Worth Reading 090125


Can we trust AI? Will AI take our jobs? Is an AI app safe? Shall we invest in AI company? Create an AI startup? Will AI accelerate cybercrime?


This study highlights the inadequacy of current privacy protection measures and proposes an automated, sustainable approach to correlate user profiles, including homonyms and pseudonyms, solely through publicly available data.


Bargury’s attack starts with a poisoned document, which is shared to a potential victim’s Google Drive. (Bargury says a victim could have also uploaded a compromised file to their own account.)


I wrote last week about three examples of the new GPT 5.0 chatbot contradicting Sam Altman’s claim that “it really feels like talking to an expert in any topic, like a PhD-level expert.”


RFCs are, inherently, the result of a design-by-committee writing process; usually intended for engineers to read. Especially with cryptography, they err on the side of technical specification rather than introductory blog post.


The transition to IPv6 is now a practical necessity for networks under pressure to scale, secure, and streamline their operations.

Worth Reading 082925


In this episode of PING, Robert Kisteleki from the RIPE NCC discusses the RIPE Atlas system — a network of over 13,000 measurement devices deployed worldwide in homes, exchange points, stub and transit Autonomous Systems, densely connected regions and sparse island states.


The common denominator in both tests was technology called “Innovative Optical and Wireless Network” (IOWN), an all-optical networking stack that NTT hopes will mature in 2030 and expects will reduce power consumption by 100x, improve transmission capacity by 125x, and reduce network latency to 0.5 percent of current levels.


Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are often overlooked in discussions about critical infrastructure. Yet their role in routing stability, local resilience, and digital sovereignty is undeniable.


Is adding AI to your environment a software purchase? Or is it more like hiring an employee?


Design by committee should always ring alarm bells, particularly in technology. The desire to achieve acceptable compromises between various opinions often leads to compromised technical outcomes, and it seems to me that the current work on redefining zone cuts and delegation in the DNS is leading to this same outcome


The TCP/IP Interoperability Conference—later renamed Interop—began as a small workshop in August 1986. It quickly grew in scope to incorporate tutorials, and by 1988 an exhibition network connected 51 exhibitors to each other and to the global Internet.


There is a relatively new fiber technology that most readers will not have heard about. Multi-core fiber (MCF) is a technology that packs multiple strands of fiber inside a bundle that is about the same size as a single strand of fiber today.


This is where the “Jericho” StrataDNX switch/router chips and their related “Ramon” fabric elements come in, which are an important part of the Broadcom datacenter networking portfolio.


We had a series of mini-outages at sketch.dev on July 15th, caused by LLM-written code.

Best of the Hedge: Episode 3

From time to time, I like to dive into the archive and find a show that’s worth repeating. Forthwith, Derrick Winkworth and automation.
 
Network automation efforts tend to focus on building and maintaining configurations–but is this the right place to be putting our automation efforts? Derick Winkworth joins Tom Ammon and Russ White at the Hedge for a conversation about what engineers really do, and what this means for automation.
 

 

Posted in AUDIO, HEDGE

Worth Reading 081325


The current state of digital identity is a mess. Your personal information is scattered across hundreds of locations: social media companies, IoT companies, government agencies, websites you have accounts on, and data brokers you’ve never heard of.


It turns out that, if you have your domain hosted by a big provider (we happen to use GoDaddy), it’s easy to turn on DNSSEC. But I think it says a lot that it took us this long (and the stimulus of working on a new security book) to get us to turn on DNSSEC


As we left the laboratory, I thought about how we in the computing field build a tremendous number of things that really cannot be called beautiful and then are commonly tossed aside without a thought.


The accelerated migration to advanced services will be accompanied by unprecedented complexity, and security and reliability concerns that must be addressed by the network-engineering and formal-methods communities.


Quantum scientists have long treated quantum entanglement as precious cargo, forging fresh links for every secure message or computation. A new theoretical study proposes a thriftier route, letting an existing pair pass portions of its entanglement down an extended chain.

Fast Following Fails

Fast following fails.

Whenever I hear a leader in a technology business say, “We’re going to fast follow because it’s the most profitable place to be,” I know I’m looking at a failed organization. I didn’t come to this conclusion by thinking about it. I came to this conclusion by observing it repeatedly.

After observing it, however, I wanted to understand why this particular strategy fails so consistently and spectacularly. Why? To understand my theory, we need to start in a somewhat different place than business—we need to start with the nature of goals and humans.

You can place goals into two buckets: first things and second things.

First things are foundational. If you are a technology company, the first thing is building a stable, resilient, and flexible platform (or foundation). The products you sell will only be as stable as your platform. The innovation you achieve will only be as consistent as your platform is.

Second things are goals you can only achieve once you’ve built the first things.

Here’s the hard truth no one wants to hear: Generating revenue is a second thing.

Humans become what they do.

We all want to believe we can become what we desire—but we actually become what we do. In Aristotelian philosophy, this is called the virtue ethic. You become physically virtuous by exercising your body. You become intellectually virtuous by thinking about hard things.

Companies are the same way. A company can only become innovative by innovating. Innovating becomes a habit—or it doesn’t.

What does this have to do with fast following?

The theory of the “fast follower” is: “I’m going to let other people spend money on research and development, I’m going to let them carry the burden of innovating and making all the mistakes, then I’m going to jump in and scoop up their innovation.”

This seems sound at first glance. It’s a compelling story.

It doesn’t work, however, because you are chasing another organization’s success without building their platform. You’ve placed a second thing—revenue generation—in first place, and first things—building a platform and innovating—in second place.

When you put building a platform and innovating on top of that platform in second place—when you “fast follow”—you lose the habit of building a solid platform and the habit of innovating.

Building a platform on which you can actually ship innovative products—no matter who invented them—and cultivating a mindset that seeks out good innovation creates a culture of innovation. When you build the mental habit of waiting until someone else’s innovation succeeds and then building “just enough platform to make it work here, too,” you are building an unstable platform and killing innovation.

“But what about all those fast-following success stories?”

One reason “fast following” success stories abound is that you can make a lot of money for a little while with the fast-following strategy. Another is that when an organization first moves to fast following, they have the leftover platform and innovation culture to carry them for a little while.

But time will out all fast following organizations. When the market shifts, fast followers will have neither the platform to shift with it nor the innovation to change with the market.

By putting second things first, the fast follower loses the first things that make the second thing possible.

“But I’ll make a lot of money until it fails, right? I don’t care about the future, just making a lot of money quickly!”

Sure, if that’s the life you want to lead, go for it. If you want to live a life devoid of community, and you want to lie on your deathbed and say, “I don’t care what damage I caused,” if sheer wealth is all that matters, feel free to fast follow.

If you want to build something, however, go build it.

Fast following gives up building platforms and innovating for immediate success, and winds up failing to innovate or succeed.