About a year ago, I started writing on Medium. I didn’t have a plan, no huge following on Twitter, and definitely no viral growth hacks. Just me, a laptop, and some thoughts I hoped someone out there might find useful or relatable.

Fast forward to today — I’ve reached 5,000 followers (well 4,998 but you get the point).

It’s not a massive number compared to the big names on this platform, but for someone who started with zero, it feels pretty amazing. If you’re just starting out or stuck at 50 followers wondering “Is this even worth it?”, I hope my journey helps.

I Wrote Like a Real Human (Not a Robot)

Sounds obvious, right? But it’s easy to fall into the trap of writing like an instruction manual or an SEO-optimized blog. I used to overthink every sentence. Then one day I just said, “Screw it, I’m going to write like I talk.”

That small shift changed everything. My writing felt more me. And guess what? People connected with it. They commented, shared, and followed because it felt like they were hearing from a friend, not a corporate ghostwriter.

I Didn’t Niche Down (At First)

Everyone says, “Pick a niche.” Well these are the stories I published.

And while that does help eventually, I gave myself permission to explore early on.
I wrote about productivity, learning, random stories from my life (yes, that one got unexpected traction!).

By writing freely, I figured out two things:

• What I enjoy writing about
• What people enjoy reading from me

The usual crap of me staying consistent (Even When It Felt Like No One Cared)

In the first few months, most posts barely got 10 views. Some got none. It sucked.

But I stuck to the crappy saying, “If I can stick to this for 6 months, regardless of numbers, I’ll learn something.” That mindset helped. I posted regularly — once a month, sometimes more, sometimes less, but I never disappeared for long stretches.

Slowly, people started showing up. First 10 followers, then 100. It felt like climbing a hill with no summit in sight, until one day, I looked back and realised I’d actually made it somewhere.

TBH

I Paid Attention to What Worked (But Didn’t Obsess Over It)

When an article did well, I asked myself why. Was it the headline? The topic? The timing?

But I didn’t let stats dictate everything. I still wrote the occasional weird post just because I felt like it. Some flopped. Some unexpectedly blew up. That mix of intuition and analysis kept things fun and sustainable.

I Got Comfortable Being Seen

This was the hardest one.
You go to any article of mine and you will find me smiling at the end with my connect details.

Hitting “publish” can feel like standing naked in a room full of strangers. What if people judge me? What if it’s not good enough?

Eventually, I realized that’s part of the deal. The only way to get better is to be seen, get feedback, and grow in public. And the more I wrote, the more confident I got.

I didn’t go viral. I didn’t have a secret strategy. I just showed up, consistently, as myself.

And that was enough.

And hey, maybe I’ll see you at 10K someday. 😊

The Inevitable “We Told You So”

Well, well, well. Looks like the sky didn’t fall. Except it did, but only for the wiretap systems of a few tiny companies like AT&T, Lumen (formerly CenturyLink), and Verizon. You know, just your average telecom giants whose systems were reportedly compromised by Chinese government-backed hackers. The news dropped over the weekend, and if you’re surprised, congratulations!! You’ve either been living under a rock or working in Washington.

The Shocking Surprise That Wasn’t

Matt Blaze, professor and secure systems expert, basically said, “We knew this was coming” when asked about the intrusions into some of the most sensitive systems in the U.S. telecom sector. These systems, mandated by a 30-year-old law, are designed to let law enforcement tap into communications — and apparently, China too. Hackers from Salt Typhoon decided to rummage through America’s wiretap infrastructure, reportedly collecting vast amounts of internet traffic along the way.

According to The Wall Street Journal, this isn’t your run-of-the-mill cyberattack. No, this breach has been labeled “potentially catastrophic.” What kind of damage can be done by having access to internet traffic from three of the biggest telecom companies in the U.S.? Nothing too serious, I’m sure.

CALEA: The Backdoor That Keeps on Giving

The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) — a law older than most TikTok users — requires telecom companies to make their systems accessible for wiretapping. Because, you know, in 1994, cell phones were the size of bricks, and no one had even heard of Snapchat.

The law made sense then, perhaps, when “the internet” sounded like something you’d dial into using a screeching modem. But 30 years later, it’s becoming increasingly clear that backdoors, designed to let the “good guys” in, also let the bad guys have a field day. And surprise, surprise — China is the latest to crash the party.

“The only solution is more encryption,” says Stanford encryption policy expert Riana Pfefferkorn. Encryption? What a novel idea! Maybe that would have stopped Salt Typhoon from pillaging through U.S. internet traffic like it’s the Black Friday sale at Best Buy.

Snowden Was Right (Again)

Remember Edward Snowden, that guy who blew the whistle on U.S. surveillance tactics in 2013?

Turns out he might have been onto something. While the world was busy debating whether his leaks made him a hero or a traitor, Silicon Valley took his revelations seriously. Tech giants started encrypting data like never before because they realized — wait for it — that they couldn’t be forced to hand over what they couldn’t access.

Meanwhile, telecom companies, those bastions of customer privacy and security, decided to just keep on keeping on. Encrypt customer phone and internet traffic? Nah, sounds like too much work. Fast forward to 2024, and Salt Typhoon waltzes in and helps themselves to the buffet.

CALEA a cautionary tale. No kidding. The law might have worked back in the days of flip phones, but in today’s world, it’s like putting a padlock on a barn door while the horses are already halfway across the country. So, let’s all give a slow clap to the geniuses who thought backdoors were a solid idea.

After all, it only took 30 years, a few cyberattacks, and some Chinese hackers to prove the experts right.

About the Author :

Yash Bansal is an Associate Principal Engineer at RedBus. More info about him can be found on his LinkedIn profile.

Imagine leaving your front door wide open, then wondering how burglars managed to take everything. That’s pretty much what happened with the U.K. Electoral Commission, who got hit with a cyberattack that exposed voter records of 40 million people. And guess what? It was completely avoidable.

A Gentle Scolding for a Massive Blunder

Instead of facing the wrath of a hefty fine, the Electoral Commission got a polite finger-wagging from the ICO. You’d think letting 40 million people’s data hang out there might deserve more than a stern talking-to, right? Not this time.

The ICO decided to go with a “revised approach” to handling breaches by public bodies, meaning no big fines unless there’s “demonstrable harm.” So, even though they admitted the Commission could’ve done better, they decided it wasn’t worth emptying their wallets. Talk about getting off easy!

The ICO’s report basically reads like a how-not-to guide for data protection. The Electoral Commission managed to ignore basic security steps like patching their systems and using strong passwords. They might as well have used “123456” as their password!!!!

Hackers waltzed in through vulnerabilities called ProxyShell, which were well-known and already patched by Microsoft. But, surprise! The Electoral Commission didn’t bother with those updates.

If only they were as quick with their security patches as they were with the excuses.

“We Could Have Prevented This… Oops!”

In a rare moment of honesty, the Electoral Commission admitted (yes, they did!!) they didn’t have the right protections in place to stop the cyberattack. Thanks, Captain Obvious.

They discovered the breach in October 2022, but the hackers had been poking around since August 2021. That’s more than a year of the Commission being blissfully unaware ☺️ that their systems were like a sieve.

“Not Our Fault” Debate

Even though the stolen data included names, addresses, phone numbers, and more, the ICO didn’t see any direct harm done. So, no need to punish anyone, right? They chalked it up to luck that the data wasn’t misused — at least not in any way they could find.

In a delightful twist, the U.K. government pointed fingers at China for the breach. Naturally, China denied it, because why would they own up to a juicy espionage story?

After all this, the Electoral Commission finally decided to step up its game with some overdue security measures. They’re modernizing their infrastructure and rolling out multi-factor authentication. It’s like locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

So, what’s the takeaway? If you’re a public sector body, make sure you don’t get caught with your cyber pants down. But if you do, don’t worry too much. As long as there’s no direct harm, you might just get away with a slap on the wrist — just like the Electoral Commission.

Maybe, just maybe, the next time someone leaves the data vault open, they’ll remember to lock it up tight.

About the Author :

Yash Bansal is an Associate Principal Engineer at RedBus. More info about him can be found on his LinkedIn profile.

The acronym DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has become a contentious topic, sparking polarized reactions between advocates and detractors. This divide was starkly illustrated when Alexandr Wang, founder of Scale AI, took to X (formerly Twitter) to propose a shift from DEI to “MEI” — Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence.

“Scale is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one,” Wang proclaimed. “Every decision to bring someone on board is crucial and has never been influenced by current trends or virtue signaling.”

Wang’s statement drew enthusiastic responses on X from notable figures like Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Brian Armstrong. Conversely, on LinkedIn, the reception from the startup community was less favorable. Critics argued that Wang’s emphasis on “meritocracy” overlooks the inherent subjectivity of the term. They pointed out that relying solely on meritocracy ignores systemic barriers that can prevent some groups from showcasing their full potential.

Emily Witko, an HR specialist at Hugging Face, also weighed in, calling Wang’s perspective a “dangerous oversimplification.” She noted that X users were likely drawn to the post because it candidly voiced anti-DEI sentiments, which resonate with those eager to critique DEI initiatives. Witko warned that Wang’s MEI framework could undermine efforts to address underrepresentation in tech, making it easier to dismiss conversations about diversity.

Wang is not alone in his critique of DEI. A growing number of Silicon Valley insiders have argued that DEI initiatives, particularly those intensified during the Black Lives Matter movement, have hindered corporate success. These critics advocate for a return to “meritocratic principles,” believing that such a shift is necessary to restore profitability. Consequently, many tech companies have scaled back recruitment programs that aimed to consider candidates from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

In 2020, numerous organizations pledged to prioritize DEI, emphasizing that it’s not just about token hires but about ensuring qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds are fairly represented. This approach also involves examining disparities in recruitment and addressing the systemic reasons why certain candidates are often overlooked.

What’s happening right now

Despite these efforts, recent data paints a bleak picture for DEI in tech. The HR staffing firm Harnham reported a sharp decline in new female recruits in the U.S. data industry, from 36% in 2022 to just 12% in 2023. Similarly, the proportion of Black, Indigenous, and professionals of color in senior data roles was a mere 38% in 2022. Job listings related to DEI have also seen a significant drop, with a 44% decline in 2023 according to Indeed.

Moreover, a Deloitte survey revealed that over half of the women in AI had left at least one employer due to gender disparities, and 73% had considered leaving the tech industry due to unequal pay and limited career advancement opportunities.

Despite the tech industry’s reputation for being data-driven, the concept of meritocracy remains deeply ingrained, even as research suggests it often leads to biased outcomes. The notion of hiring “the best person for the job” without considering sociological factors can result in homogenous teams, whereas studies consistently show that diverse teams achieve better results. This has led to questions about who Silicon Valley regards as “excellent” and why.

Experts argue that Wang’s MEI concept is not revolutionary but rather a critique of DEI disguised as a call for merit-based hiring. Natalie Sue Johnson, co-founder of DEI consultancy Paradigm, explained to TechCrunch that meritocracy, when overly emphasized, can actually increase bias. “It allows people to believe they are inherently fair without recognizing the effort required to ensure fairness,” she said. Johnson emphasized that systemic barriers must be acknowledged, as the most qualified candidates are often those who have excelled despite such obstacles.

Evaluating candidates solely on faceless, nameless criteria, without considering their unique experiences, is a flawed approach, Johnson added. “There is nuance in assessing a person’s qualifications.”

In a more charitable view, Wang’s proposal for MEI, while flawed, might be an attempt to find a new term that captures fairness without the baggage DEI has acquired. Johnson suggested that Scale AI’s values might align with the essence of DEI, even if Wang doesn’t explicitly recognize it. “Casting a wide net for talent and making fair, unbiased hiring decisions aligns with what DEI aims to achieve,” she said.

However, Wang’s endorsement of meritocracy implies that abilities and merits alone dictate outcomes, a belief that disregards the complexities of systemic inequities.

Wang’s position highlights a broader paradox faced by many leaders and companies: whether to trust in meritocratic ideals alone to foster diversity or to recognize that intentional efforts are necessary to build truly inclusive workplaces. This tension is compounded by reports of Scale AI’s treatment of its annotators, many of whom work under challenging conditions for low pay, suggesting a gap between the company’s stated ideals and its practices.