropolitan markets across the U.S. In May 2015, Switch announced it would start sourcing tech and media jobs from all the job boards available online. Later in 2015, Switch began to post jobs in smaller urban areas. The company also expanded industries and jobs to include restaurant staff, retail sales, healthcare, nursing and education. Tadmor subsequently founded Livekick, a one-on-one private fitness and yoga instruction company, based in New York. == Operation == In May 2015, Switch reported generating over 400,000 job applications. The company said that nine of the 50 largest websites in the U.S. were using the service. It had grown its customer base to thousands of companies in a few months from launch including Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, IBM, Yahoo!, eBay, DropBox, SoundCloud, and Wikipedia. John Cline, software development manager at eBay, told ABC’s Good Morning America that Switch is now his “main way of finding new prospective employees.” Switch uses a double opt-in technique, meaning job seekers and employers must both say yes before moving forward. They also use swiping technology and intelligent matching algorithms to connect job seekers and employers. The user experience is different for each group, but the major attraction for both sides is the speed at which they can be connected. === Features === Swipe is a major aspect of the Switch user experience. Job seekers swipe to apply to jobs, or left to pass on positions. Employers respond and swipe right to reciprocate interest, or left to eliminate the candidate. Direct connection between job seekers and employers allows hiring managers and job seekers to start an immediate conversation. Hiring managers can message with job seekers within the app, and both parties can quickly vet one another and decide whether to move forward. Easy profile creation from social media and in-app profile editing helps job seekers focus on finding a job. === Users === Job Seekers can either load their profile manually or pull in professional credentials from social media. They can post validated photos on their Facebook account. Switch’s matching algorithm analyzes the job seeker’s location, experience, and skills to bring them jobs they may be interested in. Job seekers swipe to apply and, if the employer shows interest too, only then does Switch’s system reveal the job seeker’s identity to the corporate recruiter or hiring manager. The job seeker and hiring manager can then chat through the app. Employers behave similarly to job seekers. Hiring managers or corporate recruiters sign up online, add open positions, then view Switch-recommended candidates or wait for job seekers to swipe right. Employers can select relevant job seekers by swiping right on their profiles, then chat directly in the app. === Subscriptions === The app is currently free for users and employers. == Company overview == === Financials === Switch closed out its seed round in May 2015 with $2 million in seed round funding. Investors include Marker VC, Metamorphic, Rhodium, 500 Startups, BAM, SG VC and Marcel Legrand. In a July 2015 interview with Tadmor, he claimed that Switch had raised $2.4 million to date. == Reception == Thanks to its swipe technology and double opt-in make-up, the media often refers to Switch as the Tinder for jobs. Switch has received features in lists and app reviews as an effective tool to improve your digital job search, particularly on the mobile platform. “It’s minimal effort to connect with relevant matches,” said Good Morning America workplace contributor Tory Johnson. “Which is what everybody wants to find.”
FreshBooks
FreshBooks is accounting software operated by 2ndSite Inc. primarily for small and medium-sized businesses. It is a web-based software as a service (SaaS) model, that can be accessed through a desktop or mobile device. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in Toronto, Canada. == History == FreshBooks was founded in 2004 by Mike McDerment, Levi Cooperman, and Joe Sawada in Toronto, Ontario. McDerment incorporated a second company, BillSpring in January 2015 to work on new product development. It was rolled back into FreshBooks as an updated interface in 2016. Initially FreshBooks functioned like an electronic invoicing program targeting IT professionals. After the release of the new interface, the initial release of FreshBooks was referred to as "FreshBooks Classic." FreshBooks Classic was discontinued in 2022 after migrating users to the new platform. FreshBooks Classic's front-end application was built in PHP, and the backend services were built in Python while the new FreshBooks uses the same backend services with a JavaScript single-page application. == Product == FreshBooks is a subscription-based accounting software platform that provides features such as invoicing, accounts payable, expense and time tracking, retainers, fixed asset depreciation, purchase orders, payroll integrations, mileage tracking, double-entry accounting, and standard business reporting. Financial data is stored in the cloud on a unified ledger, enabling access from desktop and mobile devices. The platform includes a free API for integration with external applications and supports multiple tax rates and currencies. It also offers project management and payroll functionalities. Pricing is based on a recurring monthly fee. FreshBooks supports country-specific tax calculations, including GST and HST in Canada, sales taxes in the United States, and MTD compliance in the UK. == Operations == FreshBooks has its headquarters in Toronto, Canada with operations in North America, Europe and Australia. Founder Mike McDerment was the chief executive officer of the company from 2003 until 2021, when he stepped down and was replaced by Don Epperson, but stayed as the executive chair. Don Epperson had previously joined FreshBooks as executive director in 2019. == Funding == FreshBooks was initially self-funded. In 2014, the company raised a Series A venture investment of $30 million led by the venture capital firm Oak Investment Partners, with participation by Georgian Partners and Atlas Venture. In 2017, FreshBooks announced that it raised another $43 million in funding from Accomplice, Georgian Partners and Oak Investment Partners. On August 10, 2021, FreshBooks announced that it had secured $80.75 million in Series E funding and $50 million in debt financing. FreshBooks also reached a valuation of more than $1 billion.
Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex
Block swap algorithms
In computer algorithms, block swap algorithms swap two regions of elements of an array. It is simple to swap two non-overlapping regions of an array of equal size. However, it is not as simple to swap two contiguous regions of an array of unequal sizes (algorithms that perform such swapping are called rotation algorithms). A few well-known algorithms can accomplish this: Bentley's juggling (also known as the dolphin algorithm), Gries-Mills rotation, triple reversal algorithm, conjoined triple reversal algorithm (also known as the trinity rotation) and Successive rotation. == Triple reversal algorithm == The triple reversal algorithm is the simplest to explain, using rotations. A rotation is an in-place reversal of array elements. This method swaps two elements of an array from outside in within a range. The rotation works for an even or odd number of array elements. The reversal algorithm uses three in-place rotations to accomplish an in-place block swap: Rotate region A Rotate region B Rotate region AB Where A and B are adjacent regions of an array that together form the region AB. Gries-Mills and reversal algorithms perform better than Bentley's juggling, because of their cache-friendly memory access pattern behavior. The triple reversal algorithm parallelizes well, because rotations can be split into sub-regions, which can be rotated independently of others.
Algorithmic game theory
Algorithmic game theory (AGT) is an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of game theory and computer science, focused on understanding and designing algorithms for environments where multiple strategic agents interact. This research area combines computational thinking with economic principles to address challenges that emerge when algorithmic inputs come from self-interested participants. In traditional algorithm design, inputs are assumed to be fixed and reliable. However, in many real-world applications—such as online auctions, internet routing, digital advertising, and resource allocation systems—inputs are provided by multiple independent agents who may strategically misreport information to manipulate outcomes in their favor. AGT provides frameworks to analyze and design systems that remain effective despite such strategic behavior. The field can be approached from two complementary perspectives: Analysis: Evaluating existing algorithms and systems through game-theoretic tools to understand their strategic properties. This includes calculating and proving properties of Nash equilibria (stable states where no participant can benefit by changing only their own strategy), measuring price of anarchy (efficiency loss due to selfish behavior), and analyzing best-response dynamics (how systems evolve when players sequentially optimize their strategies). Design: Creating mechanisms and algorithms with both desirable computational properties and game-theoretic robustness. This sub-field, known as algorithmic mechanism design, develops systems that incentivize truthful behavior while maintaining computational efficiency. Algorithm designers in this domain must satisfy traditional algorithmic requirements (such as polynomial-time running time and good approximation ratio) while simultaneously addressing incentive constraints that ensure participants act according to the system's intended design. == History == === Nisan-Ronen: a new framework for studying algorithms === In 1999, the seminal paper of Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen drew the attention of the Theoretical Computer Science community to designing algorithms for selfish (strategic) users. As they claim in the abstract: We consider algorithmic problems in a distributed setting where the participants cannot be assumed to follow the algorithm but rather their own self-interest. As such participants, termed agents, are capable of manipulating the algorithm, the algorithm designer should ensure in advance that the agents’ interests are best served by behaving correctly. Following notions from the field of mechanism design, we suggest a framework for studying such algorithms. In this model the algorithmic solution is adorned with payments to the participants and is termed a mechanism. The payments should be carefully chosen as to motivate all participants to act as the algorithm designer wishes. We apply the standard tools of mechanism design to algorithmic problems and in particular to the shortest path problem. This paper coined the term algorithmic mechanism design and was recognized by the 2012 Gödel Prize committee as one of "three papers laying foundation of growth in Algorithmic Game Theory". === Price of Anarchy === The other two papers cited in the 2012 Gödel Prize for fundamental contributions to Algorithmic Game Theory introduced and developed the concept of "Price of Anarchy". In their 1999 paper "Worst-case Equilibria", Koutsoupias and Papadimitriou proposed a new measure of the degradation of system efficiency due to the selfish behavior of its agents: the ratio of between system efficiency at an optimal configuration, and its efficiency at the worst Nash equilibrium. (The term "Price of Anarchy" only appeared a couple of years later.) === The Internet as a catalyst === The Internet created a new economy—both as a foundation for exchange and commerce, and in its own right. The computational nature of the Internet allowed for the use of computational tools in this new emerging economy. On the other hand, the Internet itself is the outcome of actions of many. This was new to the classic, ‘top-down’ approach to computation that held till then. Thus, game theory is a natural way to view the Internet and interactions within it, both human and mechanical. Game theory studies equilibria (such as the Nash equilibrium). An equilibrium is generally defined as a state in which no player has an incentive to change their strategy. Equilibria are found in several fields related to the Internet, for instance financial interactions and communication load-balancing. Game theory provides tools to analyze equilibria, and a common approach is then to ‘find the game’—that is, to formalize specific Internet interactions as a game, and to derive the associated equilibria. Rephrasing problems in terms of games allows the analysis of Internet-based interactions and the construction of mechanisms to meet specified demands. If equilibria can be shown to exist, a further question must be answered: can an equilibrium be found, and in reasonable time? This leads to the analysis of algorithms for finding equilibria. Of special importance is the complexity class PPAD, which includes many problems in algorithmic game theory. == Areas of research == === Algorithmic mechanism design === Mechanism design is the subarea of economics that deals with optimization under incentive constraints. Algorithmic mechanism design considers the optimization of economic systems under computational efficiency requirements. Typical objectives studied include revenue maximization and social welfare maximization. === Inefficiency of equilibria === The concepts of price of anarchy and price of stability were introduced to capture the loss in performance of a system due to the selfish behavior of its participants. The price of anarchy captures the worst-case performance of the system at equilibrium relative to the optimal performance possible. The price of stability, on the other hand, captures the relative performance of the best equilibrium of the system. These concepts are counterparts to the notion of approximation ratio in algorithm design. === Complexity of finding equilibria === The existence of an equilibrium in a game is typically established using non-constructive fixed point theorems. There are no efficient algorithms known for computing Nash equilibria. The problem is complete for the complexity class PPAD even in 2-player games. In contrast, correlated equilibria can be computed efficiently using linear programming, as well as learned via no-regret strategies. === Computational social choice === Computational social choice studies computational aspects of social choice, the aggregation of individual agents' preferences. Examples include algorithms and computational complexity of voting rules and coalition formation. Other topics include: Algorithms for computing Market equilibria Fair division Multi-agent systems And the area counts with diverse practical applications: Sponsored search auctions Spectrum auctions Cryptocurrencies Prediction markets Reputation systems Sharing economy Matching markets such as kidney exchange and school choice Crowdsourcing and peer grading Economics of the cloud == Journals and newsletters == ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) SIGEcom Exchanges Algorithmic Game Theory papers are often also published in Game Theory journals such as GEB, Economics journals such as Econometrica, and Computer Science journals such as SICOMP.
N-jet
An N-jet is the set of (partial) derivatives of a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} up to order N. Specifically, in the area of computer vision, the N-jet is usually computed from a scale space representation L {\displaystyle L} of the input image f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} , and the partial derivatives of L {\displaystyle L} are used as a basis for expressing various types of visual modules. For example, algorithms for tasks such as feature detection, feature classification, stereo matching, tracking and object recognition can be expressed in terms of N-jets computed at one or several scales in scale space.
Kinodynamic planning
In robotics and motion planning, kinodynamic planning is a class of problems for which velocity, acceleration, and force/torque bounds must be satisfied, together with kinematic constraints such as avoiding obstacles. The term was coined by Bruce Donald, Pat Xavier, John Canny, and John Reif. Donald et al. developed the first polynomial-time approximation schemes (PTAS) for the problem. By providing a provably polynomial-time ε-approximation algorithm, they resolved a long-standing open problem in optimal control. Their first paper considered time-optimal control ("fastest path") of a point mass under Newtonian dynamics, amidst polygonal (2D) or polyhedral (3D) obstacles, subject to state bounds on position, velocity, and acceleration. Later they extended the technique to many other cases, for example, to 3D open-chain kinematic robots under full Lagrangian dynamics. == Modern approaches == Since the foundational theoretical work of the 1990s, the field has evolved significantly with new algorithmic approaches that address the computational and practical limitations of early methods. === Sampling-based methods === Many practical heuristic algorithms based on stochastic optimization and iterative sampling have been developed by a wide range of authors to address the kinodynamic planning problem. Popular approaches include extensions of RRT algorithms such as RRT for kinodynamic systems, and sampling-based methods like Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control. These stochastic techniques have been shown to work well in practice and can handle complex, high-dimensional state spaces more efficiently than deterministic methods. However, all motion planning methods are subject to the PSPACE-hardnesss of classical motion planning even without dynamics, which means (assuming the usual structural complexity conjectures) they all can be worst-case exponential-time in the state-space dimension (the number of degrees of freedom). On the other hand, the deterministic methods have provable guarantees of completeness, accuracy, and complexity (for fixed dimension, they are polynomial-time not only in the geometric complexity, but also in ( 1 / ε ) {\displaystyle (1/\varepsilon )} , the closeness of the desired approximation), whereas most of the recent heuristic/stochastic methods sacrifice at least one of these criteria. === Mixed-integer optimization approaches === Recent advances in mixed-integer programming have enabled new deterministic approaches to kinodynamic planning. These methods formulate the planning problem as an optimization task that simultaneously determines the spatial path and control sequence while respecting all kinodynamic constraints. By using techniques such as McCormick envelopes to handle bilinear constraints, these approaches can provide globally optimal solutions with mathematical guarantees while achieving significant computational speedups over traditional methods. === Genetic algorithm approaches === Genetic algorithms have also been adapted for kinodynamic planning, particularly for gradient-free optimization in challenging terrain. These methods use evolutionary computation to optimize trajectories over receding horizons, with specialized mutation operators that ensure vehicle controls remain within operational limits. This approach is particularly useful when dealing with non-differentiable cost functions or when gradient information is unavailable or unreliable. === Three-dimensional terrain planning === The foundational theoretical work of the 1990s was extended to higher degrees of freedom, and even to n {\displaystyle n} -link, 3D open-chain kinematic robots under full Lagrangian dynamics. However, many of the subsequent heuristic techniques (typically employing stochastic optimization) were confined to planar environments. More recent kinodynamic planning has extended beyond these planar environments to handle complex 3D terrains represented as simplicial complexes or triangular meshes. This advancement is particularly important for applications such as autonomous vehicle navigation in off-road environments, where elevation changes and terrain geometry significantly impact vehicle dynamics. These methods must account for pitch angles, surface curvature, and the coupling between terrain geometry and vehicle kinodynamic constraints. == Performance and guarantees == The landscape of performance guarantees in kinodynamic planning has evolved considerably. While early heuristic methods could not guarantee optimality, recent mixed-integer approaches have demonstrated the ability to find globally optimal solutions with proven constraint satisfaction. Experimental comparisons have shown that modern optimization-based planners can achieve execution times several orders of magnitude faster than sampling-based methods while maintaining strict adherence to kinodynamic constraints. However, the choice of method often depends on the specific application requirements. Sampling-based methods remain valuable for their ability to quickly find feasible solutions in high-dimensional spaces and their robustness to modeling uncertainties. Optimization-based methods excel when optimality guarantees and constraint compliance are critical, particularly in safety-critical applications. == Applications == Kinodynamic planning finds applications across numerous domains including: Autonomous vehicles: Path planning for cars, trucks, and other ground vehicles that must respect acceleration, steering, and velocity limits Aerial robotics: Trajectory planning for quadrotors and other unmanned aerial vehicles with dynamic constraints Manipulation: Planning for robotic arms where joint velocities, accelerations, and torques are limited Legged locomotion: Footstep and trajectory planning for walking and running robots Space robotics: Planning under thrust and fuel constraints for spacecraft and rovers