Can Sergey Brin Manage? Maybe Not?

December 12, 2025

True Reason Sergey Used “Super Voting Power”

Yuchen Jin, the CTO and co-founder of Hyperbolic Labs posted on X about recent situation at Google.  According topmost, Sergey Brin was disappointed in how Google was using Gemini.  The AI algorithm, in fact, wasn’t being used for coding and Sergey wanted it to be used for that.

It created a big tiff.  Sergey told Sundar that, “I can’t deal with these people. You have to deal with this.”  Sergey still owns Google and has super voting power.  Translation: he can do whatever he darn well pleases with his own company. 

Yuchin Jin summed it up well:

“Big companies always build bureaucracy. Sergey (and Larry) still have super voting power, and he used it to cut through the BS.  Suddenly Google is moving like a startup again. Their AI went from “way behind” to “easily #1” across domains in a year.”

Congratulations to Google making a move that other Big Tech companies knew to make without the intervention of founder. 

Google would have eventually shifted to using Gemini for coding.  Sergey’s influence only sped it up.  The bigger question is if this “tiff” indicates something else.  Big companies do have bureaucracies but if older workers have retired, then that means new blood is needed.  The current new blood is Gen Z and they are as despised as Millennials once were.

I think this means Sergey cannot manage young tech workers either. He had to turn to the “consultant” to make things happen.  It’s quite the admission from a Big Tech leader.

Whitney Grace, December 12, 2025

Google Data Slurps: Never, Ever

December 11, 2025

Here’s another lie from Googleland via Techspot, “Google Denies Gmail Reads Your Emails And Attachments To Train AI, But Here’s How To Opt-Out Anyway.”  Google claims that it doesn’t use emails and attachments to train AI, but we know that’s false.  Google correctly claims that it uses user-generation data for personalization of their applications, like Gmail.  We all know that’s a workaround to use that data for other purposes.

The article includes instructions on how to opt out of information being used to train AI and “personalize” experiences.  Gmail users, however, have had bad experiences with that option, including the need to turn the feature off multiple times. 

Google claims it is committed to privacy but:

“Google has flatly denied using user content to train Gemini, noting that Gmail has offered some of these features for many years. However, the Workspace menu refers to newly added Gemini functionality several times.

The company also denied automatically modifying user permissions, but some people have reported needing multiple attempts to turn off smart features.”

There’s also security vulnerabilities:

“In addition to raising privacy concerns, Gmail’s AI functionality has exposed serious vulnerabilities. In March, Mozilla found that attackers could easily inject prompts that would cause the client’s AI generated summaries to become phishing messages.”

Imagine that one little digital switch protects your privacy and data.  Methinks it is a placebo effect. Whitney Grace, December 11, 2025

Google Gemini Hits Copilot with a Dang Block: Oomph

December 10, 2025

green-dino_thumbAnother dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

Smart software is finding its way into interesting places. One of my newsfeeds happily delivered “The War Department Unleashes AI on New GenAI.mil Platform.” Please, check out the original document because it contains some phrasing which is difficult for a dinobaby to understand. Here’s an example:

The War Department today announced the launch of Google Cloud’s Gemini for Government as the first of several frontier AI capabilities to be housed on GenAI.mil, the Department’s new bespoke AI platform.

There are a number of smart systems with government wide contracts. Is the Google Gemini deal just one of the crowd or is it the cloud over the other players? I am not sure what a “frontier” capability is when it comes to AI. The “frontier” of AI seems to be shifting each time a performance benchmark comes out from a GenX consulting firm or when a survey outfit produces a statement that QWEN accounts for 30 percent of AI involving an open source large language model. The idea of a “bespoke AI platform” is fascinating. Is it like a suit tailored on Oxford Street or a vehicle produced by Chip Foose, or is it one of those enterprise software systems with extensive customization? Maybe like an IBM government systems solution?

image

Thanks, Google. Good enough. I wanted square and you did horizontal, but that’s okay. I understand.

And that’s just the first sentence. You are now officially on your own.

For me, the big news is that the old Department of Defense loved PowerPoint. If you have bumped into any old school Department of Defense professionals, the PowerPoint is the method of communication. Sure, there’s Word and Excel. But the real workhorse is PowerPoint. And now that old nag has Copilot inside.

The way I read this news release is that Google has pulled a classic blocking move or dang. Microsoft has been for decades the stallion in the stall. Now, the old nag has some competition from Googzilla, er, excuse me, Google. Word of this deal was floating around for several months, but the cited news release puts Microsoft in general and Copilot in particular on notice that it is no longer the de facto solution to a smart Department of War’s digital needs. Imagine a quarter century after screwing up a big to index the US government servers, Google has emerged as a “winner” among “several frontier AI capabilities” and will reside on “the Department’s new bespoke AI platform.”

This is big news for Google and Microsoft, its certified partners, and, of course, the PowerPoint users at the DoW.

The official document says:

The first instance on GenAI.mil, Gemini for Government, empowers intelligent agentic workflows, unleashes experimentation, and ushers in an AI-driven culture change that will dominate the digital battlefield for years to come. Gemini for Government is the embodiment of American AI excellence, placing unmatched analytical and creative power directly into the hands of the world’s most dominant fighting force.

But what about Sage, Seerist, and the dozens of other smart platforms? Obviously these solutions cannot deliver “intelligent agentic workflows” or unleash the “AI driven culture change” needed for the “digital battlefield.” Let’s hope so. Because some of those smart drones from a US firm have failed real world field tests in Ukraine. Perhaps the smart drone folks can level up instead of doing marketing?

I noted this statement:

The Department is providing no-cost training for GenAI.mil to all DoW employees. Training sessions are designed to build confidence in using AI and give personnel the education needed to realize its full potential. Security is paramount, and all tools on GenAI.mil are certified for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Impact Level 5 (IL5), making them secure for operational use. Gemini for Government provides an edge through natural language conversation, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and is web-grounded against Google Search to ensure outputs are reliable and dramatically reduces the risk of AI hallucinations.

But wait, please. I thought Microsoft and Palantir were doing the bootcamps, demonstrating, teaching, and then deploying next generation solutions. Those forward deployed engineers and the Microsoft certified partners have been beavering away for more than a year. Who will be doing the training? Will it be Googlers? I know that YouTube has some useful instructional videos, but those are from third parties. Google’s training is — how shall I phrase it — less notable than some of its other capabilities like publicizing its AI prowess.

The last paragraph of the document does not address the questions I have, but it does have a stentorian ring in my opinion:

GenAI.mil is another building block in America’s AI revolution. The War Department is unleashing a new era of operational dominance, where every warfighter wields frontier AI as a force multiplier. The release of GenAI.mil is an indispensable strategic imperative for our fighting force, further establishing the United States as the global leader in AI.

Several observations:

  1. Google is now getting its chance to put Microsoft in its place from inside the Department of War. Maybe the Copilot can come along for the ride, but it could be put on leave.
  2. The challenge of training is interesting. Training is truly a big deal, and I am curious how that will be handled. The DoW has lots of people to teach about the capabilities of Gemini AI.
  3. Google may face some push back from its employees. The company has been working to stop the Googlers from getting out of the company prescribed lanes. Will this shift to warfighting create some extra work for the “leadership” of that estimable company? I think Google’s management methods will be exercised.

Net net: Google knows about advertising. Does it have similar capabilities in warfighting?

Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2025

What Can a Monopoly Type Outfit Do? Move Fast and Break Things Not Yet Broken

November 26, 2025

green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

CNBC published “Google Must Double AI Compute Every 6 Months to Meet Demand, AI Infrastructure Boss Tells Employees.”

How does the math work out? Big numbers result as well as big power demands, pressure on suppliers, and an incentive to enter hyper-hype mode for marketing I think.

image

Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

The write up states:

Google ’s AI infrastructure boss [maybe a fellow named Amin Vahdat, the leadership responsible for Machine Learning, Systems and Cloud AI?] told employees that the company has to double its compute capacity every six months in order to meet demand for artificial intelligence services.

Whose demand exactly? Commercial enterprises, Google’s other leadership, or people looking for a restaurant in an unfamiliar town?

The write up notes:

Hyperscaler peers Microsoft, Amazon and Meta also boosted their capex guidance, and the four companies now expect to collectively spend more than $380 billion this year.

Faced with this robust demand, what differentiates the Google for other monopoly-type companies? CNBC delivers a bang up answer to my question:

Google’s “job is of course to build this infrastructure but it’s not to outspend the competition, necessarily,” Vahdat said. “We’re going to spend a lot,” he said, adding that the real goal is to provide infrastructure that is far “more reliable, more performant and more scalable than what’s available anywhere else.” In addition to infrastructure buildouts, Vahdat said Google bolsters capacity with more efficient models and through its custom silicon. Last week, Google announced the public launch of its seventh generation Tensor Processing Unit called Ironwood, which the company says is nearly 30 times more power efficient than its first Cloud TPU from 2018. Vahdat said the company has a big advantage with DeepMind, which has research on what AI models can look like in future years.

I see spend the same as a competitor but, because Google is Googley, the company will deliver better reliability, faster, and more easily made bigger AI than the non-Googley competition. Google is focused on efficiency. To me, Google bets that its engineering and programming expertise will give it an unbeatable advantage. The VP of Machine Learning, Systems and Cloud AI does not mention the fact that Google has its magical advertising system and about 85 percent of the global Web search market via its assorted search-centric services. Plus one must not overlook the fact that the Google is vertically integrated: Chips, data centers, data, smart people, money, and smart software.

The write up points out that Google knows there are risks with its strategy. But FOMO is more important than worrying about costs and technology. But what about users? Sure, okay, eyeballs, but I think Google means humanoids who have time to use Google whilst riding in Waymos and hanging out waiting for a job offer to arrive on an Android phone. Google doesn’t need to worry. Plus it can just bump up its investments until competitors are left dying in the desert known as Death Vall-AI.

After kicking beaten to the draw in the PR battle with Microsoft, the Google thinks it can win the AI jackpot. But what if it fails? No matter. The AI folks at the Google know that the automated advertising system that collects money at numerous touch points is for now churning away 24×7. Googzilla may just win because it is sitting on the cash machine of cash machines. Even counterfeiters in Peru and Vietnam cannot match Google’s money spinning capability.

Is it game over? Will regulators spring into action? Will Google win the race to software smarter than humans? Sure. Even if it part of the push to own the next big thing is puffery, the Google is definitely confident that it will prevail just like Superman and the truth, justice, and American way has. The only hitch in the git along may be having captured enough electrical service to keep the lights on and the power flowing. Lots of power.

Stephen E Arnold, November 26, 2025

Waymo Mows Down a Mission Cat

November 21, 2025

Cat lovers in San Francisco have a new reason to be angry at Waymo, Google’s self-driving car division. The outrage has reached all the way to the UK, where the Metro reports, “Robotaxi Runs Over and Kills Popular Cat that Greeted People in a Corner Shop.” Reporter Sarah Hooper writes:

“KitKat, the beloved pet cat at Randa’s Market, was run over by an automated car on October 27. He was rushed to a hospital by a bartender working nearby, but was pronounced dead. KitKat’s death has sparked an outpouring of fury and sadness from those who loved him – and questions about the dangers posed by self-driving cars. Randa’s Market owner Mike Zeidan told Rolling Stone: ‘He was a special cat. You can tell by the love and support he’s getting from the community that he was amazing.’ San Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder spoke out publicly, saying: ‘Waymo thinks they can just sweep this under the rug and we will all forget, but here in the Mission, we will never forget our sweet KitKat.’ Anger in the community has increased after it was revealed that on the same day KitKat was killed, Waymo co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana said she thought society is ‘ready to accept deaths’ caused by automated cars. But KitKat’s owner pointed out that next time, the death could be that of a child, not just a beloved pet.”

Good point. In a statement, the company insists the tabby “darted” under the car as it pulled away. Perhaps. But do the big dogs at Google really feel “deepest sympathies” for those grieving their furry friend, as the statement claims? It was one of them, after all, who asserted the world is ready to trade deaths for her firm’s technology.

Curious readers can navigate to the write-up to see a couple photos of the charismatic kitty.

Cynthia Murrell, November 21, 2025

Google Is Really Cute: Push Your Content into the Jaws of Googzilla

November 4, 2025

green-dino_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Google has a new, helpful, clever, and cute service just for everyone with a business Web site. “Google Labs’ Free New Experiment Creates AI-Generated Ads for Your Small Business” lays out the basics of Pomelli. (I think this word means knobs or handles.)

image

A Googley business process designed to extract money and data from certain customers. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

The cited article states:

Pomelli uses AI to create campaigns that are unique to your business; all you need to do is upload your business website to begin. Google says Pomelli uses your business URL to create a “Business DNA” that analyzes your website images to identify brand identity. The Business DNA profile includes tone of voice, color palettes, fonts, and pictures. Pomelli can also generate logos, taglines, and brand values.

Just imagine Google processing your Web site, its content, images, links, and entities like email addresses, phone numbers, etc. Then using its smart software to create an advertising campaign, ads, and suggestions for the amount of money you should / will / must spend via Google’s own advertising system. What a cute idea!

The write up points out:

Google says this feature eliminates the laborious process of brainstorming unique ad campaigns. If users have their own campaign ideas, they can enter them into Pomelli as a prompt. Finally, Pomelli will generate marketing assets for social media, websites, and advertisements. These assets can be edited, allowing users to change images, headers, fonts, color palettes, descriptions, and create a call to action.

How will those tireless search engine optimization consultants and Google certified ad reselling outfits react to this new and still “experimental” service? I am confident that [a] some will rationalize the wonderfulness of this service and sell advisory services about the automated replacement for marketing and creative agencies; [b] some will not understand that it is time to think about a substantive side gig because Google is automating basic business functions and plugging into the customer’s wallet with no pesky intermediary to shave off some bucks; and [c] others will watch as their own sales efforts become less and less productive and then go out of business because adaptation is hard.

Is Google’s idea original? No, Adobe has something called AI Found, according to the write up. Google is not into innovation. Need I remind you that Google advertising has some roots in the Yahoo garden in bins marked GoTo.com and Overture.com. Also, there is a bank account with some Google money from a settlement about certain intellectual property rights that Yahoo believed Google used as a source of business process inspiration.

As Google moves into automating hooks, it accrues several significant benefits which seem to stick up in Google’s push to help its users:

  1. Crawling costs may be reduced. The users will push content to Google. This may or may not be a significant factor, but the user who updates provides Google with timely information.
  2. The uploaded or pushed content can be piped into the Google AI system and used to inform the advertising and marketing confection Pomelli. Training data and ad prospects in one go.
  3. The automation of a core business function allows Google to penetrate more deeply into a business. What if that business uses Microsoft products? It strikes me that the Googlers will say, “Hey, switch to Google and you get advertising bonus bucks that can be used to reduce your overall costs.”
  4. The advertising process is a knob that Google can be used to pull the user and his cash directly into the Google business process automation scheme.

As I said, cute and also clever. We love you, Google. Keep on being Googley. Pull those users’ knobs, okay.

Stephen E Arnold, November 4, 2025

AI Will Kill, and People Will Grow Accustomed to That … Smile

October 30, 2025

green-dino_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I spotted a story in SFGate, which I think was or is part of a dead tree newspaper. What struck me was the photograph (allegedly not a deep fake) of two people looking not just happy. I sensed a bit of self satisfaction and confidence. Regardless, both people gracing “Society Will Accept a Death Caused by a Robotaxi, Waymo Co-CEO Says.” Death, as far back as I can recall as an 81-year-old dinobaby, has never made me happy, but I just accepted the way life works. Part of me says that my vibrating waves will continue. I think Blaise Pascal suggested that one should believe in God because what’s the downside. Go, Blaise, a guy who did not get to experience an an accident involving a self-driving smart vehicle.

image

A traffic jam in a major metro area. The cause? A self-driving smart vehicle struck a school bus. But everyone is accustomed to this type of trivial problem. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough like some high-tech outfits’ smart software.

But Waymo is a Google confection dating from 2010 if my memory is on the money. Google is a reasonably big company. It brokers, sells, and creates a market for its online advertising business. The cash spun from that revolving door is used to fund great ideas and moon shots. Messrs. Brin, Page, and assorted wizards had some time to kill as they sat in their automobiles creeping up and down Highway 101. The idea of a self-driving car that would allow a very intelligent, multi-tasking driver to do something productive than become a semi-sentient meat blob sparked an idea. We can rig a car to creep along Highway 101. Cool. That insight spawned what is now known as Waymo.

An estimable Google Waymo expert found himself involved in litigation related to Google’s intellectual property. I had ignored Waymo until the Anthony Levandowski founded a company, sold it to Uber, and then ended up in a legal matter that last from 2017 to 2019. Publicity, I have heard, whether positive or negative, is good. I knew about Waymo: A Google project, intellectual property, and litigation. Way to go, Waymo.

For me, Waymo appears in some social media posts (allegedly actual factual) when Waymo vehicles get trapped in a dead end in Cow Town. Sometimes the Waymos don’t get out of the way of traffic barriers and sit purring and beeping. I have heard that some residents of San Francisco have [a] kicked, [b] sprayed graffiti on Waymos, and/or [c] put traffic cones in certain roads to befuddle the smart Google software-powered vehicles. From a distance, these look a bit like something from a Mad Max motion picture.

My personal view is that I would never stand in front of a rolling Waymo. I know that [a] Google search results are not particularly useful, [b] Google’s AI outputs crazy information like glue cheese on pizza, and [c] Waymo’s have been involved in traffic incidents which cause me to stay away from Waymos.

The cited article says that the Googler said in response to a question about a Waymo hypothetical killing of a person:

“I think that society will,” Mawakana answered, slowly, before positioning the question as an industry wide issue. “I think the challenge for us is making sure that society has a high enough bar on safety that companies are held to.” She said that companies should be transparent about their records by publishing data about how many crashes they’re involved in, and she pointed to the “hub” of safety information on Waymo’s website. Self-driving cars will dramatically reduce crashes, Mawakana said, but not by 100%: “We have to be in this open and honest dialogue about the fact that we know it’s not perfection.” [Emphasis added by Beyond Search]

My reactions to this allegedly true and accurate statement from a Googler are:

  1. I am not confident that Google can be “transparent.” Google, according to one US court is a monopoly. Google has been fined by the European Union for saying one thing and doing another. The only reason I know about these court decisions is because legal processes released information. Google did not provide the information as part of its commitment to transparency.
  2. Waymos create problems because the Google smart software cannot handle the demands of driving in the real world. The software is good enough, but not good enough to figure out dead ends, actions by human drivers, and potentially dangerous situations. I am aware of fender benders and collisions with fixed objects that have surfaced in Waymo’s 15 year history.
  3. Self driving cars specifically Waymo will injure or kill people. But Waymo cars are safe. So some level of killing humans is okay with Google, regulators, and the society in general. What about the family of the person who is killed by good enough Google software? The answer: The lawyers will blame something other than Google. Then fight in court because Google has oodles of cash from its estimable online advertising business.

The cited article quotes the Waymo Googler as saying:

“If you are not being transparent, then it is my view that you are not doing what is necessary in order to actually earn the right to make the roads safer,” Mawakana said. [Emphasis added by Beyond Search]

Of course, I believe everything Google says. Why not believe that Waymos will make self driving vehicle caused deaths acceptable? Why not believe Google is transparent? Why not believe that Google will make roads safer? Why not?

But I like the idea that people will accept an AI vehicle killing people. Stuff happens, right?

Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2025

Google Needs Help from a Higher Power

October 17, 2025

green-dino_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

In my opinion, there should be one digital online service. This means one search system, one place to get apps, one place to obtain real time “real” news, and one place to buy and sell advertising. Wouldn’t that make life much easier for the company who owned the “one place.” If the information in “US Supreme Court Allows Order Forcing Google to Make App Store Reforms” is accurate, Google’s dream of becoming that “one place” has been interrupted.

The write up from a trusted source reports:

The declined on Monday [October 6, 2025] to halt key parts of a judge’s order requiring Alphabet’s, Google to make major changes to its app store Play, as the company prepares to appeal a decision in a lawsuit brought by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. The justices turned down Google’s request to temporarily freeze parts of the injunction won by Epic in its lawsuit accusing the tech giant of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps.

Imagine the nerve of this outfit. These highly trained, respected legal professionals did not agree with Google’s rock-solid, diamond-hard arguments. Imagine a maker of electronic games screwing up one of the modules in the Google money and data machine. The nerve.

image

Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.

The write up adds:

Google in its Supreme Court filing said the changes would have enormous consequences for more than 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. Google said it plans to file a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, which could allow the justices to take up the case during their nine-month term that began on Monday.

The fact that the government is shut down will not halt, impair, derail, or otherwise inhibit Google’s quest for the justice it deserves. If the case can be extended, it is possible the government legal eagles will seek new opportunities in commercial enterprises or just resign due to the intellectual demands of their jobs.

The news story points out:

Google faces other lawsuits from government, consumer and commercial plaintiffs challenging its search and advertising business practices.

It is difficult to believe that a firm with such a rock solid approach to business can find itself swatting knowledge gnats. Onward to the “one service.” Is that on a Google T shirt yet?

Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2025

Who Is Afraid of the Big Bad AI Wolf? Mr. Beast Perhaps?

October 14, 2025

green-dino_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

The story “MrBeast Warns of ‘Scary Times’ as AI Threatens YouTube Creators” is apparently about You Tube creators. Mr. Beast, a notable YouTube personality, is the source of the information. Is the article about YouTube creators? Yep, but it is also about Mr. Beast.

image

The write up says:

MrBeast may not personally face the threat of being replaced by AI as his brand thrives on large-scale, real-world stunts that rely on authenticity and human emotion. But his concern runs deeper than self-preservation. It’s about the millions of smaller creators who depend on platforms like YouTube to make a living. As one of the most influential figures on the internet, his words carry weight. The 27-year-old recently topped Forbes’ 2025 list of highest-earning creators, earning roughly $85 million and building a following of over 630 million across platforms.

Okay, Mr. Beast’s fame depended on YouTube. He is still in the YouTube fold. However, he has other business enterprises. He recognizes that smart software could create problems for creators.

I think smart software is another software tool. It is becoming a utility like a PDF editor.

The problem with Mr. Beast’s analysis is that it appears to be focused on other creators. I am not so sure. I think the comments presented in the write up reveal more about Mr. Beast than they do about the “other” creators. One example is:

“When AI videos are just as good as normal videos, I wonder what that will do to YouTube and how it will impact the millions of creators currently making content for a living… scary times,” MrBeast — whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson — wrote on X.

I am no expert on human psychology, but I see the use of the word “impact” and “scary” as a glimpse of what Mr. Beast is thinking. His production costs allegedly rival those of traditional commercial video outfits. The ideas and tropes have become increasingly strained and bizarre. YouTube acts in a unilateral way and outputs smarm to the creators desperate to know why the flow of their money has been reduced if not cut off. Those disappearing van life videos are just one example of how video magnets can melt down and be crushed under the wheels of the Google bus.

My thought is that Google will use AI to create alterative Mr. Beast-type videos with AI. Then squeeze the Mr. Beast type creators and let the traffic flow to Mother  Google. No royalties required, so Google wins. Mr. Beast-type creators can find their future and money elsewhere. Simple.

Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2025

At Google Innovation Never Stops or Gee a G

October 10, 2025

green-dino_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read “Google’s Gradient G Icon Design Is Going Company Wide.” Usually Deepseek, the YouTube leadership, or a rando in advertising announces a quantumly supreme achievement. The stunning Google news for September 29, 2025, is presented this way:

Google used “brighter hues and gradient design” to “symbolize the surge of AI-driven innovation and creative energy across our products and technology.” The aim was to stay “true to Google’s iconic four colors,” with the last design refresh taking place 10 years ago.

The article includes the old G and the new forward leaning, innovative, quantumly supreme G. Here’s what I saw in the cited write up:

image

This is the old, backward leaning, non-innovative, un-quantumly supreme G.

Now here’s is the new forward leaning, innovative, quantumly supreme G:

image

That is revolutionary, boundary stretching, Leonardo DaVinci grade art.

I am impressed. Imagine the achievement amidst some staff concern about layoffs, and the financial headaches resulting from those data center initiatives, crypto services, and advertising sales efforts.

What’s next from the Google? Gee, this new G will be difficult to galvanize more grandiose game changers.

Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2025

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta