Smart living, a concept that has gained increasing attention in recent years, revolves around integrating advanced technologies in homes and cities to enhance the quality of life for citizens. Sensing and human action recognition are crucial aspects of this concept. Smart living applications span various domains, such as energy consumption, healthcare, transportation, and education, which greatly benefit from effective human action recognition. This field, originating from computer vision, seeks to recognize human actions and activities using not only visual data but also many other sensor modalities. This paper comprehensively reviews the literature on human action recognition in smart living environments, synthesizing the main contributions, challenges, and future research directions. This review selects five key domains: Sensing Technology, Multimodality, Real-time Processing, Interoperability, and Resource-Constrained Processing, as they encompass the critical aspects required for successfully deploying human action recognition in smart living. These domains highlight the essential role that sensing and human action recognition play in successfully developing and implementing smart living solutions. This paper serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners seeking to explore further and advance the field of human action recognition in smart living.

As a pioneering transdisciplinary field, innovationology transcends the traditional boundaries of academic disciplines and development practices to address persistent global challenges. This article provides a comprehensive exploration of innovationology, delving deep into its philosophical foundations, ontological commitments, and ethical imperatives. By unpacking the core tenets of this innovative approach, the paper positions it as a robust and holistic science capable of catalyzing transformative innovation and sustainable development worldwide. Innovationology represents a paradigm shift that moves beyond conventional innovation and development theories, embracing a systems-oriented, community-centric, and decolonial praxis. Drawing on a synthesis of theoretical perspectives and empirical insights, the article examines innovationology's ontological commitment to marginalized communities as active agents of change, its epistemological grounding in pluralistic knowledge systems, and its ethical imperatives of social justice, environmental sustainability, and inclusive innovation. This in-depth analysis strengthens the conceptual and theoretical foundations of innovationology, providing critical guidance for its practical implementation and continued refinement as a cutting-edge transdisciplinary science for global transformation.

Gigantism in theropods represents one of the most intriguing phenomena in dinosaur evolution, showcasing extreme adaptations in body size and ecological roles. This literature review focuses on Giganotosaurus carolinii, one of the largest known theropods to have ever existed, to explore its unique aspects of gigantism and the subsequent ecological impacts. By analyzing features such as its skeletal morphology, comparative anatomy, and paleoenvironmental data, we assess the evolutionary pressures and biological constraints that shaped the gigantism observed in Giganotosaurus. We discover that the species exhibited a combination of physiological and ecological adaptations that allowed it to thrive as an apex predator in its Cretaceous environment. We will also further examine the implications of its size on prey dynamics, competition with other large theropods, and the overall ecosystem structure. Through a thorough, multidisciplinary approach, this research enhances our understanding of how gigantism influenced theropod behavior, interspecies interactions, and the broader paleoecological landscape.

The SARS-CoV-2-induced acute COVID-19 pandemic disorder seems to have begun all of the sudden in 2020, with very little data available regarding prior times in which people experienced mysterious flu-like illness symptoms characteristic of the pandemic disease. The scientific community seems to be divided into a few parts with regards to the belief of the kind of viral origins. A significant number of scientists believe that the virus solely has natural origins and that it underwent a thorough process of zoonosis, independent of laboratory research-based research that would only catalyse zoonosis due to helping the virus gain additional function of transmission and virulence. Many other scientists believe that the virus has wide origins characteristic of “gain-of-function” laboratory research, whilst many other scientists believe that most of the viral genome has natural origins, with the zoonotic process having been artificially catalysed only in its latter part of transmission to humans. Considerable extent of scientific evidence suggests that the virus underwent a restricted, but considerable extent of “gain-of-function” research, prior to having been accidentally leaked into the nearby environment, whilst its process of zoonotic spillover into humans was influenced by such events, given for example the multidimensional pathogenetic process displayed by the virus and its main antigen of action, the spike glycoprotein, causing all kinds of immune pathophysiology - including transient immunosuppression. Investigations into the origins of the novel coronavirus have been lasting for years, seemingly with no concrete end in sight, and the available molecular testing methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection displaying less than perfect results have not significantly helped the process. Evidence even started pointing toward the existence of artificial, laboratory research-based viral origins, exposing a probable accidentally-induced artificial process of “accelerated viral evolution”, which could be particularly dangerous because of the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenic agent. Likewise, it is possible that the prevention of distribution of scientific data regarding scenarios as such in fact constitutes censorship, rather than regulation of data that may be considered not to be significantly evidence based. Simultaneously, it is important not to regard all hypotheses and preliminary reports of scientific research as evidence-based, but to ensure that due diligence is performed in all cases. The integrity of scientific research and ultimately of the innovation process of medical solutions depends on the integrity of democracy and the rule of law, as well as on regulating partnerships with scientific companies from world nations where autocracy rules their society.