Telegram Defies Kremlin
April 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Editor’s Note: We’re still struggling with the blocks on our Telegram Notes’ posts. The new service with the former content and the censored content will be in a few days. You won’t believe the baloney the outfits blocking my content served me and my team. I am a dinobaby and 82, and I am amused with those who want only certain information available. For now, I find it revealing that there are entities who want what one young whiz kid told me about my write ups: “Your stuff is written by AI.” That’s good to know because it demonstrates that smart software, like some censors, are not without the capacity to make errors.
A news organization with a snappy tagline published “Telegram to Adapt to Russa Restrictions, Pavel Durov Says.” That information source is the Saudi Gazette. The article reports:
Telegram founder Pavel Durov said Saturday the messaging platform will adapt to restrictions in Russia, making its traffic harder to detect and block. In a statement, Durov said 65 million Russians continue to use Telegram daily via virtual private network (VPN) apps, with more than 50 million sending messages despite authorities slowing down the service. He said efforts to ban VPNs have pushed users toward workarounds rather than reducing usage.
The question is, “What does adapt mean?” Will the underlying more than 13-year-old plumbing be tweaked to deliver what the current government authorities demands? Or, does Pavel Durov, the GOAT of Russian startups, mean that the users of Telegram will adopt workflows that get around the crackdown on Telegram.
This humorous illustration shows a government dignitary commanding a French poodle coincidentally named Pavel. The dog has followed the command “Sit.” Now the handler wants a more sophisticated demonstration of compliance. Thanks, Venice.ai. Not a Borzoi, but good enough.
As Telegram Notes has documented, suggestions gave way to orders to adopt the Kremlin-approved messaging app Max. I think of Max as Palantir-lite, but that’s just my mental shorthand at work. Maybe Uighur-Lite is a better phrase.
The article revealed that Telegram’s Russian user community is smaller than some metrics firms have reported. The 65 million number is about 30 million below some of the interesting estimates offered on Telegram and in Russia social media. If the Kremlin achieves its goal of having Pavel Durov obey the Kremlin’s commands, Telegram’s user count may not take this hit. On the other hand, if the Telegram users do not comply, then Telegram can add to its list of serious problems losing 10 percent of its user base.
The message Pavel Durov output consists of two parts in my opinion. The first post is that “Pavel Durov Harshly Criticized Apple.” TON News on April 1, 2026, said:
Durov directly hinted that it’s not about security, but about money and the desire to preserve their [sic] market. And it all looks pretty bad when a big company simply adjusts to the rules that benefit it.
Then TON News reported that “Telegram Has Repelled Roskomnadzor’s Attack.” Telegram updated its Messenger app and the behind-the-code systems to change how ClientHello is identified. The result is that the Kremlin’s message inspection system is now less effective.
According to Telegram News:
… Durov… stated that even after all the blocking attempts, over 50 million people in Russia still use Telegram every day via VPN.
Telegram News’s view is that Pavel Durov will play a cat-and-mouse game. Durov, however, is in France unless the French judiciary grants him a hall pass to leave that country to visit his office in Dubai, UAE. Will the French government announce a trial data or just keep kicking the ball of hefty red tape down the autoroute? Will Pavel Durov find a solution to this Kremlin anti-Telegram stance, his firm’s AI woes, and the revenue challenges the company faces?
On the AI front, the Chinese Qwen model deployed to Telegram Messenger “edit,” the Chinese system changes what the user typed to conform to the political stance of the Chinese government. A Messenger user may want to be careful with wording that says, “Taiwan is an independent country.” Qwen knows that Taiwan is part of mainland China.
Another niggling issue for Mr. Durov is the possibility that two publicly traded companies could collapse or be de-listed from NASDAQ. With the Iran War, the evangelical Gateway Conference for the crypto faithful has been postponed.
What are the workarounds? Some Russians may live near a border town in Lithuania. Snag a SIM card from that country and connect to Telegram. Others may have access to a Starlink-type device. Having one on the roof of a Lada could attract some attention. A person could land a job in a Russian security service or an outfit like Global Network Management and have non-restricted access.
Telegram finds itself bogged down with challenges a Zen master might have difficulty reducing to a pleasant background hum.
PS. To read Telegram News, one must install Telegram Messenger, sign up for Telegram News, and receive the content when it appears in the chat interface. If this does not make sense, you need a copy of my Telegram Labyrinth book. For information, write kentmaxwell at proton do me.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2026
Data Centers As Sitting Ducks
April 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Those in the data center business with structures in the Iran war zone realize that when rockets or other kinetics strike the roof, problems ensue. A well-placed round can disable a critical piece of the electrical or cooling equipment as well. Now there is another possible threat. “Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Just Named 18 US Tech Firms as Military Targets. The Age of the Civilian Data Centre Is Over.” The write up reported on March 31, 2026:
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps published a statement on its official Sepah News channel naming 18 US firms, from Apple and Microsoft to Nvidia and Palantir, as “legitimate targets” in retaliation for what it described as their role in enabling American and Israeli assassination operations inside Iran. The list reads like a roll call of the Nasdaq’s most valuable constituents. Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Nvidia, Intel, Cisco, Oracle, Dell, HP, IBM, JPMorgan Chase, Tesla, General Electric, Boeing, and Palantir all appear alongside Spire Solutions and G42, the Abu Dhabi-based AI firm that has become a linchpin of the Gulf’s artificial intelligence ambitions.
Some people are aware of potential supply disruptions in gasoline and helium, but the idea that the financial operations of certain countries could be disrupted is problematic. One cannot go to the local automatic teller machine and conduct a hundred million euro transaction.
Thanks, Venice.ai. I appreciate that you excluded the missile. Good enough.
I know that data centers in the Ashburn, Virginia area are hardened. However, I am not so sure that the data centers not far from the special economic zones in Dubai are constructed to what I think of AT&T milspecs. From what I have observed, direct missile strikes were not part of the actual construction.
The write up said:
The threat is extraordinary in its specificity. Rather than targeting military installations or government buildings, the IRGC has identified private-sector technology infrastructure as the mechanism through which, it alleges, the United States has been locating and killing senior Iranian officials. The statement declared that American ICT and AI companies are “the key element in designing and tracking terror targets,” and that “for every assassination and terrorist act in Iran, one facility or unit belonging to these companies will face destruction.”
What’s interesting is that the Ukraine-style asymmetric warfare is making explicit the companies whose infrastructure is at risk. The threats may be idle, but the vulnerability exists. One cannot pile sandbags on a roof of a typical data center. I assume that’s why the subtitle to the cited article makes the point “the age of the civilian data center is over.”
The more practical knock on effect of this threat is that the costs of retro-fitting a data center are not in the budget for the current quarter. New data centers will have to have some additional thought put into their construction method.
Data centers are sitting ducks. There are numerous points of vulnerability. Just “bury data centers” is easy to say. Using existing caves, old mine digs, or more exotic ideas like putting data centers in orbit present some challenges as well. There are some notable caves. I know from my work with the hard rock mining engineering firm Robinson & Robinson that suitable mine shafts exist if they are not filled with water or sealed to prevent some exciting environmental events from becoming noticeable to bunnies and people. The data center in space works if one has rockets that don’t explode on launch. For one firm, exploding rockets suggest the company should consider switching to the production of war munitions.
The write up pointed out:
The exposure is enormous. Microsoft has committed $15 billion to expanding its operations in the UAE by 2029. Amazon has pledged $5 billion to an AI hub in Riyadh. Oracle, Cisco, and Nvidia announced a partnership with OpenAI to build an AI campus in the UAE. Google and Amazon Web Services are constructing dedicated cloud regions in Saudi Arabia scheduled to launch this year. According to analysts at TD Cowen, hyperscaler capital expenditure is forecast to exceed $600 billion in 2026, with roughly 75 per cent tied to AI infrastructure. A substantial portion of that money is flowing into the very region the IRGC is now threatening.
I have confidence that the bean counters and MBAs at the high-tech super companies have the problem solved. These folks have their own brains and the unfettered power of AI without guardrails. Obviously for these BAIT (big AI technology) companies the data center threat is a no brainer. I assume these BAIT outfits know who will ensure their data centers too. I admire forward thinking and the use of agentic AI to solve problems. For example, what if an adversary strikes a data center in Fremont on the way to San Jose?
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2026
What Is a Bookmarking Service Worth?
March 19, 2026
I know browsers do bookmarks. There are free services that help users manage bookmarks. Open source software is available; for instance, LinkAce. For the bold and forward leaning IT professional, one can just ask Anthropic Claude to create a bookmark manager for an organization.
But no.
Fueled with the fires of the UK postal service software, the British government has a proven expertise in procurement.
The United Kingdom wants its people to increase their AI expertise. The UK government launched the AI Skills Boost website. Mahad Kalam writes about the new hub on his blog: “The UK Paid £4.1 Million For A Bookmarks Site.” The site cost a pittance, something on the order of £4.1 million (about US$5.3 million) for a bookmark site.
When I visited the Web site, I was not impressed. I thought of the approach as similar to the Web sites I visit when I explore certain deceptive services we address in our lectures for law enforcement. But the site is a hub being launched by the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology for upskilling. It lists its partners in an effort to demonstrate credibility. I thought its resources are limited.
Kalam wrote:
“I’m angry at the sheer wastefulness of the UK Government here. Our public services are collapsing – while £4 million is admittedly chump change for the UK government, there are real people behind these numbers – families waiting months for NHS appointments, children in crumbling schools, vulnerable people not getting the care they need. The waste feels particularly galling when you realize that almost no one will actually use this site!”
Kalam said that there are businesses out that could have made this website at a fraction of the multi million pound cost. To quote Kalam, “Do better.”
The issue is, as it is for many governments, the bureaucratic friction endemic in modern government agencies. Toss in jargon like AI and a Byzantine tender and procurement process and you get a site, an item removed from a “to do” list, and a service that does not serve. Is this a UK problem? Nope. The problem is global.
Whitney Grace, March 19, 2026
Yep, Technology Publications Face the Grim Stealer
March 13, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I was not familiar with an online publication called Growtika. I am curious about the pronunciation of the neologism. Well, not that curious. The article “The Internet’s Most-Read Tech Publications Have Lost 58% of Their Google Traffic Since 2024” caught my attention. As I have said on previous occasions, I believe everything I read on the Internet. I have a particular fondness for click data. Once I did not believe everything I read online. Once I thought that clickstream data were accurate. I won’t tell you how interesting counting clicks is. Please, use your imagination. There are clicks, Clicks, and CLICKS.
Yep, the family has a bit of a problem. A saber tooth tiger has appeared, and he is going to do what saber tooth tigers do. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The write up makes clear that some mysterious force has chopped online traffic off at the knees. As a dinobaby who knows that Google is the primary source of findability and clicks, I surmise that the loss of traffic is not due to the immense popularity of Swisscows and Metager. That leaves me with the thought that Google either [a] has decided cannibalism is a good source of revenue, [b] that AI Gemini thing is wrecking havoc on technology publication Web site, or [c] leadership at the Google is just going to do what alleged monopolies do in a seemingly unregulated ecosystem; that is, whatever leadership decides is just ducky.
What does the write up present?
I note this passage:
We tracked the organic search traffic of CNET, Wired, The Verge, TechRadar, and six others from early 2024 to today. Combined, they’ve lost 65 million monthly visits. Some lost over 90%.
That suggests that technology news and information sites have a date with the Grim Stealer of revenues.
The article points out:
At their peaks, ten major tech publications pulled a combined 112 million organic visits per month from Google in the US. By January 2026, that number had fallen to 47 million. All ten sites are down, though not by equal amounts. Some lost 30%. Others lost over 90%.
I would suggest that the traffic is not coming back any more than a saber tooth tiger will be found prowling around your subdivision or local coffee shop. The notion of traffic is a quaint holdover when Web search was the way to find information online. Google replaced the slog through library catalogs with its “free” search service. I read an article written by a reference librarian which told people how to search Google. That article should have included a sidebar about setting up an online chat with a group of Clovis people and their method of finding information. One could talk to the SEO experts, but that might have as much impact as a chat with a shaman if you can find one that is coherent.
With the shift from the search that killed libraries to the new AI method, individual sources of information are no longer relevant. Why? Who cares where the information comes from? As one of my clients told me decades ago, “I don’t care where the information comes from, any information is better than none.” Hey, how about that enlightened MBA attitude?
The cited article says that the Verge dropped from 5.3 million clicks to about 800,000 in January 2026. That works out to keeping the outfit afloat with 15 percent of the clicks it had in February 2024. The Verge wants money. The problem is that converting visitors to subscribers follows the brutal data from the now-almost-dead paper magazine business. One mails many pleas to subscribe and if one percent convert, it was party time. Maybe the Verge should try bulk emails to boost its subscriber base and, therefore, its clicks. I would point out that more traffic to the Verge would be a signal to a certain provider of search to suck down and process more intensely the Verge’s content. I think there are some colorful phrases to describe this knock on effect. Will “sign your own death warrant?” work? Nah. It’s a poohbah tech outfit.
The write up offer three reasons for the traffic hit. These are:
- Google AI shortcuts to reading and thinking
- Reddit lost its fizz
- ChatGPT or similar services instead of traditional search.
These are reasonable, if unsupported, assertions. However, I am a dinobaby, and I like to point out the obvious. Humans do not want to do work unless big money is involved. Reading is difficult and takes time. Framing a functioning search query that works requires mental “work” which takes away from “real” work like sitting in meetings. Reviewing a list of hits from a commercial database is hard and expensive. Making sense of a list of hits from a traditional search system is even harder. Hey, check out those Yandex.ru results. How’s your Russian?
The reason clicks are down is that smart software, regardless of quality, is the easiest way forward. Since Google has the most online traffic in the world, Google is the reason that these technology news sites are cratering. Does Google care? Not at the moment. The firm will care once it realizes that it has been exposed to the “next big thing.” That next big thing will kill it just as Google has punched the doomsday button for technology information online services.
Net net: Change has arrived. Time does not reverse itself no matter what the quantum cats say.
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2026
Sure, Everyone Is a Search Expert Now
March 9, 2026
Librarians are important.
Why does this bear repeating year after year?? ? Technology might be advancing but without something to curate all of the knowledge and teach others how to use it, humanity will be hemorrhaging data like TikTok videos.? ? Oh wait, that’s already happening.? ? Nature shares the important research strategy that: “Why Every Scientist Needs A Librarian.”
Here’s a summary of what librarians do.? ? It’s wordier than an AI summary but it explains it quicker than the entire article:
“Librarians like to say that an hour in the library is worth a month in the laboratory, quips Kristin Briney, biology and biological engineering librarian at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California. And the Caltech library team points out that a researcher could avoid hours of solo Internet searching by just sending a quick e-mail to a specialist librarian to get the same results.
Depending on their positions and skill sets, librarians might have job titles such as information specialist, informationist or knowledge manager. Whatever they’re called, they can help scientists to search every relevant database to start a literature review, ensure they comply with evolving requirements to make their data or papers freely accessible, and separate the good from the bad in search results or code generated by artificial intelligence. Moreover, the need for data experts in the library makes it a possible career path for scientists.”
What follows is a detailed list of how librarians are integral to the very foundation of information and data management.? ? It also mentions that librarians are nice people and are eager to share their skills with others.? ?
Is this a puff piece? Yes.
Does it say something important? Yes.
What should you do with this information?
Go to the library and ask how a librarian can help you better understand and use the Internet.? ? Bring cookies and coffee.? ? It’ll make them happier.
Whitney Grace, March 9, 2026
A New Olympic Sport: Rage Baiting
February 3, 2026
AI isn’t alive but some people can’t help but be kind to the chatbots. I think it’s wise to be nice to the chatbots, because you never know when there could be a AI uprising or what governments’ agencies are sucking down your inputs. If being kind to technology isn’t your digital cup of tea, then you’ll enjoy rage baiting chatbots. Tom’s Guide says that, “Everyone Swears Being Rude To ChatGPT Works — The ‘Rage Prompt’ Works Even Better.”
The “Rage Prompt” isn’t really yelling at ChatGPT. You are just informing the chatbot to cut the fluff and nonsense. It establishes precise boundaries to demand clear output. The rage prompts are best used when written in the chat box. For example, yelling at ChatGPT Voice is time consuming. Sam AI-Man likes motivational dialogue. The Sam AI-Man system asks few questions. Just key in some spicy and angry text.
The Rage Prompt, according to the cited article, gets results:
“With ChatGPT’s latest memory update, being consistently rude can actually lead to inconsistent responses and more hallucinations. Why? Because the model may start mirroring your tone and urgency, rushing to satisfy the demand instead of slowing down to verify details, which increases the chances it fills in gaps with confident-sounding guesses. In other words, being rude is inconsistent.”
The Rage Prompt works by asking specific questions or actions within set boundaries. That’s it! It’s not much rage baiting as being clear and concise. However, if everyone uses rage, the technique may lose its effectiveness. Can one strike a chatbot with a string of random characters?
LifeHacker’s article does add fuel to the rage baiting fire: “’RageCheck’ Points Out Manipulative Language in News Articles.” The Internet is filled with rage baiting language meant to make us angry.
Now a wizard has designed the RageCheck tool to gauge how much fury fuel content contains. The mission of RageCheck is:
“We synthesize today’s top stories from across the political spectrum to extract core facts and reveal framing differences.”
Similar to Ground News, RageCheck analyzes the emotional level of content, from memes to articles. On a scale of 1-100, it distills the rage bait of items. RageCheck uses AI to determine the score then it breaks it down into categories: moral outrage, fight-picking, emotional heat, black and white thinking, and us vs. them. It also summarizes the content’s key concepts. This is a fantastic tool, especially for research. Can one rage bait RageCheck?
That’s a research project for those who are angry and want to make the most of their angst. I, however, will just be nice and trust those AI big tech people to make their smart software better in every way. You know: Adds, high subscription fees, and output of incorrect information.
Who wants to be angry at software. Put an AI big tech person in front of me at a conference. I may become a slightly less friendly librarian.
Whitney Grace, February 3, 2026
Apple and Google: Lots of Nots, Nos, and Talk
January 15, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
This is the dinobaby, an 81 year old dinobaby. In my 60 plus year work career I have been around, in, and through what I call “not and no” PR. The basic idea is that one floods the zones with statements about what an organization will do. Examples range from “our Wi-Fi sniffers will not log home access point data” to “our AI service will not capture personal details” to “our security policies will not hamper usability of our devices.” I could go on, but each of these statements were uttered in meetings, in conference “hallway” conversations, or in public podcasts.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough. See I am prevaricating. This image sucks. The logos are weird. GW looks like a wax figure.
I want to tell you that if the Nots and Nos identified in the flood of write ups about the Apple Google AI tie up immutable like Milton’s description of his God, the nots and nos are essentially pre-emptive PR. Both firms are data collection systems. The nature of the online world is that data are logged, metadata captured and mindlessly processed for a statistical signal, and content processed simply because “why not?”
Here’s a representative write up about the Apple Google nots and nos: “Report: Apple to Fine-Tune Gemini Independently, No Google Branding on Siri, More.” So what’s the more that these estimable firms will not do? Here’s an example:
Although the final experience may change from the current implementation, this partly echoes a Bloomberg report from late last year, in which Mark Gurman said: “I don’t expect either company to ever discuss this partnership publicly, and you shouldn’t expect this to mean Siri will be flooded with Google services or Gemini features already found on Android devices. It just means Siri will be powered by a model that can actually provide the AI features that users expect — all with an Apple user interface.”
How about this write up: “Official: Apple Intelligence & Siri To Be Powered By Google Gemini.”
Source details how Apple’s Gemini deal works: new Siri features launching in spring and at WWDC, Apple can finetune Gemini, no Google branding, and more
Let’s think about what a person who thinks the way my team does. Here are what we can do with these nots and nos:
- Just log everything and don’t talk about the data
- Develop specialized features that provide new information about use of the AI service
- Monitor the actions of our partners so we can be prepared or just pounce on good ideas captured with our “phone home” code
- Skew the functionality so that our partners become more dependent on our products and services; for example, exclusive features only for their users.
The possibilities are endless. Depending upon the incentives and controls put in place for this tie up, the employees of Apple and Google may do what’s needed to hit their goals. One can do PR about what won’t happen but the reality of certain big technology companies is that these outfits defy normal ethical boundaries, view themselves as the equivalent of nation states, and have a track record of insisting that bending mobile devices do not bend and that information of a personal nature is not cross correlated.
Watch the pre-emptive PR moves by Apple and Google. These outfits care about their worlds, not those of the user.
Just keep in mind that I am an old, very old, dinobaby. I have some experience in these matters.
Stephen E Arnold, January 15, 2025
Can You Guess What Is Making Everyone Stupid?
November 17, 2025
Another short essay from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If you see an image, we used AI. The dinobaby is not an artist like Grandma Moses.
I read an article in “The Stupid Issue” of New York Magazine’s Intelligencer section. Is that a dumb set of metadata for an article about stupid? That’s evidence in my book.
The write up is “A Theory of Dumb: It’s Not Just Screens or COVID or Too-Strong Weed. Maybe the Culprit of Our Cognitive Decline Is Unfettered Access to Each Other.” [sic] Did anyone notice that a question mark was omitted? Of course not. It is a demonstration of dumb, not a theory.
This is a long write up, about 4,000 words. Based on the information in the essay, I am not sure most Americans will know the meaning of the words in the article, nor will they be able to make sense of it. According to Wordcalc.com, the author hits an eighth grade level of readability. I would wager that few eighth graders in rural Kentucky know the meaning of “unproctored” or “renormalized”. I suppose some students could ask their parents, but that may not produce particularly reliable definitions in my opinion.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough, the new standard of excellence today.
Please, read the complete essay. I think it is excellent. I do want to pounce on one passage for my trademarked approach to analysis. The article states:
a lot of today’s thinking on our digitally addled state leans heavily on Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman, the hepcat media theorists who taught us, in the decades before the internet, that every new medium changes the way we think. They weren’t wrong — and it’s a shame neither of them lived long enough to warn society about video podcasts — but they were operating in a world where the big leap was from books to TV, a gentle transition compared to what came later. As a result, much of the current commentary still fixates on devices and apps, as if the physical delivery mechanism were the whole story. But the deepest transformation might be less technological than social: the volume of human noise we’re now wired into.
This passage sets up the point about too much social connectedness. I mostly agree, but my concern is that references to Messrs. McLuhan and Postman and the social media / mobile symbiosis misses the most significant point.
Those of you who were in my Eagleton Lecture delivered in 1986 at Rutgers University heard me say, “Online information tears down structures.” The idea is not that the telegraph made decisions faster. The telegraph eliminated established methods of sending urgent messages and tilled the ground for “improvements” in communications. The lesson from the telegraph, radio, and other electronic technologies was that these eroded existing structures and enabled follow ons. If we shift to the clunky computers from the Atomic Age, the acceleration is more remarkable than what followed the wireless. My point, therefore, is that as information flows in electronic and digital form, structures like the brain are eroded. One can say, “There are smart people at Google.” I respond, “That’s true. The supply, however, is limited. There are lots of people in the world, but as the cited article points out, there is more stupid than ever.
I liked the comment about “nutritional information.” My concern is that “information bullets” fly about, they compound the damage the digital flows create. With lots of shots, some hit home and take out essential capabilities. Useful Web sites go dark. Important companies become the walking wounded. Firms that once relied entirely upon finding, training, and selling access to smart people want software to replace these individuals. For some tasks, sure, smart software is capable. For other tasks, even Mark Zuckerberg looks lost when he realizes his top AI wizard is jumping the good ship Facebook. Will smart software replace Yann LeCun? Not for a few years and a dozen IPOs.
One final comment. Here’s a statement from the Theory of Dumb essay:
Despite what I just finished saying, there is one compressionary artifact from the internet that may perfectly encapsulate everything about our present moment: the “midwit” meme. It’s a three-panel bell curve in which a simpleton on the left makes a facile, confident claim and a serene, galaxy-brained monk on the right makes a distilled version of the same claim — while the anxious try-hard in the middle ties himself in knots pedantically explaining why the simple version is actually wrong. Who wants to be that guy?
I want to point out that I am not sure how many people in the fine Commonwealth in which I reside know what a “compressionary artifact” is. I am not confident that most people could wrangle a definition they could understand from a Google Gemini output. The midwit concept is very real. As farmers lose the ability to fix their tractors, skills are not lost; they are never developed. When curious teens want to take apart an old iPad to see how it works, they learn how to pick glass from their fingers and possibly cause a battery leak. When a high school shop class “works” on an old car to repair it, they learn about engine control units and intermediary software on a mobile phone. An oil leak? What’s that?
I want to close with the reminder that when one immerses a self or a society in digital data flows, the information erodes the structures. Thus, in today’s datasphere, stupid is emergent. Get used to it. PS. Put the question mark in your New York Magazine headline. You are providing evidence that my assertion about online is accurate.
Stephen E Arnold, November 17, 2025
Starlink: Are You the Only Game in Town? Nope
October 23, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “SpaceX Disables More Than 2,000 Starlink Devices Used in Myanmar Scam Compounds.” Interesting from a quite narrow Musk-centric focus. I wonder if this is a PR play or the result of some cooperative government action. The write up says:
Lauren Dreyer, the vice-president of Starlink’s business operations, said in a post on X Tuesday night that the company “proactively identified and disabled over 2,500 Starlink Kits in the vicinity of suspected ‘scam centers’” in Myanmar. She cited the takedowns as an example of how the company takes action when it identifies a violation of its policies, “including working with law enforcement agencies around the world.”
The cyber outfit added:
Myanmar has recently experienced a handful of high-profile raids at scam compounds which have garnered headlines and resulted in the arrest, and in some cases release, of thousands of workers. A crackdown earlier this year at another center near Mandalay resulted in the rescue of 7,000 people. Nonetheless, construction is booming within the compounds around Mandalay, even after raids, Agence France-Presse reported last week. Following a China-led crackdown on scam hubs in the Kokang region in 2023, a Chinese court in September sentenced 11 members of the Ming crime family to death for running operations.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Just one Chinese crime family. Even more interesting.
I want to point out that the write up did not take a tiny extra step; for example, answer this question, “What will prevent the firms listed below from filling the Starlink void (if one actually exists)? Here are some Starlink options. These may be more expensive, but some surplus cash is spun off from pig butchering, human trafficking, drug brokering, and money laundering. Here’s the list from my files. Remember, please, that I am a dinobaby in a hollow in rural Kentucky. Are my resources more comprehensive than a big cyber security firm’s?
- AST
- EchoStar
- Eutelsat
- HughesNet
- Inmarsat
- NBN Sky Muster
- SES S.A.
- Telstra
- Telesat
- Viasat
With access to money, cut outs, front companies, and compensated government officials, will a Starlink “action” make a substantive difference? Again this is a question not addressed in the original write up. Myanmar is just one country operating in gray zones where government controls are ineffective or do not exist.
Starlink seems to be a pivot point for the write up. What about Starlinks in other “countries” like Lao PDR? What about a Starlink customer carrying his or her Starlink into Cambodia? I wonder if some US cyber security firms keep up with current actions, not those with some dust on the end tables in the marketing living room.
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2025
Hey, Pew, Wanna Bet?
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My Telegram Labyrinth book is almost over the finish line. I include some discussion of online gambling in Telegram. Of particular interest to me and my research team was kiddie games. A number of these reward the young child with crypto tokens. Get enough tokens and the game provides the player with options. A couple of these options point the kiddie directly to an online casino running in Telegram Messenger. What happens next? A few players win. Others lose. The approach is structured and intentional. The goal of some of these fun games is addicting youngsters to online gambling via crypto.
Nifty. Telegram has been up and running since 2013. In the last few years, online gambling has become a part of the organization’s strategic vision. Anyone, including a child with a mobile device, can play online gambling on Telegram. From Telegram’s point of view, this is freedom. From a parent who discovers a financial downside from their child’s play, this is stressful.
I read “Americans Increasingly See Legal Sports Betting As a Bad Thing for Society and Sports.” The Pew research outfit dug into online gambling. What did the number crunchers learn? Here are a handful of findings:
- More Americans view legal sports betting as bad for society and sports. (Hey, addiction is a problem. Who knew?)
- One-fifth of Americans bet online. The good news is that sports betting is not growing. (Is that why advertising for online gaming seems to be more prevalent?)
- 47 percent of men under 30 say legal sports betting is a bad thing, up from 22 percent who said this in 2022.
Now check out this tough-to-read graphic:
Views of online gambling vary within the demographic groups in the sample. I noted that old people (dinobabies like me) do not wager as frequently as those between the ages of 18 and 29. I wonder if the age of the VCs pumping money into AI come from this demographic. Betting seems okay to more of them. Ask someone over 65, only 12 percent of those you query will say, “Great idea.”
I would argue that online gambling is readily available. More services are emulating the Telegram model. The Pew study seemed to ignore the target demographic for the users of the Telegram kiddie gambling games. That is a whiff to me. But will anyone care? Only the parents and it may take years for the research firms to figure out where the key change is taking place.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
