Category Archives: Human Behavior

Human Behavior

Biometrics: Why Are They Needed and Top Practical Applications – Spiceworks News and Insights

Companies have used passwords to secure their data and assets for a long time. But password security has grown less effective as processing speeds have accelerated and cryptanalysis methods have improved. Consequently, a more advanced authentication technique is required. Biometrics is one such method. This article delves deep into biometrics, discussing its challenges, applications, and why we need to implement it as a critical authentication method. Read on.

Biometrics is an authentication factor that uses human behavior and physical attributes to identify a user. We can use several physical characteristics, but not all provide the same level of protection for an organizations resources. Nor are all scanning technologies suited for all business environments.

In this article, we have examined each approach to measuring biometric characteristics, the challenges with each, and the role of biometrics in overall identity management.

For decades, organizations relied on passwords to protect information resources. However, the increase in processor speed and improvements in cryptanalysis have made passwords weak protection, as the NIST describes in their password use guidelines.

The need for something more resulted in the creation of other approaches and divided all associated authentication factors into three types.

Type I Something you know (passwords, PINs, passphrases, etc.)

Type II Something you have (token, certificate, one-time password generator, )

Type III Something you are (biometrics: fingerprint, vein pattern, iris pattern, )

Each type has advantages and disadvantages, often resulting in higher than the acceptable risk when protecting highly classified systems and data, making using two or more factors necessary.

Biometrics is just one factor, a factor that has challenges of its own. Consequently, it is not an authentication silver bullet, often requiring an additional factor, depending on solution characteristics and the risk you are trying to mitigate.

See More: Deepfakes: Can Biometric Authentication Defeat the New Cybersecurity Nightmare?

Before looking at specific biometrics solutions, it is essential to understand their common characteristics and challenges, including error rates, effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages.

First, each biometrics solution has three associated error rates, as shown in Figure 1. False rejection rates (FRRs), known as Type I errors, are the rate at which an authentication system fails to verify the identity of an authorized user. A Type II error, the false acceptance rate (FAR), is the rate at which the authentication system incorrectly authenticates unauthorized users. The crossover error rate, or CER, is the point at which the FAR and the FRR are the same.

Figure 1: Biometrics Error Rates

As we increase the sensitivity of the biometrics sensors, the sensors scan and measure user characteristics, the FRR increases, and the FAR decreases. In other words, as we try harder to prevent unauthorized users from getting authenticated, we frustrate our users, reducing their productivity as we increase the number of times an authorized user fails to authenticate.

The CER varies across the characteristics measured and the available vendor solutions. When selecting a solution, it is crucial to understand the risk associated with the error rates and choose the one that fits the specific application within your organization.

The placement of sensors is an important consideration. For example, placing fingerprint sensors that require placing a finger on a surface is not a good solution for many manufacturing environments. Ambient oil and other substances find their way to fingers and sensor surfaces, causing error rates to spike.

Further, environmental conditions can affect the characteristics scanned. Abdarahmane Wone et al. documented research in which they found evidence that features examined under different environmental conditions, other than those present when the person enrolled into the biometrics system, appeared different to scanners. I will cover enrollment later in this article.

Environmental considerations are important and should be discussed with any vendor presenting her solution for review.

It is not just picking the wrong solution that can cause your biometrics efforts to circle the drain. Failure is imminent if you lose management support or users simply refuse to use it.

One of the biggest reasons users resist biometrics is their belief that the organization collects and stores information about one or more of their physical characteristics. We must inform our users about how the process works and how it protects their information.

Another challenge involves cultural norms that vary from country to country and between cultures, affecting what individuals view as acceptable. Organizations must understand what resistance there might be to body part scanning and plan authentication efforts accordingly.

Managers begin to join other users in biometrics resistance when the solutions implemented hinder production, caused by multiple attempts to authentication or failure to recognize scans. Properly tuning your error rates, correctly assessing what works and what does not within specific work environments, and providing quick workarounds when biometrics fail all help prevent managers and employees from storming your office in a biometrics revolt.

There are two basic biometrics processes: enrollment and authentication.

Before an employee uses a biometrics solution for authentication, the organization must enroll him. Figure 2 shows a general enrollment process.

After the administrator creates an Active Directory account for the new hire, she begins the biometrics enrollment process.

Figure 2: Enrollment

Figure 3 shows that using the reference template for authentication is straightforward.

Figure 3: Biometrics Authentication

The UK National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) describes different approaches to attacking biometrics.

Not all biometrics solutions are susceptible to all of these attack vectors. In any case, the following section provides ways to strengthen each type of biometrics. The key takeaway, however, is that biometrics is not a completely safe authentication factor, with the risk associated with what is used, the quality of the sensors, and the processing algorithms.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a fingerprint is the collection of papillary ridges on the ends of the fingers and thumbs that enable us to grasp objects securely. The arrangement of these ridges, as shown in Figure 4, differs between individuals, providing unique identification.

Figure 4: Fingerprint Patterns (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Although there have been some claims that fingerprints are not unique, there is no credible evidence to support these claims. However, it is not difficult to create artifacts for fingerprint solutions that only check for patterns, ignoring checking to see if the patterns are actually part of a living person.

Organizations can strengthen fingerprint recognition efforts by

As shown in Figure 5, humans have a set of facial characteristics that organizations can use to authenticate their identities. 2D scanning includes

Figure 5: Biometrics Characteristics (TechSmith Assets)

Facial recognition does not require physical contact with the scanner. Users can often just simply sit in front of a device for facial recognition, requiring no special interaction.

Facial recognition, like fingerprint recognition, can be forged with facial artifacts created by threat actors, artifacts created using photographs or other media. The use of artifacts to bypass recognition is known as a presentation attack.

When evaluating a solution, one of the first things an organization should consider is its ability to defend against presentation attacks, taking steps to ensure the presence of a live human face, not an image, in front of the camera. According to Kevin Bonsor and Ryan Johnson, one approach is to use 3D scanning that looks at additional characteristics, like the curves of the eye socket, nose, and chin. Another is the use of video capture algorithms that detect nodding and blinking.

Stephen Mayhew writes that hand geometry is the longest implemented biometric type, debuting in the market in the late 1980s. However, the hand is not distinctive enough to use as a strong biometrics authentication in most solutions.

Hand scanning devices measure an individuals hand length, width, thickness, and surface area, capturing images of both the hands top and side.

Eye characteristics are unique, but iris and retina scans are not equally resistant to presentation attacks.

The iris, as shown in Figure 6, is the colored area around the pupil. Each persons iris is as unique as their fingerprint, and users often do not need to touch a scanner to authenticate. Another advantage is the lack of change over time in the iris patterns. However, iris artifacts can be created, making live-eye detection or a second authentication factor necessary for high-risk situations.

Figure 6: Iris (By Smhossei Own work, CC BY 3.0, Source)

Retina scans are intrusive, requiring the insertion of a harmless beam into the back of the eye to scan the retinas blood vessels. Figure 7 is an artists interpretation of the patterns inside the eye. This intrusion can cause users to refuse to use the scanner. An upside, however, is that it is as yet impractical for a threat actor to rely on an artifact during a retina scanning attack.

Figure 7: Retinal Blood Vessel Pattern (Retina Associates)

Eye scans are fast with low error rates. However, they can be costly for general use across an organization and more suitable for high-risk or quick access needs.

Vein recognition, also known as vascular biometrics, is very accurate, nearly impossible to fool with artifacts, fast, and with falling costs, making it a good alternative for fingerprint recognition. Using the subcutaneous blood vessels of the human body that create patterns unique for each individual, scanners typically use fingers or hands for authentication.

Figure 8: Vein Recognition (Parihar & Jain)

Although behavior recognition solutions are generally considered relatively weak, they can be used as part of zero-trust access control, providing periodic verification of a user without any pause in their tasks. Keystroke dynamics and voice recognition are two common approaches.

Keystroke dynamics uses a software agent placed on the users device. The agent measures overall typing speed, variations in how the user moves between keys, common typing errors, and the length of time keys are depressed. Solutions that continuously assess typing patterns provide authentication verification during the entire time a user is authenticated.

Voice recognition uses users voice prints for authentication. Threat actors can easily capture voice samples, patch needed phrases together if needed, and successfully launch a presentation attack.

See More: How Cloud-Based Biometrics Streamline Identity Management

My descriptions above are general statements about the different biometrics approaches. They, and the comparison information provided in Table 1, are contingent upon emerging technologies and the differences between solution vendors. It is essential to ask the right questions. Know what you are getting.

Table 1: Biometrics Comparisons

Biometrics can be a practical, easy-to-use authentication factor. However, not all environments are suited for every approach. Before selecting a solution, understand the environment in which it will operate, and the daily condition of the physical characteristics scanned, avoiding issues like fingers covered with oil or other substances. You might need more than one solution, each fitted to its operating environment and the risk associated with accessed resources.

One of the biggest challenges you will face is user non-acceptance based on privacy concerns. Management at all levels must understand and support the effort. Users must be trained and understand why something new is entering their work habits and the steps taken to protect their privacy.

One way to get managers and other employees on board is to involve them in the decision-making processes, starting with the review of the risk assessment, through requirements definitions and feasibility studies, to the selection of the final solution (or solutions).

Does your company have a powerful biometric mechanism in place? Let us know on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. We would love to hear from you!

Read more:
Biometrics: Why Are They Needed and Top Practical Applications - Spiceworks News and Insights

Human Behavior

Financial Wellbeing: Helping Customers Manage Their Money Better – Finextra

The temptation to spend is always with us, but for some people the compulsion to consume is overwhelming.

Financial discipline takes practice; our tendencies to spend or save are habitual and form a predictable pattern. However, with the right approach, even long-standing bad habits can be changed for the better. This blog explores how banks can apply behavioral economics and modern technologies to help their customers develop good financial habits and build customer loyalty along the way.

For the most part, human behavior is driven by habits and in accordance with underlying personality traits and cultural influences. It follows that some people are savers while others are spenders. This also helps explain why financial education generally fails to deliver long-term improvements as people tend to default to ingrained ways of behaving.

So, if increasing financial literacy doesnt lead to better financial habits, what will?

Recognizing the Need to Change

The truth is people are fearful of change and many will resist it. This human trait is endemic and theres even a psychological term for it:metathesiophobia or fear of change is believed to be rooted in the deep psychological need to be in control, even when bad habits dominate. To change a habit requires an awareness of that habit in the first place and then a conscious effort to behave differently.

If a financial institution can better understand customer behavior, it can design products and services that are aligned to effectively help customers manage their money to meet life goals. Theres a clear need for this in the real world. Recent surveys reveal some alarming statistics, including:

Unfortunately, many people live in denial of their economic realities and persist in making irrational financial decisions. They need help, and banks are well positioned to do just that.

Behavioral Economics

As discussed in a prior blog, banks can adopt an approach founded in behavioral economics to create the right conditions for people to make sensible financial decisions. The behavioral approach is firmly rooted in practical reality and nudges people to do the right thing with proven results.

Pairing behavioral economics with modern technology conjures up a powerful alchemy. Following are several examples of how banks can apply these as tools to help their customers achieve better financial outcomes:

Automate savings programs to make savings as easy as possible for customers. Such programs reduce the mental burden of decision making (when to save, how much to save) and the results can make it seem like magic for customers. Its crucial to make the signup process easy and frictionless. Also, because not all customers like to save in the same way, be sure to offer a variety of automated savings options to give customers a choice for what best fits their needs and situation. Once enrolled, customers will see their savings accumulate, positive reinforcement for the new savings habit being formed.

Set savings goals once a customer has signed up for automated savings. With the right technology customers dont have to actively decide to prioritize their own future needs, which so many people find challenging. Setting a goal is a proven way to improve outcomes; going a step further you can also allow customers to share their goals with friends and family to enlist support and help reinforce the customers commitment and odds for success.

Leverage predictive analytics to analyze each individual customers real-time transaction data and financial behavior. The amount saved can be automatically adjusted accordingly to optimize savings. By including behavioral economics in the customer experience, banks can help customers develop habits that will steadily and sustainably improve financial wellbeing.

Manageable Steps

Financial goals that are both long-term and large can be daunting. Saving for retirement or even a new car may seem like an insurmountable challenge for some. When helping customers save for the future, banks should break the goal down into increments and create a clear set of steps for how to get there. Customers should be encouraged to start with a manageable amount and build from there. Its all about demonstrating progress.

Make Finance Personal

Financial institutions are uniquely placed to help customers calculate what they can afford based on their own cash flow and financial goals, rather than external data and influences. With a wealth of customer data available, this is a perfect example of how modern tech can enable hyper-personalized services. By harnessing customer financial data, banks can offer personalized insights and recommendations for details like:

Not only will customers see improvements in terms of their financial wellbeing, but they will also value their bank that much more.

[1] https://www.finder.com/uk/saving-statistics#:~:text=better%20or%20worse%3F-,Key%20statistics,for%20a%20month%20without%20income.

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/51percent-of-americans-have-less-than-3-months-worth-of-emergency-savings.html#:~:text=For%202021%2C%2025%25%20of%20survey,cover%20expenses%20for%20three%20months.

See original here:
Financial Wellbeing: Helping Customers Manage Their Money Better - Finextra

Human Behavior

Playing a Robot in D&D: Here’s How to Add More Sci-Fi to Your Fantasy – BoLS

Dungeons & Dragons is a game all about fantasy adventurers with magic swords on quests. Heres how to play a robot in D&D.

Yes, Dungeons & Dragons is, on the surface, a game all about fantasy. But what does that mean? Genre is only as meaningful as its distinction. And heroic fantasy adventurers can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Generic European Mediaeval Times is just sort of the boring mayo-is-too-spicy-for-me default.

But adding sci-fi to fantasy is a tale as old as time. Even in the most Tolkienesque fantasy, the works of Lord of the Rings author Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien himself, do elements of science fiction crash in. Beren One-Hand rose to the heavens in a glass ship atop a pillar of flame.

And if that can be in the Silmarillion, then you absolutely can be a robot in D&D. So grab your Binary Language of Moisture Vaparators -> English dictionary. Because heres how to play a robot in D&D.

First things first, in order to be a robot, you have to understand what a robot is. We all know that a man is a miserable pile of blood and secrets. But robots? Thats something else entirely.

Now its a safe bet to assume that if youre considering playing a robot in D&D you have some pre-set ideas. Robots are synthetic beings, right? Created for some purpose with a sentience of their own.

But in D&D that can be dwarves, if you think about it. Because what are dwarves if not the stone-forged creations of Moradin? If the father of all dwarves breathed into them a love of crafting, is that not the same as being programmed, but with meat instead of metal?

Fortunately, this is D&D. We dont have to get existential. We can represent what it means to be a robot mechanically. There are rules for being organic and having a meat body, and rules that might center a robot PCs synthetic nature.

There are three main robotic PC races in D&D:

The latter isnt officially in D&D yet, but given that we know Planescape is coming, it seems a safe bet that what we see in the Wonders of the Multiverse Unearthed Arcana (where Glitchlings are found) will make the jump to published material sooner rather than later. Each of them has a different approach to being a robot. But by and large, all of them remove the need to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep. Lets take a look!

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Get Tabletop, RPG & Pop Culture news delivered directly to your inbox.

Warforged are probably the first thing that leaps to mind when you think about Robots and D&D. Introduced in the very first Eberron, Warforged introduced a ton of people to fantasy robots. Made of living steel and stone every Warforged is a unique creation. They are made with steel, darkwood, stone, and rootlike cords infused with alchemical fluids.

Originally built to fight in a war, these constructed beings were given the freedom to find purpose.

Pick Warforged if you want to play the kind of robot that is searching for a function. Theyre the iconic pick for a synthetic being learning to be organic.

Mechanically, this is represented by the following:

You can be a more artisanal robot, though. For that, you might consider Autognome. Autognomes are mechanical beings built by rock gnomes. Built and programmed.

This is an important distinction because theyre more traditional robots. An Autognome might say this isnt in my programming. Every Autognome is wildly different. While Warforged might share a similar chassis design (they were originally built as weapons of war), Autognomes are built for a variety of purposes according to the whims of their creators.

If you want to play the kind of robot that adventures but is much more mechanical, and sort of celebrates that distinction, Autognome is a great place to start. Mechanically, theyre represented in the following ways:

Introduced in the Wonders of the Multiverse Unearthed Arcana, Glitchlings are robotic beings created by forces of planar law. If you want to be a magic robot, then this is the way to go.

Glitchlings are given rudimentary personalities but are all about absorbing information and experiences and developing as they go. If you want to play a robot that holds up a mirror to humanity/organic life and all its foibles, then misinterpreting it through the lens of a Glitchling is probably the way to do it.

Like Warforged and Autognomes, they too have rules that make them stand out from organic life:

Now that youve figured out what kind of robot you want to be, how do you actually do it? The right class will take you a long way. Now, before we get into it, I should mention, any class can be a robot. Because you can justify anything, and theres not a single class that wont be fun.

That said, a few options stand out without needing too much work:

Sorcerer After all, what is programming but an arcane language written in eldritch symbols that requires the right components to work? The Clockwork Soul Sorcerer is a natural fit. You can take a page from the artificers handbook and flavor your spells as things you do with your magic robot technology. Instead of waving your hands to cast scorching ray, maybe a flamethrower emerges from a hidden panel on an arm, etc.

Artificer You dont have to be an artificer to be a robot, but blend magic and technology in the same ways your character already is. Any of them works, but the Armorer and Artillerist feel like natural fits.

Warlock Look Eldritch Blast is basically already a laser. And theres no way Ruby comes from anything other than an Infernal Warlock Patron. Scrums are just the part of the bargain that sealed the deal.

Fighter From Johnny Five to Futuramas knife-wielding Roberto, we all know robots can fight. Battle Master makes for an excellent choice as you can flavor your maneuvers as enhanced combat protocols. Rune Knight too, since it gives you an in-combat transformation.

Rogue Assassin droids are common in Star Wars, of course, theyre a good fit for D&D too.

But there are plenty of other tools at your disposal beyond just pick one of the character races that is a robot. The deathless nature of the Reborn is a great way to play someone whos a bit robotic but with flesh. It all comes back to what you want to do when playing a robot.

There are lots of reasons one might want to play a robot in D&D. Among the many you might:

And theyre all valid. But its important to keep in mind what you want to explore with your character. Once you do, you can start roleplaying like a robot.

Now that youve picked the perfect PC race, its time to make your robot into a character. You can start by looking at what questions you want to ask, as a robot. Weve mentioned some above. Then just find ways to ask them in character.

Maybe your Warforged was built to be a scout originally, and now theyre looking for their own purpose. You can ask things, either literally, or better yet, with actions. Look at Bastion, from Overwatch.

Bastion was built as a gun turret tank soldier but found purpose in the woods. You can have your robot PC ask questions with their curiosity about the world. Maybe you befriend animals. Maybe you try to mimic human behavior to mixed results. But curiosity is a great drive for a robot.

On the opposite end of the robot spectrum, you have Bender, Bending Rodriguez, who does cool robot things and cant do many other things. Like being a folk singer.

But he has fun playing within the constraints of his programming. Playing a robot can be a great way to act up in certain scenes. You can decide that something is or isnt part of your programming, and let that guide your behavior and choices.

Being a robot gives you an interesting viewpoint, and from there, you can do what you like.

Even little things like catchphrases can help ground your character in who they are. Weve talked about this in developing a character voice. You could just as easily throw in a little bit of a verbal reminder to folks that youre playing a robot. Saying well that doesnt compute works whether youre saying it like a Speak & Spell or saying it like Bender might say kill all humans. You just want to find opportunities to explore the niche youve carved for yourself outside of being human.

Which we all definitely are, and know how to do. So, no need for any follow-up questions about that, right fellow humans? Hah.

01001000 01100001 01110000 01110000 01111001 00100000 01000001 01100100 01110110 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111!

Read more here:
Playing a Robot in D&D: Here's How to Add More Sci-Fi to Your Fantasy - BoLS

Human Behavior

The L&OD Bridge Framework: The Foundation and the Floor – ATD

Last week, we asked how learning and development (L&D) and organization development (OD) can work together rather than in our own separate silos to make a bigger impact. We asserted that it is time to build a bridge between the two fields and began to lay the groundwork for the aptly named L&OD Bridge Framework. We explored the differences in our origin stories and how our differences shouldnt divide us but should provide opportunities to bring us together.

With this insight into where our diverse thought patterns developed, we can begin to build. This week, we will dive into the first two of five steps to building our bridge: laying the foundation and creating the floor.

What if L&D partnered with OD (or vice versa) to plan an approach to the initiative? We suggest beginning with investigating a business challenge from both L&Ds and ODs unique perspectives to identify the business pain points and possible solutions. Next, explore the why for each roles involvement, and then articulate the findings as a common purpose for the project. Our bridges foundation relies on this essential anchor that we can return to as a project unfolds.

Investigating a business challenge cooperatively allows us to evaluate a stakeholders request thoroughly before presuming or jumping to a solution. Both L&D and OD have their own approaches to conducting a needs analysis that when combined provide a more thorough understanding of the business need. While stakeholders might have asked for training, we often know that training is not the full answer to a problem.

One way to jointly investigate the business challenge is to use the method offered by the Change On-the-Job Behavior Action of the Learning Cluster Design (LCD) model.

The Change On-the-Job Behavior Action of this model is distinct from other models because it creates a goal for a multi-asset learning or change initiative. The goal, or Strategic Performance Objective, is unique because it outlines both the strategic business goals and the human performance goals all in one statement. The objective includes opportunities to brainstorm metrics for the initiative as well (and a later Action in the LCD model, Track Transformation, helps cement your measurement plan).

The LCD model was developed from both an OD and L&D perspective, and the needs analysis methods reflect the best of both worlds. The Change On-the-Job Behavior Action guides L&OD in how to ask questions of stakeholders to better define the business pain points and the on-the-job behaviors that are the targets for success. If you follow this approach or something similar, you will have everything you need to define a common purpose: goals at both the business and the individual level with metrics to target.

Once the objective is articulated, L&D and OD can thoroughly discuss the pain the business or the audience is experiencing and collectively determine what solutions are best delivered via learning experiences or organizational process and system changes.

Some of the skills we should share and develop together to achieve our common goal of advancing and improving organizational performance include:

After defining the common purpose for the work, L&D and OD can create a plan for the project tasks they might work on together, such as brainstorming designs and analyzing data.

If L&D and OD share capability in certain models, the partnership can go a long way towards collaboration. For example, both teams can speak the shared language of design thinking, learning cluster design, or an agreed-upon theory of change for the organization.

Furthermore, in most change models, communication to drive awareness is a key step. This communication can be seen as a learning asset that L&D and OD collaborate on to create the most effective output. As another example, the LCD model asks practitioners to develop a new learning product that goes beyond formal training to include learning assets available on the job and through social means (a learning cluster). When L&D and OD are versed in this type of model, they can work together to move beyond one-and-done interventions to create a coordinated strategy for capability development.

What other skills could we advance together? How might you partner with OD further?

Steps 1 and 2 of our framework capitalize on our common ground. Next week, we will explore step 3, which finds the advantages inside of our differences.

See more here:
The L&OD Bridge Framework: The Foundation and the Floor - ATD

Human Behavior

Predicting and Preventing Pandemics is Goal of New NSF Awards – Datanami

Sept. 16, 2022 The potential for future pandemics is an ever-present and growing threat, whether they are due to known diseases like monkeypox or Ebola, or an as-yet-unknown infection. Nearly $26 million in new awards from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) will support interdisciplinary investigations and collaborations that aim to predict and prevent the next infectious disease outbreak, significantly contributing to national security, public health and economic stability.

The grants are part of NSFs new Predictive Intelligence for Pandemic Prevention (PIPP) program, which supports high-risk, high-payoff convergent research that aims to identify, model, predict, track and mitigate the effects of future pandemics. The 26 new projects span the entire timeline of pandemic response, supporting data collection and analysis, creation of new sensors and predictive capabilities, methods for understanding impact and spread, processes to increase our ability to anticipate the role of human behavior and information sharing, and development of mitigation strategies and policy recommendations.

This research will transform our capabilities, scientists say, addressing what is needed to be adequately prepared for future responses as identified by the first annual report on implementation of theAmerican Pandemic Preparedness Plan.

Several projects will incorporate the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, cutting-edge modeling systems or the synthesis of open-source intelligence to forecast critical data. Specific awards will focus on families of viruses with the strong potential to create a pandemic, such as plant pathogens and influenza viruses, including bird flu. Others will concentrate on efforts in specific populations or areas, including rural and resource-limited locations, Indigenous communities, and cities.

Collaborative and innovative science and engineering research holds the keys to mitigating the impact of the next outbreak. NSFs investments will support nearly 500 researchers in fields such as biology, epidemiology, geography, mathematics, statistics, chemistry, physics, computer science, nursing and medicine, health economics, sociology, anthropology, communications, psychology, and engineering. The investigators are located at nearly 50 institutions in 22 states and the District of Columbia, including six in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) jurisdictions, three primarily undergraduate institutions and five minority-serving institutions.

The broader community and other stakeholders, including farmers, Indigenous peoples, policymakers and the public will be engaged through workshops, symposia and other events held by the researchers. Each project will also involve interdisciplinary education and training opportunities for a diverse set of students from kindergarten through the postdoctoral level.

Learn more about thePIPP programandview the full list of awards atnsf.gov.

Source: NSF

See the rest here:
Predicting and Preventing Pandemics is Goal of New NSF Awards - Datanami

Human Behavior

Understanding the Game Theory Behind Ethereum – Bitcoin Market Journal

Summary: When people invest in cryptocurrency, they often think about its inherent value and potential price movement. Another important aspect is game theory, which creates the incentives in well-designed blockchain networks. In this article, youll learn to see the hidden rules of the game.

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that explores human behavior in competitive or cooperative environments. It studies how people react in scenarios requiring complex decision-making: do they cooperate or compete?

Dont let the term confuse you: game theory is more about mathematics than Monopoly. The concept was initially used in economics, but it has since evolved to other disciplines, including blockchain.

Game theory models are used to predict players potential behavior within a system, as well as the possible outcomes of their actions. These models can be employed by sociologists, psychologists, and politicians, among others.

Game theory distinguishes three key elements:

Other elements are the information available at any given point, and the so-called equilibrium, which is the point in a game where all players have made their decisions, and an outcome is reached.

Although we can observe game scenarios across a wide range of human activities, cryptocurrency is one of the most interesting applications.

Since blockchain involves the interactions of nodes or block validators in a decentralized network, game theory is essential for predicting how these nodes (i.e., the people running them) will behave.

Game theory enables cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, as it moves to Proof of Stake to avoid disruptions and ensure the reliability of the blockchain.

In the movie A Beautiful Mind, Russell Crowe plays the mathematician John Nash, who created one of the most famous game theories, now called the Nash equilibrium.

As described in the movie clip above, the best outcome of a game is where there is no incentive to deviate from an initial strategy. An individual can receive no benefit from changing action during the game, assuming other players stick to their strategies. A game may have several Nash equilibriums, or none at all.

In the Nash equilibrium, each players strategy is the best outcome when considering the decisions of other players. The best result will come from everyone in the group doing whats best for himself, and the group.

The Nash equilibrium stipulates that the optimal strategy for a player is to stick to the initial plan while knowing the opponents strategy, and that all actors should maintain the same strategy. If no one changes their strategy, even when they know the strategy of the other players, then the Nash equilibrium is proven.

Lets take another famous example: the Prisoners Dilemma.

In this imaginary scenario, two criminals (A and B) have been arrested by the police and are interrogated separately. The prosecutor interviewing the criminals tries to convince them to testify against one another in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Here are the rules of the game:

The payoff possibilities look like this:

The best scenario individually for A (or B) is to betray and be set free. However, that would require the other person to stay quiet, and the lack of communication makes it impossible to predict what decision the other would make.

In the face of a payoff, most prisoners would likely choose to act on self-interest by betraying.

But if both criminals betray, they end up with three years in prison, which is not the best outcome.

Therefore, the optimal solution would be for both not to betray, and get only one year instead of three.

Imagine youre one of the criminals. What would you do: stay quiet, or betray your partner?

Game theory models like the Prisoners Dilemma are crucial when building a decentralized economic system like a blockchain.

When designing bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto used a combination of cryptography and game theory to create a system that doesnt need to be supervised by a centralized entity. In other words, the game theory ensures all the players are aligned to keep the network secure.

The use of game theory in crypto has led to the concept of cryptoeconomics, which combines cryptography which is used to prove and authenticate past events with financial incentives, which are used to encourage future behavior that will benefit the entire network.

Cryptoeconomics is very much about game theory, as it examines the behavior of blockchain nodes based on the incentives provided by the protocol, taking into account the most rational and probable decisions.

For example, the Ethereum blockchain is designed as a public, decentralized network of distributed nodes: servers storing the entire history of transactions. Each new block added to the chain has to be agreed upon by all nodes, even though they cannot trust each other (since anyone could spin up a malicious node).

So, how can such a decentralized system detect and avoid bad game-players?

To date, Ethereum has relied on the Proof of Work (PoW) consensus algorithm, which protects the blockchain from malicious activity by using cryptographic mechanisms (i.e., hard math problems) that make the mining process demanding and expensive.

This incentivizes mining nodes to behave honestly, since otherwise they can get banned, wasting precious energy and effort. As a result, every miner reaches the most rational decision to act honestly and contribute to the security of the blockchain.

As Ethereum shifts to Proof of Stake, validators must stake a minimum of 32 ETH (about $50,000 as of this writing) to run a node. If a validator tries to write a bad block to the new Ethereum, instead of wasting energy and electricity, theyre potentially forfeiting their staked ETH.

With both PoW and PoS, the rules of the game make it in your best interest to keep the game running well.

Game theory is crucial when designing a blockchain system, given that blockchains have no central authority to handle transactions. Instead, users must trust miners or block validators who co-operate continually to add new blocks, and get rewarded for their effort.

The incentives like being rewarded ETH for running an Ethereum validator node must align all the players. You stake Ethereum, and you earn Ethereum, which makes you more committed to securing the value of Ethereum, in a self-reinforcing loop.

In any PoS system, however, its possible to simply buy up the majority of the network in whats called a 51% attack: you would then have the voting power to write whatever you want to the blockchain.

At todays prices, that would require about $100 billion worth of Ethereum, which is possible, as the largest Ethereum wallet holds over $20 billion. But in pulling off your 51% attack, investors would lose faith in the Ethereum network, probably forking an alternate version, and your $100 billion would be worthless.

Ethereum, once again, is saved by game theory!

As John Nash realizes in the movie clip above, game theory shows the best outcome is when we act both in our own interest, and in the interest of the group.

Thanks to a combination of game theory and cryptography, the PoW consensus algorithm prevents any malicious activity from mining nodes. The same is true for PoS blockchains, like the validator nodes in the new Ethereum.

Thanks to game theory models, everyone has an incentive to stick to the rules. Its a game where everyone wins.

To get more insights about blockchain technology explained in plain English, subscribe to our free crypto investing newsletter.

Originally posted here:
Understanding the Game Theory Behind Ethereum - Bitcoin Market Journal

Human Behavior

American Black Bears entering their excessive eating phase | The Clayton Tribune, Rabun County, GA – Clayton Tribune

Ellijay, GA The Appalachia Georgia Friends of the Bears would like to remind the public that fall has arrived.

The leaves have started turning at the higher altitudes, children and young adults alike are returning to school, and Southeastern Conference football heralds the arrival of fall.

For those not familiar with the biological clock of the American Black Bear, late summer, and early fall heralds a time know as Hyperphagia, or excessive eating. They must eat a lot of food to store fat for the winter. Bears all over North American are entering Hyperphagia now.

Black Bears are opportunistic feeders. A 250-pound male Black Bear must eat 3,000 calories a day to maintain weight, which is approximately 1.5 lbs. of acorns a day. On top of all these calories needed for daily living they must consume 20,000 calories/day or about 20 lbs. of acorns during Hyperphagia to gain the needed 3-5 lbs./day needed for hibernation.

Garbage kills bears

Two-thirds of all Human-Bear conflict is bears accessing human garbage. In addition to the dangers of being around humans, they ingest packaging that damages their teeth chewing metal cans which will cause intestinal damage and result in a painful death. The human food causes tooth decay, increasing the likelihood of abscesses that will kill them. Natural food does not!

It is more important now to secure attractants to reduce the possibility of having Human-Bear conflicts. This comes in the form of garbage, birdseed, hummingbird feeders, pet food, livestock food, greasy BBQs, smokers, and fish cookers, and other wildlife foods accessed by Black Bears. These attractants teach them to approach homes and humans for more food.

Today there is a general agreement that most Human-Bear conflicts are the result of human behavior. There is no such thing as a nuisance, or problem Bears. Bad human behavior begets bad bear behavior.

The Appalachia Georgia Friends of the Bears is a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is to reduce Human-Bear conflict through proactive educational outreach programs, increasing public awareness about coexisting with black bears, the use of humane bear deterrents, and advocacy. Visit them at https://agfriendsofthebears.com or their partners at BearWise.org

Continued here:
American Black Bears entering their excessive eating phase | The Clayton Tribune, Rabun County, GA - Clayton Tribune

Human Behavior

Sharing a laugh: Scientists teach a robot when to have a sense of humor – EurekAlert

image:An example of conversation between the researchers and Erica. view more

Credit: Image: Inoue et al

Since at least the time of inquiring minds like Plato, philosophers and scientists have puzzled over the question, Whats so funny? The Greeks attributed the source of humor to feeling superior at the expense of others. German psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud believed humor was a way to release pent-up energy. US comedian Robin Williams tapped his anger at the absurd to make people laugh.

It seems no one can really agree on the question of Whats so funny? So imagine trying to teach a robot how to laugh. But thats exactly what a team of researchers at Kyoto University in Japan are trying to do by designing an AI that takes its cues through a shared laughter system. The scientists describe their innovative approach to building a funny bone for the Japanese android Erica in the latest issue of the journal Frontiers in Robotics and AI.

Its not as if robots cant detect laughter or even emit a chuckle at a bad dad joke. Rather, the challenge is to create the human nuances of humor for an AI system to improve natural conversations between robots and people.

We think that one of the important functions of conversational AI is empathy, explained lead author Dr Koji Inoue, an assistant professor at Kyoto University in the Department of Intelligence Science and Technology within the Graduate School of Informatics. Conversation is, of course, multimodal, not just responding correctly. So we decided that one way a robot can empathize with users is to share their laughter, which you cannot do with a text-based chatbot.

A funny thing happened

In the shared-laughter model, a human initially laughs and the AI system responds with laughter as an empathetic response. This approach required designing three subsystems one to detect laughter, a second to decide whether to laugh, and a third to choose the type of appropriate laughter.

The scientists gathered training data by annotating more than 80 dialogues from speed dating, a social scenario where large groups of people mingle, or interact, with each other one-on-one for a brief period of time. In this case, the matchmaking marathon involved students from Kyoto University and Erica, teleoperated by several amateur actresses.

Our biggest challenge in this work was identifying the actual cases of shared laughter, which isnt easy, because as you know, most laughter is actually not shared at all, Inoue said. We had to carefully categorize exactly which laughs we could use for our analysis and not just assume that any laugh can be responded to.

The type of laughter is also important, because in some cases a polite chuckle may be more appropriate than a loud snort of laughter. The experiment was limited to social versus mirthful laughs.

The robot gets it

The team eventually tested Ericas new sense of humor by creating four short two- to three-minute dialogues between a person and Erica with her new shared-laughter system. In the first scenario, she only uttered social laughter, followed only by mirthful laughs in the second and third exchanges, with both types of laughter combined in the last dialogue. The team also created two other sets of similar dialogues as baseline models. In the first one, Erica never laughs. In the second, Erica utters a social laugh every time she detects a human laugh without using the other two subsystems to filter the context and response.

The researchers crowdsourced more than 130 people in total to listen to each scenario within the three different conditions shared-laughter system, no laughter, all laughter and evaluated the interactions based on empathy, naturalness, human-likeness and understanding. The shared-laughter system performed better than either baseline.

The most significant result of this paper is that we have shown how we can combine all three of these tasks into one robot. We believe that this type of combined system is necessary for proper laughing behavior, not simply just detecting a laugh and responding to it, Inoue said.

Like old friends

There are still plenty of other laughing styles to model and train Erica on before she is ready to hit the stand-up circuit. There are many other laughing functions and types which need to be considered, and this is not an easy task. We havent even attempted to model unshared laughs even though they are the most common, Inoue noted.

Of course, laughter is just one aspect of having a natural human-like conversation with a robot.

Robots should actually have a distinct character, and we think that they can show this through their conversational behaviors, such as laughing, eye gaze, gestures and speaking style, Inoue added. We do not think this is an easy problem at all, and it may well take more than 10 to 20 years before we can finally have a casual chat with a robot like we would with a friend.

Frontiers in Robotics and AI

Computational simulation/modeling

Not applicable

Can a robot laugh with you?: Shared laughter generation for empathetic spoken dialogue

15-Sep-2022

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

See the original post here:
Sharing a laugh: Scientists teach a robot when to have a sense of humor - EurekAlert

Human Behavior

Review: Comparing the past to the present in ‘The U.S. and the Holocaust’ documentary – GazetteNET

Mike Pride, editor emeritus of the Concord Monitor and former administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes, writes history books. He lives in Bow, New Hampshire.

Toward the end of The U.S. and the Holocaust, Ken Burns new documentary, the audience hears the last entry in the wartime diary of Anne Frank: Its a wonder I havent abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.

Moments later, the historian Deborah Lipstadt appears onscreen to declare that these words are not the story of the Holocaust.

The American reaction to the German campaign to exterminate Europes Jews, the principal subject of the film, does not redound to our credit, she says.

Of all the films Burns has made, this is the timeliest and most disturbing. It tells two intertwined stories in graphic detail: Adolf Hitlers maniacal determination to murder the Jews of Europe and the forces that kept the United States from doing more to stop him.

As the film notes in closing, the anti-Semitic rants and lies in the America of the 1930s and 40s still echo in the nations political climate in 2022.

The Statue of Liberty graces the screen more than once during the film. Americans take such pride in this national symbol that 3.5 million of them visit it each year. Many identify with the lines of Emma Lazaruss sonnet hailing the majestic statue as the Mother of Exiles:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, tempest-tost, to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

The Burns film clarified how short of these ideals America fell during the years before World War II. The Ku Klux Klan re-emerged as a murderous vigilante force in the 1920s. Much of the country supported euthanasia to strengthen the gene pool, racial segregation, the social ostracism of Jews, and the virulent anti-Semitism of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, among others. Hitler-loving German Bunds drew more than 20,000 people to a 1938 rally at Madison Square Garden.

Rolled out one after another in the film, these strains of hatred portray an America far removed from the country described in high school history books.

After Kristallnacht, the Nazi rampage of rape and terror that killed hundreds of Jews and destroyed 2,500 Jewish-owned businesses in Germany, survivors flocked to U.S. embassies seeking to emigrate. In America, the magazine Christian Century warned that letting in more Jews would only exacerbate our Jewish problem. The Daughters of the American Revolution and the American Legion also opposed raising the immigration quota for Jews.

In addition to expert historians and contemporary film footage, Burns and his partners use the fate of families to tell their story. These include Otto Frank, Annes father, and the Franks Amsterdam neighbor-in-hiding Elfriede Geiringer, whose father and brother died in the camps.

Now 100 years old, Guy Stern, the only member of his family to escape, returned to Germany in 1944 as a U.S. Army linguist to interrogate German POWs. If I can shorten the war by an hour, maybe I can save a family, he told himself. He broke into tears at a liberated concentration camp. It was skeletons you were talking to, he said.

Daniel Mendelsohn undertook a global odyssey to learn what had happened to his family. The Lost: A Search for Six of the Six Million, his book about this quest, lends particularity to the unimaginable death toll. In the film, he suggests one reason Americans failed to comprehend the plight of the Jews: As it was happening to us, we couldnt believe it. If we couldnt believe it, how could anyone else believe it?

The film describes the evolution of Hitlers thinking. When Germany annexed Austria in 1938, adding 139,000 Jews to his realm, he realized that his thirst for territorial expansion, especially in the East, would increase this population. Extermination became his solution. Four years later, when the Germans discovered that Zyklon could kill Jews for a penny a victim, he ordered a major escalation of the gassing.

By then, President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew what was happening, and much of the American public did, too. In November 1942, the New York Herald-Tribune exposed the existence of the death camps on its front page. Millions of Jews and others are being gathered up and killed, Edward R. Murrow, the popular radio reporter, told his listeners.

The United States had been at war for less than a year, and its mass bombing of Germany had scarcely begun. D-Day remained a year and a half away.

The film describes both Roosevelts dilemma and the lingering anti-Semitism in high places. The president knew he could not divert his military to save the Jews, and he saw no practical way to accomplish this. He aimed instead to win the war as soon as possible and punish the murderers of the Jews afterward.

Meanwhile, as rabbis marched on Washington pleading for action, some State Department officials lied about the situation and resisted raising the Jewish immigration quota.

In 1944, Americans at last acknowledged the tragedy, but as the film captures the moment, even this did not induce a willingness to act. Seventy percent of respondents told pollsters they knew Jews were being murdered, but they greatly underestimated the scale of the killing, estimating the death toll at a million when 5 million had already been exterminated. Just 5 percent of those polled favored allowing more European Jews to come to America.

In the films closing scenes, the horrors of Nazi Germany echo in the American present as white supremacists converge on Charlottesville, racists carry out mass shootings of Jews and Black people, Donald Trump scorns immigrants, and a mob assaults the Capitol. Comparing the past to the present so directly is rare in a film by Burns, but sadly, it seems relevant here.

Even when his films stay in their moment, the past echoes in the present. In this one, Daniel Mendelsohn sums up one lesson of studying the Holocaust: The fragility of human behavior is the one thing you really learn. These people we see in the sepia photographs, theyre no different from us. You look at your neighbors, the people at the dry cleaners, the waiters in the restaurant, thats who these people were. Dont kid yourself.

Read more here:
Review: Comparing the past to the present in 'The U.S. and the Holocaust' documentary - GazetteNET

Human Behavior

Savannah hoping to end traffic deaths by 2027 – WSAV-TV

SAVANNAH, Ga. (WSAV) The City of Savannah averages about 22 traffic deaths annually, whether its a pedestrian or cyclist-involved incident. City leaders recognize the problem and firmly believe it can be remedied.

WSAV spoke to Savannah city leaders about plans to minimize traffic deaths in the city, especially in the downtown area. Its called the Vision Zero Action Plan. It forecasts zero traffic deaths by 2027.

We can build in to correct the misbehaviors of human behavior, said Jay Melder, Savannah City Manager. That if we can put in and build an environment and engineering, the kinds of streets and roadways and transportations and transit systems and connectivity that are going to decrease the likelihood of a collision.

City leaders say that changes can be made to encourage better human behavior and they forecast a drastic drop in traffic deaths. Thats if the city receives funds from a $5 billion federal grant they applied for on Wednesday night.

We put in about totals up to $23 million, Melder said. There are two main components of that grant; one is the intersection at 37 and MLK, which is historically one of our most dangerous intersections.

The other component would be to fund the Tide To Town project an initiative that aims to connect 75 percent of savannah neighborhoods to safe walking and biking infrastructure.

While residents liked what they heard, the tourist component still needs to be considered because they are unfamiliar with our streets.

The keystone of vision zero is traffic enforcement, said alderman Nick Palumbo. It is heavy traffic enforcement. It is ticketing. Its getting out there and is far more aggressive than what were seeing in savannah right now. There will be pushback from motorists.

Read the original post:
Savannah hoping to end traffic deaths by 2027 - WSAV-TV