Follow-up to the earlier explanatory and critical post on Quantum Computing which addresses Google's 'quantum supremacy' achievement.
Last April, the book The Myth of Artificial Intelligence was published by Harvard University Press. The author is Erik J. Larson, a computer scientist and tech entrepreneur who is active in the field, especially in natural language processing. After reading…
There is a massive movement of organisations moving to agile-at-scale (e.g. SAFe). Ironically, it can turn into an organisation becoming one big 'project', the opposite of what agile wants to achieve.
With increasing IT volumes in the world, landscape change is getting harder and harder, and we need to adapt to that fact. Upper management is very slow to adapt and the Enterprise/IT Architect/Strategist's position becomes more frustrating as a result.
Good consultants do exist. But so do parasitic ones. This story is about why they happen and how to spot them.
The idea of 2-speed IT has been doing the rounds for a while. It is now dying. But in a different way, it is actually a really important aspect of IT.
I am proposing a way to 'measure' the 'understanding' the top of an organisation has — how capable it is of making informed strategic decisions — on a subject, e.g. legal, finance, or what is my particular interest: IT.
That standard image that explains the difference between on-premises, IAAS, PAAS, and SAAS in the cloud? You know what, it is hugely misleading. Here is the real deal.
Chatbots. Ze zijn overal tegenwoordig. En ze zijn vaak frustrerend slecht, niet meer dan een te nemen horde op weg naar een mens. Waarom zijn ze zo slecht? Misschien omdat de kern techniek van 30 jaar geleden is?
Chatbots. They're everywhere these days. They're also frustratingly poor, often just a hurdle to take to get to a human agent. Why are they so poor? Maybe because the core is technology from 30 years ago?