I need to know how to create a list of number in 8085 assembler and store the list in successive memory location?
Most assemblers will have a set of define statements and a way to specify different bases.
For example, the values zero, one and forty-two, along with a short nul-terminated string, may be created with something like:
some_vals: db 0, 1, 2Ah, 'hello', 0
How your assembler does it is probably in the documentation somewhere. Without more specific details on which assembler you're using, this not much more help I can give.
Pseudo-ops like data definition (db, dw, ds), address specification (org) or label setting (mylabel:) do not generally form part of the processor documentation itself, rather they're a function of the assembler.
See, for example, chapter 4 of this document. I particularly love the fact that we used to buy these 200-page books for $3.95 whereas now you'll be shelling out a hundred bucks for a digital copy with no incremental cost of production :-)
Related
I have this classification scenario below in which Im getting a very low F1, precision, recall and other metrics.
Target is multiclass (about ~200 classes) which is highly imbalanced
I only use company names as classifier (mostly 1-2 words which have max of 8 words), no other fields (like description, etc.)
Training data ~ 100k+ records
Preprocessing: numeric and special characters and stopwords removal
I have very low resources for processing (thats why when I try to use oversampling techniques like smote, distance_smote for multiclass, etc., I always get memory error)
Tried using different vectorization/embedding/tokenizer like word2vec, tfidf, fasttext, bert, roberta, etc. but to no avail
Tried using (and fine-tuning) different algorithms (networks, svm, trees, boosting, etc.) but also getting low scores.
I also did cost-sensitive learning (using class weights) but it only decreased my scores.
Tried all options that I know but scores are not increasing. Can you recommend other options here or do you think any part of the process that may be wrong/discarded? Thank you!
Distribution of target labels:
Sample observations
There is essentially no way to know that 'Exxon' is an oil company, and 'Apple' a computer company, and 'McDonalds' a fast-food chain, just from their company names.
Even if you have a list of every other company in the world, by name and type, that's not enough to make the deduction for these last 3. Only other outside info – like a few sentences about them, or other data – could classify them.
In fact, while company names sometimes describe their exact field-of-commerce, often they're totally arbitrary, as that gives them more freedom to range over many products/services, or create their own unique associations with the name (aka branding).
So I strongly suspect your (unshown) names & (unshown) labels are just too arbitrary for the data you're using to get very good at the task you're attempting.
Is there a real-world situation where someone will only have a company name – no other info, or research options – and benefit from correctly guessing the class? If so, more specifics about the situation might help generate more specific tactical recommendations. But mainly such recommendations will be: get richer data about the targets of the classification.
You might squeeze a little more out of vague trends in corporate naming via better preprocessing/feature-extraction. You may want to keep numbers, special-characters, & punctuation in some form, as they might include extra slight hints. Using subwords (character n-grams) might also reveal some shared word-roots used even in made-up names.
I've got a piece of code that takes into account a given amount of features, where each feature is Boolean. I'm looking for the most efficient way to store a set of such features. My initial thought was to try and store these as a BitSet. But then, I realized that this implementation is meant to be used to store numbers in bit format rather than manipulate each bit, which is something I'd like to do (see the effect of switching any feature on and off). I then thought of using a Boolean array, but apparently the JVM uses much more memory for each Boolean element than the one bit it actually needs.
I'm therefore left with the question: What is the most efficient way to store a set of bits that I'd like to treat as independent bits rather than the building blocks of some number?
Please refer to this question: boolean[] vs. BitSet: Which is more efficient?
According to the answer of Peter Lawrey, boolean[] (not Boolean[]) is your way to go since its values can be manipulated and it takes only one byte of memory per bit to store. Consider that there is no way for a JVM application to store one bit in only one bit of memory and let it be directly (array-like) manipulated because it needs a pointer to find the address of the bit and the smallest addressable unit is a byte.
The site you referenced already states that the mutable BitSet is the same as the java.util.BitSet. There is nothing you can do in Java that you can't do in Scala. But since you are using Scala, you probably want a safe implementation which is probably meant to be even multithreaded. Mutable datatypes are not suitable for that. Therefore, I would simply use an immutable BitSet and accept the memory cost.
However, BitSets have their limits (deriving from the maximum number of int). If you need larger data sizes, you may use LongBitSets, which are basically Map<Long, BitSet>. If you need even more space, you may nest them in another map Map<Long, LongBitSet>, but in that case you need to use two or more identifiers (longs).
I've read the article: http://n00tc0d3r.blogspot.com/ about the idea for consistent hashing, but I'm confused about the method on multiple machines.
The basic process is:
Insert
Hash an input long url into a single integer;
Locate a server on the ring and store the key--longUrl on the server;
Compute the shorten url using base conversion (from 10-base to 62-base) and return it to the user.(How does this step work? In a single machine, there is a auto-increased id to calculate for shorten url, but what is the value to calculate for shorten url on multiple machines? There is no auto-increased id.)
Retrieve
Convert the shorten url back to the key using base conversion (from 62-base to 10-base);
Locate the server containing that key and return the longUrl. (And how can we locate the server containing the key?)
I don't see any clear answer on that page for how the author intended it. I think this is basically an exercise for the reader. Here's some ideas:
Implement it as described, with hash-table style collision resolution. That is, when creating the URL, if it already matches something, deal with that in some way. Rehashing or arithmetic transformation (eg, add 1) are both possibilities. This means, naively, a theoretical worst case of having to hit a server n times trying to find an available key.
There's a lot of ways to take that basic idea and smarten it, eg, just search for another available key on the same server, eg, by rehashing iteratively until you find one that's on the server.
Allow servers to talk to each other, and coordinate on the autoincrement id.
This is probably not a great solution, but it might work well in some situations: give each server (or set of servers) separate namespace, eg, the first 16 bits selects a server. On creation, randomly choose one. Then you just need to figure out how you want that namespace to map. The namespaces only really matter for who is allowed to create what IDs, so if you want to add nodes or rebalance later, it is no big deal.
Let me know if you want more elaboration. I think there's a lot of ways that this one could go. It is annoying that the author didn't elaborate on this point; my experience with these sorts of algorithms is that collision resolution and similar problems tend to be at the very heart of a practical implementation of a distributed system.
We would like to give each of users an alias so that we can refer to them in discussions while protecting their identity. These aliases should be unique.
The easy way would be to simply use a SERIAL column, but ints aren't memorable. We would like to use real people names so that we can remember the aliases.
The other easy way would be to find a list of first names somewhere, number them, and use a SERIAL to fetch names from the list. When the list runs out, add more names.
But is there some clever way to map ints to names?
We currently have about 2,000 users and are growing, but I doubt we'll ever become Google.
It may sound crazy. But there is an algorithm used in game programming to create meaningless but phonetically unique names like Alveolar, Bilabial, Glottal, Palatal, Velar.
Pick a random name from the Census Bureau's names file.
Have you tried any Hash functions? I am not sure whether they are available in Postgres. But yeah, one way to do is let the internal hash function take care. They will output unique IDs.
Back in "the day" Compuserve (or was it AOL?) used to give out temporary, initial passwords by having two lists of words and taking one word from each list and putting it together, so you would get something like EasyTomato or whatever. Perhaps something like that would work for your user base. If each word list has 256 characters, that's 65535 unique combinations (and notice how easily you can pick the combination by just incrementing a 16-bit integer).
EDIT: Well don't do a straight increment of the integer after all, or the first 256 people will all get the same first word, but the basic idea is still sound. Pick a random, not-yet-used 16-bit number. High 8 bits are your index into the first word list, low 8 bits are your index into the second word list.
A few months back I was tasked with implementing a unique and random code for our web application. The code would have to be user friendly and as small as possible, but still be essentially random (so users couldn't easily predict the next code in the sequence).
It ended up generating values that looked something like this:
Af3nT5Xf2
Unfortunately, I was never satisfied with the implementation. Guid's were out of the question, they were simply too big and difficult for users to type in. I was hoping for something more along the lines of 4 or 5 characters/digits, but our particular implementation would generate noticeably patterned sequences if we encoded to less than 9 characters.
Here's what we ended up doing:
We pulled a unique sequential 32bit id from the database. We then inserted it into the center bits of a 64bit RANDOM integer. We created a lookup table of easily typed and recognized characters (A-Z, a-z, 2-9 skipping easily confused characters such as L,l,1,O,0, etc.). Finally, we used that lookup table to base-54 encode the 64-bit integer. The high bits were random, the low bits were random, but the center bits were sequential.
The final result was a code that was much smaller than a guid and looked random, even though it absolutely wasn't.
I was never satisfied with this particular implementation. What would you guys have done?
Here's how I would do it.
I'd obtain a list of common English words with usage frequency and some grammatical information (like is it a noun or a verb?). I think you can look around the intertubes for some copy. Firefox is open-source and it has a spellchecker... so it must be obtainable somehow.
Then I'd run a filter on it so obscure words are removed and that words which are too long are excluded.
Then my generation algorithm would pick 2 words from the list and concatenate them and add a random 3 digits number.
I can also randomize word selection pattern between verb/nouns like
eatCake778
pickBasket524
rideFlyer113
etc..
the case needn't be camel casing, you can randomize that as well. You can also randomize the placement of the number and the verb/noun.
And since that's a lot of randomizing, Jeff's The Danger of Naïveté is a must-read. Also make sure to study dictionary attacks well in advance.
And after I'd implemented it, I'd run a test to make sure that my algorithms should never collide. If the collision rate was high, then I'd play with the parameters (amount of nouns used, amount of verbs used, length of random number, total number of words, different kinds of casings etc.)
In .NET you can use the RNGCryptoServiceProvider method GetBytes() which will "fill an array of bytes with a cryptographically strong sequence of random values" (from ms documentation).
byte[] randomBytes = new byte[4];
RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
rng.GetBytes(randomBytes);
You can increase the lengh of the byte array and pluck out the character values you want to allow.
In C#, I have used the 'System.IO.Path.GetRandomFileName() : String' method... but I was generating salt for debug file names. This method returns stuff that looks like your first example, except with a random '.xyz' file extension too.
If you're in .NET and just want a simpler (but not 'nicer' looking) solution, I would say this is it... you could remove the random file extension if you like.
At the time of this writing, this question's title is:
How can I generate a unique, small, random, and user-friendly key?
To that, I should note that it's not possible in general to create a random value that's also unique, at least if each random value is generated independently of any other. In addition, there are many things you should ask yourself if you want to generate unique identifiers (which come from my section on unique random identifiers):
Can the application easily check identifiers for uniqueness within the desired scope and range (e.g., check whether a file or database record with that identifier already exists)?
Can the application tolerate the risk of generating the same identifier for different resources?
Do identifiers have to be hard to guess, be simply "random-looking", or be neither?
Do identifiers have to be typed in or otherwise relayed by end users?
Is the resource an identifier identifies available to anyone who knows that identifier (even without being logged in or authorized in some way)?
Do identifiers have to be memorable?
In your case, you have several conflicting goals: You want identifiers that are—
unique,
easy to type by end users (including small), and
hard to guess (including random).
Important points you don't mention in the question include:
How will the key be used?
Are other users allowed to access the resource identified by the key, whenever they know the key? If not, then additional access control or a longer key length will be necessary.
Can your application tolerate the risk of duplicate keys? If so, then the keys can be completely randomly generated (such as by a cryptographic RNG). If not, then your goal will be harder to achieve, especially for keys intended for security purposes.
Note that I don't go into the issue of formatting a unique value into a "user-friendly key". There are many ways to do so, and they all come down to mapping unique values one-to-one with "user-friendly keys" — if the input value was unique, the "user-friendly key" will likewise be unique.
If by user friendly, you mean that a user could type the answer in then I think you would want to look in a different direction. I've seen and done implementations for initial random passwords that pick random words and numbers as an easier and less error prone string.
If though you're looking for a way to encode a random code in the URL string which is an issue I've dealt with for awhile then I what I have done is use 64-bit encoded GUIDs.
You could load your list of words as chakrit suggested into a data table or xml file with a unique sequential key. When getting your random word, use a random number generator to determine what words to fetch by their key. If you concatenate 2 of them, I don't think you need to include the numbers in the string unless "true randomness" is part of the goal.