FOGINT: Crypto Is a Community Builder
November 9, 2024
CreationNetwork.ai: A One-Stop Shop for All Your Digital Needs. And Crypto, Too!
Here is an interesting development. “CreationNetwork.ai Emerges As a Leading AI-Powered Platform, Integrating Over Twenty Two Tools,” reports HackerNoon. The AI aggregator uses Telegram plus other social media to push its service. Furthermore, the company is integrating crypto into its business plan. We expect these “blending” plays will become more common. The Chainwire press release says about this one:
“As an all-in-one solution for content creation, e-commerce, social media management, and digital marketing, CreationNetwork.ai combines 22+ proprietary AI-powered tools and 29+ platform integrations to deliver the most extensive digital ecosystem available. … CreationNetwork.ai’s suite of tools spans every facet of digital engagement, equipping users with powerful AI technologies to streamline operations, engage audiences, and optimize performance. Each tool is meticulously designed to enhance productivity and efficiency, making it easy to create, manage, and analyze content across multiple channels.”
See the write-up for a list of the tools included in CreationNetwork.ai, from AI Copywriter to Team-Powered Branding. The hefty roster of platform connections is also specified, including obvious players: all the major social media platforms, the biggest e-commerce platforms, and content creation tools like Canva, Grammarly, Adobe Express, Unsplash, and Dropbox. We learn:
“One of the most distinguishing features of CreationNetwork.ai is its extensive integration network. With over 29 integrations, users can synchronize their digital activities across major social media, e-commerce, and content platforms, providing centralized management and engagement capabilities. … This integration network empowers users to manage their brand presence across platforms from a single, unified dashboard, significantly enhancing efficiency and reach.”
Nifty. What a way to simplify digital processes for users. And to make it harder for new services to break into the market. But what groundbreaking platform would be complete without its own cryptocurrency? The write-up states:
“In preparation for its Initial Coin Offering (ICO), CreationNetwork.ai is launching a $750,000 CRNT Token Airdrop to reward early supporters and incentivize participation in the CreationNetwork.ai ecosystem. Qualified participants can secure their position by following CreationNetwork.ai’s social media accounts and completing the whitelist form available on the official website. This initiative highlights CreationNetwork.ai’s commitment to building a strong, engaged community.”
Crypto — The community builder.
Cynthia Murrell, November 11, 2024
Let Them Eat Cake or Unplug: The AI Big Tech Bro Effect
November 7, 2024
I spotted a news item which will zip right by some people. The “real” news outfit owned by the lovable Jeff Bezos published “As Data Centers for AI Strain the Power Grid, Bills Rise for Everyday Customers.” The write up tries to explain that AI costs for electric power are being passed along to regular folks. Most of these electricity dependent people do not take home paychecks with tens of millions of dollars like the Nadellas, the Zuckerbergs, or the Pichais type breadwinners do. Heck, these AI poohbahs think about buying modular nuclear power plants. (I want to point out that these do not exist and may not for many years.)
The article is not going to thrill the professionals who are experts on utility demand and pricing. Those folks know that the smart software poohbahs have royally screwed up some weekends and vacations for the foreseeable future.
The WaPo article (presumably blessed by St. Jeffrey) says:
The facilities’ extraordinary demand for electricity to power and cool computers inside can drive up the price local utilities pay for energy and require significant improvements to electric grid transmission systems. As a result, costs have already begun going up for customers — or are about to in the near future, according to utility planning documents and energy industry analysts. Some regulators are concerned that the tech companies aren’t paying their fair share, while leaving customers from homeowners to small businesses on the hook.
Okay, typical “real” journospeak. “Costs have already begun going up for customers.” Hey, no kidding. The big AI parade began with the January 2023 announcement that the Softies were going whole hog on AI. The lovable Google immediately flipped into alert mode. I can visualize flashing yellow LEDs and faux red stop lights blinking in the gray corridors in Shoreline Drive facilities if there are people in those offices again. Yeah, ghostly blinking.
The write up points out, rather unsurprisingly:
The tech firms and several of the power companies serving them strongly deny they are burdening others. They say higher utility bills are paying for overdue improvements to the power grid that benefit all customers.
Who wants PEPCO and VEPCO to kill their service? Actually, no one. Imagine life in NoVa, DC, and the ever lovely Maryland without power. Yikes.
From my point of view, informed by some exposure to the utility sector at a nuclear consulting firm and then at a blue chip consulting outfit, here’s the scoop.
The demand planning done with rigor by US utilities took a hit each time the Big Dogs of AI brought more specialized, power hungry servers online and — here’s the killer, folks — and left them on. The way power consumption used to work is that during the day, consumer usage would fall and business/industry usage would rise. The power hogging steel industry was a 24×7 outfit. But over the last 40 years, manufacturing has wound down and consumer demand crept upwards. The curves had to be plotted and the demand projected, but, in general, life was not too crazy for the US power generation industry. Sure, there were the costs associated with decommissioning “old” nuclear plants and expanding new non-nuclear facilities with expensive but management environmental gewgaws, gadgets, and gizmos plugged in to save the snail darters and the frogs.
Since January 2023, demand has been curving upwards. Power generation outfits don’t want to miss out on revenue. Therefore, some utilities have worked out what I would call sweetheart deals for electricity for AI-centric data centers. Some of these puppies suck more power in a day than a dying city located in Flyover Country in Illinois.
Plus, these data centers are not enough. Each quarter the big AI dogs explain that more billions will be pumped into AI data centers. Keep in mind: These puppies run 24×7. The AI wolves have worked out discount rates.
What do the US power utilities do? First, the models have to be reworked. Second, the relationships to trade, buy, or “borrow” power have to be refined. Third, capacity has to be added. Fourth, the utility rate people create a consumer pricing graph which may look like this:
Guess who will pay? Yep, consumers.
The red line is the prediction for post-AI electricity demand. For comparison, the blue line shows the demand curve before Microsoft ignited the AI wars. Note that the gray line is consumer cost or the monthly electricity bill for Bob and Mary Normcore. The nuclear purple line shows what is and will continue to happen to consumer electricity costs. The red line is the projected power demand for the AI big dogs.
The graph shows that the cost will be passed to consumers. Why? The sweetheart deals to get the Big Dog power generation contracts means guaranteed cash flow and a hurdle for a low-ball utility to lumber over. Utilities like power generation are not the Neon Deions of American business.
There will be hand waving by regulators. Some city government types will argue, “We need the data centers.” Podcasts and posts on social media will sprout like weeds in an untended field.
Net net: Bob and Mary Normcore may have to decide between food and electricity. AI is wonderful, right.
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024
Google: The Intellectual Oakland Because There Is No There There, Just Ads
November 7, 2024
The post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.
I read a clever essay titled “I Attended Google’s Creator Conversation Event, And It Turned Into A Funeral.” Be aware that the text can disappear as a big gray box covers the essay. Just read quickly.
The report explains that a small group of problematic content creators found their sites or other content effectively made invisible in Google search results. Boom. Videos disappear. Boom. Key words no longer retrieve a Web site. So Google did the politically correct thing and got a former conference organizer to round up some of the disaffected and come to a meeting to discuss content getting disappeared. No real reasons are given by Google, but the essay recounts the experience on one intrepid optimist who thought, “This time Google will be different.”
A very professional Googler evades a question. A person in the small group meeting asks it again. She is not happy with Google’s evasiveness. Well, too bad. Thanks, Midjourney. MSFT Copilot is still dead.
Nope.
The write up does a good job of capturing the nothingness of a Google office. If you have not been to one, try to set up a meeting. Good luck.
I want to focus on a couple of points in the essay and then offer a handful of observations.
I noted this statement:
During this small group discussion, I and others tried to get our Googlers to address the biggest problem facing our industry: Google giving big brands special treatment. Each time a site owner brought up the topic, we were quickly steered in another direction.
Google wants or assumes that it is control of everything most of the time. Losing control means one is not a true Googler. The people at this Google event learned that non-Googlers and their questions are simply not relevant. Google goes through certain theatrical events to check off a task.
Also, I circled this comment:
…we then asked the only question that mattered: Why has Google shadow banned our sites? Google’s Chief Search Scientist answered this question using a strategy based around gaslighting and said they hadn’t. Google doesn’t ever derank an entire site, only individual pages, he said. There is no site-wide classifier. He insisted it is only done at the page level.
This statement is accurate. A politically correct answer is one that does not reveal Google’s intent for anything. Individuals in charge of a project or program usually do not know what is going on with that program. Information is shared via the in house communications systems, email or text messages which are viewed as potential problems if released to those outside the Google, and meetings which are often ad hoc or without an agenda. The company sells advertising and reacts to what appear to be threats, legal actions, or ways to make money.
I noted this statement:
someone bluntly asked, since nothing is wrong with our sites, how do we recover? Google’s elderly Chief Search Scientist answered, without an ounce of pity or concern, that there would be updates but he didn’t know when they’d happen or what they’d do. Further questions on the subject were met with indifference as if he didn’t understand why we cared. He’d gotten the information he wanted. The conference was over. I don’t think he even said thanks.
This is accurate. Why should a member of leadership care about a “user”? Clicks produce data. The data and attendant content are processed to make more money. That’s why customer service is limited to big budget advertisers who spend real money on Google advertising.
Several observations:
- Google is big (150,000 or more employees). Google is chaotic. Individuals, groups, and entire divisions are not sure what is going on. How many messaging apps did Google have at one time? Lots. Why? No one knows or knew. The people coming to the meeting about finding themselves invisible in the Google finding systems assumed that a big company was not chaotic. Now the attendees know.
- People who create content have replaced people who used to get paid to create content. Now the “creators” work for the hope of Google advertising money. What’s the percentage paid to a “creator”? Try to find those data, gentle reader. Google does what it does: Individual Googlers or a couple of Googlers set up a system and go to play Foosball. That means 149,998 colleagues have zero idea what’s happening. Content “creators” expect someone to be responsible and to know how systems work. The author of the essay now knows only a couple of people may know the answer to the question. If those people quit, one will never know.
- The people who use Google to find relevant information are irrelevant as individuals. The person who wants to find a pizza in Cleveland may find only the pizza a person working on Google Local for Cleveland may like. If that pizza joint spends a couple of thousand per month on Google ads, that pizza may be findable. Most people do not understand the linkages between search engine optimization, Google advertising sales, and the Google mostly automated Google ad auctioning system. One search engineer working from home can have quite an impact on people who make content and assume that Google will make it findable. The author of the article knows this assumption about Google is a fairy tale.
Google has be labeled a monopoly. Google is suggesting that if the company is held accountable for its behaviors, the US will lose its foothold in artificial intelligence. Brilliant argument. Google has employees who have won a Nobel Prize. People not held accountable often lose sight of many things.
That’s why the big meeting was dumped into the task list of a person who ran search engine optimization conferences. One does not pray for that individual; one does not go to meetings managed by such a professional.
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024
Hey, US Government, Listen Up. Now!
November 5, 2024
This post is the work of a dinobaby. If there is art, accept the reality of our using smart art generators. We view it as a form of amusement.
Microsoft on the Issues published “AI for Startups.” The write is authored by a dream team of individuals deeply concerned about the welfare of their stakeholders, themselves, and their corporate interests. The sensitivity is on display. Who wrote the 1,400 word essay? Setting aside the lawyers, PR people, and advisors, the authors are:
- Satya Nadella, Chairman and CEO, Microsoft
- Brad Smith, Vice-Chair and President, Microsoft
- Marc Andreessen, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
- Ben Horowitz, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
Let me highlight a couple of passages from essay (polemic?) which I found interesting.
In the era of trustbusters, some of the captains of industry had firm ideas about the place government professionals should occupy. Look at the railroads. Look at cyber security. Look at the folks living under expressway overpasses. Tumultuous times? That’s on the money. Thanks, MidJourney. A good enough illustration.
Here’s the first snippet:
Artificial intelligence is the most consequential innovation we have seen in a generation, with the transformative power to address society’s most complex problems and create a whole new economy—much like what we saw with the advent of the printing press, electricity, and the internet.
This is a bold statement of the thesis for these intellectual captains of the smart software revolution. I am curious about how one gets from hallucinating software to “the transformative power to address society’s most complex problems and cerate a whole new economy.” Furthermore, is smart software like printing, electricity, and the Internet? A fact or two might be appropriate. Heck, I would be happy with a nifty Excel chart of some supporting data. But why? This is the first sentence, so back off, you ignorant dinobaby.
The second snippet is:
Ensuring that companies large and small have a seat at the table will better serve the public and will accelerate American innovation. We offer the following policy ideas for AI startups so they can thrive, collaborate, and compete.
Ah, companies large and small and a seat at the table, just possibly down the hall from where the real meetings take place behind closed doors. And the hosts of the real meeting? Big companies like us. As the essay says, “that only a Big Tech company with our scope and size can afford, creating a platform that is affordable and easily accessible to everyone, including startups and small firms.”
The policy “opportunity” for AI startups includes many glittering generalities. The one I like is “help people thrive in an AI-enabled world.” Does that mean universal basic income as smart software “enhances” jobs with McKinsey-like efficiency. Hey, it worked for opioids. It will work for AI.
And what’s a policy statement without a variation on “May live in interesting times”? The Microsoft a2z twist is, “We obviously live in a tumultuous time.” That’s why the US Department of Justice, the European Union, and a few other Luddites who don’t grok certain behaviors are interested in the big firms which can do smart software right.
Translation: Get out of our way and leave us alone.
Stephen E Arnold, November 5, 2024
Enter the Dragon: America Is Unhealthy
November 4, 2024
Written by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.
The YouTube video “A Genius Girl Who Is Passionate about Repairing Machines” presents a simple story in a 38 minute video. The idea is that a young woman with no help fixes a broken motorcycles with basic hand tools outside in what looks like a hoarder’s backyard. The message is: Wow, she is smart and capable. Don’t you wish you knew person like this who could repair your broken motorcycle.
This video is from @vutvtgamming and not much information is provided. After watching this and similar videos like “Genius Girl Restored The 280mm Lathe From 50 Years Ago And Made It Look Like”, I feel pretty stupid for an America dinobaby. I don’t think I can recall meeting a person with similar mechanical skills when I worked at Keystone Steel, Halliburton Nuclear, or Booz, Allen & Hamilton’s Design & Development division. The message I carried away was: I was stupid as were many people with whom I associated.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. (I slipped a put down through your filters. Imagine that!)
I picked up a similar vibe when I read “Today’s AI Ecosystem Is Unsustainable for Most Everyone But Nvidia, Warns Top Scholar.” On the surface, the ZDNet write up is an interview with the “scholar” Kai-Fu Lee, who, according to the article:
served as founding director of Microsoft Research Asia before working at Google and Apple, founded his current company, Sinovation Ventures, to fund startups such as 01.AI, which makes a generative AI search engine called BeaGo.
I am not sure how “scholar” correlates with commercial work for US companies and running an investment firm with a keen interest in Chinese start ups. I would not use the word “scholar.” My hunch is that the intent of Kai-Fu Lee is to present as simple and obvious something that US companies don’t understand. The interview is a different approach to explaining how advanced Kai-Fu Lee’s expertise is. He is, via this interview, sharing an opinion that the US is creating a problem and overlooking the simple solution. Just like the young woman able to repair a motorcycle or the lass fixing up a broken industrial lathe alone, the American approach does not get the job done.
What does ZDNet present as Kai-Fu Lee’s message. Here are a couple of examples:
“The ecosystem is incredibly unhealthy,” said Kai-Fu Lee in a private discussion forum earlier this month. Lee was referring to the profit disparity between, on the one hand, makers of AI infrastructure, including Nvidia and Google, and, on the other hand, the application developers and companies that are supposed to use AI to reinvent their operations.
Interesting. I wonder if the “healthy” ecosystem might be China’s approach of pragmatism and nuts-and-bolts evidenced in the referenced videos. The unhealthy versus healthy is a not-so-subtle message about digging one’s own grave in my opinion. The “economics” of AI are unhealthy, which seems to say, “America’s approach to smart software is going to kill it. A more healthy approach is the one in which government and business work to create applications.” Translating: China, healthy; America, sick as a dog.
Here’s another statement:
Today’s AI ecosystem, according to Lee, consists of Nvidia, and, to a lesser extent, other chip makers such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices. Collectively, the chip makers rake in $75 billion in annual chip sales from AI processing. “The infrastructure is making $10 billion, and apps, $5 billion,” said Lee. “If we continue in this inverse pyramid, it’s going to be a problem,” he said.
Who will flip the pyramid? Uganda, Lao PDR, Greece? Nope, nope, nope. The flip will take an outfit with a strong mind and body. A healthy entity is needed to flip the pyramid. I wonder if that strong entity is China.
Here’s Kai-Fu kung fu move:
He recommended that companies build their own vertically integrated tech stack the way Apple did with the iPhone, in order to dramatically lower the cost of generative AI. Lee’s striking assertion is that the most successful companies will be those that build most of the generative AI components — including the chips — themselves, rather than relying on Nvidia. He cited how Apple’s Steve Jobs pushed his teams to build all the parts of the iPhone, rather than waiting for technology to come down in price.
In the write up Kai-Fu Lee refers to “we”. Who is included in that we? Excluded will be the “unhealthy.” Who is left? I would suggest that the pragmatic and application focused will be the winners. The reason? The “we” includes the healthy entities. Once again I am thinking of China’s approach to smart software.
What’s the correct outcome? Kai-Fu Lee allegedly said:
What should result, he said, is “a smaller, leaner group of leaders who are not just hiring people to solve problems, but delegating to smart enterprise AI for particular functions — that’s when this will make the biggest deal.”
That sounds like the Chinese approach to a number of technical, social, and political challenges. Healthy? Absolutely.
Several observations:
- I wonder if ZDNet checked on the background of the “scholar” interviewed at length?
- Did ZDNet think about the “healthy” versus “unhealthy” theme in the write up?
- Did ZDNet question the “scholar’s” purpose in explaining what’s wrong with the US approach to smart software?
I think I know the answer. The ZDNet outfit and the creators of this unusual private interview believe that the young women rebuilt complicated devices without any assistance. Smart China; dumb America. I understand the message which seems to have not been internalized by ZDNet. But I am a dumb dinobaby. What do I know? Exactly. Unhealthy that American approach to AI.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2024
Great Moments in Marketing: MSFT Copilot, the Salesforce Take
November 1, 2024
A humanoid wrote this essay. I tried to get MSFT Copilot to work, but it remains dead. That makes four days with weird messages about a glitch. That’s the standard: Good enough.
It’s not often I get a kick out of comments from myth-making billionaires. I read through the boy wonder to company founder titled “An Interview with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff about AI Abundance.” No paywall on this essay, unlike the New York Times’ downer about smart software which appears to have played a part in a teen’s suicide. Imagine when Perplexity can control a person’s computer. What exciting stories will appear. Here’s an example of what may be more common in 2025.
Great moments in Salesforce marketing. A senior Agentforce executive considers great marketing and brand ideas of the past. Inspiration strikes. In 2024, he will make fun of Clippy. Yes, a 1995 reference will resonate with young deciders in 2024. Thanks, Stable Diffusion. You are working; MSFT Copilot is not.
The focus today is a single statement in this interview with the big dog of Salesforce. Here’s the quote:
Well, I guess it wasn’t the AGI that we were expecting because I think that there has been a level of sell, including Microsoft Copilot, this thing is a complete disaster. It’s like, what is this thing on my computer? I don’t even understand why Microsoft is saying that Copilot is their vision of how you’re going to transform your company with AI, and you are going to become more productive. You’re going to augment your employees, you’re going to lower your cost, improve your customer relationships, and fundamentally expand all your KPIs with Copilot. I would say, “No, Copilot is the new Clippy”, I’m even playing with a paperclip right now.
Let’s think about this series of references and assertions.
First, there is the direct statement “Microsoft Copilot, this thing is a complete disaster.” Let’s assume the big dog of Salesforce is right. The large and much loved company — Yes, I am speaking about Microsoft — rolled out a number of implementations, applications, and assertions. The firm caught everyone’s favorite Web search engine with its figurative pants down like a hapless Russian trooper about to be dispatched by a Ukrainian drone equipped with a variant of RTX. (That stuff goes bang.) Microsoft “won” a marketing battle and gained the advantage of time. Google with its Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act created an audience. Microsoft seized the opportunity to talk to the audience. The audience applauded. Whether the technology worked, in my opinion was secondary. Microsoft wanted to be seen as the jazzy leader.
Second, the idea of a disaster is interesting. Since Microsoft relied on what may be the world’s weirdest organizational set up and supported the crumbling structure, other companies have created smart software which surfs on Google’s transformer ideas. Microsoft did not create a disaster; it had not done anything of note in the smart software world. Microsoft is a marketer. The technology is a second class citizen. The disaster is that Microsoft’s marketing seems to be out of sync with what the PowerPoint decks say. So what’s new? The answer is, “Nothing.” The problem is that some people don’t see Microsoft’s smart software as a disaster. One example is Palantir, which is Microsoft’s new best friend. The US government cannot rely on Microsoft enough. Those contract renewals keep on rolling. Furthermore the “certified” partners could not be more thrilled. Virtually every customer and prospect wants to do something with AI. When the blind lead the blind, a person with really bad eyesight has an advantage. That’s Microsoft. Like it or not.
Third, the pitch about “transforming your company” is baloney. But it sounds good. It helps a company do something “new” but within the really familiar confines of Microsoft software. In the good old days, it was IBM that provided the cover for doing something, anything, which could produce a marketing opportunity or a way to add a bit pizazz to a 1955 Chevrolet two door 210 sedan. Thus, whether the AI works or does not work, one must not lose sight of the fact that Microsoft centric outfits are going to go with Microsoft because most professionals need PowerPoint and the bean counters do not understand anything except Excel. What strikes me as important that Microsoft can use modest, even inept smart software, and come out a winner. Who is complaining? The Fortune 1000, the US Federal government, the legions of MBA students who cannot do a class project without Excel, PowerPoint, and Word?
Finally, the ultimate reference in the quote is Clippy. Personally I think the big dog at Salesforce should have invoked both Bob and Clippy. Regardless of the “joke” hooked to these somewhat flawed concepts, the names “Bob” and “Clippy” have resonance. Bob rolled out in 1995. Clippy helped so many people beginning in the same year. Decades later Microsoft’s really odd software is going to cause a 20 something who was not born to turn away from Microsoft products and services? Nope.
Let’s sum up: Salesforce is working hard to get a marketing lift by making Microsoft look stupid. Believe me. Microsoft does not need any help. Perhaps the big dog should come up with a marketing approach that replicates or comes close to what Microsoft pulled off in 2023. Google still hasn’t recovered fully from that kung fu blow.
The big dog needs to up its marketing game. Say Salesforce and what’s the reaction? Maybe meh.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2024
FOGINT: ANKR and TON Hook Up
October 30, 2024
A humanoid wrote this essay. I tried to get MSFT Copilot to work, but it remains dead. That makes four days with weird messages about a glitch. That’s the standard: Good enough.
The buzzwords “DePIN” and “SNAS” may not be familiar to some cyber investigators. The first refers to an innovation which ANKR embraces. A DePIN is a decentralized physical infrastructure or a network of nodes. The nodes can be geographically distributed. Instead of residing on a physical server, virtualization makes the statement “We don’t know what’s on the hardware a customer licenses and configures.” There is no there there becomes more than a quip about Oakland, California. The SNAS is a consequence of DePIN-type architecture. The SNAS is a super network as a service. A customer can rent big bang systems and leave the hands on work to the ANKR team.
Why am I mentioning a start up operating in Romania?
The answer is that ANKR has cut a deal with The One Network Foundation. This entity was created after Telegram had its crypto plans derailed by the US Securities & Exchange Commission several years ago. The TONcoin is now “open” and part of the “open” One Network Foundation entity. TON, as of October 24, 2024, is directly accessible through ANKR’s Web3 API (application programming interface).
Telegram organization allows TONcoin to “run” on the Telegram blockchain via the Open Network Foundation based in Zug, Switzerland. The plumbing is Telegram; the public face of the company is the Zug outfit. With Mr. Durov’s remarkable willingness to modify how the company responds to law enforcement, there is pressure on the Telegram leadership to make TONcoin the revenue winner.
ANKR is an important tie up. It may be worth watching.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2024
FOGINT: Telegram Game Surfs on an Implied Link: Musk, X, Crypto Game
October 29, 2024
Written by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.
The FOGINT team spotted a report from Decrypt.com. The article is “Why ‘X Empire’ Telegram Players Are Complaining to Elon Musk About the Airdrop.” If you don’t recognize the Crypto and Telegram jargon, the information in the Decrypt article will not make much sense.
For crypto folks, the X Empire Telegram game is news. According to the cited article:
Telegram tap-to-earn game X Empire will launch its X token on The Open Network (TON) on Thursday, but its reveal of airdrop allocations has drawn complaints from players who say they were deemed ineligible for a share of the rewards. And some of them are telling Elon Musk about it.
From the point of view of Telegram, X Empire is another entrepreneur leveraging the Telegram platform. With each popular egame, Telegram edges closer to its objective of becoming a very important player in what may be viewed as a Web3 service provider. In fact, when the potential payoff from its crypto interests, the craziness of some of the Group and Channel controversies becomes less important to the company. In fact, the hope for a Telegram initial public offering pay day is more important than refusing to cooperate with law enforcement. Telegram is working to appease France. Pavel Durov wants to get back to the 2024 and beyond opportunity with the Telegram crypto activities.
What is interesting to the FOGINT team are these considerations:
- Telegram’s bots and crypto linkages provide an interesting way to move funds and befuddle investigators
- Telegram has traction among crypto entities in Southeast Asia, and innovators operating without minimal regulatory oversight can use Telegram to extend their often illegal interests quickly and in a novel way
- Telegram’s bots or automated software embody a form of workflow automation which does not require getting involved with high profile, closely monitored organizations.
FOGINT wants to point out that Elon Musk is not involved in the X Empire play. However, Decrypt’s article suggests that some game players are complaining directly to him about the “earned” token policy. This is not a deep fake play. X Empire is an example of identity or entity surfing.
Investigators can make sense of some blockchain centric criminal activities. But the emergence of in game tokens, Telegram’s own STAR token, and their integration within the Telegram platform creates a one-stop shop for online crypto activities. Cyber investigators face another challenge: The non-US, largely unregulated Telegram operating as a virtual company with an address in Dubai. France took a bold step in detaining Pavel Durov. How will he adapt? It is unlikely he will be able to resist the lure of a big payoff from the innovations embodied in the Telegram platform.
Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2024
Apple: Challenges Little and Bigly
October 28, 2024
Another post from a dinobaby. No smart software required except for the illustration.
At lunch yesterday (October 23, 2024), one of the people in the group had a text message with a long string of data. That person wanted to move the data from the text message into an email. The idea was copy a bit of ascii, put it in an email, and email the data to his office email account. Simple? He fiddled but could not get the iPhone to do the job. He showed me the sequence and when he went through the highlighting, the curly arrow, and the tap to copy, he was following the procedure. When he switched to email and pressed the text was not available. A couple of people tried to make this sequence of tapping and long pressing work. Someone handed the phone to me. I fooled around with it, asked the person to restart the phone, and went through the process. It took two tries but I got the snip of ASCII to appear in the email message. Yep, that’s the Apple iPhone. Everyone loves the way it works, except when it does not. The frustration the iPhone owner demonstrated illustrates the “good enough” approach to many functions in Apple’s and other firms’ software.
Will the normal course of events swamp this big time executive? Thanks, You.com. You were not creative, but you were good enough.
Why mention this?
Apple is a curious company. The firm has been a darling of cored fans, investors, and the MBA crowd. I have noted two actions related to Apple which suggest that the company may have a sleek exterior but the interior is different. Let’s look at these two recent developments.
The first item concerns what appear to be untoward behavior by Apple and those really good folks at Goldman Sachs. The Apple credit card received a statement showing that $89 million was due. The issue appears to be fumbling the ball with customers. For a well managed company, how does this happen? My view is that getting cute was not appreciated by some government authorities. A tiny mistake? Yes. The fine is miniscule compared to the revenue represented by the outstanding enterprises paying the fine. With small fines, have the Apple and Goldman Sachs professionals learned a lesson. Yes, get out of the credit card game. Other than that, I surmise that neither of the companies will veer from their game plans.
The second item is, from my point of view, a bit more interesting than credit cuteness. Apple, if the news report in the Washington Times, is close to the truth, is getting very comfortable with China. The basic idea is that Apple wants to invest in China. Is China the best friend forever of the US? I thought some American outfits were somewhat cautious with regard to their support of that nation state. Well, that does not appear to apply to China.
With the weird software, the credit card judgment, and the China love fest, we have three examples of a company operating in what I would describe as a fog of pragmatism. The copy paste issue makes clear that simplicity and attention to a common task on a widely used device is not important. The message for the iPhone is, “Figure out our way. Don’t even think about a meaningful, user centric change. Just upgrade and get the vapor of smart software.”
The message from the credit card judgment is, “Hey, we will do what we want. If there is a problem, send us a bill. We will continue to do what we want.” That shows me that Apple buys into the behavior pattern which makes Silicon Valley behavior the gold standard in management excellence.
My interpretation of the China-Apple BFF activity is that the policy of the US government is of little interest. Apple, like other large technology outfits, is effectively operating as a nation state. The company will do what it wants and let lawyer and PR people make the activity palatable.
I find it amusing that Apple appears to be reducing orders for its next big iPhone release. The market may be reaching a saturation point or the economic conditions in certain markets make lower cost devices more appealing. My own view is that the AI vapor spewed by Apple and other US companies is dissipating. Another utility function which does not work in a reliable way may not be enough.
Why not make copy paste more usable or is that a challenge beneath your vast aspirations?
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2024
Boring Technology Ruins Innovation: Go, Chaos!
October 25, 2024
Jonathan E. Magen is an experienced computer scientist and he writes a blog called Yonkeltron. He recently posted, “Boring Tech Is Stifling Improvement.” After a brief anecdote about highway repair that wasn’t hindered because of bureaucracy and the repair crew a new material to speed up the job, Magen got to thinking about the current state of tech.
He thinks it is boring.
Magen supports tech teams being allocated budgets to adopt old technology. The montage of “don’t fix what’s not broken” comes to mind, but sometimes newer is definitely better. He relates that it is problematic if tech teams have too much technology or solution, but there’s also the problem if the one-size-fits all solution no longer works. It’s like having a document that can only be opened by Microsoft Office and you don’t have the software. It’s called a monoculture with a single point of failure. Tech nerds and philosophers have names for everything!
Magen bemoans that a boring tech environment is a buzzkill. He then shares this “happy thoughts”:
“A second negative effect is the chilling of innovation. Creating a better way of doing things definitionally requires deviation from existing practices. If that is too heavily disincentivized by “engineering standards”, then people don’t feel they have enough freedom to color outside the lines here and there. Therefore, it chills innovation in company environments where good ideas could, conceivably, come from anywhere. Put differently, use caution so as not to silence your pioneers.
Another negative effect is the potential to cause stagnation. In this case, devotion to boring tech leads to overlooking better ways of doing things. Trading actual improvement and progress for “the devil you know” seems a poor deal. One of the main arguments in favor of boring tech is operability in the polycontext composed of predictability and repairability. Despite the emergence of Site Reliability Engineering (SRE), I think that this highlights a troubling industry trope where we continually underemphasize, and underinvest in, production operations.”
Necessity is the mother of invention, but boring is the killer of innovation. Bring on chaos.
Whitney Grace, October 25, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
