Windows 11 ‘voice typing’ feature uses online speech recognition so that you can enter text on your PC simply by speaking. Here’s how to use it:

– Firstly, make sure you’re connected to the Internet, have a working microphone, and have your cursor in a text box.

– Press Windows logo key + H on a hardware keyboard.

– Press the microphone key next to the Spacebar on the touch keyboard.

– Voice typing will start listening automatically. Wait for the “Listening…” alert before you start speaking.

To stop voice typing:

– Say a voice typing command, e.g. “Stop listening”.

– Press the microphone button on the voice typing menu.

Researchers from the Stanford Internet Observatory have reported finding more than one thousand ‘virtual’ employees on the LinkedIn platform.

Faces Created By Artificial Intelligence 

Virtual employees in this case are AI-generated photos of employees, the photos of whom don’t belong to any person (living or dead) and are made from mixtures of faces mashed together and featured in 1000+ fake LinkedIn profiles. In this research, it has been alleged that the ‘virtual employees’ have been set up by sales firms to generate more business for themselves. The researchers have suggested that some 70 businesses, listed as the employers of the ‘virtual employees’, may have been using the profiles to send out mass messages without needing to hire more staff or to breach LinkedIn’s messaging protocols. However, despite going against LinkedIn’s policy that every LinkedIn profile must represent a real person, there’s no hard facts that the virtual employee fake profiles have broken any laws.

Problems With Fake Accounts – AI Fakes 

On other platforms in recent times, computer-generated faces in fake accounts have been linked to state campaigns, e.g. to distribute pro-Chinese propaganda to discredit opponents of China’s government, in trolling and the harassing of activists, to exert political influence (e.g. posing as Americans supporting Trump, and spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda on Facebook and Instagram to undermine trust in the Ukrainian government).

Easy or Difficult To Spot? 

In this case, researchers reported discrepancies in the photos that aroused suspicion, e.g. a woman wearing a single earring and strange hair, unusual eye placement, and blurry backgrounds.

However, a recent study (Feb 2022, Sophie Nightingale, Hany Farid) found that AI-synthesised faces can be indistinguishable and more trustworthy than real faces. The study demonstrated that people only have a 50 per cent chance of correctly guessing whether a face has been created by a computer.

Deepfake Threat 

Fake, computer-generated photos are just a part of the wider threat posed by ‘deepfakes’. Deepfake videos, for example, which are banned from Facebook, use deep learning technology and manipulated images of target individuals (found online), often celebrities, politicians, and other well-known people to create very convincing videos of the subjects saying and doing whatever the video-maker wants them to.

Examples of how these have been used recently are the deepfake videos posted online of both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The fake video of President Zelensky talking about surrender had been posted on Meta (Facebook), Instagram, Meta, and its Russian counterpart VKontakte. Meta quickly removed the video from its platform for breaking its rules relating to “manipulated media”. The deepfake video of Putin, posted on Twitter, showed the Russian president announcing the surrender of Russia and asking Russian troops to drop their weapons and go home. A close examination of the video revealed that it had been made using clips from an address delivered by Putin on Feb 21.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Although not illegal, these recently discovered deepfake photos would appear to have been designed to perhaps unfairly gain a competitive advantage and to influence the perceptions of other businesspeople. Businesses should be vigilant, therefore, when contacted by (and when interacting with) other profiles online. Although social media platforms already check for and remove many fake profiles (LinkedIn removed more than 15 million fake accounts in the first six months of 2021), more effort and investment needs to be made to stop many of them from slipping through the net and they also need to develop faster and improved detection and take-down systems. Also, as deepfakes improve in quality and become more difficult to distinguish from the real thing, plus become targeted and weaponised, social media platforms are likely to need their own sophisticated AI systems to stay ahead of fakers, some of whom may be state backed with plenty of resources at their disposal.

In this article, we look at the next phase of Elon Musk’s attempt to control Twitter – a so-called ‘hostile’ takeover.

The Next Stage In The Twitter / Musk Story – Hostile Takeover 

Billionaire Elon Musk recently became Twitter’s largest shareholder after recently acquiring a 9.2 per cent stake in the social media company. Twitter then invited Musk to join its Board. Musk, however, announced that he would not be joining Twitter’s Board. Instead, last week Musk went down the hostile takeover route by offering to make Twitter Inc. private in an unsolicited deal valued at $43 billion. Musk offered to $54.20 per share in cash, which is 38 per cent above the price on April 1, (the last trading day before Musk went public) in the hope of winning-over shareholders.

What Is A Hostile Takeover? 

A hostile takeover happens when one company acquires another without approval for a merger or takeover from the target company’s management, and despite any objections from the Board. Hostile takeovers usually occur after the formal offer has been rejected and tend to apply to larger public companies. The acquirer seeks to achieve at least 51 per cent ownership in the target company’s stock to gain control. Hostile takeovers are legal and may happen for reasons such as:

– The two companies may have failed to reach a merger agreement.

– Some investors may think the management of the company is mismanaging it or is not maximising shareholder value.

– The acquirer wants the target company’s assets or technology and distribution to strengthen its own business.

– Shareholders often benefit initially in hostile takeovers, e.g. in a tender offer, it may mean that the acquirer offers to purchase stock shares from the target’s shareholders at a higher price than the market rate to gain a controlling interest.

Examples of High-Profile Hostile Takeovers 

Some examples of high-profile takeovers include:

– Kraft Foods taking over Cadbury in 2009.

– InBev taking over American beer brewer, Anheuser-Busch in 2008.

Many hostile takeovers are resisted, with around 30 per cent fended off, or are abandoned and fail. For example:

– Xerox Holdings Corp had to abandon its $35 billion hostile cash-and-stock bid for HP in March 2020 following the Covid pandemic creating unfavourable market conditions.

Why Does Musk Want Twitter So Badly? 

Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist”, has found Twitter a very useful way to build his brand and reputation, speak freely, and instantly reach and conduct polls with 80+ million followers on Twitter. Musk has made suggestions about how he would like to change the platform, e.g. adding an edit button for Tweets, and has expressed his concern that Twitter may not be living up to its free speech principles. It appears that Musk would like to not just control Twitter but also to make it more customised to his own requirements and to his own view of what a social media platform should be. He has also expressed willingness (perhaps if this takeover fails), like Trump, to set up his own social media platform, which may be the ‘Plan B’ that he says he has if the takeover fails. Even though he could afford it (being the richest person in the world with an estimated $264 billion), critics have said that it is unlikely that he would be able to quickly build anywhere near the same following as he could get by purchasing the long-established Twitter.  Musk also wants to use a hostile takeover to turn Twitter to a private rather than a public company. This is likely to be so that Twitter stock would no longer be traded on public exchanges (and most likely wouldn’t be so reactive to his free speech), and shareholders could be offered a fixed price for shares, there wouldn’t be a requirement to disclose financial information to investors every three months, and there may be less scrutiny. In 2018, Musk suggested that he intended to make Tesla private which resulted in a row over possible funding, a lawsuit, a settlement and Musk stepping down as chairman of Tesla’s Board.

Concerns 

Some of the concerns about Musk taking-over Twitter include:

– Worries about financing of the takeover (possibly needing to sell some of Tesla) and regulatory issues.

– Worries about how Musk will be able to balance his time between Tesla, SpaceX, and the Twitter Deal.

– Worries that Musk could have a detrimental effect on the culture within Twitter, which could rub-off on the value of the brand.

– Concerns over what some may see as his impulsiveness and freely speaking his mind possibly having a detrimental effect on the company.

Will Musk’s Hostile Takeover Bid Be Successful? 

Although Musk’s announcement didn’t have a huge effect on the share price and Twitter said it would consider the offer and make any decision based on what’s best for shareholders, the signs are, however, that Twitter aims to resist by adopting a so-called ‘poison pill’ strategy. This is where the target company dilutes an acquirer’s voting shares.

Also, some big Twitter investors, e.g. Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, have commented that Musk’s offer is too low and doesn’t come close to “the intrinsic value of @Twitter given its growth prospects”.

Other commentators have said that it is unlikely that Twitter would accept being controlled by one person.

As things stand now, Twitter looks like resisting and some expert commentators are suggesting that there is a less than 50 per cent chance that the hostile takeover bid will be successful.

What Then? 

If Twitter rejects the offer:

– Twitter could seek another “white knight” buyer.

– Musk may (as he suggested) reconsider his position as a shareholder in the company, thereby driving down the price of Twitter’s stock.

– Musk may decide to set up his own platform or use his “Plan B”, which is, as yet, unknown.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For Twitter and its larger investors who essentially think the offer is not enough and may be concerned that Musk may not provide the best fit with the company and its brand, Musk’s latest move towards a hostile takeover has prompted resistance. Although a high initial price for shares may look appealing to some shareholders, some may worry about what direction the company would go in and how what some see as Musk’s impulsiveness and keenness for free speech (and its potential negative effects) could affect the brand going forward. Also, having just one new person in control of a company he has criticised and said needs big changes may be a frightening prospect. Musk has also indicated that he would pull out as a shareholder and perhaps set up his own social platform if the deal didn’t go his way. This could perhaps have a souring effect anyway and possibly indicate that Twitter itself is not the important thing. The immediate road ahead for Musk and Twitter therefore looks potentially expensive and time consuming as one tries to raise funds while the other tries to resist. It remains to be seen just what will happen next.

In this tech-insight, we look at what Web 3.0 is, together with its main benefits plus some concerns about it.

What Is Web 3.0? 

Web3 / web3 / Web 3.0 (a term coined in 2014 by Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood) is the next phase in the evolution of the Web. It is based on blockchain technology, the same technology behind cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Web3 incorporates concepts such as decentralisation and token-based economics, for example, “play-to-earn” video games with rewards in the form of crypto tokens, and NFT platforms where users can buy and sell fragments of digital culture (e.g. art). Within the Web3 idea, if for example, a user signs-up to a Web3 social network or trading venue they receive tokens for exchange (which increase in value if the platform becomes more popular) and have a say in the decentralised governance of that platform. Imagining a Web3 version of Facebook (Meta), for example, rather than selling aggregated user data and adverts, the platform’ users could monetise their own data, or even earn crypto-based rewards from other users, e.g. for posting interesting content.

What Were Web 1.0 and Web 2.0? 

Web 1.0 is known as the period from 1991 to 2004 when websites were mostly still static html pages and open protocols such as were HTTP, SMTP and FTP widely used. Most users were consumers rather than content producers.

Following-on from Web 1.0 (starting in 2004) came Web 2.0. This is the period where the Web was viewed more as a “platform” and saw a huge increase in users creating and uploading their own content to forums, social media platforms and networking services, blogs, wikis, and other services.

Benefits of Web3? 

Some have cited the benefits of Web3 as being:

– Creators having more opportunities to monetise their work and activities.

– Rather than just a few big social media companies having all the power and making all the decisions, Web3 platforms could be governed in a more democratic way.

– Users may have greater privacy as there would be fewer advertising-based business models.

Criticism of Web3? 

Not everyone buys into the idea that we have entered a new and distinct phase of the Web. Some of the criticism of the idea of Web3 includes:

– It could simply be an attempt to re-brand cryptocurrencies and escape from some of the bad publicity they’ve had, e.g. volatility, security issues, their usage by scammers and opposition from some countries. Some also believe Web3 is an attempt to push the popularity and wider adoption of blockchains forward.

– Concerns that the Web3 vision is one of a purely commercial pay-to-play Internet where even social interaction is traded.

– Concerns about the idea that people may be given a blockchain-based, permanent online reputation score and record that could be used by others to make decisions about them, e.g. employment.

– Venture capital firms have invested heavily in Web3 projects prompting concerns that rather than being controlled by users, investors and centralised (rather than decentralised) tech platforms will have the power.

Navigating In Web3 

Browsers appear likely to evolve to enable users to better manage their Web3 interactions. For example, Opera’s new iOS version of its Crypto Browser is designed for accessing Web3 and has a non-custodial, built-in crypto wallet.  Users can also access Web3 NFTs and decentralised apps through the browser while being protected by an ad tracker, pop-up blocker, cookie dialogue blocker, and cryptocurrency mining protection.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

On the plus side, Web3 appears to hold the promise of more monetisation and investment opportunities for businesses and individual content creators, other non-advertising-based business models, as well as perhaps facilitating the wider usage (and the benefits that brings) of cryptocurrencies.  Blockchain is already being used by many businesses and looks as though it will be providing the bedrock for the growth phase of Web3. On the minus side, Web3 may create a more complicated and costly business environment where many of the free, enriching aspects of the Web are lost. Some fear that what we are seeing now may simply be a re-branding exercise by cryptocurrencies and a move by venture capitalists to gain more power. Although the Web is constantly evolving and changing at a relatively fast pace and Web3 may hold new opportunities, it takes time for many real-world businesses to learn about, understand, and be willing to take risks with new tech ideas and models, so it remains to be seen how Web3 will evolve.

A survey by IT asset management platform Lansweeper has revealed that 55 per cent of devices are not capable of upgrading to Windows 11.

Survey 

The survey, based on an estimated 30 million Windows devices from 60,000 organisations, has revealed that on average, only 44.4 per cent of workstations are eligible to receive the automatic upgrade.

Was A Concern Last Year 

In June 2021, Microsoft’s Windows 11 announcement showed that its minimum hardware requirements meant that it would only support eighth generation and newer Intel Core processors (as well as Apollo Lake and newer types of Pentium and Celeron processors). This prompted fears that the new OS may simply not be able to run on many older computers.

Also, the required “hard floor” (minimum configuration) for Windows 11 was that a device needs a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip (a type of security chip used for things like storing passwords and encryption keys) to run it.  Without this type of chip, Windows 11 couldn’t be run on a device, and even devices that would meet the “soft floor” looked likely to receive a notification that an upgrade to Windows 11 wouldn’t be advisable.

In August 2021, Microsoft also appeared to be saying that although Windows 11 wouldn’t run on some older PC’s, it didn’t plan to stop users from trying.

Eligibility 

Lansweeper has highlighted the fact that although Microsoft has since made changes to allow anyone to manually install Windows 11 regardless of the CPU, an automatic upgrade is only possible if the three critical components of the computer – the CPU, the RAM and the TPM- meet the requirements necessary.

In Lansweeper’s survey, it was discovered that 44.4 per cent of central processing units / CPUs for workstations met the system upgrade requirements, 91 per cent met the RAM requirements, and only half of the workstations tested met the TPM requirements (Trusted Platform Module – an international standard for a secure crypto processor).

Challenge For Virtual Machine Workstations 

The survey also found that most Virtual Machine (VM) workstations will need to be modified to get a vTPM before they can upgrade to Windows 11. This is mainly because only 0.23 per cent of all virtual workstations have TPM 2.0 enabled, i.e. there are almost no TPM-enabled virtual servers. In fact, Lansweeper found that TPMs on physical servers only passed the test 1.49 per cent of the time! The implication is that 98 per cent will fail to upgrade if Microsoft creates a server operating system with similar requirements in the future.

Popularity 

Worries about system requirements may be one of the reasons why, as highlighted in Lansweeper’s survey, the adoption rate of Windows 11 may be as low as only 1.44 per cent. It should be noted, however, that other surveys, such as the AdDuplex survey, puts the Windows 11 adoption rate much higher at 19.4 per cent. The reality may be 10 per cent or less.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Right from the early announcements about the system requirements to upgrade to Windows 11, it has been clear that many older devices may not have the capacity receive the (automatic) upgrade. The Lansweeper survey confirms that the CPU and TPM requirements still represent a challenge. For businesses with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of Windows machines, having to audit them all plus the possibility of many failing to upgrade could mean significant wasted time and additional costs. In addition to worries over system requirements of devices (and worries about having to buy machines that meet those requirements), other reasons for an apparently low adoption rate figure of Windows 11 to date could be the fact that Windows 10 will be supported until 2025 and isn’t perceived to be much different to Windows 11 anyway.  It’s still relatively early days however, but it appears that Windows 11 hasn’t got off to a good start and many businesses may need advice and re-assurance before deciding to commit.