Indexing Matters: The Investment Sector Analysis
October 15, 2018
I read reports which explain why large monopolistic or oligopolistic companies alter the behavior of certain ecosystems. I don’t see that many because analysts are preoccupied with more practical matters; namely, their bonuses, appearances on Bloomberg TV or CNBC, and riding their hobby horses.
I read and then reread “Platform Giants and Venture Backed Startups.” The premise struck me as obvious. The whales of online are functioning like giant electromagnets. There companies pull traffic, attention, and money. At the same time, they emit beacons which are tuned to the inner ears of investors.
Looks tasty but only semi organized. And from what is this confection fabricated? Answer: Cow hooves. Intellectual Jello, lovingly crafted to delight the eye.
The squeaks of these ultra high frequency waves alert those looking for big paydays to put their money into startups which do not compete head on with the outfits operating like electromagnets.
The “Platform Giant” write up assembles observations from a report which asserts the opposite; that is, big electromagnets do not have an impact on start ups and most investors.
Put that aside.
The core of the write up makes clear that indexing and classification make a difference. The idea is that if one classifies and marshals data, the classification creates a way to look at the data, the world, and in this particular case the way investments flow or do not flow.
What goes in “Internet software” becomes the trigger for the conclusion. Invest to compete against the Google? Not a good idea.
The question becomes, “Who does the indexing, classification, ontology, and related bits of the taxonomy?”
Indexing is important. But more important is the creation of the knowledge structure and the categories which will be used to chop, slice, and organize data for analysis.
Get the knowledge structure wrong and the flawed categorization creates findings that are probably misleading at best and just off base.
Who takes the time to work out the knowledge structure before training humans and smart software to assign metadata?
The write up suggests that humans (either with agenda or without, with expertise or not, or with a wonky knowledge superstructure or not) do.
Net net: Counting is verifiable. Pegging what to count may be more like organizing cubes of a gelatin dessert.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2018
Omnity Search: Adjusting Fast and Slow
October 14, 2018
Beyond Search maintains a file about the Omnity search system. We noted that a new white paper became available in April 2018. If you want a copy of the 42 page document, you can download a free copy at this url.
The white paper is interesting because it suggests that the current methods of finding information are “inherently biased.” Omnity’s indexing is different; for example:
Omnity has developed a semantic signature technology that impartially and mathematically articulates the deep structure of a document, and self-assembles by inter-connecting to other documents with similar structure.
Omnity may be the first search and retrieval syst4em to embrace blockchain technology, but we are not 100 percent certain. Frankly we don’t pay much attention to distributed databases because the technology is another spin down database lane and the next big thing mall.
The document contains some interesting diagrams. Some of these remind us of sense making systems for law enforcement and intelligence professionals. The company positions itself against Palantir and Quid as well as Bloomberg and Lexis Nexis. Surprisingly Linguamatics is a “leader” like Omnity.
What is fascinating is that Omnity seems to be embracing the digital currency approach to raising funds. One of the firm’s advisors is the really famous Danny Kahneman.
My recollection is that Omnity was going to knock Google search off its mountain top. Then Omnity shifted to a commercial model like the old Dialog Information Services. Now it is blending findability with blockchain and crypto currency.
More information about the company is at www.omnity.io. Get the white papers. Check out the diagrams. One question is, “Should Palantir and Quid be looking over their individual and quite broad shoulders?”
Omnity’s approach is a good example of search vendors repositioning fast and slow.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2018
HSSCM Method: October 13, 2018 Update
October 13, 2018
i read “Google CEO Refuses to Answer Detailed Questions on China in Letter to Senate.” CNET is a real news outfit, and I assume the information in the article is accurate. Perhaps Google’s information was not understood by the Senate. I do not think it is possible for the Senate to remain far from a political quasar.
The write up states that the Google letter included this statement:
We are approaching these issues deliberately, and whether we would or could release a search service in China remains unclear. Accordingly, we are not in a position to be able to answer detailed questions.
That seems pretty clear to me, but I live in rural Kentucky. This fact may give me a different appreciation of the English language. For me, the passage quote above means something along the lines:
I am not going to provide information to you. So there.
I think this approach is characteristic of a high school science club refusing to explain to the chemistry teacher where the concentrated hydrochloric acid went.
I recall one of our chemistry aces, whom shall remain nameless, saying to Virgil Shepherd, our estimable chemistry teacher:
I don’t know. Maybe the regular chemistry class used it instead of vinegar.
Mr. Shepherd did not buy the statement. But what could he do? The science club contained a published author, most of the top 20 students in the school, and knew that the regular chemistry students would lack the insight to stonewall.
Hey, did Mr. Shepherd want Illinois State Scholars, students who also attended local universities to rack up college credit from leaving high school, and and people who just rolled over when nobodies like chemistry teachers asked semi informed questions?
Of course not. He wanted a rubber chicken dinner just like the other teachers who had half a clue.
Now back to the letter. It is my content that it demonstrates the HSSCM method of talking down to lesser mortals.
This behavior is a core principle. Those who are in a more rarified atmosphere do not have to grub in the polluted atmosphere of dullardness.
Back to the article, the letter allegedly was “sent” on August 31. Well, that is a long time when measured in Internet minutes.
What’s the outcome?
First, it is now October 11, 2018, and the letter is ancient history when viewed from a science club’s perspective. Time’s a wastin’ when you are disruptin, some say.
Second, anger is not a trait one expects from august elected officials. Anger demonstrates a lack of judgment, patient, and rational thought. Logic and data are essential, unless one decides to do something due to a “feeling”. See this HSSCM example for a logical exception. The idea is, I believe, “we make the rules we follow, not some ageing group of former student council members.” Thus, the outcome will be more aloofness and objectivity from the author of the letter.
Third, nothing. Stalling is a known method of thwarting lesser mortals. These non Googlers often struggle to maintain focus. When delayed, the lesser mortals fight among themselves. The high school science club continues on its merry way. Science club members, we knew, were the future.
What’s the punishment? Detention in the library? A fine? Okay, parents will pay. Pull out of College Bowl (the TV show) or drop out of the state’s Quick Recall competition.
Hardly.
Today as it was then? Yep. High school science club management methods—works every time. Usually.
Stephen E Arnold, October 13, 2018
HSSCM Method: October 11, 2018 Google Item
October 12, 2018
I read “Google Home Hub—Under the Hood, It’s Nothing Like Other Google Smart Displays.”
In that interesting write up, I noted a remark which adds to the high school science club management methods I have been compiling.
First, let’s look at the statement, then I will extract the HSSCM method.
The statement:
When asked why Google was using a totally different platform from the third parties, Jolly told me, “There’s no particular reason. We just felt we could bring the experience to bear with Cast, and the experiences are the same. We would have easily given the third-parties Cast if they wanted it, but I think most developers are comfortable using Android Things.”
What’s the management method?
Here it is:
There’s no particular reason.
Yes, Google takes actions without having a “particular reason.” That is an interesting and, in my view, subjective way to approach significant technical approaches. Meh, no reason.
But there’s another HSSCM method tucked into the passage. Did you spot it? Notice this:
We just felt we could bring the experience to bear with Cast, and the experiences are the same.
The HSSCM method seems to be to avoid using data. Nope, just use feelings. Feelings are justification enough for a decision which may have an effect on partners and vendors. Meh, just feelings.
Plus, there is a third HSSCM method in the statement. Give up? Here it is:
I think most developers are comfortable using Android Things.
The HSSCM method is to make assumptions about how other humanoids perceive Google decisions. What about the “developers”? What exactly does comfortable mean to a developer?
The HSSCM methods extracted from this allegedly accurate quote from a Googler are:
- One does not have to have a reason for a decision.
- Feelings, not data, justify a decision.
- Assumptions about other people are more important than what those individuals say.
Quite a bountiful harvest of management methods. Let’s implement them today because without data, gut instinct, and inputs from other people, we can be agile and surprising. The upside is significant.
Downsides? Not important.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Wait. Isn’t Amazon consistent with its home devices?
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2018
Algorithms Are Neutral. Well, Sort of Objective Maybe?
October 12, 2018
I read “Amazon Trained a Sexism-Fighting, Resume-Screening AI with Sexist Hiring data, So the Bot Became Sexist.” The main point is that if the training data are biased, the smart software will be biased.
No kidding.
The write up points out:
There is a “machine learning is hard” angle to this: while the flawed outcomes from the flawed training data was totally predictable, the system’s self-generated discriminatory criteria were surprising and unpredictable. No one told it to downrank resumes containing “women’s” — it arrived at that conclusion on its own, by noticing that this was a word that rarely appeared on the resumes of previous Amazon hires.
Now the company discovering that its smart software became automatically biased was Amazon.
That’s right.
The same Amazon which has invested significant resources in its SageMaker machine learning platform. This is part of the infrastructure which will, Amazon hopes, will propel the US Department of Defense forward for the next five years.
Hold on.
What happens if the system and method produces wonky outputs when a minor dust up is automatically escalated?
Discriminating in hiring is one thing. Fluffing a global matter is a another.
Do the smart software systems from Google, IBM, and Microsoft have similar tendencies? My recollection is that this type of “getting lost” has surfaced before. Maybe those innovators pushing narrowly scoped rule based systems were on to something?
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2018
The Hacking Hit Parade
October 12, 2018
Beyond Search readers may find “Top 10 Web Hacking Techniques of 2017 interesting.” Many of these may seem to be small potatoes compared to the allegedly hacking of Supermicro motherboards, but intriguing nevertheless.
The top three techniques, according to the write up, are:
- Coming in at number three is a method for spoofing customer support tickets. The key is “implicit trust.”
- At number two is Web cache deception. The idea is to put data into a Web cache in order to get the good stuff.
- And, the number one, hacking method for 2017 was use of server side request forgery. Now this method is like a multiple warhead weapon; that is, once can use some quite interesting methods of delivery and create what the innovator calls “quick fun”.
We will provide more information in our November 27, 2018, DarkCyber news program.
Stephen E Arnold, November 27, 2018
Stunning Revelation about Maximizing Data Value
October 11, 2018
Quite a stunning revelation appeared in “Your Business Can’t Get Maximum Value Out of Your Data If It’s Not Clean, Says Talend.” “Never before has anyone involved in digital information stumbled upon this insight,” said Tibby Dogg, the Beyond Search data guru. “Imagine. Data have to be consistent, timely, and accurate. Who knew?”
The Beyond Search research team noted this statement as equally revelatory:
…Many companies have a lot of data but are unable to use it effectively. “It’s in many locations, it’s inconsistent, it’s in bad formats, and people can’t make use of it,” Tuchen [a Talend expert] explains.
Why are reliable data needed? That decades old mystery has now been solved:
“If companies can correct all the errors and get a consistent number — not five versions, say — if they do that well, they can start to figure out based on what you’ve bought what are you likely to buy? What should we recommend? What are the most effective sales and marketing campaigns? Should we do more of those? – Talend expert
What’s the fix?
Data governance
The Talend expert does not define data governance because everyone knows exactly what that is.
Quite a brilliant insight about data and how to rectify errors. Keep in mind that Talend is ready to solve data problems.
Yep. Act now. No one knows these secrets.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2018
Quote to Note: Microsoft and Scrutiny
October 11, 2018
“Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella on Tech Industry Spotlight: ‘Having the Scrutiny Is Actually Good’” called my attention to an interesting idea. The article states:
Nadella told The Post that Microsoft learned from earlier cyberattacks during the Bill Gates era and has since designed products and services with revamped security protocols. He added that “having the scrutiny is actually good, I think,” in regard to the extra attention being placed on tech companies.
Ah, Windows and security. Didn’t Microsoft’s update service fail again. Deleted data for some I heard.
Scrutiny is good as long as it doesn’t get in the way of what the company does best: Great quality processes and verbal arabesques seem to be scrutiny free.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2018
Quote to Note: Google and Instilling Artificial Intelligence
October 11, 2018
Ah, ha. Another quote to note. This time from “Google Wants to Be Taken Seriously As Enterprise Player.” I highlighted this passage:
In the keynote address, speaking to Google Cloud customers, Diane Greene, Google Cloud CEO, said: “If you think about it, AI is everybody’s biggest opportunity, and cyber security is unfortunately everybody’s biggest threat, and Google has the best of both of these.” She said AI has been a priority at Google since the company was founded. “AI is instilled into everything we do. It is completely infused into G Suite, our applications, which gives us extra insight into how to help you infuse it into your applications.”
So about that Google Plus security breach? Instilled? Perhaps there may be some skepticism that Google will stand behind its products for commercial enterprises? This list may suggest that caution is warranted.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2018
A Reasonable Assertion: Google Is Dying
October 10, 2018
Nope, this is not the view in Harrod’s Creek. The idea that “Google Is Dying” comes from a write up in Vortex by Lauren, whom I assume is a real, living entity and not an avatar, construct, or VR thing.
You can find the analysis at this link.
I am not going to push back against the entity Lauren’s ideas.
I want to point out that:
- Companies, like real living humans, have a lifespan. It does not matter that some Googlers are awaiting the opportunity to merge with a machine, save their brain (assuming that intelligence is indeed the sole province of thought), and live a long time. Ideally? Forever. The death of Google, therefore, is hard wired, and, if I may offer a controversial idea, has already taken place. Today we are dealing with the progeny of Google.
- The missteps which have captured some Google embracers’ attention is the outright failure of Google’s ability to create a secure environment for management and for users of the descendent of Orkut. The lapses are not an indication that Google is dying. The examples are logical manifestations of the consequences of inbreeding. Imagine West Virginia’s isolated communities connected via a mobile system. That does not change the inbreeding for some individuals. If you are not up on inbreeding, here’s a handy reference. The key point is cognitive deterioration. Stated more clearly, stupid decision making, impaired analytic skills, etc.
- Google’s lab rat approach to innovation has not, so far, been able to disprove Steve Ballmer’s brilliant observation: “One trick pony.” But what few analysts care to remember is that the “one trick pony” was online advertising derived from the GoTo.com/Overture.com/Yahoo.com idea. My recollection is that prior to the Google IPO, a legal settlement was reached with Yahoo. This billion dollar deal kept good old Yahoo afloat for several years. Thus, Google’s big idea was a bit of a “me too.” One might argue that the failure to find a way to generate an equivalent amount of revenue is not surprising. Even the Android ecosystem is like a sucker fish on a shark. The symbiosis between online advertising, data harvesting, and revenue is difficult to disentangle. The key point: The big idea was GoTo.com, implemented in a Googley way.
After writing three monographs about the Google and adding comments to my research about the company, I could write more.
Read the alleged humanoid’s “real news” essay. Make your own decision.
I am not pushing back. I am just disappointed that 20 years after the Backrub folks morphed into Google, analyses continue to look at here-and-now events, not the broader trends the company manifests.
Maybe Generation Z will step forward and fill the void?
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
