Albanese | Lawrence van Rijn

We like them in one way and we usually dislike them when they are applied on ones self. So here I was (several hours ago) and I saw an article pass by. The title looked OK, but the content was anything nothing like that. So lets take a look at the article. It is Solidarity (at https://solidarity.net.au/highlights/the-sordid-world-of-australia-and-the-uae/) where we see ‘The sordid world of Australia and the UAE’ and it starts with my first question ‘What is sordid?’ It means “involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives”, as I see it, both the UAE and Australia are as far as I know not involved in immoral (or dishonourable) actions. But lets give the writer a chance. Perhaps this is something I never knew (not really). So we get the first setting. “The Albanese Government’s rush to give “defensive military support” to the dictatorial United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the Persian Gulf” as I expected it goes downhill from the start. First there is “dictatorial United Arab Emirates (UAE)” dictatorial means “typical of a ruler with total power”, as such the article is a lie from the start. The United Arab Emirates is for a better term an elective semi-constitutional monarchy and it is governed by President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and it has Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan as vice presidents. Do you really think that this is a nation with a ruler with total power? So, we see in several descriptions that “The UAE is an authoritarian state but generally liberal by regional standards.” I see it as an oxymoron (not the same as an American), a ruler with total power and liberal by regional standards? It seems that the labels do not match correctly. I see it that there is some authoritarian settings due to Islamic law, but unlike Saudi Arabia the UAE has 74.5% Islam (official), 12.9% Christianity, 6.2% Hinduism, 3.2% Buddhism, 1.3% Agnosticism and 1.9% other. It is my speculative guess that the 1.9% are britons who identified as either Hogwarts students or Jedi’s (but that is my weird sense of humor acting up).

So then we are given “On 8 March, on the ABC’s Insiders program, when asked to which country would Australia send “military assistance”, Nine journalist Peter Hartcher, responded, “I think the most likely candidate is the UAE because the Australia-UAE relationship has very quietly involved military co-operation for a very long time. “The Al Minhad airbase, which was hit by an Iranian missile a couple of days ago, is where the Australian Air Force operates from in the Middle East.”Indeed six days earlier, Defence Minister Richard Marles was pressed by journalists to admit that Iranian drones had hit the Al Minhad Air Base (AMAB) and that there were no casualties.” It is followed by “The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra defence think-tank, wrote that the CEPA saw “the elevation of the UAE–Australia relationship to a strategic partner”. “In 2024, Australia’s non-oil trade with the UAE reached US$4.2 billion.” It continued, “Meanwhile, two-way investment stock stood at $US16 billion by the end of 2024, with $US3 billion of direct investment in Australia from the UAE.”” As I see it, a mutually beneficial investment setting, one that could be beneficial to Australia and deliver optional hardware to the UAE.

Then we get “The UAE’s military purchases from Australia are being used to vie for control in war-torn Sudan. In Sudan, Russia is on the UAE’s side, while a range of sub-imperial Middle East powers are lined against it, such as Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye. In 2015, the UAE had lined up with Saudi Arabia to carve up Yemen. But by late 2025 they had fallen out with each other.” So where is the evidence of that? It is a simple question. The story was written by Tom Orsag and as I see it, just another rebel without a clue. As labels go, that is the one I am wielding. It is another side of labels. I don’t know this Tom Orsag, never met him and from what I read, I don’t like him much. My reasoning? “In 2015, the UAE had lined up with Saudi Arabia to carve up Yemen.” I might not be the most political grape in the cluster, but as I see it, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE got in this to deal with the Houthi terrorists. I do know they had a falling out, but I know too little on the Yemen situation to give a Rin down on that, what I do know is that both were against the Houthi terrorists. In finale we get “Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem had shared a “torture video” with Epstein. The UAE is among the corrupt Arab ruling classes circling Gaza as part of the Trump’s ghoulish “Board of Peace”.” Where is the evidence that “The UAE is among the corrupt Arab ruling classes circling Gaza”? It is a simple enough question. The setting of “Arab ruling classes circling Gaza” might be correct, Largely the UAE is Muslim, that doesn’t make them corrupt. For one, Christianity is the most corrupt religion in history (as far as I can tell), so what is this article beyond setting the readers against the UAE? Lets be clear the UAE has become one of the most powerful investment houses for all within the last 50 years. Everyone wants to be there and everyone wants to strike it rich, from investors to influencers. They all have an axe to grind with the proverbial profit setting and Iran isn’t helping any. As such I created military IP and gave it to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE. I take delight into destroying the infrastructure of anyone attacking civilian targets. And as I see it, harbours and railways are excellent ways to cripple the IRGC, bombing the 10 refineries might also help as they create income for Iran. The one fact that I can prove of is “Last October, Albanese visited the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi, to sign the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). This signing coincided with the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries.” It is also a given fact, so that helps, but there is too little evidence and too much conjecture, which means “conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information”, a setting that people like Tom Orsag like, they add their own conclusions to this and sell it as ‘journalism’, I admit this isn’t entirely incorrect. However, I believe more facts are required. So where did he get “Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem had shared a “torture video” with Epstein”? One of the other conspiracy theorists? As far as I know Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem is an Emirati businessman. The only ‘facts’ I see is that Bin Sulayem as one of six men whose names had been redacted from the Epstein files but whom Khanna had been able to identify after spending two hours viewing unredacted files at the United States Department of Justice. This is gotten the from the Guardian as far as I know, and the Guardian is a good newspaper, but I am reliant on evidence and there is too little of it.

And when we see these kind of articles, the standard of the Guardian is pulled down as well. We can look at labs all we can, but there is a hindsight of that, labels are massively inaccurate, they are merely handy in setting our own failing sets of standards. OK, that is not always correct, but that is how I see it. What does matter is that there are faces trying to break up the UAE and Australia. This is not a good thing, especially when it is done with rumor, conjecture and visible inaccuracies. A populist setting that for the most of the time benefits the wrong parties and even if I am not an Albanese fan. He has never done anything immoral or dishonourable, I’m merely not a Labor fan. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with the UAE. I am not commenting on the Sudan war as I know nothing of it, but this article is loaded with terms like ‘Barbarous US’ (which is only partially true, because not all Americans are Karens or Vegans) and ‘a range of sub-imperial Middle East powers’ it sounds nice but the problem with labels is that they tend to be different from person to person and as these labels are warped into a populist setting, take 100 people and over 60 will have a slightly different meaning for it, it is how populism works but when the news and journalists handle populist settings, the problem increases, not decreases, or properly informs the wider audience. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it.

Have a great day, it’s almost time for me to enjoy Saturday.

Yes, I promised you a story full of intrigue, filled with bad Jedi and happy Sith only 20 hours ago. And here it comes (I’m watching Star Wars episode 2 at the moment). You see, there is a setting where we can watch the unfolding of what some laughingly call ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (it would be if it was designed by the CIA, but the American Administration is now in shutdown). To get there there are three parts.

In part 1 we look at the ‘disinformation’ and here we see the parts that do not match. You see, Dab Mashed potatoes with unions were discontinued in both Coles and Woolworths. The IGA still has it as I was able to verify in person (I had to travel to Summer Hill for that). So this is part 1.

Now we get to the slightly better stuff. You see, some might think that combining DML with Predictive Analytics (some think it is AI) is a solution. You merely set this in a massive database and voila (a theatrical of ‘here it is’) and that was that. This is merely my version of what I think it is happening.

You merely set the model on all the articles you have and you take settings of ‘minimum order size’ ‘estimated margin per item’ and a few other things and there you have a matrix showing the items that just don’t make the cut for your ‘predicted margin of profit’ model and they are ‘discontinued’. And it goes on for nearly all retail models, and it might be a consideration that this is a speculated idea of why PM Albanese invited Lulu into the mix against Coles, Woolworths, IGA and Aldi. I have no data on this, but I reckon it might be a reason that it stops the DML/Predictive Analytics madness. You see, there is a setting that it is folly to get any customer 100% happy (it really is), so these giants are heading for a mere 90% and they throw out the least margin articles out of their consideration, but there is a flaw, thrown out 10 articles is a start, but that leaves one less at 90% and 9 less at 1%, as such you have a base of 81%, so now we are off to the races. And as there is no substitute for added pressures, Lulu gets invited to Australia (in case the others went the way of the dodo, I meant Coles and Woolworths). There is no supporting evidence, so this is (highly) speculative. But there is another setting. You see, this solution requires programming skills and that is where ‘Accenture plans to boot staff it can’t train to use AI, 12,000 already culled’ comes in. This solution will require hundreds, if not thousands of people being reskilled and places like Accenture cannot do that, unless they trim the staff they have in several places. And 12,000 were ‘culled’ because it hinders their bottom line. To support this I give the following thoughts ‘What time was taken to assess a person whether he/she could be re-skilled?’ Who had the knowledge to assess this and what time frame was developed here? If this goes through it will mean a lot of engineers will be required in a short term setting.

And I merely used the Deb potato mash as an example, but what happens when it this pattern is released on pharmacy or other items? So whilst we might think that Accenture is dabbling in greed, the plain setting is that this is the direction that commerce is driving itself into.

And this setting is about to be set on unverified data. Consider that Gemini AI had it wrong on Coles and Woolworths (see image), so what else did they get wrong and when that data is unverified how will the Predictive Analytics work with any level of accuracy? Mere simple questions at the top of my mind. And that was the setting of that ‘so called’ AI.

Now, the setting is that parts of this are speculation, but does this make it wrong? It might be unverified, but the setting of the 12,000 culled into joblessness is recorded all over the media, and it is for the reason of ‘reskilling’ but what makes it impossible to reskill a person? As I see it, it is merely time and that is as I see it, time Accenture seemingly doesn’t have. And the setting of DML and Predictive Analytics? I see that as a limit towards viable data and that is the setting that plenty are ignoring. Some will ‘embrace’ the customer telling them that their data is awesome, but that is the second folly in this. Most of them are merely at the tally stage and their systems tend to come from legacy data, implying it is filled with holes and holes of non-data.

So think of this what you want, but the larger setting is about limiting YOUR ability to choose because it affects THEIR profit margins. Come to think of it, when was the last time you saw Sarsaparilla on the shelves of your supermarket? I remember a few years back there was Black knight licorice, where did that go? So think of all the things you liked and it is no longer there, why is that? Some are unviable as they cater to hundred of thousands of customers and they need to ‘adjust’ their stock accordingly. But what was denied to you? And the setting of adding predictive analytics to their profit mix is only making that worse for you. So what about part 3? Well that is where you the consumer comes in, it is what defines you, not what ‘their’ unverified data says you are.

So have a think about what you are about to lose and have a great day and enjoy your next coffee, if only to force you to their brand of Nescafe.

Tag Archives: Albanese

Labels

See Tea or else

Recent Posts

Archives