Intel Reminds Apple That It Is a Horse Around Company
January 19, 2021
I read “Intel Suggests It Will Wait for New CEO to Make Critical Decisions to Fix Manufacturing Crisis.” The headline suggests that Intel cannot manufacture chips as it did in the glory days of Silicon Valley. Wow, who knew?
There are a couple of other gems in this “real” news story too; to wit:
Intel allegedly embraces this view of Apple, another small outfit in the computing business:
“We have to deliver better products to the PC ecosystem than anypossible thing that a lifestyle company in Cupertino” makes,Gelsinger told employees Thursday. That’s a derisive, ifgood-natured, reference to Apple and the location of its corporateheadquarters.
Yep, lifestyle. Apple, I would remind Intel, has managed to enter the chip business without any of the quantum computing lynchpin baloney like the Horse Ridge innovation. That’s a technical achievement which strikes me as a combination of marketing, jargon, and horse feathers. Maybe a horse collar or a saddle blanket?
Another interesting passage asserts:
In a note to clients after Gelsinger’s hiring [the new CEO], Raymond James analystChris Caso said Intel doesn’t have time to deliberate.
Okay, time. There’s the ever chipper AMD, the Qualcomm outfit, a couple of eager beavers in lands which favor zesty spices. Oh, yes, and there’s the Apple operation, which sells products from pushcarts.
The article details the failures and fantasies of a company which has created Horse Ridge. Unfortunately instead of a stallion, the computational cowboys are riding Norwegian Fjord horses in the chip derbies.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2021
2021: Virtual Conferences and Even Virtual Products
January 19, 2021
I want to keep this note short. Navigate to “The Best Tech of CES 2021 Isn’t Real.” The write up states:
the “beauty” of shows like CES is the ability write about our hands-on experiences with products. But since we couldn’t roam the halls of CES in person this year, it was the perfect time for brands to announce gadgets that weren’t ready for store shelves.
The source did not mention that fabulous fakes were the grace note for that memorable year 2020; for example:
- Fake news
- Fake queen of England outputs, and
- Fake cyber security with a lot of sunshine going you know where.
CES: Virtual conference, virtual products, and fake products. Yeah!
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2021
High School Science Club Management: The Microsoft GitHub Example
January 18, 2021
Anyone who reads Beyond Search knows that I eschew the old saws of management consulting. No Druckerisms here. I go for more evocative terminology such as HSSCMM or high school science club management methods. The high school science club was the last refuge for those who were not “into” the flow of athletes, elected school representatives, and doing just enough to pass a class in home economics. Nope, the HSSC was THE place for those who knew better than anyone else what was important, knew better how to accomplish a task, and knew better than anyone the wonderfulness of such an esteemed organization.
Thus, a HSSCMM is a rare thing.
I believe I have spotted an example ably described in “GitHub Admits Significant Error of Judgment…” I would point out that GitHub is a Microsoft property and has been since late 2018, sufficient time for the outstanding culture of the Redmond giant to diffuse into the code repository/publishing entity.
The “error” concerns a knee jerk response to a person’s post using a forbidden word. After the employee was terminated, others in the science club management team decided that the dismissal was a misstep. Bigger or smaller than the SolarWinds’ modest toe bump? Who knows.
But, by golly, the Microsoft-GitHub science club alums convened and took a decision: Fire the personnel manager (sometimes called a people manager or a human resources leader).
The management precepts I derive from this fascinating chain of events are:
- Be deciders. Don’t dally. Then without too much hand waving reverse course. The science club precept is that lesser entities will not recall the change of direction.
- Seek scapegoats. Use the Teflon approach so that that which is thrown slides upon the lesser entity, in this case, the amusing people manager function.
- Avoid linking the actions of one part of the science club to the larger science club of which the smaller is merely a decorative ornament; that is, omit the fact that GitHub is owned by Microsoft.
I may have these precepts in a poorly formed state, but I think this GitHub admits article provides a provocative case example. I wonder if Mr. Drucker would agree.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2021
The Twitter Leadership Thing: Is This Charlie Muffin Reverse Arrogance?
January 18, 2021
I read “Jack Dorsey Just Explained Why Twitter’s Ban of Trump Is an Extraordinary Failure of Leadership.” I like the subtitle as well because it contains an interesting word. Here’s the subtitle:
You are ultimately responsible for the platform you build
And the word snagging my jaded attention?
Responsibility
Charlie’s reverse snobbery has taken another step closer to becoming one of the management precepts of the high school science club management precepts.
The write up points out:
Social media platforms aren’t neutral. That’s by design. They are literally built to provide people with the ability to create and share content, which the platform then amplifies in various ways. That amplification is designed to feed people with an almost unending stream of content that reinforces their beliefs, desires, passions, or values. As a result, platforms have enormous influence over the types of conversation that happen. Even more importantly, Twitter and other social media companies have massive power to move their users’ collective thoughts and belief systems, for good or bad. All of the things that keep people engaged, and make them want to keep using a platform, are the very things that run the risk of promoting unhealthy conversation.
Okay, that’s mostly correct. The context of online information is left out, but after decades of thumb typing, there are these glimmers of awareness. That’s a plus.
Even academics have discovered, when they rip themselves from their mobile phones and messaging about consulting engagements, that something has been going on. A good example is “How Social Media’s Obsession with Scale Supercharged Disinformation.” At least the corn hole bag is heading in the general direction of understanding online. The tweeter game has been going on for years, so the bag filled with inedible corn is arriving late.
I absolutely trilled when I read this opinion in the Jack Dorsey Explained article. Consider:
When the platform breaks, it’s easy to place fault with users. That would miss an important point. That’s what I find most powerful about Dorsey’s statement. Instead of placing the blame elsewhere, he owns the responsibility Twitter has to do what it can to promote healthy conversations. It would be easy for Twitter to simply wash its hands of users who have abused the platform, but that isn’t what Dorsey did. Instead, he took responsibility and indicated the company needed to look internally to figure out how to never be in this situation again. Considering how unique that message is, it’s not only a powerful lesson, it’s a refreshing example of taking responsibility.
Not exactly on time or on target. The beacon of management runs two companies and is apparently demonstrating his high school management method from an island in the Pacific.
And the tweeter? Yeah, a fine service, well managed, constructive, and just the thing to express important information.
And leadership? Examples include a verifiable identity for users, a subscription service, policies, and consequences for those who skirt them? What did that Sloan guy say about trying to do two things. Right, something like two objectives is no objective? Surf’s up, Charlie.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2021
Enterprise Search: Blasting Away at Feet, Walls, and Partners
January 18, 2021
I read a very good write up called “Is Elasticsearch No Longer Open Source Software?” The write up contains a helpful summary of the history of Elastic and its Lucene-based search solution. Plus the inhospitable territory of open source licensing gets a review as well. To boil down the write up does not do it justice, so navigate to the source document and read it first hand.
I noted a couple of passages which I found suggestive.
First, here’s a comment which strikes me as relevant to the Bezos bulldozer’s approach to low or no cost, high utility software:
if you want to provide Elasticsearch on a SaaS basis, you have to release any code that you use to do this: in Amazon’s case this could mean all the management layers that go into providing Elasticsearch on Amazon Web Services (AWS), so I doubt this is going to happen.
My view is that Elastic and its management team want to put some sand in the bulldozer’s diesel fuel. The question is, “WWAD” or “What will Amazon do?” Some of the options available to Amazon are likely to be interesting. The specific series of actions Amazon pursues will be particularly thrilling.
Second, another passage I circled was:
Smaller SaaS providers without Amazon’s resources will have to decide whether to do a deal with Elastic or Amazon to continue to offer a hosted Elasticsearch.
Based on my limited understanding of the legal hoo-hah with open source legal nuances, I think a customer will have to make a choice. Ride the bulldozer or go with the Son of Compass search. (Yep, that would be Elastic.)
For me, my meanderings through open source and enterprise search sparked these thoughts:
- In a competitive arena, open source will become closed. Too much money is at stake for the “leaders”
- Open source provides a low cost, low friction way to add functionality or enable an open source “play.” Once up and running, the company using open source wants to make sure the costs of R&D, bug fixes, and other enhancements are “free”; that is, not an expense to the company using open source software.
- Forks or code released to open source are competitive moves motivated by financial and marketing considerations.
Open source, open code, open anything: Sounds too good to be true. For some situations, enterprise search’s DNA will surface and the costs can be tricky enough to make an accountant experience heart burn. And the lawyers? Those folks send invoices. The users? Search is a utility. The companies appropriating and making their solution proprietary? Mostly happy campers. And the open source “developers”? Yikes.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2021
Yikes! Fund People, Not Projects
January 18, 2021
“Fund People, Not Projects III: The Newton Hypothesis; Is Science Done by a Small Elite?” addresses innovation, procurement assumptions, and MBA chestnuts. The write up is long, running about 6,300 words. Here’s my summary of the argument in the research paper:
You bet your bippy, pilgrim.
Here’s the academic version of my summary:
The Newton hypothesis seems true, as far as citations are concerned: science is advanced by a small elite. This is not just “Einstein-level” breakthroughs, the small elite may not be 0.01% but 1-5% of the total number of practicing scientists. Even 10% would still cohere with the idea of scientific elitism. Citations at least on a first pass do seem to correlate with “good science” both casually (Highly cited classic papers) and by assessment of peers (Nobel prize panels; Nobel-winning papers are highly cited, and cite highly cited research).
The write up also explains why some technology organizations decline; for example, the Google. The reason is that really good people leave for greener pastures either mentally or physically. The result? Gmail goes down, Intel can’t make chips, and IBM can’t get Watson to deliver that mythical billion dollar business. Common sense, yes. Will significant change take place in staff management, procurement, or MBA thinking about innovation?
Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2021
MIT: In the News Again
January 18, 2021
I have used “high school science club management methods” to describe some of the decisions at Silicon Valley-type outfits. I have also mentioned that the esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology found itself in a bit of a management dither with regards to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein. If you are not familiar with the MIT Epstein adventure, check out “Jeffrey Epstein’s Money Bought a Coverup at the MIT Media Lab.” High school science club management in action.
I read a story dated January 14, 2021, with the fetching title “MIT Professor Charged with Hiding Work for China.” Yep, someone hired a person, failed to provide appropriate oversight, and created a side gig. I learned:
While working for MIT, Chen entered into undisclosed contracts and held appointments with Chinese entities, including acting as an “overseas expert” for the Chinese government at the request of the People’s Republic of China Consulate Office in New York, authorities said. Many of those roles were “expressly intended to further the PRC’s scientific and technological goals,” authorities said in court documents. Chen did not disclose his connections to China, as is required on federal grant applications, authorities said. He and his research group collected about $29 million in foreign dollars, including millions from a Chinese government funded university funded, while getting $19 million in grants from U.S federal agencies for his work at MIT since 2013, authorities said.
MIT is allegedly an institution with many bright people. Maybe that is part of the challenge. The high school science club mentality has ingrained itself into the unsophisticated techniques used to track donations and smart professors.
Harvard has a business school. Does it offer a discount for MIT administrative professionals?
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2021
Mobile and Social Media Users: Check Out the Utility of Metadata
January 15, 2021
Policeware vendors once commanded big, big bucks to match a person of interest to a location. Over the last decade prices have come down. Some useful products cost a fraction of the industrial strength, incredibly clumsy tools. If you are thinking about the hassle of manipulating data in IBM or Palantir products, you are in the murky field of prediction. I have not named the products which I think are the winners of this particular race.
Source: https://thepatr10t.github.io/yall-Qaeda/
The focus of this write up is the useful information derived from the deplatformed Parler social media outfit. An enterprising individual named Patri10tic performed the sort of trick which Geofeedia made semi famous. You can check the map placing specific Parler uses in particular locations based on their messages at this link. What’s the time frame? The unusual protest at the US Capitol.
The point of this short post is different. I want to highlight several points:
- Metadata can be more useful than the content of a particular message or voice call
- Metadata can be mapped through time creating a nifty path of an individual’s movements
- Metadata can be cross correlated with other data. (If you attended one of my Amazon policeware lectures, the cross correlation figures prominently.)
- Metadata can be analyzed in more than two dimensions.
To sum up, I want to remind journalists that this type of data detritus has enormous value. That is the reason third parties attempt to bundle data together and provide authorized users with access to them.
What’s this have to do with policeware? From my point of view, almost anyone can replicate what systems costing as much as seven figures a year or more from their laptop at an outdoor table near a coffee shop.
Policeware vendors want to charge a lot. The Parler analysis demonstrates that there are many uses for low or zero cost geo manipulations.
Stephen E Arnold, January 15, 2021
Google Deflections: After 20 Years of Gnawing, Are Rationalizations Long in the Tooth?
January 15, 2021
Two items snagged my limited attention this morning (January 15, 2021). The first is the write up called “Google Completes Fitbit Acquisition.” The mom-and-pop online ad business has purchased Fitbit. Some government authorities have not officially said, “Hey, okay, Google.” But the mom-and-pop shop has quite a bit of work to do. The digital calendars are brimming with important meetings. I did note this statement in the mom-and-pop shop’s blog post:
This deal has always been about devices, not data…
Yep, I think I have heard this explanation before. But perhaps I am misremembering comments made to me by a no-departed Googler. Yep, Google wants to do devices. Look at the wood the company put behind the Loon balloon. That’s a heck of a device. Oh, there is the “new” Google mobile device. Another horsehide ball knocked aloft.
I also spotted this write up a few minutes ago: “Google Throwing Its Weight Around by Burying Links to Some Commercial News Sites, Experts Say.” Some discontents in Australia apparently believe that the mom-and-pop online information service is discriminating. I circled this passage:
Google has decided to hide some Australian news sites from its search results, in a move that is being interpreted as a response to the Australian Government attempting to make the tech giant pay for original news content.
Google’s ever efficient customer service professionals named A Google Spokesperson allegedly said:
The search algorithm tweak affects a small percentage of users and buries links to some commercial news sites …Every year we conduct tens of thousands of experiments in Google Search…”
Two explanations to the mere country with sheep and coal and a darned good law enforcement apparatus. Maybe I should say, “Excellent enforcement?” Yep, excellent.
Let’s step back. Here are three rationales:
- We don’t care about data. We care about devices.
- We make a change only a teeny weensy percentage of our users are affected.
- We do a lot of testing, and maybe — just maybe — a test affects a user’s experience.
These rationalizations are intended to sound oh-so reasonable. But the one I was disappointed to note excluded from these two articles is the bigly one:
It is easier to say “sorry” than ask for permission.
What else does a mom-and-pop shop need to do to stay in business? Formulate you own answer, gentle reader.
I can’t answer. The dog ate my homework. That excuse is long in the tooth.
Stephen E Arnold, January 15, 2021
Open Source: Does It Mean What You Think It Means?
January 15, 2021
I spotted an article on Newswire called “Tech Giant Technology Is Open Source for the Pandemic, So Why Does It Feel So Closed?” The awkward title intrigued me. Open means, according to Dictionary.com:
not closed or barred at the time, as a doorway by a door, a window by a sash, or a gateway by a gate:to leave the windows open at night.
(of a door, gate, window sash, or the like) set so as to permit passage through the opening it can be used to close.
Pretty obvious. But open appears to mean closed. The “source” refers to software I assumed.
The write up sets me straight:
“The term ‘open source’ is being applied to the final design of an instrument – and I’m pleased to say there has been a willingness during the pandemic to share these final designs – but the design process itself also needs to be open, something it isn’t now,” explains physics researcher Dr Julian Stirling.
Okay, the “design process” has to be available. To get more insight into this open is closed issue, navigate to the original technical paper at this link. So far the paper is open, but as I have learned, open can be closed and often locked up behind a paywall.
Stephen E Arnold, January 15, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
