The progressive trends of Mobile edge computing and Cloudlets are diffusing edge-based intelligence in connected and more controlled enterprise systems. However, within the diversity of pervasive cyber-physical ecosystems, the autonomy of the discrete edge nodes would require gain in operational intelligence with minimum supervision. The emerging innovation in cognitive computational intelligence is revealing a great potential to introduce a contemporary soft computing-based algorithm, architectural rethinking, and progressive system design of the next generation of IoT systems. The cognitive IoT Systems crush the strong partition between the silos and interdependencies of software and hardware subsystems. The flexibility of the edge-native AI component is flexible enough to recognize the changes in the physical environment and dynamically adjust the analytical outcomes in real-time. As a result, the interaction between human-machine or machine to machine becomes more dynamic, interoperable, and contextual to the time and scope of any operation.
At some point it becomes untenable and inefficient to manage all these separate solutions. That point gets closer every day as teams have to deal with the complexities and identity management challenges of remote work. Siloed solutions also mean IT staff must monitor several different consoles and may not connect the dots when incidents are flagged on separate platforms. They also require complex and costly integration projects to get the functionality needed. And even then, they’ll likely still require manual oversight. Moving toward all-in-one security solutions can help replicate the sense of cohesion that once existed in on-premises network security along with new efficiencies. All-in-one solutions can share data across the different components, leading to better and more efficient function. And by adding new modules instead of products when new tools are needs, you eliminate the expense and complications of integration. Companies and individuals have already gotten used to paying for things like data, cloud storage and web hosting based on how much they use them.
The OnePercent group's ransom note directs victims to a website hosted on the Tor anonymity network where they can see the ransom amount and contact the attackers via a live chat feature. The note also includes a Bitcoin address where the ransom must be paid. If victims do not pay or contact the attackers within one week, the group attempts to contact them via phone calls and emails sent from ProtonMail addresses. "The actors will persistently demand to speak with a victim company’s designated negotiator or otherwise threaten to publish the stolen data," the FBI said. "When a victim company does not respond, the actors send subsequent threats to publish the victim company’s stolen data via the same ProtonMail email address." The extortion has different levels. If the victim does not agree to pay the ransom quickly, the group threatens to release a portion of the data publicly and if the ransom is not paid even after this, the attackers threaten to sell the data to the REvil/Sodinokibi group to be auctioned off. Aside from the REvil connection, OnePercent might have been tied to other ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operations in the past too.
One key reason an Agile transformation will fail is when all the focus is concentrated in just one of the three circles above. It is imperative that we consider these three circles like a Venn diagram and regularly monitor our operating presence. Ideally, we want to operate in all three circles, but it is hard to find balance. Suppose we are working in the mindset and framework circles and trying to build a perfect product with perfect architecture. Spending too much time making things perfect, we are likely to miss the market window, or run into financial difficulties. Similarly, if we operate in the mindset and business agility circles, for example, it could be great for the short term to get a prototype to market quickly, but we will be drowning in technical debt in the long run. Or, imagine that we operate in the framework and business agility circle to build a perfect hotel for our customers — we could miss the fact that they really need a bed-and-breakfast, not a hotel, by not considering the mindset circle. All three perspectives are essential, so to maximize the efficiencies, we need to keep finding the balance.
After all, as far as technology is concerned, none of us are beyond the need for further training and development. The McKinsey Global Institute has recently suggested that as many as 357 million people will need to acquire new skills in the next decade due to the predicted rise of artificial intelligence and automation – skills that few, even in tech-adjacent industries, currently possess. Keeping this kind of projection firmly in mind helps us to remember that the acquisition of new and essential skills is an ongoing process for everyone. As such, employers should not discount those potential candidates who don’t necessarily come from a tech-heavy background. With robust on-the-job training processes and a supportive, inclusive approach towards IT talent, young workers who perhaps missed out on IT fundamentals at school or who chose to focus, for example, on humanities-based university courses can absolutely receive the same attention and prospects as those from a tech-heavy background. A recent government report on aspects of the skills gap has already uncovered an uplifting trend in this direction, with 57% of employers confident that they can find resources to train their employees.
We unpack ideas and differences, seeking to understand each other’s points of view and the experiential lens through which the issue(s) are being evaluated, and then work collaboratively in the spirit of best serving our customers (external and internal) to reach the best decision and path to resolution. In the end, and most importantly, we are a team; so, when we work through the conflict and land on a course of action or decision, we all align, rally, and go into full-on execution mode as one team, with one agenda. Recognize that each team member brings a unique set of experiences, ideas, and beliefs to every conversation and decision. As a leader, you need to be acutely aware of when and how team members engage in conflict and the behaviors that precede and follow such discussions. Encourage team members to participate and share their ideas; candidly and directly elicit their honest and important views on the matters, even when the topics may be challenging and the conflict intense, and especially if the team member may be more quiet or prone to avoid the heat of the debate.
As services can be worked on in parallel, a team can bring more developers to bear on a problem without them getting into each other’s actions. It can also be simpler for those developers to understand their part of the system, as they can focus their concern on just one part of it. Process isolation also causes it feasible for us to alter the technology choices team makes, perhaps mixing different programming languages, programming styles, deployment platforms, or databases to discover the perfect blend. Microservice architecture does allow the team more concrete boundaries in a system around which ownership lines can be marked, allowing the team much more flexibility regarding how you reduce this problem. The microservice architecture enables each service to be developed independently by a team that is concentrated on that service. As a result, it produces continuous deployment possible for complex applications. The microservice architecture enables each service to be scaled individually. It has been observed when a team or organization adopts Microservice architecture the legitimate gain is the built-in agility an organization gets.
Quote for the day:
"When your values are clear to you, making decisions becomes easier." -- Roy E. Disney