The Hay Day of Search Has a Ground Hog Moment
December 19, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
I think it was 2002 or 2003 that I started writing the first of three editions of Enterprise Search Report. I am not sure what happened to the publisher who liked big, fat thick printed books. He has probably retired to an island paradise to ponder the crashing blue surf.
But it seems that the salad days of enterprise search are back. Elastic is touting semantics, smart software, and cyber goodness. IBM is making noises about “Watson” in numerous forms just gift wrapped with sparkly AI ice cream jimmies. There is a start up called Swirl. The HuggingFace site includes numerous references to finding and retrieving. And there is Glean.
I keep seeing references to Glean. When I saw a link to the content marketing piece “Glean’s Approach to Smarter Systems: AI, Inferencing and Enterprise Data,” I read it. I learned that the company did not want to be an AI outfit, a statement I am not sure how to interpret; nevertheless, the founder of Glean is quoted as saying:
“We didn’t actually set out to build an AI application. We were first solving the problem of people can’t find anything in their work lives. We built a search product and we were able to use inferencing as a core part of our overall product technology,” he said. “That has allowed us to build a much better search and question-and-answering product … we’re [now] able to answer their questions using all of their enterprise knowledge.”
And what happened to finding information? The company has moved into:
- Workflows
- Intelligent data discovery
- Problem solving
And the result is not finding information:
Glean enables enterprises to improve efficiency while maintaining control over their knowledge ecosystem.
Translation: Enterprise search.
The old language of search is gone, but it seems to me that “search” is now explained with loftier verbiage than that used by Fast Search & Transfer in a lecture delivered in Switzerland before the company imploded.
Is it now time for write the “Enterprise Knowledge Ecosystem Report”? Possibly for someone, but it’s Ground Hog time. I have been there and done that. Everyone wants search to work. New words and the same challenges. The hay is growing thick and fast.
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2024
More Data about What Is Obvious to People Interacting with Teens
December 19, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Here’s another one of those surveys which provide some data about a very obvious trend. “Nearly Half of US Teens Are Online Constantly, Pew Report Finds” states:
Nearly half of American teenagers say they are online “constantly” despite concerns about the effects of social media and smartphones on their mental health…
No kidding. Who knew?
There were some points in the cited article which seemed interesting if the data are reliable, the sample is reliable, and the analysis is reliable. But, just for yucks, let’s assume the findings are reasonably representative of what the future leaders of America are up to when their noses are pressed against an iPhone or (gasp!) and Android device.
First, YouTube is the “single most popular platform teenagers use. However, in a previous Pew study YouTube captured 90 percent of the sample, not the quite stunning 95 percent previously documented by the estimable survey outfit.
Second, the write up says:
There was a slight downward trend in several popular apps teens used. For instance, 63% of teens said they used TikTok, down from 67% and Snapchat slipped to 55% from 59%.
Improvement? Sure.
And, finally, I noted what might be semi-bad news for parents and semi-good news for Meta / Zuck:
X saw the biggest decline among teenage users. Only 17% of teenagers said they use X, down from 23% in 2022, the year Elon Musk bought the platform. Reddit held steady at 14%. About 6% of teenagers said they use Threads, Meta’s answer to X that launched in 2023. Meta’s messaging service WhatsApp was a rare exception in that it saw the number of teenage users increase, to 23% from 17% in 2022.
I do have a comment. Lots of numbers which suggest reading, writing, and arithmetic are not likely to be priorities for tomorrow’s leaders of the free world. But whatever they decide and do, those actions will be on video and shared on social media. Outstanding!
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2024
FOGINT: Big Takedown Coincident with Durov Detainment. Coincidence?
December 19, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
In recent years, global authorities have taken down several encrypted communication channels. Exclu and Ghost, for example. Will a more fragmented approach keep the authorities away? Apparently not. A Europol press release announces, “International Operation Takes Down Another Encrypted Messaging Service Used by Criminals.” The write-up notes:
“Criminals, in response to the disruptions of their messaging services, have been turning to a variety of less-established or custom-built communication tools that offer varying degrees of security and anonymity. While the new fragmented landscape poses challenges for law enforcement, the takedown of established communication channels shows that authorities are on top of the latest technologies that criminals use.”
Case in point: After a three-year investigation, a multi-national law enforcement team just took down MATRIX. The service, “by criminals for criminals,” was discovered in 2021 on a convicted murderer’s phone. It was a sophisticated tool bad actors must be sad to lose. We learn:
“It was soon clear that the infrastructure of this platform was technically more complex than previous platforms such as Sky ECC and EncroChat. The founders were convinced that the service was superior and more secure than previous applications used by criminals. Users were only able to join the service if they received an invitation. The infrastructure to run MATRIX consisted of more than 40 servers in several countries with important servers found in France and Germany. Cooperation between the Dutch and French authorities started through a JIT set up at Eurojust. By using innovative technology, the authorities were able to intercept the messaging service and monitor the activity on the service for three months. More than 2.3 million messages in 33 languages were intercepted and deciphered during the investigation. The messages that were intercepted are linked to serious crimes such as international drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and money laundering. Actions to take down the service and pursue serious criminals happened on 3 December in four countries.”
Those four countries are France, Spain, Lithuania, and Germany, with an assist by the Netherlands. Interpol highlights the importance of international cooperation in fighting organized crime. Is this the key to pulling ahead in the encryption arms race?
Cynthia Murrell, December 19, 2024
FOGINT: The Telegram – Visa Tie Up
December 18, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
This is Stephen E Arnold. Since the detainment of the Pavel Durov by French authorities, Telegram has ramped up its public disclosures about its crypto ambitions. In November 2024, Telegram linked itself publicly with Holders (a crypto services firm) and Visa, Inc. More information is available in a video is available on YouTube. Its title is “Visa: Building a Bridge between TON and Real World Use Cases.” It is at this url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhdXeybiG0I. The presenter is Nikola Plecas, who is identified as the senior director, global head of GTM & Product Commercialization, Visa Crypto. The “GTM” means “go to market.” In our lecture yesterday (December 11, 2024) for the CyberSocial Conference, we mentioned this tie up with crypto. By coincidence, the video was posted. We anticipate that this deal will ripen in 2025. Thank you.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2024, 716 am US
The Modern Manager Confronts Old Realities in an AI World
December 18, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Beleaguered
I read and got a kick out of “Parkinson’s Law: It’s Real, So Use It.” The subtitle: “Yes, Just Set That Deadline.” The main idea is that deadlines are necessary. Loosely translated to modern technology lingo: “Ship it. We will fix it with an update.”
The write up says:
Projects that don’t have deadlines imposed on them, even if they are self-imposed, will take a lot longer than they need to, and may suffer from feature creep and scope bloat. By setting challenging deadlines you will actually get better results.
Yesterday evening I received an email asking for some information related to a lecture we delivered earlier in the day. My first question was, “What’s the deadline?” No answer came back. I worked on a project earlier this year and deadlines were dots on a timeline. No dates, just blobs in months. We did a small project for an AI outfit. Nothing actually worked but I was asked, “How’s your part coming?” It wasn’t.
I concluded from these 2024 interactions that planning was not a finely tuned skill in four different, big time, high aspiration companies. Yet, here is a current article advocating for deadlines. I think the author has been caught in the same weird time talk my team and I have.
The author says:
Deadlines force a clear tempo and cadence and, fundamentally, they make things happen.
I agree. Deadlines make things happen. In my experience, that means, “Ship it. We will fix it with updates.” (Does that sound familiar?)
This essay makes clear to me that today’s crop of “managers” understand that some basics work really well. However, are today’s managers sufficiently informed to think through the time and resources required to deliver a high value, functional product or service. I would respectfully submit that there are some examples of today’s managers confusing marketing jabber and the need to make sales with getting work done so a product actually works. Consider these examples:
- Google’s announcements about quantum breakthroughs. Do they work? Sure, well, sort of.
- Microsoft’s broken image generation function in Copilot. Well, it worked and then it didn’t.
- Amazon’s quest to get Alexa to be more than a kitchen timer using other firms’ technology. Yeah, that is costing how much?
Knowing what to do — that is, setting a deadline— and creating something that really works — that is, an operating system which allows a user to send a facsimile or print a document — are interdependent capabilities. Managers who don’t know what is required cannot set a meaningful deadline. That’s what’s so darned interesting about Apple’s AI. Exactly when was that going to be available? Yeah. Soon, real soon. And that quantum computing stuff? Soon, real soon. And artificial general intelligence? It’s here now, pal.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2024
Technology Managers: Do Not Ask for Whom the Bell Tolls
December 18, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
I read the essay “The Slow Death of the Hands-On Engineering Manager.” On the surface, the essay provides some palliative comments about a programmer who is promoted to manager. On a deeper level, the message I carried from the write up was that smart software is going to change the programmer’s work. As smart software become more capable, the need to pay people to do certain work goes down. At some point, some “development” may skip the human completely.
Thanks OpenAI ChatGPT. Good enough.
Another facet of the article concerned a tip for keeping one’s self in the programming game. The example chosen was the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT open source software to provide “answers” to developers. Thus instead of asking a person, a coder could just type into the prompt box. What could be better for an introvert who doesn’t want to interact with people or be a manager? The answer is, “Not too much.”
What the essay makes clear is that a good coder may get promoted to be a manager. This is a role which illustrates the Peter Principle. The 1969 book explains why incompetent people can get promoted. The idea is that if one is a good coder, that person will be a good manager. Yep, it is a principle still evident in many organizations. One of its side effects is a manager who knows he or she does not deserve the promotion and is absolutely no good at the new job.
The essay unintentionally makes clear that the Peter Principle is operating. The fix is to do useful things like eliminate the need to interact with colleagues when assistance is required.
John Donne in the 17th century wrote a poorly structured sonnet which asserted:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
The cited essay provides a way to further that worker isolation.
With AI the top-of-mind thought for most bean counters, the final lines of the sonnet is on point:
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
My view is that “good enough” has replaced individual excellence in quite important jobs. Is this AI’s “good enough” principle?
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2024
A Monopolist CEO Loses His Cool: It Is Our AI, Gosh Darn It!
December 17, 2024
This blog post flowed from the sluggish and infertile mind of a real live dinobaby. If there is art, smart software of some type was probably involved.
“With 4 Words, Google’s CEO Just Fired the Company’s Biggest Shot Yet at Microsoft Over AI” suggests that Sundar Pichai is not able to smarm his way out of an AI pickle. In January 2023, Satya Nadella, the boss of Microsoft, announced that Microsoft was going to put AI on, in, and around its products and services. Google immediately floundered with a Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show in Paris and then rolled out a Google AI service telling people to glue cheese on pizza.
Magic Studio created a good enough image of an angry executive thinking about how to put one of his principal competitors behind a giant digital eight ball.
Now 2025 is within shouting distance. Google continues to lag in the AI excitement race. The company may have oodles of cash, thousands of technical wizards, and a highly sophisticated approach to marketing, branding, and explaining itself. But is it working.
According to the cited article from Inc. Magazine’s online service:
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had said that “Google should have been the default winner in the world of big tech’s AI race.”
I like the “should have been.” I had a high school English teacher try to explain to me as an indifferent 14-year-old that the conditional perfect tense suggests a different choice would have avoided a disaster. Her examples involved a young person who decided to become an advertising executive and not a plumber. I think Ms. Dalton said something along the lines “Tom would have been happier and made more money if he had fixed leaks for a living.” I pegged the grammatical expression as belonging to the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” branch of rationalizing failure.
Inc. Magazine recounts an interview during which the interlocuter set up this exchange with the Big Dog of Google, Sundar Pichai, the chief writer for the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show:
Interviewer: “You guys were the originals when it comes to AI.” Where [do] you think you are in the journey relative to these other players?”
Sundar, the Googler: I would love to see “a side-by-side comparison of Microsoft’s models and our models any day, any time. Microsoft is using someone else’s models.
Yep, Microsoft inked a deal with the really stable, fiscally responsible outfit OpenAI and a number of other companies including one in France. Imagine that. France.
Inc. Magazine states:
Google’s biggest problem isn’t that it can’t build competitive models; it’s that it hasn’t figured out how to build compelling products that won’t destroy its existing search business. Microsoft doesn’t have that problem. Sure, Bing exists, but it’s not a significant enough business to matter, and Microsoft is happy to replace it with whatever its generative experience might look like for search.
My hunch is that Google will not be advertising on Inc.’s site. Inc. might have to do some extra special search engine optimization too. Why? Inc.’s article repeats itself in case Sundar of comedy act fame did not get the message. Inc. states again:
Google hasn’t figured out the product part. It hasn’t figured out how to turn its Gemini AI into a product at the same scale as search without killing its real business. Until it does, it doesn’t matter whether the competition uses someone else’s models.
With the EU competition boss thinking about chopping up the Google, Inc. Magazine and Mr. Nadella may struggle to get Sundar’s attention. It is tough to do comedy when tragedy is a snappy quip away.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2024
The Fatal Flaw in Rules-Based Smart Software
December 17, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
As a dinobaby, I have to remember the past. Does anyone know how the “smart” software in AskJeeves worked? At one time before the cute logo and the company followed the path of many, many other breakthrough search firms, AskJeeves used hand-crafted rules. (Oh, the reference to breakthrough is a bit of an insider joke with which I won’t trouble you.) A user would search for “weather 94401” and the system would “look up” in the weather rule the zip code for Foster City, California, and deliver the answer. Alternatively, I could have when I ran the query looked out my window. AskJeeves went on a path painfully familiar to other smart software companies today: Customer service. AskJeeves was acquired by IAC Corp. which moved away from the rules-based system which was “revolutionizing” search in the late 1990s.
Rules-based wranglers keep busy a-fussin’ and a-changin’ all the dang time. The patient mule Jeeves just wants lunch. Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
I read “Certain Names Make ChatGPT Grind to a Halt, and We Know Why.” The essay presents information about how the wizards at OpenAI solve problems its smart software creates. The fix is to channel the “rules-based approach” which was pretty darned exciting decades ago. Like the AskJeeves’ approach, the use of hand-crafted rules creates several problems. The cited essay focuses on the use of “rules” to avoid legal hassles created when smart software just makes stuff up.
I want to highlight several other problems with rules-based decision systems which are far older in computer years than the AskJeeves marketing success in 1996. Let me highlight a few which may lurk within the OpenAI and ChatGPT smart software:
- Rules have to be something created by a human in response to something another (often unpredictable) human did. Smart software gets something wrong like saying a person is in jail or dead when he is free and undead.
- Rules have to be maintained. Like legacy code, setting and forgetting can have darned exciting consequences after the original rules creator changed jobs or fell into the category “in jail” or “dead.”
- Rules work with a limited set of bounded questions and answers. Rules fail when applied to the fast-changing and weird linguistic behavior of humans. If a “rule” does know a word like “debanking”, the system will struggle, crash, or return zero results. Bummer.
- Rules seem like a great idea until someone calculates how many rules are needed, how much it costs to create a rule, and how much maintenance rules require (typically based on the cost of creating a rule in the first place). To keep the math simple, rules are expensive.
I liked the cited essay about OpenAI. It reminds me how darned smart today’s developers of smart software are. This dinobaby loved the article. What a great anecdote! I want to say, “OpenAI should have “asked Jeeves.” I won’t. I will point out that IBM Watson, the Jeopardy winner version, was rules based. In fact, rules are still around, and they still carry like a patient donkey the cost burden.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2024
Apple and Google Texting Bad. So What Are the Options?
December 17, 2024
This blog post flowed from the sluggish and infertile mind of a real live dinobaby. If there is art, smart software of some type was probably involved.
This headline caught my attention: “FBI Warns iPhone and Android Users to Stop Texting Each Other for a Disturbing Reason.” What is that disturbing reason? According to the online article cited:
Both the FBI and US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are warning users to use a messaging app instead and one that uses end-to-end encryption. The warning comes amid a major cyberattack that has been called ‘unprecedented’ by the press. The attack has impacted telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon. By using encrypted messaging apps, texters can keep their messages hidden from hackers. The hacking campaign has been nicknamed Salt Typhoon by Microsoft and it has not been fully solved. NBC News called it ‘one of the largest intelligence compromises in US history’.
Interesting. I recall that AT&T was not particularly chatty when information about a security compromise floated around. T-Mobile has experienced a few security issues as well. And Verizon? Same boat.
It is interesting that a sinking boat is an image several art generators refuse to produce. Anyway, Midjourney — after a lot of semantic wrangling spit out this good enough image.
After reading the article, I decided to navigate to X.com and ask Grok what the options were for a person who has muscle memory for texting folks from an Apple or Android mobile device? To use Grok, navigate to the tweeter, log in, and look for the Grok word on the displayed page. I went through these hoops slowly because when I queried Google about “how to use Grok”, the Google told me I had to sign up for a premium membership. That was wrong. No wonder Google is a service I find a bit short of the target.
Here are the services Grok (Mr. Musk’s smart software designed to compete in the Big Boy AI dodgeball contest). I quote the tweet thing’s smart output:
- “Signal: Known for its strong privacy features, Signal offers end-to-end encryption for texts, voice calls, and video calls. It’s open-source, which adds to its credibility for privacy-conscious users. Signal is available on both Android and iOS, making it a great cross-platform option.
- WhatsApp: With over 2 billion users, WhatsApp is a popular choice for cross-platform messaging. It supports text, voice, and video calls with end-to-end encryption. However, it’s worth noting that WhatsApp is owned by Meta (formerly known as Facebook), which might be a concern for privacy.
- Telegram: Offers a wide range of features like large group chats, channels, bots, and self-destructing messages. While it provides end-to-end encryption in its “Secret Chat” mode, not all chats are encrypted by default, which could be a privacy concern for some users. Telegram is available on both Android and iOS.
- Facebook Messenger: Another Meta-owned service, it’s widely used due to its integration with the social network. It supports free calls, video chats, and even has features like payment options in some regions. However, its privacy policies are often scrutinized.
- Google Chat: Part of Google Workspace, this app provides a platform for both personal and work-related communications with features like spaces for team collaboration. It’s integrated well with other Google services, although its adoption outside of Google’s ecosystem is less widespread.
- Viber: Offers free calls and messages, including stickers, GIFs, and public chats. Its user base is significant in certain regions but less so globally compared to WhatsApp or Telegram. Viber also has end-to-end encryption for calls and messages.
- Spike: Described as an email-based messaging app, Spike combines email and chat functionality, making it suitable for both personal and professional use. It’s noted for its cross-platform capabilities and privacy focus.
- SimpleX Chat: An open-source, privacy-focused chat app that doesn’t require phone numbers for registration, focusing on decentralization and user privacy.
- Element (formerly Riot.im): Based on the Matrix protocol, it’s an open-source, decentralized platform that supports secure, encrypted communication. It’s good for those looking for privacy with the flexibility of self-hosting.
- Beeper: An all-in-one messaging app that aims to unify various messaging services into one platform, although it has limitations like no official iMessage support due to Apple’s policies.”
Each of these apps is allegedly an E2EE or end-to-end encrypted messaging service. These are not presented in alphabetical order. I assume that Grok is providing the names in a rank ordering based on some criteria not explained to me. But that’s the future of smart software. Just do something and say, “Good enough.”
I noted several things about this list:
- There are no Chinese messaging apps. Is this censorship from an outfit seemingly concerned about free speech. I was surprised at the omission of QQ and WeChat with appropriate surveillance notices from Grok.
- One approach is for messaging clients to rely on Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol. Conversations for Android and ChatSecure for iOS were at one time options.
- Inclusion of Telegram is definitely interesting because Pavel Durov has reversed course and now cooperates with law enforcement. Telegram has even played nice with anti-CSAM organizations. The about face coincided with his detainment by French authorities.
- The Grok listing does not include new and possible interesting services like PrivateLine.io., which illustrates the shallow nature of the knowledge exposed to these smart systems. (Even Yandex.com lists this service in its search results.)
- Alphabetizing lists is just not part of the 2024 world it seems.
There are some broader questions about encrypted messaging which are not addressed in the cited write up or the Grok “smart” output; for example:
- Are other messaging apps encrypted end to end or are there “special” operations which make the content visible and loggable once the user sends the message?
- Is the encryption method used by these apps “unbreakable”?
- Are the encryption methods home grown or based on easily inspected open source methods?
- What entities have access to either the logged data about a message or access to the message payload?
The alarm has been sounded about the failure of some US telecommunications companies to protect their own systems and by extension the security of their customers. But numerous questions remain with partial or no answers. Answers are, from my point of view, thin.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2024
Google: More Quantum Claims; Some Are Incomprehensible Like Multiple Universes
December 16, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Beleaguered Google is going all out to win a PR war against the outfits using its Transformer technology. Google should have been the de facto winner of the smart software wars. I think the president of Microsoft articulated a similar sentiment. That hurts, particularly when it comes from a person familiar with the mores and culinary delights of Mughlai cuisine. “Should have, would have, could have” — very painful to one’s ego.
I read an PR confection which spot lit this Google need to be the “best” in the fast moving AI world. I envision Google’s leadership getting hit in the back of the head by a grandmother. My grandmother did this to me when I visited her on my way home from high school. She was frail but would creep up behind me and whack me if I did not get A’s on my report card. Well, Google, let me tell you I have the memory, but the familial whack did not help me one whit.
“Willow: Google Reveals New Quantum Chip Offering Incomprehensibly Fast Processing” is a variant of the quantum supremacy claim issued a couple of years ago. In terms of technical fluff, Google is now matching the wackiness of Intel’s revolutionary Horse-something quantum innovation. But “incomprehensibly”? Come on, BetaNews.
The PR approved write up reports:
Google says that its quantum chip took less than five minutes to perform tasks that would take even the fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years. Providing some sense of perspective, Google points out that this is “a number that vastly exceeds the age of the Universe”.
Well, what do you think about that. Google is edging toward infinity, the contemplation of which drove a dude named Cantor nuts. What is the motivation for an online advertising company being sued in numerous countries for a range of alleged business behaviors to need praise for its AI achievements. The firm’s Transformer technology IS the smart software innovation.
Google re-organized in smart software division, marginalizing some heavy Google hitters. It drove out Googlers who were asking questions about baked in algorithmic bias. It cut off discussion of the synthetic data activity. It shifted the AI research to London, a convenient 11 hours away by jet and a convenient eight time zones away from San Francisco.
The write up trots out the really fast computing trope for quantum computing:
In terms of performance, there is nothing to match Willow. The “classically hardest benchmark that can be done on a quantum computer today” was demolished in a matter of minutes. This same task would take one of the fastest supercomputer available an astonishing 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to work through.
Scientific notation exists for a reason. Please, pass the message to Google PR, please.
Okay, another “we are better than anyone else at quantum computing.” By extension, Google is better than anyone else at smart software and probably lots of other things mere comprehensible seeking people claim to do.
And do you think there are multiple universes? Ah, you said, “No.” Google’s smart quantum stuff reports that you are wrong.
Let ‘s think about why Google has an increasing need to be held by a virtual grandmother and not whacked on the head:
- Google is simply unable to address actual problems. From the wild and crazy moon shots to the weirdness of its quantum supremacy thing, the company is claiming advances in fields essentially disconnected from the real world.
- Google believes that the halo effect of being so darned competent in quantum stuff will enhance the excellence of its other products and services.
- Google management has zero clue how to address [a] challengers to its search monopoly, [b] the negative blowback from its unending legal hassles, and [c] the feeling that it has been wronged. By golly, Google IS the leader in AI just as Google is the leader in quantum computing.
Sorry, Google, granny is going to hit you on the back of the head. Scrunch down. You know she’s there, demanding excellence which you know you cannot deliver. For a more “positive” view of Google’s PR machinations couched navigate to “The Google Willow Thing.”
There must be a quantum pony in the multi-universe stable, right?
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
