Category Archives: Law

Changing the game

There was a setting that was designed with the recently departed Google Stadia and the Amazon Luna in mind. I set the premise to 50 million systems in phase one and up to 200 million in phase two in mind. Alas Amazon wasn’t attracted to such a sales venue. Last night I pondered a few items and I occurred to me that the Apple Vision Pro was equally set to that premise. There is a limitation, they would have to be able to run Unreal Engine 5 environments. When that is possible the rest would auto fill in, the other parts would not need UE5. Take that and like it to the Apple Arcade and they would make Microsoft irrelevant within a year, optionally to years. It is the setting that will show the other players (like Kingdom Holding) that they lost out. When this setting goes to apple, they can define a new niche customer base. Apple Arcade matter because not everyone can afford the Vision Pro. Even if a cheaper version comes to market close to 75 million people would be left in the cold. And I reckon that Apple wants the entire cluster of people. The fact that you get an arcade setting that could be upgraded to Vision Pro almost sells itself. And my predictions were conservative. 200 million is a little over 10% of the entire cluster with Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt leading the way. Places were Apple have great growth potential. That and a largely untapped advertisement potential as well. In the end It is a market that will end Microsoft, it gaming and their edge population (the little they had in the first place). I have been going over the numbers in the first place and I can see no downfall here. 

Apple’s first task is to set the Vision Pro to deal with Unreal Engine 5, it is the cornerstone of success, or at least it will be. In the end Apple will have to open (or enhance) a data cloud in Saudi Arabia with later on added clusters in Indonesia and Egypt. But I reckon that when they pass 100 million added people it would be a trivial expenditure. And if they surpass the 10% group (which requires data insight that I cannot lay my fingers on) the entire setting will cost Microsoft and Facebook revenue that they currently think is ‘safe’. But they didn’t count on a wildcard and it was lost because they never looked behind them. Their was billions in revenue and it was left on the floor. I wonder if Apple ever considered that. Apple has no blame, their mission statement was based on their niche market. But technology and requirements changed. With Brics it changes even more. Now they have Tencent Technology to content with. Tencent might not have the Vision Pro, but my system was initially designed without it. The Vision Pro has as  see it a larger benefit, but it is a mere ‘nice to have’. You see, sales engineering has a three tiered awareness approach. It is set to ‘must tell everyone’, ‘nice to have’ and the rest. When you focus on the first line, most people tend to ignore the ‘nice to have’ but it is there that the setting gives people outside the designated clusters are found. So don’t set to the wealthy, just make sure that they see the upside, and Vision Pro would do that. It sets the premise of a solution from 5 billion in phase one up to 18 billion in phase two and that will not include advertisement money over a dozen countries. I reckon that this is more than I can imagine (because this has not been done before) and several parts were found be looking behind me, something the current captains of technology industry aren’t doing. They are all looking forward, to the mystical AI (which does not exist). I decided to look at what was forgotten and tinkered it into a new mould. This implies innovation patents and all that is outside of the AR and printable displays (see other stories on this blog). All that and more are a future stage for the implementor of this solution, which was exactly why I got to Kingdom holding. On the far end of that, there was the real estate upgrade I considered. In light of what I noticed around Dubai. A side not considered, because all these web solutions couldn’t think out of their pond. But water is here it is and as such they didn’t consider it and it is here were I saw a side that could elevate Tencent and Huawei to a larger profit margin, not just for Dubai, but a global solution that allow real estates on a global setting to elevate their business to unfold. Dubai makes it clear. Yet it will not stop there. As the song goes New York, London, Paris, Munich they will all see the benefit and after that all metropolitan areas will follow suit. So do you think I was kidding when I said that Google et al fumbled the ball here? They ignored billions in revenue and they are all chasing a false AI dream. In a few years they will realise that a hype is merely a path to awareness and not towards revenue. Revenue needs to be real and achievable. For that we get “fake and deeply flawed Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rampant”, a quote by Frederike Kaltheuner based on works of over 20 writers. You see what the people regard s AI is merely to sides if it. LLM (Large Language Models) and DML (Deeper Machine Learning), both powerful and both opening all kinds of doors, but it is not AI, or Real AI as they now call it. Like other awareness hypes created, it isn’t real and in the mean time I created the idea for something real that could the right party give up to 18 billion a year. So when did these parts hit you, does it make sense that Google and Amazon lay off around 35,000 jobs? I will let you decide on that. In the mean time I will place more IP online so that it can only continue as Freeware. The Public Domain will show the rest on what they all missed out on. It might give me some cash, it might not. But I Will get the last laugh. I will have kept it out of the hands of Microsoft.

Have a great Thursday.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law

Stupidity, bigotry, you tell me

I was alerted to a situation to days ago in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/film/article/2024/may/31/robert-de-niro-denied-award-trump). Now we all have thoughts on that person that elevates to ‘Orange is the new black’ person also known as Donald Trump. In this we see ‘Robert De Niro denied leadership award after speaking out against Trump’ there we are given “the group has rescinded the award after the celebrity spoke out against Donald Trump outside the former president’s criminal trial in New York this week”, it is my firm believe that he showed leadership in that place (a lot more than any Trump figurine). The hollow statement of “Mr De Niro’s recent high-profile activities will create a distraction from the philanthropic work that we were hoping to recognize”. In addition we see, stated by Mr. De Niro “We’ve forgotten the lessons of history that showed us other clowns who weren’t taken seriously until they became vicious dictators,” he said. “With Trump, we have a second chance and no one is laughing now. This is the time to stop him by voting him out once and for all” is just another setting where De Niro is showing a form of true leadership. This is not a point of view that all republicans accept but that is the nature of free speech. Some will agree and some will not. That is the nature of the beast. As such the fact that the National Association of Broadcasters punished him shows us more about the rotten nature of the National Association of Broadcasters than the upright views of Robert De Niro. And even as we see “A spokesperson for the group told the Hill on Thursday that the event was “proudly bipartisan”” gives me the view that these people are trying to remain on good terms with both sides of the political isle even as one side now has a registered felon (by 34 counts) on their pedestal. It is my believe that it is time for Republican voices to state how weird the decision is by the National Association of Broadcasters. Consider the setting where broadcasters are opposing freedom of speech. Even as they said that they support free speech, but it comes with punishment if you do. It does give me the idea that President Biden should present Robert De Niro with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the earliest opportunity. 

A recognition that he deserves and one that will show the National Association of Broadcasters how irrelevant they are becoming. And I am stating this whilst my heart is Republican at heart. It might be nice if Arnold Schwarzenegger would second that event, attendance by Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Nikki Haley might be nice too. The governator was after all the Republican Governor of California. 

There is a lot more to say, but it seems hollow. The fact that the press didn’t speak out against this (as far as I could tell) is another side to this equation, but I will look into this later on. You see the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is a following of 8300 radio and television stations. So where are they all? In silent agreement? This is how media gatekeeping progresses. 

It shows that gatekeeping on issues have already started. Perhaps the Presidential Medal of Freedom will stop this to some extent. Yes, this is my feeling and I could be wrong. 

What do you think?

Enjoy Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

On one side

That is the setting I was confronted with early this morning. I actually am not sure where I stand, this happens. It started with the Guardian article ‘Telegraph takeover: UK issues ‘stop meddling’ order to UAE-backed consortium’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/30/telegraph-takeover-uk-issues-stop-meddling-order-to-uae-backed-consortium). As such there are issues. In the first we get “The UK government has issued a legal order stopping a UAE-backed consortium from meddling with the Telegraph, including making any changes to top management and editorial executives, until investigations into its proposed takeover are complete.” As such, this is the Telegraph, not some newspaper with credibility like the Times. The Telegraph has been throwing its credibility down the drain faster than a nymphomanic hooker on roofies (just saying). 

We are also given “Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, issued the pre-emptive action order after RedBird IMI’s last-minute move to create a new UK holding company to house the Telegraph and the Spectator if its complex deal with the Barclay family to take control goes through.” So it was pre-emptive? Fair enough but in that same light we got last November “Lucy Frazer said the Media Bill puts ‘protection of our free press’ at its core.” I don’t think she has a clue what freedom means until it serves HER purpose. In all this there is a side the Guardian and plenty of others ignore. It is seen with “house the Telegraph and the Spectator if its complex deal with the Barclay family to take control goes through.” As such who spoke to the Barclay family on this? I cannot find any article in that regard. This is just another Islamophobia setting and the media is key to reducing that tension, so I wonder what Frazer has on her order list. We can assume that “It is the latest skirmish in the battle for control of the Telegraph in a pivotal year for UK politics, with a general election due to be held in the autumn.” You see the Telegraph is conservatively tainted, as is Lucy Frazer. Is there a chance that they fear that reduced exposure could cost them the elections? It is highly speculative from me, but we cannot see ANY evidence that the acts by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan are evil, nothing more than a man being a shrewd business man and I think the UK needs more of those (but that too is my speculative view). Still there is an enormous amount of evidence missing. So what made this deal is such a “complex deal with the Barclay family”? It could be, but we aren’t given this part are we. Just a lot of emotions of some cultural sheila in the fear group (Australian expression). You see what everyone is forgetting is that the Barclay family is largely linked to the Telegraph Media Group. It represents (apparently) a value  in the region of £500m to £700m. Lets not forget how they were duped by Bjorn Lomborg’s climate propaganda, covid misinformation and that list goes on for some time, so how is not prosecuting those people, avoiding Leveson and some other small stuff serving the people and selling the paper to a UAE corporation is not? Lets not forget that the UK has 12 daily newspapers in circulation. As such I have questions and so should you. Perhaps there are valid reasons to fear PR settings, but that fear was taken away from that person in the Mummy 4 (Rupert Murdoch), so why are they still afraid? I think I know, but I will let you figure that part out for now. We are also given ‘Telegraph could become ‘PR arm’ of UAE after proposed takeover, MPs warned’ (source: Guardian) and  consider that the UK population is 68 million, the Daily Telegraph represents a circulation of around 318,000 a day, that represents a mere 0.4%, so where is the danger? I cannot see it, but perhaps someone will put out a much larger article (in an actual newspaper) to debunk my setting and give us the real deal. I could be wrong, I really could be and I am not certain where I stand, but at present it seems that this Frazer girls is responding to a different match ring and we aren’t told what exactly it is. 

The other part is that (no matter how complex), was the move legal. So now we are stopping legal moves whilst governments all over the world can’t be bothered to stop criminals? What kind of place are they running there? 

I will let you figure it out as you start the midweek and I await the arrival of Thursday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Uproarious Nonsensical players support terrorism.

This was a stage I saw last week, but I didn’t trust the source. Now that the BBC is joining that list, the game changes somewhat. The story (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68119268) gives us ‘UN agency condemns aid halt over alleged help for Hamas attacks’. Now, I haven’t had a great deal of trust in the UN and it melted down close to nothing when that UN essay writer Eggy Calamari launched her attack on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in particular His royal highness Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I debunked her fiction (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) in ‘That was easy!’. Now, I am not saying he was innocent, because I CANNOT prove that. Yet a person is regarded innocent until proven guilty and that document shows massive gaps and no clear evidence of guilt. I will go even further that the UN took its time AVOIDING one piece of evidence and for the most no one has ever seen it. The document is added to that article, so feel free to read up on it. This matters as we saw similar acts on the UN avoiding the guilt of Houthis and the acts by Hamas. The United Nations (as that joke goes) is less useful than a crack dealer in a schoolyard. This all matters because now we see “The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, has urged the countries that halted funding to reconsider their “shocking” decision.” My somewhat less than politically correct response is “Are you out of your flipping mind?” This is not some ‘misplaced’ act of doubt. This is a direct accusation that members of the UNRWA have actively been assisting Hamas with a terrorist attack. So the UN better wake the folly up and start properly investigating. The quote “The agency says it is investigating and has already sacked those employees” I understand and I accept that the UN needs to properly investigate things, but this comes from several sides and at present Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have suspended funds to the UNRWA, so this is serious. These are nations with an effective intelligence network. As such the UN has its nightmare scenario running amok (no idea how one runs a muck), but this is not a setting lost in translation and this is an accusation, not some half baked allegation. I rely on evidence and I have not seen any, but these are organisations that have all kinds of connections, as such I tend to accept the allegation until proper presentation is made. The issue is that the allegations against Saudi Arabia by the UN and FTI Consulting (which the UN used)  had holes in them, several and both reports were used even though the people behind it should have known better and the fact that I showed holes in these reports in less than 24 hours implies that others would have done so quicker, but they remained silent. And now the UN has a problem. Through the UNRWA they stand to lose a lot of fundings and until they clean their houses (plural) the world has pretty much had enough of that UN gravy train. The fact that we are treated to “It would be immensely irresponsible to sanction an agency and an entire community it serves because of allegations of criminal acts against some individuals, especially at a time of war, displacement and political crises in the region.” You see, this is not some ‘criminal’ element. These are people ACTIVELY supporting terrorists and terrorist goals. One might state (might being the operative word) that the attacks of October 7th might not have been possible without direct support by UN staff members. I know it is a stretch, but it might not be far from the truth and the UNRWA conveniently sacked these people. So how will they be prosecuted? A missing question. 

Today we see the start of nations at large demanding accountability from the UN. They kept silent on Houthi attacks on Saudi civilians. The kept silent on terror attacks by Hamas and that is merely the tip of the iceberg. This all reminds me of an old saying and I used it against a few companies in the past. When you cater to everyone, you please no one. It does not seem fair, but that is the reality we face. We cannot please all and the lesson will be a hard one to learn by the United Nations and we will see that soon enough (I reckon before March 1st).

Enjoy your Sunday, mine is mostly gone by now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

What is the real fear?

That was the first thought that hit me when I saw several articles like the one (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/25/emirates-backed-stake-vodafone-security-risk-uae-uk-government) where we are given ‘UK says Emirates-backed stake in Vodafone poses national security risk’ and my first thought was ‘What?’ Now, lets be clear, I have no idea how true the statement is, for the longest time I saw Vodafail as a joke (I was a victim of their not so nice side a decade ago). Vodafone is almost everywhere (EU, UK, Australia) so why is the UK the only one crying foul? 

The article gives us “The Cabinet Office issued a notice late on Wednesday warning that the 14.6% stake held in Vodafone by Emirates Telecoms, amounted to a security concern given Vodafone’s strategic role in the UK’s telecommunications services.” Now, I don’t see the danger, but that might clearly be me. This is not my cup of tea. But all these companies whoring for dollars and investors have been playing on every field and now it is an issue? How about the board of Vodafone not whoring for investors? And why is the less than 15% a security risk? Then we are given “That move triggered the government to look into the deal under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, owing to Vodafone’s importance as strategic supplier of the UK government and being involved in the country’s cybersecurity infrastructure. However, the government had not previously made any public announcements saying it was looking into the partnership.” Now, as I personally see it, that act is 3 years old. At the moment of creation, why was there not a clear message that anyone involved in investing in infrastructure is prohibited in ‘courting’ investors? There is a clear case that if this is indeed stamped a security risk, there is a chance that the UAE can reclaim investment plus 50% damage bonus and Vodafail better cough up that dough (obviously they will charge the UK government for that).  

My question becomes ‘What is the real fear?’

In sight of “Under the terms of the strategic partnership, Emirates Telecom can increase its stake to just under 25%, while also having the opportunity to add another executive to the board if its ownership tops 20%.” I merely wonder what the danger (if any) there is. I honestly don’t know. You see Vodafone is in 16 countries and is stated to have over 160 million customers. If I had the money I might consider that and there has been several messages over the last 2 years that Vodafone cleaned up their act and services. There are several deals, mergers and investigations in place that give rise to the simple fact that certain people are placing their chess pieces (corporations) and they are (my speculation) in a stage that they do not want the UAE to be part of any of this. There is of course another option for the UAE. They could start to collect other telecom corporations and chisel the Vodafone slice down to a manageable size. I personally would start by grabbing places that give access to Germany and France, Vodafone has too much power there (and in some places too shoddy reception) and form there grow the market. France and Germany when properly grown would give access to Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria. From there Germany allows growth towards Poland and Czech Republic. It is a much slower path, but I reckon that these loud mouthed politicians will run for cover when Vodafone suddenly is worth 25%-35% less. Let’s be clear, I have no idea how there is a security risk ad we aren’t given that in any clear way, but as I personally see it “a security concern given Vodafone’s strategic role in the UK’s telecommunications services” if that was really true, why was Vodafone allowed to start partnerships? Is it to attract American dollars alone? I have no idea but the UAE and the KSA are the only ones with a credit card that is not maxed out at present. 

I am not telling you this is wrong, I cannot tell. I am asking what is the real fear? Because that is the larger issue in this instance. Just my €0.02 on the matter.

Enjoy Friday that is about to start for most of you and it is gone for 71% for me at the moment, but Saturday is just behind it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

The Gump setting

You remember that famous character? Forest Gump with his ‘stupid is as stupid does’. This is the setting that I saw happening when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68025683) alerted us to ‘US regulator admits cyber-security lapse before rogue Bitcoin post’, this is not a lapse, this is a screwup of the umpteenth order. They give us “The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did not have multi-factor authentication (MFA) in place when hackers gained access to the account.” To give a clear view, to give you proportions. MFA was a discussed issue in University when I was at UTS 10 years ago. It was invented in 1996, well over a quarter century ago, although it was called two factor authentication. It is my speculation but I think that they left it aside until the call was needed and that call was clearly needed a decade ago. As such heads at the SEC need to roll (a queen of hearts idea). As such the quote “cyber-security experts say it should be a wake-up call for other agencies” is equally a joke. Those who aren’t ready need to be sanitised on several levels. There is no boo or bah about it. The fact that it took hackers this long to catch on is perhaps a small blessing in disguise. And the quote ““While MFA had previously been enabled on the @SECGov X account, it was disabled by X Support, at the staff’s request, in July 2023 due to issues accessing the account,” the SEC said in a statement.” The setting here is the question whether this was an SEC staff request or an X staff request (it could be read either way), but to remove security for access reasons implies stupidity of an unacceptable level. It means that systems were not ready, protocols were not ready and systems were deployed and configured in unacceptable ways. Then we get “The SEC has confirmed the account was compromised by a fraudster convincing a mobile operator to transfer an SEC employee’s phone number to a new Sim.” As such is it purely the fraudster, or is the mobile operator equally guilty? I honestly cannot tell on these facts, but multiple systems were unable to perform because the human element was not correctly set in stone. At present (based on SLA, or Service Level Agreements) there is a case that the mobile operator did not have the proper hat on because certain facts might not have been known to the mobile operator. The fact that an SEC phone number got swapped leaves the guilty party in the middle, but in this I admit that it is based on missing information. That missing information might show who went wrong (SEC or Mobile operator). And above all a properly placed MFA is intended to protect against this kind of hack (and several others). And lets be clear, this was not a grocery store, this was the SEC that got compromised in this way. 

As such stupid is indeed as stupid does and I reckon the head honchos in charge there will be upturning every process, protocol and service level agreement in place just to keep their jobs somewhat secured. That might be merely my speculative view, but I personally believe that to be the only step left for those yahoo’s.

Enjoy the middle of the week.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Spy Games

The first thought I had. An excellent movie with Brad Pitt and Robert Redford, yet what would you think when I told you it is now the BBC who engages this scenario? In comes the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67945137) giving us ‘UAE has funded political assassinations in Yemen, BBC finds’. Finds? Found how? Is my initial feeling. I am not stating that the UAE is innocent, I cannot prove that, but can the BBC prove it? So here we get “Counter-terrorism training provided by American mercenaries to Emirati officers in Yemen has been used to train locals who can work under a lower profile – sparking a major uptick in political assassinations, a whistleblower told BBC Arabic Investigations.” So what mercenaries? Not stating that this wasn’t happening, but the question becomes who and to what degree. You see, the presumption linked to “sparking a major uptick in political assassinations” is nothing more than speculation and who is that whistleblower? This first stage has two speculations absent of evidence and all this is linked to American mercenaries? Not the best or most credible source. Wouldn’t you agree? The best we get is that mercenaries possibly trained Emirati officers in counter intelligence. That is quite the leap towards assassination. As I personally see, the better hit is done by the three drivers. Separation, Isolation and Assassination. Yet we can all agree that this isn’t always possible, yet Yemen has a better stage. Get a Houthi rifle (sniper rifle with silencer is best), pay a few kids to be ready to paint ‘traitor’ slogans on the targets house and in the early evening blow his head of and at that very precise moment get those kids to paint the slogans with the reward of cash and each a bag full of food for the family. Not much required for that, was it? 

Then we are given “The BBC has also found that despite the American mercenaries’ stated aim to eliminate the jihadist groups al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS) in southern Yemen, in fact the UAE has gone on to recruit former al-Qaeda members for a security force it has created on the ground in Yemen to fight the Houthi rebel movement and other armed factions” in this, where is the evidence that “the UAE has gone on to recruit former al-Qaeda members”, what evidence is there? The press has very little credibility left. As I personally see it, at best, the UAE has a list of Houthi terrorists and spread a list around with ‘There people are wanted dead or alive’, the fact that alleged members of Al-Qaeda see that as a way to make money is beside the point. You see, what evidence is there to state that former members of any organisation are now part of a UAE security force? You see the issue is evidence and we aren’t seeing any. 

This goes on with “The killing spree in Yemen – more than 100 assassinations in a three-year period – is just one element of an ongoing bitter internecine conflict pitting several international powers against each other in the Middle East’s poorest country.” Now consider that the UN gives us “Over 150,000 people have been killed in Yemen, as well as estimates of more than 227,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine and lack of healthcare facilities due to the war.” This implies that they are dealing with almost 380K kills from various reasons. So where are these 100+ assassinations? Where is the data? Where are the names? We don’t get any and in the first example I gave you, how can you see or prove that there was an assassination and not an execution by who gives a darn? We cannot get the west the acknowledge the Iran backed Houthis attacking Saudi civilian targets with drones and now they have a case of 100+ assassinations? I have some serious doubts here.

Then we see links to two other sources the BBC iPlayer (UK Only) that is not evidence, it is merely a BBC recruiting drive covered in a chocolaty spy story. Then we get more emotions and “Leaked drone footage of the first assassination mission gave me a starting point from which to investigate these mysterious killings. It was dated December 2015 and was traced to members of a private US security company called Spear Operations Group”, so who leaked the drone footage? Has the drone footage been verified as authentic? And suddenly out of the shrubberies comes the Spear Operations Group, so who are they? Apparently a Delaware outfit. And the source gives us a meeting in London 2020. Not dripping in any level of evidence. The other scenario is that a former Navy seal told a BBC person a spy story and he got paid for this. There is no verification on ANY level. There is a photo (anyones guess if that is a real person) with “He refused to talk about anyone who was on the “kill list” provided to Spear by the UAE – other than the target of their first mission: Ansaf Mayo, a Yemeni MP who is the leader of Islah in the southern port city of Aden”, so we will not get any facts, other then the mention that Ansaf Mayo was a target. All the news started spreading these tales 8 hours ago. In a few cases a few hours before the BBC told their story. I have some serious doubts. So who was Ansaf Mayo? The BBC article gives us nothing apart from the fact that he was an MP, so why was he killed? What evidence is there that he was assassinated? What evidence is there that who did that to this person? The list of doubts go up and it all reflects on a simple Spy game story, nowhere near good enough to be the stamped with ‘Approved by John le Carré’. Last we get to ‘investigators from the human rights group Reprieve’ with the text “They investigated 160 killings carried out in Yemen between 2015 and 2018. They said the majority happened from 2016 and only 23 of the 160 people killed had links to terrorism”, so where is their top line data? Consider that that areas had a rather large slice of 380K deaths (this list is a subset of that number) and a group with little to no visibility for the longest of time has any data on 160 people and only 23 had links to terrorism? More questions, especially as too many parties (including the UN) have been silent on Houthi terrorism, they blatantly kept silent to smear the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and this has been going on for years. The list goes on and on and this is the latest approach, now against the UAE. So what gives? The west angry that the UAE joined BRICS? They angry that the UAE is giving too much options to China? Your guess is as good as mine. I have no idea. I am merely questioning the validity of what the BBC is claiming here. I have my own version of these events, which I will not state, because it is pure speculation, I have no facts to support my version and I think that I have that in common with the BBC, we did not get to see any real evidence. Consider that if any of these sources were Iranian, or Iranian sympathisers the entire article collapses like a house of cards. 

Consider that as you start this Tuesday and I am about to enter Wednesday. A simple spy game story that isn’t worthy to sit on any shelf next to spy story masters like Le Carre, Ignatius, Herron, Greene or Deighton. It was a simple setting and I am rejecting what the BBC is telling us on the simple stage of missing evidence, missing verification and missing top line data in a stage where over 380,000 people were killed, finding 650 people (including children) that were assumed to be assassinated is extremely easy, the evidence was everything here and the BBC didn’t give us any.

Have fun today and that red dot on your chest? Pure imagination.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

The tables are starting to turn

This is a setting I always saw coming.It wasn’t magic or predestination, it was simple presumption. Presumption is speculation based on evidence, on facts. The BBC puts out a near perfect article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67986611) where we see ‘What happens when you think AI is lying about you?’ There are several brilliant sides to it, as such it is best to read it for yourself. But I will use a few parts of it because there is a larger playing field in consideration. The first to realise is that AI does not exist, not yet. 

As such when we see ““Illegal content… means that the content must amount to a criminal offence, so it doesn’t cover civil wrongs like defamation. A person would have to follow civil procedures to take action,” it said. Essentially, I would need a lawyer. There are a handful of ongoing legal cases round the world, but no precedent as yet.”

This is actually a much larger setting then people realise. You see “AI algorithms are only as objective as the data they are trained on, and if that data is biased or incomplete, the algorithm will reflect those biases” Yet the larger truth is that AI does not exist, it is Machine Learning or better, as such it took a programmer, a programmer implies corporate liability. That is what corporations fear, that is why everything is as muddled as possible. I reckon that Google, Microsoft and all others making AI claims are fearing. You see when you consider “The second told me I was in “unchartered territory” in England and Wales. She confirmed that what had happened to me could be considered defamation, because I was identifiable and the list had been published. But she also said the onus would be on me to prove the content was harmful. I’d have to demonstrate that being a journalist accused of spreading misinformation was bad news for me.” I believe it is a little less simple than that. You see algorithm implies programming, as such the victim has a right to demand the algorithm be put out in court for scrutiny. The lines that resulted in defamation should be open to scrutiny and that is what big-tech fears at present, because AI does not exist. It is all based on collected data and that data should be verified by the legal team of the victim and that stops everything for the revenue hungry corporations. 

In addition I would like to add an article, also by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68025677) called ‘DPD error caused chatbot to swear at customer’. It clearly implies that a programmer was involved. If language skills involve swearing, who put the swear words there? When did your youngest one start to swear? They all do at some point. So what triggered this? Now consider that machine learning requires data, so where is that swear data coming from? Who inclined or instituted that to be used? So when you see ““An error occurred after a system update yesterday. The AI element was immediately disabled and is currently being updated.” Before the change could be made, however, word of the mix-up spread across social media after being spotted by a customer. One particular post was viewed 800,000 times in 24 hours, as people gleefully shared the latest botched attempt by a company to incorporate AI into its business.” Consider that AI does not exist, consider that swear words are somehow part of that library, then consider that a programmer made a booboo (this is always allowed to happen) and they are ‘updating’ this. A system is being updated to use a word library. Now consider the two separate events as one and see how much danger the revenue hungry corporations have placed themselves in. When you go by ‘Trust but verify’ we can make all kinds of assumptions, but data is the centre of that core with two circles forming a Venn diagram. One circle is data, the other is programming. Now watch how big-tech is worried, because when this goes wrong, it goes wrong in a big way and they would be accountable for billions in pay outs. It will not be a small amount and it will be almost everywhere. The one case of a defamed journalist is one and in this day and age not the smallest setting. The second is that these systems will address customers. Some will take offence and some will take these companies to court. So how much funds did they think that they could safe with these systems? All to save on a dozen employees? A setting that will decide the fate of a lot of companies and that is what some fear. Until the media and several other dodo’s start realising that AI doesn’t yet exist. At that point the court cases will explode. It will be about a firm, their programmer and the wrong implementation of data. I reckon that within 2-3 years there will be an explosion of defamation cases all over the world. The places relying on Common Law will probably be getting more and sooner than Civil Law nations, but they will both face a harsh reality. It is all gravy whilst the revenue hungry sales people are involved. When the court cases come shining through those firms will have to face harsh internal actions. That is speculation on my side, but based on the data I see at present it seems like a clear case of  precise presumption which is what the BBC in part is showing us, no matter how courts aren’t ready. In torts there are cases and this is a setting staged on programmers and data, no mystery there and that could cost those hiding behind AI are facing. It is merely my point of view, but I feel that I am closer to the truth than many others evangelising whatever they call AI.

Enjoy the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Science

Is it more than buggy?

Very early this morning I noticed something. Apple had made a booboo, now this isn’t a massive booboo and many will hide behind the ‘glitch’ sentiment. But this happened just as I was reading some reports on AI (what they perceive to be AI) and things started to click into place. You see AI (as I have said several times before) does not yet exist. We are short on several parts and yes machine learning and deeper machine learning exist and they are awesome. But there is a extremely dangerous hitch there. It is up to the programmer and programmers are people, they will fail and with that any data model connected will fail, it always will.

So what set this off?
To see this we need to see the image below

It was 01:07 in the morning, just after one o clock. The apple wedge gives us on all 4 timezones that it was today. Vancouver minus 19 hours, making it 06:07 in the morning. Toronto minus 16 hours making it 09:07 in the morning. Amsterdam minus 10 hours making it 15:07 in the afternoon and Riyadh with its minus 8 hours making it 17:07 in the afternoon. And all of them YESTERDAY. Now, we might look at this and think, no biggie and I would agree. But the setting does not en there.

Now we get to the other part. Like hungry all these firms are tying to get you into what they call ‘the AI field’ and their sales people are all pushing that stage as much as they can, because greed is never ending and most sales people live from their commission.

So now we see:

In addition there is Forbes giving us (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2024/01/04/not-data-driven-enough-ai-may-change-that/) where we see ‘Not Data-Driven Enough? AI May Change That’ where we are given “Eighty-eight percent of executives said that investments in data and analytics are a top priority, along with 63% for investments in generative AI.” To see my issue we need to take a step back. 

On May 27th 2023 the BBC reported (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769) that Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff got his material from a colleague of his at the same law firm. They relied on ChatGPT to get the brief ready. As such we get: ““Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,” Judge Castel wrote in an order demanding the man’s legal team explain itself.” Now consider the first part. An affidavit is prepared by the current levels of machine learning and they get the date wrong (see apple example above). An optional mass murderer now gets off on a technicality because the levels of scrutiny are lacking. The last part of the case in court gives us “After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.” A court case for naught and why? Because technology isn’t ready yet, it is that simple. 

The problem is a little bot more complex. You see forecasting exists and it is decently matured, but it is used in the same breath as AI, which does not yet exist. There are (as I personally see it) no checks and balances. Scrutiny on the programmer seemingly goes away when AI is mentioned and that is perhaps the largest flaw of all. 

There is a start, but we are in its infancy. IBM created the quantum computer. It is still early days, but it exists. Lets just say that in quantum computers they created the IBM XT computer of Quantum, with its version of an intel 8088 processor. And compared to 1981 it was a huge step forward. What currently is still missing due to infancy are the shallow circuits, they are nowhere near ready yet. The other part missing is the Ypsilon particle now ready for IT. The concept comes from a Dutch Physicist (I forgot the name, but I mentioned it in previous blogs). I wrote about it on August 8th 2022. In a story called ‘Altering Image’ You see that will change the field and it makes AI possible. In the setting the Dutch physicist sets the start differently. The new particle will allow for No, Yes, Both and None. It is the ‘both’ setting of the particle that changes things. It will allow for gradual assumptions and gradual stage settings. Now we will have a new field, one that (together with quantum computing) allows for an AI to grow on its data, not hindered (or at least a lot less hindered) by programmers and their programming. When these elements are there and completed to its first stage an AI becomes a possibility. Not the one that sales people say it is, but what the forefather of AI (Alan Turing) said it would be and then we will be there. IBM has the home field advantage, but until that happens it will be anyones guess who gets there first.

So enjoy your day and when you are personally hurt by an AI, don’t forget there is a programmer and its firm you could optionally sue for that part. Just a thought. 

Enjoy THIS day.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

Not changing sides

It was a setting I found myself in. You see, there is nothing wrong with bashing Microsoft. The question at times is how long until the bashing is no longer a civic duty, but personal pleasure. As such I started reading the article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/new-york-times-openai-lawsuit-copyright-1.70697010) where we see ‘New York Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft for copyright infringement’ it is there where we are given a few part. The first that caught my eye was ““Defendants seek to free-ride on the Times’s massive investment in its journalism by using it to build substitutive products without permission or payment,” according to the complaint filed Wednesday in Manhattan Federal Court.” To see why I am (to some extent) siding with Microsoft on this is that a newspaper is only in value until it is printed. At that point it becomes public domain. Now the paper has a case when you consider the situation that someone is copying THEIR result for personal gain. Yet, this is not the case here. They are teaching a machine learning model to create new work. Consider that this is not an easy part. First the machine needs to learn ALL the articles that a certain writer has written. So not all the articles of the New York Times. But separately the articles from every writer. Now we could (operative word) to a setting where something alike is created on new properties, events that are the now. So that is no longer a copy, that is an original created article in the style of a certain writer. 

As such when we see the delusional statement from the New York Times giving us “The Times is not seeking a specific amount of damages, but said it believes OpenAI and Microsoft have caused “billions of dollars” in damages by illegally copying and using its works.” Delusional for valuing itself billions of dollars whilst their revenue was a lot less than a billion dollars. Then there is the other setting. Is learning from public domain a crime? Even if it includes the articles of tomorrow, is it a crime then? You see, the law is not ready for machine learning algorithm. It isn’t even ready for the concept of machine learning at present. 

Now, this doesn’t apply to everything. Newspapers are the vocalisations of fact (or at least used to be). The issues on skating towards design patents is a whole other mess. 

As such OpenAi and Microsoft are facing an uphill battle, yet in the case of the New York Times and perhaps the Washington Post and the Guardian I am not so sure. You see, as I see it, it hangs on one simple setting. Is a published newspaper to be regarded as Public Domain? The paper is owned, as such these articles cannot be resold, but there is the grinding cog. It was never used as such. It was a learning model to create new original work and that is a setting newspapers were never ready for. None of these media laws will give coverage on that setting. This is probably why the NY Times is crying foul by the billions. 

The law in these settings is complex, but overall as a learning model I do not believe the NY Times has a case. and I could be wrong. My setting is that articles published become public domain to some degree. At worst OpenAI (Microsoft too) would need to own one copy of every newspaper used, but that is as far as I can go. 

The dangers here is not merely that this is done, it is “often taken from the internet” this becomes an exercise on ‘trust but verify’. There is so much fake and edited materials on the internet. One slip up and the machine learning routines fail. So we see not merely the writer. We see writer, publication, time of release, path of release, connected issues, connected articles all these elements hurt the machine learning algorithm. One slip up and it is back to the drawing board teaching the system often from scratch.

And all that is before we consider that editors also change stories and adjust for length, as such it is a slightly bigger mess than you consider from the start. To see that we need to return to June this year when we were given “The FTC is demanding documents from Open AI, ChatGPT’s creator, about data security and whether its chatbot generates false information.” If we consider the impact we need to realise that the chatbot does not generate false information, it was handed wrong and false information from the start the model merely did what the model was given. That is the danger. The operators and programmers not properly vetting information.

Almost the end of the year, enjoy.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science