Category Archives: Finance

June 18, 2020 · 00:35

Musings

I am currently awaiting my new laptop. My Lenovo Chromebook just is not good enough (apart from the dodgy spacebar). And as I was pondering a few actions, the BBC article ‘How Elon Muskaims to revolutionise battery technology’ I remembered the idea that his car battery gave me. You see, the solar cell idea was nice, yet the setting to ADD somethig to your roof is where the issue optionally starts. My idea was to replace the roof tile in roofs, in newly built houses. This new tile based on the old one, exists in two versions, version 2.0 and version 2.0 plus The 2.0 tile is made from recycled plastics, and therefore over time cheaper and beneficial to nature, the second one has added solar cells in it and it fuels the car battery.

Now one tile is not going to hack it, yet a roof can be replaced over time with more and more cells. Fuelling that battery faster and giving it more use. Over time that battery will fuel lights, heating aircons and a whole range of appliances. Making the house first carbon neutral and over time carbon negative. Those buying houses will benefit the most, yet apartment complexes can benefit too as it fuels the common usage parts and over time we add to the electricity net making them money too. A stage where we look at a stage where we all become the power suppliers. His battery is the start of something more and in this age of power usage, we can become neutral in its needs. Consider your own needs, how much power does your console use, your TV, the router and optionally the PC, now consider that their power use is nullified by the roof, as well as the two most power intensive parts, the boiler (if you have one), and the fridge which will use power 24:7.

Now consider that usage to be nullified not by one person but by 10,000,000. That would reduce brownouts in places like California and Greece by close to 80%, from the benefits of having, we now see the benefits of providing, the electrical car being one part, you create the power it needs, implying that your personal fuel costs will diminish handing you more money every months for other matters. Consider your bills at present, now take fuel and power out of that equation. The larger benefit is not gained overnight, but over time and the stage I considered was one where we grow the creation and diminish the usage by not adding loans from the get go, but replace at easy steps without having to add loans. In this setting we can have a stage with the initial mortgage, and that makes sense, yet over time (every 2 years) you can add 20-50 tiles with spare change, giving you that in your first decade you are well beyond carbon neutral and that is only the start, as I see it the Musk battery technology can alter lives on a very large scale. His car is merely the start of something larger, benefitting billions of households.

You might think that these are simple musings, and you would be right, yet the creativity to apply someone’s creation in another way could start more creativity, more originality and applied to a much wider field. Lets face it, the weapon I created to sink the Iranian fleet was based on an offshore engineering principle (with some added physics). 

The roof idea would not have had the impact if Elon Musk did not do its duracell manoeuvre. We merely need to look at where else a battery like that one could impact us and how we fuel it, and when you walk through any city and see the billions of inactive roof tiles, consider the amount of power you get when every tile you see becomes a power creator. In this the rural people have an added bonus, they will have access to power on a size they never had before. When that becomes a thing of the past, we can focus on new fields and in other areas, there is plenty of mess to fix and a lot of it can be broomed under a rug (we all do it).

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

June 16, 2020 · 11:55

Murdering innovation

It started with the BBC about 30 minutes ago, 30 minutes after they released ‘Amazon v EU: Has the online giant met his match’, the title intrigued me and anyone who wants to go after Bezos and his haircut is allowed to do so, yet the EU tends to not care about anyone’s haircut, so I decided to have a calm read of it. 

Certain things made sense, yet a much larger part does not anto illustrate it, I start with a quote on the article: “The EU now looks set to charge Amazon for anti-competitive behaviour. This could cost Amazon a lot of money and could alter the shopping experience it offers customers.” To understand this I need to take you on a little time trip, my initial stage of Amazon was seen in 1994, I heard of it in its beginning and to me Amazon made no sense. You see, I grew up in the Netherlands, and for the most, any shop, in any retail area was never more than a hour away, optionally up to 2 hours if it was an exotic item (weapons, drugs) I had access to most items ever needed, as such Amazon made no sense at all. In 1997 I visited the US for the first time and Amazon started making sense. You see there are massive differences between the US and EU in certain ways and most people in the EU might not have gotten it. Amazon was an innovative player and came up and matured a retail direction. So when we get  EU’s competition enforcer Margrethe Vestager stating “We never accept in a football match that one team was also judging the game”, I merely wonder what her game is. And the setting of anti-competition law makes no sense. It makes no sense, because for close to 25 years others refused to go into the Amazon direction, as they remained in denial of what could happen. They remained in denial because they were iterative and small minded, they want the technology of others to come to them for free. And that is a thought that murders innovation. We see it in almost every area of technology. I worked for a company that stopped Facebook innovation 4 years before Facebook was created. Bullet point spreadsheet users who rely on the mission statement and the bottom dollar. They are left on the sidelines guarding iterative traffic. They feel that their option grants them more personal wealth. Now, anyone who has read my blog knows that I am no Jeff Bezos fan, but this he got right and the entire Covid-19 issue worked for him and now the champions of iteration (like EU’s competition enforcer Margrethe Vestager) are setting up shop to murder innovation a little more. You see the others now want the Amazon system for free, they want to enjoy the decades they were not working on innovation and merely (optionally) fucking their mistress whilst they claimed they were hard at work guiding their commision like it was a taxi meter. 

When I gave the stage of setting tax laws properly in 1998, people accused me that it was too complex and nothing was done, now that these firms are raking in the billions, those same people are staring at the sky stating that there was nothing they could do, but they merely ignore their own inactions.

Yet the larger concern is the stage that erupts when we see “It runs an online store and also sells its own products on that platform. The criticism is, that it’s both the player and the referee.” Yes, Google and Amazon innovated retail traffic, after the Netscape issues Microsoft hid in the IE cloud they created and IBM never showed interest, they merely did their own less profitable thing and now they want to push in on a market that had evolved for well over a decade and does fine without them. Microsoft came up with Bing a decade after Google and still has no proper way to set the algorithm for ranking, and misses out on a decade of data, which is how I see it. IBM has its own innovation (Quantum computing) and is still 2-5 years away from innovating that field, the rest of them are innovation candle holders at best. 

Yet I cannot completely ignore that the EU has optionally a case to bring, yet their own inadequacies regarding the mapping of the other players that never showed any interest in innovating the field Amazon is in is also food for thought. Those iterative players that will only step in on the second tier after the innovator has proven their case, how is there any level of fairness to give them the playing field? 

So when we see: “is the company using that data to give Amazon’s own products an unfair advantage?” I cannot completely disagree, yet the larger issue is that Amazon created a level of data collection that other data dogs refused to bark at. Now we all can agree that not every retail shop can wield such data and they should not get hit, yet this stage that Amazon has was in the UK going on for a long time via Dunnhumby did for Tesco and in The Netherlands it was Albert Heijn (et al) and their Air Miles. If you go after one, you need to go after all and that is not happening is it? Yet there is a size difference, but none of them came with an overlay of algorithm and made sense of it, they all wanted their own little corner, the innovation of Amazon was larger than that and everyone was in that selfish stage until they all learned (the hard way) that their way was the losing one. 

In all this Amazon is not completely innocent, yet that does not mean that they are guilty. The question we see: “But does Amazon unfairly promote its own products at the expense of third parties?” is woefully incomplete. The issue (just like with Google) is not on what is offered, but what EXACTLY did the searcher ask for? It is a huge part in all this and it is left on the sidelines, optionally intentionally and that hurts, because in all this the central side is not the sellers, or the implied sellers, what did the buyer exactly ask for and that matters, especially in the case of Amazon. The buyer did not ask for “A western where we see Talulah Riley naked with loads of added violence in the highest resolution”, they asked for “Westworld season 2 bluray”, and those two searches are not the same. We can come up with a lot more examples, but I hope that the point comes across. We forget that the largest issue is what the buyer seeks and the bulk want the latest products, they want the ones that ship immediately and can we honestly say that the founding setting of the product sought has all the elements in place (like shipping and overnight shipping options) are these elements properly set to those other sellers? You see, the backwash on what is optionally possible is one thing, the fact that these shops set up the parameters of what can be done in comparison of what is done are two different universes. 

For example, I cannot get to ‘there’ from ‘here’ in Google maps. These two locations are not defined, so when someone is looking at the Sombrero galaxy, it does not mean that there is a path getting there. 

It is the innuendo and the missing elements that make some strike out, optionally murdering innovation. Whilst we see: “The general defence is that there are plenty of companies that act as both a shop and supplier. Tesco and Sainsbury’s both sell their own labelled products in their stores, for example.” a setting duplicated in NEARLY EVERY OTHER country. Pretty much every supermarket chain has that setting, and it is ignored, because they are ‘too small’. I believe that the stage is different, as I stated, the others refused to adhere to the needs of the seeker, the consumer. As such they are out of the online game and that part is surprisingly overlooked. It is not the business of Amazon (or Google for that matter) to fill in the blanks, if Bing does that, perhaps it might have a future to some. 

It is our task to protect innovation, there is too little of it (not what a marketing manager claims is innovation, but actual innovation) if we do not, we merely end up fuelling the EU gravy train and those people need to focus on actual issues, not their gravy train. In this I am not stating that Amazon is completely innocent, I am merely stating that there are a few sides that some people left in the dark. To illustrate this I entered “buy arkham knight ps4”, the results in Bing and Google are very different, bing seems to be all about ebay, that same search in Google and Amazon give a much better result, they gave me what I was looking for. I personally was not looking for ebay options, yet was that part of the equation given? 

The buyer is the larger part in all this and most screamers forgot about that part.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

June 16, 2020 · 01:34

Donkey Balls!

The explanation is actually almost too simple, I am writing this whilst I am rewatching the Expanse on Bluray (thanks to the awesome sale JB Hifi had 3 weeks ago). I was watching and browsing whilst I got exposed to ‘Media rules must help news providers harness digital platforms’ value’, the link was on LinkedIn and came from Facebook. I do not disagree with the setting, but the entire issue is much larger and has traps on a few levels. That issue is a little less complicated when we consider the news on the daily mail where we see ‘Top Facebook exec says it DID help Donald Trump win but only because ‘he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen. Period.’ And NOT because of Russia’, the claim was apparantly made by Andrew Bosworth and it was in the Daily Mail on January 8th. It is not the claim that is the issue, it is the linked advertisements that the viewer gets. I ended up with advertisements by Telstra and Microsoft. Now, there was nothing wrong with that, yet if I had not clicked on the story, the advertisements would not have come. That is the issue, even newsmakers need to rely on clicks and there is the first issue. Basically the (short) story has the following 2nd headlines:

  • Andrew Bosworth is a longtime senior Facebook executive and confidant of Mark Zuckerberg
  • Bosworth wrote a 2,500 word memo shared internally with Facebook employees that was published on December 30
  • He claimed the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a ‘non-event’ and admitted the Russians did manipulate the U.S. election
  • Bosworth also essentially branded criticism of the company as fake news because the press ‘often gets so many details wrong’ 
  • The memo was initially leaked to the New York Times on Tuesday before the top executive published it in full on his public Facebook account 

5 times to get the clicks, 5 times to get advertisements and the news channels are in the setting to get CLICKS, making the quality of news debatable and there is the larger issue. When the news becomes a commercial vessel, how can it be trusted?

SO when I looked at the news (according to the Sydney Morning Herald) we get: “It would allow news publishers and digital platforms that distribute news to continue building on existing commercial arrangements, and support the development of a Digital News Council to advance cross-industry collaboration. It would also encourage more transparency for significant changes to the ranking of news content in News Feed and guarantee to publishers we’ll continue to share measurement data on how their content performs on Facebook as well as insights on their audiences, without sharing personal user information.” Here I see that there are optional ‘agreements’ on the sharing of revenue (which I do not debate, or wonder whether that is wrong), yet I do wonder about who has the stronger pull. Revenue based decisions, or news quality decisions and the ambiguity of it deepens the innate mistrust in me and the mistrust of the optional news that it breeds. So the quote “It would allow news publishers and digital platforms that distribute news to continue building on existing commercial arrangements” sets the steps for commercially inclined news, not neutral based and news baked news. It ends up not getting the clicks and that is the larger problem. The digital problem is that there needs to be space for news to set the parameters, yet the click is what gets the revenue and they tend to be on opposite sides of coins of different currency. Better stated was the Expanse response, which was ‘It really is Donkey balls’, the settings a larger one and those relying on click based revenue would not be interested in slaughtering the goose with the golden egg and I get that. But we need to move the news into another stage of the media, now making it revenue based, all whilst those participating should require to pay these newsagents something, it was their material used.

So whether we accept that the previous elections used a much better digital profile, we need to take the news out of it, and give them their own digital channel, not set to a click based system. It requires new levels of innovation on digital media and we all better accept that fast. 

What is the solution?

I actually do not know, but in part it will be creating awareness with the people, they need to realise that they are part of that problem, they are the inquisitive types and usually that is not a problem, yet the push the click based activities forward and at the point they become part of the problem. As I see it, the news might be part of social media, yet they should not be part of the click based equation and until the news starts realising that, as well as the fact that their shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers are part of the problem and not part of the solution, this issue will continue.

So those who have seen the Expanse season three and know that the initial weapon was something more might realise that in the digital media that click is the something more towards a weapon, all thanks to the shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers. We need a much larger change and until cash is taken out of the equation it cannot continue, yet that too is a dicey position, because the news has every right to cash in on materials they created. We cannot ignore that part of the equation.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

June 13, 2020 · 16:57

To knowingly intentionally ignore

There is a state in any person’s mind to ignore anything that does not fit the need of the receiver. This is not a bad thing (at times), and we can ignore all we can, yet to deceive ourselves that it does not exist is another matter. 

To look at the station we need to look at the consideration of two settings. The first is ‘an organized effort to gather information about targer markets or customers’ this is the foundation of market research. After this we consider the second part, which is ‘the process or set of processes that links the producers, customers, and end users to the marketer through information used to identify and define marketing opportunities and problems’, as I personally see it, some do not see the difference (or ignore that there is one), or as I would imply, to knowingly use one as the other. The first difference is the population. In market research we investigate a population and we set our hypothesis based on the station of it. We dabble, we slice and dice this population, and we draw conclusions. The problem is that some hide behind the slicing and dicing, calling it the arbitrary process. For the most I have no issues with it, or better stated I do not care one hoot about some of these analysts. Yet lately I see the impact of decisions and business processes and I wonder if the people accepting the marketing stories whether they are in the dark, they do not care or if they are clueless. 

It started with Microsoft, then Ubisoft, after that there was a stage at Apple as well as a stint in the US administration. All acts based on what some would call ‘a market research into the people and the impact of view’ yet it seems like the marketing research of passing a bitter pill to the extent of surviving the action. That is clearly how it feels and the first act on my side was remembering a previous conversation, a conversation I had roughly 20 years ago. The premise was that a board was cutting expenses and setting the stage of having the environment where they stopped getting a 90% approval on their product and settling on an 80% approval. It is a dangerous and slippery slide. Yes it seems cheaper and it might in the beginning be cheaper, yet the station as we see it is dangerous as the degrees of freedom diminish (intended pun). As a product drills down in different areas, the 10% shift implies that on three fields the danger grows that the overall approval rate is optionally down to 60%, especially if the 20% missed rate hits any consumer 3 times. This is where Ubisot is at present and that is where Microsoft was in the last few years. In that stage we see “to develop technology that will enable them to stream games to whatever piece of tech a person is holding – be that a smartphone, console, or something yet to be invented”. It is the Ubisoft statement and that is fine, yet with the testing and inadequate versions over the last two years alone gives the consumer (the player) a much larger lag, especially when these players are only relatively happy and get hit again and again with downloads that tend to exceed 20 GB, how long until the player has had enough?

It is nice to drill down unto a group of satisfied players, yet the larger issue is that the non players are too often disregarded making the story told one that is largely built onto a shallow base of shifty sands. My view is supported by one small detail, as the PS5 was viewed, we saw an absence of Ubisoft games, the station of that 20% is now growing is it not? One of the largest software makers in history had no business not being present at this Sony show, whether they are going forward on both systems or not. It seems to me that this is not a small part, this is a much larger part and it seems to me that the predictions that I gave last year is slowly coming to fruition. 

Could I be wrong?

Absolutely! I cannot state that there is certainty, that would be short sighted on my side, but the symptoms are there, the lack of excellent gaming, dozens of updates that are several GB in size, there is a lack of testing there is a lack of listening to the gamers and the ones setting the stage of listening are rolling the dice which they optionally loaded themselves. They look better that way, yet the consequences for Ubisoft seem better, until the gamers move away, when you set the stage of a non-assassins creed game to call it that, something they did once before, the stage changes. Even as we were given last year “Ubisoft didn’t provide numbers, but said that it had made a “sharp downward revision” in the revenues expected from both games, which it blamed on a failure to differentiate Breakpoint from its predecessor, an overall lack of interest in sequels to live games, and excess bugs for the game’s failure.” (source: PC Gamer) There are two parts in this, the first is that the game sucks, the basic failures seen only yesterday by myself give a larger rise to that Ubisoft has much larger issues at present. The fact that I ended up with the game at 20% of the full price only 6 months ago, and the fact that to start the game I needed a 38GB patch shows that the issues are close to massive. It is not ‘to differentiate’, but to ‘properly code’ a game that is at the core of it all. The difference of Market research where Ubisoft investigates their game against ALL gamers, to a stage of Marketing research where Ubisoft merely investigates the Ubisoft players is part of that optional setting. When anyone hides behind the message and not behind the quality of product, we have a much larger issue and in the next console war, it would optionally set the deck to a very different stage. 

This is not about Ubisoft, Apple and Microsoft have shown similar failings for too long, and the stage where the US administration is in shows similar flaws, even as it is not a product, trust is, and it is faltering on several levels in the US. We can blame several stages in this, but it is not the blame, it is the investigation into the analysts and the conclusions drawn seems to be a much larger stage of marketing research, not market research. One optional stage is the way evidence is rejected and optionally completely ignored. We might look at the Coronavirus, it is not the point, that element merely brought it to the surface faster. Huawei is the first one that matters, no evidence was ever brought to light, it shows a stgs where the US is close to economic collapse, at that stage we see the greed driven marketing research where the actions are at disposal to the US assets, not the US citizens. This matters because it shows that the slicing and dicing of data is not getting the attention it is due, it is happening on corporate and political levels and elements like ‘How Austin Tech Is Democratizing Data’ might seem nice in theory, yet the larger issue is that some views are now seemingly solely supported by the topline makers, not actual academics with the education required to make some conclusions based on data, not the presented views that those in charge of governments and corporations would like it to be. So when we learn that “Imagine business analysts, marketing teams and even the C-suite having the power to interpret data without the help of the entire IT department”,consider that we are now in a phase where those who have are about to decide the fate of those who have not and those people are in for a massive rough ride, or so they believe. When we see the corporate players like Ubisoft and Microsoft folding on strategies as they lose larger and larger market shares, we will see destabilisation of a much larger degree and there the game is up for grabs. Even as some resorted to terms like data democratization, it is a much older principle, it is the discrimination between those who matter to some, against those who do not. Corporations will find out the hard way what their choice brings them, in politics it is a different story and the impact there is nowhere to be seen. We cannot predict it until it is too late and there I expect (or is it dare I expect?), is the stage larger, even as places like YouTube is flooded in some positive light, the negative impact is much larger. The US riots are merely a consequence to part of what happens in data, it is not the cause but there will be much larger and much more defining then we ever expected, the problem there is that after the fact, repairing damage is close to impossible. You see it is not ownership of data, it is the fact that decisions are made on a level where too much data is disregarded. Hiding behind entrepreneurial action is close to a farce. The largest danger of misinterpretation and as the sources are less and less trustworthy and that is disregarding any ethical consideration, or to make it slightly more simple, as data democratization moves forward, the essential part of comprehensive information will be filtered and optionally disregarded too often, a such a full view is not available, implying that the decision makers are merely looking at a limited scope and consider that action when it is done by a billion Euro company. 

We are only seeing this because the surrounding scope was pushed to the forefront, as such those reacting are doing it too late having to disregard increasingly larger consumer markets. When was the last time that such an action was an actual benefit to that company?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 9, 2020 · 21:11

Paranoia vs Delusions vs Megalomania

We all have that situation, Am I paranoid? Am I delusional? Is it me? We see these parts in ourselves, at least most balanced people have that side in them, it is part of the checks and balances we build within ourselves. So, when we see the BBC article only 10 hours ago stating ‘Satellite traffic images may suggest virus hit Wuhan earlier’ we need to take a long hard look at the matters that play. TheBBC makes the endgame clear (just to cover themselves) with “The study has not been peer-reviewed”, yet that is merely the part that matters the least. A number of serious questions and levels of scrutiny are required on both Harvard University as well as Dr John Brownstein. Now, I am not stating that the study is wrong, I have not read it, as such I am in no state to comment on it, but I do have thoughts. The first is all that satellite traffic. We might throw that thought away, but I have other issues. For that we need to go back to 2013 (March and August) at that point we had issues with Chemical attacks in Syria and no one knew anything, not even the Americans, so they cannot identify a mass extinction event with Sarin, but they can give a larger view on the flu? Consider the idea that the US has been actively PROTECTING the user of a chemical attack, did you consider that? I had that thought the day it happened, but they all hid behind “The UN mission found the likely use of the nerve agent Sarin”, in all this we accept ’likely’? In that stage we now see all kinds of speculation by people a lot will not care about and I am the delusional one? Added to that the online surges? So what data is used, where did the data come from? Added to all this is the stage of the way it is presented, and linked to all this is data that requires a lot of scrutiny. Consider that someone makes a paper like this whilst we also see “But if the infection was present – undetected perhaps – some people could have been leaving Wuhan” all linked to people searching for flu symptoms? And someone made a paper out of that? 

I reckon it is time to massively scrutinize EVERYTHING coming from the US, yet too many listen to the words from Wall Street and they need a scapegoat or all these losses, all whilst we see that the lack of resources is the number two bad boy. 

Is China innocent?

I do not know that, and to be honest, I do not care. They had the Swine flu over there and a few other issues, yet it is and has always been clear that Wuhan was the start. The fact that the flu went to so many places left me puzzled from the beginning. I admit that I know nothing of Wuhan, as such I have no idea how much international traffic it sees, yet in february there was a clear picture and even then it took the media 10 days to give a clear Pandemic message, even though I had clearly shown that the dictionary meaning of Pandemic had already been passed and the global governments did close to nothing, their economies would not let them and now they are crying like little girls. All starting their own blame game. So whilst we are all looking at China (which partially makes sense) no one is wondering how governments and the people reacted when the WHO gave us all on January 30th “A Public Health Emergency of Global Concern”, yet what did the governments do? They underestimated the issue again and again and we see very little of that, do we? In this the South China Morning Post gave  “that China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17th”, we can set the stage that there was an issue earlier, but there is also the stage of identifying the disease and in all that the larger issues is not blaming China, as I personally see it the lack of actions by governments on a global scale is a much larger issue, with the winner being President Trump making wild claims going back to March 2020, instead of closing the borders he let it all happen and now we see that the US has an optionally underreported number of almost 2 million cases infected whilst over 111,000 people died of the virus, 111,000 people that died of the flu. In all that less than 50% in the US are registered recovered cases. I reckon that this so called paper on a virus with wild statements like “they could not always compare satellite images taken on the same day in consecutive years due to cloud cover in some of the photo’s”, as I would like to call attention to the 2013 fiasco where implied wind and optionally dust too prevented the Intelligence agencies of seeing what was happening, it made all the difference to the dead people. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 7, 2020 · 21:51

The choices of a greed driven nation

I had to consider a few things today, they are essential as they would impart a much larger setting, do I give way to optional millions, or not. I decided that I need to find a path in between, but the larger wealth that the US voraciously implies is off the table, I would have preferred to work with a player like Google, but the situation in the US is too unsettling. We see the impact of harassment, pressures, discrimination and a lot more, all under the administration of President Trump. Yet, they are not alone, the other side is also baiting the masses and some are falling for it. This entire setting has the origin of debt and poverty, that setting was more and more on the forefront. I made notice of that danger well over a year ago, yet the Corona pressure brought it to the surface much faster than anticipated. The impact is on too many fronts all at the same time and the US has no escape plan. Whatever path was optionally there had been taken away by Wall Street executives, not merely Wall Street, but their minions that are all over the world, squeezing the markets again and again, setting a stage of unreachable expectations. We heard it in the last few years on how ‘analysts expect this firm to reach revenues well over 18%’ answer all silently accepted this. America is now in a stage of debt that exceeds $25 trillion, all whilst big business seemingly stays afloat. Yet that too will change a lot faster than most realise, what happens when the US goes into a full Civil War? That is not a joke, that is the reality that this America Administration faces. It either bursts the Wall Street balloon, or there will be a civil war. The escalations in the US even now point to that. Some merely call it the ‘Nixon playbook’, others watch the toppling of statues, people in police outfits without insignia and without proper discipline. ABC7 Chicago shows intimidation of a dozen white people with rifles as African Americans walk with boxes on the streets, how will this go right? This will escalate and I am not willing to set the stage of my IP in that environment. That so called ‘Chinese oppressive regime’ seems a lot safer to leave my IP with at present than any American based corporation, I had some hopes for Google, but it seems that they are in another stage of self preservation (which is their right), in the stage where the Trump administration goes overboard to quell whatever civil war erupts, California will not be out of bounds, it will get hit hard and it will dampen my value, something I am unwilling to do. It is not about my value, it is about the business impact that my IP will have and I want to watch it growing to the height of its ability. I think long term, I always think long term, the Wall Street boys never got that, they were never able to look beyond the next quarter or the next spreadsheet. 

That is the stage that will hinder and hamper the US, not me, but in the US there are thousands of inventors, thousands of idea makers and they are in a stage where they can no longer trust their own place or their family value. As such, when this comes to blow (and it will), the US will face the largest brain drain ever, they have never faced this before. A lot of people will return to family homes in Western Europe, linking to larger businesses in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, and the Patent shift we see then will be one the US has never faced before, they will go from a number two after China to number 4-9 (depending on the brain drain), as such the US and its debts will implode as their economic value will dwindle, it was a setting that was clear to happen and as that happen, a larger part of the US will become a dead zone, a place without future. The states New York, Texas and California could end up carrying the entire US on their shoulders, which is more likely than not ending healthcare and social services. As these escalations become visible to a lot of people the brain drain will only increase and as some will try to hold on to the brain value of some, the larger population which by the way is well over 40% non-white, will listen to other nations offering larger premises, with optional start up bonuses and houses. It is their cheapest option.

So as a larger shift is happening, we will see a desperate America trying to find a solution that all can live with, if only they didn’t have that pesky $25,000,000,000,000 debt hanging over their heads.

And what about me?

Well, I am uncertain how it will end, but I have set the wheels in motion that over time will hand to the public domain my IP, no corporation will set that stage or can prevent the stage. I have set activation and deactivation codes in motion, I am not willing to trust some corporate goon ever again. Yet the stage I am looking forward to is also an appealing one. Those greed driven people forgot, I was never rich and I am not seeking it (hoping for is still on the table), yet the larger setting is not of what is, but it is one of what is yet to come and the US has no real 5G strategy, it gives its idea’s to the media, blatantly hijacked by some senators needing the limelight and in the end, it all stands still and when we see the standards from China winning over corporations in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia we see a setting of isolation for the US, propagating values via the media that are less and less certain before 2022, the 5G workforce will seek larger leaps into other areas. And it is only one of several fields where the brain drain will hamper the US.

For me, it does not matter, who not to trust is only a first step, the next one is the idea and how it will come to reality. I will end up with a fair share of coins, I will end up in a better stage than I ever would have considered and whilst I await that stage, I will have time to finish writing the story that will male a lot more wonder what on earth they were thinking. 

We are watching the choices of a greed driven nation unfold and whilst we see them celebrating wealth, they seemingly forgot that well over 80% is not part of that and almost 11% was under the poverty line, with the unemployment rates the US now sees, that line will shift, it will shift to a much larger degree than any administration ever faced, yet this administration has a massive debt to deal with too, a debt it largely inherited. As such life in the US will become unbearable to a much larger degree soon enough, and the US is not ready, it merely advertises it is ad others are taking advantage of that difference, even now, even as the US remains in denial, they are merely opening the door more and more to be cast from the room of being a superpower. Inviting others to the G7 doesn’t re-affirm their stance, it merely makes it obvious that the American dream died, it did so when greed became more important than innovation. A lesson too many American had forgotten about, the power that innovation brought, not the innovation that large corporations advertises, but actual innovation, the version of innovation we saw all over the 90’s.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 5, 2020 · 20:19

A handjob at twice the price

It started 8 hours ago, the stage that we have been watching on Hydroxychloroquine, an anti malaria drug. The article ‘Influential study on hydroxychloroquine withdrawn’ leaves me with a lot of questions. The quote “An influential article that found hydroxychloroquine increases the risk to death in coronavirus patients” should leave us all with a lot of questions. That is even before we get to the data concerns. Consider that the coronavirus had its initial cases last december (optionally a little earlier), so in January we knew that there was a problem, we also knew that there was NO vaccine at this stage. This was 5 months ago, now we see “Research for the article, published last month in medical journal the Lancet, involved 96,000 coronavirus patients across 671 hospital worldwide. Nearly 15,000 were given hydroxychloroquine – or a related form” In this light, we need to consider that there were enough patients in April, around 3 million, yet as we realise that reporting of Corona cases have been all over the field, so getting 671 hospitals to set up treatments, testings patients and reporting to a source takes time, the incentive for a vaccine started in january/february, and even as they might be on top of their game, the entire setting would require time. As far as I can tell, the situation does not add up. Consider for a moment that there are 4008 forms of approved medication (to coin amere small fat), someone decided to set the stage where hydroxychloroquine was an optional solution, I will not fault that reasoning (as I never studied medicine). So the medication is ‘offered’ as an optional partial solution, there is no vaccine, so still we are all OK. Consider that this started in January, so any negative feedback would not be there until February the earliest. As such, it takes time for possible patterns to form, as such February/March is the start. Now consider that in a period of 60 days, a report was filed with the foundation of ‘hydroxychloroquine increases the risk to deaths in coronavirus patients’, and keep in mind the ‘increases risk’ part, it matters.

You see the timeline to assess and identify ‘increases risk’ is not done in 90 days, the entire path would require all kinds of data on multiple levels and under larger scrutiny, the entire matter should be under scrutiny and should be up for debate in many places

Now we are in a stage where in under 90 days 96,000 patients are measured, 15,000 are documented on the effects of hydroxychloroquine on these patients and the effect and evidence of death due to medication. The timeline does not make sense, so personally, I would state Yes! I very much want to test and scrutinise that data. I would in addition make a memorandum with critical questions to Surgisphere, the timeline leaves me with questions and the data and evidence path would require investigations (in multiple ways), as such when I see this article, I am left with several questions, I also have questions in the direction of Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra. Not in a hostile way, but the entire setting leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and the professor could end up answering questions. 

So in all 96,000 patients over 90 days at the max, gives us well over 1050 patients a day, after that we have the stage of 166 patients on the drug a day and over a period of 90 days, not all have been properly tested, the stage of data gathering and data collection with tests and setting the proper stage of analyses, verification and reporting. I see a whole range of issues from a distance. Oh, and with the lockdown, how many resources would have been available? We see nothing of this entire field in the BBC article or anywhere else. 

Did someone look into the matter on an empty stomach? 

These managers chasing quick wins are shown to be be lacking in a few ways, I hope that the professor has a good explanation, he most likely does, and perhaps Surgisphere, but the entire data matter is not as I personally see it some ‘client agreement’ issue, I see it as something a lot more serious, and if it was up to me at this stage, unless Surgisphere cannot answer all questions to the satisfaction of all, they should never ever be allowed near medical data ever again. I am not alone in this, some people have been asking serious questions for days, some have has question marks on a few items that I mentioned and most include issues of data collection, it is time for serious organisations to step in, we would ask the WHO, but it seems that America is not paying that bill, so who would properly vet data of this magnitude?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

May 31, 2020 · 21:49

Not the Country

Yes the day is growing dimmer and here I am daydreaming towards June 1st, the first day of winter in Australia. Yes, here we are considering the cold and in that stage the news made me rewatch Terry Gilliam’s masterpiece Brazil. Thank god for Bluray at times. I saw the initial release in the cinema 35 years ago, it was an amazing piece of work and it adds up, it was never judged ‘relevant’ in the US, yet 20 years later it was as a cult movie judged as the 54th greatest British film of all time. In 2017 Time Out magazine saw it ranked as the 24th best British films ever. I always wondered how Robert DeNiro saw his role in this work. Yet let’s get back to the beginning where the bulk (mostly Americans)saw it as a not to be considered as a relevant piece of work and that is where we get to today’s BBC who gives us ‘Microsoft to replace journalists with robots’ , in light there we see “I spend all my time reading about how automation and AI is going to take all our jobs – now it’s taken mine” yet the cornerstone here is that AI actually does not (yet) exist. We (experts too) seem to rely on the setting that AI is the field where “machines mimic cognitive functions that humans associate with the human mind, such as learning and ‘problem solving”, they currently cant, they merely follow a guidance path to make decisions yet new materials are not learned, it is added in scripts and data. New decision data is not added by the computer, it takes human interference, which means that any reference missed will be a larger failing in the AI and this is merely the beginning. The problem here is that the decision makers wont make any as such the AI field will be falling to a much larger degree. 

And now we see that Microsoft is relying on a field that does not really exist. The problem is not the delusion we observe, the problem is that they set a stage of optional scripting and machine learning as the default towards what is AI and AI is actually a lot larger. As such they will miss opportunity after opportunity, optionally we might see that the Toyota Isis, a large seven seater CVT automatic will not be found on Bing as it is terrorist equipment. And that is when we look at it with the funny glasses. The real danger is misalignment of different information, and that is merely a first. McKinsey and Company gave us in 2018 issues like: ‘Economies stand to benefit AI, through increased productivity and innovation’, so whose innovation? Which increased productivity? Is reality part of that situation? McKinsey (and company) seem to paint it as “Even in the near term, productivity growth has been sluggish in developed economies, dropping to an average of 0.5% in 2010-2014 from 2.4% a decade earlier in theUS and major European economies. Much like previous general-purpose technologies, AI has the potential to contribute to productivity growth” How exactly?  We see some conceptual babble, yet the direct impact is not there. Will shoes be sold quicker? Will there be more laptops sold? Not really, the consumers are not there, as such it is a machine that services no one. And since October 2018 there has not been much change. The difference between expected and factual is not a small leap, it is the size of the Grand Canyon. 

The promise of something that represents AI is still years away, but Microsoft is already laying off its journalists. I wonder whether this is about AI or about the setting of what some should not be doing. Just like President Trump who states that the WHO is no longer to be paid for all kinds of reasons, yet might it be possible that the US cannot pay the bill? It is merely $25,000,000,000,000 in debt. And that was before the riots and all these companies folding. Even now that the G7is seen as ‘outdated’ and other invitations are handed out, the stage is not the G7, the stage is that this would be about results and the new invitations will make the meeting, an expensive meeting about meeting and greeting larger economies and ‘their’ face value. So whilst we see the G7, the G8, the G20 and all these meetings, none of them are about stopping the US (and Japanese) debt. In all this, the people in the movie Brazil are getting the better deal here. We are heading to a cliff and there is no coming back from that. The Fiscal cliff that is and as we relabel things and call them other things and waste meeting after meeting on how to call things, things are not getting solved. I wonder if Russia, China and India are in similar stages. In all this there is a much larger game in play. It is a stage where I do not feel like Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) fighting a machine, I am nothing more than Mr. Archibald Buttle (Brian Miller) getting thrown from system to system on a mere typo, and that was without the AI that some call AI and is not AI, I reckon things will go increasingly worse for some soon enough. In this I wonder if the US will be around to see it happen, the riots are pretty interesting, the fact that the US police officers are holding international journalists at gunpoint is a first indicator that their centre is rather unlikely to hold. If you want to see just how weird the world could become, watch Brazil and see just how amazing this piece of work is, and lets not forget, this movie was made in 1985, 35 years before the insanity truck was driving around.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 28, 2020 · 21:26

Down the drain?

Consider the two faced approach to the EU. The stage where we see on the BBC ‘Ursula von der Leyen speaks of Europe’s moment’, which is fair enough. So when we see “A recovery fund worth €750,000,000,000 to help tackle a crises” we would not react, in all this we also see how some of this is divided and initially we see that Germany gets €30,000,000,000 and France gets €39,000,000,000, so far it all seems fine and it would be, however the EU can never align or agree on anything, we see that in the Corona numbers where we see 

Sick Dead
France 182,913 28,596
Germany 181,895 8,533

Now remember one does not mean the other, yet when we see optional misreporting to this degree and the media shoves it under the carpet hiding behind all kinds of reasons (elderly and so on) we see that there is a lot missing. Now the amounts might be needed, I am not debating that, yet the stage of who gets how much and why is now open for debate. The involved players have a lot to explain and they might, yet the situation of reporting is missing a few rounds and the fact that this stage is missing in Strasbourg also implies that the funds are set to what certain captains of industry reports, now what governments are setting to stage. Even as we give weight to ‘France reports less than 100 coronavirus deaths for seventh day’, all whilst we see another matter evolve. Places like theconversation.com give a flim flam explanation of extended testing, and better response rates, yet the larger truth is that Germany not unlike France has an extensive rural population, as such the explanation does not hold water (as I made a note of almost 2 months ago), yet in all the article we do not see the one stage that matters. There is no vaccine, no cure and as such the numbers do not make sense and now their economic impact is taking away 30 billion. So why is it down the drain?

Germany ‘suffers’ just like all the others, yet in a stage of misreporting there is much larger stage in play (as I personally see it) and as we go forward from there, we wonder how numbers are derived and in all that the question on what governments need, as well as what captains of industry need is a much larger debate in al this. Even as some hide behind “The increased critical care capacity is also playing a role in reducing fatalities in Germany” becomes a farce, optionally one that was written by government allies. So if one is a farce, the other becomes very debatable. In a stage where a recession was already on the books, the Coronavirus merely hurried it along, last years numbers were very indicative of it and the EU who had to sit on its wallet has a reason to hand out an additional €750,000,000,000, yet the issue is not resolved, the reporting stage is out in the open andas it seems, media is assisting in hiding that part, there is enough evidence for several weeks that implies that there is either no interest or no follow through and all that is indicative of a stage of ‘playing along’. 

This is a much more important and a much harder stage, and as we wonder what game von der leyen is playing but the questions that need to be out in the open are not and it beckons, Why Not?

Now, there is still the debate, am I merely a conspiracy theorist? The data proves me right, you see once you get sick, the mortality rate sets in and it is set to roughly to 6% (all the way up from the initial 3.4%), and Germany is staged at 4.6% which is almost 50% lower, and it is up for debate, because France seemingly has mortality rate of 15.6%. The numbers do not add up, they haven’t added up for a long time and it is not merely Germany and France, they merely bring it to the surface much better, and when these numbers do not add up, what else is faulty? That is implied in the comment “Many including Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Lithuania, won’t commit either way until they read the small print” and even as one states that the devil is in the details, I merely wonder what details are getting obfuscated in other ways? So whilst some set the stage towards “the feeling here is it will need a face-to-face meeting between leaders to forge a compromise” in all this, a compromise was needed? Okay, I will go along, yet the stage where 750 billion was a compromise, what numbers were out in the open, and more immediate, the fact that Spain and Italy required well over 75 billion, gives rise to another set of consideration, especially in light of the fact that Romania and Portugal getting less than 20 billion, this whilst Romania is 6th on the EU population scale and Portugal is 11th. Now I accept that the numbers are set around dwindling economies, but if one set of numbers is incorrect, unreliable and debatable, what else is up for debate?

In light of all this, the people who are setting the stage for all this have other concerns, that is my personal belief, I am merely wondering what other concerns there are?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 26, 2020 · 22:47

Merging greed with stupidity

At times it happens smooth and almost undetectable slow, like watching paint dry. Yet it happens, the greed driven merge with the stupid stricken and the compact new package tends to foil their pound (or dollar) shaped pupils, that part can be seen in the BBC article ‘Huawei: What would happen if the UK ditched the firm?’. It is important to note that this is not about the article, or the writer of the article. So when we see “Huawei’s major 5G rivals are Nokia and Ericsson – two European firms. The networks claim that having three providers to choose from helps them negotiate lower prices” In all this, one could state that this is the first openly stupid statement. Not the fact of it, the fact is seemingly clear. Yet consider that in the time of the Ford Model T, Jaguar released the X series (as is) something that is a lot ahead of the other, why would it be cheaper? Why would it care that the Ford Model T is there? It does not give us more consideration or make prices cheaper, it merely shows that those choosing the Ford Model T as their mode of transportation, is out of business soon thereafter and that is what we face. Ericsson and Nokia are 2-5 years behind Huawei and in that time the 5G fight is fought and those relying on the Ford Model T is out of the race, like that optionally severely stupid MP stating “there were more important considerations”, so what is that? Being the bitch of American greed driven needs? We see the influence of ‘the influence of the Chinese communist party’ yet so far never one clear piece of evidence has been provided by anyone, and it is not just me, people with much higher skills in IT and cyber security are making the same noise. We are flocking to a nation that has been about exploitation and driving iteration. And now that innovation is at their front door, they scream interference whilst not providing evidence. The BBC article is important as we see “Removing Huawei would seriously delay 5G, costing the British economy up to £7bn”, I believe that the costs will be much higher. The losses will exceed £15bn as well as set the economy back 5-8 years and when that happens, others will surpass and others will get juicy service contracts, a stage the UK cannot afford to lose at present. I believe it is time to DEMAND actual answers, to DEMAND actual evidence of communist interference, I feel driven to this because there is no evidence, people a lot more clever than I had already assessed that part. And we need to realise that this is the time when the greed drive should not be allowed to get the stupid to speak up and take the stage. 

 

So when we see ABC giving us ‘British review of Huawei’s inclusion in 5G rollout welcomed by Australian security officials’, I personally merely wonder how many are sucking up to places like Telstra. In addition, unless they give clear evidence on HOW the Chinese government is taking ‘control’ I wonder how many of them will make statements that include ‘optionally could’ and a few other statements that are speculative. In all this, we show that we are all the bitches of American fear of economic collapse and some of them are likely to get nice presents around christmas, perhaps a bottle of wine. The point is not whether they do or don’t, the issue becomes that these steps will hinder our own progress, because that is what iterative technology does and if it was SO important, UK and Australian technology would drive the future needs, not follow others. In the end I do not care who we are following, this government and the one in London decided to be lazy and let others rule the technology, I can live with that, but to exclude technology on unfounded accusations is just plain stupid. Especially when others (who are slightly less stupid) get to take the reigns in mobile communication, when Asia and the Middle East take charge in forward momentum, do you think even for one second that anyone cares what we needed? That is the hidden part of American push, they do not care what we end up with, they merely need their fears of collapse to go away and when that is done they will worry about the next part. Yet at that point it is already too late for us. Is it not interesting that the 5G sales that Huawei offered received little to no investigation? It did not suit the American solution, their economy still loses and we should not care, we need to care what is best for US!

It seems that in that regime those who need to decide for us, seem to rely on ‘the world is too complex for that’ and they go about their personal needs whatever they might be. So all these people who talk on anonymity, when we put them out in the clear we will probably see a very different stage, I wonder who will wonder about that stage and exactly where WE fit in, because I am reasonably certain that in these dark days we have no consideration coming our way. 

The greed and stupid driven people are in a stage where we should demand that they are in the out and open. And I reckon that we are 2 years away from that loud demand from the people, in 2023 as others are taking the 5G lead will push more and more economy their way, that is the moment that we get wave after wave of ‘carefully phrased denials’ and ’miscommunication between officials and consultants’, at that point our goose is cooked in no uncertain ways. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,