Standard Operating Procedure for High School Science Club Leaders?
March 14, 2022
Unfortunately the tech industry remains predominantly white and male. Tech companies state they have taken initiatives to boost the number of women and ethnic minorities employees. The Conversation discusses the lack of diversity in the article, “The Tech Industry Talks About Boosting Diversity, But Research Shows Little Improvement.” The Conversation conducted a study to see if the numbers of women and ethnic minorities increased. The news Web site used machine learning and firm level data on employment diversity from 6,163 tech companies.
Despite all the hype from the tech industry, the study results are surprising and yet not so much:
“We found that 80% of firms displayed a pattern of very minimal increases in diversity in their professional labor force, primarily driven by small increases in the employment of Asian men and Asian women, with declines among non-Asian women and no change among other minority men. We also found that this widespread pattern reflects much slower movement toward employment diversity in this sector than in the rest of the U.S. labor force.”
There was some diversity growth with a 5.9% decline in the amount of white male executives. More women and ethnic minorities were moved to leadership positions, but it could be a PR stunt/defensive response to demonstrate companies are diverse. In reality, the companies are not dedicating resources to diversifying their labor force.
Companies that exhibited the most diversity had the most growth, so were hiring more employees. Diversity looks good for businesses and/or newer, innovative companies know how to effectively have diverse employees.
Tech companies, however, strongly remain in their attached to their outdated hiring practices. Newer companies are likely to make these practices extinct, but it will be a while before they dominate the industry. It could also be a marketing ploy, because that takes less effort.
Whitney Grace, March 14, 2022
AI Tools to Eliminate the Human Touch from Digital Marketing
March 9, 2022
For both better and worse, algorithms can help humans do many things. For example, it can now automate junk content. Oh goodie. Digital marketing blog Crunch Hype shares its “Top 9 Free AI Tools that Make your Life Easier.” The first is a tool that may be angling for my job. Writer Adil Ahmad tells us:
“First one on the list is copy.ai. It is an AI based copy writer tool. Basically what a copywriter tool does is, it gives you content that you can post on your blog or video when you give it a few descriptions about the topic you want content on.So copy ai can help you write instagram captions gives you blog idea, product descriptions, facebook content, startup ideas, viral ideas, a lot of things it can do, you just make an account in this website, then select a tool and fill in the necessary description and the AI will generate content on what you ask for. For tutorials go to their official Youtube channel .An awesome tool that is going to be really handy in the future.”
Thank goodness our dear leader Stephen E Arnold cares enough about quality content to employ actual people. For anyone who is curious, a quick search suggests Ahmad is also human. He also goes on to list several tools that clean up or augment images, including one he really likes but recognizes can be a bit disturbing, Deep Nostalgia:
“So what makes it really cool is that fact that you can upload an old photo of your family and see them animate and living. Which is pretty cool and creepy at the same time if they are dead already.. Really amazing service from myheritage, I created a lot of cool animations with my old photos as well as with the photos of my grandparents.”
Navigate to the site for a taste of this disquieting tool. Also included in the list is a marketing video maker, a logo generator, and a tool that can generate both a logo and suggest brand names based on keywords. Some of these could be helpful—creating a logo is a famously difficult task, for example, and those tools could at least offer a starting point. But I have to hope algorithms will not replace content creators entirely. At least not before I am ready to retire.
Cynthia Murrell, March 9, 2022
Interesting Chatbot Findings
March 2, 2022
I am an old geezer. I remember when one could call or stop by a store and ask a humanoid a question. If that humanoid did not know the answer, there was a chance that the clueless humanoid could ask another allegedly more informed humanoid over to consider my question.
Not any more. I have to figure out how to find a company online. This is not often easy for a wide range of reasons. Then I have to locate the “contact” button. Then I have to identify crosswalks or work a math problem. And then I can fill out a form? At no point in the process is a humanoid offered as a solution.
Many, many Web sites are embracing smart software which either talk like the weird pitches on junk telemarketing calls or through a pop up box into which one types. The smart software on the receiving end determines how to answer. Some of the really nifty approaches include referring me to the firm’s Web site again or displaying a list of links which the smart software has determined with 55 percent confidence will address my issue. Sure, sure.
I was surprised when I read “Report: Two-Thirds of Consumers Would Rather Use a Chatbot Than Browse a Website.” Here’s the key statement in the write up:
According to Botco.ai, not only do eight out of 10 people say they’ve used a chatbot in the past, but the vast majority of consumers — 70% — say that chatbots typically answer all or most of their questions satisfactorily.
And who sponsored the study? And what does the sponsor do to make money? You get one guess.
Did you say, “This outfit is in the chatbot business”? If so, you are sort of correct.
Just one question: How does one locate and use a chatbot?
Did you say, “On a company’s Web site”? If so, you are right again.
Do I have confidence in this finding?
Nope. Why not label this type of document “Marketing”?
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2022
Microsoft: The Security Supremo Cloud Pitch
February 28, 2022
I read “Microsoft’s New Security Chief Says It Is Time to Take Shelter in the Cloud.” The write up reports:
Microsoft has been hit by a series of high-profile cyber intrusions in recent years. In December 2020, the company said it had been compromised by the hackers behind the cyberattack on SolarWinds Corp.—a group that U.S. officials have linked to the Russian government. Months later, Microsoft’s widely used email product, Exchange, was targeted by a cyberattack that was eventually linked to the Chinese government.
I know. So now Microsoft wants me to trust their cloud service because it is more secure?
What’s interesting is that a former Amazon AWS executive is in charge. Apparently he has addressed assorted security concerns. He is, if true, a fast worker or a faster PR content generator.
The write up points to February 22, 2022, as the day it asserted it would repurpose the Microsoft security products for the Google cloud. Keep in mind that Microsoft security is compatible with Amazon’s cloud.
The write up includes this statement:
In addition to the SolarWinds and Exchange cyberattacks, the company in August had to repair a flaw in the Azure cloud—strategically Microsoft’s most-critical business—after a cybersecurity company found a bug that left customer data exposed. The Azure bug, which was discovered by the cybersecurity company Wiz Inc., rattled some Microsoft customers because it showed how hackers could steal data from thousands of customers by targeting one part of Microsoft’s cloud.
Saying security is different from delivering security. In some ways, Microsoft’s penchant for distraction with the wonky Windows 11 release and then the super spectacular metaverse game type thing have worked.
Now security is back in the spotlight. Oh, just move everything to the cloud. Lock in? Yep. More expensive? For some yes. Put all the eggs in one basket with some security issues? Sure, that makes perfect sense.
If you are doubtful about the cloud, navigate to “Report: 76% of IT Pros Say That Cloud Has Hit a Wall.” The main idea of that write up is that
multicloud, multitool environments have outgrown the tools and platforms that IT leaders currently rely on.
That’s what’s interesting about the Microsoft security PR. Flawed software? Seems possible.
Remember SolarWinds? Remember Exchange Server?
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2022
How to Be Happy the Microsoft Way: Endorsed by the Harvard Business Review?
February 25, 2022
I read a fascinating article about being happy. “A Microsoft Exec Says Tech, Not People, Makes Employees Really Happy” recycles an article from the estimable Harvard Business Review published an article titled “In a Hybrid World, Your Tech Defines Employee Experience.” I want to be upfront. I find most of the information in the HBR focused on authors hawking some type of consulting expertise. The outputs in the HBR acted like a magnet on blue chip consulting firms. Getting an article in the HBR was the equivalent of getting Elvis Presley to throw a perspiration tinged scarf to an adoring fan.
According to the source recycling the HRB information about being happy, I noted these statements of Delphic grade insight minus the blood of a dove, a goat, and possibly a misbehaving acolyte.
- Employee experiences are defined by technology.
- Technology and workplace tools are the new workplace. [HBR apparently likes this type of repetition]
- “Technology is “becoming central in attracting and retaining new talent, fostering workplace culture, creating productivity, and more.”
I want to offer some of my personal happy experiences with Microsoft technology:
- Updates which kill functions; for example, a system cannot print. This makes me happy for sure.
- Posturing about security when the vulnerabilities spawned by Microsoft software thrill bad actors each and every day.
- Microsoft Word’s remarkable ability to move images in delightful ways.
- The shallow spidering of the just so wonderful Bing content processing system.
- Rumors and allegations about Bill Gates and his interesting interactions with other Microsoft professionals
- A foldable phone with weird performance characteristics for two-screeners with good eyes
- Microsoft WiFi hardware which a Softie told me, “Doesn’t work.”
- Meaningless features in a screen capture utility
- Did I mention Exchange Server vulnerabilities? Yeah.
- And Teams for those using a Mac without a Microsoft 365 subscription. That’s a thrill.
I recall one meeting at which a senior Softie took an iPhone from an employee in a meeting with lots of people in the audience. I recall the baffled looks on the faces of Microsoft Research experts when I asked for a show of hands for those who were familiar with Kolmogorov’s approach to probability. No hands went up. Bummer. I recall a mobile meeting in which I was told, “Mobiles will never have multiple radios.”
Ah, memories.
But the HBR write up explains that my experiences would make me happier via technology.
Yeah, right. Thoughts from the Microsoft person who pointed the finger at a 1,000 engineers directed by a nation state to compromise Citadel Windows. Yep, that person.
Stephen E Arnold, February 25, 2022
IBM Watson: Creative Re-Explaining
February 25, 2022
I read “IBM Charts New Brand Direction With Campaign Built Around Creativity.”
The article contains an interesting statement allegedly articulated by Jonathan Adashek, cco and svp of marketing and communications at IBM
Adashek said IBM has historically had trouble articulating a clear and unifying purpose for a business as sprawling and multifaceted as the 110-year-old enterprise giant has become. But with business moves like the Kyndryl spinoff helping to strengthen the company’s core focus on growth areas like artificial intelligence and hybrid cloud computing, IBM decided it was time to boil down its public-facing message.
Does this mean the Watson “anti creativity” has been left behind?
Nope. Here’s some evidence:
Ogilvy global chief creative officer Liz Taylor said the concept for the campaign evolved out of the idea that a certain type of creative thinking is central to the business projects that many IBM clients are attempting to tackle—and that the company’s range of enterprise tech and consulting services can help with that. “It really started in the sort of notion of this era of creativity is the defining currency of business,” Taylor said. “It’s not necessarily creativity in the way I might think of my job, but our audience is just increasingly responsible for creating and executing visions for how to compete in this new world.”
Yep, IBM is creative: Clever contracts related to a certain nation state in the good old WW2 era, addressing cancer and telling, “You are history”, and now a type of creative different from that delivered by Madison Avenue-types.
Yep, “not necessarily creativity in the way I might think of my job” which is to explain that IBM fuels creativity.
Logical? Not necessarily. Did you know that IBM’s creativity allowed it to acquire a Microsoft Azure consulting firm called Neudisic? Buying innovation and a revenue stream for a semi successful cloud provider? Yes. Creative? Sure.
Stephen E Arnold, February 25, 2022
Praise and PR for Google and Its AutoML Push
February 14, 2022
I read the explainer PR essay called “The Data Scientist of the Future, According to Google.” The author is not a real Googler. He/it/her is a Googley contractor. No skin in the game of course. A one sentence summary is:
Become and expert and use Google machine learning tools.
This is okay, but Google wants to make darn sure that squeaky wheels like those who criticize Google’s approach either get greased or changed at the next conference stop.
The write up says:
With Google’s investment in industry-leading products such as Vertex AI, I believe Google has demonstrated a realization in the value of coupling sophisticated Auto ML products with domain knowledge experts, and abstracting away much of the programming and statistics required by the Data Scientist of yesterday. Domain knowledge will rule the future. Understand the relationship between inputs and outputs in human-interpretable ways, and having the skills to communicate this knowledge is the most important input to predictive modeling.
PR or objective praise. Both share the two letters “PR.”
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2022
Tech Giants: Are There Reasons for Complaining about Tiny Component Vendors?
February 8, 2022
I read “Tiny chips, Big Headaches.” The write up is interesting and it comes at a time which follows [a] record earnings and [b] before the anti-trust cowboys begin their roundup. I found this paragraph notable:
But there is growing anxiety that as cloud-computing networks have become larger and more complex, they are still dependent, at the most basic level, on computer chips that are now less reliable and, in some cases, less predictable. In the past year, researchers at both Facebook and Google have published studies describing computer hardware failures whose causes have not been easy to identify. The problem, they argued, was not in the software — it was somewhere in the computer hardware made by various companies.
The write up concludes that fixes are “a little bit like changing an engine while an airplane is still flying.” This statement is attributed too Gary Smerdon, a wizard at TidalScale.
Let’s step back.
The alleged technology monopolies are eager to cement their market dominance. One way to do this is to become like AMD: Smart people paying other people to fabricate their silicon and assemble their gizmos. It stands to reason that really smart people like those at the tech giants want to gain control and be like Apple. Apple went its own direction and seems to have a lucrative allegedly monopoly and some fascinating deals with people like a certain online advertising outfit for search.
What’s the argument for becoming more like Henry Ford’s River Rouge operation. That’s the one that ingested iron ore at one end of the facility and output automobiles at the other end. Today the raw material is user clicks and the outputs are monetization of messages to the users or the crafting of subscription services that are tough to resist.
My take on the reasons for pointing the finger at third parties is more of the shifting blame. This method was evident when Mr. Zuckerberg said Apple’s “privacy” policy created some headwinds. Sure, the Zuckbook has other headwinds, but the point is that it is useful to focus blame elsewhere.
However, the write up advances a point which I found interesting. Here is the passage from the write up I noted:
In the past year, researchers at both Facebook and Google have published studies describing computer hardware failures whose causes have not been easy to identify. The problem, they argued, was not in the software — it was somewhere in the computer hardware made by various companies.
I want to direct your attention to this statement: “The problem… was not in the software.”
Now that is an interesting observation about software. The general rule is that software has flaws. Maybe Steve Gibson can generate “perfect” software for SpinRite, but how many at the alleged technology monopolies follow his practices? I would assert that many at the alleged technology monopolies know what his method is; therefore, if certain wizards don’t know something, it clearly is not worth knowing in the first place.
I interpreted the statement that “The problem … was not in the software.”
Hubris, thy manifestation is those who believe their software was not a problem.
Ho, ho, ho.
My concern is that presenting an argument that failures in uptime are someone else’s problem invites the conclusion, “Well, we will be more like Apple. Hasta la vista, Intel.”
Personally I don’t care what the alleged technology monopolies do. Trouble looms for these outfits regardless of the direction in which I look. What annoys me is that the Gray Lady is pretty happy telling the alleged technology monopolies’ story.
The problem is not the software. The problem is the human thing: Reformation, disinformation, and misinformation as stealth weapons in the battle for continued market dominance.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2022
Google: Sunset for So So Programmers?
February 4, 2022
I read “DeepMind Says Its New AI Coding Engine Is As Good as an Average Human Programmer.” Okay, what’s “average”? What’s the baseline and the methods of measurement? How big was the sample? Is the test replicable by a third party?
Oh, right. These are questions backed by “real” data in the “real news” write up. I suppose I am to suspend disbelief and do the Kubla Khan thing in a Kode Xanadu.
The write up reports as “real” news this:
DeepMind has created an AI system named AlphaCode that it says “writes computer programs at a competitive level.” The Alphabet subsidiary tested its system against coding challenges used in human competitions and found that its program achieved an “estimated rank” placing it within the top 54 percent of human coders. The result is a significant step forward for autonomous coding, says DeepMind, though AlphaCode’s skills are not necessarily representative of the sort of programming tasks faced by the average coder.
Yep, Statistics 101 and marketing speak. I love autonomous coding. Colorful.
Several observations:
- Why do low code or no code when one can get out front with the implied outcome: No humans needed for certain coding tasks. Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft will be eager to explain that their systems are better.
- Google’s desire to create a “quantum supremacy” claim reveals an insecurity at the core of the company. If the technology were the cat’s pajamas, why is the firm unable to generate substantive revenue from advertising?
- Why have Google’s most advanced technologies generated gushers of red ink, not marketing-dominating solutions which dwarf the firm’s advertising business?
From my vantage point Google is like the wealthy individual who made a fortune in B and lower motion pictures. This individual wanted to get into technology in order to go to a party and answer this question, “What business are you in?” This person, whom I knew prior to his demise, told me, “I don’t like saying dirty movies and girlie bars. I want to be in the technology business.”
Net net: Google wants to be perceived as the big dog in really advanced technology. Too bad. Just say, “We sell ads and we were inspired by the Yahoo, GoTo, Overture system. Of course, Yahoo had to fly eagles over the Googleplex, but, hey, we’re proud of our one money making system. But we also do no-human coding and are the quantum supremacists.“
I understand I think.
Stephen E Arnold, February 4, 2022
Has the Redmond Giant Marginalized Facezuck and Googzilla
February 3, 2022
I read an interview which seems to be part of the Financial Times (paywalled, of course) and Ars Technica (not paywalled). The article is “Satya Nadella: Microsoft has “Permission to Build the Next Internet.”
I am not sure about who did what to get the interview with the softest Microsoftie, but I think I spotted which colloquially might be termed a “dis”:
To me, just being great at game building gives us the permission to build this next platform, which is essentially the next Internet: the embodied presence.
Will Facezuck and Googzilla interpret the message as, “Microsoft will build the digital world from this day.” Is the permission granted by someone of global importance, or is the permission assumed like the security of Azure and Exchange Server. Maybe the permission is generated by Microsoft’s confidence resulting from regulators’ attention attracted to other bright, sparkling companies?
I like the permission and the prediction that the next Internet is engineered for “embodied presence.” How’s that work out in the real world; for example, homeless people in Seattle, the posturing in Washington, DC, and the genuine concern in many government agencies around the world that Microsoft’s systems and software are conduits for bad actors.
Yep, embodied. Permission. Prediction.
Stephen E Arnold, February 3, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
