Clever Twitter Write Up: The Muskrat!
November 21, 2022
I am not into the tweeter thing. I do find glancing at the flood of Twitter mine run off interesting. Because I live in a hollow with its very own toxic lake of assorted man-made compounds, I know drainage when I smell it.
The article which caught my attention is “I Don’t Want to Go Back to Social Media.” What is interesting is that the author who is a software developer and former Twitter user.
The write up makes what might be a statement of interest to a legal eagle; to wit:
Musk is an obvious fraud.
The highlight of the write up is the use of the neologism muskrat. The idea is that estimable Elon Musk is either a metaphorical rat (Rattus norvegicus) or muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). The figure of speech is ambiguous, and disambiguation is a great deal of work. (I think that is the reason super duper free Web search systems are unable to provide consistent on point results for a query.
Now back to the Muskrat (article style, not the furry, four legged variety known to present some challenges when living in proximity to humanoids.
The write up asserts:
…Twitter brought out the worst in me. I struggled to be “my best self” on Twitter. Admittedly, I struggle to be my best self almost everywhere, but Twitter was the worst situation for that. The incentives on Twitter are perverse: the short character limits, the statistical counts of retweets and likes, the unknown followers and readers, the platform and publicity all conspire to corrupt you, to push you toward superficial tweets that incite the crowd.
The write up ends with a call to action; specifically:
Consider the alternative of avoiding social media altogether. You can live without it. I would argue that you can live better. You’ll get nothing, and like it!
I want to end this short blog post with a quote from Captain and Tennille (Willis Alan Ramsey and O/BO Capasso who probably love the tweeter thing):
And they whirl and they twirled and they tango
Singin’ and jinglin’ a jango
Floatin’ like the heavens above
Looks like muskrat love
Do, do, do, do, do
Do, do-e, do
Yep, do d0.
Stephen E Arnold, November 21, 2022
Confirming a Fundamental Law of Online: Centralization Is Emergent
November 17, 2022
The author of “Scaling Mastodon Is Impossible” did not set out to provide evidence of this fundamental Arnold Law of Online: Centralization is emergent. The law means that when someone creates an online service, traffic flow or whatever one calls what happens online causes centralization. The idea is that centralization is cheaper and somewhat easier to maintain than the “let many flowers bloom” approach to development. (Hello, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter. You have an advantage. Why not use it to your advantage?)
The article about Mastodon states:
Decentralization promotes an utopian view of the world that I belief fails to address actual real problems in practice. Yet on that decentralization wave a lot of projects are riding from crypto-currencies [1], defi or things such as Mastodon. All of these things have one thing in common: distrust. Some movements come from the distrust of governments or taxation, others come from the distrust of central services.
As the essay creeps to its conclusion, I spotted a gem of observation; to wit:
Wikipedia for all it’s faults shows quite well that a centralized thing can exist with the right model behind it. The software and the content is open, and if WikiMedia were to fuck up too much, then someone else could step into place and replace it. But the risk of that happening, keeps the organization somewhat in check.
If the author is correct, the future of online may look more like Wikipedia. Possibly? There is another Arnold Law of Online to consider:
Online services lead to monopolization.
This means there will be new Amazons and Googles in the future. Emergent does not mean good, however.
Stephen E Arnold, November 17, 2022
Thomson Reuters: Trust the Firm with Data Security?
November 16, 2022
Thomson Reuters tosses around the word “trust.” Should one trust the firm with data security? (Keep in mind that Thomson Reuters compiles and licenses data to law enforcement and intelligence entities in the US and elsewhere, please.)
As most people know, everyone makes mistakes, but Thomson Reuters made one heck of a doozy when the company left three terabytes of sensitive information open to the Internet. Hackers and their nefarious bots purloined the three terabytes. Cyber News discusses the fallout in: “Thomson Reuters Collected And Leaked At Least 3TB Of Sensitive Data.” The three databases are public-facing and are housed in ElasticSearch software.
Thomson Reuters fixed the problem when they found it, then they notified their customers. Thomson Reuters specializes in business-to-business media tools, such as Checkpoint, ONESOURCE, Westlaw, and Reuters Connect. The exposed databases rely on open-source software ElasticSearch because it was designed for companies handling large amounts of constantly updated data. The leaked three terabytes are worth millions of dollars in the criminal world.
Two databases were public-facing, meaning they were meant to be accessible to the public, while the third was a non-production server related to the product ONESOURCE. The leaked data could cause a lot of mayhem:
“Researchers believe that any loss of information on the dataset could not only harm Thomson Reuters and its clients but also be detrimental to the public interest.
For example, the open database was leaking some individuals’ and organizations’ sensitive screening and compliance data. Accessible data from the public-facing Thomson Reuters database could have tipped off entities that would like their wrongdoing kept in the dark.
According to Martynas Vareikis, Information Security Researcher at Cybernews, threat actors could use the email addresses exposed in the dataset to carry out phishing attacks. Attackers could impersonate Thomson Reuters and send the company’s customers fake invoices.”
While Thomson Reuters attributes the error as a system glitch, leaving the passwords in plaintext format was a rookie mistake. No matter how strong the passwords are, they are worthless once exposed.
Trust? Maybe it is a marketing play?
Whitney Grace, November 16, 2022
Discovering Bunsha. Wow, the Past Can Provide Some Wisdom to Whiz Kids
November 15, 2022
In early 1992 I gave several lectures in Japan. At the Kansai Institute of Technology in Osaka, I learned about bunsha. I recall that one of the people from MITI attending my lecture mentioned the concept. A representative of Kinokuniya (the then giant of Japanese bookselling and information) arranged for a slim volume to be delivered to my hotel when I arrived in Tokyo for another lecture.
I received two slim volumes: Bunsha. Improving Your Business through Company Division and Bunsha. Company Division. What Good Is a Stuffed Tiger? After leaving Japan, I added a third book: To Expand We Divide. The Practice and Principles of Bunsha Management.
These books made a significant impression on me. The authors Kuniyasu Sakai and Hiroshi Sekiyama, along with translator David Russell, explained how to avoid the management pitfalls of becoming too big. Teams can be too big. Companies can be too big. When big happens, some employees are stifled and leave the company.
The basic idea is to create smaller units and when an employee has a desire to start a company, give that employee an opportunity to do that new thing within the existing company. A brief summary does not do justice to the ideas in these three slim volumes.
The idea of bunsha had a significant impact on how I viewed certain types of management challenges. I suppose one could say, “That’s just common sense.” I am not so sure because these books codified the idea of bunsha and provided examples about the principles. Shortcomings and benefits are explained.
I read “Split Your Overwhelmed Teams: Two Teams of Five Is Not the Same as One Team of Ten.” (If the link goes dead, you have another example of knowledge erosion. A perfect example of our current management plight.) My immediate reaction was that the idea of bunsha is not familiar to the author. As I reflected on the essay, I realized that most people don’t know about bunsha and if they heard about the concept, the reaction was that it was irrelevant.
Several observations seem to be warranted:
- Information about important management ideas is not diffusing. The disheartening failures of management at technology companies essential to economic performance illustrate what happens when big fails.
- Japan itself has overlooked the importance of bunsha. The disappointing trajectory of well known Japanese high technology companies provides a number of examples. Hello, Toshiba.
- Management consultants — at least the ones I have encountered in the last 20 years — know how to gather data, cut expenses, and get their bonuses. I am not sure these individuals or some of their mentors know about bunsha.
May I suggest that a greater familiarity with bunsha will pay knowledge dividends. The books are short and are, therefore, suited to the TikTok and Instagram generation. For those older, bunsha may be too little, too late. Rediscovering ideas from a half century ago illustrates the peculiar narrowness of the Googlized information.
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2022
Modern Management Practices: Airline and Book Models
October 28, 2022
I know zero about running an airline. Wait. That’s not true. I know these outfits struggle to leave on time and handle baggage. I have heard that the computer systems used by US carriers are similar to those in use at the Internal Revenue Service. End of my info.
I read “American Airlines is Trying to Stop a Popular iPhone App That’s Become a ‘Must Have’ For its Flight Attendants.” The story caught my attention because an iPhone app has become an object of attention at an outfit unable to do what people expect it to do. Please, reference my comment about flying on time and the suitcases.
One flight attendant said of the current situation affecting Sequence Decoder that they had “never seen a company go out of their way to make life harder for their workers.”
The operative phrase “never seen a company go out of their way to make life harder for their workers” is memorable.
I would suggest that there is another company with some management challenges. “Exclusive: Amazon’s Attrition Costs $8 Billion Annually According to Leaked Documents And It Gets Worse” reports:
Amazon churns through workers at an astonishing rate, well above industry averages.
The write up continues:
The paper, published in January of 2022, states that the prior year’s data “indicates regretted attrition [represents] a low of 69.5% to a high of 81.3% across all levels (Tier 1 through Level 10 employees) suggesting a distinct retention issue.
Two big companies. Neither seems to be able to get in sync with their employees.
Let’s step back. I have a general sense that a number of organizations are unable to manage what I would call the basics; that is, understanding what employees need to do their jobs. On one hand, a software app which appears to improve scheduling strikes me as useful. Obviously the airline’s managers are terrified of software developed by an outsider and embraced by employees. The solution is to cancel it. Isn’t that a disconnect by what I assume are GenX and Millennial managers? Could dinobaby managers help resolve the issue? Of course not! Dinobabies, my goodness, no.
I have found that the online bookstore is less and less able to deliver “next day.” But I am a sample of one. The write up makes clear that one possible reason for the slippage and some of the practices of third party resellers are facilitated is due to — you guessed it — management failures. If the company were in touch with their employees, why have churn rates that are in the ballpark for streaming services consuming billions of dollars? In my opinion, we have an example of management taking a selfie and falling into a ravine.
Observations:
- Managers have to manage and deliver success. Ignoring employee needs is a questionable approach.
- Senior managers have to provide a framework for success. Exhibiting failure at scale suggests that these professionals are not managing in an effective manner from the point of view of the employees.
- Boards of directors have to provide a framework for the policies of the company. The incidents described in airline and bookstore cases suggests that these individuals are like vacationers: Kick back and enjoy the time.
My hunch is that remediating these issues will require more than attitude adjustment, a couple of TED Talks, and new technology. In fact, fixing the issues creating these two referenced case examples may be a job for the reprehensible dinobabies and their pre historic methods. Is this a popular notion? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2022
OpenAI and The Evolution of Academic Cheating
October 28, 2022
Once considered too dangerous for public release, OpenAI’s text generator first ventured forth as a private beta. Now a version called Playground is available to everyone and is even free for the first three months (or the first 1,200,00 characters, whichever comes first). Leave it to the free market to breeze past considerations of misuse. We learn from Vice Motherboard that one key concern has materialized: “Students Are Using AI to Write Their Papers, Because Of Course They Are.” It did not take students long to realize this cheat slips right past plagiarism detecting software—because it is not technically plagiarism. Reporter Claire Woodcock writes:
“George Veletsianos, Canada Research Chair in Innovative Learning & Technology and associate professor at Royal Roads University says this is because the text generated by systems like OpenAI API are technically original outputs that are generated within a black box algorithm. ‘[The text] is not copied from somewhere else, it’s produced by a machine, so plagiarism checking software is not going to be able to detect it and it’s not able to pick it up because the text wasn’t copied from anywhere else,’ Veletsianos told Motherboard. ‘Without knowing how all these other plagiarism checking tools quite work and how they might be developed in the future, I don’t think that AI text can be detectable in that way.’ It’s unclear whether the companies behind the AI tools have the ability to detect or prevent students from using them to do their homework. OpenAI did not comment in time for publication.”
It was inevitable, really. One writing instructor quoted in the story recognizes today’s students can easily accumulate more knowledge than ever before. However, he laments losing the valuable process of gaining that knowledge through exploration if writing assignments become moot. The tutor has a point, but there is likely no turning back now. Perhaps there is a silver lining: academic institutions may finally be forced to teach like they exist in the 21st century. Students are already there. One cited only as innovate_rye states:
“I still do my homework on things I need to learn to pass, I just use AI to handle the things I don’t want to do or find meaningless. If AI is able to do my homework right now, what will the future look like? These questions excite me.”
That is one way to look at it. Perhaps the spirit of exploration is not dead, but rather evolving. The leaders of tomorrow will be pace setters.
Cynthia Murrell, October 28, 2022
Need a Spy? New Zealand Has Found a Resource
October 24, 2022
Israel’s armed and covert operatives are among the world’s most elite forces. It is not surprising when New Zealand’s government wanted to secretly spy and collect people’s data that they hired ex-Israeli operatives. Otago Daily explains whom New Zealand government tracked in the story: “Govt Enlists Ex-Israeli Spies To Covertly Collect Data.”
The New Zealand government, specifically the immigration department, hired Cobweb Technologies, a company formed by ex-Israeli spies. Meta (aka Facebook) kicked Cobwebs Technologies and six other foreign companies accused of creating fake accounts to spy on 50,000 people. The people spied on were journalists, politicians, human rights activists, and other persons of interest in over one hundred countries. The fake accounts also joined closed forums and communities to coerce members into sharing their private information.
Meta stated that Immigration NZ is only one of six countries that were Cobwebs Technologies’ customers. The department was a customer of the company for two years. Using social engineering, Cobweb Technologies uses its know-how to scan the Internet, mostly social media platforms, for targets’ public information.
New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment stated that Cobwebs Technologies’ acts were legal, controlled, and important:
They helped it meet its “legislative responsibilities”, in an undefined but “specific” area where there were active threats, the ministry told RNZ in its OIA response. Revealing more would “enable and embolden” groups overseas seeking to undermine it.
‘We are aware of activity overseas showing an intent (and ability) of such groups to do exactly this, specifically in response to the public release of information of the kind we are withholding, including tactically altering their behavior, increasing their operational security or deliberately injecting misinformation to reduce the effectiveness of collection methods. If even a moderate event in this particular area were to eventuate, the consequences for New Zealand could be significant and costly to fix,’ MBIE said.”
What exactly was New Zealand Immigration learning from Cobwebs Technologies? If it was about potential terrorist attacks on the country, then it was for national defense. If it was to spy on people who were not a threat, but did not agree with the country’s political agenda then it was a crime. How do you define each?
Whitney Grace, October 24, 2022
Characteristics of a Dinobaby
October 21, 2022
Someone called my attention to the Buzzfeed article “Millennial Managers Are Sharing Toxic Things Their Older Bosses Did That They Won’t Do To Employees, And I Relate To A Lot Of These.” The list of millennial management precepts makes it very clear why I am a relic. The 25 characteristics are interesting. The table below provides my dinobaby view of five of these statements about the cohorts now in the workplace.
|
Millennial Mgmt |
Dinobaby Approach |
| No micromanagement | Micromanage when warranted |
| Open communication | Sometimes |
| Rat on colleagues | Not this dinobaby |
| Ask staff for ideas and examples | Yes, dinobabies do this |
| Communicate what is needed to get promoted | Follow organization’s policies and procedures |
I cannot imagine how difficult it would be for this dinobaby to work with staff and managers who absolve themselves of the responsibility for knowing what the company expects, inculcating the organization’s policies and procedures in the work, and getting the best from each person. Eliminating managers and allowing employees to do their own thing is a recipe for disaster.
What if the organization has no rules of the road, is managed by a crazed genius, and lacks policies, procedures, and planning? Don’t take a full time job. Be a consultant and work on a short term contract. Avoid problem firms.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2022
Amazon: An Ecosystem in Which Some Bad Actors Thrive
October 6, 2022
Wow! Who knew? I must admit that I have developed what I call a “Hypothetical Ecommerce Crime Ecosystem.” Because I am an old, dinobaby, I have not shared my musings in this semi entertaining Web log. I do relatively few “public” talks. I am careful not to be “volunteered” for a local networking meet up like those organized by the somewhat ineffectual “chamber of commerce” in central Kentucky. Plus, I am never sure if those with whom I speak are “into” ecosystems of crime. Sure, last week I gave a couple of boring lectures to a few law enforcement, crime analysts, and government senior officials. But did the light bulbs flashing during and after my talk impair my vision. Nah.
I did read a write up which nibbles around the edges of my diagram for my hypothetical crime ecosystem. “There’s an Underground Market Where Secondhand Amazon Merchant Accounts Are Bought and Sold for Thousands of Dollars” asserts as 100 percent actual factual:
An Insider investigation revealed a thriving gray market for secondhand Amazon seller accounts. On Telegram and forums like Swapd and PlayerUp, thousands of brokers openly sell accounts, with prices ranging from a few hundred bucks for a new account to thousands of dollars apiece for years-old accounts with established histories. … The accounts sometimes steal random people’s identities to disguise themselves, and sellers are using these fake credentials to engage in questionable behavior on Amazon, Insider found — including selling counterfeit textbooks. The people’s whose names and addresses are being stolen are sometimes then sent hundreds of returns by unhappy customers.
Is there other possibly inappropriate activity on the Amazon giant bookstore? The write up says:
Merchants have used shady tactics like submitting false fraud reports targeting rivals, or bribing Amazon employees to scuttle competitors. Others peddle counterfeit or shoddily produced wares. Amazon bans fraudulent sellers, along with other accounts they’re suspected of owning, and blacklists their business name, physical location, and IP address.
Okay, but why?
My immediate reaction is money. May I offer a few speculations about such ecosystem centric behavior? You say, No. Too bad. Here are my opinions:
- Amazon does basic cost benefit analyses. The benefit is the amount of money Amazon gets to keep. The cost is the sum of the time, effort, and direct outflow of cash required to monitor and terminate what might be called the Silicon Valley way. (Yeah, I know Amazon like Microsoft is in some state in the US Northwest, but the spirit of the dudes and dudettes in Silicon Valley knows no geographic boundaries. Did you notice the “con” in “silicon.” Coincidence?
- Bad actors know a thriving ecosystem when they see one. Buy stolen products from a trusted third party, and who worries to much about where the person in the white van obtained them. Pay the driver, box ‘em up, and ship out those razors and other goods easily stolen from assorted brick-and-mortar stores in certain US locations; for example, the Walgreen’s in Tony Bennett’s favorite city.
- The foil of third party intermediaries makes it easy for everyone in the ecosystem to say, “Senator, thank you for the question. I do not know the details of our firm’s business relationship. I will obtain the information and send a report to your office.” When? Well, maybe struggling FedEx or the Senate’s internal mail system lost the report. Bummer. Just request another copy, rinse, and repeat. The method has worked for a couple of decades. Don’t fix it if the system is not broken.
What’s interesting about my “Hypothetical Ecommerce Crime Ecosystem” in my opinion is:
- Plausible deniability is baked in
- Those profiting from exploitation of the Amazon money rain forest have zero incentive or downside to leave the system as it is. Change costs money and — let’s face it — there have been zero significant downsides to the status quo for decades. Yep, decades.
- Enforcement resources are stretched at this time. Thus, what I call “soft fraud” is easier than ever to set up and embed in business processes.
Is the cited article correct? Sure, I believe everything I read online, including Amazon reviews of wireless headphones and cheap T shirts.
Is my analysis correct? I don’t know. I am probably wrong and I am too old, too worn out, too jaded to do much more than ask, “Is that product someone purchased on Amazon an original, unfenced item?”
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2022
Attention and Science: Rotating the Idea Seven Degrees
October 4, 2022
I read a BigThink article called “The Credibility of Science Is Damaged When Universities Brag about Themselves.” The basic premise of the article is fine: Attention is what matters today. The “why” is not explored, but it is characterized: Payoff.
I noted this statement in the article:
Scientists have always wanted to have their work noticed. That’s not new. However, when attention becomes currency, the ecosystem changes. And that changing ecosystem encompasses universities, academic publishing, and the way science is communicated to the public.
I am not comfortable with categorical affirmatives like “always.” I know from my work in online information and systems that the enabler of being noticed is content which is not intermediated by an institution, commercial enterprise, or government agency with a semi-reliable moral and ethical compass.
Scientists, like any other group of humanoids, get a kick out of the fame payoff. Some cannot cope and end up spending some time under special observation like Kurt Gödel or André Bloch. Others are content to chug along with some cocktail party ammunition tucked in their pockets.
A larger issue underlies the analysis of scientists chasing attention (adulation, prizes, lecture opportunities, etc.) The inherent function of online information is to disintermediate. Hasta la vista judgment, bureaucratic barriers, and traditional procedures.
How are those airline schedules matching up with the reality of getting from A to B? What about the functionality of the US health care system and the individuals who need treatment? Are those children graduating from grade school, high school, and college unable to read at their grade level mapping to job opportunities? You can think of your own examples.
My point is that the devaluation of science manifests itself in the “attention economy.” The driver, however, is online information.
Welcome to the online revolution. Remediation will be difficult, perhaps impossible. As “knowledge” is vaporized by the flows of online data, those responsible for the fixing up of science, basic service delivery, and certain American automobiles will be less well equipped than previous generations’ wizards.
The future is now. Log on, absorb TikToks, and surf Amazon… scientifically, of course. Maybe that seven degrees rotation is not reproducible. Some is not either.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
