Tag Archives: ABC

The double check

This is at times essential, we need (at times) double check what we did. Not the double check before we speak (which tends to be essential), but after we spoke, we get the setting that we need to make certain that we had it right. There is no shame in getting it wrong, it is the non-adjusted view that follows that makes what we do (completely) wrong.

In this, I decided to take another look at ‘Cross here to die’ an article I wrote on December 11th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/12/11/cross-here-to-die/), there I wrote “And there is more we get to see “a wave of infection is projected that could lead to a peak of more than 2,000 daily hospital admissions, with 175,000 hospital admissions and 24,700 deaths between 1 December this year and 30 April 2022.” And it is natural that these people hide behind ‘could lead to’, Yet the stage does not match. 175,000 admissions leading to 24,700, deaths. It goes against the numbers I have so far over a lot of nations and Omicron is stated (several sources) that it is a mild version that is more easily transmitted, yet not more deadly, so the numbers do not add up”, I stand by what I wrote, yet yesterday I was given “the UK has 78,610 new cases”, which is a massive jump from the 7-day moving average of 57,000 cases. Yet (for now) the non-living rate is still 115 per 7-day average, so my view holds up, to get to the trend of 161 deaths per 7 day average, a lot more people need to stop breathing. And in the setting of the 78,610 new cases (not specific Omicron), the setting needs to be a mortality rate of a lot (too tired to do the calculation), yet if the trend continues, the numbers shift, so there is a chance it might come to fruition, but we would need to see a continuing rise of new cases of 75,000 per day for close to a month, at which case hospitals will have collapsed and those in dire need can no longer be aided in any way. So at the current rate the mortality rate will have to increase by well over 50%, which is not logical, but with 30,000 new cases the stage might not be too unrealistic, although the original article gave us ‘Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April, say scientists’ requires the daily death rate to increase to 496 a day, up from 115 a day? That is a massive jump and that is why I questioned the numbers given to us. On the plus side, housing prices in London will drop dramatically, so there is always an upside to be found.

There is another side that I actually did not look at, the idea of “175,000 hospital admissions”, even over 5 months (Dec 1st – Apr 30th) that implies 1158 admissions a day, which is almost double of what is at present the case, And consider that the average length of stay in a hospital is 8-9 days for non ICU patients and 12-18 days when ICU is required. In that setting the numbers reveal that before the end of January all hospitals are beyond breaking point and no hospital in the UK will have any beds available with optional settings that London patients might have to be  be transferred to Wales, which is hilarious on a few levels. In the first their UK passport might be rejected, they will not speak the local language and after all the joke the people in Cardiff will not stomach people from England, at times life gives them a handle on humour.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER DANGER

The next is speculation and presumption. There are facts, but they were facts given to us based on what was, there is too much unknown with Omicron. 

Now consider the numbers given and the fact that the numbers are from decently reliable sources, but there is still a lot we do not know on Omicron. I still have massive doubts on the numbers given to us and there will not be any decent reliability until mid January. Yet the speed at which Omicron pushes forward and the amount of people who refuse to be vaccinated, and moreover the large amount of people who refuse to wear masks are now becoming danger factors in all this. 

When you consider the image, it might not mean much, but the percentages (seen elsewhere) are 90%, 70%, 5% and 1.5%. A stage where mandatory masks lower the dangers from up to 90% to 1.5% is a massive decrease and should not be ignored. Yes, you can decide to ignore it but when your family members start dying (become non-living) do not cry like a husky, or blame Medicare, NHS or whatever. You did this (too)! I still have doubts and question marks regarding the numbers given to us, but the stage of other elements were out in the open and even as Omicron is a mild version, if the spread continues as we saw yesterday there is every chance that the hospitals will collapse before February 2022 starts , so if you do not have a relative who is a medical trained person, feel free to reserve your urn or coffin, because this will get bad soon enough (I still doubt the fear mongering 50% increased dead people). Yet the numbers if continues will also mean that the mortality rate exploded because no more medical help was available. 

As far as I can tell there is no data model for me to predict that, too many unknown factors and before you start the blame game, if hospital staff does walk out, it is because of the stupid people attacking and blaming these exhausted medical people in the street (as we can see in loads of YouTube videos). 

I believe in the double check, I believe it was essential to do so and so far my views hold up, but they are under scrutiny of the explosion of cases that were not known when I wrote this and that is why I did the double check, in other news, there is also the ‘missed’ cases of reporting as ABC (Australia) gives us 14 hours ago ‘Omicron spread leads to UK record of 78,610 COVID-19 cases in single day’, yes the 78,610 is correct, but we have no idea HOW MANY of them are Omicron, there will be a decent amount of them (speculation) but in the end we do not know and until that is known there is a larger stage that comes to mind. If a person gets Alpha, Beta or Delta now. Is there a chance they might miss Omicron? This is an important question because it takes us back to 1796. Then English doctor Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were protected from smallpox. As such people got injected with the mild version (cowpox) to avoid and be protected from smallpox. (See https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html). The event was known to me (I had history in high school), but there could speculatively a case that a similar stage exists (I am not claiming it is). And scientists have made clear statements that previous covid infections may not protect against Omicron, which I tend to believe. You see, the other speculation is done on the premise of the past where was about a very different disease. So we need to be careful and rely on SCIENTISTS to give us the goods and it would really help if the media stops being a FEAR MONGER factor here. 

We have enough problems, it would be best for the media to remember that, because after whatever this was comes to a halt the people will (hopefully) DEMAND that some media outlets lose their 0% VAT rights (as they should not be regarded as newspapers). At that point we get editors crying like little Chihuahua’s that they have a right to expression, but expression and exploitation is not the same and Justice Leveson was clear bout that, was he not?

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

The media caper

I set the stage in an earlier article responding to CBC in ‘Six of one’, I set a few issues there and even as I did not oppose the Canadian view, the stage is a lot bigger. And what happens? To my surprise it is ABC News who gives us another angle, one I contemplated and dropped because it requires evidence. This they handed to me when the search tool gives us “Chinese developer Evergrande is likely to be in default, amid reports it has missed a final bond payment deadline, but markets are shrugging…” the article (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-08/evergrande-default-debt-developers-china/100682242) gives the goods, yet there is the stage. You see It is the search text we see (as above) and the added “but markets are shrugging…” is not ANYWHERE in the article.

The article gives a lot, but someone using the media is playing a game with all of us. A stage that is about the fine parts, about the innuendo. It is a lot more subtle then “Why are your boobs so big? Are you a free-diver or do you have a pneumonia?” There is a real chance that a collapse hitting investors for their $18,000,000,000 out there and the media plays games? Yes, you think this is trivial, and to some degree it is. But this stage happens EVERY day. It happens in all kinds of ways and it happens all over the field, but we keep slamming China and Saudi Arabia, all whilst we get a distorted view by the media and it overwhelms millions of people. 

Why does it bother me?
Well we have some serious issues and our votes are buttered by alternating and adjusted views that the media gives us. They claim to be informing us, yet they adhere to other voices and those voices decide what we see. To be honest I was a little surprised to see ABC on that stage. For the most, them and several other papers are not inclined to be that active, so it is a rare find. When we go to the ABC site, we get a little more “but markets are shrugging off the news amid stimulus from China’s central bank.” Yet the article has merely one mention of stimulus “China’s growth slowdown in 2014-15, and the large stimulus [that] drove the economy’s recovery after the COVID-19 shock early last year”, as such it is not “amid stimulus from China’s central bank”. It is also hindered, and the article’s reference to the central bank is a mere “to lower borrowing costs”, to be honest this is the first time I notice ABC in such an action, they tend to be above board all the time that I looked into matters, so this was a find, there are other media outlets that have a simpler approach to their reporting integrity as I personally see that. 

So is there no issue with Evergrande? Yes there is and when that companies implodes and defaults the damage in China and far beyond those borders will be massive. There is an added station that it will almost directly halts China’s economic growth and it will impact Chinese lives all over, one firm losing that much will have larger impacts all over China. So the news is correct, the setting is not a positive one, yet the search-line and the article shows that the media is playing a dangerous game and when people do wake up they will want their pound of flesh. And when the people will demand the names list of stakeholders, I wonder how long the delay will be and how quickly these stakeholders will run (for their lives) to the nearest airport. 

We see the stage of social media and “Deception is a distortion with an intention to mislead users, analysts, organisations, etc.” So when that gets dealt with, will someone also deal with the generic media? I doubt it, but I can hope. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media

Fake it till you break it

I have been twisting and turning on this. This is not really my cup of tea, so I was happy to let it slide by. But then three things happened. In the first there were two stories, there was actually a third one, but I could not retrieve it. Then there was a tweet. Apparently the Glasgow COP had dignitaries at the scene, as such well over a dozen cars were running on idle during THE ENTIRE DAY, so how is that for the environment? But I digress. It was the second article, the one starting with ‘Thunberg tells Glasgow protest politicians are pretending’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59116611) that pushed me on. You see, she is right and I will hand over what I personally believe to be evidence over to you and I will let you decide. The article gives us “She told fellow activists from “Fridays for Future” that change would not come from politicians at the summit but from individuals showing leadership. The Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior was sailing up the Clyde, with plans to dock near the conference venue”, the article is almost a day old, I had been fighting with myself on this for a day. So it is the first article that was the tide setter. The article ‘World leaders promise to end deforestation by 2030’ started the trouble. This link is an hour old, but there was an earlier story. This article is at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59088498. You see, if they were sincere about doing something, the promise would not be for 2030 when most of these losers would be out of office, it would realistically set to January 1st 2023, that would have been real, that would have been a decent mark towards some victory. But the greed driven need to capture whatever they can, mainly because some analyst in Wall Street seems to have given that deadline. So when we are given “warned a previous deal in 2014 had “failed to slow deforestation at all” and commitments needed to be delivered on” and no amount of posturing as is seen with “UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the global meeting in Glasgow, said “more leaders than ever before” – a total of 110 – had made the “landmark” commitment” is nothing more than a joke, a joke optionally forgotten by January 1st 2029, when most signatories are no longer in office and a landmark adjustment is made towards 2035, optionally 2038. I reckon that Greta Thunberg is right, they are merely pretending. I wonder how many of them have sold whatever they had at the coastline. So we can think whatever we want, but the person making the statement “end the role of humanity as nature’s conqueror, and instead become nature’s custodian” could be dead before that moment arrives. In this I find the response from Dr Nigel Sizer, the ecologist the most disappointing one “But maybe this is realistic and the best that they can achieve”, their best is not even close to acceptable, not in the cases we are seeing now. And in all this, I saw no commitment or actionable signs from China, the one who is still the alleged number one polluter. As far as some papers go, China made no commitments, one source gave us ‘no new commitments’, but so far (or as far as I can see) China hasn’t done anything in the old setting either. 

Where do we go from here?
I honestly do not know, the idea of culling the human population by 97.3% is still on the table as far as I can tell and if that happens, I will not be around for commentary, The super enabled will be part of the surviving 2.7% and in light of how drastic the situation might be, that is as good as it will get. And it is already starting. The Guardian gave us yesterday ‘Do not trust Brazil’s ‘greenwashing’ promises, say Amazon activists’, so the COP hasn’t even ended and the doubts are flying all over the field. So far it seems that a teenager named Greta Thunberg is seemingly a lot closer to the mark than any current or previous environmental editor in any newspaper. And when you realise that part, how much were the cost of meetings that go nowhere, because you the taxpayer paid for all that. And my skepticism is not unique. Elon Musk gave (via ABC News) the headline ‘Elon Musk offers $US6 billion to UN World Food Programme if it can prove it’ll end world hunger’, the UN, Environmental agencies, they have become the laughing stock for players in Wall Street play the delay game. Should you doubt that, consider the stage of full deforestation until 2030, that whilst an attempt was made in 2014, it failed and the so called critics with ‘it was voluntary’ is useless. It shows that governments need to fill their pockets, it is the need for greed and the setting where the population gets to One (see previous article). By 2019, 5 years after the ‘promise’ nearly all have failed. Russia and a few others weren’t part of this, but do they have to? If we cannot see the dangers we are facing it doesn’t matter what Russia does, we merely no longer deserve to live, hip hip hurrah to Wall Street. 

We can look at it from all the angles, but in the end it is all about fictive promises that will not be held by those in office when it counts, it will not set the stage of promises that are broken again and again. If they had set the promise towards January 1st 2023 when most would still be in office it is one thing, 2030 is just a joke, but as things go I will not live long enough to see that date come, so whomever is alive then, make sure that these politicians are held to account and if needed let EVERY newspaper print a page every day with the shame list of those who attended COP26 and were unable to keep their word. I reckon it will not happen, because it will stop business agreements and space for advertisements will be lost, and Wall Street wins again. 

Perhaps this will wake you up, in a stage of greed there is one winner, it is the ‘me-stage’ we face and that stage will not be defeated, it comes from the push and the reality that greed is eternal. 

P.S. WordPress still hasn’t fixed colours, I hope to find an alternative soon.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

A waste of space

Yes, some people are that, I believe that the tool ICIJ director Gerard Ryle is such a person (he will clim it is me). Yet how did I get there? That is important too. Those who read the previous articles will remember that I stated that a top-line display would give us the parts we initially needed. But no, after all this time, with 600 journalists at his back, Ryle never walked the walk. However I see ABC, the Guardian, BBC and others all do the motion of jabs, to create flames, to create click bitches. In a dying light they want to grab any digital dollar they can. Even the useless leader of the Democratic Party (President Joe Biden) via his administration gives us today “The Biden administration said it would “crack down on the unfair schemes that give big corporations a leg up” in the wake of the Pandora disclosures.” It is a pointless exercise in a waste of time, it is merely the prequel to something much worse.

You see the top-line would give us a better look at the “130 billionaires from 45 countries, including 46 Russian oligarchs. Bollywood actors, soccer stars, corrupt sports officials, a king’s lover, feuding princesses, movie directors and stars, supermodels, acclaimed designers and world-famous singers, 330 politicians and high-level public officials in more than 90 countries and territories, including 35 current and former country leaders” and this is linked to the even less useful quote “By some estimates 10 per cent of the world’s total economic output is parked in offshore financial centres, costing governments billions of dollars in lost revenue” 

Why is this?
The top-line would give us where the impact is. The 130 billionaires? You see there are 165 in Dubai and they are in the 0% bracket. I stated the dangers two days ago. Then from all these numbers, how many are in which nation, ho many are governmental versus non-governmental. When we see those numbers, we will likely see a created a storm in a teacup. 

And this is linked to the first setting proving that Gerard Ryle is a useless and optionally corrupt tool. “The source of the documents hasn’t been revealed to media partners but made it clear to the ICIJ he wanted the public to see where dirty money is really flowing. Ryle says the source had two conditions for leaking the documents. “First of all the source wanted anonymity. I presume for safety reasons,” he says.” Presume my ass! When we investigate the sources we see that some have well above decent protection, in my view there are only two players involved here, the CIA and the NSA. Both Russian and Chinese investigations would stopping their local laundry, as such there would be nothing on oligarchs outside of Russia. 

I believe this all to be a well managed (speculative) ruse. When it all comes out, we will get a flame of ‘tax the rich’ and that is what that useless democratic leader needs, his land is BANKRUPT and when the default hits grabbing (not taxing) whatever the American billionaires have is on the short list, reparations come later and if it all goes to shit the politicians will run for cover in any nation that will put up with them (Australia and UK). 

And when you truly read the articles you will see statements like “the documents reportedly tied prime minister Andrej Babis to a $22 million estate near Cannes, France. Speaking in a television debate, Babis, who was a billionaire before he entered politics, denied any wrongdoing.” 600 journalists and not one has added evidence of wrongdoing, merely a billionaire doing what he is allowed to do, buy a house in the south of France and France is not even a 0% tax land, so where are the incriminating papers? 

All the flames I see are about people no one cares about (the King of Jordan), yes Jordanians care about him and that is OK, people in the UK less so. And the truckloads of articles are just that small jabs to keep the readers angry, but no one is taking too much notice of “ICIJ director Gerard Ryle says the Pandora Papers reveal that some international leaders who could tackle offshore tax avoidance have themselves secretly moved money and assets beyond the reach of tax and law enforcement authorities as their citizens struggle” as such I reply “Gerard you fuck, why did the press not do enough over 30 years to make politicians tackle tax laws?” And in HIS statement we see ‘could’ and ‘secret’, but if a person buys a house in Monaco or Dubai they can have money there, it would be legal and it would be tax exempt. You (as I personally see it intentionally) overlooked that part, there is also the Caymans and a few other places, but it does not match the need of the governmental hacker who got into 14 systems, 5 of them had good security, and you could have seen that from day one, but you need click bitches, you need digital revenue and you need to make sure you are not obsolete. So where is that part of the equation?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

The waste of overrun

The BBC gave us news today, the news is open to interpretation. This is not their fault, but it calls for a larger setting. This is seen in “In solidarity with France, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has questioned whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia”, now I never regarded Ursula to be a useful tool, in this my setting for that was seen in 2019 when we were given by Politico (and a few others) “Ursula von der Leyen is planning a new career as European Commission chief in Brussels, but the German defence minister still has questions to answer back home”, so she is like that physician running from location to location, to avoid a malpractice suit. The quote “Last November, she told the German parliament there had been “mistakes” in how external consultants were hired and said “this never should have happened.” But she defended the use of such consultants, saying they had been required to undertake a huge overhaul of the ministry.” Yes, there are always mistakes, there are always miscommunications, that happens, and in this we can have all kinds of directions on those consultants, even when they are tools or stakeholders for others. Yet when we return to the reason why France is angry “Australia cancelled a $37bn (£27bn) deal with a French company building diesel-powered submarines, and, what’s more, France – a traditional Western ally – found out about the new pact only a few hours before the public announcement” we need to consider another source. Business Insider and a few other sources gave us “France’s deal to build Australia’s new submarines was dogged by years of problems”, as well as “The project to replace Australia’s aging Collins-class submarines was supposed to cost $US36.5 ($AU50) billion, Politico reported, but the cost had nearly doubled by this year to an estimated $US66 ($AU91) billion”, so we see a cost overrun of nearly 100%, and so far the BBC and a few other sources are extremely willing not to mention that. If I go to my boss and tell him that something was 10% more expensive, I will get fired and I will not be able to get a job for years to come, the French double the cost and they are heralded as victims? By the way, the more advanced Los Angeles class a nuclear powered submarine is less than $2,000,000,000, as such the cost overrun will pay for 15 submarines, as such, did anyone in France (or Strasbourg for that matter) do the math? So cancelling the 12 French submarines at $66,000,000,000 will get us 15 at 50% of the price and in this is anyone surprised that the deal was cancelled? The fact that the BBC is also willing to overlook a few matters in this calls for a little vetting in the BBC. Now, should the BBC find debatable evidence of the ‘evidence’ that Business Insider and ABC gave us, that is fine, we can take that into consideration. Yet it is odd that such a large setting is overlooked by France and the BBC, not to mention some former excuse for a German defence minister. 

And in this, is anyone paying attention? Even as France has its idea’s and shakes on ‘Gaullist’ temperament and dreams of greatness, it does help if they can keep their builders in a stage of competitiveness, which does mean that cost overruns that approach 100% is totally out of bounds. In this the US is not absent of such settings either, but to get a diesel submarine at twice the price of a nuclear powered submarine, all whilst the diesel version lasts 18,000 miles and the nuclear one can travel non-stop for three decades is a bit of a stretch. Yet the cost overruns are left outside of plenty of newspapers. The ideology of non-nuclear is fine, but when it comes with a cost overrun of 100% we need to ask questions and the news seemingly is not.

This is a different stage, even as the USS Zumwalt failed all its objectives and reached the unique objective of being the ugliest dinghy in US naval history, the US nuclear submarines like the Los Angeles class has proven itself and is also a nice looking vessel. People go out to the shoreline to watch submerged submarine races hoping to see the shadow of an LA class vessel, it is a spectator sport.
As such the Naval builders got the job done and then some. Especially in an age where we look for cheaper solutions, the idea that any submarine needs to refuel thrice a century is a bit overlooked as well. 

So whilst we might show some level of understanding on the sentiments of French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian who called this “a stab in the back” it needs to be state that le petit Jean-Yves needs to take a look at cost overruns and set the proper tone to that side of the sliding scale. In addition to this, the ideas of 12 submarines needing refuelling every 18,000 miles is also a setting for debate, which is not on France mind you. 

So as the clock passed midnight and I complete my 2,000th article I will do a small victory dance after which I will try to break my record of being the loudest snorer in the nation (we all have goals). We all have records to break and France might do the same by trying to limit their cost overrun.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military

And so it begins

We all have sides, and we all have sides we tend to look less at. There is no exclusion, no even me. I try to always take the bigger picture in view, but at times I too fail to do that and today might be such a time. So if you have objections, you might be right. It all started a little over an hour ago when I took notice of ‘CNN denies Australians access to its Facebook pages, cites defamation risk’ (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/cnn-quits-facebook-australia-citing-defamation-risk-2021-09-29/), on one side I am in a state of ‘Who the fuck cares?’, on the other side I am wondering why someone would take the stage to this degree? You see, we take notice of “after a court ruled that publishers can be liable for defamation in public comment sections and the social media firm refused to help it disable comments in the country”, so what happens when the public comments commence in http://www.cnn.com? The newsagent does have a website and lets face it, social media is not a place for news, it is a place for flames to bolster engagement, as such the part of “the social media firm refused to help it disable comments in the country” makes perfect sense. News leads to flames, flames leads to engagement and engagement leads to additional advertisement revenue which is the bread and butter of Facebook. I for one do not consider Facebook any kind of place for news, and if there is any, it is not place to comment there, I have a blog that does that and if there is a real reason to directly offer issues, they have an editorial and they have an email address (which tends to lead to the circular archive system). Flames are not now and mostly not ever useful, it only propagates the limelight of ones own ego.

So as we take notice of “defamation lawyers accusing Australia of not keeping up with technological change and noting the contrast with the United States and Britain where laws largely protect publishers from any fallout from comments posted online”, my issue here is that the posters of comments are also absent of accountability and there is a problem there. With “Australia is currently reviewing its defamation laws but in the meantime, other global news organisations, especially those that feel they can easily live without an Australian Facebook audience” we do see a truth, there is no need for ANY newsagent to be on Facebook, but that stifles the revenue of Facebook, does it not? And it is true, the world does not need the 25,000,000 people in Australia. Facebook has close to 3,000,000,000 members (read; near active accounts), so 25 million are not much of a dent, but it is a beginning. There is an upside for all newspapers to move away from Facebook, there is a downside as well. You see one place to flame all is a setting that rarely ever will lead to anything positive, but the newsagents all tend to think that it leads to revenue and for a few at times it might but there is a reason why I check WWW.BBC.CO.UK, theguardian.com, www.ft.com, www.reuters.com, www.aljazeera.com on a nearly daily basis and there are a few more (ABC, SBS, Arab News), you see the papers are still in levels of problems, the papers have to deal with bias, political siding, stakeholders and a few more and as I see the same article on a few sites I get a better view of the issue (that is when they do not directly copy and paste from Reuters). But I digress, it is about CNN and here we see that Reuters have two more gems to offer. The first is “We are disappointed that Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue around current events among its users,” this from my point of view two issues, one is that Facebook is not a place for credible journalism, no matter how you slice it. Too many are in a stage to get traction and visitor revenue through flaming and through the incitement of flaming. And the second part is ‘productive dialogue’, there is no way in my mind that ANYTHING on Facebook will lead to that unless it is a closed circle of personal friends and family. The second gem is “defamation lawyers accusing Australia of not keeping up with technological change and noting the contrast with the United States and Britain”. It is a gem because it raises a few issues. It is not about technological change, it is about accountability. And we see close to nothing on that front from either the USA or the UK for that matter. There is also a larger stage that adhering to this on a much larger stage is a problem. Even though I will oppose the news mummy (Rupert Murdoch) on nearly every front, because I believe that he lost the plot on news and he is too much about flames and revenue (which is not entirely wrong for him). In this, the danger of flames depending issues and people, the danger becomes the house catches fire and that is not a good thing (newspapers burn really well). 

Until there is a real stage where the people on social media get hauled towards accountability this stage will not change and Facebook does not want change. The newspapers are close to zero in their consideration. It is about engagement to sell advertisement and so far Facebook has the upper hand. This is not meant good or bad, it is their business model and it works for them, yet over the years we see media look at places like Facebook and they all wonder if they can tap into this, First Google search, now Facebook and soon they will move beyond Twitter. Where next? Who can tell. Yet the Murdochs and Murdoch wannabe’s will continue because their newspapers are founded on the need to entice the people to flame, they have been at it for a long time in many places. So when Australia held Facebook liable Facebook closed the tap and they are entitled doing so. As such it is not “Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue”, it is “Posters need to be held accountable for what they post, including posters of comments” and the law in many many nations are not ready or prepared to do that. Too many places rely on flames of all kinds. It is time to recognise that part of the equation.

In this consider a UK setting. In the first we see a statement (wiki) “The Daily Mirror, founded in 1903, is a British national daily tabloid-sized newspaper that is considered to be engaged in tabloid-style journalism”, here we see two parts ‘newspaper’, as well as ‘engaged in tabloid-style journalism’. Yet in another source we see “largely sensationalist journalism (usually dramatised and sometimes unverifiable or even blatantly false)” and it is a stage we see far too often. So in addition we have an image.

With the text “Big Brother’s Grace and Mikey expecting fourth child and say people think they are mad”, so it is a story about people, a woman who willingly received a penis into her vagina with a long term gift (36 weeks later). Now, I am happy for her, but is it news? This is not royalty, or people with global impact. And this is on the FRONT PAGE of the Daily Mirror (website), this is news? And here the problem starts, we agree that CNN is real news but the ledge that separates them from a place like the Daily Mirror is too small, moreover on places like Facebook too many people cannot tell the difference. In all this the one element (not) overlooked is the need for (actual) Newspapers to find ways to grow revenue, I do not oppose that, the problem is that other ways need to be found and in This they will find a better venue talking to places like Google then Facebook and that is before we see a new social media side in Amazon, because that option is mere inches away. 

When the people start realising that Facebook lost the edge is had, when they realise that true social media comes from places like https://cocoon.com Facebook will get hit after hit and there the people will be able to set a stage for what some spokespeople call ‘productive dialogue’, Google might have shut down its plus side, but it opens the realm for Amazon 

So it begins and it did not start in Australia, it did not start in censorship it started with the realisation that there is nothing to be gotten from flaming, there almost never was and that realisation will cause the loss of revenue in plenty of places.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

The house advantage

It was early in the morning when ABC alerted me to news, this is not new. It happens all the time. And as I was glancing over the text, one little bit took my attention. It was ‘The West is playing the wrong game’ and it alerted me to reread a little more closely this time. As such, the article called ‘Despite what Joe Biden says, we’re not approaching a Cold War’ (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-22/joe-biden-cold-war-language-china-authoritarian-super-power/100482238). There we see a lot, several arts were known to me, but a few ones, like “the Rand Corporation think tank pointed out in a study in 2018, there is nothing straightforward about China’s role in the world. China’s engagement with the global order, it says, is a “complex and contradictory work in progress”” was not entirely new, but it was also a little unexpected. Apart from the fact that the paper is well over two years old (making us all wonder what the fuck Donald Trump was doing), the other side is less shown. If we accept “complex and contradictory work” I have to ask what on earth was driving the US and the UK to drive billions in revenue straight out of their coffers and in the hands of China? The initial steps between China and Saudi Arabia are now in an escalated stage of acceptance, implying that China is set to add $6BN-$24BN in revenue to its coffers whilst the US, UK and EU will lose it. So why be that stupid? 

So to emphasise, we see “the rules of Wei-Qi point out, it is about “breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting”. This concept is known as shi — creating a strategic advantage”, we see but we miss the line. It is simple, UK, US, AUS and China will play a game of monopoly and during the preparation the players are all told: “They need to bring their own dice, two dice are needed, so that they can throw 12”. The three players bring their two six sided dice, whilst China brings. 

China gained a black letter advantage of 100%, and this is the game, this is actually happening now, although it is not a game of monopoly. So as we take notice of “the Rand corporation study argued, it should look to “hedge” China’s power. The goal, it said, “should be to shape the context so that it is resistant to Chinese coercion and aggression”.” And it is here that the Rand corporation misses the goal, because they looked at enemies foreign, and forgot to weigh the actions towards the corporate enemies that were domestic. The Huawei bashers that engaged politicians without producing any valid evidence, the corporate short cutters like SolarWinds and several others and the digital organised criminals that found a scapegoat wherever they could and they all shaped the game into something they could use, yet the essential need what it needed to do was missed by well over a mile. And it is one of the final parts “it also requires preserving US power and strengthening alliances as a counterweight to Chinese influence. It requires more than just military might or more powerful submarines”, in this the Rand organisation is absolutely correct, but the game is already shaped in way the wrong ways and that will hit them in several ways. One of these ways is seen in “strengthening alliances”, but how is the question. That answer is not easily given as corporations and media rely on stakeholders and they answer to no one, more often the goals of these stakeholders who cater to corporations is almost totally opposite of what governments need to happen and that is also shaping the game in other ways. 

And in this we see the two elements that are at the very end. The first is “this is not the Cold War 2.0”, the second one is “Xi may prove to be destructive, and confrontation may be unavoidable. That’s not yet the game he’s playing”. You see, as I personally see it, this is Cold War 3.1b, corporations are an active player in hedging their needs and the needs of their board rooms, which comes with the notion that Xi might be destructive, mainly because Chinese firms are under attack, under direct governmental attack, because the corporations demanded it from THEIR politicians. And in all this no one adhered to any rules of evidence. There was no evidence and these board members were too busy to test the stamina of body parts when constantly exposed to the satisfying need of models and cheerleaders. So whilst they were adhering to personal tests, China took the time to develop 5G to a degree that outclassed them in a few ways and now corporations need all kinds of adjustments to keep revenue, even though they took the blue pill and Viagraded themselves out of the game. 

The house advantage works, but it also changes the game and I personally believe that the Rand corporation forgot about that element, especially when that element has grown way out or proportions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

How stupid are we?

Yes, let’s come with a question that optionally offends us all straight from the barn, because we deserve to be asked the hard questions. I have been accused of being ‘all’ pro Saudi, all ‘pro’ China and why? You see, two players (US and UK) have a product, OK the USA less so, if you ignore 900 flaws and that would be fine, but then the US gives the KSA ban after ban and for no good reason, merely a morel approach whilst the opponents of the KSA are not held to ANY standard. So, if I see an option to make 3.75% from $11,000,000,000 I will do so. Australia is not in a war with China. Now, as a commonwealth citizen I would have preferred to sell the KSA the UK solution, but here we see that the UK is as stupid as the US and they all listen to the wrong people and they are now losing out on billions, billions THEIR government coffers desperately need (the US needs them as well, but I remain a commonwealth citizen, so fuck ‘em). And China has a product and personally so does Russia, but in that equation I would prefer to ‘sell’ the Chinese solution. There are no morals, this was all about common sense (and me getting a few coins in light of an upcoming retirement event).

Now was it good, was it bad? It is neither, a buying party needs their nation safer (KSA) and the USA and UK have an issue with that, so along comes a valid alternative (China) and so I take a gander being the courier here. 

That does not mean that others are not to be held by standards and that is where we are. You see Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/9/15/what-could-an-evergrande-debt-default-mean-for-china-and-beyond) is giving us the stage where we see ‘What could an Evergrande debt default mean for China and beyond?’ And the stage is not a small one, the debt is now at $300,000,000,000. It is larger than the national budget for quite a few nations. I am wondering, was no one awake when we were confronted with the utter stupidity of a place called Interserve Plc? Oh, and only earlier this year we were fed ‘Interserve Construction suffers £108m loss’, and that was not even the worst. In March we get ‘Losses from Interserve’s energy-from-waste disaster top £300m’, did no one catch on and after we had the Lehman brothers, the Dutch SNS bank who relied on ‘We are too big to fail, we now see Ever Grande and the risk of running short on $300,000,000,000 which looks like a thousand times worse than Interserve, now Tilbury Douglas and the hard times are nowhere near over. Yes, the board of directors will fill their pockets on the way out and I reckon that Hui Ka Yan and his $11,000,000,000 plus fortune will not face the danger of hunger any day soon. Now, whatever China does is up to China, yet I believe that the setting of “Evergrande currently has 1,300 real estate projects in 280 cities in China” shows that there is a larger need for governments to step in, especially when we are confronted with “the real estate developer may not be able to make the interest payments on some of its $300bn in liabilities next week and could also miss a principal payment on at least one of its loans”, I personally never believed that there is anything like ‘Too big to fail’, just offer some of these contracts and the payments to their competitors and see what happens. So even as Hui Ka Yan believed in the alternative Tom Cruise with “I feel the need, the need for greed” there is a larger station, we do know that governments tend to be a lot more stupid then people, but there are well over half a dozen examples of stupidity, did no one catch on? And here we need to take notice that people are on average as stupid as the average of the total amount of stupid people. Yet governments and companies doe not share that. They are as stupid as the sum of all the people working for them and that tends to be a lot worse. According to Deutsche Welle it is already there. With “Some 1.5 million people have put deposits on new homes that have yet to be built” (at https://www.dw.com/en/evergrande-why-the-chinese-property-giant-is-close-to-collapse/a-59175953) we see a setting where a place like San Diego, California where every person in that city loses ALL of their lifetime savings, it is that bad and we tend to wonder what will any government do, I wonder how these people will not lose everything. This is not some collection of shareholders, this is a stage where 1,500,000 people become optionally homeless overnight, it is a lot worse and it could hit the Chinese economy in a few ways and as some people sit hiding behind their dark shades, nodding and state “We feel the need, the need for greed”, all whilst the cadavers of circumstance pile up. When will governments learn that there is a need for oversight, especially when the impact is THAT big. So whilst we take notice of “Evergrande has expanded into other areas of the economy, including food, life insurance, tv/film and leisure”, can anyone explain to me why a property giant was even allowed in food and life insurance? Never mind the bollocks (aka: the 122nd largest group in the world by revenue, according to the 2021 Fortune Global 500 List), too many are heralding and applauding stupidity and greed. As such I feel perfectly fine trying to be the courier between two parties grabbing a decent coin in the process. Oh, and as the Chinese government is seeing what is rolling their way, the KSA deal might be one that diminishes the impact of Evergrande, so whilst we see three people (Biden, Johnson and Morrison) plot to become a new world power by handing nuclear submarines to Australia, all whilst we know that this is merely setting a stage to strut around like peacocks, no one is looking how much more Australian defence budgets will get with nuclear submarines in the mix, all whilst they still need to realise the impact of the F-35 folly. As such I wonder who is aware of what will be left to other people past 2035 when the defence budget will require a 45%-61% top up. I believe in defence as much as the next person, so whilst we accept “Last month the Australian government signed a $50 billion contract with the French company DCNS to build 12 new submarines”, do you think that such a contract will not come without cost? Yet here too (source: ABC News) we are told that “that program has come with delays and blowouts, and would have delivered conventional diesel-electric submarines, like the Collins Class”, so at least there is a decent reason and it makes sense, but still, there is a larger concern, not the coming of nuclear subs, but the realisation that Australia has an antiquated submarine stage and it does need to take care of 2,137,000 meters of beach front property, something needs to be done and that is good, I do not object.

Australian Navy too small

I merely wonder (at times) why it took this long in the first place. When we dig deeper we see why the US wants it because the foundation of nuclear submarines need to be build there, which makes me a bit hesitant after the failures that the F-35 (with 900 design flaws) as well as the failure that the Zumwalt class represents (at $21,000,000,000), the US wants to shout that this will be a success, but I have concerns and fortunately I do have a degree in ships engineering (which I never used). The larger stage is seen but so far governments are seemingly deaf as their irresponsible teenagers (aka politicians) are living off someone else’s credit card and there is the rub, there is the danger. They all live by the rule “We are too big to fail” and China is seemingly no different, its corporate greed is just like all the other greed driven players. So whilst a few players are trying to push the borders, we need to consider what happens when someone in that pool of overspending delusional players panics, because that will be the ball game when things escalate and explode in all our faces. 

How stupid are we to not loudly protest as corporations and governments remain absent in actions, especially when there is a $300,000,000,000 issue? Why was there no action when the danger was a mere $5,000,000,000? Even for China 300 billion is too much and when did we see a positive outcome when that much money was lost? I do not remember any positive impact. Not in 2004, not in 2007 and this time around it will be no different. Yet when the amount is that big it will impact a lot more people, all over the globe. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Why is an official like a quilt?

The answer is simple, they both cover up. And it is this part that is the larger stage. The Reuters article reports mere hours ago in the article ‘India reports 3,998 COVID deaths after state corrects its data’ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india/india-reports-3998-covid-deaths-after-state-corrects-its-data-idUSKBN2ER0BF) gives us “India reported its highest death toll in a month on Wednesday – at nearly 4,000 – after its richest state reconciled its death count with 3,509 previously unreported fatalities, the health ministry said”. This is entertaining on a few levels. Most of the media passes this by, it passes this by even as I found in my article ‘The worst is yet to come’ on September 6th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/06/the-worst-is-yet-to-come/) where we see “In the Coronavirus numbers we see yesterday that a new number is reached, 300,474 new cases, a new height. We are only one day away from the US with 3% of its population with the Coronavirus, 50% of all cases are in the USA, Brazil and India (based on the numbers), yet there are several indicators that we aren’t even close to knowing how many cases India actually has. Even as ABC gave us last month ‘India’s biggest slum has so far nailed coronavirus. Here’s how they did it’, I am not convinced and the data is siding with me.” Which shows that I was aware of the faulty Indian numbers almost a year ago, so to see now “The ministry did not give a reason but authorities have in the past attributed other instances of deaths going unreported to administrative errors, before the mistakes are discovered and the numbers appear in official data”, yes it is nice that Reuters takes ‘unreported to administrative errors’ as read, but is not asking the deeper questions in any way of form. We get it, what is reported is what is given. But the numbers have not made sense for close to a year and others have reported on the matter and I wrote about that too, but what is the point to fighting a sickness when governments are hiding the real deal, the real impact and are optionally masking THEIR statistics. As I stated before, India might be the most visible but I doubt that they are the only one. 

So when we are treated to “Last month, the poor northern state of Bihar raised its death toll by more than 5,000 in a day when it included some unrecorded data. The sudden appearance of previously unrecorded deaths has lent weight to suspicion that India’s overall death tally is significantly more than the official figure.” And that is not all, consider that 5.000 death were unrecorded, if that is the case, the setting that 100,000 sick are unrecorded is equally a danger. When we see India at present with 31,216,337 cases whilst making the claim that 30,390,687 recovered, we see the difference should be the active cases and the dead, now consider that the active cases (as reported) are 407,139. Now consider that they are off by 100,000, do you now see that India has a much larger problem? This is not merely a case of ‘administrative errors’, I think it is a lot more and I feel certain that there are several Indian government officials trying to hide the setting that they are in over their heads. 

That part is reinforced by ABC 5 hours ago with ‘India’s COVID-19 deaths could be 10 times higher than the official toll, according to research’, the article (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-21/india-covid-deaths-could-be-in-the-millions/100310602) gives us “India’s excess deaths during the coronavirus pandemic could be a staggering 10 times the official toll, according to the most comprehensive research yet on the ravages of the virus in the country”, I personally never considered that the numbers were off by 1000%, I did it all in my head, so I must have misplaced a comma. Yet the stage is now that we see a much larger stage, a much larger impact and not just for India. In this we see a larger premise, and if I need to be the optimistic one, when we see all the anti-vaxxer protests, it is fine by me. If they get sick they will die and I can get a more decent job (until each of the other three buy my 5G IP), so one mans needs will be filled by the death of someone else. That is how the world turns, but I wonder how the world reacts to these thousands of administrative errors?

What do you think?

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science

Choices by media

We all have them, we all have choices, believes and convictions. The media has them as well and they are entitled to them. I never objected to their choices, I merely want them to have accountability towards their actions. To kick this off, I need to confess. I had difficulties believing Bill Cosby was guilty. I went with what TV fed me, his character, his demeanour and I will admit, I was taken in by all of it. I saw the jokes, I saw the accusations and when we got ‘Bill Cosby released from prison after sex conviction overturned’ my mind went to different locations. I am unsure. Yes, I accept “The court ruled that the prosecutor who brought the case was bound by his predecessor’s agreement not to charge Cosby”, it does not make him innocent, yet why would any prosecutor come with an “agreement not to charge Cosby”? From a legal point of view it strongly implies that the prosecutor had no evidence to begin with. If the evidence was there, that promise would never be voiced by any prosecutor. And this got me thinking on Kevin Spacey. When we see “Kevin Spacey accuser who tried to sue anonymously is dismissed from case” (source: ABC) and we are given “A US judge has dismissed all claims by one of two men suing actor Kevin Spacey over alleged sexual misconduct in the 1980s, after the plaintiff refused to identify himself publicly” that is a voiced 50% loss, 50% went out the window just like that. And that is merely the beginning. The media is now in a much larger stage, a stage of denial and a stage of their big mouths that could land them an 8 figure settlement, optionally 9 figure, but that is a stretch. You see, at the height of the ‘House of Cards’ he was cast out, thrown away and that show was the talk of the town. Now we see the impact of the media and their need for a pound of flesh. So when we consider ABC giving us “The other plaintiff, actor Anthony Rapp, said he was 14 in 1986 when Spacey engaged in an unwanted sexual advance with him during a party at the actor’s home. Spacey, 61, has denied CD’s and Rapp’s sexual misconduct accusations. His lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment”. Did it happen?  I do not know, but in legal settings evidence matters, flaming opinions do not. Yet for an issue to wait 20 years until Kevin Spacey has his golden moment sounds off by a lot. And is no one asking what a 14 year old person is doing at a party? There might be a valid reason, there might not be, yet the lack of information in the media makes me wonder. A media that is too much about flaming and too little about informing. So I am not upset with Netflix when we see “Spacey starred in Netflix’s House of Cards before Netflix severed its ties with him after sexual misconduct accusations surfaced in 2017”, Netflix had to protect what was theirs, and there was damage, but in all this the media flamed that damage and when we see “the man known in court papers as “CD” said revealing his identity would cause “sudden unwanted attention” and be “simply too much for him to bear””, I have an issue, this could be a blackmailer hoping to cash in, ‘could be’ being the operative part. More important when we consider ‘10.83 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him’, a simple foundation and when I see “Peter Saghir, a lawyer for CD, declined to comment on Thursday” I wonder what had gotten into Peter Saghir. It is speculative of me to think that the case with just Anthony Rapp was too thin to proceed. Yet the media is not looking at that picture or any picture that has the shown image as a picture in picture. And it is Reuters who gives us “Peter Saghir, a lawyer for C.D. and Rapp, declined to comment on Thursday. He has suggested that C.D. might pursue an appeal if his case were severed from Rapp’s”, so he is willing not to be ‘anonymous’ when Rapp is off the charter? It gives us a larger stage that the Rapp case is thin, optionally too thin. And that is when Kevin Spacey will made the 8 or 9 figure claim, he lost that much and that is the ball game and when the media gets that much of a claim, the game changes, the wolves become crying chihuahua’s trying to hold on as much of that money as possible, in a stage where every penny counts, losing over a billion if not well over ten times that much pennies will make them suffer, and with all the BS I have watched over the last decade, the media could do with a little suffering. 

Some people are all about Bill Cosby and Kevin Spacey, I am on the fence because we are lands of law, evidence is part of that and when the media is all about emotional flames, it tends to be the setting for a lack of evidence. Yes, this is speculative, but in that I have been proven right a lot more often than I was proven wrong. 

So what is next? 
When you see the flamed accusations against Spacey and Cosby, all whilst the media is going with excuse after excuse against Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of dead media mogul Robert Maxwell. It seems that the media seems to be a protective shield for anyone with strong ties to media. So when you see the slams against these two gentlemen and we see ‘SHAMED Ghislaine Maxwell was left “broken” by her “horrendous childhood”’, ‘Ghislaine Maxwell’s prison cell flooding with raw sewage’ and more, yes she is so sad and so broken, but these people cannot afford a ‘$1 million home paid for in cash’, can they? When you have enough money to get a “4,300-square-foot house sits on 156 acres of land, at the top of a half-mile driveway” (source: NBC News), things do not add up. Especially as her daddy forfeited (read: default) on £50,000,000 in loans and went yachting. Yes, poor, poor little Ghislaine. 

Do you see the problem? The media has two measures and none are holding evidence too high and in all this we become the flock that relies on flamed materials, too often devoid of evidence.

So when you see this and we reconsider the hack (Kaseya) and now we add Government Security Info (at https://www.govinfosecurity.com/kaseya-ransomware-attack-this-dramatic-escalation-a-16996), I wonder what is true (I really do wonder) they give us “There’s one big question that hasn’t been answered, says Tom Kellermann, head of cybersecurity strategy at VMware Carbon Black. “Who gave REvil the zero-day?””, yet Fortune dot com gives us “The Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure said it had alerted Kaseya to multiple vulnerabilities in its software that were then used in the attacks, and that it was working with the company on fixes when the ransomware was deployed”. So one side gives us ‘zero-day’ the other gives us ‘multiple vulnerabilities’, as well as ‘it had alerted Kaseya’. Yet no one will give us how long this was known by Kaseya, how long the issue was out there and for how long Kaseya did too little in protecting their customers? The media is on both slots and the lack of voiced investigations are staggering, so when will we get the real deal, the state of matters drowning in facts and evidence? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media