Google's Tensor: The Data Company's Data Chip
Ever since the release of the iPhone in 2007, Apple has designed and fabricated its own chips for its own devices. At the time, "owning the supply chain" or the vertical, was the way of controlling the full stack of hardware down to software of the manufacturing and distribution process. Since then, we have seen the practice known as economies of scale, for Apple to make more revenue on each phone sold.
An unrealized benefit at the time is that the creation of a device makers own chips, also allows for unique customization and experimentation of SoC's to differentiate themselves from each other. Other examples include Samsung utilizing its own chips overseas, Microsoft's SQ series chips in the Surface Pro X, Windows ARM offering, and the newest entrance: Google's Tensor chip, which is the focus here. What's important to take away from these examples is the ease of which the manufacturer owns both the hardware and software stack, so in theory, components can become efficient and more intelligent with the entire device. Outside of mobile, we see Apple bringing the same concept to its laptops with the M1 series.
As the focus of this blog turns to all things data, the Tensor chip is the most interesting and dynamic from the aspect of AI and ML on the new Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro devices. This is not a site for phone reviews, so I will not stray into its review, but rather what the Tensor's specifications and future is for Google.
Throughout the pandemic, Google was slow to release innovative instances of its Pixel line. Likely due to chip shortages and creating a SoC from scratch, Google entered the market last month with the Tensor, which is unlike anything else on the market, for better or worse. Since Google, itself, is not a semiconductor company, nor does it utilize fabs, they have chosen Samsung to produce the final product.
Functionality such as improved speech recognition, voice typing, live translate, and magic eraser to remove photobombers from pictures are all based on AI.
ZDNet
As the Tensor based devices offer these differentiations on product use, one of the often-forgotten benefits to a AI/ML blend is the security on the SoC. The Titan M2 component on the die, allows for hardware based security that will ideally stop any attacks aimed at the device itself; i.e. brut-force entrance by bypassing the fingerprint sensor.
Google's first Tensor device will learn from your habits and make suggestions based on usage to save battery, utilize Automatic Speech Processing, and the magic eraser to get rid of those unwanted background intruders on your photos. Out of all of the Pixel's features over the years, the place where the Tensor SoC really shines is its computational photography.
Other cool camera features thanks to Tensor include Magic Eraser, a feature that erases unwanted objects or people from photos. This feature uses Google's ML to do the task of what somebody would need to do on Photoshop, but in an instant.
Tom's Hardware
Rather than optics like a traditional camera, Tensor utilizes it's AI components to fill-in areas that are dull, or even missing. In theory, the machine learning component of the SoC, will allow features like Magic Eraser and Face Unblur to improve over time based on individual usage trends.
Given that this is the first generation Tensor SoC and Google is primarily a data company, this type of component is its core competency. Though Google is famous for deprecating or ending previous products like Google Wave, and Google+, research intensive projects such as SoC design and implementation is not something that can easily be explained away as a "failed software product". Hardware costs much more to develop in any technology company's R&D department.
The rumor mill is already circulating about the next generation Pixel, presumably the Pixel 7, with the next generation Tensor stack. It would make sense given all of the data and usage Google has collected from the first Tensor chips and their usage, and utilize that to improve the AI & ML on future devices.
Disclosure: I own the Pixel 6 and use it as my daily driver.
One Year at a Non-Profit
Volunteering has always been a part of my personal ethos. I'm reminded of my time as an AmeriCorps VISTA at Engaging Creative Minds, which I spent a year from 2017 until 2018. I wrote this post some years ago, but it is an experience that I hope that all younger folks will take advantage of.
In creating my plans long ago, the thought never came into my mind about actively working for an educational non-profit for a year through the AmeriCorps VISTA program. One year has passed and I have fulfilled my experience and dedication to this organization. The background I possess has ramifications far beyond non-profits, but also learned quite a bit about this different type of structure along the way.
My mind works as a project manager; processing ways to try new methods and procedures quicker, failing faster, yet creating a bread trail that paves the way for others not to make the same mistakes. Learning and failing is okay, if it’s never been tried. With a Six Sigma eye, every moment of productivity moves through my brain on a filter. Planning two or three steps out to measure potential outcomes is paramount in any organizational success. Non-profits are no different.
Agile Atmosphere. Often many are working on long-term projects, operations, finance, and outreach. Non-profits have quick turnover, yet a dedicated base of volunteers, funding mechanisms, and grants. Financial and non-financial players demand the organization be open, especially to those most inclined to visualize success. Documentation is a key salient point for enduring successes. Moving quickly through what does not work allows for successful pivoting through multiple strategies.
Experimentation. Reaching towards the next internal goal is vital to expanding organizational reach to the community and to funders. How to get there takes more creativity than personnel may be used to. Not being afraid to try and fail still plagues the mindset in for-profit or government organizations. With non-profits, this thinking must be a way of life; as if organizational survival depends on it, because it does.
Scrum. In smaller organizations, there may be one or two figure heads in a department, and that is all. Departments often depend on one another to see through a strategy to its full implementation. Creating strategies and cross-functional teams, or pairing individuals, to move through plans is the only way to ensure cohesiveness. After the formulation and implementation phases, all must be brought in to be briefed on what’s next. This eliminates duplication of tasks, efforts, and allows for more frequent but quicker meetings regarding potential roadblocks.
This unique experience allowed important insights into how the multibillion-dollar non-profit sector works. The larger takeaway is that all organizational behavior only slightly differs between government agencies and the for-profit sectors. The missions and goals are the same, however only the stakeholders differ. We all serve a vast yet similar set of stakeholders throughout our lives.
A Reminder of Intelligence Leadership and National Oversight
As the Intelligence Community (IC) works to rebuild trust between its agencies, it's citizens, and other partner nations, this is a great time to remind us all about the basics of how leadership within the IC and it's ongoing struggle with national oversight through checks and balances. I originally wrote this piece in October of 2018.
Setting the Scene
It is the role of Congress to monitor and create oversight of the intelligence community. Congress checks for the abuse of power within the seventeen agencies including the ODNI and considers abuse of power by the other two branches of government. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) are the two primary governing bodies that provide oversight of American intelligence (Rosenbach & Peritz, 2009). As the Executive Branch sets foreign policy and intelligence priorities, Congress is to be kept ‘fully informed’ of large-scale intelligence activities set forth by The White House (Rosenbach & Peritz, 2009). This procedure is mandated by the National Security Act of 1947.
The laws of oversight and leadership become complicated as competing interests are tasked with budgeting, making intelligence law, enacting recommendations, and following through on programs. Each stakeholder has their own interest. These interests often clash as the oversight of IC has turned into a power grab by congressional committees, as well as the executive and judicial branches. The politization of intelligence matters, lack of congressional oversight, and the increase of influences by the executive branch all must be addressed to ensure the best possible leadership and oversight outcomes.
The Politization of Intelligence Matters
Politization of the IC's recommendations, outcomes, and funding does not just stem from political parties, but rather expediency, groupthink, and biases that may exist within Congress or in the Executive Branch. Mark Lowenthal, a career intelligence expert, states that analysts alter assessments to support policy, lawmakers influence intelligence analysis outcomes, a history of cognitive bias on the part of analysts, and lawmakers often ‘cherry pick’ analysis to support their own ideals (Tomes, 2015). Such destructive habits undermine the autonomy and independence of the intelligence community. Additionally, given the secrecy in which the IC operates, dissent is often dismissed, and whistleblowers may be silenced as a result.
Former Secretary of Defense, then CIA Director, Robert Gates said of politization of intelligence in the 1990s, “deliberately distorting analysis or judgments to favor a preferred line of thinking irrespective of evidence” (Gleeson, 2017). Another issue with politization deals around false information, group think narratives, and different ways of categorizing intelligence threats based on a single individual rather than involving a process of many (Gleeson, 2017). Utilizing estimative probabilities in intelligence assessments is also an obstacle to politicization of intelligence through Congress. The goal of estimative probabilities is to reduce the amount of uncertainty when analyzing information (Friedman & Zeckhauser, 2012).
Terms such as probably, likely, certain, somewhat certain, et al., are open to numerous interpretations by Congress, and therefore can be politized as wanting intelligence to say what is politically convenient over what may be occurring. Estimative probability is vital to assessing viable alternatives to an action. Analysis of competing hypothesis (ACH) is the core of intelligence (Friedman & Zeckhauser, 2012). The IC must conduct this analysis free and independently of out all outside influence. However, when this analysis is presented to congressional committees or the White House, options may be chosen based on their own interpretations of risk, an open definition of estimative probability, and what is politically expedient.
Lack of Congressional Oversight
A long-term debate exists as to whether congressional oversight over the IC is too intrusive, counterproductive, and political; or does not go far enough to keep program scopes and civil liberties in check. As Congress represents the American people, they must also strike a balance between doing what is necessary for national security and explaining their votes and policies to their voters. Loch Johnson, a University of Georgia professor stated, “September 11 was an intelligence failure, but it's also a policy failure, not only in the White House but in Congress. There's really a heavy onus on these intelligence committees to probe what's going on” (Priest, 2004). Politization of intelligence often comes at the expedience of national security, considering real threats, or what may be convenient for the next congressional election.
Former Ohio Senator, Mike DeWine, stated that the learning curve is quite large for those serving on the congressional intelligence committees (Priest, 2004). The failure or lack of understanding of policies and procedures within the IC is too cumbersome, especially to learn in one Senate or House term. DeWine recommends a restructuring to make oversight more “user friendly” for the average Congressperson to understand and convey to constituents and the agencies themselves. A solution to this problem must involve revisiting the 9/11 Commission Report and further streamlining dissemination techniques now that most of the recommendations have been implemented on the Federal, State, and local levels. Lastly, the barriers between Congress and the intelligence community must be further siloed from political influence.
In the event congressional oversight committees were to consolidate into a few bodies, the Executive Branch would have more influence as would the specific Congressmembers on the new committees. Also, the politization of individual nominations to several intelligence agencies would become a problem, further blending in the independence of intelligence.
Executive Branch Influences
Prior to September 11th, the Executive Branch was able to reduce congressional committees overseeing intelligence from eight to two over the course of the 1980s (Halchin & Kaiser, 2012). As a result, it also reduced the number of Congressmembers who can receive information requiring a clearance. As Congress is not briefed as frequently as the Executive Branch on intelligence matters, it is difficult to tell what may constitute a national emergency or crucial military exercise (Marshall, 2008). Congress must rely on the Executive Branch to disseminate information to the relevant committees (Marshall, 2008). This is an example of how the Executive Branch obtains more power over intelligence than that of its Legislative Branch counterparts. The White House having more power than Congress over oversight lessens the efficiency of intelligence and is an argument for an ever-expanding Executive Branch with its powers.
In the 2006 midterm elections, the Democratic Party won over the House and Senate in part to the backlash of the War in Iraq, from the Republican Party and President George W. Bush. That was not enough to stem the tide of the war, as Bush repeatedly persuaded Congress to expand the War in Iraq even though a majority of his own party opposed the operation (Marshall, 2012). The overreach of executive powers is evident in this case, as a mistrust was built among the Bush Administration leading up to the initial operation in Iraq in 2003.
As a President submits their yearly budget to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is primarily responsible for this task (“An Overview of the Intelligence Community”, 1996). As an expansive Executive Branch continues to take hold, the effect the OMB has within influencing Congress on intelligence budgets becomes more important. Considering Presidential appointments within the intelligence community, crucial roles such as the CIA’s Inspector General, the heads of seventeen intelligence agencies, and other vital oversight roles are submitted by the President and approved by Congress (“An Overview of the Intelligence Community”, 1996). Such powerful and influential hand-picked nominees are often non-controversial; however, Congress does not normally take the time to investigate the backgrounds of the individuals, but rather take the Executive Branch at its word.
Wrapping it Up
Executive overreach and influence are not going to decrease in the foreseeable future. Congress must be able to put more checks and balances between itself and the Executive Branch in order to look unbiasedly at intelligence reports prepared by various agencies. As all of the United States’ intelligence agencies are bound by law to follow the Constitution and are subject to oversight (“Accountability and Oversight”, n.d.), it is important to note that oversight is the right intention and Congress should continue to do so. However, issues such as an increasingly powerful Executive Branch, the polarization of Congress, and the lack of general oversight all contribute to failures in leadership and effective intelligence.
As Congress is elected by the American public at-large, it may be prudent to inform all members of the bodies of basic national security issues. Confusions and a larger than normal learning curve may hinder this understanding by most members not on the HPSCI and SSCI. The HPSCI and SSCI will still be able to retain more sensitive information, however, all members of Congress must understand the bare minimums of developments domestically and internationally. It is ultimately the public who benefits from national security and intelligence services. A Congress that is better able to explain to the public, what it is the IC does, is one that is better able to make decisions when it comes to electing individuals who will in-turn create stronger oversights and laws to prevent abuses of this information.
Endnotes
Accountability and Oversight. (n.d.). Government Publishing Office. Retrieved October 24, 2018, from [www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg...](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-INTELLIGENCE/html/int018.html.)
An Overview of the Intelligence Community (1996). Retrieved October 24, 2018, from [fas.org/irp/offdo...](https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/int023.html.)
Gleeson, D. (2017). The high cost of politicizing intelligence. The Atlantic. Retrieved October 24, 2018, from [www.theatlantic.com/politics/...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-high-cost-of-politicizing-intelligence/517854/)
Halchin, L. & Kaiser, F. (2012). Congressional oversight of intelligence: Current structures and alternatives. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 24, 2018, from [fas.org/sgp/crs/i...](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf.)
Marshall, W. (2008). Eleven reasons why presidential power inevitably expands and why it matters. Boston University Law Review, 88(505). Retrieved October 24, 2018, from [www.bu.edu/law/journ...](http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/marshall.pdf.)
Priest, D. (2004). Congressional oversight of intelligence criticized. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from [www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/04/27/congressional-oversight-of-intelligence-criticized/a306890e-4684-4ed4-99a0-c8ae7f47feb7/?utm_term=.3031174d278e)
Rosenbach, E. & Peritz, A. (2009). Congressional oversight of the intelligence community. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from [www.belfercenter.org/publicati...](https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/congressional-oversight-intelligence-community.)
Tomes, R. (29 September 2015). On the politization of intelligence. War on the Rocks. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from [warontherocks.com/2015/09/o...](https://warontherocks.com/2015/09/on-the-politicization-of-intelligence/.)
A Primer on Apple's Q1 2021 Earnings
I won't normally write about quarterly earnings reports from companies. You can get that story from many various sources. For the purposes of this article, I want to discuss why Apple's most recent earnings report was remarkable. I am also not recommending buying or selling Apple stock one way or another.
Yesterday, Apple released an almost perfect Q1 2021 earnings report to Wall Street. Keep in mind this report ended on December 26, 2020, so these numbers do not reflect the post-holiday bump that most consumer electronics companies receive.
Apple's estimates were for a $103 billion in revenue. The actual number was $111.4 billion, the most in the company's history; and the first quarter with over $100 billion in revenues. Earnings per share (EPS) came in at $1.68, well above the $1.40 projections. For an entity as large as Apple, growth of 20% from year over year is absolutely stellar. Apple's market cap is quickly approaching $2 trillion, a modern-day phenomenon.
“These results helped us generate record operating cash flow of $38.8 billion. We also returned over $30 billion to shareholders during the quarter as we maintain our target of reaching a net cash neutral position over time.”
Source: Apple Investor Relations
Apple's total cash on hand for the quarter totaled $195 billion. While still impressive, this was significantly higher before the company ramped up its dividend and share buyback program several years ago.
In the quarter, a perfect storm of new iPhones, Macs, iPads, and services such as Apple TV+ and Apple Fitness+ created conditions for this record revenue.
Apple's iPhone revenue continues to be the bulk of revenue for the company. An estimated $65.6 billion versus estimates of $59.6 billion was earned in the segment. Apple's more streamlined lineup with the iPhone 12 models ranging from the 12 Mini to the 12 Pro Max, offered customers more options while utilizing Apple's sought-after supply chain to maximize margins.
Looking at the Mac, the launch of Apple's new M1 chips for the MacBook Air and the Mini were quite healthy, again, as Apple competes with its former suppliers, creating a more vertical and controlled supply chain capable of full-stack solutions. Owning every component of the process to the hardware and software creates a new experience.
The M1 chip was based off of Apple's A-14 chips that are used in the iPhone and iPad. They are not new to the semiconductor/ARM game. This was an iterative move into the desktop, which paid off as people continue to work from home as a result of COVID and the continuation of work from home situations. Revenue from the Mac division came in just under expectations at over $8.6 billion, however, it is still 21% higher than this time last year.
As the Japanese and Chinese markets move past the worst of their current COVID situations, a bit of a rebound appears to be occurring. It is notable that China itself, is almost responsible for 20% of Apple's quarterly sales.
Greater China sales surged 57% from the year-ago quarter to $21.31 billion, accounting for 19.1% of total sales. Japan sales soared 33.1% year over year to $8.29 billion, accounting for 7.4% of total sales.
Source: NASDAQ
Even what some analysts consider a downside exceeded expectations. Apple's services unit which includes iTunes, the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV+, and new Fitness+ services came in at $15.8 billion vs. $14.9 billion. During the past several years, Apple has attempted to diversify away from its heavy reliance on iPhone and iPad sales. Thus, it has been building out its services business.
As the iPhone and iPad continues to blow past expectations, Apple seems to have some work to do to get it's built in-user base to utilize some of its services and invent or iterate on new services moving forward. 2021 also surely holds plans for Apple to release new accessories to complement its margins such as AirTags, new M1 products inside the iMac, updated AirPods, and rumored AR/VR devices.
Arms Race in the Arctic
Gone are the days of the threat of nations stockpiling ICMB's to deter one another from catastrophic launches, and the last known war. With the threat of climate change, and the need for natural resource consumption and build up, the Arctic is quickly becoming the most sought-after area for these rich resources and positioning by first world nations.
The Arctic is growing in geostrategic importance and potentially becoming yet another zone for strategic competition, as this previously impenetrable territory becomes increasingly accessible to navigation and exploitation. The region is resource rich: it is estimated to contain 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of its natural gas reserves.
Source: CSIS.org
In late 2020, the US' National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) stated that the Arctic should no longer be considered a "buffer zone" for the United States, but rather a tactical area that needs much more DoD investment.
Those knowledgeable about history will recall the Alaska Purchase in 1867, when Secretary of State Seward, purchased the Alaska Territories for then, an astounding $7 million from the Russians. This came to be known as "Seward's Folly". Today, strategically, it's one of the best deals in American history next to the Louisiana Purchase and the Island of Manhattan. Alaska gives direct route to the Arctic and, allows the Government to keep an eye on Russian movements in the region.
In addition to national resources and defensive postures, various Arctic shipping lanes are taking precedent due to national borders becoming shorter the closer you get to the North Pole. Much like China's Belt & Road initiative across its regions, the Arctic players such as the US, Russia, Denmark, and Norway, achieve to do the same, while becoming dominant on these shipping lanes.
Distance savings along Arctic shipping routes can be as high as 40 percent compared to the traditional shipping lanes via the Suez Canal. Shorter sailing distances allow for considerable fuel cost savings. The reduced number of days at sea allows a ship to make more return trips resulting in increased revenue and potentially greater profits.
Source: The Arctic Institute
As Russia has taken a more adversarial tone in the region, it is more important than ever that NATO members conduct joint deterrent exercises to assist in keeping Russia, and to bigger extent, China in check. Reengaging the United States in its partnerships around the world is one of the many solutions that must take place to ensure regional Arctic supremacy for shipping and other various resources.
Looking at all the threats that are deterring a successful and peaceful Arctic, the largest, by far is that of climate change. The Department of Defense says that the melting of the ice is allowing other nations to "seep" in for potentially nefarious reasons, and wreaking havoc with defensive communication systems and the types of ships that are needed to navigate these new waters.
From a commercial perspective, cruise line companies have already had an abysmal year with the spread of COVID across the world. Traveling across either poles will create issues for those liner companies who concentrate on winter and Alaska excursions and sailings. Much like the DoD, these private companies will have to invest in more durable ships with enhanced safety features as well as more robust communication systems in case of crisis; such as an international incident.
Keeping a close eye on trends, such as engaging the natives of the region are ever important as to figuring out how the sea levels ebb and flow on a general season and comparing that to longer term ice melting trends.
As most industries will know, their entire risk portfolio and analysis will come down to what their insurance partners will find:
“The Arctic is at the frontier of risk,” said Neil Roberts, head of marine and aviation at Lloyd’s of London Market Association, adding that insurers assessing Arctic projects must consider environmental and social factors as well as commercial ones.
Source: Reuters
While this will determine the entire tourism market in the Arctic moving forward, it is important to realize that this effects every single industry that sails a ship or flies over the region. Local fishing businesses, or small tourist companies will be hit hardest. An often overlooked industry are the fisheries. Cargo ships may not be not be able to afford to navigate the Arctic's waters due to insurance limits.
Everything that occurs in the Arctic is inter-connected. It is a region of its own with military, economic, diplomatic, and scientific missions. If one of these factors tips out of balance, it could mean one nation having total domination of all others for resources and monopolies on industries. It could also mean that the Arctic is left for no nation or person to utilize.
Global agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords are more important than ever to address the issues in Arctic. Climate change in general will cause conflict across the world as some nations will gain land, while others lose theirs. Five years in, there has been much success among member nations, but there is much more work to be done. When the US rejoins the Accords, there is potential this will be taken much more seriously and with results to show. Right now, it is pivotal for the diplomatic, intelligence, and scientific communities to keep the Arctic flowing.
The Edge Case: Redux
For years now, businesses have migrated a full cloud solution; if not in the process of adopting a hybrid system at the very least. The continual building out of data centers by the major tech companies coupled with low power consumption chips from the likes of ARM and TSMC have created efficiencies in power on-site, computation, and rendering back to a customer or client's PC. In this case, I will refer to the PC as anything from a desktop, laptop, tablet, phone, or other similarly purposed device. The maturing of the cloud and cloud migration is among us, at the very least, capabilities to begin utilizing its full power.
Forrester predicts the public cloud market will experience a growth decline from 42% in 2018 to 24% in 2022 due to market maturation. In its place will be an explosion of growth in edge computing, meaning more growth for companies that have invested in cloud-like solutions for edge computing and content delivery, not centralized data centers.
Source: TechRepublic
At this point in time, Gartner states that only 10 percent of enterprise data is processed outside local devices, but by 2025, that number will grow to 75 percent.
Early Edge Computing
In an ironic multi-decade turn of events, edge computing is how the history of computing began before the advent and adoption of the Personal Computer. Mainframes and ARPANET were once privy only to the U.S. Government and research universities. As needs evolved, and companies like Intel mass produced the microprocessor and Microsoft called for a "PC on every desk". It seems that these trends are reverting to the old-fashioned way of conducting business.
Fast-forwarding to the 90s, Akamai, an "Internet backbone" company as I like to refer to them, developed methods to distribute Internet traffic throughout various servers, allowing for distributed computing. The modern data centers began to crop up, now managed by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, and countless others.
The client-server relationship continues to this day, however, given the vast amounts of data, IoT/always connected devices, and security concerns, central controls are only going to grow in popularity and as business demands it.
Current Edge Computing
Traditional managed software is slowly becoming deprecated. An instance of Windows 10, for example, will not need to be downloaded to a lower-power PC. The computation and rendering will take place in the cloud, and sent back to these low power consumption devices. The efficiency of chips, such as Nvidia and Qualcomm, and Apple's ARM chips will continue to undergo Moore's Law. The costs, and TPM, however, will become parabolic and the cost of what I'll call "consumption" devices will become extremely inexpensive, to the benefit of business purchases.
Examples already exist today such as streaming video and music through phones, tablets, and Smart TVs. A Chromecast Ultra, for example, can also be utilized to stream Google's Stadia gaming platform through it. All the rendering of a purchased game is completed through Google's cloud. Early reviews of the latency, ping, and performance have been positive so far. As Windows Central states, Stadia games on the precipice of being played anywhere a "client" device is located; a TV, browser, media stick, phones, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, security is probably a major reason why business and consumers alike are slowly adopting edge computing. On the business level, permissions can be set for all employees with a click, and as WEI states, the complex issue of data sovereignty is made much simpler. Considering the SolarWinds hack that infiltrated a number of U.S. government sites, and servers of Corporate America, the need for security and mitigation techniques and training will only climb from here, given at this point, the SolarWinds hack may be the largest in recorded history.
The Future of Edge Computing
This trend of distributed computing is becoming more necessary as more of our everyday gadgets are connected to the Internet. As more bandwidth is coming online globally with initiatives such as Elon Musk's Starlink, and Facebook's undersea cable buildouts, the network is getting crowded but at the same time, smarter and more efficient. This is thanks to Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. To be "intelligence" so to speak with bandwidth and throughputs, these IoT chips have to be disintermediated, but yet able to communicate with other items on the same network.
Neural networks are among the next trends to watch for the edge. They are a type of Deep Learning that gives AI the tools to help solve their own problems, or for example, compensate for their own errors or shortcomings. A self-driving vehicle will be extraordinarily expensive to purchase if its own server were on board, and impractical. A siloed server cannot communicate with other vehicles on the road, or the road itself. They must all be interoperable and always communicating.
These vehicles of the future must either be connected to the cloud utilizing 5G, a tool such as Starlink, or portable container data centers distributed like cell towers of today, in order to take advantage of redundancy and allow each vehicle's neural network to learn and compensate using its surroundings.
This trend is not an end all, be all. It will always be evolving with lower latency, faster connections, smarter chips, and as always, the lowest power consumption possible:
However, in the era of edge computing, deploying deep neural networks on mobile edge platforms are challenging due to long latency and huge computational cost. As previous research efforts were usually focused on accuracy, achieving the balance between computational consumption and accuracy is a more significant problem to be tackled in mobile edge computing domain.
Source: Journal of Systems Architecture (97) 2019
Edge computing must be a trend considered by all businesses, governments, and consumers. Learning about its benefits is paramount to enter the next stage of computing for financial, security, and economical longevity.
The Rush to Public
Over the course of 2020, the global IPO market was on fire. For these purposes, I'd like to focus on the United States market.
The stock market crashed in March when it was evident that COVID would not subside soon; most investors believed that both public, and private, particularly venture capital would dry up. This turned out not to be the case. In fact, quite the opposite occurred.
With traditional listings, direct listing and the adjuration of SPACs on various exchanges, the ease of public issuance and exits of PE firms is now easier than ever.
To briefly summarize: by traditional listings, the term IPO is used. The classic form involves an investment bank issuing a number of shares, matching buyers and sellers to raise a certain amount of capital to fund corporate operations, expansion, or various other avenues. Direct listings often take out the "middle man", the investment bank, to take its fundraising directly to shareholders.
SPACs, however, require a bit more explanation and add a layer of complexity to the situation. SPACs, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, or "blank check companies," groups of activist investors, investment banks, or wealthy individuals or entities take a "blank" entity public. They do not know what company the funds will ultimately help to take public.
For obvious reasons, SPACs are often very risky, yet offer an attractive opportunity to help take smaller entities public at a later date. A few examples of high-profile SPACs in 2020 were UTZ Snacks, Nikola Motors (an electric vehicle manufacturer), and DraftKings (the online sports betting company).
No matter how the companies of 2020 went public, there is no doubt that 2020 was a blockbuster year for these entities. A confluence of conditions came together to make this possible.
There were 480 IPOs on the US stock market in 2020, an all-time record. This is +106% more than in 2019 with 233 IPOs. It is also 20% higher than the previous record IPO year of 2000, which had 397.
Source: StockAnalysis.com
With the precipitous drop after COVID striking the world with the lowest 10-year yield on record, negative oil prices, and a bear market stock performance, VCs, PEs, and the like needed to raise funds to offset their loss leaders. Additionally, industry boom trends such as electric vehicles and cloud solutions increase the demand for more names so investors can get in on the action.
Let's take a look at two major themes driving the markets in 2020; the Tesla phenomenon, and delivery as a new COVID trend:
Tesla & Battery Technology Trend
During the past year, Tesla stock surged over 750 percent. While vehicle deliveries did wain a bit, this stock has become such a household name among individual investor trading platforms like Robinhood and E*TRADE, that it's quite difficult for the oxygen to leave the stock. This is on top of a 5:1 split; and Tesla's addition to the S&P 500 late last month.
Some will argue that Tesla, in the end, is just a battery technology company, utilizing its vehicles as a showcase of its storage and capabilities. Whatever Tesla's end game is as a company, it forced many private entities to go public. Companies such as Lordstown Motors, NIO, and Nikola were all attempting to capitalize on the trend. And so far, all have been successful. Just since Lordstown went public, shares have more than doubled in just a year's time. In NIO's case, it went from a $5 per share startup to a company worth over $83 billion in market capitalization.
Retail investors and institutional investors, alike, are starting to hedge bets on which battery company will be the next to revolutionize how we drive and more importantly: master energy storage. Bloom Energy, which did not debut on the public markets this year, went through a bit of a fad a number of years ago; though it seems to have latched on to this trend of finding its momentum in the energy storage space. Once an idea with no markets, it is now worth more than $5 billion.
The COVID Trend
COVID arguably has not revolutionized how we work and live, but rather sped up these factors five to ten years sooner than would have otherwise occurred. Aside from the breakthroughs in mRNA technology that the vaccines have provided (yes, another multi-decade trend). COVID has allowed companies like DoorDash, whose revenues may have peaked, pre-vaccine, to take advantage of its public financing round. Correlations are almost everything in any trading securities. The idea that a decrease in COVID cases will automatically trigger programmed trades to sell DoorDash, Uber, and GrubHub, for example. When the vaccine reaches escape velocity, especially on the second round of doses, it will explain why now was the right time for DoorDash to go public; to maximize its value to shareholders.
The company [DoorDash] is part of a cadre of consumer-facing, web-based businesses that are expected to go public in December -- including home-rental platform Airbnb Inc., which is seeking to raise as much as $3.09 billion in its IPO Wednesday.
Source: MSN Money/Bloomberg
The second name in the quote above, may also come as no surprise to you: Airbnb. With hotels collapsing due to closures and abysmal occupancy rates, airlines at half-capacity (at best); travel has come to a halt on a global scale. What has not is the weekend getaway. Unlike DoorDash, it's timing in the public markets is a bit stickier to a sustainable business model. Even with vaccine distributions, and slowing rollouts at that, families who work at home will inevitably travel by car to local destinations to rent for a long weekend or two.
Hotels have to climb back from a reduction of at least half their business. While Airbnb is not immune to COVID, so to speak, it is in a direct position and threat to the traditional hotelier businesses that will not go away once COVID is a virus of the past.
Looking Forward to 2021
As this January progresses, entities such as Affinity, Roblox, and Coinbase are all looking to go public. Looking at evolving industries such as mobile payments, gaming, and the crypto-craze are going strong at least throughout the first half of '21. If these are successful, look for these sectors to heat up as public dollars will compete for the retail and institutional investor. The fear of missing out has always been a theme of investors both seasoned and new. What evolves throughout 2021, thus far, seems to be no different.
Assessing U.S.-China Diplomatic Solution to North Korea
Note: This piece was originally published at RealClear Defense on January 16, 2018.
During the past year, The Trump Administration and the Kim Jong-Un Regime have been trading consequential barbs regarding nuclear testing and first/second strike capabilities. While rhetoric may seem that war on the Peninsula is unavoidable, there are still ways to engage the Kim Jong-un Regime while keeping the peace among Asian allies.
As recently as October, U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, stated that the U.S. was in ‘direct contact’ with North Korea and are open to the possibility of talks.[1] Until current conditions change, rigorous diplomacy can still take place. Also, U.S. Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, has said, “No one is rushing for war.”[2] A strong majority of the U.S. Administration appears to favor a diplomatic strategy; however, they must convince President Trump to cut back on the back and forth banter.
The United States must make clear that war is the last option and not the first. Diplomatic tactics must be fully exhausted before further actions are considered. Any act of war by either side would result in a full arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, not limited to chemical, biological, and nuclear by North Korea, an “appropriate response” by the South and allies, and an estimated 1 million deceased.[3] The stakes have never been higher taking out the first two World Wars, making pre-emptive strikes a horrible miscalculation by either side.
Among South Koreans, the will to avoid conflict has always been followed up with measures of peace. However, the consequences of such a military outbreak are laid out for the world to see. South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s office said in August:
“Above all, President Moon emphasized that South Korea can never accept a war erupting again on the Korean Peninsula…He stressed that the North Korean nuclear issue must be resolved in a peaceful, diplomatic manner through close coordination between South Korea and the United States."[4]
Diplomatic measures must engage China, Japan, United States, and the larger Six-Party talks that began in 2003 and, but failed in 2009 as North Korea continued their hostile programs. Michael Fuchs, from Foreign Affairs, notes that talks between Washington and Pyongyang can parallel forward momentum that the United States had in negotiating the Iranian nuclear deal.[5] Like all international agreements and arrangements, compromise is paramount and significant concessions required by both sides.
Deterrence methods by the United States and its allies need to be coupled with open dialog so both compromise and sincerity can be on display for Kim Jong-un’s regime. If the U.S. ratchets down the rhetoric, North Korea will have a diminished case for nuclearizing the peninsula. In any scenario, China must be part of the solution and not the problem.
In September, Former Ambassador Christopher Hill told NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly that, “I think there needs to be an understanding that China has to be part of that solution.”[6] Ninety percent of North Korean trade is with China, therefore making China the most important partner allies have in denuclearizing the North.
Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, stated he was “cautiously optimistic” that a diplomatic solution can be found to North Korean nuclearization.[7] As China is wary of U.S.- South Korean relations, they recognize that a non-threating North Korea is in its regional self-interest. As negotiations will require compromise, China will continue to play an integral part in mediation between the U.S. and North Korea to find an amicable solution to avoid detrimental combat that will likely change the world.
While China claims it has done “everything its power” to end the crisis, the United States must do its part and bring China closer into the fold. A bilateral strategy must be initiated by the two major powers to engage North Korea in such a way where a small level of trust is created to begin talks. Possible concessions include acknowledging North Korea as a nuclear power with the ultimate goal of ending their program. Additionally, South Korea aligning themselves more with China and trade will result in a reengagement of trust between the Peninsula and bring China to the table as part of a reinvigorated Six-Party Talks.
For the United States to bring China to the table, the Trump Administration must also acknowledge China’s place in the world. They will be a superpower going forward, no economic trends or labeling as a “currency manipulator” will reverse that trend. Strategic diplomacy aimed towards quelling China’s concerns about the U.S. is a paramount position to start with.
China and the U.S. may be distrustful at this moment in time, but one cannot ignore its power going forward. Bilateral talks must begin with an agreement between China and the U.S, as North Korean talks are intertwined with a rebalanced relationship.
Endnotes:
[1] BBC News. (16 October 2017). North Korea crisis: Tillerson says diplomacy will continue. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.bbc.com/news/worl...](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41629233.)
[2] Stewart, P. (26 October 2017). Mattis talks diplomacy on North Korea ahead of Trump’s Asia tour. Reuters. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.reuters.com/article/u...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles/mattis-talks-diplomacy-on-north-korea-ahead-of-trumps-asia-tour-idUSKBN1CW04W.)
[3] Powell, B. (24 April 2017). What war with North Korea will look like. Newsweek. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.newsweek.com/2017/05/0...](http://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/05/what-war-north-korea-looks-588861.html.)
[4] Harris, G. (7 August 2017). A rare round of diplomacy from North Korea’s top diplomat. New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.nytimes.com/2017/08/0...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/world/asia/north-korea-asean-tillerson.html.)
[5] Fuchs, M. (21 December 2017). The North Korea deal. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2017-12-21/north-korea-deal.)
[6] NPR Morning Edition. (4 September 2017). What diplomacy can and can’t change with North Korea. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.npr.org/2017/09/0...](https://www.npr.org/2017/09/04/548415546/what-diplomacy-can-and-cant-change-with-north-korea.)
[7] Jones, S. (19 November 2017). China optimistic diplomacy will solve North Korean nuclear issue. Bloomberg. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-19/china-optimistic-diplomacy-will-solve-north-korea-nuclear-issue.)
Options for U.S. Sanctions Towards Russia for Aggression in Ukraine
Note: This piece was first published on Divergent Options on April 17, 2017.
National Security Situation: U.S. economic sanctions towards Russia following its aggressive actions in Ukraine.
Date Originally Written: March 1, 2017.
Date Originally Published: April 17, 2017.
Author and / or Article Point of View: This article is written from the standpoint of the U.S. national security community regarding future plans or movement on Russian sanctions.
Background: In February 2014the Olympic winter games had just concluded in Sochi. Russia was in the midst of invading the Crimea region and portions of Eastern Ukraine. The U.S. placed targeted economic sanctions on Russia as a reaction to its invasion. While these sanctions have been detrimental to Russia’s economy, President Vladimir Putin is still holding portions of Eastern Ukraine and attempting to annex the Donbas region as Russian territory. The first round of the sanctions from the U.S. were a response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, while a second round began as the ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia failed to take hold[1]. The future of Russian aggression towards Ukraine is undetermined at this time.
Significance: In the U.S., the Trump Administration is taking a significantly more laissez-faire approach to Russia and Russian government officials, including Putin, than President Barack Obama did. Any change in U.S. policy towards Russia will have significant impacts in Eastern Europe and on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members – as matters of economics, trade, and territorial occupation are concerned. A declining Russian populous and economy, being backed into a corner, can provide for dangerous consequences, especially since its military and nuclear stockpiles are quite viable.
Option #1: The U.S. continues current economic sanctions until Russia withdrawals its forces from Crimea and the Donetsk region, including other areas of Eastern Ukraine.
Risk: As the U.S. keeps economic pressure on Russia to withdraw from Ukraine’s sovereign territory, a new Cold War may develop as a stalemate between the U.S. and the Russian plays out. Russia will hold on to the territory it occupies at this point in time and continue cross border skirmishes into the Donetsk region.
Gain: If U.S. economic sanctions against Russia were to remain in place, these sanctions and NATO pressure in the form of expanded presence is put upon the Russian government to rethink its strategy in Ukraine. If these sanctions continue, the Ruble will sustain its downward trajectory and inflation will continue to rise, especially for consumer goods. Economic contraction will put pressure on the Russian government to take corrective action and rethink their position to counter public opinion. In 2015, the Russian economy contracted by 3.7%, while it shrank another 0.7% in 2016[2].
Option #2: The U.S. lifts economic sanctions against Russia to give the Russian population economic stability in a country that heavily relies on oil and gas exports as the main driver of its economy and much of its wealth.
Risk: Lifting sanctions may send a signal to the Russian administration that its behavior is warranted, acceptable, and falls in line with global norms. President Putin may feel emboldened to keep moving his forces west to annex further portions of Ukraine. Most of Eastern Ukraine could become a war zone, and humanitarian efforts would have to be implemented by the United Nations and other Non-Governmental Organizations if more grave violations of the Minsk (II) Protocol occurred. Putin’s ultimate plan might involve gaining influence in other former Soviet satellite nations. As such, a Ukraine-like effort may repeat itself elsewhere. Lifting sanctions might give Putin a green light for his next conquest.
Gain: The Russian people may take a friendlier view and role towards the U.S. and allow for more trade. President Putin may be more open to multilateral trade negotiations. A new trade agreement may become possible between Russia and the U.S., including countries that have been targeted by Russian aggression such as – Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States. A restoration and expansion of the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement or similar agreement, would be prudent to economic activity in the region[3]. Of note is that Ukraine is in a position where it now relies on Germany and Western European nations for imports and likely cannot stand on its own.
Other Comments: None.
Recommendations: None.
Endnotes:
[1] Baer, Daniel. (24, February 2017). Don’t forget the Russian sanctions are Russia’s fault. Foreign Policy. Retrieved March 1, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/dont-forget-the-russia-sanctions-are-russias-fault/
[2] Kottasova, Ivana. (26, February 2017). What would rolling back U.S. sanctions mean for Russia? CNN Money. Retrieved March 1, 2017 http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/16/news/economy/russia-sanctions-trump/index.html
[3] “Russia Trade Agreements”. (23, June 2016). Exports.gov. Retrieved March 1, 2017 https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Trade-Agreements
Why I'm Taking a Year to Volunteer
Life experiences make up the structure of a person. Choosing to give time and effort takes dedication and sweat equity. Some may choose to give donations over their time. This all depends on what each individual is willing to commit and how dedicated they are to engulfing themselves into the effort.
Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that only 24.9% of Americans are engaged in volunteering within their communities, a slow downward trajectory from only five years ago. Statistics aside, volunteering is about not showing that an individual cares, but rather getting personally involved with issues that are deeply ingrained to what is believed to be contributing to societal problems.
As a person who is working on his masters in intelligence management, becoming a public servant is only a small part of what is entailed. Keeping the United States secure from foreign and domestic threats is vital to my career goals, however, this cannot be taken for granted. There are American values which need to be protected, including the right of children to learn and become the country's future.
AmeriCorps VISTA offers a unique set of organizational goals to help serve the nation and improve the standing of poverty within it. Education is power. Each child must be given an opportunity to learn, explore their own potentials, and contribute to their own way to the nation. Exploring avenues for children in poverty and low-income households to explore the sciences will the strengthen resolve of educators, parents, and communities.
The goal of academia will still continue, albeit at a slightly slower pace. It is important to concentrate on the goals of the organization that is the assignment from 2017 to 2018. The courses will always be there, other opportunities may not be. Learning and assisting at all levels of society is pivotal to understanding what exactly the mission and objectives of the intelligence community means to the average person. It reminds us who is being protected and given a chance to thrive.
Putting names and faces to children who need assistance and opportunity will always be a standpoint to take away upon entering the intelligence and national security apparatus. Allowing safe environments free from threats is vital to making the United States as strong as it can be.
Agile Methods Aren't Just for Startups
The very definition of agile is the ability to move quickly, make changes, and adapt as needed to changing circumstances. Agile is a frequented term in the development of software and startups, but these principles can also be used to improve the quality and outcomes of life. More importantly, it is the incremental improvement of processes and procedures to ensure these desired goals.
Like any good product or business plan, its best to start out with goals. These can be career, life, financial, etc. Don’t be too broad when brainstorming. Making concise steps in a to-do list, creating a mind map or decision tree are all excellent methods in putting out there what it is you want to accomplish.
The best-seller, Startup Weekend, talks about how to take a concept of a product and bring it to fruition. Iteration, adaptability, and replicability are all important when it comes to scale. A major principle of agile states that its best to fail quickly, pick up the pieces, and move on to change tactics, however, don’t take too much time as the world moves quickly and any strategy could be undermined by competition.
In one’s life goals, competition can be seen as others who want the same career, time, technological changes, or economic fundamentals. While each situation is different, the ability to adapt is paramount in making this strategy work. Do not be afraid to fail, be open minded, and most important; brainstorm ideas & changes through networking.
Iterating on changes can be achieved by crowdsourcing, beta testing, and focus groups. While this is true for business or concepts, it can still be done on an individual level. Using social networks like Linkedin, or Workplace for Facebook are great methods for putting ideas out there for subjection, and receiving quick feedback to see if the right route is being taken. If not, then pivot.
Fine tuning any strategy to achieve career or personal goals is by no means a simple task. It must take a lot of strategizing and stretching outside of comfort zones to know what will work. Achievable tasks, the ability to fail quickly, and an open mind are the most important considerations when using agile principles in everyday life.
Primary Source Material is Crucial for Facts & Research
Back in college we all had access to those often bulky, hard to use research databases, that sometimes worked, but often steered us in the wrong direction. We had to teach ourselves Boolean operators to properly navigate them. There was a reason other than torture for utilizing those; to help us all find primary source materials to write our research papers.
As is often the case, that's about the only time we used academia, raw data and studies to conduct our analysis on any given topic. Unfortunately, many of us negated those skills in our everyday lives. We only read tweets and not the accompanying story bylines and don't question it. We turn on cable news for answers. As soon as we rely on others to conduct the analysis, we lose control of what is fact and what is not.
For the purposes of this post, I'll be looking at the continued importance of primary source for conducting our own research for whatever we desire. I'll point out what to search for, how to do so, and how to read misleading studies and research.
Stated before, this should be a refresher from college or even high school, yet we forget such things in the era of social media and cable news. Bias is at a premium, and this should be your first factor when looking for a source to research a claim.
We will use the example of historical context of the following: A database may contain a personal letter from John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon urging to sway the constituent their way to vote. While this is a primary source and is unique and certainly has its place in history, it is quite biased and should not be used to factcheck, unless the piece is a part of a larger historical research project, per say.
Let's take the example of a major economic number; the monthly non-farm payroll report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is the primary source for all data relating to U.S. employment, unemployment, wages, including a break down where the jobs were gained, lost, and why. The method for collection is survey. Since COVID-19, the BLS has also factored in the ways in which the survey takers communicate their situation.
We must keep in mind as the response rate returns more to normal levels, that there still may be some slack in respondents, creating a larger margin of error (MOE) in responses. As sample sizes decrease, the chance for skew increases. Though this is a primary source, keep in mind any data deterioration that may arise as the survey was collected, in this case for the month of October 2021.
Continuing on the document, the BLS talks about the misclassification issue. Surveys are meant as a point-in-time Continuing through the document, the BLS talks about the misclassification issue. Surveys are meant as a point-in-time and simply not capable of handling entire population sizes. Technically, if an employee is "on leave" due to COVID, they are not considered unemployed, thus, a misclassification has taken place.
Given that COVID-19 was a once-in-a-generation situation, statistical measures can be improved upon moving forward if any other possible disruptive events occur. Like all Data Scientists, hypothesis must be carefully created, methodologies are more important on a national level such as the BLS, and the data requires further refinement and consultation as to what "voluntary leave" or "furloughed" means if these become larger data points in surveys going forward.
An economic number may not be what it seems on a headline or in an article posted in CNBC, Bloomberg, NYT, or Fox Business, for example. Their job is to get clicks and engagement (positive and negative). It's how these sites and companies boost ad revenue in a world where Facebook and Google dominate the online ad market. It's your job to question where these claims came from, to consider what the bias may be, and to retrace the steps to obtain a deeper understanding of what the numbers are "really" telling.
Though it may seem a bit absurd, we all must be capable of basic data science when it comes to understanding the headline. False claims and skewed articles run ramped in the age of social media. Older publications have unfortunately fallen into the same category as they race for clicks and their own share of the ad market. Leave your own biases aside when considering what to think after reading questionable content. Do your homework, as it were. The true comprehension of the story will come through and you can inform others why these pieces may have gotten the story wrong.