Insight about Software and Its Awfulness
January 10, 2023
Software is great, isn’t it? Try to do hanging indents with numbers in Microsoft Word. If you want this function without wasting time with illogical and downright weird controls, call a Microsoft Certified Professional to code what you need. Law firms are good customers. What about figuring out which control in BlackMagic DaVinci delivers the effect you want? No problem. Hire someone who specializes in the mysteries of this sort of free software. No expert in Princeton, Illinois, or Bear Dance, Montana? Do the Zoom thing with a gig worker. That’s efficient. There are other examples; for instance, do you want to put your MP3 on an iPhone? Yeah, no problem. Just ask a 13 year old. She may do the transfer for less than an Apple Genius.
Why is software awful?
“There Is No Software Maintenance” takes a step toward explaining what’s going on and what’s going to get worse. A lot worse. The write up states:
Software maintenance is simply software development.
I think this means that a minimal viable product is forever. What changes are wrappers, tweaks, and new MVP functions. Yes, that’s user friendly.
The essay reports:
The developers working on the product stay with the same product. They see how it is used, and understand how it has evolved.
My experience suggests that the mindset apparent in this article is the new normal.
The advantages are faster and cheaper, quicker revenue, and a specific view of the customer as irrelevant even if he, she, or it pays money.
The downsides? I jotted down a few which occurred to me:
- Changes may or may not “work”; that is, printing is killed. So what? Just fix it later.
- Users’ needs are secondary to what the product wizards are going to do. Oh, well, let’s take a break and not worry about today. Let’s plan for new features for tomorrow. Software is a moving target for everyone now.
- Assumptions about who will stick around to work on a system or software are meaningless. Staff quit, staff are RIFed, and staff are just an entity on the other end of an email with a contract working in Bulgaria or Pakistan.
What’s being lost with this attitude or mental framing? How about trust, reliability, consistency, and stability?
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2023
Are Bad Actors Working for Thrills?
December 27, 2022
Nope, some bad actors may be forced to participate in online criminal behavior. Threats, intimidation, a beating or two, or worse can focus some people to do what is required.
The person trying to swindle you online might be doing so under duress. “Cyber Criminals Hold Asian Tech Workers Captive in Scam Factories,” reports Context. The article begins with the story of Stephen Wesley, an Indian engineer who thought he was taking a graphic design job in Thailand. Instead he found himself carted off to Myanmar, relieved of his passport and phone, and forced to work up to 18 hours a day perpetuating crypto currency scams. This went on for 45 days, until he and about 130 others were rescued from such operations by Indian authorities. Reporters Anuradha Nagaraj and Nanchanok Wongsamuth reveal:
“Thousands of people, many with tech skills, have been lured by social media advertisements promising well-paid jobs in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, only to find themselves forced to defraud strangers worldwide via the internet. … The cybercrime rings first emerged in Cambodia, but have since moved into other countries in the region and are targeting more tech-savvy workers, including from India and Malaysia. Authorities in these countries and United Nations officials have said they are run by Chinese gangsters who control gambling across southeast Asia and are making up for losses during the pandemic lockdowns. The experts say the trafficked captives are held in large compounds in converted casinos in Cambodia, and in special economic zones in Myanmar and Laos. ‘The gangs targeted skilled, tech-savvy workers who had lost jobs during the pandemic and were desperate, and fell for these bogus recruitment ads,’ said Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch. ‘Authorities have been slow to respond, and in many cases these people are not being treated as victims of trafficking, but as criminals because they were caught up in these scams.'”
A long-game tactic typically used by these outfits is eloquently named “pig butchering,” wherein the operator builds trust with each victim through fake profiles on social media, messaging apps, and dating apps. Once the mark is hooked, the involuntary con artist pressures them to invest in phony crypto or trading schemes. Beware virtual suitors bearing unique investment opportunities.
Sadly, recent tech layoffs are bound to accelerate this trend. Bad actors are not going to pass up a chance to get talent cheaply. Myanmar’s current government, which seized power in February 2021, declined to comment. After months of denying the problem existed, we are told, Cambodian officials are finally cracking down on these operations. The article states thousands of workers are still trapped.
Business is business as the saying goes.
Cynthia Murrell, December 27, 2022
Google and Its Puzzles: Insiders Only, Please
December 26, 2022
ProPublica made available an article of some importance in my opinion. “Porn, Piracy, Fraud: What Lurks Inside Google’s Black Box Ad Empire” walks through the intentional, quite specific engineering of its crucial advertising system to maximize revenue and befuddle (is “defraud” a synonym?) advertisers. I was asked more than a decade ago to do a presentation of my team’s research into Google’s advertising methodology. I declined. At that time, I was doing some consulting work for a company I am not permitted to name. That contract stipulated that I would not talk about a certain firm’s business technologies. I signed because… money.
The ProPublica essay does the revealing about what is presented as a duplicitous, underhanded, and probably illegal business process subsystem. I don’t have to present any of the information I have gathered over the years. I can cite this important article and point out several rocks which the capable writers at ProPublica either did not notice or flipped them over and concluded, “Nah, nothing to see here.”
I urge you to do two things. First, read the ProPublica write up. Number Two: Print it out. My hunch is that it may be disappeared or become quite difficult to find at some point in the future. Why? Ah, grasshopper, that is a question easily answered by the managers who set up Foundem and who were stomped by Googzilla. Alternatively you could chase down a person at the French government tax authority and ask, “Why were French tax forms not findable via a Google search for several years.” These individuals might have the information you need. Shifting gears: Ask Magix, the software company responsible for Sony Vegas why cracks for the software appear in YouTube videos. If you use your imagination, you will come up with ideas for gathering first person information about the lovable online advertising company’s systems and methods. Hint: Look up Dr. Timnit Gebru and inquire about her interactions with one of Google chief scientists. I guarantee that a useful anecdote will bubble up.
So what’s in the write up. Let me highlight a main point and then cite a handful of interesting statements in the article.
What is the main point? In my opinion, ProPublica’s write up says, “The GOOG maximizes its return at the expense of the advertisers and of the users.”
Who knew? Not me. I think the Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind outfit is the most wonderfulest company in the world. Remember: You heard this here first. I have a priceless Google mouse pad too.
Consider these three statements from the essay. First, Google lingo is interesting:
Google spokesperson Michael Aciman said the company uses a combination of human oversight, automation and self-serve tools to protect ad buyers and said publisher confidentiality is not associated with abuse or low quality.
The idea is that Google is interested in using a hybrid method to protect ad buyers. Plus there is a difference between publishers and confidentiality. I find it interesting that instead of talking about [a] the ads themselves (porn, drugs, etc.), [b] the buyers of advertising which is a distinct industry dependent upon Google for revenue, [c] the companies who want to get their message in front of people allegedly interested in the product of service, or [d] the user of search or some other Google service. Google wants to “protect ad buyers.” And what about the others I have identified? Google doesn’t care. Logical sure but doesn’t Google have the other entities in mind? That’s a question regulators should have asked and had answered after Google settle the litigation with Yahoo over advertising technology, at the time of Google’s acquisition of Oingo (Applied Semantics), or at the time Google acquired DoubleClick. In my opinion, much of the ProPublica write up operates in a neverland of weird Google speak, not the reality of harvesting money from those largely in the dark about what’s happening in the business processes.
Second, consider this statement:
we matched 70% of the accounts in Google’s ad sellers list to one or more domains or apps, more than any dataset ProPublica is aware of. But we couldn’t find all of Google’s publisher partners. What we did find was a system so large, secretive and bafflingly complex that it proved impossible to uncover everyone Google works with and where it’s sending advertisers’ money.
The passage seems to suggest that Google’s engineers went beyond clever and ventured into the murky acreage of intentional obfuscation. It seems as if Google wanted to be able to consume advertising budgets without any entity having the ability to determine [a] if the ad were displayed in a suitable context; that is, did the advertiser’s message match the needs of the user to who the ad was shown. And [b] was the ad appropriate even if it contained words and phrases on Google’s unofficial stop word lists. (If you have not see these, send an email to benkent2020 at yahoo dot com and one of my team will email you some of the more interesting words that guarantee Google’s somewhat lax processes will definitely try to block. If a word is not on a Google stop list, then the messages will probably be displayed. Remember: As Google terminates six percent of its staff, some of those humans presumably will not be able to review ads per item one above. And [c] note the word “bafflingly”. The focus of much Google engineering over the last 15 years has been to build competitive barriers, extent the monopoly function with “partners”, and double talk in order to keep regulators and curious Congressional people away. That’s my take on this passage.
Now for the third passage I will cite:
…we uncovered scores of previously unreported peddlers of pirated content, porn and fake audiences that take advantage of Google’s lax oversight to rake in revenue.
I don’t need to say much more about this statement that look at and think about pirated content (copyright), porn (illegal content in some jurisdictions) and fake audiences (cyber fraud). Does this statement suggest that Google is a criminal enterprise? That’s a good question.
I have some high level observations about this excellent article in ProPublica. I offer these in the hope that ProPublica will explore some of these topics or an enterprising graduate student will consider the statements and do some digging.
- Why is Google unable to manage its staff? This is an important question because the ad behaviors described in the ProPublica article are the result of executive compensation plans and incentives. Are employees rewarded for implementing operations that further “soft” fraud or worse?
- How will Google operate in a more fragmented, more regulated environment? Is one possible behavior a refusal to modify the guiding hand of compensation and incentive programs away from generating more and more money within external constraints? My hunch is that Google will do whatever is necessary to build its revenue.
- What mechanisms exist or will be implemented to keep Google’s automated systems operating in a legal, ethical way?
Net net: Finally, after decades of craziness about how wonderful Googzilla is, more critical research is appearing. Is it too little and too late? In my view, yes.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2022
Microsoft Software Quality: Word Might Stop Working. No Big Deal
December 20, 2022
I read a short item which underscores my doubts about Microsoft’s quality methods. l have questions about security issues in Microsoft’s enterprise and cloud products and services. But those are mostly “new” and the Big Hope for future revenues. Perhaps games will arrive to make the Softies buy Teslas and beef up their retirement accounts, just not yet.
“Microsoft Confirms Taskbar Bugs, Broken File Explorer, and App Issues in Windows 10” reports:
If you use Windows 10, you might experience the following symptoms:
- ?The Weather or News and Interests widget or icons flickers on the Windows taskbar
- ?The Windows taskbar stops responding
- ?Windows Explorer stops responding
- ?Applications including Microsoft Word or Excel might stop responding if they are open when the issue occurs
The weather and news are no big loss in my opinion. Microsoft believes that Windows 10 users want weather and news despite the mobile phone revolution. (Remember Microsoft and its play to create a mobile phone? Yeah, that was spun as fail early and fail fast. I think of that initiative as a basic fail, not a fast or early fail. Plain old fail.)
The Taskbar and file manager are slightly more interesting. A number of routine functions go south for some lucky Windows 10 users.
But the zinger fail is that Microsoft Word or Excel die. Now that’s just what’s needed to make the day of a person who is working on a report at a so-so consulting firm like one of the blue-chip outfits in Manhattan, a newbie at a big law firm with former government officials waiting for the worker bees to deliver a document for the bushy eyebrow set to review, or a Wall Street type modifying a model to make his, her, thems partners lots of money.
These happy users are supposed to be able to handle stress and pressure.
I wonder if Microsoft executives have been in a consulting firm, law firm, or financial services company when a must have app stops responding. Probably not because these wizards are working on improving Microsoft’s quality control processes. Could Redmond’s approach to quality be blamed on an intern, a contractor, or a part time worker? My hunch is that getting blamed is not a component of the top dogs’ job description.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2022
Elephants Recognize One Another and When They Stomp Around, Grass Gets Trampled
December 1, 2022
I find the coverage of the Twitter, Apple, and Facebook hoe down a good example of self serving and possibly dysfunctional behavior.
What caught my attention in the midst of news about a Tim Apple and the Musker was this story “Zuckerberg Says Apple’s Policies Not Sustainable.” The write up reports as actual factual:
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday (November 30, 2022) added to the growing chorus of concerns about Apple, arguing that it’s “problematic that one company controls what happens on the device.” … Zuckerberg has been one of the loudest critics of Apple in Silicon Valley for the past two years. In the wake of Elon Musk’s attacks on Apple this week (third week of November 2022) , his concerns are being echoed more broadly by other industry leaders and Republican lawmakers….”I think the problem is that you get into it with the platform control, is that Apple obviously has their own interests…
Ah, Facebook with its interesting financial performance partially a result of Apple’s unilateral actions is probably not an objective observer. What about the Facebook Cambridge Analytic matter? Ancient history.
Much criticism is directed at the elected officials in the European Union for questioning the business methods of American companies. The interaction of Apple, Facebook, and Twitter will draw more attention to the management methods, the business procedures, and the motivation behind some words and deeds.
If I step back from the flood of tweets, Silicon Valley “real” news, and oracular (possibly self congratulatory write ups from conference organizers) what do I see:
- Activities illustrating what happens in a Wild West business environment
- Personalities looming larger than the ethical issues intertwined with their revenue generation methods
- Regulatory authorities’ inaction creating genuine concern among users, business partners, and employees.
Elephants can stomp around. Even when the beasts mean well, their sheer size puts smaller entities at risk. The shenanigans of big creatures are interesting. Are these creatures of magnitude sustainable or a positive for the datasphere? My view? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, December 1, 2022
Pixel and Emergency Number Dialing: Is Google Leaving Money on the Table?
November 25, 2022
I read “Very Scary Issue Dialing 911 on Google Pixel 6 Cell Phones.” The write up may not be representative because it relates data from an undefined sample. The assertion in the write up is:
Some cell phone users say they had an issue dialing 911 from their Google Pixel 6 models.
HackerNews presented a discussion thread. I found some interesting comments in the document which is located at this link. Here are several I found suggestive:
- Crooked-v offered this observation and opinion: An update is not arriving for the Pixel 6 yet. Google’s newest flagship is going though a bit of an update crisis at the moment. The December 2021 update was pulled due to unrelated “mobile connectivity issues” (phone calls don’t work). While Google scrambles to fix everything, the next Pixel 6 update with this 911 fix is due in “late January.” Until then, it’s normal to be on the November patch. Both of Google’s “early January” and “late January” patch timelines seem incredibly slow for a bug that could cause users to literally die.
- DoingIsLearning posted: Not sure why they don’t say it by name but the bug was originally found with MS Teams. “The issue is the result of an “unintended interaction” between Teams and Android, specifically when the users have the app installed but are not logged in to any account.”
- Simfree asserts: I don’t think this is newsworthy at this point. My Pixel 6 and Pixel 7 both are unreliable when trying to call 911, calling with an over the top app or dialing the PSAP’s number directly are the only workarounds. Google doesn’t give a f*%k about this issue. I have filed repeated support cases over the past year with Google about this when using T-Mobile or Verizon.
- yreg added: “It’s the users who are wrong” ideology applies when you tell the customers they are holding the iPhone 4 wrong. Or when you ask them whether they don’t have phones when you reveal the next Diablo as mobile-only. No company would argue that users are wrong and that they are not supposed to dial emergency services.
I recall a comment possibly by Google wizard Eric Schmidt along the lines that when a person has nothing to hide, there is no need to worry about surveillance” or something similar.
This can be applied to non functional emergency call features; for example, Avoid risk and you won’t have to call an emergency number.”
My view is that ad-centric companies should facilitate, intercept, and ad match emergency calls. The revenue from ad sales to emergency medical services, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, among others is money left on the table.
Google may be slipping.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2022
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
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
