An Architecture for Spread Spectrum Computation

This is an unsuccessful proposal to Facebook about an

an intermediate Instruction Set Architecture for Spread Spectrum Computation. We target nano-services constructed 

from lambdas as a backend from an intermediate system, to allow for fine grain, and elastic, fault tolerant 

computations. Was an extension of an earlier idea by Steve Hand.

We believed it fitted in their research call topics on

Scalable, elastic, reliable distributed;

Programming languages&compilers for platform agnostic; and

Resource provisioning for efficient ML.

I guess it was slightly too ambitious:-)

some memories of Peter Kirstein

Peter Kirstein, who passed away earlier this week (8.1.2020) was my PhD advisor, back in the 1980s. I joined his research group fresh out of the MSc there in 1981, and was working with Rob Cole who ran the collaboration with RSRE (Royal Signal and Radar Establishment, Malvern) who connected via the UCL gateway on to the Internet.

Peter had been at this game for quite a while (records say 1973 was main ARPANET link, with the connection to NDRE in Oslo). Peter had gathered a team of people both for his own research program, and to deliver undergraduate and Masters courses in Computer Science, having recently founded the department (actually it was part of UCL statistics in the Pearson (yes, that Pearson) building, and then separated, as CS grew. But at least til 2000, it remained in the very nice location right at the entrance to the main UCL quad.

Peter's style of management both for the research and for the department was very collegiate, and entailed quite a bit of delegation - to that end, for admin and teaching he'd gotten some very competent people around him who did a great job -- this instilled responsibility in people.

When I joined, Peter not only had the main research project in Internet related work outside the US he had great links on into Europe, wth collaborators at CNUCE (CNR in Pisa now), NTA in Oslo, FGAN in Germany and others, and also not just the defense link with RSRE in the UK, but also a big interconnection project with Cambridge, Loughborough, and other universities as well as Logica using Cambridge Rings (10Mbps before ethernet - UTP, not coax:-) with wide area satellite links, both for the US (SATNET - the Atlantic Packet Satellite ) and the UK (I think Stella?).

What this tells you is that Peter thought big - very, very big. And this bought challenges in terms of technology, policy and management. Folks in the US programmes (e.g. at UC Berkeley, and LBL)  found this interesting - for example, the satellite link had a very high latency (.72 seconds) compared with land lines (terrestrial point-to-point cables from telecom companies "the phone" trunks). The link also had unusual errors/losses - i remember seeing really bad performance one day and puzzled, asked a colleague who pointed out the window at a thunderstorm/lightening...but also to get funding for this scale of work was a coordination problem with multiple agencies ("stakeholders" is the trendy term now) from US, Canada, UK, Europe, government, industry, academia. Policies collided - another challenge - how to share a network between different agencies with different funding and collaboration rules? Policy routing (BGP) emerged - folks at MIT were instrumental in extracting the policy rules to see how one might build an inter-domain internet.

Peter was on top of all this, thinking about how to drive forward to the next problem, and showing incredible patience with some of the partners who took years in some case to understand what was needed.

One of the things  helped Peter with was the marvelously vaguely named International Collaboration Board, who actually had a charter for a while, which just said "the purpose of the ICB is to hold meetings".  It was actually the vehicle for the resolution of some of the challenges. We also did a fine line in drawing network maps, sometimes down to specific hardware details of line cards (e..g with BBN folks) and other times just scribbling the now ubiquitous "cloud" image (i.e. abstracting away all the (un)necessary details...).

Sometimes, one had the impression that Peter didn't know what was going on "under the hood, for hours at a time, but then he'd jump in to a discussion with a technical question or a pointed observation, which was bang on the money (in later years, he'd wake up in seminars and do the same thing, much to the surprise of speakers). Another endearing memory is that whenever we were travelling together and there was any hiccup in the transport, he would "jump on the next train or plane heading roughly the right direction". This always worked, somewhat surprisingly.

People left the group (Rob Cole went to HP, Peter Higginson went to Cabletron or was it DEC, Bob Braden went back to ISI, Nigel Martin went and founded the Instruction Set, Ruth Moulton went to Whitechapel Computers, Bruce Wilford went to Cisco...etc etc).

The EU research programmes arrived, and Peter dived in, building the first systems for multimedia real time conferencing - something some folks I recall at the time at BT saying was "impossible" even after we showed them Atanu Ghosh juggling in a conference in Amsterdam, in London, while talking to us. Later on (near end of 1990s, we got a CAVE (3 meter cube immersive VR system) and connected that to other CAVEs in Chicago and North Carolina and did some early work in distributed virtual rehearsal studios with the BBC (pretty much the Star Trek Holodeck) - i remember explaining why distributed music was never going to happen (you can't improvise rallentando with someone more than 100msec away and even at the speed of light, that rules out intercontinental orchestras or even jazz/rock bands. especially jazz.

At Some point, Peter had not only become an actual Post Office, but had also been told by the UK's research funding agency to stop working on the Internet as it was the "wrong kind of network". Given they didn't actually fund his work, this was remarkably obtuse of them.
I also recall a letter from the ISO explaining that OSI was not an acronym. And then there's the great challenge of how to dispose of kit - problem being wither it was loaned or given, it had an import duty (maybe just on depreciation, but could be a shedload of money back in those days). So some of the gear was sent to a US airforce base somewhere in England, allegedly therefore not leaving the UK, and as far as I know, used for target practice.

We worked on all kinds of weird protocols from the UK's University communities own-brew "colour book" protocols (adopted in Australia and I think Japan for a while) on X.25 packet nets, as well as ATM nets and Cambridge's home-brew protocols (including "Universe" datagrams) and the ISO OSI suite itself (with Steve Kille leading a very successful collaboration with Marshall Rose from Northrop - maybe another stealth project like their bomber?). We also messed with various early alternate name and directory services, and with multimedia e-mail. (Do not get me started on the TP4 v. TCP or Bind v. Druid arguments we had).

I also enjoyed the fact that INDRA (after the Indian god, represented as a web whose nodes are jewels that glow when a soul reaches enlightenment) notes and early internet engineering notes contained ample evidence of the input that Peter and his gang had given towards the early evolution of Internet protocols.

There are loads of other people who worked on all this stuff, and i'll add to this note as i can think of stories to link them in. The abiding memory is of a marvellously inclusive and friendly guy, who had some incredibly impactful vision and bought a lot of those people along with him, by sharing the intellectual ownership, completely without ego.

recent future accounts of the past and far away fiction from foreign lands

tale for the time being by ruth ozeki
this is how you lose the time war by amal el-mohtar
the future of another timeline by annalee newitz

rosewater by tade thompson
the three body problem by liu cixin
moxyland by lauren beukes

Cambridge Comprehensive

Recently, several new members have joined the department, and happened to ask me how everything worked. I had to disappoint them, in that the last person who knew that was Stephen Hawking and he'd sadly died just before they arrive. However, have now been here for 20 years, this time at least, I thought I would have a go at explaining stuff

People are classified as students or UFOs - students are initially manifold, until they expurgated, at which point they can become UFOs. UFOs become UTOs when they are established through ground truths. UTOs can also later become fellows, provided they pass the rigorous exam in Benevolent Dictation. This then qualifies them to say grace and hand out favours such as maundy money, and to hold hands as they walk on the college lawn.

Colleges are basically country houses with nice lawns and  staircases, which only UFOs and UTOs are allowed on. students have to make their way to and from the bars and bedders by way of the outside walls, often climbing up precarious ivy. Over the 8000 years of existence, students have evolved to have primitive wings, but when they become UFOs, they lose the feathers on the wings, and so make do with gowns instead, to cover up their shame.

Departments are a relatively new invention, and are basically knowledge stores, a bit like John Lewis, except that departments are never unknowingly undersold. Other fleeting Institutions such as the Sanger and the Turing have no salience whatsoever.

Colleges are basically country houses with nice lawns and  staircases, as described above - heads of houses dispense classes in benevolent dictation over port and salud.

The University is an act of collective illusion, and (like oxford) only exists in the minds of people who have read law. Tourists arriving at Cambridge station often ask for directions to the University, and as an act of kindness, are usually pointed to the busker outside Great St Mary's church, with the added explanation that this is the Bishop of Ely who is deemed to have progressed beyond all forms of dictation, so that now he is allowed to sing Bach's Aegrotat in the original Welsh.

I hope that this has helped.

skrype

dani had been increasingly frustrated in his relationship, conversations always seemed to end up in arguments, and increasingly frequently, he would lose the argument. his partner seemed to anticipate what he would say, but then (deliberately?) misinterpret it. Even more online than in RL. he decided that it was time to do something about it.

being technically inclined, dani decided to tackle the challenge scientifically.
first of all, he had to understand how the arguments proceeded, so he started to record all the conversations via his smart phone, and then transcribe the speech to text.he then found some open source NLP software that could storify the text, extracting and abstracting the trending topics and the sense and sentiment in the speakers' utterances. then he thought, "why be too clever", why don't i just apply predictive text to the line of argument that I am taking, then invert the sense, and use text-to-speech to replace what I was going to say". indeed, he thought, why not automate both sides of the argument - he'd read about Generative Adversarial Networks in AI, and decided to build his own, dubbed Trouble and Strife (actor and critic).

The technology was a marvellous success, and arguments dissipated, evaporated before they even got going, life was wonderful again, harking back to the early days of their relationship.

then suddenly, out of the blue, he was served divorce papers by his partner's lawyer. and not just separation, but a demand for a massive amount of money that he had no idea he had.
It turned out that mani had known all along about the tech, and had built a massively successful business selling the software, initially to divorce lawyers, and later to barristers and judges, one of whom he ended up getting together with. Oh, and the audio recordings of mani, that dani's software had trained on initially? that was a mashup of snippets of alexa and siri arguing about which of them their owner was speaking to (although curiously, both voice assistants referred to "pet" rather than owner).

still, half of a lot of money is still a lot of money.

the new precariat

I've paraphrased William Gibson in the past - "the future is already here, just it is unfairly distributed".

People (Russell) worry about the way AI may dehumanise us. The less alarmist position (than the AI's will kill us all) might be welcome, but it is still quite a depressing image - the assumption is that that which makes many of us human (trivia, gossip, ephemera) will be automated away from us, and our humdrum existences will become less and less pointful but also that the grand creative goals some of us might set ourselves, will also increasingly fall to the machines. In this world, the human race becomes more and more de-motivated and dispirited. As if this isn't already true - they seem to have missed a  hundred years on work on alienation and the pointlessness of work post-industrial revolution, driven by time-and-motion studies, treating people as pluggable components (the sickness behind the phrase "Human Resources").

The reality will be much more of the same - a mandarin class which already exists will just get stronger-  people that program the AI, can hack the machine in the ML, will be the new hedge fund managers and political manipulators - everyone else will join the new precariat in larger and larger numbers, fed and watered and numbingly entertained just enough to stop them revolting. Maybe that is what they are saying ...Maybe I should read the book:-)

So what's the solution? I've said it before - it is in SF literature (just like all the climate change writing for 50 years) - we need (thanks to Frank Herbert in Dune) a Butlerian Jihad. Not to get rid of machines, but to stop them usurping the charming little nonsense that makes people human. and the challenge of working stuff out in one's head (whether its arithmetic or harmony).

driven to abstraction

Computer scientists sometimes say that their true discipline is about abstraction (modularisation, recursion, layering, isolation, information hiding, denotational semantics, etc)

but what if this is something more fundamental - what if the laws of the universe are layered, so there is a lawyering abstraction?
we learn mechanics, then gravity and acceleration and frames of reference, then fields, then waves and quanta - what if these aren't just pedagogic tools for making scientific progress[1] by continually improving our models of the universe? what if the laws of the universe actually a series of better approximations? What if, as some people say, we live in a simulation, and we're just witnessing progressive rendering by different physics engines?

What other novel forms of abstraction might we envisage?

Well I can think of two simpler ones:

1. The power/late ratio for binding - the later someone is to a meeting, the more power they probably have...
2. The infinite number of interpretations possible for the performance by an abstract impressionist (was it Donald Trump or was it Cameron's pet pig? or was it a pink salmon riding a bicycle) - Rorschach was just scratching the surface.

[1] belief in progress is an abstraction of the complex effects of dementia.

addresslessness

A while back, we proposed a Sourceless Network Architecture. The notion was that, given the end-to-end argument suggests only putting things in a layer if everyone above that layer wants them, and that there are such things as "send and forget", where we don't expect an answer, then why does a recipient need to know where the packet came from? and if it doesn, the source can be put in the packet, perhaps as a name, so that if the source moves, the recipient has a better chance to still reply.

Now why do we need a destination address? This recent CACM article on metadata suggests using ToR type systems - but these use crypto and onion layered re-encryption to obfuscat the source and destination from third party observers. Why put the destination address in at all? why not just put the packet in a bottle, and throw it in the sea, to wash up on some beach where someone can take it out of the bottle, decrypt, and maybe answer the same way?

All we need is an Internet Sea with lots of  Internet Beaches. That cannot be too hard.

taxing the cloud

most ai runs in the cloud.

people are proposing a tax on the cloud.

so ai should have representation (no T without R, right?). votes for ai, now.

and more, can an ai commit a sin? if so, can we sell it an indulgence?
ai, go to hell now.

taxing the cloud

most ai runs in the cloud.

people are proposing a tax on the cloud.

so ai should have representation (no T without R, right?). votes for ai, now.

and more, can an ai commit a sin? if so, can we sell it an indulgence?
ai, go to hell now.

taxing the cloud

most ai runs in the cloud.

people are proposing a tax on the cloud.

so ai should have representation (no T without R, right?). votes for ai, now.

and more, can an ai commit a sin? if so, can we sell it an indulgence?
ai, go to hell now.

cryptocurrency and the singularity

humanity uploads itself to cyber-physical systems (aka robots) so it can swarm across the stars ahead of the heat death of the Universe. Neo-liberals, being the first to have the resources to do this, decide to implement an economic incentive system based on cryptocurrencies to make sure that the robots will spend some of their time working on mining spare parts (especially selenium for their stellar cells).

sadly, the proof-of-work in mining the currency consumes more energy than they can harvest in time, and crypto-humanity dies out without even leaving the asteroid belt.

the myth of the privacy/utility trade-off

People want to exploit your data. You want to exploit your data. Some people think it is bad if (your and other) data is stuck in silos, and not exploited. Some people think you should have the right to keep your data private and made laws (GDPR being the latest).

So some other people now write that there is a trade off between privacy and utility - i.e.
in some sense you can quantfy the utility of the data, and you can quantify the level of privacy that the data is subjected to -

various privacy techs enforce privacy, but some are more specifically about protecting individual data from being relinked to a person that person being re-identified in the data) anonymised or making data pseudonymised - or further, by subjecting collections of data to processes like fuzzing or adding noise, to provide some level of differential privacy (so the presence or absence of an individual's data record in the aggregate, makes no difference to queries on the data (for some given query count, at least).

What's wrong with these pictures?

Let's unpick the "utility" piece - first of all, as a network person, I think of utility in terms of provider and customer. so in the internet, congestion management is a mechanism to do joint optimisation of provider utility and customer utility - the customers get the maximum fair share of capacity, the provider gets maximum revenue out of the customers for the resource they've committed. this formulation is a harmonious serendipity.

How might utility for individual data exploitation be harmonious with utility for aggregators of data?
An example might help - healthcare records can be used to compaire/discover the effectiveness of existing treatments, discover relationships between different  characteristics of individuals and well-being or onset of different medical conditions (i.e. inference!). Specifically, we might train a machine learning system on the data, and that would result in a classifier, given new input about a patient, to offer diagnosis. Or we might build a model that exposes latent (hidden) variables, and even, potentially, allows causal inference. So in the healthcare arena, there's alignment between what might be done with collections of patient data, to the benefit of all the patients. But such systems might them be turned into commercial products and run on subjects who were not part of the training data set. So what is the utility of that, to the original subjects? is there data not a form of contribution for which they should have a share in the ownership of any tech derived from it? To be honest, most of the hard work in generating the softwre was in gathering/curating (cleaning/wrangling) the data. the software itself is typically often open source, and requires little or no work. In many cases, supervised learning involved expert labelling of the data (e.g. surgeons/experts looking at records/images etc, and tagging it has having evidence of some condition or other or not). Again that contribution is highly valuable. However, in this area, the presence or absence of an individual's data (especially in a very large system such as the NHS with upwards of 70,000,000 patient records). However, the value of the data, in this case, grows super-linearly with the number of records, so 1 record here or there makes no difference, a thousand or a million is where the action is. So if we posit shared ownership of systems built on this data, then the utility to individual, and to the public at large, is aligned.
If we just give up the data to for-profit exploitation, then the individual may end up paying for access to some machine learned tool, ironically trained on their own data. That's an obvious conflict.

Other data sets have diminishing returns as the amount of data gathered increases. A classic example is smart metering (water, electricity, gas etc)...original UK deployment of smart meters reported every few tens of seconds, the usage in millions of households. this is pointless. it consumes a lot of network bandwidth. the primary goal was to remove the need to have human visits to read a meter. a secondary (misguided) goal was to offer potentially smart pricing, so consumers could make dynamic decisions (or smart devices - e.g. washing machines etc) could make smart decisions to reduce cost and reduce peak demand - this is a joint optimisation. However, the metering only needs to roughly band kinds of demand - maybe a few tens or hundreds of types of consumer and their demand profile types over the day/week/year.  the pricing can just be broadcast, and is unlikely to change much - indeed, off-peak pricing of utilities was developed decades ago to do this. The actual individual usage is irrelevant, except for the aggregate bill. The model can be derived from that, in fact, or from a small random sample (small compared to 35 million households).

So what price privacy? I don't see any trade off at all - you either keep your data yourself, or you share it (for a share in ...) with people who can make good use of it, but no-one else.

footnote:
a separate problem with asking people to think about a tradeoff in this space is that there's tremendous imbalance in information about what can possibly go right with what wrong (with privacy or with the price of your data). Lets just not go there at all.

The Myth of the Reliable Narrator

Post-modern literature (and film) abounds with wacky framing devices including the authorial voice and the unreliable nature. This is all messing with the suspension of disbelief and dramatic irony that is the very life of fiction. But fiction is all a lie. There never was a reliable narrator. The book has a cover (a beginning, an end, a narrative arc etc). A film has those weirdest of things, music; pov; zoom/pan etc etc. The author/director/actors may all be dead by the time you read/view this.

So take every story with a grain of salt. or a large G&T. or a deep breath.

Even this brief note is utterly untrustworthy.

redecentralization 2.0

It has been a core thee of a lot of my work & interests. decentralized systems are just more interesting than centralized ones. they may be inherently more resilient (but not always), and they may be more complex (but not always).

the internet is largely decentralized in its lower layers (the tubes - the routers and links, and routing algorithms). that was always intended, from baran's report for rand onwards.
society and eco-systems are often decentralized (sure there are governments (but more than 1) and bee hives (but more than one) - but coordination happens peer-to-peer (a term which first arose in magna carta, but an idea which predates that by a billion years).

decentralized, infrastructureless networks are an interesting point in the design space - hence community mesh wireless networks, and opportunistic, delay and disruption tolerant networks work merely using users' devices and construct communication out of thin air. in this extreme environment, we are challenged to think of how we provide information about identity or trustworthiness, but in fact, on close examination, a central provision of those properties has many problems too - DNS certificates can be bogus or expired, source IP addresses do not have to refer to where the packet came from, an application layer user identifier (email address, facebook identity etc) is no more a true name than the Prince of Serendip.

so really, everything should be decentralized, as it forces us to confront the true problems and come up with decent solutions, instead of using the prop of underserved respectability of a centre.

That's why we founding the centre for redecentralization. :-)

future of work & AI

so techno-optimists paint a rosy future image with AI freeing us up from toil to have a life of infinite leisure.

lets go back to the victorian times and the industrial revolution - what happened? machines (steam engines etc) meant that food (and transport) no longer required most people to grow what they eat, or feed the horses - so most people should have been able to get free food or travel to the seaside for a dip. what happened? most people moved from fairly pleasant rural existence farming to working in the dark satanic mills - i.e. became urban factory workers with longer hours and shorter, less pleasant lives.

lets go back to when people stopped being hunter-gatherers and settled down to farming. could have been nice to stop worrying about the days when you stop being predator and become prey from time to time. but what happened? people built nation states and priesthoods and aristocracies and invented serfs/slavery.

so techno-pessimists paint a dystopic future picture with AIs enslaving us (or just disposing of us).
That's nonsense too.

So how will things play out? what of all this "makework" that mot of us in the developed world engage in that is trivially automatable (actually, doesn't need doing)?

I have no idea, but we better figure it out soon.

[1] homework

Rashomon sets as a metaphor for why interpretability is hard

So this  arxiv paper by  cynthia rudin  about why we should stop explaining black box AIs contains a beautiful metaphor, the idea of a Rashomon Set. For people who don't know, Rashomon is a classic film made by the Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa. Its plot is about an incident in the woods, told from multiple viewpoints, and as each one unfurls, you realize the previous one was not "true" for a different reason, until the "end" when you cease to be sure of what actually happened. Kurosawa made quite a few films that are not only classic, but slightly influential - for example, his series of lone samurai hero movies (sanjuro, Yojimbo) were remade by Sergio Leone into great spaghetti westerns that made Clint Eastwood's early career (a fist full of dollars and for a few dollars more) as well as the Seven Samurai (the magnificent Seven etc) . Kurosawa also made fine japanese versions of european classic plays (Throne of Blood == Macbeth, and Ran == King Lear). Of course, one of his slightly lesser (but still wonderful) films, The Hidden Fortress got a thinly disguised makeover by one George Lucas as the first (and pretty much all the successor) Star Wars films. Kurosawa often cast Toshiro Mifune, who had some success in Hollywood movies - usually as a tough soldier, but rarely capturing the humorous element that was part of his subtle signature in his home country films. The only thing where I think the japan<>western translations of film didn't work was a US remake of Rashomon (sadly, as it should be possible to do) - many of the others are great (in my personal opinion) in either take, whether shakespeare, or sci fi, samurai or gunslinger. If you see and like Kurosawa films, you will likely also enjoy books by Haruki Murakami, although don't blame me if you don't. Rashomon Sets - what a totally super idea! almost as good as explaining algorithms through Hungarian folk dance....

counterfactual reasoning example

spent a while yesterday trying to get additional car insurance on a 20+yr old subaru for member of family who has very recently passed driving test.

so go online on compare market and on several insurance company specific web sites and provide following info as input to their decision system:

1. car registration

2. existing insurance info

3. new driver license info

from the above, most (not all) the companies used the DVLA to verify car model/miles per year (via MOT at DVLA) and status of insurance and correct info about new driver...

so all ok (can obviously try making up other cars, but hard to fake driver:)

so outputs were mostly no - including existing insurance company, who said would add new driver after 6 months, but due to car's engine size (leaking quite a lot of info) they couldn't add a recently passed driver this is slightly weird as the car we got was bought because it ranked as safest car n class by AA and others:) - they and two other outfits said no problem if we got a smaller car (suggesting less safe vehicles:(

tried various other types of insurance - e.g. car-sharing (borrow) allegedly targetted at students coming home in vacation borrowing parents car - and pay-as-you-drive - all said no

so then ran a compare market on new driver insurance from sratch and got a couple of genuine offers- in fact, not completely mad prices either, if we're prepared to do a whole year  (we are) ...(still with fact insured party isn't car owner or keeper, but is in the family)

so the range of prices is probably a proxy for the risk level the insurance companies will tolerate (I assume they all have pretty much the same actuarial data on accident/theft rate with age, gender, car model/age, location, use of car,and other stuff they obviously gather....

privacy tech/statements from most of the website/forms/companies was pretty decent...

Putting the n in Ethics - i.e. where's the ethnic diversity in our discussions of this import topic?

There's been a trend in recent years to suggest that when you're asked to be on a panel (as a bloke), you should decline unless there is a plausible gender balance policy.

There's been another trend in recent years to talk a lot about ethics and AI.
Both of these trends seem like a good idea.

It is my observation that the trends should be combined in  another way -

The vast majority of people I see talking about ethics and AI are weird, in a technical sense. while there is a better gender balance in ethics panel discussions than pure tech, but I think they fail in general terms to represent diversity. As I wrote this, I did see one discussion of a new direction from an interesting part of the world, namely China.  I am sure there are discussions in many other places, but I don't think they are showing up in the 

the hype of incomprehensibility

I've been looking at various techs for a few years now and watch the lifecycle  - it doesn't always involve hype - sometimes, things just seep into everyday life (the internet kind of did this over a couple of decades - even mobile phones kind of did) - so looking at things that don't make it, or have to go through some massive transformation to stand any kind of chance, one of the tells is that the tech is very badly explained, often hidden behind some simplistic banner-phrases like "blockchain" or "quantum computing" or "deep learning" - when you look at the swathes and tranches of literature, what is striking is a lack of straightforward examples.

Sometimes, this can be simply because the tech is actually rather subtle and also might involve understanding several other things first (quantum computing seems to fit in this category, Bayes methods like MCMC might be another) - other times, it is that smart people that make it their business to explain important new stuff in really straight-speaking ways (e.g. The Morning Paper ) stick to stuff that is worth explaining.

So if you see a huge pile of gray-publications about something, and there isn't anything on one of the classier blogs or oped in a leading place, be suspicious (e.g. cold fusion, brexit, DLT, etc).