What’s in an advertisement?

I have been called many things (not all of them nice) but I do not care, I call it as I see it. This time it is Google that hits the spotlight, you see it is not all Microsoft that I cater against (often I do though). This time it is Cyber News (at https://cybernews.com/news/meta-google-youtube-instagram-advertising/) that gives us the news. This came from the Financial Times and the headline gives us ‘Meta and Google had secret ad deal to target teens on YouTube’, I am not judging this, but Google has stated on a few instances that they would not target kids. Still we get here “Google Ads help page itself says that the “unknown” category refers to people whose age, gender, parental status, or household income are supposedly unidentified. In theory, this could allow ad buyers to reach a wider audience” but we are also given “according to FT, Google could use app downloads and online activity to determine “with a high degree of confidence” that the “unknown” group actually mostly consisted of younger users” Now, lets take a different look and for this I use the Apple population (not people eating Granny Smiths) So lets go by the simple set of an iPad and around 128.5 million units of tablets were shipped worldwide in 2023. A little over 40% in the USA. The younger population uses their iPad for over 4 hours a day to do gaming. I took a small measurement in two hours I was fed around 2 dozen advertisements. Now consider that we have 80 million gamers on the iPad, as such 4 hours represent 40 advertisements per user and that represents 3.2 billion advertisements EVERY DAY, you think that Google, Apple or Meta walk away from that? And when we add the mobile gamers on Android and iPhone it becomes a much larger and more interesting number. 

On one side it works out well for one of my IP issues if we consider the larger premise. You see some are all about hijacking revenues from others, I took it into a different direction. When these three players lose a little over 20% of that advertisement industry. How strapped for cash will they end up being? Don’t trivialise this (many so called captains of industry will), when you need your revenue and you get to face a decline of 20% panic is ensured to come to the table. Like the advertisement bitches who cried fowl when Google wanted to do away with cookies. The setting I had was enable Amazon to a much larger degree, optionally enabling Kingdom Holding (Riyadh). A simple setting that many forgot about, because they all wants us to look to the horizon to the land of honey and AI, but that is at least a decade away, as such I saw another shore. 

But back to the story. So the response from Google was ““We prohibit ads being personalised to people under 18, period,” Google said in a statement to the publication. “We’ll also be taking additional action to reinforce with sales representatives that they must not help advertisers or agencies run campaigns attempting to work around our policies.”” And it could have worked if Google set through the cookie stage, but they did not. Now the setting is different, advertisement gaming is developing and we get a dozen versions of the same game and they all run on advertisements. And the game becomes worse for some ad streamers now also include advertisements. As such they are one step removed from the old setting that Electronic Arts tried to include in their sport games, the billboards in a game all showing the advertisements that EA could sell. In the long run it could have given them a revenue boost. Now the game sets a different premise. You see you can fight of getting more revenue, or you can make sure the others cannot get any, that was the premise that I went for and Saudi Arabia does not have to cater to Americans, more importantly they could deny America well over 20% of that revenue. Consider that the big three techs have to report a drop of 20%, how does that work out? In addition to that loss you could capture a part of that revenue. You see the USA is all about monopolising issues, all whilst no one looked to the shores behind them to see what they lost and that was the place where revenue was all over the floor.

The setting is given, but when we consider that they either confess on targeting minors, or take the losses. And my solution doesn’t target at all, putting this solution largely in the clear.

Still, the EA premise had me thinking, not a similar approach, but a very different approach. One that give a much higher premise of engagement. Like the cheaper Netflix, set the console with a gaming portal and that portal has a niche for advertisers one that pays the viewer in credits, which could go towards a lower fee, or game coins to get free updates (enhancements) for in game shopping, any game on the platform. That was a side no one (seriously) looked at. Games are set to a developer, not to a portal and when they want to be there they will have to agree. Consider any console with 50,000,000-200,000,000 gamers, do you really think a game designer wants to be cut off? Consider that the Xbox Game Pass has only 18 million users. And the numbers I stated were conservative, this solution would be next to the PSX2 (over 155,000,000) and the Nintendo Switch (144,00,000) that is what was at stake and Google shot themselves in the foot (my speculation) as they dropped the Google Stadia, as such the Amazon Luna and the Tencent console are all that remains. And when we see those numbers, a larger base exists for advertisers, but in my view a more limited one. Still, there is (to some degree) an option whilst removing a massive chunk (I think around 20%) away from Apple, Google and Meta. It was an evolution to the system as I set it up and the advertisement funds are merely the icing on the cake. 

The added ‘protection’ that is given could sway plenty of parents to go this way, not my initial interest, especially when phase one 50 million is reached. The system will fuel itself towards users like the CBM64 did in the mid 80’s. Still the others need to rethink their system, because for now they think it is all OK, but when the setting changes it will already be too late. Look at the Cookie stage, only when they finally switched it off in part, the advertisers starting to cry like little bitches. Three days ago we were given “This latest twist in the Privacy Sandbox saga is a wake-up call for the entire digital advertising ecosystem, according to Upwave’s George London.” Wake up call? This setting was known for a couple of years, as such these people had plenty of time to revisit the sands of opportunity, but they thought that it wouldn’t get to that, and the money would keep going in. Now the premise will likely become that they lose out on a population that gets into the millions, no free ride for cookies (cookie monster ate them all) as such they will have to put the prices down by a lot, because targeting is soon to be a real issue, for this the Google and Meta setting comes into play. Either regulators demand a larger scrutiny (expected turn) or the advertisement world will lose 4.3 billion advertisements on iPad alone, now consider how many game on their mobiles? That is a reported 79% of an expected 18,250,000,000 billion in 2025. Set that to revenue numbers. Yes what one party tells is not what some do, or they tell them where not to look for certain restrictive papers. Oh, and my simplistic number stage gives me around 2.8 billion advertisement options are optionally soon lost or diminished. Yes, my 50 million consoles were hilariously conservative. 

What’s in an ad? Nothing a gamer wanted to see anyway, as well as a few other clusters of pushed to watch advertisement people. So how will Meta continue at minus 20%? Apple will do fine and Google will have its android, but when that newly reinvented shore comes, Google will also have to make due. As such,  they can bite the bullet or set up a fee for Youtube, which will make TikTok happy to no extent 

They say all is fair in love and war, did you ever consider that the people have a voice too, that they are pushed towards apps with no avoidance? What happens if you cater to those people? Google should know, they grew their search in a very similar way.

Have a lovely time and see you perhaps in a place without advertisements every couple of minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Science

Setting of the day

On a good day
The Khaleej Times Jost informed me on how a good day comes to pass. Here (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/meet-the-uae-police-officer-who-uncovered-183-money-laundering-cases-in-15-years) we are introduced to Major Saad Ahmed Al Marzooqi. 

The headline ‘Meet the UAE police officer who uncovered 183 money laundering cases in 15 years’. We are also given “He was recently appointed as the first Emirati member of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) International Cooperation Review Team” and we can be mesmerised, or brag about his abilities, but the numbers imply that he slightly uncovered more than one case a month. There are plenty of police forces all over the world where half of these numbers would imply a stellar career. As we gawk over “exposed 183 money laundering cases that are related to drugs and financial embezzlement. He had also created a database of incidents, which contributed to an increase in convictions from a monthly average of 3 to 14” we need to realise that the increase of 3 to 14 implies that this one person achieved more than any average police station in Europe. 

This is the kind of man the world needs and that will be explained in the next article, because the universe relies on balance and the imbalance we are about to see takes the cake and changes an optional day to night.

On a bad day
Yes like any hero that needs a antagonist to make things interesting, we have Microsoft in two mentions. Now this isn’t directly involving anyone at Microsoft, but the follies are a setting that makes things a lot worse.

First we get Wired (at https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-copilot-phishing-data-extraction/) who gives us ‘Microsoft’s AI Can Be Turned Into an Automated Phishing Machine’ we get to see “Attacks on Microsoft’s Copilot AI allow for answers to be manipulated, data extracted, and security protections bypassed, new research shows” which is not good, but anything positive can me mauled into a criminal jester for organised crime. The additional “Microsoft raced to put generative AI at the heart of its systems. Ask a question about an upcoming meeting and the company’s Copilot AI system can pull answers from your emails, Teams chats, and files—a potential productivity boon. But these exact processes can also be abused by hackers.

Today at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas, researcher Michael Bargury is demonstrating five proof-of-concept ways that Copilot, which runs on its Microsoft 365 apps, such as Word, can be manipulated by malicious attackers, including using it to provide false references to files, exfiltrate some private data, and dodge Microsoft’s security protections.” Now, I haven’t seen this, but Wired has a solid enough level of credibility to not ignore this. And that isn’t all. Bargury gives the world “the ability to turn the AI into an automatic spear-phishing machine. Dubbed LOLCopilot, the red-teaming code Bargury created can—crucially, once a hacker has access to someone’s work email” as I speculatively see it a mediocrity solution to turn the Internet of Things into a machine serving organised crime, optionally the NSA too, well done Microsoft. As I see it, the workload of Major Al Marzooqi would increase fivefold when this hits the open world, actually it already has if I understood the words from Michael Bargury correctly. In this, we optionally an even bigger problem, or at least a lot of corporations will.

You see there is a second message, in this case from Cyber Security News (at https://cybersecuritynews.com/microsoft-entra-id-vulnerability/). They give us ‘Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) Vulnerability Let Attackers Gain Global Admin Access’ with the subtext “Security researchers have uncovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) dubbed “UnOAuthorized” which could allow unauthorised actions beyond expected controls” Now take these two parts together and the phishing expedition could hit every R&D system on the planet using Azure. I am certain that Microsoft will have some patch coming soon, but in the meantime the bulk of R&D (under Azure) will be vulnerable and approachable by many hacker and especially organised crime, because selling secrets to competitors tends to be a lucrative setting and most corporations aren’t that finicky in acquiring something that raises (and assures) the bonuses of the members of their boardroom. OK, this is speculative on my side, but wonder what some will do to get the upper hand in business, especially if there is a bonus raise involved. 

I wish I had a solution, but my personal feeling is that Microsoft has too many holes, loops and a whole rage of other issues and switching to either AWS, IBM cloud or Google Cloud tends to be an essential first step coming to my mind. Now, if there are sceptics who think that I am anti-Microsoft here, they are probably right. Therefor the Links to the two articles were added letting you look at the stories yourself. In the meantime I remember a story in April and it should be my ‘duty’ to inform SAMI that ‘BAE Systems and Microsoft join forces to equip defence programmes with innovative cloud technology’ had a nice article and with the two articles mentioned, SAMI could lay its hands on a truckload of BAE IP. Not sure how far they will get, but free IP is the way to go I say. So when you realise that a large corporation like British Aerospace with all the civilian and military hardware can be accessed, what chances do you think that Novo Nordisk (Denmark), LVMH (France), ASML (Netherlands), SAP (Germany), Hermez (France), L’Oreal (France) have? I do not know if any uses Azure, but it is a good moment for them to select one of the other companies. They could after the event sue Microsoft for damages, but Delta Airlines is already suing CrowdStrike and I am not sure how that will go. In the end it is my personal opinion that this could potentially bite Microsoft hard and it is one of the reasons I do not let them near my IP.

As I personally see it, the companies racing the be the first to launch their (fake) AI will now have a much larger impact. There were already fake data issues, but now the phishing options that are mentioned and when that gets linked to what Cyber Security News calls “UnOAuthorized” the entire IT game changes dramatically and I have no idea how that will play out. 

As my Sunday is almost over and Vancouver only just started there’s a chance we postulate that the next 72 hours will be an interesting one. Have a lovely day (when you are not on Azure).

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Military, Science

A little late aren’t you?

It was the setting I was waiting for. The US has given in to its economic pressures and possibly the fear that China might get to much of a headway. Reuters this morning gives me (and other readers) at https://www.reuters.com/world/us-lift-ban-offensive-weapons-sales-saudi-arabia-sources-say-2024-08-09/ the headline ‘US to lift ban on offensive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia’, which sounds nice but is possibly a little late. Colonel Turki Al-Maliki a member of the Saudi airforce had given us the goods, going all the way back to February 2021. Reuters reported on these attacks in March 2021. In this Reuters is important as they give us ‘Houthis have fired 430 missiles, 851 drones at Saudi Arabia since 2015 – Saudi-led coalition’, the setting is important because civilian targets were aimed at by Houthis amongst them were Saudi airports and structures. So the blockage by the US was weird, especially as the Houthis are a terrorist organisation. So the about turn under the guise of “The Saudis have met their end of the deal, and we are prepared to meet ours”, a little late, isn’t it? But at present the Chinese representatives of parties like the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group is nothing to be sneered at, with the Chengdu J-20 as an optional buy which was (allegedly) discussed at the World Defense Show 2024 in February 2024 (a speculation from me) is giving the Chinese hope to gain much more from the American Defence Industry. Should the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia take that offer, the setting would open the doors (for China) to larger possibilities in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as well. The damage to the American Industry could amount to an estimated loss of $30-$50 billion over these three nations alone. Not to mention the lucrative service and consultancy jobs. It would be the first definite slam to the value of the US dollar. China is rearing to take up that option in a heartbeat. I discussed (and partially speculated) this in ‘The next Furlong’ which I wrote on March 10th 2022 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/03/10/the-next-furlong/), as such I was and am now in a stage to emphasise the term ‘told you so’. This setting was clear then and it is a speculated more clear now when we see “Under U.S. law, major international weapons deals must be reviewed by members of Congress before they are made final. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned the provision of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia in recent years, citing issues including the toll on civilians of its campaign in Yemen and a range of human rights concerns.” We are about to go into election mode and some politicians will fear for their job a lot more than the American Economy. As such China has a decent chance to crush the American Defence industry. I doubt they fear the Russian abilities as the Russians are getting clobbered by the 20th largest army in the world. The Ukrainians are still damaging the Russian, even after the Russians bombed Ukraine into the stone age. That is not a good sales talk, especially  with the current Russian losses stated below

As such we can accept the Reuters statement, because of its projected validity, yet the words we are given “Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned the provision of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia in recent years”, yet the article doesn’t emphasise the attacks by Houthi’s on Saudi civilian targets, which Colonel Turki Al-Maliki showed many clearly going all the way back to 2021, many articles were drowned out by (speculatively speaking) by anti Muslim and anti Saudi voices. Now that China gets to move into a much stronger position, the American administration is taking the gloves off and do what needed to be done in 2021. I reckon that people like Stephanie Kirchgaessner will possibly raise anonymous sources to throw sand in the cogs of common sense. China will love this as this will enable them to get a squadron on Chengdu J-20 into place and optionally ‘gift’ three service teams in the mix, two for maintenance and one to train  Saudi troops. The losses to America will be vast and it will a long term loss. 

As such I think that they were over 2 years late to the party. The initial transfer settings were optionally carved (I have no clear evidence of this) in the airshows of 2021 by SAMI. That would have been the first introductions of Chinese hardware that was to replace whatever America wasn’t giving them at that time. As I personally see it, it might be too late now. You see the Russian losses as shown above are the second piece of evidence. In that setting Russia is no longer a contender and as they are now ‘acquiring’ missiles from North Korea we see a larger question mark, is it merely the lack of missiles or does Russia have a larger problem. I do not know, but Russia isn’t telling, so we are left to our speculations and the Kursk clambake of 2024 Makes things worse for Russia. And in that setting China gets to be the big winner. OK, I admit, this victory would be largely held by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (and supporting parties).

Have a nice day and feel free to watch American revenues move to the far east.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

I missed this setting

That is the premise. So, why didn’t I think of this? We all have this and on the defence of Microsoft, they had the ‘slogan’ at the launch of Windows 95 ‘Without even thinking’ the premise was brilliant as was the innovation from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95, no doubt about it. And without even thinking applies to so many applications and conditions, it is a brilliant created stage (credit where credit is due). So here I was reading the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d1y0z4z9no) and that gave me the nudge to wake up. You see I wrote about Ruja Ignatova, now mentioned in ‘Fugitive ‘Cryptoqueen’ hit by asset freeze’ with the lines “Ruja Ignatova, known as the Missing Cryptoqueen, is now subject to a global freezing order which prevents her assets from being sold or moved.” I had written about it some time ago and now we see “The freezing order, made public on Wednesday at London’s High Court, is part of a group action brought by more than 400 OneCoin investors”, I looked at this ‘crypto queen’ somewhere in May of June last year, it could have been two years ago. 

What made me consider this is that it has taken 6 years to do this. The questions come to mind is why this took 6 years. Come to think of this, why didn’t my sneaky way of thinking consider this. And in that light it she had moved all ‘her’ cash in some trust setting in Switzerland or Saudi Arabia it might not amount to anything. Those two countries have massive protections in place and anyone of them transgressing on their banking laws are in deep trouble. It is like rowing towards the end of the Niagara falls without an anchor in place.

So why did this global freezing order take 6 years? There might be a good reason, but the article doesn’t hand out the reason. Then we also get “The freezing order does not just target Ms Ignatova but seven other people and four companies – all alleged to have been connected with OneCoin in some form” which gives me another setting. Is ‘alleged’ enough to put a freezing order in place? Don’t get me wrong it sounds nice, but when was alleged enough to prosecute people and companies? Doesn’t that require proof? 

Then we get to “Sebastian Greenwood, who is in a US prison serving a 20-year sentence for his role in the fraud. Also subject to the freeze are British businessmen Christopher Hamilton and Robert MacDonald, who appeared in court in London” which get us the added “The pair are accused by US authorities of laundering OneCoin proceeds, however attempts to extradite them to the US to face trial have failed”, now I do not known enough of either Christopher Hamilton and Robert McDonald, but why did the extradition fail? There might be a procedural or legal reason, but the BBC does not give us this. It might not hit the core of this story, which is Ruja Ignatova, yet in light of the time settings it becomes a liked interest, so why is it missing? 

There are a few speculative sights to this. The first is that she was murdered (read: executed) and whomever was left with the bundles of cash is pretty much singing ‘do wa Diddy Diddy’ on a sunny beach. The second one that I considered was that she has a new identity, living it up in the UAE whilst her cash is in an optional Saudi bank, gaining 5%-10% interest over several billions, and as such you can live like a queen in Dubai or Abu Dhabi living off $100,000,000 plus each year. She might have been seeding the non captured funds to assure her of non-capture and non-freeze cash. This is all speculation but the stage that we see with 6 years vanishing makes these two the most likely scenario’s. And there are more places she could go when the cash is securely non-freezable. 

This gets me back to the number one question. Why did the global freeze order take 6 years? There might be a really good (or correct) reason, but the BBC article does not give us that.

Something to consider especially When we consider the Khaleej Times exposed last June that ‘UAE scams exposed: How thousands of residents ‘lost it all’ in bogus investment schemes’ and this is one nation. They report “over 40,000 UAE residents have collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars to fraudulent investment schemes” that is a serious amount of money and this is one nation. Don’t you think there is now a pressing need to up the effort to upgrade banking laws to take this factor out (or at least diminish it massively). I understand that a fool and his money are soon parted and that it is everyones responsibility to take steps to make it harder for these criminals. I think that the one clear lesson is that there are no free gifts (EVER). The second part is that nothing comes for free. Now we get that not all ‘currencies’ are the same. Look at Facebook. Their currency is data and a lot of people do not care about data, especially as they do not know what it could cost them. One question I have always in mind when someone offers me a deal to good to be true is “if it is too good to be true, it must be a false setting”, this has (up to now) prevented me a few times to lose my cash. The second thing is that if someone (an unknown person) comes to me with such an offer. My initial question becomes ‘Why doesn’t he (or she) go to friends first?’ The situation might have come up, or they might not have any friends. But when you deliver on ‘great’ deals you suddenly have more friends than anyone ever bargained for. 

This is a paranoia setting, but it is not paranoia when everyone is after your bank account. Just a thought to consider.

So whether your funds are in a fridge or not. Make space by removing the venison and make yourself an awesome Bambi burger, with forrest unions and mushrooms. Bon appetite and have a lovely weekend when you get there. I get there in 2 hours. Now I need to find some venison, I suddenly feel peckish.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

The added flavour

I was daydreaming and all of a sudden a thought came to me. A thought that I could add too Engonos, not now, hence I write elements here. I am still working on Residuam Vitam and that might take some time. I am still in Season 2 of Engonos even though the main lines until season 3 are in my head. You see, I thought on a vengeance streak. Hades is as strict as they come and in Season two Engonos get waves of that sternness overwhelming him. This is where I have a few issues. You see in a video game in the 80’s or 90’s (on the CBM64 or CBM Amiga) I was introduced to the Hand of Glory. Later I looked it up and it came from 1722 a Freemason (i think) called Petit Albert had referred to it. 

So in ‘my’ version the Engonos is betrayed by a con-artist and even though he did everything according to the rules (because the con-man had the bank and police assisting him). He loses his new apartment in Toronto. This gets me too: “never call for more demons than you can put down”.

And as such Engonos needs to reset his wealth but now raging in anger he does something no one thought possible. He harvests the souls and the organs of their children. The souls for himself and the organs to sell on the black market. Within a week everyone is in panic. They do not know where to look and they do not know where to find the children. In the mean time Engonos is gaining wealth. Within a month children are gone ad the perpetrators of the swindle are dead. The dead are harvested for hands of glory (which are really well received by other criminals). At some point someone finds a missing clue (haven’t worked that one out yet) and the police as well as organised crimes are looking out for him. He has however skipped a few places and with some countries with their banking laws in place Engonos has quadrupled the wealth he had and he moved his house to Jeddah as well as his apartment in London. 

The in-between bit like the harvesting of organs need a little more work in my mind and also setting the case of harvesting the body parts and elements of making the human candles for the hands require some more work in my mind. The idea that came to me was that with al the riots and looting in the UK and the USA, a stage where these people could be scared to near death might be worth exploring. Hades is not evil, but in his strictness lawbreaker and thieves have no right in his vision. That would be worth exploring and the thousands of shopkeepers that have been hurt by these looters could watch a bit of TV rejoicing that there is a reality where they do not get to escape their toll.

It still needs more work, but I got this inside of two hours and I have more to add later on. A solid ‘side-quest’ to season 2. London had over 1100 victims (mostly small businesses) in Los Angeles it was a lot worse due to “under Proposition 47 (2014) as entering a commercial establishment with intent to steal property valued at less than $950 during business hours—failed to reveal evidence of increases until 2022, when the state saw a 28.7% jump from the unusually low rates of the pandemic years. Even after this sizeable increase, the shoplifting rate in California remains 8% below its pre-pandemic level” by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) gives a rather large chunk of ideas especially as Engonos has a residence in Los Angeles as well. There 1,500 could go amiss and no one would care. Ideas on how to create a slaughter fest.

Perhaps I can get a lot more out of this over season 2. 

Well, that’s it for me (for now). Perhaps I will get lucky and dream some more.

Leave a comment

Filed under Stories

How to measure success?

That is the question is was facing today. It wasn’t about my success (or lack thereof). It was about the olympics. One member (a fellow Australian) was happy because we had two additional gold members over the United Kingdom. But there was something wrong with that train of thought. It was too American. Don’t get me wrong, as I see it it is great to have more golden medals, but in my old fashioned way of life (and thinking) it is weird that the runners up get to live. I must be going soft in my old age.

You see with Australia grasping a 14-12-9 achievement and the United Kingdom holding onto 12-15-19 at present this list could go into any direction. However, this got me thinking. How do you measure success? Don’t get me wrong the gold number are nice, yet it is not a true list of achievement, is it? I have been pondering this and my mind took me to the old 1,2,3 squared allocation. So Bronze counts as 1, Silver as 4 and gold as 9. Now we get to 183 for Australia and 187 for the United Kingdom. UK won by a nose-hair as jockeys tend to say. So is this actually fair? How can medals be universally set? I don’t think that a boxer will accept equal points to an equestrian, in support, the horse will not go along with that either. Still there is a need to give some level of equality especially as the best of the best of the best in any of these disciplines are competing, yet the simple set to look at the golden medals seems wrong (possibly Canadian Summer McIntosh might agree but she just got 3 golden and one silver medal), at 17 she got (as far as I know) a tied second place with a few others all with three golden medals in the French Olympics. 

However I still ponder, is my formula the right one? It seems to be, but it might be my own shortsightedness to think so. 

Still, the question remains, how do you measure success, and not just in sports. In the 90’s I was subject KRA’s (Key Result Areas) and I accepted them as I had no knowledge on how to measure success. Even in customer care and Technical Support these numbers (when applied to the field I was in) made perfect sense. At some point you need to consider what to measure and how to measure it. Medals are a finite point of achievement, customer care is a little bit more fluidic. So how to go about it? The Olympic medallist might have kicked this off, but my brain takes into all directions. So with one movie script under my belt (for assessment with Dubai Media) am I more successful in scripting then all my friends (both of them)? They are not in that field, so how to generalise some metrics? You see we can grab Z-scores but as far as I can see that is a near obsolete approach to matters (perhaps what the people call AI use this) and now we get to the next bit and why I used Summer McIntosh as an example. These were her first Olympics, so how could there be a Z-score of her and how would it be reliable (or relatable)? Previous competitions? These were her first olympics and even in global events the pressures are different. 

And the field becomes even more complex, you see whatever they call these systems based on LLM’s and Deeper Machine Learning, it is either set by a programmer, or set by data and there the problem becomes a lot larger as both are used. Without proper verification and a number of constraints the equation becomes a GIGO rule (Garbage In Garbage Out).

I wonder how much some players consider success. Most will measure success by their ability to bring home the bonus funds. To some extent I accept that, but when you consider how they went about getting that success becomes a larger issue. In this I take the conceptual setting of Awareness versus Engagement in market research. Awareness could be shown how many impressions (or clicks) something gets, whilst engagement requires interaction with the solution. As I have always stated Engagement wins every time, but the large companies often herald views per thousand (or clicks as a secondary). So who get the price turkey at the end? Large Language Models with (Deeper) Machine Learning what some call a version of AI has issues and the world is waking up to Nvidia (not meant in a bad way). You see there is currently no AI, not yet anyway. What there is (the LLM and DML reference) is awesome and it can do great stuff, but it has issues like the legal sector recently saw. There is a lack of verification and that will be an issue in plenty of fields. 

Have a successful day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

When does it become a lie?

That is the question. It is not as simple as it sounds and I understand that. But here we are, the BBC gives us an article. I almost passed it, but then I saw something that didn’t read right, so I dug a little deeper. Their disadvantage was that I had just read up on several cases for material, so I reopened it and it is time to give you the fruits of my labour.

The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9eegg0rdvo) gives us ‘What could Google monopoly ruling mean for you?’. Well that is an open question but let me run you through the elements. 

The US said Google was currently paying firms like Apple huge amounts of money each year to be pre-installed as the default search engine on their devices or platforms”. OK, so this is a business proposition. Apple decided that the benefits of Google in their systems would help them in numerous ways and Google was willing to pay this. It was a price for services.

It comes with the repetitive quote “Apple’s Safari browser for example uses Google by default” what the BBC is not giving us is the offset that Apple would have to endure and they were getting $20,000,000,000 as a bandaid, if I got that kind of money I would say “Google slap me silly”. Now we get the parts that matter, it start with “Something that’s easier to imagine is some kind of choice screen, where people opening a browser for the first time are asked whether they’d like to use Google or an alternative like Microsoft’s Bing” This is hilarious. I have had first experience with Bing. Bing influencers were HIJACKING my search and pushing it through Bing. It took me days to undo that damage. Choosing between a bully and Google is not much of a choice. To put it mildly “Google has a 91% marketshare, Bing has 3.86%, where do you get the most bang for YOUR buck?” In this simple setting Google comes out on top EVERY time. And a secondary setting is that Bing has been around for 15 years. It isn’t just that Google is better, Bing has yet to show any level of pure innovation in searches. Microsoft lacks data, innovation and proper etiquette on search engines. 

Now we get to the issue I had, which starts with “Back in 1999, Microsoft found itself in a very similar situation to where Google is now.” You see, Netscape faced new competition from OmniWeb and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 1.0, it continued to dominate the market in 1995 and beyond. In 1997 Netscape had 72% marketshare. That is, until Microsoft switch off the proverbial oxygen to Netscape and whilst the IE was free for all (it was installed with Windows 95), thing went south in several ways for Netscape and the one ‘ruler’ in those days became Microsoft with its Internet Explorer. Google released its browser in 2008. As such (as I see it) Microsoft wasted 10 years and within 2 years nearly everyone was using Google Chrome. They overwhelmed everyone with innovations. They released Chrome v9 in 2011 and Chrome v17 in 2012. What did Microsoft do? Nada, nothing, zip, zilch. In 2012, responding to Chrome’s popularity, Apple discontinued Safari for Windows, making it exclusively available on OS X (source: ubuntu life) . So here is the first setting. Apple made an educated choice. Create your own and reinvent the wheel or select the wheel maker of choice. Even at this point we need to recognise that Microsoft’s star was faltering and falling. That was then. Now there is a different setting. Then it was which American company gets the cake. Now it is different, China is now a much larger participant. They caught up with the US and even now the UAE and Saudi Arabia are massively catching up with America. They decide to waste the time of Google on trivial matters whilst calling it “monopolising” stating that the others should be given a ‘fair’ share. In this day and age it is handing the handling of the commerce horse to China and all the good it will do the American commerce. Small hint, it will not. 

There really more issues with Microsoft and particular with Edge and particularly Daniel Aleksandersen, who called this “clearly a user-hostile move that sees Windows compromise its own product usability in order to make it more difficult to use competing products.” There are issues with edge as Douglas J. Leith, a computer science professor from Trinity College, Dublin, Microsoft Edge is among the least private browsers. He explained, “from a privacy perspective Microsoft Edge is much more worrisome than the other browsers studied. These two quotes are on different sides of edge. But in aggregating these quotes it is my distinct believe that if Google Search is broken up, the American Department of Justice will receive roses from nearly every big organised crime syndicate. It is a mere believe I have, but after having suffered the edge bullies hijacking my browser and inserting edge ad a search engine against my wishes is the beginning of much more. The Verge accused edge of “spyware tactics”, a setting we have never seen Google use (speculation by me). In this day and age of commerce, the economy and data security you want to play with Google? I think that is a really bad idea.

Enjoy today, it is now midweek, the run to the weekend starts…….now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

The loser iteration

Two days ago I wrote (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/08/04/the-judge-shouldnt/) with the headline ‘The judge shouldn’t’, it was part speculative and part what I see (again through my eyes it could be regarded as speculative). Today a mere 4 hours ago we get through the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k44x6mge3o) ‘Google’s online search monopoly is illegal, US judge rules’. We are also given “Google was sued by the US Department of Justice in 2020 over its control of about 90% of the online search market.”, so lets take a look back. It started in 1995 and the ‘idea’ was completed in 1997. To turn about the setting in those days Microsoft was merely badgering their lack of knowledge and lam Netscape to get a browser dominance. Two youthful young sprouts namely Larry Page and Sergei Brin were ahead of the pack by a lot. They looked to a solution to search for text in publicly accessible documents offered by web servers, as opposed to other data. Microsoft was still trying to type words like HTTP and the clever people at Microsoft were able to type FTP. In the age of information the Google founders figured a few things out like ‘What are people trying to find’ this was against the grain for Microsoft who thought that corporations were the key and they went to ‘What are corporations willing to pay for’. The subtle difference is that Microsoft was working towards a slice of the $18,843,980,000,000 revenue that the fortune 500 represent. Google on the other hand decided to cater to its 31,000,000 employees. As such one could (oversimplified) cater to the simple fact that it would take Microsoft 9 million years to get as much data as Google. I do emphasis the oversimplification of this. I was not on the mindset of Google at first. You see I was a dedicated Yahoo user. It took 3 years until I saw that Google offered more and better result. As such in 3 years they gained a dominance. They surpassed Yahoo, Excite, Alta Vista and several other players. We can argue that it helped that Microsoft demolished Netscape. And in the decade that followed Google grew in strength and ability to cater to actual users not the CFO’s of 500 corporations. 

So when we see “It is one of several lawsuits that have been filed against the big tech companies as US antitrust authorities attempt to strengthen competition in the industry.” I believe that there is another ploy in play. The mediocrity losers (like Microsoft) want a slice of the cake they have no business being in. It isn’t just the ‘competition’ it is a reversal of technology that is in play. And in that setting the US is damaging the little benefit they have and leaving it all to China and true Chinese innovators like Huawei and Tencent. I reckon that by 2026 the mobile market will be overrun with Huawei in almost every non-americano place. They threw away the benefits when they forced Huawei to release HarmonyOS 5 years ago. 

Now we see that it is available in 77 languages and the turnover (as is) is getting stronger. Even now as EU nations are discarding the fear mongering of anti-China sentiment by American administration, and the strongest response that the EU nations give is ‘Show us evidence’, America has no answer to that other than debatable setting of ‘could’ and ‘expected’ whilst the evidence just isn’t there. And as we see an optional release this year of HarmonyOS NEXT, Android’s bough get broken on their sibling turning adult. So good luck with that.

Now we see a Judge giving us that there is a monopoly setting. I am not debating that (a lack of evidence I have), but the setting that we get from ““Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in his 277-page opinion” as I see it, the maintenance of a unique field dominance is begotten by the lack of innovation by people like Microsoft who is spreading itself way too thin.  As evidence I ‘present’ Xbox, Solarwinds, CrowdStrike and the list goes on. You see ‘breaking up’ is merely a first step. They will then open the door and the abusive bully (Microsoft) will gleefully shout “Can I play here too?” With a debilitating browser called ‘Edge’. How is that progress? Don’t get me wrong if there is a decent player that can keep up with Google, even Google will applaud that. My worry is that the ideological setting of letting everyone in the sandbox play is all fine, but there is a reason that mothers do not allow toddlers in a sandbox until they reach a certain age. And bar them from playing when they get too old. The worry that I have is that this setting stops Google from evolving beyond the cookie (which is fine by the exploitative advertisers). The setting of other people’s greed who cannot evolve into newer territories. This could now allow Huawei and Tencent to gain even more innovative sides to push into markets where American stage are auto rejected. Tencent is on the cliffhanger to introduce their solution to 150,000,000 homes and they can get there by 2027. 

This will leave Microsoft in a stage where it has no options and no future. As these Fortune 500 will find ways to rise to new frontiers we will see them seeking IBM and Amazon solutions catering a larger downfall of Microsoft. In that stage there is certain a decent amount of space for Google. As they will hand a corporate solution to their ‘office’ suite Microsoft will lose more grounds. The only thing that keeps them up for some time is Excel. But the world is changing what was once a spreadsheet world now becomes an AWS environment and Google can cater there too. I do think that Googles forced push to breaking up is not a great solution, but Google has overcome harder challenges. 

This and my previous article ‘The judge shouldn’t’ gives us the premise that the Antitrust laws are possibly a little obsolete. Microsoft sees this as their ticket in and it is willing to cater to this as it hurts Apple and Google. Two parts the US desperately needs to work at optimum to stop themselves of being overrun by Chinese innovators. You see 7 years ago ByteDance introduced TikTok (not a Peter Pan crocodile). In 7 years it became a near equal of YouTube that was in play 12 years longer. Now I get that YouTube paved the was, but that is the usual tracks for New innovators, they go over the backs from those who went before. Now consider that and the fact that HarmonyOS is about to go toe to toe with Android in only 4 years. That is what I wrong. Not that we think about antitrust. I partially agree with antitrust sentiments. But we need to see that the greed driven use it to keep up, or not to lose their revenue. But that was never the concern of Google (or Apple for that matter). As I see it in the last decade the face of technology was set by Amazon (AWS), Apple (MacWares), Google (Android, G-wares) and IBM (large solutions and Quantum) they create the innovations, players like Microsoft should go under and seek revenue from the Fortune 500. They were the bees knees weren’t they? 

But as I see it, US District Judge Amit Mehta is allowed by law to hand it all over to Chinese innovators. When the EU, Commonwealth nations, Africa and Asia allow these innovator into their governments America becomes a party of one (with 330 million consumers). So consider that the other regions has over 7,500 million people. As I see it it is a hard lesson that America learns twice. Wasn’t the Google premise of 1997 not enough?

Enjoy your day and ponder what benefit was to be had from optionally breaking up Google and who were the actual beneficiaries (not the consumers clearly).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

How right I was

I knew I was right. It wasn’t merely my own conviction of self, it was the exposure of two sets of ‘evidence’ as given by some media. The first was my view of gaming, mobile gaming to be presenting the ‘evidence’ Even as it was an ‘advertising’ of the events. It still shows that I was right. You see gaming always pushing the view forward and they forgot what they left behind. I tried to warn Amazon of this, but did they listen? I fear not. Yet that setting now gives Tencent an approachable 5 billion annually as well as give their Tencent Cloud Streaming Services (CSS) an option to not just break into cloud streaming, they also could be handing their TGP (Tencent Gaming Platform) Box a play for the title role in gaming platforms within a year. As it goes forward the TGP will not be an unknown, it will grace third position nearly instantly with only Sony and Nintendo to pass afterwards. I reckon that within 2-3 years it will surpass Sony and Nintendo after that. The benefit for Tencent will not be replacing these two, it will mean that they will be placed next to either or in some cases both. That was the setting that Amazon faced. Yet whilst they heralded ‘Amazon Luna adds more than 40 new games, all from GOG’ last month, they failed to see the larger picture and now Tencent and their TGP are optionally set in a world where they surpass the streaming game providers nearly instantly. Amazon only had to look at the historic market and considered what was possible. Yet their executives didn’t look (apparently) further than the length of their nose and non of them had the nose of Cyrano de Bergerac (or C.D. Bales for that matter). The resulting setting is that Tencent (or as the US fears, China) now gets a new area with gaming Europe and the Middle East as new customers. Another field that the US (with assistance of a short sighted Microsoft) where they hand the keys to a Chinese company. And they did this to themselves. I opened the door by informing Amazon in November 2022 that this field was approachable and ready. So what do we see three days ago in the Financial Review? They title ‘Amazon shares drop as AI costs spook market’ is merely one part, the underlying “investors have signalled growing impatience with tech companies’ efforts to profit from their massive investments in AI”, as well as “Andy Jassy has been cutting costs and focusing on profitability in Amazon’s main online retail business while spending heavily on AI services, which the company has said represent a “multibillion-dollar revenue run rate business”” and all along (for at least 21 months of options towards an estimated $5,000,000,000 annual revenue ignored. How that for captaincy of a ‘Big Tech’ company? And as I saw the gaming precedency go in all directions except for the right one I see that my vision was correct all along.

In a place here they got to drill into new customer places they handed it all to the Chinese opponents. Yay to shortsightedness. 

The second part is a little harder to spot if you do not look in the right direction. That being said, there are a few debatable sights to that. In the first it is my interpretation of these layered facts and if proven right it is less of an issue. Yet I believe that Facebook set the larger premise by not properly investigating the ‘evidence’ they claimed. Their short sighted overseeing hat is going on (relying on ‘their’ AI) and not properly looking at the ‘rules’ or policies they have implemented now gives rise to an altering consumer base that could skip town (their platform), optionally handing a decent chunk of their customer base to Tencent as well. It will not drown them. But answer me this, if you have to report that 10% is skipping your platform. How many shareholders will be happy with the underlying speculated statistics that we get is “The company estimates that 4-5% of those accounts are fake, meaning there may be as many as 150 million fake accounts.” these are the numbers from Facebook. Yet the ‘reality’ from some is that it is 10%-15%. Now consider that these numbers remain and the percentage over the 100% base becomes a number over their ‘new’ 90% base. As such the new base is that it becomes 111% and I believe that 120% is more realistic. Now consider that every investor paying X mounts of dollars now hands their money to 8.3% non valid accounts. It sets the new premise to nearly one out of 10 advertisements misses the target completely. How long until they have to drop prices or actually resolve that issue whilst millions are going somewhere else. That was the second premise that Amazon missed and now we have a massive larger issue. Tencent seemingly has a larger target. In the first to gain their new consumer base all over the world and Facebook (and others) start losing market share. If you think this is nothing ask Microsoft (edge) how they faired against Chrome and whilst they will deny any losses consider that Edge only has a 5% market share against Chrome 65% and Safari 18%. Take that into the settings. Considering that Tencent has a larger reason to promote Harmony OS. A stage that would make China happy as a clam. It will not have a short term impact in view, but in this all Android users in several nations will now have an option to switch Android devices. And the Apple case that is before these courts (se yesterdays article) merely strengthens the premise. I reckon that the Eastern Europe, African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries have a first impact and in that setting  America is the first to lose global market share. This last bit I gave you is highly speculative, but as my settings are confirmed I feel that this is a direction is a valid one. And it is all founded on two players (Amazon and Facebook) let is happen on their watch. Don’t believe me, feel free to read the articles I put on my blog from November 30th 2022 onwards (and several before that). The captains of industry and their governmental tools believed their own spin (read: marketing BS) and took what they spun as ‘truth’. All whilst there were visible parties out there. 

Granted, I am talking in my own street and that is also debatable, but you could read up and conclude for yourself. As such two elements handing billions of revenue that certain players left lying on the floor and I have no non-existent AI, merely my own noggin and it is working fine, thank you very much.

Enjoy this Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Science

The judge shouldn’t

I have two things on my mind. The first is the Olympics. I do not follow it every second, but I was ‘witness’ to two events. The first is a Canadian swimmer, I refer to her as Funny Flounder. I have a thing for alliteration. It is Summer McIntosh. This 17 year young swimmer, on her first Olympic challenge got 3 golden medals and one silver one, she also broke a few of her own world records. I reckon that over the next 6 Olympics she will win a lot more. It is amazing that any person at that age can have so much drive and focus. I know I have focus, but I could never achieve that result in any discipline, not even when I was in the height of my fencing days. Then there was the Dutch Femke Bol. I saw her in the last half of the leg she did, going from 4th to 1st and win the golden medal. I have never seen such an achievement and I am happy I did now. Yet, this was not what was occupying my mind. 

On my mind was the article (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/apple-asks-us-judge-to-toss-antitrust-lawsuit) where we see ‘Apple asks US judge to toss antitrust lawsuit’ we are given that it is one of five blockbuster monopoly cases pending against Big Tech companies. It was a story originally by Reuters. We are given “a lawsuit by federal and state antitrust regulators accusing it of illegally monopolising the smartphone market, saying the case would have a judge redesign its popular iPhone”. Fist off, I am not an expert on anti trust lawsuits and it will probably show in a moment.

I stand by Apple in this case. You see these people are in a wrong state of mind (and then some). I do not have an iPhone, I am an Android person and I will remain an Android person. I have nothing against Apple, I have had an iPad since the very first generation in 2010, it my present from me to me to use in University. It never let me down and in 2020 I replaced it with the iPad Air. 

The first never let my down until it was replaced and I am happy with this one too. So I do like the iOS system. My issue was that the world was eager to play down the iPhone for too much and in an age of wannabe’s thinking of their ego we saw the iPhone take the market by storm. It pretty much destroyed Nokia, Motorola and Microsoft (yes they had a mobile once). It headed ahead of Samsung (a brand I hate) and made short work of Google Pixel and Huawei with their assortment of mobiles. Actually the US government reduced the market share of Huawei. So to these antitrust regulators I state ‘Screw you’ (with a clear lack of anti trust laws). You see whilst the others were propagating their own ego’s and hide behind marketing presentations that were there to ‘appease’ the share holders, Apple did something else, they approached the customers, they listened and approach clients with presentations and newish innovation. So whilst they did that and released the ear buds and the smartwatches, the people looked and listened and joined the iPhone crowd. And there is more, The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 has ben around for a while, so where were they when Netscape was murdered by Microsoft? We have United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F. 34 as well as the overturning in 2001, after 11 years in court. There is a difference. Apple created iOS in a presumed (by me) towards the IoT (Internet of Things) and Apple has always heralded interconnectivity on their systems. I have two really bad issues with Apple, but not with my iPod and iPad, they always functioned perfectly. 

This matters, because the US regulators are apparently fond of shooting themselves in the foot. 

And that is what will happen if a judge redesigns its popular iPhone. And the setting (as I see it) is that they never minded anything as Apple stayed in its niche market, but now with the smart phone it is different. You see ever since I looked into matters (around 2011) I saw that the stage was going to change. Mobile devices were going to be generic with optional simplified hardware, the power as going to be the software. So 5 devices and one program solution and for the most that is coming to pass. We have Apple, Google, Huawei and Samsung for the most and Microsoft is out of THAT race. The lag that Motorola and Nokia have are just too big. So when I see “The Justice Department, 19 states and Washington, D.C., accuse Apple of an illegal monopoly on smartphones maintained by imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access from, developers” I say ‘bollocks’ The issue is who are the iOS developers? In 2011 I have cess to the development kits of Apple (schoolwork) and I never entertained it other than the assignments I had. I was an Apple user, not a developer (I regret that a little right now). 

So when we see “an illegal monopoly on smartphones” I say that this is not an illegal monopoly, it is a system setting that they selected, other than Android (Google, Huawei, Samsung) and Windows (Microsoft), actually I am hard to keep a straight face when setting Windows on a mobile phone. Can you imagine the CrowdStrike damage mobile phones might have had to endure? Oh and when we see this did anyone consider the consequences that were on IBM, who basically forced people to rely on IBM hardware. Perhaps HP can rephrase the nightmare they faced on IBM with their printers. 

There is a second tier to this all, we need to consider that The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is no longer the best way to go about this for more and more devices. As the mobiles become more generic and it will be on the software to trample a path into this all. When we consider that Google now has the Pixel 8a, Pixel 8 Pro, Pixel 8, Pixel Watch 2, Pixel Fold, Pixel Tablet. At least three of these systems are nearly identical, they have 1-2 processors difference. Their difference becomes the software. But that is now, I expect in the next 2-3 years that there will be more devices all powered by the same software and optionally the connecting devices (through the mobile phones) . The lawmakers of 1890 would have never expected this and the differences will grow even more.  And a prime example here is Microsoft. We now get “All you’ll need is a compatible Fire TV Stick, a Bluetooth-enabled wireless controller, and an Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription to stream Xbox games. Microsoft is working to allow Xbox Cloud Gaming to stream your entire Xbox library, and not just titles that are part of Game Pass.” Did anyone consider “a compatible Fire TV Stick”? So how long until they revamp the gaming industry with that solution? How long until they (a speculative view) impede devices through that connection where an error stops the Sony Playstation or Nintendo Switch to no longer with with their software because (speculative) software by Microsoft impeded it? Oh, they’ll be all apologetic, but the damage will have been done. We see (at Microsoft) “The Program Install and Uninstall troubleshooter helps you automatically repair issues when you’re blocked from installing or removing programs. It also fixes corrupted registry keys”, so this issue has been around from Windows 7 (2009), and was still around in Windows 10 (2015), so it was an issue for at least 6 years. Do we really want them to get involved? Come to think of it, l I would be on the first plane to Shenzhen if it comes to that. Oh and I haven’t even considered the damage that solution would do to the Amazon Luna. Apple had a solution and it has propagated that solution to all things Apple. They marketed their solution widely and innovatively and innovation is what is missed in many Big Tech companies. Too give another example, last year Apple did something Awesome. We see a meeting with a youthful young sprout (Tim Cook) reporting to Gaia and getting lectured by her. The brilliance was that plenty of companies took a paragraph out of their time to publish that they are on track to be carbon zero. Apple made it a presentation (advertisement) whilst giving a report of their directions. It was funny and it was pretty brilliant. Google and Amazon missed the boat and there was no value in copying that. So that is the innovative presentations that are Apple. The bigger picture is that mobile phones are presented through marketing and Apple marketing slaps the marketing of Google and Samsung. So we see “an illegal monopoly on smartphones” all whilst the others aren’t doing their bit to keep up (or seemingly keep up), so why punish Apple for that?

As I see it the judge has to toss the case, of not for the logic then for the reality that if this setting is pushed and Microsoft steps in, then we come to the conclusion that the US government is merely a tools for Microsoft to stop it from collapsing on itself (my personal view).

Well that was me today. 190 minutes from Monday here now, Vancouver is still pre Sunday breakfast. Have a fun day everyone.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science