Tag Archives: BBC

The new student

There is a class, this class is out there and it has many students. Yet its teacher had never expected that the BBC would be joining his class and this teacher is beside himself. The teacher is Mediocrates and his Syllabus called ‘Thats good enough’ has been handed from student to student for generations. Yet until today this teacher had never considered that the BBC would be joining him, and he is happy, he is very very happy.

This all started some time ago, yet for me to see another MBS bashing exercise is just too much, especially when it comes from the BBC. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-62940906) gives us ‘Mohammed Bin Salman: Saudi prince’s controversial invitation to the Queen’s funeral’. In the first Why controversial? He is the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So far not a biggie, but then we get “A declassified CIA report concluded that the crown prince had authorised the murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018

So lets make a little list

  1. The CIA report did not do that, it stated that it was highly likely, which is not the same. By the way this is the same organisation that send former secretary of state Colin Powell with a shining silver suitcase to places like a rockstar with the evidence that Iraq had WMD’s. So how many were found in the end? Not any did they? At that presentation they had graphics, now they have less than nothing. The rule of law states that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty and the prove is missing on many levels. Even the hack job that the UN report represents never properly analysed the recordings, it gets worse that there is no one had ACTUALLY heard the entire recording and that is on Turkey. Then we get the ‘dismemberment’ part, there was no evidence of any kind that this had happened, merely the figment of some limelight seeking individual, and no evidence is showing that this ever happened.
    We now have all kinds of rumours. One is of him and a 20 year old mistress going to Tahiti. I doubt that there is anyone believing that story, but you can find creative yo-yo’s on any street-corner. 

REALITY CHECK

  1. Did something happen to JK? I speculate that this is the case and there is nothing to support that he had any other plans then to go back to his fiancee.
  2. Can we prove that something happened? No, there are strong indications, but no evidence. And in this Turkey, the tool of Iran played a very dangerous game. It is my belief they never had anything, but Turkey wanted to please Iran and the lack of forensic evidence on the tapes as well as the fact that those tapes were never fully revealed plays towards my view on the matter. Is it not interesting that the Washington Post never demanded their release? It made all kinds of other claims, claims that lack evidence, but the release of those tapes were demanded, the same could be said for the United Nations who had their tools attack the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but presented no evidence that actually holds water.

Then we get “The pressure group Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) has accused Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies of using the Queen’s funeral as a way to – in their words – “whitewash” their human rights records.” Here we have a different situation. The CAAT (or the group of tea grannies holding a banner) as I would see it have been clear about accusing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but they never made clear loud mentions of Houthi terrorists and Iran arms supplies, did they? Here the western media has gone out of its way to keep silent regarding the actions of Iran (like drone attacks on civilian targets in southern Saudi Arabia). They gave no visibility to the presentations of Colonel Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki who on more than one occasion gave the media the clear evidence of Iranian drones. Yet the WSJ had no problems showing the application of “Iranian Kamikaze Drones Creates New Dangers for Ukrainian Troops”, why is that? Do the stake holders and share holders like the Ukrainian side of the matter? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been forced to fight with one hand on its back against Houthi terrorists for too long. Yet the people and the media had no issue sending Boris Johnson to Riyadh talking about cheap oil. So why would they do that? It is my personal belief that the media has done everything it could to prolong this war. An event that started 8 years ago almost to the day and could have been resolved 5 years ago, but that did not fit with the needs of stakeholders hoping to get some cash out of Iran (a speculative view) and that is not all, the captured smuggling shipments from Iran did not make the news either, so what gives?

Finally there is a stage that most ignore. These acts ‘supporting’ Iran will have a much higher cost soon enough, when that happens will the media make a true call to action and a call to answer from media stakeholders or will they silent and mute like with Martin Bashir? 

The largest folly is the Aramco attacks on 14 September 2019. It is impossible for Houthi forces to have done that, yet everyone was so eager to accept that it was a Houthi attack. To give an example. I am a goalie (ice-hockey) and I would love to be the Goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs, but I lack the skills to be THAT good a goalie, as such Kyle Dubas (aka the Elvis Costello of the NHL), the general manager of the Maple Leafs will never put me on that spot, I am not god enough. It hurts, but that is fair. That lack of skill is essential. There is NOT ONE Houthi operative that has that skill level. The news gave us that 25 drones and missiles were used. So we either have an amateur rifleman how shoots near perfect bulls-eyes 25 times in a row, or Houthi forced found 25 operatives all getting near perfect hits in place. Such statistics are a fable, yet the media just swallowed the story and there is the problem, the media can no longer be trusted and now we see the BBC signing up for classes by Mediocrates.

There is a lot more but why bother, I reckon that certain people will not care. 

So when we see “All of which partly explain why international criticism of the crown prince is muted at most”, I merely respond

Frank Gardner, you idiot. How much visibility have YOU given to the Iranian part of that equation? How much evidence did you test and read? Or was this just a hatchet paint-job so that the CAAT gets one more mention?

Is Saudi Arabia a perfect nation? I doubt it and it would be for Muslims to give voice to that, I am not Muslim and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a Muslim monarchy. I reckon from my side, the most perfect nation in the world is likely to be New Zealand and Canada is in that top 5 as well. Two Commonwealth nations and they got their with the guidance of Queen Elisabeth 2. It will not have been directly, but she was a guiding force. The rest have a lot to answer for and this BBC article shows us that the UK has its own media skeletons all over its bloody field. 

This might be a decently valid article and their might be some concerns regarding the presence of some people according to others, but her Majesty kept global peace (for the most) for over 70 years. I think we can all shut the hell up and let the international dignitaries pay their last respect.

Did I oversimplify the matter?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

A pitfall named success

That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the BBC article a few days ago. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-62736126) titled ‘Saudi Arabia seizes record 46 million amphetamine pills hidden in flour’ passed my eyes. This is not a negative setting (well perhaps to some extent) on the situation. So when we see “Security forces tracked the shipment as it arrived at the Riyadh Dry Port and was taken to a warehouse, the General Directorate of Narcotics Control said. Six Syrians and two Pakistanis were arrested in a raid on the warehouse.” Some will see the success as is, but not me. This was about something else. That is not a negative setting on the security forces. 

Consider that the population of Saudi Arabia is a little below 35 million, and any nation has a drug problem, some nations have a larger setting, lets say that it is perhaps a maximum of 1% of the Saudi Arabian population. That implies that 350,000 people will consider trying any drug. As such 46 million pills is over-drowning Saudi Arabia. And if we know that a little could be spotted, there was no way that 46 million pills would ever work. When we consider this, there is a larger play in motion.

This was about something else, what is was really about is unknown to me. But if a shipment like this will get spotted in Germany, who has a speculative drug problem decently higher than Saudi Arabia, why push a solution in an area where it will be spotted? this question comes to my mind. What was this really about? What was the intended result? Would any drug dealer ship to a place the amount that has 100% chance of being spotted? I ask you this because it is important to realise that this is optionally the beginning of something else. If you know that all resources are required in one place for a drug shipment larger than anything that nations has ever faced. Then there is a chance that another shipment of another kind might pass through, the question is what was the other shipment and yes that is highly speculative, yet time has shown that criminals are getting more intelligent and shipping 1000% of something that might have some interest in a nation is an act less intelligent. Consider that if my numbers (speculative ones) are to some degree correct. They could have flooded the market with 1-2 million pills. To bring well over 2000% of this is folly (and near impossible to hide). This was about something else. What it was remains unknown and highly speculative, but I have no doubt that the pills were about something else or for something else. As I se it Saudi Intelligence (General Intelligence Presidency) better figure that out fast, because 46 million pills make for one hell of a decoy. I hope they figure out what the decoy was for, I really do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military

Behind door number two

Yes, the ink for slapping Twitter is not even dry and we get to have a go at Instagram. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62686375) gave us ‘Instagram says precise location is never shared’. There we are given “But Instagram said this is not the case and the feature does not share locations with other users.” Now, there is an old expression (in Dutch) that would consider me an ant-fucker. This is a person who looks at the smallest details. You see, Instagram does not give us “But Instagram said this is not the case and the feature does not share locations with anyone.” It relied on people not considering the larger stage with ‘other users’ and advertisers are not other users. So when we see “it was praised when it was first released as a way to improve user privacy on mobile devices because it offers an alternative to the blanket application of location services. The setting is automatically enabled for users on apps given permission to access their location.” We are given the stage of ‘enabled for users’ but does that mean that apps cannot get a link of precise locations? So as the accusation is given “They also said if users were to post a general location of a city, people would still be able to see exactly where you are as a pin on a map.” We do not see any evidence in one way or another way. We are given “we use precise location for things like location tags and maps features.” Perhaps it is a correct statement, but that does not stop some clever app makers using tags and mapping options to get a handle on precise locations. Thee first adjusted statement would have taken care of that, but Instagram never gave that to the people did they? They merely gave us “the feature does not share locations with other users.” And I have issues with that. But I admit that this is slicing the cake mighty thin, and Instagram could have prevented that, but I personally reckon that they merely needed to be as honest as possible allowing them maximum degrees of freedom on spin, and that is what I expect is happening.

So whether I am right or wrong, it is founded on the language that the media gives us regarding the quotes BY Instagram. It is what we see behind the stage and what we speculate is the case of the used language. It could go either way, but Instagram could have prevented it by being clear and the fact that they were not gives out a rather large problem regarding Instagram and precise locations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

Two issues on an increasing scale

That is what I see, a scale that increases in size, all whilst the credibility of the media decreases. This is best seen with the issues regarding Musk v Twitter. It was early as July 25th when I wrote ‘Let’s dance’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/25/lets-dance/) where I gave the reader “That is important information, especially if well over 60,000,000 accounts were deleted in 2022. I believe that this shift is large enough for Elon Musk to start the case, when he gets the data from places like Trollrensics he might have enough to bust the Twitter deal. The setting is and always was that Twitter claims that at most 5% of the accounts are fake, I believe it too be a lot higher. I never speculated the numbers that Trollrensics have, but it is my speculation versus THEIR data, as such they win.” Later I gave the readers more and the media was all up in arms on poor poor Twitter against the fiend Musk. Now that we start seeing articles like ‘Twitter whistleblower raises security concerns’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62633191) we start seeing certain people parade in place, all whilst we are still given quotes like “Peiter Zatko also claimed that Twitter underestimated how many fake and spam accounts are on its platform. The accusations could affect a legal battle between Twitter and billionaire Elon Musk, who is trying to cancel his $44bn (£37bn) deal to buy the company. Twitter says Mr Zatko’s allegations are inaccurate and inconsistent.” And this is not merely him, I myself as well as players like Trollrensics have made similar conclusions. Yes, mine were more speculative in nature, but the media had a clear path FOR MONTHS to contest it with their own research and guess what, no one wants to touch it. Why not? Now that we are given “In Mr Zatko’s damning revelations, first revealed by CNN and The Washington Post, he accused Twitter of failing to maintain stringent security practices and “lying about bots to Elon Musk”.” As well as “He filed his complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission in July. The BBC has seen a redacted copy of the complaint shared via CBS news. In it, Mr Zatko also criticised the way in which Twitter handled sensitive information and claimed that it has failed to accurately report some of these matters to US regulators.” That was in July, no wonder we are given “It says he was sacked in January for ineffective leadership and poor performance.” And consider that if he was sacked in January and his numbers hold up, his claims hold up. We end up with a situation where Twitter has been aware of its mismanagement of fake accounts for a very long time. As I see it, it nullifies the buy claim that Twitter has towards Elon Musk, should they proceed, they need to lower their price by well over 60%-78%. Not a stage Twitter wants to push for, no matter how that plays out, I reckon the value of Twitter will be found in Basement 5 soon enough and with that the fortune of people like Jack Dorsey. So as the Washington Post rears its head with “However in the view of The Washington Post, he “provides little hard evidence” to back up these assertions. Nevertheless, Elon Musk’s lawyers have jumped on the comments. His legal team are currently trying to get the Tesla boss out of the deal, by arguing that Twitter has no way of verifying how many of its 229 million daily active users were actually human.” It is funny, because with that columnist no one gives a fuck about they went all in with speculations. More important, the fact that I had come up with a number around 20% of fake accounts (which could be calculated with an abacus) and Trollrensics stating that the number of fake accounts is much closer to 50% (they have data), which gives a rather large rise to the Washington Post not doing its job and that is saying something. 

The BBC does give a more complete picture with Peiter Zatko who also held senior positions with Google and the US government’s research and development agency, DARPA. As such we need to see the failing of media all over the place as a larger failing and in this the BBC gives us a first stage where Elon Musk needs to be given s little more leeway when it comes to his point of view, something the media to the largest extent has been willing to avoid to every degree.

And in the next article we get issue two (about to publish that one)

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Is it really that simple?

There was an article on BBC (about 7 minutes ago). It gives us ‘Cineworld confirms it is considering bankruptcy’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62629932) there we see “Cineworld had hoped blockbusters such as the latest Bond film, Top Gun: Maverick and Thor: Love And Thunder would draw audiences back in after lockdown restrictions eased. But it recently said post-Covid customers levels were still lower than expected and blamed “limited” film releases.” I have an issue with that statement. I only saw one of the three (the Thor movie). The issue I have is with “customers levels were still lower than expected and blamed “limited” film releases” I do not think that is the case, and whomever makes that claim is massively shortsighted. Groceries and the cost of living is up EVERYWHERE. Meat alone is for me 25%-30% more expensive several other options are also more expensive, because the home brands are not available, setting us back around 10% per item. Electricity and fuel are up by a lot. These elements are central in the option to NOT go see a movie and there is another setting. It is seen in “Cineworld currently has a market value of around $69m but is carrying close to $5bn of debt.” Can anyone explain how a firm gets to have a debt 7200% of its value? There might be a real answer and this shows that I know next to nothing on cinema’s, but to have a debt 72 times the total value of a company comes across as slightly weird. In addition we see “But at just over 4 pence, the share price is still a long way off from where it was at the start of 2020 (220 pence) before the pandemic struck.” Implying that the company is now at a mere 1.8% of its original value and we see the blame on “limited film release” I think that business reporter Noor Nanji owes us a more (or better) explanation than we are seeing now. The issue all over the field makes little to no sense. It could be that there is a perfectly valid reason, but I can’t see it and that is because I am not in the cinema realm. But I reckon that Noor Nanji can give us a more perfect setting on what is going on. Because a firm in such a situation is not considering bankruptcy, it was utterly broke and broken months ago. 

I am not taking pleasure here. I love cinema’s, but there is a larger sense of weirdness when we look at these facts and a lot more questions should be out in the open. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, movies

Is it intentional ignorance?

I saw an article yesterday. It was ‘Doubts cast over Elon Musk’s Twitter bot claims’. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62571733) was seemingly eager to attack Elon Musk’s side, but the same media has not now or ever asked serious and critical questions on the Twitter side. But lets start here, those who read my articles know I have had a larger issue with Twitter for a long time. Don’t get me wrong, I like Twitter. I like it a lot more than Facebook. As such I have issues. If it isn’t with their new bully tactics of suggestion topics, without switching that nuisance off in the profile setting, then it would be with the attitude they take on fake accounts, as well as the delusional stage that it does not go beyond 5%. People I have been in contact with and THEY have data shows it to be well over 40%. I personally found 40% high, but they have data and they have data on Russian trolls and fake accounts pushing Russian ‘needs’ regarding the Ukrainian war to be in the thousands of trolls each of them using a massive amounts of click farm numbers. And it does not matter whether Twitter deactivates these accounts. The trolls have more and new methods of creating thousands more each minute. It shows in the first that the 5% Twitter claimed is bogus, more important it shows my initial thoughts that if it can be proven that it is well over double, we have a situation that Twitter has been overvaluing itself for a very long time. The data that places like Trollrensics has, shows this to have been the case for over 5 years, long before the Elon Musk events started. 

But back to the article. There we see “Botometer – an online tool that tracks spam and fake accounts – was used by Mr Musk in a countersuit against Twitter. Using the tool, Mr Musk’s team estimated that 33% of “visible accounts” on the social media platform were “false or spam accounts”.” OK, that is one side to go. I would personally advice Elon to take a step out of his circle and talk to Trollrensics. You see, they have been monitoring and recording events on the Ukrainian war (as well as Russian trolls) for a long time. Now consider that there should be some overlap. But take two circles (like below) we see the two solutions, the overlap is speculative on how much they overlap. 

They are different solutions for different options. As such the overlap cannot be 100%, in theory the second image could exist, but we can prove that, or better stated Elon Musk could prove this. You see, when the two lists of accounts are set together, Twitter has a problem, if image one is true, Twitter’s problem increases by well over 100%, it also blasts the 5% claim out of the water. 

If image 2 is true, Twitter has optionally a smaller issue, but Trollrensics has numbers stating over 40% of all accounts are fake, if so it will be a list supporting the case of Elon Musk, and well over 5%, Twitter will have a hard time opposing that much data.

And now we see in the article a strange event. With “However, Botometer creator and maintainer, Kaicheng Yang, said the figure “doesn’t mean anything”. Mr Yang questioned the methodology used by Mr Musk’s team, and told the BBC they had not approached him before using the tool. 

Mr Musk is currently in dispute with Twitter, after trying to pull out of a deal to purchase the company for $44bn (£36.6bn).” The readers will wonder what is going on, but no fear the BBC did its homework and we see that a little further below with “Botometer is a tool that uses several indicators, like when and how often an account tweets and the content of the posts, to create a bot “score” out of five. A score of zero indicates a Twitter account is unlikely to be a bot, and a five suggests that it is unlikely to be a human. However, researchers say the tool does not give a definitive answer as to whether or not an account is a bot. “In order to estimate the prevalence [of bots] you need to choose a threshold to cut the score,” says Mr Yang.” Now to me this makes sense, but there is a hidden trap. The numbers tend to be less reliable when a hybrid model exists. Let me try to make an image as below.

The hybrid system has three parts. The core (the foundation of that troll system) but it connects to real accounts. The accounts are real, tools like Qanon or whatever tool out there exists to gain coin and perhaps hoping that they are the false prophets that they once hope to become. Trolls and hackers give them a nice little tag and now the troll core has one real account that links to a whole range of people and click farms to like by the thousands and as this hybrid model can go more than one level deep and  consists of an unnamed amount of groups, Botometer and Twitter tools are (speculatively) in a mess, they now can no longer really decide on how real these groups are, and if the troll is intelligent and makes a slightly different message for each group, it can continue almost unabated. Still the Botometer is methodically sound to get the stupid accounts found and there are a whole range of them. Hundreds of thousands of limited click farm accounts, they should be found decently easily. And there I think is Elon Musk, he found the simple ones and he comes to 30%. The stage is real and the fact that is open to debate and moreover starts question the Twitter side of thinks is important. The article has more “Clayton Davis, a data scientist who worked on the project, says the system uses machine learning, and factors like tweet regularity and linguistic variability, as well as other telltale signs of robotic behaviour.” I agree with Clayton and there is also a larger issue. ‘Tweet regularity’ is real but debatable. You see it depends on interaction and time stations. A person has a shifting set. The person who looks at a tweet at 03:00 and retweets it because it is a friend, is different from the same person who is in the office at 11:00 and sees the same or a different tweet. There are more sides to that person, dynamic qualities and I wonder if a learning machine can learn (read: be taught) this. Not telling it cannot, I merely wonder and that makes it harder, than the time zones shift for the travelling person. All elements that can play a role. So when we get “In 2017, the group of academics behind the tool published a paper that estimated that between 9% and 15% of active Twitter accounts were bots.” Which is interesting for me as I considered the number to be around 20%, still that makes it 400% larger than Twitter’s claim, so Twitter does have a problem. And then the gem of the BBC article comes into play. With “Some bot experts claim Twitter has a vested interest in undercounting fake accounts. “Twitter has slightly conflicting priorities,” says Mr Davis. “On the one hand, they care about credibility. They want people to think that the engagements are real on Twitter. But they also care about having high user numbers.”

The vast majority of Twitter’s revenue comes from advertising, and the more daily active users it has, the more it can charge advertisers.” Or as I would state it, there is your Dorsey factor and that part shows both that Twitter is in deep trouble and also that Elon Musk was right all along. There is still a larger debate on how large that stage is, but if proof can be shown that the fake accounts exceed 9%-11% Elon Musk wins and Twitter gets to have a large problem. What I said all along, Twitter is bound to lose this and the media supporting Twitter for their own needs are likely to lose credibility by the day at that point.

A stage that was out in the open and has been for a few years. It was my view and the view of several I knew and now that we are proven correctly, I wonder under which rock the media will hide. The law sees intentional ignorance as a right, a legal station where we are allowed to keep ourselves ignorant, but should the media be allowed that very same thing? I will let you ponder that side of the equation, because it will come out in the open. In the mean time I will consider a few idea’s on Neom and the line bubble to the surface. Perhaps I should have a conversation with Saudi Arabia’s consul general in Sydney, Mashare Ben Naheet. If I am correct it might be worth a few million to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and I could use the money (I need to pay my bar bill sooner then I would like). 

The problems of old age, they come into play at the least comfortable times.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

The old debate

The BBC is hitting us with another version of a debate that has been going on for a while. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61594815) gives us ‘Report blasts “manipulative” video game loot boxes’, first off, they are not lying to you, this is not misrepresentation. In this, I do not completely agree with the point of view of some. The article gives us “The contents of the virtual boxes are only revealed through either game play or by making a payment. While some contain useful tools or desirable extras which improve the experience, others are worthless.” These facts are true. There are two sides here. In the first, why allow for payment? It is the right of a person to buy something, we set ourselves up for that one. Yet in all this, the people who paid 12,000 euro for boxes. No one is debating the utter stupidity of these people. No one is debating that as an adult YOU are responsible for your actions. But the press was all about those poor poor junkies, weren’t they? The other issue is “others are worthless”, what makes the card worthless? It is a direct question. What makes a card worthless? In the NHL game, there are functional cards (stadiums and players), there are cosmetic cards (outfits) and there are support cards, so what makes a card worthless? Then we get “The report authors, the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC), say gamers are being “manipulated” into spending large sums of money on the chests.” I have an issue with that. Which games were they? How was there manipulation? The NHL game gave card packs on milestones, and there were a lot of milestones. In addition, you got three free packs a day, and if you connected to the game (logged in) often enough, you got enough markers (there is one in EVERY pack) to exchange those markers for an expanded pack, giving you 12 or even 20 cards. The packs also had a betting coin card. One per pack and these funds allowed you to bid for other cards. Within 3 months I had all the stadiums, all the NHL jerseys and hockey masks, as well as over 100 players. I NEVER spend a cent, this was all free. So please tell me “How was I manipulated into spending large sums of money?” There are always the stupid people who want it all on day one, is that the fault of the game maker? Is it THEIR responsibility for the stupidity of others? The next part of my disagreement is seen in “Critics say the boxes are a form of gambling because players cannot see what they have actually bought until after they have paid to open the contents”. In this it is important to see WHY I disagree. You see in CCG games like Magic, Star Trek, Star Wars, The lord of the rings and more we see that a pack has one rare (optionally one super rare), 2-3 uncommon cards and the rest are common. This is a set formula. So if a game set has 50 rare cards, you would be buying at the very least 50 packs. The optional rest is gotten through swapping with other players at events and at tournaments. It is NOT gambling because one element is missing. The element of gambling is that you lose everything, so until there is a pack where you get all blank cards stating “Thank You!”, it is NOT gambling. You always get a set equation, you always get something. It makes it not gambling. 

In this I oppose the setting of “Finn Myrstad, director of digital policy at the NCC, said: “The sale and presentation of loot boxes often involve exploiting consumers through predatory mechanisms, fostering addiction, targeting vulnerable consumer groups and more.”” Yet there is a sparkly of truth here too and I do not deny it. Players like Electronic Arts played the exploitative element too much in FIFA, it backfired. There is exploitation, especially when the complete pack contains 10,000 players. However I disagree with the ‘predatory mechanism’ part. There is a whole range of predators on YouTube with there ‘card reveal’ channel, there “Do this to get something for free” and that is never a good thing, but these groups did not separate the exploiters from the makers, did they? Lets be clear the makers are not freshly white innocent. Only the people from Mass Effect 3 who introduced these loot-boxes in their multi player element, they were phenomenal and massively innocent. Others used that stage to make big money. 

The article ends with “But the same year Fortnite-maker, Epic Games, decided to let players in its hit video game see what was inside its llama loot boxes before deciding whether to buy them.” And their case agains Apple gained traction. I believe that the Epic Games people are the lest innocent, and their setting will have long term repercussions, it is only a matter of time. The one element not seen was given to us by Android: Netrunner. They gave us a different setting making it fair all around, the expansions were all the same price and always had the same cards, so there was only one pack to buy (once a month). It allowed for a smoother and fair game stage. In addition, the CCG world has something called factory sets. They were slightly different (like a silver border) but that was the only difference. A factory set contained ALL the cards of a game. The game was instantly fully playable, but they do tend to come later. So EA had the option to release a factory set half way through the season, but they did not, did they? Is it on EA? That would be a fair question, and I do not know the answer, merely my feeling in this. Is there a larger exploitation? Yes, but not all of it is on the makers. YouTubers were all over their FIFA cards and the more bang the better their bucks and the numbers of their followers, but we do not see that here either.

The BBC (as well as Tom Gerken) never lie to you, yet I have issues with the article as I have issues with the setting of it. The players HAVE a responsibility and some are pushing it on EA (and others) and the media aided them, which is not fair either. All this is merely my point of view, so feel free to disagree.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media

The jab from the left

That is the setting I was contemplating today. It all started with the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62488144) where I saw ‘Elon Musk sells $6.9bn of Tesla shares as Twitter lawsuit looms’ it was at that moment I was contemplating a larger jab from the left. Consider that I reckon that one of my IP will bring in half a billion a month. What if I offer that to Elon Musk? It is not his field, but that has never stopped him before. What if I was the on giving him optionally surpassing 5 billion a year (not in the first year) for some time to come? My way of giving the media the finger, as well as some tech places. We still see the BS from media ignoring the Fake Twitter accounts, we see some BS approach like ‘she cried, she cried louder and we wonder what happens’, well if it helps Elon Musk, I am game. There is also the augmented reality IP, as such there might be another stage where Elon Musk gets the visibility in 116,000 malls. I think it is a good day to give the finger to hypocrisy and the media with there digital dollars? They can watch from the stage as they become more and more redundant. Hmmm, the idea has merit, and if I can set the stage for places like the Line to show it all first we will see all these tech companies come up with “We are working on something much better” yes, like the virgin who is in denial that she was pregnant, a toilet seat must have done it. Well, two can play at that game and I have the IP to make it happen, as such I see a much larger option to have a go at these hypocrites. 35 years of frustration watching wankers and weaklings hide behind fake it until you make it, hide behind their bullet points, like it was the ammunition that could not miss sales targets. There is something totally satisfying watching them cry like the little chihuahua’s they actually are. Will it happen? I have no idea, I think not, I doubt Elon Musk even knows about this blog and he has more pressing concerns at present, but the idea to show the media that we have had enough of the BS they spout by giving billions in revenue to the man they hate, and for that reason only will upset big-tech in a way they have never seen before. 

There is nothing like the sight of a hungry glutton being denied their next meal to see chaos truly explode and that is what would happen. Never mind the Microsoft losers, places like Amazon and Google will take notice, for them having to acknowledge Elon Musk as their equal in mobiles, cars, battery technology AND gaming. That will have a much larger impact and the media will seek all kinds of shelter, crying that their was no place in their publication, crying that they never hd the know how, that it is all the right of publications to chose what to write about and if I can drive the dagger home with a few issues on the EEA and their ignored reports, so much the better. 

So whilst the BBC is not doing anything wrong with “After news of the share sale was made public Mr Musk responded to a tweet asking whether he had finished selling Tesla shares with “yes”, adding that he needed the money in case he was forced to buy Twitter and was unable to secure some of the funding for the deal.” Some might realise that the recent ‘confession’ that Twitter is deleting a million accounts a day and that adds up to a lot more than some are comfortable with. There is a larger station and I feel it is not the worst idea to scorch the media with a flamethrower (I had run out of daisies). 

The jab from the left is one the media is too often not ready for, they will ‘debate’ that there are compromises, all whilst we know that compromise politics is the most corrupt of all politics. And it is time that the proper people get the proper acknowledgement and we can get there by denying the other players their slice of cake. I’ll make it even more extreme. There is at present nothing stopping me to make it all public domain, and when the lists go public on September 30th that might very well happen. All it will take is 1-3 clever people who can look beyond the rim of their coffee cup (something most politicians have not been able to do for some time). Clever people on 4chan could end up with a treasure trove of IP on several grounds (apart from melting down Iranian and Russian nuclear reactors), that one I left somewhere else, I am not THAT irresponsible. And the idea I had came from a snow-globe, but I already wrote about that. 

Just in light of the setting of these days a solution for Iranian arrogance, through a snow-globe ending their nuclear reactors. How could I ever pass up on that? I reckon that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would owe me too and that is not the worst setting to be in, to be owed a large favour from the richest nation in the world. All that because the media would not do their jobs, how is that for freedom of the press and freedom of expression? I am using my freedom of expression the way I can, and they use the freedom of the press to get digital clicks through flaming. I reckon I am in a better position, but that is merely my view on the matter and lets face it, they could call it delusional. I wonder what they will call it AFTER I am proven correct? I reckon it will be stated that this was too complex an issue for people with a university degree in journalism. 

In the end, I still get my money, or my share and I am willing to make amends to that setting, the reward of screwing over the media will be that big a deal for me to cut a few corners leaving me with millions less. Or I still end with the amount of zero, the amount I always expected to end with when it all becomes public domain. I wonder, if I do this, will it be public domain, or pubic domain? Not the weirdest question to get, although, pretty extreme for a Wednesday. 

Such is life!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Monopoly

My introduction, like many of my generation came at an early age. I was 8 or 9 when the first setting of law was introduced. It was the game of monopoly. I still have a few versions. I still have the first version (a replica). It was a wooden box with coins, the rest was pretty much the same. The coins were a nice touch. A game has rules and we have to adhere to these rules. It was then that we learned to play by the spirit of the law. The letter of the law was something I learned much later and it was even later when I was introduced to black letter law. My generation went through similar steps, some more, some less, but the generic stage was in play. 

And today I got my introduction to ‘Banned Russian oligarchs exploited UK secrecy loophole’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62410715), so the title gives us the first setting, not a loophole but a legally allowed setting, and with that we get to “Ministers have acknowledged concerns that these companies, known as English Limited Partnerships (ELPs), have also been abused by criminals” as well as “In 2016 and 2017, the government introduced measures that forced almost all UK companies to identify their real owners. ELPs were not covered by these new transparency laws” yet no one (including the press) seems to ask why the ELP’s were left uncovered by identity stages? This is not merely a loophole, this is what I would call a backdoor. The UK (optionally government) needed a stage where owners could remain hidden for whatever reason was in play and others have the same rights as anyone else and these others (criminals and tycoons) used the law to avoid detection. And as we get “more than 4,500 of them have been set up” we see the larger station, you see this has been going on since 2017, did you think that whomever requires avoidance of detection will not use them? There is a reason why some accountancy firms charge so much, they know the law, they know all laws and that is in play. And I will go one step further when we see “According to Graham Barrow, an expert in financial crime, they are also “vulnerable to misuse” because of how little information about their activity they are required to make public” that is exactly why the backdoor exists. For some to avoid certain matters. I feel decently certain that they were not meant for criminals, but the law is funny, it will parade on the just and unjust alike. So when we are given “Our data shows the number of new ELPs being set up has gone up by 53% since 2017” I am actually not surprised. The rules of the game are clear and anonymity is coveted by the lawful and unlawful alike and now we have a situation. So whilst the BBC is trying to stage the wow factor with “Just five companies, known as formation agencies, have been responsible for 1,500 ELPs, with hundreds listed at registered addresses including one above a burrito bar in central London” I would like to remind them that MI-5 was build on a sewer. So instead of the burrito bar, they could have stated above a burrito bar in Soho, a different setting, not? And the empty statement “FBI agents investigating the Boston marathon bombing probed an ELP registered at an address currently home to a barber shop in Bristol”, so what was the result? Why was that ELP probed? What was the stage of that barbershop? And in that setting when we see “We have established that among those to take advantage of the secrecy of ELPs are members of President Putin’s inner circle.” So? It is a legally allowed setting, that is what the BBC is trying to make muddy. A legal setting is staged and no one sees anything of the politicians that ‘overlooked’ that part of the stage, why is that? And when we are given “there is no requirement to disclose who was behind Sinara, which was dissolved in 2019” we see no listing of illegal activities, merely “facilitated purchases for the Rotenbergs”, so was anything illegal purchased? We do not get any of that, it is a mere sample of BS journalism that we normally get from a Murdoch publication. And it sounds nice that we get Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge, who chairs a parliamentary group on tax and corruption making statements regarding ‘scandalous’, but what politicians allowed for that, who raised their voices when the ELP’s were left outside the identity stations? Transparency requires ALL to be revealed, not all minus ONE. But that part of the equation is quickly brushed over by the BBC, why is that? So when we are given “In an emailed update to clients dated 18 May 2017, under the heading “Alternative Solutions”, LAS proposed ELPs as, “a way out and as a substitute for Scottish Partnerships”.” We see a simple setting, a firm updating their clients on what is legally allowed, but that part is not really given, is it. It is a setting of emotions, flaming stages but the people behind the overlook are ignored, left in the dark, why is that? And the one gem in the article is seen with “The government says it does not have any evidence of significant misuse of ELPs. A government spokesperson said: “The UK already has some of the strongest controls in the world to combat money laundering, and it’s vital that we continue to upgrade our governance to crack down on criminals abusing UK corporate entities” it is the stage of ‘significant misuse’, what makes it significant? The fact that the bulk of these ELP’s were created by 5 firms was a much larger station and could have been dealt with years ago, now it becomes a millstone around someones neck there is ‘sudden’ visibility. Yet in the time 2017-2020, who gave light to this? Who acted to stop it? These are questions that I do not see answered, why not?

In this there was a lovely simplicity to monopoly in my youth, perhaps for this day and age it is too simple. Perhaps we need a new version of Hotels, but in Hotels 2 we get to choose options like accountants, corrupt local government and a few other items, or will that make the game a little too realistic for the young? I will let you consider that, I am going back to brooding on new IP towards non repudiation, I reckon that new building in the KSA (the Line) might have need of some IP soon enough. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Lets talk about corruption

It is a hard stage, but it is time to ask the difficult question “Is the BBC too corrupt?” It is not a question you saw coming. It is not one we would consider, but the stage is set. We need to ask the question because too much has happened. And today with ‘What could Saudi Arabia and UAE do to help lower oil prices?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62352272) I am asking that question. After the issues with Jimmy Saville and Martin Bashir we now see increased oil misrepresentations. You see, the question seems fair, but what I do not see is that Brent Crude oil prices are set to the fact that the US exports about 8.63 million barrels per day and they net imported 6.11 million barrels, so why import when you also export? For the price and we see none of that. They want cheap oil from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and any other OPEC source, so that they can sell at a profit, but we see none of that. We are merely given “Saudi Arabia is the biggest single producer in the cartel and after meeting with Saudi crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, President Biden said he expects supply to increase. However, Saudi officials have also stressed any decision to increase supplies would be done in consultation with Opec+.” It is my opinion that until the US and EU show firmly to be allies of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that OPEC+ does NOTHING! We need to become less dependent on oil, and the only option is to reduce its need. Not by Matt McGrath and his stupid airline articles, but by setting a clear boundary of what oil can be used for. In the US transportation requires 67.2% of all the oil available. How about setting markers to reduce that to 65% in the next 3 years? How about reducing these BS flights? On November 13th 2021 in the article ‘A COP26 truth’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) I wrote “over the last 15 years 15,000,000 additional flights were added. That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day. So how much CO2 do these flights create? More people and more flights, not the flights from the uber rich, no normal airline flights. I am willing to take a bet that at least 25% of those flights are useless and could be scrapped.” So people like Taylor Swift were not the polluters, and jokes like Matt McGrath (BBC) who go on about the rich jet owners. How much pollution are they making? How much pollution do these EXTRA 41,000 flights each day create? There is your oil savings, right there. One source (AFR) gave us in 2018 “the flights have been departing only 78.1 per cent full, on average, since the route was launched – meaning dozens of empty seats.” One destination, one liner. So how many more liners are too empty? Prestige at the expense of the environment, but the BBC will not give us that, will they? 

As I see it, the KSA must do what is best for the KSA and its citizens and as I see it. When you can sell strawberries by taking your time with each portion gives the farmer more to work with. You see oil is a finite commodity and when it is gone, it is gone forever but we seem to forget that, do we not? The media keeps on giving us the Middle East story about infinite oil reserves, but that is not the case and the US is passed over in all that reporting. The media oil reports give us none of the Brent Crude oil parts, are they? So when I saw the Line and the KSA options to set itself apart, I saw a station for at least three of my IP to flourish, and if they see that too the KSA will get it. I would have preferred it to go to Amazon or Google, but they weren’t biting and that is before some realise that there is still a treasure trove of 50 million streaming users around. And when the oil falls down then so does electricity (unless they make a deal with Elon Musk). Elon was the clever one, with the seats of power changing, space becomes a much more interesting commodity. Yet the foundation is that the media (including the BBC) have watered down the events of attacks by Houthi terrorists on Saudi civilian targets for too long, the US did pretty much the same thing and keeps on shouting Khashoggi (the columnist no one really cares about). In that environment why should the KSA do anything? It seems that oil will sell no matter what and at this point at a much higher price. For two years the KSA gave light to project Neom, the media shunned it. Why?

There is only so much BS we can stand for and there comes a time when people ask “How corrupt is the media?” And in light of the events I just showed you, I name my bewilderment by its name, a specific name. I wonder how corrupt the BBC has become. You need not believe me, but watch what is reported and I gave you 5 topics in this article. And when you realise that the BBC started the settings that would be the death of Princes Diana, princes of Wales, you need to get angry. The media is very set on reporting on the death dealer of Princes Diana (Martin Bashir) all whilst we see speculation after speculation on others and a remarkable avoidance of fact checking. I will admit that the BBC is still better than most, but in the Houthi settings they let too much go and this time around they need help from the victim of Houthi attack. So how do you think that will end?

It is merely the setting of a stage, but I will let you look at all the elements of that stage. I gave the evidence (as I personally see it) in my articles often enough. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics