Two Rules for Software. All Software If You Can Believe It
January 31, 2025
Did you know that there are two rules that dictate how all software is written? No, we didn’t either. FJ van Wingerde from the Ask The User blog states and explains what the rules are in his post: “The Two Rules Of Software Creation From Which Every Problem Derives.” After a bunch of jib jab about the failures of different codes, Wingerde states the questions:
“It’s the two rules that actually are behind every statement in the agile manifesto. The manifesto unfortunately doesn’t name them really; the people behind it were so steeped in the problems of software delivery—and what they thought would fix it—that they posited their statements without saying why each of these things are necessary to deliver good software. (Unfortunately, necessary but not enough for success, but that we found out in the next decades.) They are [1] Humans cannot accurately describe what they want out of a software system until it exists. and [2] Humans cannot accurately predict how long any software effort will take beyond four weeks. And after 2 weeks it is already dicey.”
The first rule is a true statement for all human activities, except the inability to accurately describe the problem. That may be true for software, however. Humans know they have a problem, but they don’t have a solution to fix. The smart humans figure out how to solve the problem and learn how to describe it with greater accuracy.
As for number two, is project management and weekly maintenance on software all a lucky guess then? Unless effort changes daily and that justifies paying software developers. Then again, someone needs to keep the systems running. Tech people are what keep businesses running, not to mention the entire world.
If software development only has these two rules, we now know why why developers cannot provide time estimates or provide assurances that their software works as leadership trained as accountants and lawyers expect. Rest easy. Software is hopefully good enough and advertising can cover the costs.
Whitney Grace, January 31, 2025
Happy New Year the Google Way
January 31, 2025
We don’t expect Alphabet Inc. to release anything but positive news these days. Business Standard reports another revealing headline, especially for Googlers in the story: "Google Layoffs: Sundar Pichai Announced 10% Job Cuts In Managerial Roles.” After a huge push in the wake of wokeness to hire under represented groups aka DEI hires, Google has slowly been getting rid of its deadweight employees. That is what Alphabet Inc. probably calls them.
DEI hires were the first to go, now in the last vestiges of Googles 2024 push for efficiency, 10% of its managerial positions are going bye-bye. Among those positions are directors and vice presidents. CEO Sundar Pichai says the push for downsizing also comes from bigger competition from AI companies, such as OpenAI. These companies are challenging Google’s dominance in the tech industry.
Pichai started the efficiency push in 2022 when people were starting to push back against the ineffectiveness of DEI hires, especially when their budgets were shrunk from inflation. In January 2023, 12,000 employees were laid off. Picker is also changing the meaning of “Googleyness”:
“At the same meeting, Pichai introduced a refined vision for ‘Googleyness’, a term that once broadly defined the traits of an ideal Google employee but had grown too ambiguous. Pichai reimagined it with a sharper focus on mission-driven work, innovation, and teamwork. He emphasized the importance of creating helpful products, taking bold risks, fostering a scrappy attitude, and collaborating effectively. “Updating modern Google,” as Pichai described it, is now central to the company’s ethos.”
The new spin on being Googley. Enervating. A month into the bright new year, let me ask a non Googley question: “How are those job searches, bills, and self esteem coming along?
Whitney Grace, January 31, 2025
AI Innovation: Writing Checks Is the Google Solution
January 30, 2025
A blog post from an authentic dinobaby. He’s old; he’s in the sticks; and he is deeply skeptical.
Wow. First, Jeff Dean gets the lateral arabesque. Then the Google shifts its smart software to the “I am a star” outfit Deep Mind in the UK. Now, the cuddly Google has, according to Analytics India, pulled a fast one on the wizards laboring at spelling advertising another surprise. “Google Invests $1 Bn in Anthropic” reports:
This new investment is separate from the company’s earlier reported funding round of nearly $2 billion earlier this month, led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, to bump the company’s valuation to about $60 billion. In 2023, Google had invested $300 million in Anthropic, acquiring a 10% stake in the company. In November last, Amazon led Anthropic’s $4 billion fundraising effort, raising its overall funding to $8 billion for the company.
I thought Google was quantumly supreme. I thought Google reinvented protein stuff. I thought Google could do podcasts and fix up a person’s Gmail. I obviously was wildly off the mark. Perhaps Google’s “leadership” has taken time from writing scripts for the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Tour and had an epiphany. Did the sketch go like this:
Prabhakar: Did you see the slide deck for my last talk about artificial intelligence?
Sundar: Yes, I thought it was so so. Your final slide was a hoot. Did you think it up?
Prabhakar: No, I think little. I asked Anthropic Claude for a snappy joke. It worked.
Sundar: Did Jeff Dean help? Did Dennis Hassabis contribute?
Prabhakar: No, just Claude Sonnet. He likes me, Sundar.
Sundar: The secret of life is honesty, fair dealing, and Code Yellow!
Prabhakar: I think Google intelligence may be a contradiction in terms. May I requisition another billion for Anthropic?
Sundar: Yes, we need to care about posterity. Otherwise, our posterity will be defined by a YouTube ad.
Prabhakar: We don’t want to take it in the posterity, do we?
Sundar: Well….
Anthropic allegedly will release a “virtual collaborator.” Google wants that, right Jeff and Dennis? Are there anti-trust concerns? Are there potential conflicts of interest? Are there fears about revenues?
Of course not.
Will someone turn off those darned flashing red and yellow lights! Innovation is tough with the sirens, the lights, the quantumly supremeness of Googleness.
Stephen E Arnold, January 30, 2025
Who Knew? A Perfect Bribery Vehicle, According to Ethereum Creator
January 30, 2025
A blog post from an authentic dinobaby. He’s old; he’s in the sticks; and he is deeply skeptical.
I read “Ethereum Creator Vitalik Buterin: Politician Issued Coins Perfect Bribery Vehicle.” Isn’t Mr. Buterin a Russian Canadian? People with these cultural influences can spot a plastic moose quickly in experience.
The write up reports:
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin has criticized cryptocurrencies issued by politicians as “a perfect bribery vehicle.” “If a politician issues a coin, you do not even need to send them any coins to give them money,” Buterin explained in a tweet. “Instead, you just buy and hold the coin, and this increases the value of their holdings passively.” He added that one of the reasons these “politician coins” are potentially excellent tools for bribery is the element of “deniability.”
Mr. Buterin is quoted in the write up as saying:
“I recommend politicians do not go down this path.”
Who knew that a plastic moose would become animated and frighten the insightful Russian Canadian? What sound does a plastic moose make? Hee haw hee haw.
Nope, that’s a jackass. Easy mistake.
Stephen E Arnold, January 30, 2025
Ah, the Warmth of the Old, Friendly Internet. For Real?
January 30, 2025
I never thought I’d be looking back at the Internet of yesteryear nostalgically. I hated the sound of dial-up and the instant messaging sounds were annoying. Also AOL had the knack of clogging up machines with browsing history making everything slow. Did I mention YouTube wasn’t around? There are somethings that were better in the past, including parts of the Internet, but not all of it.
We also like to think that the Internet was “safer” and didn’t have predatory content. Wrong! Since the Internet’s inception, parents were worried about their children being the victims of online predators. Back then it was easier to remain anonymous, however. El País agrees that the Internet was just as bad as it is today: “‘The internet Hasn’t Made Us Bad, We Were Already Like That’: The Mistake Of Yearning For The ‘Friendly’ Online World Of 20 Years Ago."
It’s strange to see artists using Y2K era technology as art pieces and throwbacks. It’s a big eye-opener to aging Millennials, but it also places these items on par with the nostalgia of all past eras. All generations love the stuff from their youth and proclaim it to be superior. As the current youth culture and even those middle-aged are obsessed with retro gear, a new slang term has arisen: “cozy tech.”
“‘Cozy tech’ is the label that groups together content about users sipping from a steaming cup, browsing leisurely or playing nice, simple video games on devices with smooth, ergonomic designs. It’s a more powerful image than it seems because it conveys something we lost at some point in the last decade: a sense of control; the idea that it is possible to enjoy technology in peace again.”
They’re conflating the idea with reading a good book or listening to music on a record player. These “cozy tech” people are forgetting about the dangers of chatrooms or posting too much information on the Internet. Dare we bring up Omegle without drifting down channels of pornography?
Check out this statement:
“Mayte Gómez concludes: “We must stop this reactionary thinking and this fear of technology that arises from the idea that the internet has made us bad. That is not true: we were already like that. If the internet is unfriendly it is because we are becoming less so. We cannot perpetuate the idea that machines are entities with a will of their own; we must take responsibility for what happens on the internet.”
Sorry, Mayte, I disagree. Humans have always been unfriendly. We now have a better record of it.
Whitney Grace, January 30, 2025
Microsoft and Security: What the Style Guide Reveals
January 29, 2025
A blog post written by a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, there is AI in my workflow.
If you have not seen the “new” Microsoft style guide, you will want to take a quick look. If you absorb the document, you might qualify to write words for Microsoft. I know that PR and marketing are important. We have had some fun trying to get Visio to print after the latest unwanted update. Some security issues exist for a number of Microsoft products and services. Do you want “salt” on your solar windburn?
With security in mind, I wanted to see what the style guide offers the Microsoftie trying to learn. Using the provided search system, I saw 29 entries about security. These came from “documentation.” Yep, zero references to security, how to handle it, what to say, the method of presenting security information, nada. A Microsoftie or a curious dinobaby like me would not see the word security in the style guide’s information for:
- Credentials
- Q&A
- Reference
- Shows
- Training
Was I surprised? No, a style guide is not focused on security. But I think some discussion of the notion of security and how to respond when an all-to-frequent breach is discovered would be useful. I make this remark because the top dogs of Microsoft said security was Job One … at least until AI, Copilot, and trying to recoup costs became Job One with a gold star.
Does anyone care? Not too much.
Stephen E Arnold, January 29, 2025
How Does Smart Software Interpret a School Test
January 29, 2025
A blog post from an authentic dinobaby. He’s old; he’s in the sticks; and he is deeply skeptical.
I spotted an article titled “‘Is This Question Easy or Difficult to You?’: This LSAT Reading Comprehension Question Is Breaking Brains.” Click bait? Absolutely.
Here’s the text to figure out:
Physical education should teach people to pursue healthy, active lifestyles as they grow older. But the focus on competitive sports in most schools causes most of the less competitive students to turn away from sports. Having learned to think of themselves as unathletic, they do not exercise enough to stay healthy.
Imagine you are sitting in a hot, crowded examination room. No one wants to be there. You have to choose one of the following solutions.
(a) Physical education should include noncompetitive activities.
[b] Competition causes most students to turn away from sports.
[c] People who are talented at competitive physical endeavors exercise regularly.
[d] The mental aspects of exercise are as important as the physical ones.
[e] Children should be taught the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle.
Okay, what did you select?
Well, the “correct” answer is [a], Physical education should include noncompetitive activities.
Now how did some of the LLMs or smart software do?
ChatGPT o1 settled on [a].
Claude Sonnet 3.5 spit out a page of text but did conclude that the correct answer as [a].
Gemini 1.5 Pro concluded that [a] was correct.
Llama 3.2 90B output two sentences and the correct answer [a]
Will students use large language models for school work, tests, and real life?
Yep. Will students question or doubt the outputs? Nope.
Are the LLMs “good enough”?
Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, January 29, 2025
The Joust of the Month: Microsoft Versus Salesforce
January 29, 2025
These folks don’t seem to see eye to eye: Windows Central tells us, “Microsoft Claps Back at Salesforce—Claims ‘100,000 Organizations’ Had Used Copilot Studio to Create AI Agents by October 2024.” Microsoft’s assertion is in response to jabs from Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who declares, “Microsoft has disappointed everybody with how they’ve approached this AI world.” To support this allegation, Benioff points to lines from a recent MarketWatch post. A post which, coincidentally, also lauds his company’s success with AI agents. The smug CEO also insists he is receiving complaints about his giant competitor’s AI tools. Writer Kevin Okemwa elaborates:
“Benioff has shared interesting consumer feedback about Copilot’s user experience, claiming customers aren’t finding themselves transformed while leveraging the tool’s capabilities. He added that customers barely use the tool, ‘and that’s when they don’t have a ChatGPT license or something like that in front of them.’ Last year, Salesforce’s CEO claimed Microsoft’s AI efforts are a ‘tremendous disservice’ to the industry while referring to Copilot as the new Microsoft Clippy because it reportedly doesn’t work or deliver value. As the AI agent race becomes more fierce, Microsoft has seemingly positioned itself in a unique position to compete on a level playing field with key players like Salesforce Agentforce, especially after launching autonomous agents and integrating them into Copilot Studio. Microsoft claims over 100,000 organizations had used Copilot Studio to create agents by October 2024. However, Benioff claimed Microsoft’s Copilot agents illustrated panic mode, majorly due to the stiff competition in the category.”
One notable example, writes Okemwa, is Zuckerberg’s vision of replacing Meta’s software engineers with AI agents. Oh, goodie. This anti-human stance may have inspired Benioff, who is second-guessing plans to hire live software engineers in 2025. At least Microsoft still appears to be interested in hiring people. For now. Will that antiquated attitude hold the firm back, supporting Benioff’s accusations?
Mount your steeds. Fight!
Cynthia Murrell, January 29, 2025
"Real" Entities or Sock Puppets? A New Solution Can Help Analysts and Investigators
January 28, 2025
Bitext’s NAMER (shorthand for "named entity recognition") can deliver precise entity tagging across dozens of languages.
Graphs — knowledge graphs and social graphs — have moved into the mainstream since Leonhard Euler formed the foundation for graph theory in the mid 18th century in Berlin.
With graphs, analysts can take advantage of smart software’s ability to make sense of Named Entity Recognition (NER), event extraction, and relationship mapping.
The problem is that humans change their names (handles, monikers, or aliases) for many reasons: Public embarrassment, a criminal record, a change in marital status, etc.
Bitext’s NER solution, NAMER, is specifically designed to meet the evolving needs of knowledge graph companies, offering exceptional features that tackle industry challenges.
Consider a person disgraced with involvement in a scheme to defraud investors in an artificial intelligence start up. The US Department of Justice published the name of a key actor in this scheme. (Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/founder-and-former-ceo-san-francisco-technology-company-and-attorney-indicted-years). The individual was identified by the court as Valerie Lau Beckman. The official court documents used the name "Lau" to reference her involvement in a multi-million dollar scam.
However, in order to correctly identify her in social media, subsequent news stories, and in possible public summaries of her training on a LinkedIn-type of smart software is not enough.
That’s the role of a specialized software solution. Here’s what NAMER delivers.
The system identifies and classifies entities (e.g., people, organizations, locations) in unstructured data. The system accurately links data across different sources of content. The NAMER technology can tag and link significant events (transactions, announcements) to maintain temporal relevance; for example, when Ms. Lau Beckman is discharged from the criminal process. NAMER can connect entities like Ms. Lau or Ms. Beckman to other individuals with whom she works or interacts and her "names" appearance in content streams.
The licensee specifies the languages NAMER is to process, either in a knowledge base or prior to content processing via a large language model.
Access to the proprietary NAMER technology is via a local SDK which is essential for certain types of entity analysis. NAMER can also be integrated into another system or provided as a "white label service" to enhance an intelligence system with NAMER’s unique functions. The developer provides for certain use cases direct access to the source code of the system.
For an organization or investigative team interested in keeping data about Lau Beckman at the highest level of precision, Bitext’s NAMER is an essential service.
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: Some AI Readings in English
January 28, 2025
A blog post from an authentic dinobaby. He’s old; he’s in the sticks; and he is deeply skeptical.
I read a short post in YCombinator’s Hacker News this morning (January 23, 2025). The original article is titled “Deepseek and the Effects of GPU Export Controls.” If you are interested in the poli sci approach to smart software, dive in. However, in the couple of dozen comments on Hacker News to the post, a contributor allegedly named LHL posted some useful links. I have pulled these from the comments and displayed them for your competitive intelligence large language model. On the other hand, you can read them because you are interested in what’s shaking in the Lin-gang Free Trade Zone in the Middle Kingdom:
Deepseek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning
Deepseek Coder V2: Breaking the Barrier of Closed Source Models in Code Intelligence
Deepseek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Model
Deepseek LLM Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermism
First, a thanks to the poster LHL. The search string links timed out, so you may already be part of the HN herd who is looking at the generated bibliography.
Second, several observations:
- China has lots of people. There are numerous highly skilled mathematicians, Monte Carlo and gradient descent wonks, and darned good engineers. One should not assume that wizardry ends with big valuations and tie ups among Oracle, Open AI and the savvy funder of Banjo, an intelware outfit of some repute.
- Computing resource constraints translate into one outcome. Example: Howard Flank, one of my team members, received the Information Industry Association Award decades ago for cramming a searchable index of the Library of Congress’ holdings. Remember those wonderful machines in the early 1980s. Yeah, Howard did wonders with limited resources. The Chinese professionals can too and have. (Note to US government committee members: Keep Howard and similar engineering whiz kids in mind when thinking about how curtailing computer resources will stop innovation.)
- Deepseek’s methods are likely to find there way into some US wrapper products presented as groundbreaking AI. Nope. These innovations are enabled by an open source technology. Now what happens if an outfit like Telegram or one of the many cyber gangs which Microsoft’s Brad Smith references? Yeah. Innovation of a type that is not salubrious.
- The authors of the papers are important. Should these folks be cross correlated with other information about grants, academic affiliations with US institutions, and conference attendance?
In case anyone is curious, from my dinobaby point of view, the most important paper in the bunch is the one about a “mixture of experts.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
