Intellectual Cohesiveness: A Reading List
March 30, 2021
Why do liberal arts graduates struggle to understand the logic of a Facebook-type engineer or a Google-like wizard or the demeanor of a Twitter-like senior manager? Easy. The reading list for engineers includes books about math, physics, and programming. The well-rounded humanoid educated in the currents of Western culture read other books. Which other books? I am delighted you asked. You can find a list of the 1,138,841 most frequently assigned texts. Just click this link and view the Open Syllabus Galaxy. Yes, the diagram is not a list. Listicles are not popular with some of the thumbtypers, so behold a visualization.
Let’s return to the notion of intellectual cohesiveness, shall we? In order to build a shared knowledge base, educated individuals should have some familiarity with the most assigned college texts. That way, when someone references Napoleon and a winter walk, the others engaged in the conversation will know that the little emperor did skipped a lesson about winter in Eastern Europe.
Without a shared knowledge base, it is difficult to know what the other person is talking about. For a recent example, consider the questioning of big tech’s luminaries by the oh, so wise elected officials.
One observation. A person assigned a book to read does not guarantee that the book was read.
Cohesiveness must be obtained in some other way in our zip zip world I think.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30, 2021
Section 230: Just Flip the Regulation of Big Tech Around
March 30, 2021
I read “No One Agrees on How to Fix Big Tech.” The main point seems to be embodied in this quote from the article attributed to an elected US official:
The time for self-regulation is over. It’s time we legislate to hold you accountable.
Let’s look at the need for regulation in a different way.
Big tech is more democratic than some other systems. Big tech’s users are voting on its value, viability, and virtue with each click. Elected officials and the historical laws are essentially out of step with what people want.
The write up asserts:
You could suggest that each company’s statement on s230 is a reflection of their general values and attitude. Facebook wants to tweak the law to potentially weaken competitors, Google is hoping not to make waves, but won’t shout for the status quo too loudly, while Twitter is already mentally elsewhere. Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, Pichai and Dorsey, none of those positions are likely to sate politicians who understand that something needs to change, but aren’t sure what.
Another view is that big tech is a manifestation of the “new” democracy. The organizations are nation states, have support, and operate above the no longer meaningful laws of historical artifices.
It is increasingly clear that it is a thumbtyping world. Self regulation is not needed when the constituents vote to keep big tech in office.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30, 2021
Real News: Perhaps One Should Refine Real As Content Warranted by Existential Phenomena?
February 26, 2021
I got a kick out of the allegedly accurate story about “real” news outfits’ information. The story is called “Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat Participated in Covert UK Foreign Office-Funded Programs to Weaken Russia, Leaked Docs Reveal.” I want to remind you, gentle reader, that Reuters’ news stories carry this footer: Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. Years ago at a conference in London, a representative of the Beeb explained to me that its online behavior was governed by its Code of Conduct, which states:
OUR VALUES
We don’t just focus on what we do – we also care how we do it. So we have six values that everyone across the BBC shares. They’re what we expect from ourselves and each other. These values aren’t just words. We use them to guide our day-to-day decisions and the way we behave when we’re working with other people.
(I just heard chords from Mozart’s Requiem, did you?) And Bellingcat? A fine outfit lacking only taglines with the word “trust” and the rather thin code of conduct thing with a dead link to the “actual” code.
The write up reports in somber tones:
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have sponsored Reuters and the BBC to conduct a series of covert programs aimed at promoting regime change inside Russia and undermining its government across Eastern Europe and Central Asia… The leaked materials show the Thomson Reuters Foundation and BBC Media Action participating in a covert information warfare campaign aimed at countering Russia. Working through a shadowy department within the UK FCO known as the Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD), the media organizations operated alongside a collection of intelligence contractors in a secret entity known simply as “the Consortium.”
Let’s assume that the content in the source materials is spot on. Several observations are warranted:
- The method seems like something from a Brian Freemantle novel. Perhaps the source?
- Are the notions of “trust” and “codes of conduct” appear to be marketing yip yap?
- What constitutes real news: Fake news from real outfits or real news from leaked documents?
Interesting story if accurate.
Stephen E Arnold, February 26, 2021
McKinsey: MBAs Are a Fascinating Group to Observe
February 5, 2021
Watching blue chip consulting firms is more enjoyable than visiting a zoo. Here’s a good example of the entertainment value of individuals who strive to apply logic to business. Logic is definitely good, right?
“AP Source: McKinsey to Pay $573M for Role in Opioid Crisis” explains that the McKinsey wizards somehow became involved in the “opioid crisis.” Crisis is self explanatory because most people have been ensnared in the Covid Rona thing. But opioid is difficult to appreciate. Think of addiction, crime, prostitution, trashed families, abandoned children, etc. You get the idea.
How could a blue chip consulting firm become involved in crimes which do not appear in the McKinsey collateral, on its Web site, or in its presentations to potential and current clients?
The write up says in the manner of “real” news outfits:
The global business consulting firm McKinsey & Company has agreed to a $573 million settlement over its role in advising companies on how to “supercharge” opioid sales amid an overdose crisis…
I interpret this to mean that the MBAs used their expertise to incentivize those in the legal pharma chain to move product. “Moving product” is a phrase used by narcotics dealers and MBAs alike, I believe.
The “real” news item reports:
McKinsey provided documents used in legal proceedings regarding OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, including some that describe its efforts to help the company try to “supercharge” opioid sales in 2013, as reaction to the overdose crisis was taking a toll on prescribing. Documents made public in Purdue proceedings last year include include emails among McKinsey.
A wonderful engagement until it wasn’t. Blue chip consulting firms like to write checks to those who generate billable hours. My understanding is that writing checks for unbillable work irritates partners who expect bonuses and adulation for their business acumen.
An allegation of “supercharging” addictive products and producing the secondary effects itemize by me in paragraph two of this post is a bit of a negative. Even worse, the desired secondary effect like a zippy new Porsche conjured up on the Porsche Car Configurator, a position in a new investment fund, or a nice house and land in New Zealand does not arrive.
No word on jail time, but there’s a new administration now. The prostitution, child abandonment, and crime issues may become more consequential now.
Will this become a Harvard case? Who am I kidding? McKinsey in numero uno. Do los narcotraficantes operate with McKinsey’s acumen, logic, and efficiency. Good question.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2021
Security Vendors: Despite Marketing Claims for Smart Software Knee Jerk Response Is the Name of the Game
December 16, 2020
Update 3, December 16, 2020 at 1005 am US Eastern, the White House has activate its cyber emergency response protocol. Source: “White House Quietly Activates Cyber Emergency Response” at Cyberscoop.com. The directive is located at this link and verified at 1009 am US Eastern as online.
Update 2, December 16, 2020 at 1002 am US Eastern. The Department of Treasury has been identified as a entity compromised by the SolarWinds’ misstep. Source: US “Treasury, Commerce Depts. Hacked through SolarWinds Compromise” at KrebsonSecurity.com
Update 1, December 16, 2020, at 950 am US Eastern. The SolarWinds’ security misstep may have taken place in 2018. Source: “SolarWinds Leaked FTP Credentials through a Public GitHub Repo “mib-importer” Since 2018” at SaveBreach.com
I talked about security theater in a short interview/conversation with a former CIA professional. The original video of that conversation is here. My use of the term security theater is intended to convey the showmanship that vendors of cyber security software have embraced for the last five years, maybe more. The claims of Dark Web threat intelligence, the efficacy of investigative software with automated data feeds, and Bayesian methods which inoculate a client from bad actors— maybe this is just Madison Avenue gone mad. On the other hand, maybe these products and services don’t work particularly well. Maybe these products and services are anchored in what bad actors did yesterday and are blind to the here and now of dudes and dudettes with clever names?
Evidence of this approach to a spectacular security failure is documented in the estimable Wall Street Journal (hello, Mr. Murdoch) and the former Ziff entity ZDNet. Numerous online publications have reported, commented, and opined about the issue. One outfit with a bit of first hand experience with security challenges (yes, I am thinking about Microsoft) reported “SolarWinds Says Hack Affected 18,000 Customers, Including Two Major Government Agencies.”
One point seems to be sidestepped in the coverage of this “concern.” The corrective measures kicked in after the bad actors had compromised and accessed what may be sensitive data. Just a mere 18,000 customers were affected. Who were these “customers”? The list seems to have been disappeared from the SolarWinds’ Web site and from the Google cache. But Newsweek, an online information service, posted this which may, of course, be horse feathers (sort of like security vendors’ security systems?):
Google Issues Apology To Timnit Gebru
December 15, 2020
Timnit Gebru is one of the world’s leading experts on AI ethics. She formerly worked at Google, where she assembled one of the most diverse Google Brain research teams. Google decided to fire her after she refused to rescind a paper she wrote concerning about risks deploying large language models. Venture Beat has details in the article: “Timnit Gebru: Google’s ‘Dehumanizing’ Memo Paints Me As An Angry Black Woman” and The Global Herald has an interview with Gebru: “Firing Backlash Led To Google CEO Apology: Timnit Gebru.”
Gebru states that the apology was not meant for her, but for the reactions Google received from the fallout of her firing. Gebru’s entire community of associates and friends stay behind her stance of not rescinding her research. She holds her firing up as an example of corporate censorship of unflattering research as well as sexism and racism.
Google painted Gebru as a stereotypical angry black woman and used her behavior as an excuse for her termination. I believe Gebru’s firing has little to do with racism and sexism. Google’s response has more to do with getting rid of an noncompliant cog in their machine, but in order to oust Gebru they relied on stereotypical means and gaslighting.
Google’s actions are disgusting. Organizations treat all types of women and men like this so they can save face and remove unsavory minions. Gaslighting is a typical way for organizations to downplay their bad actions and make the whistleblower the villain.
Gebru’s unfortunate is typical for many, but she offered this advice:
“What I want these women to know is that it’s not in your head. It’s not your fault. You are amazing, and do not let the gaslighting stop you. I think with gaslighting the hardest thing is there’s repercussions for speaking up, but there’s also shame. Like a lot of times people feel shame because they feel like they brought it upon themselves somehow.”
There are better options out there for Gebru and others in similar situations. Good luck to Gebru and others like her!
Whitney Grace, December 15, 2020
Google Allegedly Sucking User Data: Some Factoids from the Taylor Legal Filing
November 16, 2020
I read the legal filing by Taylor et al v. Google. The case is related to Google’s use of personal data for undisclosed reasons without explicit user permission to consume the user’s bandwidth on a mobile network. You can download the 23 page legal document from this link, courtesy of The Register, a UK online information service. Here’s a rundown a few of the factoids in the document which I found interesting:
- Google’s suck hundreds of megabytes of data is characterized as a “dirty little secret.” Hundreds of megabytes of data does not seem to me to be “little.”
- Google allegedly conducts “passive information transfers which are not initiated by any action of the user and are performed without their knowledge.” I think this means taking data surreptitiously.
- Taking the data uses for fee network connections. I think this means that the user foots the bill for the data sucking.
- Android has a 54.4 percent of the US smartphone market.
- The volume of data “transferred” is about nine megabytes per 24 hours when an Android device is stationary and not in active use.
This graphic appears in the filing on page 11:
The big bar shows Google’s data sucking compared to Apple’s.
The document states:
Google has concealed its misappropriate of Plaintiffs’ cellular data.
I wonder if Google’s senior executives are aware of what the Android phones are allegedly doing. Google was not aware of a number of employee activities, most recently the leak of ideas for thwarting EU regulators.
Is this another example of entitlement management; that is, acting in a manner of a high school science club confident in its superiority over lesser mortals?
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2020
Amazon Twitch: Inappropriate Behavior? Shocking
October 19, 2020
Gamers are stereotypically portrayed as immature, racist, sexist, and antisocial males. There is truth behind this stereotype, because many gamers are immature, racist, sexist, and antisocial males, but it does not speak for the entire community. The problem with this gamer “archetype” is that the industry does not fall from from this image.
The newest gaming company to be called out for inappropriate behavior is video streaming platform Twitch. GamesIndustry.biz has the scoop on Twitch’s poor behavior in the article: “Twitch Staff Call The Company Out On Sexual Assault, Racism, More.”
The Twitch CEO Emmett Shear denounced inappropriate behavior and demanded industry wide change. Despite this supportive bravado, Shear’s company has its own share of poor actions. GamesIndustry.biz interviewed former Twitch employees for the article on the condition they remain anonymous. The stories at Twitch echo many toxic workplace stories, but one of the saddest recollections comes from a former HR representative:
“ ‘I’d seen many people go to HR and HR ultimately would not resolve things in favor of the complainant,’ they said. ‘They weren’t a source of support for employees. If anything, they just worked to minimize the complaining person and their complaint. They were always in favor of and working for the person with the most power.’”
Since Twitch began as Justin.tv, abusive behavior has run rampant. Women were not the only victims, ethnic minorities were frequent targets as were LGTBQA members. The problem resides in the typical bro culture atmosphere, where misogyny and racism are deemed as okay. Victim blaming is another aspect of Twitch’s toxic workplace as well as the demand to make more money.
Most, if not all, of these incidents were KOed, because Twitch did not want to lose face or revenue opportunities. Many of the perpetrators were leaders or held important company roles, so they could get away with anything. The company as a whole is a black mark on the gaming industry, but individual employees demonstrated humanity:
“It should be noted that several people we talked to spoke highly of Twitch staffers helping vulnerable co-workers, streamers, or viewers, but all were seen to be acting as individuals going above and beyond rather than acting at the behest of the company or in their role as Twitch employees.”
Twitch’s company culture might have changed since its beginning, but many of the perpetrators still hold leadership roles.
Things might be changing slowly in Silicon Valley as people demand accountability and better work environments. In the meantime, potential victims please do what you can to stay safe. Twitch is Amazon after all.
Whitney Grace, October 19, 2020
Financial Crime: Business As Usual?
September 22, 2020
DarkCyber noted “HSBC Moved Vast Sums of Dirty Money after Paying Record Laundering Fine.” The article makes clear that banks do what banks do: Move money. Why? To make money, earn bonuses, and become a master of the banking universe.
Is anyone surprised? The authors of the write up seem to be. We noted this passage:
The FinCEN Files investigation found that HSBC’s highly profitable branch in Hong Kong played a key role in keeping the dirty money flowing. Although providing only a partial view of HSBC’s suspicious activity reports, the records show that between 2013 and 2017, HSBC’s U.S. compliance staff, who are charged with monitoring customer activity, filed reports lacking crucial customer information on 16 shell companies that had processed nearly $1.5 billion in more than 6,800 transactions through the bank’s Hong Kong operations alone. More than $900 million of that total involved shell companies linked to alleged criminal networks…
Institutions have processes. Once processes kick in, the paper pushing and the employees keep the wheels turning. The “work” is following the “rules” in order to complete tasks. Changing work processes in a large organization is difficult, often impossible. Quibi makes videos few watch. Facebook sells targeted ads across borders based on free flowing data. Successful organizations are successful because individuals find ways to generate profit from tasks others find giant money losers.
The write up hits the problem right between the eyes, stating:
Compliance officers said that the bank did not give them enough time to meaningfully investigate suspicious transactions and that branches outside the U.S. often ignored requests for crucial customer information. They said they were treated as a second-class workforce within the bank, with little power to shut down problematic accounts.
The exposition about the HSBC big bank is a reminder that institutions are, supercharged with online systems, smart software, and people who follow prescribed work procedures. In these efficient organizations, making money is the driver.
Regulators, compliance officers, and employees are unable to take meaningful action. Is it a surprise that “The Risk Makers: Viral Hate, Election Interference, and Hacked Accounts: Inside the Tech Industry’s Decades-Long Failure to Reckon with Risk” reaches an obvious conclusion: Money is the driver.
Consider the question, “What’s gone wrong?”
The answer is, “Nothing.” The system is what regulators, employees, and people want it seems.
Observations:
- A new definition of “crime” may be needed to embrace the reality of institutional behavior
- Regulatory authorities struggle to deal with corporate entities which are more impactful than governments
- Individuals appear willing to skirt social norms in order to feather their nest and craft a life outside of certain institutions.
Intriguing challenges for the institutions, their employees, and the governments charged with enforcing rules, laws, and mandated behaviors.
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2020
Palantir: Planning Ahead
September 4, 2020
I read “In Amended Filing, Palantir Admits It Won’t Have Independent Board Governance for Up to a Year.” The legal tap dancing is semi-interesting. Palantir wants money and control. I understand that motive. The company — despite its sudden interest in becoming a cowboy — has Silicon Valley roots.
What’s fascinating is that the company was founded in 2004, although I have seen references to 2003. No big deal. Just a detail. The key point is that the company has been talking about an initial public offering for years.
The write up explains that after submitting an S-1 form to the Securities & Exchange Commission, Palantir submitted a revised or amended S-1. For a firm which provides intelware and policeware to government agencies, planning and getting one’s ducks in a row seem to be important attributes.
Did Palantir just dash off the first S-1 at Philz Coffee? Then did some bright young stakeholder say, “Yo, dudes, we need to make sure we keep control. You know like the Zuck.”
After 16 years in business and burning through a couple of tractor trailers filled with cash, it seems untoward to submit a revision hard on the heels of an SEC S-1 filing.
Careless, disorganized, or what the French call l’esprit d’escalier strikes me as telling.
Observations:
- The resubmission suggests carelessness and flawed management processes
- The action raises the question, “Are these Silicon Valley cowboys getting desperate for an exist?”
- For a low profile outfit engaged in secret work for some of its clients, public actions increase the scrutiny on a company which after a decade and a half is not profitable.
Interesting behavior from from Palantirians. Did the seeing stone suffer a power outage?
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
