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
NSO Group: Media Pile On
February 3, 2022
A helpful person posted a link to a July 2021 story about NSO Group this weekend (January 29 – 30, 2022. The New York Times (that bustling digitally aware Gray Lady) published a New York Times Magazine story about NSO Group. But the killer item of PR appeared in Sputnik International (a favorite of some in Moscow) “India Bought Pegasus Spyware from Israel in an Alleged Deal Concerning Palestinians, Claims NYT.” I find this interesting because:
- The NSO Group continues to be a PR magnet. At this point, I am not sure the old adage “any publicity is good publicity.”
- Russian “real journalists” have wired together some click baity words: India, Israel, Palestinians, and the New York Times
- The intelware sector has a stiff upper lip, but the NSO Group – whether a viable business or not – has destabilized an entire industry sector.
Net net: A big problem which seems to be growing.
Stephen E Arnold, February 2, 2022
NordVPN: Mostly Ironclad Privacy
February 3, 2022
Panama-based VPN provider NordVPN swore in 2017 that it would refuse requests from any foreign government to release customer data. In the wake of what happened to VPNLab after its tussle with Europol, however, TechRadar Pro reports, “NordVPN Will Now Comply with Law Enforcement Data Requests.” The firm still promises privacy—unless and until the legal eagles appear. We learn NordVPN recently revised the original, 2017 blog post in which it promised unwavering privacy to reflect the new reality. Reporter Anthony Spadafora writes:
“Now though, the original blog post has been edited and the post now reads: ‘NordVPN operates under the jurisdiction of Panama and will only comply with requests from foreign governments and law enforcement agencies if these requests are delivered according to laws and regulations.’ [Emphasis mine.] The revised blog post also goes a bit further in regard to NordVPN’s zero-logs policy by explaining that the company will log a user’s VPN activity if there is a court order to do so: ‘We are 100% committed to our zero-logs policy – to ensure users’ ultimate privacy and security, we never log their activity unless ordered by a court in an appropriate, legal way.’ Meanwhile, the company updated its privacy policy back in July of last year with a new section that contains further details on information requests. A NordVPN spokesperson explained in an email to TechRadar Pro that the sole reason it changed its blog post in the first place was to dissociate its company from bad actors following PCMag’s original article on the matter.”
Spadafora points out the now shuttered VPNLab mostly catered to cybercriminals—a very different outfit from NordVPN. He also emphasizes that, despite the new language, NordVPN still offers a no-logs VPN, so there would be little to no pre-existing data for the company to relinquish even if law enforcement did come knocking. At this point, such a request is purely hypothetical—the firm notes it has yet to receive a single national security letter, gag order, or warrant from government organizations asking for user information since it was founded in 2012. We suspect they hope that streak continues.
Cynthia Murrell, February 2, 2022
Microsoft Defender: Are There Other Winners?
February 1, 2022
I believe everything I read on the Internet, of course. One of the fascinating aspects of being old and doing the 21st century equivalent of clipping coupons is coming across “real” research studies. I read “Still Think Microsoft Defender Is Bad? Think Again, Says AV-TEST.”
The write up in Make Use Of Dot Com believes in Windows Defender. It article states:
A recent report by AV-TEST revealed that not only does Microsoft Defender perform well, it actually outperforms many highly-recommended antiviruses
The article included a link to the AV-Test December 2021 Report, and I downloaded it. The AV Test outfit is “the independent IT security institute.” The investment firm Triton owns Swiss IT Security, which is the outfit which “owns” AV-Test.
What does Swiss IT Security Group AG do? Security, consulting, the cloud, and related services.
What does the SITS Group care about Microsoft and its assorted products? With Microsoft’s wide use in organizations, SITS Group probably has an above average keenness for the Redmond wizards’ constructs.
What does this mean for the victory of the Windows Defender system in the AV-TEST Report? For me, I formulated several hypotheses:
- Windows Defender is now able to deal with the assorted threats directed at Microsoft operating systems? Rest easy. Malware popping up on a Windows device is obviously something that is unlikely to occur. Thank goodness.
- Cheerleading for Windows Defender probably makes Microsoft’s security team feel warm and fuzzy which will allow their efforts to deal with Exchange Server issues a more pleasant experience.
- Bad actors will have to rethink how to compromise organizations with Microsoft software. Perhaps some of these individuals will give up criminal activity and join the Red Cross or its equivalent.
For me, institutes which do not reveal their ownership are interesting outfits. But how many antivirus vendors achieved the lofty rank of Windows Defender, according to the report dated December 2021? Here they are:
Avira
Bull Guard
ESET
F Secure
Kaspersky
McAfee
Norton 360
Total Security
Viper.
Windows Defender makes 10 “winners.”
Now of these 10 which is the one that will make SolarWinds, ransomware, compromised Outlook emails, and Azure Cosmos excitement a thing of the past? Another question: “Which of these sort of work in the real world?” And, “If there is a best, why do we need the nine others?”
These are questions one can ask Triton / Swiss IT Security Group AG / AV Test to answer?
Net net: Marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, February 1, 2022
NSO Group: Yes, Again with the PR Trigger
January 31, 2022
I have no idea if the write up “NSO’s Pegasus Spyware Used to Target a Senior Human Rights Watch Activist” is spot on. The validity of the report is a matter for other, more youthful and intelligent individuals. My thought when reading this statement in the article went in a different direction. Here’s the quote I noted:
In a tweet, Fakih showed a screenshot of a notification she received from Apple informing her she may have been the target of a state-sponsored attacker.
Okay, surveillance. Usually surveillance requires someone to identify something as warranting observation. the paragraph continues:
Though others versions of Pegasus software uses text messages embedded with malicious links to gain access to a target’s device, Fakih said she was the victim of a “zero-click attack” that is capable of infecting a device without the target ever clicking a link. Once a target is successfully infected, NSO’s Pegasus software allows the end-user to surveil the target’s photos, documents, and even encrypted messages without the target ever knowing.
The message is that NSO Group continues to get coverage in what might be called Silicon Valley real news media. Are there other systems which provide similar functionality? Why is a cloud service unable to filter problematic activities?
The public relations magnetism of the NSO Group appears to be growing, not attenuating. Other vendors of specialized software and services whose very existence was a secret a few years ago has emerged as the equivalent of the Coca-Cola logo, McDonald’s golden arches, or the Eiffel tower.
My view is that the downstream consequences of exposing specialized software and services may have some unexpected consequences. Example: See the Golden Arches. Crave a Big Mac. What’s the NSO Group trigger evoke? More coverage, more suspicions, and more interest in the methods used to snag personal and confidential information.
Stephen E Arnold, January 31, 2022
PR Professionals: Unethical?
January 28, 2022
Public relations campaigns shape the public’s perception. PR experts can flip a situation to make it negative or positive based on the desired outcome. Entrepreneur discussed how public relations campaigns challenge societal ethics and give a new meaning to Orwell’s doublethink: “Public Relations Bring Ethics Under The Spotlight.” PR experts have been accused for decades for shaping reality and the past few years have exploded with fake blogging, fake grassroots lobbying, and stealth marketing.
These nefarious PR tactics are only the tip of the iceberg, because controlling reality goes further with training spokespeople to remain silent in media interviews, monitoring their social media channels, and backtracking when necessitated. This goes against what the true purpose of PR:
“Monitoring and criticism from outside and inside the public relations industry keep a watch on the vast industry that public relations has become. This, in turn, makes practitioners and the industry responsive to what constitutes appropriate conduct. Ethical public relations should not aim merely to confuse or cause equivocation but should inform and honestly influence judgment based on good reasons that advance the community. A necessary precondition of professionalism is ethically defensible behavior. Such a framework derives from philosophical and religious attitudes to behavior and ethics, laws and regulations, corporate and industry codes of conduct, public relations association codes of ethics, professional values and ethics, training and personal integrity.”
Keeping ethics in the in PR practice appears to be a thing of the past, especially with the actions of many world governments before and after the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
There are three fundamental ethical practices: teleology, deontology, and Aristotle’s Golden Mean. Immanuel Kant is the founder of modern ethics and he developed a three step method to solve ethical dilemmas:
“1. When in doubt as to whether an act is moral or not, apply the categorical imperative, which is to ask the question: “What if everyone did this deed?”
2. Always treat all people as ends in themselves and never exploit other humans.
3. Always respect the dignity of human beings.”
PR experts are subject to the same demands as everyone else: they must make a living in order to survive. Unlike the average retail or office worker, they have skills that changes the public perception of an event, organization, or individual. PR experts usually respond to the demands of their clients, because the client is paying the bills. Saying no. Maybe not too popular at some firms?
Whitney Grace January 28, 2022
PR Dominance: NSO Group Vs Peloton
January 27, 2022
If you have followed the PR contrail behind the NSO Group, you probably know that the Israeli specialized software and services firm has become a household name at least among the policeware and intelware community. A recent example is reported in “Israel’s Attorney General Orders Probe of NSO Spyware Claims.” The write up explains:
Israel’s attorney general says he is launching an investigation into the police’s use of phone surveillance technology following reports that investigators tracked targets without proper authorization
Not good.
But there is a bright cloud on the horizon.
“Second TV Show Emerges With Peloton Twist As A Plot Point” asserts:
Already reeling from its announcement last week that it is halting production of its connected fitness products as demand wanes, Peloton must now face another tv show that seems to indicate its devices may cause issues for a certain segment of the population.
Translating the muffy-wuffy writing, the idea is that a character in a US tv show rides a Peloton, suffers a heart attack, and dies. The alleged panini-zation of small creatures under one model’s walking belt was a definite negative. But not even NSO Group is depicted knocking off the talent in a program. Keep in mind that two shows use the Peloton as an artistic device a twist on the deus ex machina from high school English class required reading of Greek tragedies.
Will Peloton continue its climb to the top of the PR leader board? My hunch is that NSO Group hope that it does.
Stephen E Arnold, January 27, 2022
Meta Zuck: AIR SC Sort of Sketched Out
January 25, 2022
I read Facebook’s (Meta’s) blog post called “Introducing the AI Research SuperCluster — Meta’s Cutting-Edge AI Supercomputer for AI Research.” The AIR SC states:
Today, Meta is announcing that we’ve designed and built the AI Research SuperCluster (RSC) — which we believe is among the fastest AI supercomputers running today and will be the fastest AI supercomputer in the world when it’s fully built out in mid-2022.
Then this statement:
Ultimately, the work done with RSC will pave the way toward building technologies for the next major computing platform — the metaverse, where AI-driven applications and products will play an important role.
So the AIR SC is sort of real. The applications for the AIR SC are sort of metaverse. That’s not here either in my opinion.
So what’s going on? Here are my thoughts:
- Facebook wants to stake out conceptual territory claims as AT&T did with its non 5G announcements about the under construction 5G capabilities.
- Facebook wants to show that its AIR SC is bigger, better, faster, and more super than anything from the Amazon, Google, or other quasi-monopolies who want systems that will dominate the super computer league table for now and possibly forever unless government regulators or user behavior changes the game plan.
- Facebook believes the Silicon Valley marketing mantra, “Fake it until you make it” with a possible change. I interpret the announcement to say, “Over promise and under deliver.” I admit I have become jaded with the antics of these corporate giants who have been able to operate without meaningful oversight or what some might call ethical guidelines for a couple of decades.
In the old days, companies in the Silicon Valley mode did vaporware. The tradition continues? Sure, why not? There’s even a TikTok style video to get the AIR SC message across.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
