There was an article on BBC (about 7 minutes ago). It gives us ‘Cineworld confirms it is considering bankruptcy’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62629932) there we see “Cineworld had hoped blockbusters such as the latest Bond film, Top Gun: Maverick and Thor: Love And Thunder would draw audiences back in after lockdown restrictions eased. But it recently said post-Covid customers levels were still lower than expected and blamed “limited” film releases.” I have an issue with that statement. I only saw one of the three (the Thor movie). The issue I have is with “customers levels were still lower than expected and blamed “limited” film releases” I do not think that is the case, and whomever makes that claim is massively shortsighted. Groceries and the cost of living is up EVERYWHERE. Meat alone is for me 25%-30% more expensive several other options are also more expensive, because the home brands are not available, setting us back around 10% per item. Electricity and fuel are up by a lot. These elements are central in the option to NOT go see a movie and there is another setting. It is seen in “Cineworld currently has a market value of around $69m but is carrying close to $5bn of debt.” Can anyone explain how a firm gets to have a debt 7200% of its value? There might be a real answer and this shows that I know next to nothing on cinema’s, but to have a debt 72 times the total value of a company comes across as slightly weird. In addition we see “But at just over 4 pence, the share price is still a long way off from where it was at the start of 2020 (220 pence) before the pandemic struck.” Implying that the company is now at a mere 1.8% of its original value and we see the blame on “limited film release” I think that business reporter Noor Nanji owes us a more (or better) explanation than we are seeing now. The issue all over the field makes little to no sense. It could be that there is a perfectly valid reason, but I can’t see it and that is because I am not in the cinema realm. But I reckon that Noor Nanji can give us a more perfect setting on what is going on. Because a firm in such a situation is not considering bankruptcy, it was utterly broke and broken months ago.
I am not taking pleasure here. I love cinema’s, but there is a larger sense of weirdness when we look at these facts and a lot more questions should be out in the open.
It started with watching another Eaton Centre Mall video (Toronto). This one was 6 days old (a Saturday event) and as I was watching I came up with one more piece of IP and the other piece matured. More importantly, it opens a much larger setting for shops. If Amazon pushes in, it will be the first time that Google has a realistic chance of losing market share, if Google steps in it could do a bit more than set its market share in stone, it could fan out beyond Malls and shopping centres. There is a much larger option to push the envelope in several ways. This is fuelled by what might be a realistic new option for Neom and the Line in Saudi Arabia. I have been keeping these two in the back of my mind, but that is as far as I got, I reckon that there are more marketing ways of supporting that place and a few (non-connected) ideas came to mind. With non-connected I usually mean that a lot more pondering is needed to see how far an idea goes and how easy it could be surpassed by others. That always remains an option. My ideas are good, but I am surrounded by equally gifted people (especially at Google), and as such the
IP needs to be trimmed, expanded on or redrawn. To make it faster, to make it better and to make it innovative. It was when the filmer passed Kernels that my mind made a UNIX joke and at that point I also realised a few other things. Not on what was there, but on what wasn’t there. It went beyond the 5G IP I have, it was the setting that the Eaton mall (according to the map) did not have a concierge desk (information desk). There is nothing wrong with that, but consider that what my 5G IP does could also be implemented in other ways (with less capability), but it is capability that we have now, so why is it not there? The map is actually rather good and very interactive, But what happens when we see (below)
And the location, app or solution allows the visitor to download the brochure of any of the shops there. More important, why was this not a basic solution for years? They’ve had 8 years and they are not alone in this failing, there is whole range of malls who do not have that, Google could have stepped in years ago (in case of Eaton Mall 8 years ago). So why were they asleep at the wheel in this? They have Lightbox ads, but never saw this? Lightbox ads are interesting as I found a new use for those. But the setting is there and as I was considering a new piece of IP and a new setting to use it, I also saw an old stage that could be implemented now and the mall seemingly never saw it, thought it was too hard or whatever reason they have. And it is not merely them, Apple, Gap, Sephora, Victoria’s Secret, Rexxall and that list goes on for a while. All options missed out on or rejected for unknown reasons. And malls do not get to have that luxury, not anymore. The stage of rent, the stage of people who seek engagement and interactions, they are missing out and as such will consider other places and a place like Eaton Centre is not in the luxury place that it can allow for that. As I see it, Harrods is the only place that has that luxury, the other 116,500 malls are under the hammer. They trimmed what they could over the last two years and they have nothing left to trim, so they need engagement with their audience, not tomorrow, today!
It sounds a little dramatic and perhaps that is the case, but if you check on the resources and funds available the malls are in dire need of more people and more sales. You see, the larger players have a global budget and they too need more revenue, but the smaller ones, they are at their last breath, as such they need something now and I listed the setting of what they could do NOW to make a difference and I put it here because it does not hinder my IP, it is based on what exists and merely needs an adjustment, so I am handing it over to Google, so they can wake the bloody hell up and start doing stuff for their users and customers. Yes they do a lot, but when I see a Google Nest advertisement 5 times a day, I wonder if they are doing the proper things in the right directions, with the lack of what I see I have a lot of doubts in that regard, but that might merely be me and if I am right and Google does not act, Amazon could potentially act and create a new market share and expand on that. Time will tell.
I saw an article yesterday. It was ‘Doubts cast over Elon Musk’s Twitter bot claims’. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62571733) was seemingly eager to attack Elon Musk’s side, but the same media has not now or ever asked serious and critical questions on the Twitter side. But lets start here, those who read my articles know I have had a larger issue with Twitter for a long time. Don’t get me wrong, I like Twitter. I like it a lot more than Facebook. As such I have issues. If it isn’t with their new bully tactics of suggestion topics, without switching that nuisance off in the profile setting, then it would be with the attitude they take on fake accounts, as well as the delusional stage that it does not go beyond 5%. People I have been in contact with and THEY have data shows it to be well over 40%. I personally found 40% high, but they have data and they have data on Russian trolls and fake accounts pushing Russian ‘needs’ regarding the Ukrainian war to be in the thousands of trolls each of them using a massive amounts of click farm numbers. And it does not matter whether Twitter deactivates these accounts. The trolls have more and new methods of creating thousands more each minute. It shows in the first that the 5% Twitter claimed is bogus, more important it shows my initial thoughts that if it can be proven that it is well over double, we have a situation that Twitter has been overvaluing itself for a very long time. The data that places like Trollrensics has, shows this to have been the case for over 5 years, long before the Elon Musk events started.
But back to the article. There we see “Botometer – an online tool that tracks spam and fake accounts – was used by Mr Musk in a countersuit against Twitter. Using the tool, Mr Musk’s team estimated that 33% of “visible accounts” on the social media platform were “false or spam accounts”.” OK, that is one side to go. I would personally advice Elon to take a step out of his circle and talk to Trollrensics. You see, they have been monitoring and recording events on the Ukrainian war (as well as Russian trolls) for a long time. Now consider that there should be some overlap. But take two circles (like below) we see the two solutions, the overlap is speculative on how much they overlap.
They are different solutions for different options. As such the overlap cannot be 100%, in theory the second image could exist, but we can prove that, or better stated Elon Musk could prove this. You see, when the two lists of accounts are set together, Twitter has a problem, if image one is true, Twitter’s problem increases by well over 100%, it also blasts the 5% claim out of the water.
If image 2 is true, Twitter has optionally a smaller issue, but Trollrensics has numbers stating over 40% of all accounts are fake, if so it will be a list supporting the case of Elon Musk, and well over 5%, Twitter will have a hard time opposing that much data.
And now we see in the article a strange event. With “However, Botometer creator and maintainer, Kaicheng Yang, said the figure “doesn’t mean anything”. Mr Yang questioned the methodology used by Mr Musk’s team, and told the BBC they had not approached him before using the tool.
Mr Musk is currently in dispute with Twitter, after trying to pull out of a deal to purchase the company for $44bn (£36.6bn).” The readers will wonder what is going on, but no fear the BBC did its homework and we see that a little further below with “Botometer is a tool that uses several indicators, like when and how often an account tweets and the content of the posts, to create a bot “score” out of five. A score of zero indicates a Twitter account is unlikely to be a bot, and a five suggests that it is unlikely to be a human. However, researchers say the tool does not give a definitive answer as to whether or not an account is a bot. “In order to estimate the prevalence [of bots] you need to choose a threshold to cut the score,” says Mr Yang.” Now to me this makes sense, but there is a hidden trap. The numbers tend to be less reliable when a hybrid model exists. Let me try to make an image as below.
The hybrid system has three parts. The core (the foundation of that troll system) but it connects to real accounts. The accounts are real, tools like Qanon or whatever tool out there exists to gain coin and perhaps hoping that they are the false prophets that they once hope to become. Trolls and hackers give them a nice little tag and now the troll core has one real account that links to a whole range of people and click farms to like by the thousands and as this hybrid model can go more than one level deep and consists of an unnamed amount of groups, Botometer and Twitter tools are (speculatively) in a mess, they now can no longer really decide on how real these groups are, and if the troll is intelligent and makes a slightly different message for each group, it can continue almost unabated. Still the Botometer is methodically sound to get the stupid accounts found and there are a whole range of them. Hundreds of thousands of limited click farm accounts, they should be found decently easily. And there I think is Elon Musk, he found the simple ones and he comes to 30%. The stage is real and the fact that is open to debate and moreover starts question the Twitter side of thinks is important. The article has more “Clayton Davis, a data scientist who worked on the project, says the system uses machine learning, and factors like tweet regularity and linguistic variability, as well as other telltale signs of robotic behaviour.” I agree with Clayton and there is also a larger issue. ‘Tweet regularity’ is real but debatable. You see it depends on interaction and time stations. A person has a shifting set. The person who looks at a tweet at 03:00 and retweets it because it is a friend, is different from the same person who is in the office at 11:00 and sees the same or a different tweet. There are more sides to that person, dynamic qualities and I wonder if a learning machine can learn (read: be taught) this. Not telling it cannot, I merely wonder and that makes it harder, than the time zones shift for the travelling person. All elements that can play a role. So when we get “In 2017, the group of academics behind the tool published a paper that estimated that between 9% and 15% of active Twitter accounts were bots.” Which is interesting for me as I considered the number to be around 20%, still that makes it 400% larger than Twitter’s claim, so Twitter does have a problem. And then the gem of the BBC article comes into play. With “Some bot experts claim Twitter has a vested interest in undercounting fake accounts. “Twitter has slightly conflicting priorities,” says Mr Davis. “On the one hand, they care about credibility. They want people to think that the engagements are real on Twitter. But they also care about having high user numbers.”
The vast majority of Twitter’s revenue comes from advertising, and the more daily active users it has, the more it can charge advertisers.” Or as I would state it, there is your Dorsey factor and that part shows both that Twitter is in deep trouble and also that Elon Musk was right all along. There is still a larger debate on how large that stage is, but if proof can be shown that the fake accounts exceed 9%-11% Elon Musk wins and Twitter gets to have a large problem. What I said all along, Twitter is bound to lose this and the media supporting Twitter for their own needs are likely to lose credibility by the day at that point.
A stage that was out in the open and has been for a few years. It was my view and the view of several I knew and now that we are proven correctly, I wonder under which rock the media will hide. The law sees intentional ignorance as a right, a legal station where we are allowed to keep ourselves ignorant, but should the media be allowed that very same thing? I will let you ponder that side of the equation, because it will come out in the open. In the mean time I will consider a few idea’s on Neom and the line bubble to the surface. Perhaps I should have a conversation with Saudi Arabia’s consul general in Sydney, Mashare Ben Naheet. If I am correct it might be worth a few million to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and I could use the money (I need to pay my bar bill sooner then I would like).
The problems of old age, they come into play at the least comfortable times.
The BBC is hitting us with another version of a debate that has been going on for a while. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61594815) gives us ‘Report blasts “manipulative” video game loot boxes’, first off, they are not lying to you, this is not misrepresentation. In this, I do not completely agree with the point of view of some. The article gives us “The contents of the virtual boxes are only revealed through either game play or by making a payment. While some contain useful tools or desirable extras which improve the experience, others are worthless.” These facts are true. There are two sides here. In the first, why allow for payment? It is the right of a person to buy something, we set ourselves up for that one. Yet in all this, the people who paid 12,000 euro for boxes. No one is debating the utter stupidity of these people. No one is debating that as an adult YOU are responsible for your actions. But the press was all about those poor poor junkies, weren’t they? The other issue is “others are worthless”, what makes the card worthless? It is a direct question. What makes a card worthless? In the NHL game, there are functional cards (stadiums and players), there are cosmetic cards (outfits) and there are support cards, so what makes a card worthless? Then we get “The report authors, the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC), say gamers are being “manipulated” into spending large sums of money on the chests.” I have an issue with that. Which games were they? How was there manipulation? The NHL game gave card packs on milestones, and there were a lot of milestones. In addition, you got three free packs a day, and if you connected to the game (logged in) often enough, you got enough markers (there is one in EVERY pack) to exchange those markers for an expanded pack, giving you 12 or even 20 cards. The packs also had a betting coin card. One per pack and these funds allowed you to bid for other cards. Within 3 months I had all the stadiums, all the NHL jerseys and hockey masks, as well as over 100 players. I NEVER spend a cent, this was all free. So please tell me “How was I manipulated into spending large sums of money?” There are always the stupid people who want it all on day one, is that the fault of the game maker? Is it THEIR responsibility for the stupidity of others? The next part of my disagreement is seen in “Critics say the boxes are a form of gambling because players cannot see what they have actually bought until after they have paid to open the contents”. In this it is important to see WHY I disagree. You see in CCG games like Magic, Star Trek, Star Wars, The lord of the rings and more we see that a pack has one rare (optionally one super rare), 2-3 uncommon cards and the rest are common. This is a set formula. So if a game set has 50 rare cards, you would be buying at the very least 50 packs. The optional rest is gotten through swapping with other players at events and at tournaments. It is NOT gambling because one element is missing. The element of gambling is that you lose everything, so until there is a pack where you get all blank cards stating “Thank You!”, it is NOT gambling. You always get a set equation, you always get something. It makes it not gambling.
In this I oppose the setting of “Finn Myrstad, director of digital policy at the NCC, said: “The sale and presentation of loot boxes often involve exploiting consumers through predatory mechanisms, fostering addiction, targeting vulnerable consumer groups and more.”” Yet there is a sparkly of truth here too and I do not deny it. Players like Electronic Arts played the exploitative element too much in FIFA, it backfired. There is exploitation, especially when the complete pack contains 10,000 players. However I disagree with the ‘predatory mechanism’ part. There is a whole range of predators on YouTube with there ‘card reveal’ channel, there “Do this to get something for free” and that is never a good thing, but these groups did not separate the exploiters from the makers, did they? Lets be clear the makers are not freshly white innocent. Only the people from Mass Effect 3 who introduced these loot-boxes in their multi player element, they were phenomenal and massively innocent. Others used that stage to make big money.
The article ends with “But the same year Fortnite-maker, Epic Games, decided to let players in its hit video game see what was inside its llama loot boxes before deciding whether to buy them.” And their case agains Apple gained traction. I believe that the Epic Games people are the lest innocent, and their setting will have long term repercussions, it is only a matter of time. The one element not seen was given to us by Android: Netrunner. They gave us a different setting making it fair all around, the expansions were all the same price and always had the same cards, so there was only one pack to buy (once a month). It allowed for a smoother and fair game stage. In addition, the CCG world has something called factory sets. They were slightly different (like a silver border) but that was the only difference. A factory set contained ALL the cards of a game. The game was instantly fully playable, but they do tend to come later. So EA had the option to release a factory set half way through the season, but they did not, did they? Is it on EA? That would be a fair question, and I do not know the answer, merely my feeling in this. Is there a larger exploitation? Yes, but not all of it is on the makers. YouTubers were all over their FIFA cards and the more bang the better their bucks and the numbers of their followers, but we do not see that here either.
The BBC (as well as Tom Gerken) never lie to you, yet I have issues with the article as I have issues with the setting of it. The players HAVE a responsibility and some are pushing it on EA (and others) and the media aided them, which is not fair either. All this is merely my point of view, so feel free to disagree.
It is a term from games, it means empty hands only. In gaming it tends to be a pugilist arena. I heard it first with Golden Eye, which is remarkably interesting as the HK model 23 with a silencer is more effective, we add the silencer in case the target is in a library
We would not want to disturb the readers.
And this all related to? Yes, it started with Al Jazeera who gave us (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/8/9/doj-preparing-to-sue-google-over-ad-market-as-soon-as-next-month) where we see ‘DOJ preparing to sue Google over ad market as soon as next month’. There we are given “The US Justice Department is preparing to sue Google as soon as next month, according to people familiar with the matter, capping years of work to build a case that the Alphabet Inc. unit illegally dominates the digital advertising market” I have issues with this, especially the ‘illegally dominates the digital advertising market’, you see Google INVENTED fair advertisement. The others all made sure that the people, the business and others paid TOP DOLLAR. Take the consideration we see next (I mentioned it before in previous blogs).
Placement, bid and Google price 1 $25 $0.54 2 $20 $0.53 3 $10 $0.52 4 $5 $0.51 5 $0.50 $0.50
So as they would charge the number one bidder $25, that same bidder merely pays $0.54 cents with Google Ads. Before Google Ads this was not an option and there we see the larger stages of Yellow pages, advertisements in newspapers and magazines. These places were racking up massive profits and Google undermined it, giving the people a better deal, as such 99% ran to Google and it caught on, Bing (Microsoft) tried to make it work, they could not, the metrics of Google were vastly superior. So there is no illegal domination, it is domination through superior systems, Amazon had its own system that was on Amazon, yet With Google Ads and Google YouTube, the advertisement world had dug its OWN grave. They slapped the people with bills that were beyond obscene and Hollywood gives us a (highly exaggerated) taste of that in Mad Men and the people are becoming increasingly angry, they are paying for the ego of a few men and when Google Ads becomes the adult player the people switch and the switch en mass. A group of people are now in massive trouble and they cry to every politician they ever gave a nice deal to. The DOJ is involved and we are in this mess now. And we see not one clear explanation of ‘illegally dominates the digital advertising market’, we are merely given a story.
This gets me to the article (at https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/the-doj-is-reportedly-prepping-an-antitrust-suit-against-google-over-its-ad-business/) there we see Ted Crunch giving us ‘The DOJ is reportedly prepping an antitrust suit against Google over its ad business’, here we are given “the new lawsuit would focus on the company’s command of the digital ad market. Bloomberg reports that DOJ antitrust lawyers are in the process of wrapping up interviews with publishers after “years of work” that will ultimately culminate in the coming lawsuit” as well as “In 2020, the DOJ sued the tech titan over its dominance in the online search market, accusing the company of “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States.”” This is a lot more to the point and I still have issues. You see we see “its dominance in the online search market” we are not given “Google set out a new look on searching information, they had it made, they patented it and as such they had the new solution for the next generation of computer users”, we are also not given the simple setting that when Google realised a shift, they acted, all whilst IBM and Microsoft ere playing with their dinkey winkey’s pretending to be master of the universe. OK, IBM was going in different directions, but they were still there as well. So these so called captains of industry were asleep at the wheel, but we are not given that, are we? I remember that I voiced the setting of sound-cards in PC’s in 1992. I voiced it to an executive on the IBM trade show stand he merely stated ‘Sir, we are IBM’ and had security escort me off the IBM stand, so where is that wanker now? I reckon making statements that IBM always viewed the multi media market as important. Him and a few others never had a bloody clue. It was merely pretentious ego and it was ‘fake it till you make it’ and now I am here with a dozen of IP solutions, and they? They have little more than their supply of Viagra and stories about their great achievements. I know and should still have emails on the solution now known as Facebook, and I had it 4 years before Facebook. I have seen the folly of these executives and I trust none of them. In the mean time there is Amazon, Google and Elon Musk taking larger strides in the unknown and seeking the new frontiers and those wannabe’s are setting sights on that what is not theirs. And my evidence?
It is seen in “wrapping up interviews with publishers after “years of work”” it took the DOJ years of work, this is not a court-case, I personally believe it to be orchestration for the benefit of losers not unlike Microsoft. To give them a slice of a cake they do not deserve. And that is the problem with America, it only works when a machine driven by the corruptible get their cake too. Even though they are not entitled to it. I saw the daily changes in Google Ads, I saw what was achieved whilst the ones who should be working, were merely leeching. So how is that progress? I run circles around those wannabe’s and I have three systems ready to go (one too depending on Meta, so there are risks) in a world where I should not matter, I am the one with the IP, and that is the station where Google has to go to court. I wonder if it ever amounts to anything. The media wants their slice of beef and as they are hurting to become irrelevant, they are happy to see Google bite the dust, but why are they biting the dust? Because they never understood what was coming and when they woke up the train was already a station further. That is the actual setting, but I reckon that we never get to see that part of the equation. I wonder what happens when 4Chen shows my IP and these wannabe’s they are now seeing billions in IP become public domain, I would really like to see the faces of those wannabe’s who realise that it is becoming public domain and most of it in China. How many years of interviews will that take? They set the stage of slappers only, but the orchestration implies that it is anything but slappers only, that view is reserved for the people they are trying to fool. I am not buying it.
That is the setting I was contemplating today. It all started with the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62488144) where I saw ‘Elon Musk sells $6.9bn of Tesla shares as Twitter lawsuit looms’ it was at that moment I was contemplating a larger jab from the left. Consider that I reckon that one of my IP will bring in half a billion a month. What if I offer that to Elon Musk? It is not his field, but that has never stopped him before. What if I was the on giving him optionally surpassing 5 billion a year (not in the first year) for some time to come? My way of giving the media the finger, as well as some tech places. We still see the BS from media ignoring the Fake Twitter accounts, we see some BS approach like ‘she cried, she cried louder and we wonder what happens’, well if it helps Elon Musk, I am game. There is also the augmented reality IP, as such there might be another stage where Elon Musk gets the visibility in 116,000 malls. I think it is a good day to give the finger to hypocrisy and the media with there digital dollars? They can watch from the stage as they become more and more redundant. Hmmm, the idea has merit, and if I can set the stage for places like the Line to show it all first we will see all these tech companies come up with “We are working on something much better” yes, like the virgin who is in denial that she was pregnant, a toilet seat must have done it. Well, two can play at that game and I have the IP to make it happen, as such I see a much larger option to have a go at these hypocrites. 35 years of frustration watching wankers and weaklings hide behind fake it until you make it, hide behind their bullet points, like it was the ammunition that could not miss sales targets. There is something totally satisfying watching them cry like the little chihuahua’s they actually are. Will it happen? I have no idea, I think not, I doubt Elon Musk even knows about this blog and he has more pressing concerns at present, but the idea to show the media that we have had enough of the BS they spout by giving billions in revenue to the man they hate, and for that reason only will upset big-tech in a way they have never seen before.
There is nothing like the sight of a hungry glutton being denied their next meal to see chaos truly explode and that is what would happen. Never mind the Microsoft losers, places like Amazon and Google will take notice, for them having to acknowledge Elon Musk as their equal in mobiles, cars, battery technology AND gaming. That will have a much larger impact and the media will seek all kinds of shelter, crying that their was no place in their publication, crying that they never hd the know how, that it is all the right of publications to chose what to write about and if I can drive the dagger home with a few issues on the EEA and their ignored reports, so much the better.
So whilst the BBC is not doing anything wrong with “After news of the share sale was made public Mr Musk responded to a tweet asking whether he had finished selling Tesla shares with “yes”, adding that he needed the money in case he was forced to buy Twitter and was unable to secure some of the funding for the deal.” Some might realise that the recent ‘confession’ that Twitter is deleting a million accounts a day and that adds up to a lot more than some are comfortable with. There is a larger station and I feel it is not the worst idea to scorch the media with a flamethrower (I had run out of daisies).
The jab from the left is one the media is too often not ready for, they will ‘debate’ that there are compromises, all whilst we know that compromise politics is the most corrupt of all politics. And it is time that the proper people get the proper acknowledgement and we can get there by denying the other players their slice of cake. I’ll make it even more extreme. There is at present nothing stopping me to make it all public domain, and when the lists go public on September 30th that might very well happen. All it will take is 1-3 clever people who can look beyond the rim of their coffee cup (something most politicians have not been able to do for some time). Clever people on 4chan could end up with a treasure trove of IP on several grounds (apart from melting down Iranian and Russian nuclear reactors), that one I left somewhere else, I am not THAT irresponsible. And the idea I had came from a snow-globe, but I already wrote about that.
Just in light of the setting of these days a solution for Iranian arrogance, through a snow-globe ending their nuclear reactors. How could I ever pass up on that? I reckon that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would owe me too and that is not the worst setting to be in, to be owed a large favour from the richest nation in the world. All that because the media would not do their jobs, how is that for freedom of the press and freedom of expression? I am using my freedom of expression the way I can, and they use the freedom of the press to get digital clicks through flaming. I reckon I am in a better position, but that is merely my view on the matter and lets face it, they could call it delusional. I wonder what they will call it AFTER I am proven correct? I reckon it will be stated that this was too complex an issue for people with a university degree in journalism.
In the end, I still get my money, or my share and I am willing to make amends to that setting, the reward of screwing over the media will be that big a deal for me to cut a few corners leaving me with millions less. Or I still end with the amount of zero, the amount I always expected to end with when it all becomes public domain. I wonder, if I do this, will it be public domain, or pubic domain? Not the weirdest question to get, although, pretty extreme for a Wednesday.
This happens, sometimes it is within ones self that change is pushed, in other cases it is outside information or interference. In my case it is outside information. Now, let’s be clear. This is based on personal feelings, apart from the article not a lot is set in papers. But it is also in part my experience with data and thee is a hidden flaw. There is a lot of media that I do not trust and I have always been clear about that. So you might have issues with this article.
It all started when I saw yesterday’s article called ‘‘Risks posed by AI are real’: EU moves to beat the algorithms that ruin lives’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/07/ai-eu-moves-to-beat-the-algorithms-that-ruin-lives). There we see: “David Heinemeier Hansson, a high-profile tech entrepreneur, lashed out at Apple’s newly launched credit card, calling it “sexist” for offering his wife a credit limit 20 times lower than his own.” In this my first question becomes ‘Based on what data?’ You see Apple is (in part) greed driven, as such if she has a credit history and a good credit score, she would get the same credit. But the article gives us nothing of that, it goes quickly towards “artificial intelligence – now widely used to make lending decisions – was to blame. “It does not matter what the intent of individual Apple reps are, it matters what THE ALGORITHM they’ve placed their complete faith in does. And what it does is discriminate. This is fucked up.”” You see, the very first issue is that AI does not (yet) exist. We might see all the people scream AI, but there is no such thing as AI, not yet. There is machine learning, there is deeper machine learning and they are AWESOME! But the algorithm is not AI, it is a human equation, made by people, supported by predictive analytics (another program in place) and that too is made by people. Lets be clear, this predictive analytics c an be as good as it is, but it relies on data it has access to. To give a simple example. In that same example in a place like Saudi Arabia, Scandinavians would be discriminated against as well, no matter what gender. The reason? The Saudi system will not have the data on Scandinavians compared to Saudi’s requesting the same options. It all requires data and that too is under scrutiny, especially in the era 1998-2015, too much data was missing on gender, race, religion and a few other matters. You might state that this is unfair, but remember, it comes from programs made by people addressing the needs of bosses in Fintech. So a lot will not add up ad whilst everyone screams AI, these bosses laugh, because there is no AI. And the sentence “While Apple and its underwriters Goldman Sachs were ultimately cleared by US regulators of violating fair lending rules last year, it rekindled a wider debate around AI use across public and private industries” does not help. What legal setting was in play? What was submitted to the court? What decided on “violating fair lending rules last year”? No one has any clear answers and they are not addressed in this article either. So when we get to “Part of the problem is that most AI models can only learn from historical data they have been fed, meaning they will learn which kind of customer has previously been lent to and which customers have been marked as unreliable. “There is a danger that they will be biased in terms of what a ‘good’ borrower looks like,” Kocianski said. “Notably, gender and ethnicity are often found to play a part in the AI’s decision-making processes based on the data it has been taught on: factors that are in no way relevant to a person’s ability to repay a loan.”” We have two defining problems. In the first, there is no AI. In the second “AI models can only learn from historical data they have been fed” I believe that there is a much bigger problem. There is a stage of predictive analytics, and there is a setting of (deeper) machine learning and they both need data, that part if correct, no data, no predictions. But how did I get there?
That is seen in the image above. I did not make it, I found it and it shows a lot more clearly what is in play. In most Fintech cases it is all about the Sage (funny moment). Predictive inference, Explanatory inference, and decision making. A lot of it is covered in machine learning, but it goes deeper. The black elements as well as control and manipulation (blue) are connected. You see an actual AI can combine predictive analytics and extrapolation, and do that for each category (races, gender, religion) all elements that make the setting, but data is still a part of that trajectory and until shallow circuits are more perfect than they are now (due to the Ypsilon particle I believe). You see a Dutch physicist found the Ypsilon particle (if I word this correctly) it changes our binary system into something more. These particles can be nought, zero, one or both and that setting is not ready, it allows the interactions to a much better process that will lead to an actual AI, when the IBM quantum systems get these two parts in order they become true quantum behemoth and they are on track, but it is a decade away. It does not hurt to set a larger AI setting sooner rather than too late, but at present it is founded on a lot of faulty assumptions. And it might be me, but look around on all these people throwing AI around. What is actual AI? And perhaps it is also me, the image I showed you is optionally inaccurate and lacks certain parts, I accept that, but it drives me insane when we see more and more AI talk whilst it does not exist. I saw one decent example “For example, to master a relatively simple computer game, which could take an average person 15 minutes to learn, AI systems need up to 924 hours. As for adaptability, if just one rule is altered, the AI system has to learn the entire game from scratch” this time is not learning, it is basically staging EVERY MOVE in that game, like learning chess, we learn the rules, the so called AI will learn all 10(111) and 10(123) positions (including illegal moves) in Chess. A computer can remember them all, but if one move was incorrectly programmed (like the night), the program needs to relearn all the moves from start. When the Ypsilon particle and shallow circuits are added the equation changes a lot. But that time is not now, not for at least a decade (speculated time). So in all this the AI gets blamed for predictive analytics and machine learning and that is where the problem starts, the equation was never correct or fair and the human element in all this is ‘ignored’ because we see the label AI, but the programmer is part of the problem and that is a larger setting than we realise.
We all have that, we are inspired, we are trending and we realise that something pushed us. I stated this some time ago when I realised something as I looked at the plans of Neom, things had to change, needed to change to facilitate for Neom. It drove me to design the new 5G solutions. Solutions for a new generation with the shopkeeper in control. As that came about a YouTube video on the Toronto Eaton Centre started the setting for a new version of engagement, driven through Augmented Reality But it is not about that, it is about what drove me.
We are all driven through something. In the 60’s it was Apollo, in the 70’s it was the Cell phone and video games. The 80’s brought us cassettes, Fax and VHR, the 90’s was the age of the internet and so on. When we go ack there was also a stage of buildings. There was the Chinese wall, The pyramids, yet until much much later and the Empire State building there was very little. Yes, Italy had the Pantheon and it was great, but not mind boggling, neither was St. Paul’s Cathedral. For some there was the Eiffel Tower. 1962 got us another US design The Cadet Chapel in Colorado Springs and Singapore gave us the Helix Bridge. Yet in these years after the Empire State building, nothing mind boggling was made. Things were pretty, astounding, but not not mind boggling. It seemed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gets two counts there. The first is Neom, which is merely mind boggling for its size, no city that size has ever been created. A city that spans from Washington DC to New York. The second one is mind boggling. It is the Line. A city in one building. 9 million people in a structure that is 200 meters wide, 170 kilometres long and 500 meters above sea level. It will be visible from space like a silver line over the land of Saudi Arabia. And if this building is completed it will bring marvel to the world, marvel brought to you by Saudi Arabia.
For me it feels great, several of my IP will add to that design and in that scheme my long term options are great, but it is not about me. You see, like the previous inventions, anyone between 12-15 will find inspiration from something like the line, not one, not 10 but thousands and they could come up with all kind of solutions and new innovations, innovations that I and many from my generation have not yet considered. They will come with the thought “If I do this….. then I could get …..” and like the makers of the iPad, iPod, MS Windows, IBM quantum that generation will create even more and optionally things I never thought of, because the age of wonder will push us all forward and if we can make one building like that, we could actually make a difference and find options for nature to restore itself.
We all face it and we all fear it, adore it or hate it. We are being valued almost every day of our lives and it does not sit well with a hole range of people. They hate being under valued, they hate being overvalued and some merely hate being valued at all. It is the cost of doing business in todays world. The larger station became fearful when Cambridge analytics showed us how we were valued in business, in marketing and in the stride of our daily lives. That and the stage of Neom drove me 2-3 year ago to create the 5G solutions I have now, to give power back to the individual. Yet until last week via the BBC I had no idea that lies and misinformation is valued too and it is valued a lot higher than the average Joe in any nation. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62444302) gave us ‘Alex Jones must pay $49.3m for Sandy Hook hoax claim’, I initially ignored it, the case is a waste of my time. The man is a clown and clowns merely bring entertainment to any place, or so I thought. This article has one line that makes reading this article worth it. It is “an economist hired by the parents testified that Jones, his media brand Infowars and parent company Free Speech Systems are worth up to $270m.” Lies and misinformation valued at over a quarter of a billion dollars. It hit me straight on the jaw. You see it does no matter WHO values it, we live in a world where misinformation is valued that much it might be for flames and mere digital clicks, and it stings. I created 3 bundles of IP, I feel that one I have sold it, or at least the first part I will value higher, but the fact that misinformation is valued that high should hurt most people. Now we can go all high morale against or for this case, but the truth is that US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones found a niche market and he created (according to some economists) a net worth of $270,000,000 through opposing honesty and railing the needs off certain groups. And no one is looking deeper into this, or so it seems. And as we are given “Jones’ business had earned about $800,000 in a single day selling diet supplements, gun paraphernalia and survivalist equipment” something just hit me. You see, no matter how you see this, and $800K sounds nice, but that is not enough to create a $270M business, there is more at play here, so what is it and who are the players of Infowars? To create this net worth in 23 years is pretty impressive and that is done by conspiracy theorists even more so. This is not about the stupid and gullible, these people always exist and they are not so rich, to create this kind of wealth requires an engine, more than Alex Jones, more than what we see and the media is not all over this? Interesting is it not? Something is fuelling this business and the valuation sets the need of deeper investigation. But where to start? You see when they are this rich there are wealthy and well motivated accountants in place to make sure it does not see the light, like the UK and their ELP’s. The question is where to start. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein found out parts of this due to the ability to follow the money, but when the money is Bitcoin, global and hidden in offshore accounts, that path is pretty much a no-no. So what paths would work? It is a serious question, I have absolutely no idea (at present).
My introduction, like many of my generation came at an early age. I was 8 or 9 when the first setting of law was introduced. It was the game of monopoly. I still have a few versions. I still have the first version (a replica). It was a wooden box with coins, the rest was pretty much the same. The coins were a nice touch. A game has rules and we have to adhere to these rules. It was then that we learned to play by the spirit of the law. The letter of the law was something I learned much later and it was even later when I was introduced to black letter law. My generation went through similar steps, some more, some less, but the generic stage was in play.
And today I got my introduction to ‘Banned Russian oligarchs exploited UK secrecy loophole’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62410715), so the title gives us the first setting, not a loophole but a legally allowed setting, and with that we get to “Ministers have acknowledged concerns that these companies, known as English Limited Partnerships (ELPs), have also been abused by criminals” as well as “In 2016 and 2017, the government introduced measures that forced almost all UK companies to identify their real owners. ELPs were not covered by these new transparency laws” yet no one (including the press) seems to ask why the ELP’s were left uncovered by identity stages? This is not merely a loophole, this is what I would call a backdoor. The UK (optionally government) needed a stage where owners could remain hidden for whatever reason was in play and others have the same rights as anyone else and these others (criminals and tycoons) used the law to avoid detection. And as we get “more than 4,500 of them have been set up” we see the larger station, you see this has been going on since 2017, did you think that whomever requires avoidance of detection will not use them? There is a reason why some accountancy firms charge so much, they know the law, they know all laws and that is in play. And I will go one step further when we see “According to Graham Barrow, an expert in financial crime, they are also “vulnerable to misuse” because of how little information about their activity they are required to make public” that is exactly why the backdoor exists. For some to avoid certain matters. I feel decently certain that they were not meant for criminals, but the law is funny, it will parade on the just and unjust alike. So when we are given “Our data shows the number of new ELPs being set up has gone up by 53% since 2017” I am actually not surprised. The rules of the game are clear and anonymity is coveted by the lawful and unlawful alike and now we have a situation. So whilst the BBC is trying to stage the wow factor with “Just five companies, known as formation agencies, have been responsible for 1,500 ELPs, with hundreds listed at registered addresses including one above a burrito bar in central London” I would like to remind them that MI-5 was build on a sewer. So instead of the burrito bar, they could have stated above a burrito bar in Soho, a different setting, not? And the empty statement “FBI agents investigating the Boston marathon bombing probed an ELP registered at an address currently home to a barber shop in Bristol”, so what was the result? Why was that ELP probed? What was the stage of that barbershop? And in that setting when we see “We have established that among those to take advantage of the secrecy of ELPs are members of President Putin’s inner circle.” So? It is a legally allowed setting, that is what the BBC is trying to make muddy. A legal setting is staged and no one sees anything of the politicians that ‘overlooked’ that part of the stage, why is that? And when we are given “there is no requirement to disclose who was behind Sinara, which was dissolved in 2019” we see no listing of illegal activities, merely “facilitated purchases for the Rotenbergs”, so was anything illegal purchased? We do not get any of that, it is a mere sample of BS journalism that we normally get from a Murdoch publication. And it sounds nice that we get Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge, who chairs a parliamentary group on tax and corruption making statements regarding ‘scandalous’, but what politicians allowed for that, who raised their voices when the ELP’s were left outside the identity stations? Transparency requires ALL to be revealed, not all minus ONE. But that part of the equation is quickly brushed over by the BBC, why is that? So when we are given “In an emailed update to clients dated 18 May 2017, under the heading “Alternative Solutions”, LAS proposed ELPs as, “a way out and as a substitute for Scottish Partnerships”.” We see a simple setting, a firm updating their clients on what is legally allowed, but that part is not really given, is it. It is a setting of emotions, flaming stages but the people behind the overlook are ignored, left in the dark, why is that? And the one gem in the article is seen with “The government says it does not have any evidence of significant misuse of ELPs. A government spokesperson said: “The UK already has some of the strongest controls in the world to combat money laundering, and it’s vital that we continue to upgrade our governance to crack down on criminals abusing UK corporate entities” it is the stage of ‘significant misuse’, what makes it significant? The fact that the bulk of these ELP’s were created by 5 firms was a much larger station and could have been dealt with years ago, now it becomes a millstone around someones neck there is ‘sudden’ visibility. Yet in the time 2017-2020, who gave light to this? Who acted to stop it? These are questions that I do not see answered, why not?
In this there was a lovely simplicity to monopoly in my youth, perhaps for this day and age it is too simple. Perhaps we need a new version of Hotels, but in Hotels 2 we get to choose options like accountants, corrupt local government and a few other items, or will that make the game a little too realistic for the young? I will let you consider that, I am going back to brooding on new IP towards non repudiation, I reckon that new building in the KSA (the Line) might have need of some IP soon enough.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 