Google and Personnel Management: Myth or Mess Up?
August 25, 2021
I am not sure if “Google’s Payments Team Is Seeing and Exodus of Executives and Employees” is spot on or wide of the mark. (This chunk of management memorabilia will cost you; the story is paywalled.) Google is an exemplary commercial enterprise: Profitable, profitable, profitable. Did I mention profitable? It follows that its approach to personnel management is top of the class. Summa cum laude territory.
From this write up I learned:
Dozens of employees have left Google’s payments team in recent
months.
And what about leaving with know how?
The stream of exits by top talent and recent reorg present another challenge for Google as it tries to get ahead in the digital payment space and launch a bank account integrated into Google Pay.
No problem. No myth, no mess up. Google has steady hands on the controls. What could be better preparation for taking on Amazon:
Under the watch of senior vice president Prabhakar Raghavan, Ready has made a bigger ecommerce push in an effort to take on Amazon, which has included partnerships with Shopify, Square and others.
Just so Googley. Management excellence in action.
Stephen E Arnold, August 25, 2021
MIT Creates a Prediction Tool for Tech Improvements
August 25, 2021
Leave it to researchers at MIT to find a way to predict the future, at least when it comes to rates of improvement for some 1,757 technologies. Fast Company tells us, “MIT Built a Google Search to Spot the Most Important Tech Innovations of the Future.” The team behind the search tool, dubbed simply technology rates, specializes in studying innovation. Former decades-long Ford engineer and designer Christopher Magee is now a professor of practice at the university, and he put together a team of graduate students to do just that. One, Anuraag Singh, used to work at Honda’s R&D lab determining which technologies that company should invest in long-term. The researchers’ experience led them to this conclusion: The key to rapid but accurate predictions was to create AI that examines relationships within the U.S. patent system. Reporter Mark Wilson explains:
“Like scientific research papers, patents routinely reference other patents. The AI—developed and validated by Giorgio Triulzi, assistant professor at Universidad de los Andes—can build a whole networked web of these patent relationships, seeing not just which are influential within their own fields, but also which are pulling from completely disparate fields. As Magee explains, semiconductor patents alone don’t explain their improvement over time, because the most successful fields dip into other research topics. In the case of semiconductors, improvements in lasers actually improved chips in the past, and the team believes new plasma research will in the future. Similarly, patents in software are now being cited by all sorts of patents in other industries, because so much of the world is operated digitally.”
Magee notes the further one traces these referential patents, the more the relationships “explode” outward. It is a complex task that calls for an AI solution. The article continues:
“The team created the patent search tool because it was the most practical means to look up over 1,000 different technologies—which makes it a superb tool for R&D teams and other future-casting groups in the public or private sector. Any other sort of graphic interface or list would be unwieldy. When you type your technology into the search box, it will pull up its innovation rate, along with the top 10 most-cited recent patents about it.”
Wilson reminds us to think of annual improvement rates like compound interest on money— gains build on gains. What to make of those innovation rates in practical terms, though, can be a bit of a mystery and depends on the field being investigated. Enterprising fellows that they are, Magee and Singh have launched a commercial enterprise, Technext, to make sense of the data. They are off to a strong start—their first client is the U.S. Air Force.
One question: Would this tool have predicted that MIT would accept money from Jeffrey Epstein and then have professional staff who attempted to sidestep scrutiny?
Yes or no, please, My thought is that MIT’s software and its institutional actions may be easier to puff up than deliver on certain core values. Just a hunch.
Cynthia Murrell, August 25, 2021
Not an Onion Report: Handwaving about Swizzled Data
August 24, 2021
I read at the suggestion of a friend “These Data Are Not Just Excessively Similar. They Are Impossibly Similar.” At first glance, I thought the write up was a column in an Onion-type of publication. Nope, someone copied the same data set and pasted it into itself.
Here’s what the write up says:
The paper’s Excel spreadsheet of the source data indicated mathematical malfeasance.
Malfeasance. Okay.
But what caught my interest was the inclusion of this name: Dan Ariley. If this is the Dan Ariely who wrote these books, that fact alone is suggestive. If it is a different person, then we are dealing with routine data dumbness or data dishonesty.
The write up contains what I call academic ducking and covering. You may enjoy this game, but I find it boring. Non reproducible results, swizzled data, and massaged numerical recipes are the status quo.
Is there a fix? Nope, not as long as most people cannot make change or add up the cost of items in a grocery basket. Smart software depends on data. And if those data are like those referenced in this Metafilter article, well. Excitement.
Stephen E Arnold, August 24, 2021
99 Percent Accurate: Close Enough for PR Output
August 24, 2021
I am not entering a horse in this race, a dog in this fight, or a pigeon in this race. I want to point to a write up in a newspaper in some way very tenuously connected to the former driver of the Bezos bulldozer. That write is “Opinion: Apple’s New Child Safety Tool Comes with Privacy Trade-Offs — Just Like All the Others.”
Right off the bat I noted the word “all.” Okay, categorical affirmatives put my teeth edge the same way Miss Blackburn’s fingernails scraping on the blackboard in calculus class did. “All”. Very tidy.
The write up contains an interesting statement or two. I circled this one in Bezos bulldozer orange:
The practice of on-device flagging may sound unusually violative. Yet Apple has a strong argument that it’s actually more protective of privacy than the industry standard. The company will learn about the existence of CSAM only when the quantity of matches hits a certain threshold, indicating a collection.
The operative word is threshold. Like “all”, threshold sparks a few questions in my mind. Does it yours? Let me provide a hint: Who or what sets a threshold? And under what conditions is a threshold changed? There are others, but I want to make this post readable to my TikTok-like readers.
I liked the conundrum angle too:
The benefit of nabbing abusers in this case may outweigh these hypothetical harms, especially if Apple holds itself to account — and the public keeps on the pressure. Yet the company’s conundrum emphasizes an unpleasant truth: Doing something to protect public safety in the Internet age is better than doing nothing — yet every “something” introduces issues of its own.
Fascinating. I am curious how Apple PR and marketing will respond. Hopefully with fewer unsupported assertions, info about thresholds, and the logician’s bane: A categorical affirmative.
Stephen E Arnold, August 24, 2021
About Those Painful Fines
August 24, 2021
Never one to let pesky regulations get in the way of doing business, “Amazon Hit with Record $888M Fine Over GDPR Violations,” reports CNet. Even that eye-popping sum represents but a minor cost of doing business to the online retail giant. Luxembourg authorities levied the 746 million euro fine on July 16, saying Amazon violated the EU’s GDPR data protection laws. At issue is the way the company processes customer data. Citing reporting from Bloomberg, writer Katie Collins tells us:
“[The CNPD’s] into Amazon was based on a 2018 complaint by French privacy group La Quadrature du Net. The group says it represents the interests of thousands of Europeans to ensure their data isn’t used by big tech companies to manipulate their behavior for political or commercial purposes. It didn’t immediately respond to request for comment. Amazon is under growing scrutiny both at home and abroad over the way it uses customer data. Regulators are concerned that not only could the company’s data processing policies violate privacy protections for consumers while they’re shopping online, they might give the company an advantage over competitors operating within its marketplace. Meanwhile, Amazon is keen for customers to know that their data is safe, and unlike many GDPR fines, this one hasn’t been issued due to a data breach. ‘Maintaining the security of our customers’ information and their trust are top priorities,’ said an Amazon spokesman in a statement on Friday. ‘There has been no data breach, and no customer data has been exposed to any third party. These facts are undisputed.’”
Nice attempt at deflection, Amazon. A data breach is not the issue here, but rather willful disregard of EU privacy regulations. The Amazon spokesperson insists the fine is based on “subjective and untested interpretations” of the GDPR and that it is entirely out of proportion. Though it plans to appeal the fine, it is a price the company can easily pay.
To answer the question, will the fine have an impact? Nope, a monetary penalty is ineffective. Consider this: Russia Fines Google For Not Deleting Banned Content. How much? Three million rubles or about $40,000US. Facebook might be fined as much as $82,000 by the Russian bear.
Painful not.
Cynthia Murrell, August 25, 2021
DarkCyber for August 24, 2021, Now Available
August 24, 2021
The program for August 24, 2021, is now available at this link. This program, number 17 in the 2021 series, contains five stories. These are:
The NSO Group matter has produced some interesting knock on effects.
The consequence of NSO Group’s activities include criticism from the United Nations and Edward Snowden, a whistle blower and resident of Moscow. The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan was remarkable.
The core technology for the antagonists is discussed. You will learn about the musician Tankz and his method for making illegal credit card fraud accessible to young people in the UK and elsewhere. In addition to alleged financial crime, Tankz sings about Pyrex whipping. Ask your children what this is and then decide if you need to take action.
The program includes another reminder than one can find anti-security actors on the Regular Web and the Dark Web. The challenge is to make sure you do not become the victim of a scam.
The US government created an interesting report about nuclear war. It is not clear how lo9ng this document will remain available from a public Web server. You can check the link in the DarkCyber video for yourself. Tip: The document explains how the US may select a target for a nuclear strike.
The final story reports that the drone called Avenger has a new capability: Autonomous decision capability enabled by track and follow electronics. No human operator needed when a target is identified.
DarkCyber is produced by Stephen E Arnold and the DarkCyber research team. New programs appear every two weeks unless one of the video distribution services decides to remove the content derived from open sources of information. Tankz and a fellow traveler named DankDex, purveyor of the Fraud Bible, appear to post without pushback.
Kenny Toth, August 24, 2021
It Is Official: Big Tech Outfits Are Empires
August 23, 2021
Who knew? The Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed a factoid which is designed to shock. My position has been that big tech outfits operate like countries. I was wrong. The FAANG-type operations are empires. I stand corrected.
I learned this in “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Platforms Want To Be Utilities, Self-Govern Like Empires.” The write up asserts:
The tech giants argue that they are entitled to run their businesses largely as they see fit: if you don’t like the house rules, just take your business elsewhere.
The write up omits that FAANG-type outfits are not harming the consumer. Plus these organizations operate in accordance with an invisible hand. (I like science fiction, don’t you.)
The problem is that we are now decades into the digital revolution, and the EFF like some other entities are beginning to realize that flows of digital information reconstitute the Great Chain of Being. At the top of the chain are the FAANG-type operations.
At the bottom are the thumbtypers. In the middle, those who are unable to ascend and unwilling to become data serfs are experts like those at the EFF.
“Fixes” are the way forward. From my point of view, the problems have been fixed when those lower in the chain complain, upgrade to a new mobile device, suck down some TikToks, and chill with “content.”
The future has arrived, and it is quite difficult to change the status quo and probably an Afghanistanian task to alter the near-term future.
Empires, not countries. Sounds about right.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2021
Amazon AWS: Personalization? What Is That? Who Cares?
August 23, 2021
I read the impassioned “AWS Doesn’t Know Who I Am. Here’s Why That’s A Problem.” The individual appears to perceive himself as an Amazon-savvy professional. I learned:
My name is Ben Kehoe. I’m an AWS Serverless Hero. I’ve spoken at re:Invent. I meet regularly with teams across AWS. I’m followed by @awscloud on Twitter. But AWS doesn’t know who I am.
There are examples of services which pay attention to the “identity” or “alleged identity” of a user. These are helpful examples, and I liked the inclusion of Microsoft GitHub as an outfit who appears to care about an individual’s or a persona’s identity.
The write up includes the many tokens used to keep track of an AWS user or account. There is, it seems, no meta-token basket. Thus, instead of being a single entity, there are many separate AWS entities.
Several thoughts occurred to me:
- Fragmenting makes it easier to assess fees on hard-to-track services one part of an entity incurs. Why make it easy to manage AWS fees?
- Like security, Amazon AWS shifts the burden from the utility to the person, entity, or software process. My hunch is that the approach allows AWS to say, “Not our problem.”
- Amazon and AWS require that users and entities recognize that the company is, in effect, a person. Most people forget that a commercial enterprise may have more rights than a humanoid.
Net net: Amazon has no incentive to care about anyone, including Ben Kehoe unless the corporate person benefits in my opinion. Humans want to be perceived as unique. AWS is not mom. Thus, the problem is not Amazon’s.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2021
Federated AI: A Garden of Eden. Will There Be a Snake or Two?
August 23, 2021
I read “Eden AI Launches Platform to Unify ML APIs.” I had two immediate reactions. The first was content marketing, and the second was that there was a dark side to the Garden of Eden, wasn’t there?
Eden is a company pulling a meta-play or leveling up. The idea is that one can pop up higher, pull disparate items together, and create a new product or service.
This works for outfits ranging from a plumbing supply company serving smaller towns to an outfit like the Bezos bulldozer. Why not apply this model to the rock solid world of machine learning application programming interfaces.
The write up states:
… using Eden AI, a company could feed a document in Chinese into Google Cloud Platform’s optical character recognition service to extract its contents. Then it could have an IBM Watson model translate the extracted Chinese characters into English words and queue up an Amazon Web Services API to analyze for keywords. Eden AI makes money by charging providers a commission on the revenues generated by its platform.
Latency? Apparently no problem. The costs of maintaining the meta-code as the APIs change. Apparently no problem. Competition from outfits like Microsoft who whether the technology works or not wants to maintain its role as the go-to place for advanced whatevers. No problem.
Someday.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2021
Yes, IBM Watson in Zoom Type Sessions
August 23, 2021
Zoom type meetings are not my fave. Your mileage may vary, but I miss the whole travel to meeting, small talk over crappy snacks, and watching the humanoids in action or inaction as the case may be.
I read “3 Smart Video Collaboration Features We Still Need.” The royal “we” is a nice touch for a consultant to IBM. The write up suggests that IBM Watson can tag along and monitor Zoom type meetings. When the hapless group of disinterested Zoom type participants needs “strategy” or “policy” information, good, old Watson will provide that input.
Here’s a comment from the write up:
There’s even something like IBM’s Watson Assistant, which could answer policy and strategy questions during a meeting. (Disclosure: IBM is a client of the author.) Many times, questions aren’t answered by the most knowledgeable person at the table, but by either the most obnoxious or most senior leader. Watson could steer the conversation toward the best outcome. We are on the cusp of taking collaboration systems much farther than they have ever gone. It’s time to turn them into the productivity engines they can be.
I like the disclosure at the end of the write up. Plus, the expert concludes with his strongest marketing pitch. The notion that staring at a camera and monitor will become a productivity engine is amusing. Sci fi fans will love the suggestion.
Oh, wait! Facebook has announced its next big thing. Slap on the virtual reality hood and have an almost real meeting. Stir in some Watson and we will have a winner.
A few observations:
- Smart software can demonstrate bias and incorrect outputs; providing high value strategy and policy outputs not so much
- IBM Watson is, as far as I know, the only smart software to fail in the cancer and Covid amelioration trial runs. Isn’t that zero for two?
- Zoom type interactions have not slowed some companies in their attempt to get employees back into a setting in which those very same humanoids can be monitored, involved in meetings, and pulled into a conversation without the all-to-common “I can’t connect.”
Content marketing is interesting. Unfortunately it is too easy to spot the messaging. No Watson needed because that smart software struggles to deliver more than opportunities for cheerleading for an ageing amalgam of open source, home brew code, and acquired technology.
And the other features? A smart moderator for Zoom type meetings? Err. What? A mom? An Adam Carolla? Plus, another Zoom type meeting at the same time? Yikes. Gee whiz, Computerworld.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
