Yup, that is the question. You see, I made mention of this before, but I never dug into it. It was linked to something else and saw it as a side effect. Yet the Times of Israel gives us ‘NSO spyware allegations poison Spain’s ties with Catalan separatists’ (at https://www.timesofisrael.com/nso-spyware-allegations-poison-spains-ties-with-catalan-separatists/). There we see “Canada’s Citizen Lab group said Monday that at least 65 people linked to the Catalan separatist movement had been targets of Pegasus spyware in the wake of a failed independence bid in 2017.” I am not debating whether this is true or false. Consider that the NSO group charges $100,000 per infection. So who is willing to pay $6,500,000? So when we are given “Citizen Lab, which focuses on high-tech human rights abuses, said it could not directly attribute the spying operations, but that circumstantial evidence pointed to Spanish authorities.” OK, I can go along with that. If there is someone willing to pay $6.5M to monitor Catalan’s the CNI (Centro Nacional de Inteligencia) makes sense. Yet no one is debating or investigating Citizen’s Lab. I am not stating that they are doing anything wrong, yet no one scrutinises that evidence, questions that evidence or digs into that evidence. Then there is the set state that there is no real timeline. So when we see “in the wake of a failed independence bid in 2017” when was it investigated, when was the ‘evidence’ found and when were the expectations seen as transgressions of privacy were in question? All questions that no one seems to be asking. The absence of a timeline? When did we see ‘trivial’ facts as evidence? When did we see assumed connection as set towards facts?
The article does make a much larger stage towards required timelines and s I see it several timelines are missing. From the NSO group, from the Catalan’s and from Citizens Lab. Three timelines that are decently crucial to this all and no one is seeing that basic requirement.
I did take notice of the story, but there were other considerations. So what is the issue with a two week old story? Actually there is nothing wrong with the time gap, it actually works out nicely. Yet before we go anywhere, lets take a look at ‘A data ‘black hole’: Europol ordered to delete vast store of personal data’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/a-data-black-hole-europol-ordered-to-delete-vast-store-of-personal-data) there we are given “The EU’s police agency, Europol, will be forced to delete much of a vast store of personal data that it has been found to have amassed unlawfully by the bloc’s data protection watchdog.” Here I have an issue with the stage of “amassed unlawfully”, then we get “The unprecedented finding from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) targets what privacy experts are calling a “big data ark” containing billions of points of information. Sensitive data in the ark has been drawn from crime reports, hacked from encrypted phone services and sampled from asylum seekers never involved in any crime.” There we get “hacked from encrypted phone services and sampled from asylum seekers never involved in any crime” You see, the biggest problem in any data set are the data gaps. MISSING VALUE analyses will not get you anywhere and data cannot be analysed on data that is not there. As I see it, the commercial world amasses worlds of data and the EDPS (European Data Protection Supervisor) does next to nothing. We could start an argument that the EDPS is catering to organised crime, but that might be a stretch. I know my data has been collected by CIA, FBI, GCHQ, Mossad, DGSE and at least two other organisations. You think I care? I live my life and keep doing what I am legally allowed to do. The data merely reinforces this. So why is there such a rush to maim the mobility of Europol? I have nothing against laws, I believe that laws are important, but how stupid is it to set up the laws to hinder the law? When our data is all over Microsoft, Google, Amazon, GTCOM and whatever Russia has. The 4,000 TB that is to be deleted will serve organised crime and criminals, no one else. And more importantly it will not protect refugees, if anything, the data shows them to be innocent. Did no one make that leap? You see I oppose “Europol had worked with the EDPS “to find a balance between keeping the EU secure and its citizens safe while adhering to the highest standards of data protection”, the agency said.” I oppose it because data does not protect or endanger lives, it is the one wielding all that data does and whilst commercial enterprises are given a wide berth avoiding their ‘legal’ teams, the EDPS has to prove its existence by having a go at Interpol.
Yes, it is their job, but in what job do you hand opportunity to criminals, organised crime and terrorists?
And the Guardian is appeasing the stage buy giving the simplest of examples, the example that makes you go ‘awww’. But the example “The political activist, whose only serious run-ins with police amount to breaking a window to gain entrance to a building and create a squat for homeless people, was removed from the Dutch watch-list by authorities in 2019. But a year prior to this removal he had moved to Berlin, which unknown to Van der Linde at the time prompted Dutch police to share his data with German counterparts and Europol. The activist discovered his entanglement with Europol only when he saw a partially declassified file at Amsterdam city hall.” So a criminal, guilty of breaking and entering, that is the simple truth. But we are not supposed to see that, are we? And when the next assault is not in London, but Amsterdam and the gapped data will show to have been an option to stop this, what will the EU give as a response?
It has been hours since the Netflix scare. And a few hours after that, less then 10 hours after I wrote the previous article, we get to see ‘CNN streaming service to shut a month after launch’ the article (source: BBC) also gives us “Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) says it will issue refunds to subscribers after the service is shut down on 30 April. The head of CNN+ has resigned and hundreds more workers could be at risk of losing their jobs. CNN+ was launched on 29 March in an attempt to bring in revenues from news streaming subscriptions”, we can see this in a few ways. Yet in this I personally believe that saturation is part of the issue and it will not go away. The others will feel the brunt. Netflix will bounce in part back, Disney will take a hit, but these two are too big to fail drastically, the smaller ones will take larger hits as CNN+ is doing and some of them will not survive. What I stated some time ago is now coming to pass. I wonder if I was right in the thought that smaller could survive if they would merge. The idea that smaller would combine their channels and subscriptions is a little bit extreme, but it beats being dead, does it not?
Yet there is more underfoot. There is ‘Cinedigm’s DMR Unveils Cinehouse – A Curated Lineup of Free Streaming Channels for Superfans’ (Source: Accesswire) where we see “Digital media and entertainment company DMR, is letting fans stream their favourite niche channels with the launch of Cinehouse. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinedigm (NASDAQ:CIDM), DMR is unveiling this new free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) service to super-serve enthusiast fan bases across several popular genres.” You can take these thoughts in many ways but when I see “Cinehouse is dedicated to bringing fans the best movies and TV shows from around the world – from ancient mysteries and heart-stopping action, to classic anime, comedy, gaming, K-pop and more.” I personally believe that some are dropping small channels with ‘free’ materials to subvert the populations requiring free options to make them unavailable. A bait to get rid of the smaller fish and clean the pond, decrease saturation levels by getting rid of the opposition. It is a personal believe and I might be wrong, but we see new free channels after the drowning of CNN+?
The swarms seem to settle and some are playing the free card to take out the competition. It is one thought and my thought could be way off and massively wrong, but when you see one source that can verify the setting that the rest ‘seems’ to overlook, my wandering lobe starts to take a look at the information others leave lying round and this is where it got me. Is it me, or not?
Yes, many of us enjoy it all the time, the pure and the flicker. Some of us (like me) have it 3-4 months a year, two around Christmas and two around summer. And there are who do not like it at all, or they settle around Disney, Hulu or Stan. They are all in a seemingly stand-off. They all vie for the same population. As such, members will shift. I wrote about it before, it was always going to happen. This time there is more and there are a few sources. Lets take a look at two of them. In this we have 9 News who gives us ‘Netflix loses more than $US60 billion in minutes as investors flee’. Here we see “Shares of Netflix are imploding after the company reported its first quarterly loss of subscribers in more than a decade. The report far underperformed expectations, worrying investors who had been betting that a handful of big tech companies would continue to grow at a rapid clip. What’s happening: Netflix’s stock dropped 30 per cent when the market opened on Wednesday, instantly wiping more than $60.54 billion off the value of the company.” It is merely one part, channel 9 also gives us “Netflix said it shed 200,000 subscribers in the first three months of the year, when it had been expecting to add 2.5 million”. Here we have the first issue. You see ‘it had been expecting to add 2.5 million’ based on what expectations? You see there are two parts here. The first is that the covid era is sort of ending (sort of is the best I can give you). As such people are now expected to work, they cannot stay at home watching TV, so as millions go back to work, they will slide their subscriptions. As such the adding of 2.5M is one part, the loss of 200K makes sense and both numbers are up in the air. We can end up anywhere between plus 2.5M and minus 200K. Neither bother me, so the loss of $60B seems like an overreaction. But then we have the second article by the Guardian giving us ‘No wonder Netflix is bleeding subscribers – it’s become the new cable’ and they give us “Netflix posited everything from the war in Ukraine to people sharing passwords. But what if the reason is much simpler – that Netflix just isn’t really making much people want to see any more? It’s been a long time since Netflix was the total package: the home of cherished sitcoms like The Office, buzzy dramas like House of Cards, the exclusive venue for cinematic events like Bird Box and all for less than 10 bucks a month. Now, as the streaming service’s value nosedives, the big question is: are you still watching? And if so, what exactly?” It is a fair question and the stage I predicted well over a year ago is now coming to pass. One year prescription, spread over three providers. That is the reality of cramped budgets and these so called analysts with their expectations should have seen that coming a mile away, I saw it a year ago in my article ‘Choice, can you choose?’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/01/09/choice-can-you-choose/) and there was another article. So the minus 200K is not too surprising and I do not understand the ‘scared’ investors. This was ALWAYS going to happen. But I am also not surprised. You see the statement “investors who had been betting that a handful of big tech companies would continue to grow at a rapid clip” shows us the American who is short sighted. The one who does not comprehend that markets saturate and as such they have this dumb believe that numbers can only go up. And until 5G is a national solution for a lot of countries this will happens and worse will happen when internet congestion starts biting, because that too will be a factor. As such I personally see the overreaction on Netflix as a storm in a teacup and only the scared investors can make it worse for themselves.
Yes, it seems like an animated fest. But there is a lot more under the hoods called media. Even there battle lines are being drawn. The problem is that this war is a little more annoying than other wars. T?he media is making sure that every statement is checked. And still there are multiple sides in this war.
Forbes Forbes is one side and gives us “Now, four years later, Musk’s desire to purchase Twitter may to be tied, at least in part, to his still-burning desire to correct what he perceives as media bias generally, and toward him and his companies, which is amplified on social media. Twitter’s board of directors has unanimously rejected his offer and vowed to fight the takeover bid. Whether or not he ultimately succeeds in purchasing Twitter, his views about free speech and social media are ill-conceived in at least three ways.” This is a fair point of view. The added “he does not acknowledge that rules pertaining to free speech in the United States are intended to constrain the actions of governments not companies or private actors. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech, significantly limiting government action. Over the last 230 years, U.S. lawmakers and courts have carved out a few carefully crafted exceptions to this absolute prohibition on government action.” Is equally fair, yet the missing part is that “U.S. lawmakers and courts have carved out a few carefully crafted exceptions to this absolute prohibition on government action” is that this is a statement that the media exploited to a large degree for the push of self. The media has its own media filter systems. They are called stakeholders and they have been around for over a decade, most likely longer. In a TV series called Torchwood, we are given “Harry Bosco was a man who would alter information fed to the public during the Vietnam War. In the words of Esther Drummond, “He did it by mistranslation. He couldn’t censor or change, but he could manipulate the English translation. Change one word, change the entire meaning.”” It is not far from the truth we see today. People are given filtered information, one sided stories and intentional mistranslations and it is EVERYWHERE. The Ukraine coverage by internet trolls on Facebook and Twitter. Filtering by deleting accounts on Twitter and the intentional one sided coverage in Syria and Yemen shows that this is going on and in the media certain stakeholders are as I personally see it filling their pockets.
And when the additional “In the U.S., these free speech standards were never intended to apply to private companies. It would be especially counter-productive to apply them to social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or TikTok. It is in both the commercial interest of these firms and the best interest of our society for them to moderate content on their platforms actively and responsibly. If they do not do so, their platforms will quickly be overwhelmed by spam, pornography, hate speech and violent incitement, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, which would drive away both users and advertisers”, and when you see “If they do not do so, their platforms will quickly be overwhelmed by spam, hate speech and violent incitement, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, which would drive away users” you know that I am right. The media is exploiting every digital dollar via flames, hate speech, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. We see them on pretty much ALL social media, so I reckon that that ship has sailed already.
In all this, I cannot say whether Elon Musk will be a force of good, or bad for Twitter, it is interesting to note that there is a downside to Twitter and if Elon Musk will launch his version of Twitter, some version of Social Media, I will take notice get hop on board to see how good, or how different it will be. And whilst you are all so emotional on Elon Musk, consider that this might be a good thing. When you see the amount of seesaw data (either really good, or massively bad) news on Meta is handed to people via hundreds of sources. We see a slow but certain form of polarisation coming. These people will watch from the sidelines and they will see that whatever Elon Musk has might be an alternative. And it would work for Elon Musk. When he adds Hybrid to his system he would be able to steer in multiple ways and it should give him a larger benefit, especially when his cars have it and others do not, the bough breaks and the car industry will lose a massive chunk to Tesla. All sides that might, that could happen. But it is equally possible that certain sides will fall for him but not completely so. Basically the 50/50 split could become 70/30 with 30 going the Musk way and that is good news for Google, Amazon and Meta. Yet they will have to accept that Musk Social Media could become a powerhouse all by itself and at that stage whatever the Forbes people will say was bad news will get a really quick rewrite. That is how I see it.
Yup, we all get trolled, I am no different. People making claims, creating havoc. If I want to prove I am the man I claim to be, I will give them the IP proving who I am. Yeah right! But then I had an idea. Why not put billions in revenue online making it public domain? Watch them all running with this IP and thinking they got rich by being smart. But any opposition can show this article making the case that I made it public domain and that is exactly what I will do, just for fun (I am in 5G and a few other areas anyway).
So it is time to play:
Who wants to be a billionaire? To get to this point we need to understand some statistics. The first one is that well over 40% of the planet is a sports-fan of some sorts. Then I remember that I published parts of this idea 1-2 years ago. Now 40% gives us 3.2 billion people now lets say that the idea for them costs $3, that gives us almost $10,000,000,000. So lets get cracking.
The bulk of all fans are spread over the NBA, NHL, NFL, IHL, AFL, UEFA, KNVB, EFL and a whole range more. But the first hint was given. You see when I was young I dreamt of being on a football card. OK, I never really liked the sport, but the feeling was still there. Even now, half a century later I wish I was on an NHL card as a goalie (Maple Leafs, Washington Capitals) We all have this. Millions wish they are the NFL quarterback card. And there we have the start.
In the first there were a few apps, they are not great, but nice. And over all these years none of the NHL, AFL and NBA teams set up a filter so that fans can have their own card for their team. A way to make your team your team. This is the simple side of it all. Dozens can do this and through this you have the options to entice billions of dollars. Would it not be nice that this card could be exported to a special file that can be printed at a place for lets say $3, on thick paper like a sports card, get your card printed and get it properly sized. A setting where tens of thousands of specific printers are placed in malls, in print shops and all these people want a sports card as a memento. If only someone had set a station where people could be appeased. Revenue through some effort and lets face it, EVERY SPORTS CLUB IN THE WORLD would like that program on their website to appease their fans. And the program can print to a USB stick and these sticks could be pushed into the reader of a printer. With some effort we set the stage for billions of revenue. Proving that the believers of “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost” are missing out and some others are raking in the cash because they thought outside the mould and now I have done the same and made it public domain. So the people who can set up such a printer will have a real stretch towards serious revenue and the rest are looking at the pile of cash going in some other direction.
I hope you liked this episode of ‘Who wants to be a billionaire?’ And the next time someone tries to push my buttons, remember, I can always make it public domain. Enjoy the evening!
That is at times a setting, not the setting, but an option. You see it is easy to paint all the piggie’s pink, but at that time we end up with all the painted piggies and piglet. Yet is piglet the one we were looking for? That is one of the settings and my issue with ‘No 10 network targeted with spyware, says group’. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61142687) is not entirely wrong. But when I see “The Citizen Lab says it informed officials that suspected Pegasus spyware was discovered in 2020 and 2021, with the Downing Street incident linked to operators in the UAE.” My suspicious mind has questions. Now, I accept that the Citizen Lab has expertise and knowledge, I am not attacking that. It is the statement “The Citizen Lab, which tracks electronic surveillance, said in 2020 and 2021 it notified the UK government that networks belonging to both 10 Downing Street and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were suspected to have been infected using Pegasus spyware.” You see, ‘suspected’ is all good and well, but were the suspicions properly investigated and confirmed, or is that all it was, a suspicion? And it does not get better when we see “in the UK a number of official phones were tested including those of the prime minister, but it was not possible to establish which device was infected or what – if any data – was taken”, as such there is a suspicion and a lack of confirmation of which device was infected, whether data was captured and what the outcome was. And it does not end there. The statement “the suspected Foreign Office infections were believed to be linked to operators of Pegasus in the United Arab Emirates, India, Cyprus and Jordan.” You see, not only is the method a problem (through lack of evidence), but how in the hell can it be fingered to operators from United Arab Emirates, India, Cyprus or Jordan? Sometimes the simplicity of a label also has the lack of clarity.
Why Jeeves, why? It is actually simple. These are a few names: EverC, Sentar, Ignitho, PhishLabs, AppDetex, CyberInt, CareMessage, and Geneca. Eight names, all competitors to the NSO group. They all have ‘their’ solutions, they all have their ways and they might not be as good as the NSO group, but these players are raking in the millions. It is not impossible that they planted NSO materials, or use a ‘friend’ to infect NSO guided options to lead the trail away. All speculation and none may be true or factual, I accept that. Yet the article gives us nothing but suspicions, no facts, no evidence and it is all given weight by “linked to an investigation by the New Yorker magazine which looked at the targeting of individuals campaigning for Catalan independence from Spain”, so what does the New Yorker magazine have and how do the two matters connect (if they connect at all). Consider the price of an NSO infection (it is enough to buy a 2022 Ford Mustang 5.0L Fastback, shadow black) and as people tend to rate cars higher than any Catalan interest, the list of interested people grows short really fast, the sliver thin comparison makes me suspicious even more. And to complete matters “The Citizen Lab said it believed the Downing Street suspected infection was linked to the United Arab Emirates.” So not only is there no evidence that an infection took place, they have a suspect too?
All half way statements, all half baked evidence and the lack of evidence that shows some clarity. All whilst I found 8 options at the drop of a hat. And I can tell you right now. I have no evidence of ANY kind. Yet the writings of some lack evidence too. So what makes the press so hungry for alleged illumination of the NSO group and the UAE all whilst there is no clear evidence?
Questions should be asked, but I believe that additional questions should be asked of people who have been linking certain events with the near total lack of evidence. And it matters, because if we see the allegations that No.10 network is infected (which would be interesting to ANY party with non-UK or anti-UK needs). So there is a drastic need for the minions of Ken McCallum to wake up and find out what is going on. It might be essential to get the GCHQ goblins active as well, it is a digital issue so GCHQ gets to be connected to this.
Yet none of the parties have clear evidence and no one can prove that it was not a competitor, there are larger plays in actions and they cannot be identified with piggy pink. Yet the station is optionally served by paint and finding WHERE it leads could be beneficial, but that is merely my thought on the matter. So far the media I have seen tells me little and the accusations and links are a little too shoddy to my liking.
It stands to reason to state that I do not completely trust the BBC article, thee is nothing wrong there, but too little of it is right and does not sit well with me, but that is just me, and I do not trust anyone, a habit of the beast and thorough knowledge on knowing that the beast is a self serving entity in all this, it always has been.
There was news in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/weather/2022/apr/14/iranian-born-woman-fake-officers-elnaz-hajtamiri-canadian-police) almost a week ago. I saw it yesterday and it has me baffled. There is no wrongdoing by the police, there is no wrongdoing by the media, yet something is off. Consider ‘Case of Iranian-born woman abducted by fake officers baffles Canadian police’. The message there is “On a cold winter night, three armed men disguised as police officers arrived at a suburban home in a small Canadian resort town and knocked on the door, claiming that they had an arrest warrant for a 37-year-old woman who was staying there.” The situation is weird and brazen, but not in a good way and as we are given “Nearly three months later, police admit they are no closer to locating Hajtamiri, in a case that has baffled investigators” we want to blame someone, but who? The police did no wrong and with ““I have never, never come across a case like this,” Ontario provincial police detective inspector Martin Graham told reporters this week, adding that investigators had not determined a motive or received any ransom demands. They also have not located the white Lexus SUV vehicle used in the abduction on 12 January, nor have they identified its owner.” We see a different field, and there is no blame, but it seems to me that Elnaz Hajtamiri had caught the eye of someone. Either from her past, or towards someone else’s future. We all would want to be the sleuth, the Sherlock that hands the police the answers they seek, but that is unlikely to come. The fact that the White Lexus is not found implies that it was not stolen, or the owner was optionally aware of what was going on. So how many white Lexus SUV’s are there in Ontario? There will be a few, but these ruddy things go for more than $50K, so if none are missing through theft it becomes a larger game, then there is the setting that any owner of a white Lexus SUV might have gone skiing in Whistler and when they returned the car was where they left it, as such no alarm was raised.
It did give me an idea for a new piece of IP, but more about that later.
All these facts tend to give me the feeling that this was not some simple abduction, it was a targeted event. So why was Elnaz Hajtamiri important to some? I can make some empty gesture, I can make some claim, but that would be folly. The Canadian police is more than able, and when we see that they never face this before gives rise to this being more than a unique thing. It was as I personally see it either a very old crime or a very new one, but I keep on brooding on who could profit of her disappearance. It is easy to accuse Riyasat Singh and I do not know if he is a party of interest for the police, it could be, I do not know. I am wondering on “Two other tracking devices were found in her car when she brought the vehicle in for servicing in November.” You see, if it was as simple as a jealous ex, or boyfriend we see the reason for one of these trackers, it is the second (and third) tracker that is the issue and it makes me believe that she was an intentional target, but for what reason, I do not know. There was a third device, so it leaves me with questions. There is little about these devices, so it can go in every direction, but they are the clue I am brooding on. Not merely what they were, but where they came from, where ordered, when ordered and what was mapped. All questions that remain in the dark, but I keep on wondering, because 3 devices give a different light than one device, so was she being monitored by more than one, or by one professional? That is the question that rises in my mind and I could very well be extremely wrong on this. Then there is the part of “After overpowering the homeowner” gives us that they were ready for violence, so they had purpose, as such she was the target, not the opportunity. That is as far as I can get with the data available and I feel certain that the Canadian police got further than I did.
I hope that the Canadian police will be able to resolve this, and preferably with Elnaz Hajtamiri still alive, but the time gap is making that less and less realistic.
This is what I faced today, but the two are not connected, well not directly, optionally even indirectly. They are connected by the smallest sliver of thought. To start, the first part comes from the BBC. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61080536) gives us ‘Sanctioned Russian oligarchs linked to £800m worth of UK property’, which sounds nice, but lets take a deeper look. We get “Some of the individuals deny ownership of the mansions, which may mean they are beyond the reach of the sanctions. To get to the bottom of who owns what, we carried out a detailed trawl of leaked offshore documents, the Land Registry and court papers – as well as previous reporting.” It comes down to the first part. There we see “Because of the system of secrecy here in the UK and in relation to the Overseas Dependencies it’s really easy for people to hide their assets and their funds in the UK and not even the police necessarily have sight of where those assets are,” these people are skating around the central issue ‘What they did was perfectly legal’ a setting of creating actual tax laws is at the heart of this and this is decades overdue. It should have started in the age of Gordon Brown (2007), there is a stage where we could agree that Tony Blair (1997-2007) should have started it, but the pressure was not on for the UK at that point, the meltdown in the US should have been a clear signal, but from 1997 onwards NOTHING was done to rewrite tax laws into the laws the UK needed to have in 2010, and now a decade later we see “To get to the bottom of who owns what” and there hiding behind the Panama Papers is jut a farce. This should have been adjusted in the EU, UK and US by 2010 but none of them did ANYTHING to clear the waters. They merely pretended to do so to appease political friends, they all did. And now when we see the laughingly weak “We are coming for your ill-begotten gains” this implies that laws were broken, so is he just incompetent, stupid or both? And this matters, because it is all linked.
Roman Abramovich, has a vast property portfolio in the UK with more than 50 luxury residences, most on Fulham Road in west London. Through his UK company Fordstam Limited, he owns dozens of apartments in Chelsea Village, plus the hotel and residential complex around Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge stadium, according to the Land Registry. On Roman Abramovich we see “He has a vast property portfolio in the UK with more than 50 luxury residences, most on Fulham Road in west London. Through his UK company Fordstam Limited, he owns dozens of apartments in Chelsea Village, plus the hotel and residential complex around Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge stadium, according to the Land Registry. His most expensive London property is a 15-bedroom house on a street that is nicknamed Billionaires Row. With its vast stucco-faced Italianate mansions, it is home to royalty and ambassadors – as well as oligarchs.” The one element missing (two actually) were any laws broken? More important we see sanctioned by UK and EU, not the US. Then we get to the main event. It is Alisher Usmanov, sanctioned by all three and the desert of all this is more than a Medovik. We are given “a spokesman for Mr Usmanov said most of the billionaire’s UK property, plus a $600m (£456m) yacht, had already been “transferred into irrevocable trusts”, potentially putting them beyond the reach of sanctions.” A stage that is perfectly legal and the laws were never rewritten making this a sliding scale of discrimination, a scale of injustice and no laws were broken. The law makers were too stupid, too lazy to do anything about it. In the UK, the US and the EU. The lawmakers appeased THEIR friends as I personally see it and the oligarchs merely used the laws available to THEM TOO. A stage we need to accept and respect if we are a nation of laws. More important, which of these oligarchs ACTIVELY supported the war by Putin? I am asking, I actually do not know and the media merely surrounds itself with emotional BS, not a fact in sight and it is time to call these media players out on that too. The BBC article is actually quite good, but where do we see ‘Laws were broken’? We see “Ravenmorrow Limited was set up in December last year and no individual is identified on UK company records as the beneficial owner.” A clear failure of UK Laws, a setting where it was allowed to do this and no one is to blame but British Parliament and the House of Lords. The BBC does not really state that do they? As. I see it I see not the acts of Oligarchs, I see the failures of governments not overhauling tax laws when they could and as I see it all parties are guilty (except the greens), unlike the others the green parties all over the world seem to be oblivious on what a rudder is or does, so they are going Hades knows where at a speed no one can predict to arrive at some location no one knows.
Home-run Yes, like the side we saw before there is another side and it makes more of a case towards the end of Microsoft, all whilst Adobe is getting more and more in place of taking over 25% of their office business. It is depending on two elements, and when these elements are out I will happily hand them over what I have if Google or Amazon buy the other IP and give me permission to hand that over to Adobe, I will gladly do that, just to see Microsoft squirm a little more. 5 markets lost to stupidity, 5 markets lost to shortsightedness and Adobe will be one of the winners. The setting that comes has been out for a while and the lost sides (four at present) are things that Microsoft should have seen years ago, their inaction is now more than enough. If you are asleep at the wheel you lose the ship, it is that simple and unlike the Ever Given, others are not in the Suez Canal, we can go around this Microsoft vessel and let it sink. A home-run out in the open and Microsoft just will not wake up, well let them sleep, I reckon that Adobe is more than ready to take over a chunk of the Office users. Consider that after all this time and all these follies, people do not merely gain a program, they gain a suite of options to tantalise their creativity.
There is no telling where the creative people are going to end, but it will be ahead of where Microsoft hoped they would be, a lag that only intensifies the losses they will face. The setting reminded me of an article I saw in LinkedIn.
There we see a person objecting to the discrimination of scouting. There we see “The announcer labelled the boy scouts as ‘Future leaders of America’ and the girls scouts as a group that were ‘just having fun’” This is what we see as a setting for Adobe and Microsoft. Adobe instills and propagates creativity, whilst Microsoft merely sets a mediocre foundation of presenting. Yet if there is one thing I have seen from Adobe, it is a clear stage where presenters can create works of art, whilst Microsoft sets a stage of mediocre joyous presentations, but in this day and age presentations are serious business, it sets the tone for corporate stories, sales events, propagating new projects and products. Joy gets us nowhere and Microsoft joy is close to a decade old. Adobe is on the verge of setting the next generation of presenting tools. So where do YOU wanna be when your idea is ready to be shown to the world? At the edge of what is possible, or in a joyous looking meadow, one that we have seen a million times over? I will let you decide on where you want to be and be honest, do you really think that Microsoft has any serious relevance left?
This is a station I recently came to and it has nothing to do with the bravery of Ukraine, or the stupidity of Russia. Even though that setting might have touch-points the larger station is NOT war. The thoughts came from the Art of War by Sun Tsu. There we learn ““The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.”
Yet this quote was subverted by economists and wannabe economic strategists into smething like: ““The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost” “If you know the final cost and profit, you need not fear the result of 100 investments” If you know the profit but do not know the cost, for every profitable endeavour achieved one will fail.” This is a side I feel is going on in business, but now also in mobile gaming. A stage where games work but only if you watch advertisements. I tried a game and even as it has repetitive sides, it also has campaign sides and those sides are limiting, but if you watch 37 advertisements you are on your way to get to 50% in a three day event. Consider that 37 advertisements. To game, to play a free game, but it is hindered, not by repetition (well that too), but to get anywhere you need to watch that many advertisements. Now you can limit yourself by BUYING ad free settings, by buying elements in EVERY campaign. And I am not against these settings, just the statin that to get anywhere in that game will require you to invest in advertisements. Now this is not against any rules, not against any law and the makers are not doing anything wrong. Now consider the advertisement. The advertisement in SOME cases will allow for you to play a level, or part of a level, but in many cases should you touch the mouse or the pointer, the install screen is called for. A side I call deceptive conduct, but that could just be me. What is seen is iteration after iteration of “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost” and it is deceptive, there is always a cost, in this case at the expense of the game.
It is the idiocy of “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost”, it is a fictive state of exploitation and nearly all the larger players are involved in that. Do you think that I would have so much IP? Some people at Google, Amazon and even Microsoft should be running circles around me, around people like Elon Musk. But they are all in that pretentious state where “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost” is the solution to everything. It is not, it really is not.
My stage of 5G comes from a state of rejecting the obvious and inverting the funnel and then looking the other way. The stage of gaming came from looking in a direction no one was willing to look towards and none of them adhere to the stage of “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost” And that is where I found optional billions, one of them has question marks, but if done right could amount to a lot more than even I had in mind and it does depend on a stage, but that stage is being catered to. So when it all comes out, I can look at players like Microsoft and laugh out loud. Consider that the wealthiest corporations are Apple (1), Microsoft (2, for now), Google/Alphabet (4) and Amazon (5) and I am the one with the IP? Consider that they should be ahead of the curve, but they are not, because I am speculating that their economic advisors told them “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost”, and because of that Tesla has a mobile phone coming, a market that Microsoft pretty much lost to Google and Apple and now there is a third player. There am I with my 5G and gaming IP and a few more IP options, one directly opposing Sony and Fujitsu and it is based on technology of the 90’s. So how much did these companies lose by relying on “The supreme art of profit is to gain profit without cost”, I merely go by the old statement “You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs”, a truth that has been out in the open for centuries. What else did these players overlook?
I will let you figure that out, I at least saw one additional failure, but no spoilers, it is up to you to see what they cannot see.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 