Tag Archives: BBC

Within a day

I wrote a few things regarding BRICS in the last two days and now (at https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/06/iran-saudi-arabia-uae-attend-brics-meeting-south-africa-bloc-mulls-expansion#ixzz83fKlbzuL) we see ‘Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE attend BRICS meeting in South Africa, as bloc mulls expansion’, so I admit that I didn’t see Iran to become part of that, but the UAE is a nice addition, it also changes the game. Not sure if Iran should be part of it, but that might appeal to both the KSA and the UAE. So when we see ““The world has faltered in cooperation. Developed countries have never met their commitments to the developing world and are trying to shift all responsibility to the global South,”Pandor said. Upon his departure from Tehran, Amir-Abdollahian hailed BRICS as a body that represents half of the global population and called his visit an example of Iran’s “active presence at international bodies” and a step in Iran’s “balanced” foreign policy.” We might see one thing, think another and wonder what is real. I wonder what Iran is doing there. Are they on invitation to settle Russia, or is Iran there to appease the Middle East? I have no idea, but I would consider that there are other more qualified nations than Iran, Indonesia for one. So is it about the powerpoint of oil? Your guess is as good as mine, but the idea that UAE would be coming is now a reality. The BBC did not mention that. As such are the sources of AL-Monitor better, or had the west filtered out Iran? I honestly do not know, but the photo from June 2nd implies that the BBC filtered out certain names. As such I was not aware of UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and I only aw this article a few hours ago. Yet there too we see the stage of BRICS. If the western media cannot tell us the truth, when they rely on censorship and editing to give us adjusted filtered information, who are we telling other nations what to do? We see the attacks on China, Russia and the Middle East and yes, I do not disagree, but when we do the same, is this not the media station of the pot calling the kettle black? 

So when we get “In a pre-recorded interview broadcast on state TV after his departure, Amir-Abdollahian said that a key topic on his agenda in Cape Town would be “de-dollarization” in trade with BRICS member states.” What can we object to? The US is broke, it is merely sailing from debt ceiling raise to another debt ceiling raise. It has no exit strategy and did not have any for well over a decade as it caters to political ego and the rest of the world is awaiting actual action. Well, that setting will kind of explode in our faces as China will do what is best for China and the western world does not count there. It is harsh, but we let our politicians make it that way. So what is next? That depends on how BRICS will go about it. It is dependent on how they decide to hurt or restrict the moves by the US, and no matter how that slides it will hurt Japan in massive ways (which will please China). But beyond that there is no telling what will happen. I still think it was a mistake for them to add Russia in its current shape, but that is not up to me. I reckon that the country to can keep tabs on beats the one they cannot and it is a wisdom that is beyond me, BRICS is giving Russia a stronger voice which in current settings is not good, but that is me talking. 

My mind flies over the setting of “de-dollarisation” and how it will take form. But at present I have no idea, I will need to seek out as much information as I can. 

Enjoy the last day of the weekend, Monday is coming.


Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Prototyping rhymes with dotty

This is the setting we faced when we see ‘ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769). You see as I have stated before, AI does not yet exist. Whatever is now is data driven, unverified data driven no less, so even in machine learning and even deeper machine learning data is key. So when I read “A judge said the court was faced with an “unprecedented circumstance” after a filing was found to reference example legal cases that did not exist.” I see a much larger failing. You might see it too when you read “The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury. His legal team submitted a brief that cited several previous court cases in an attempt to prove, using precedent, why the case should move forward. But the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases that were referenced in the brief.” You see, a case reference is ‘12-10576 – Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al’. This is not new, it has been a case for decades, so when we take note of “the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases” we can tell that the legal team of the man is screwed. You see they were unprepared as such the airline wins. A simple setting, not an unprecedented circumstance. The legal team did not do its job and the man could sue his own legal team now. As well as “Mr Schwartz added that he “greatly regrets” relying on the chatbot, which he said he had never used for legal research before and was “unaware that its content could be false”.” The joke is close to complete. You see a law student learns in his (or her) first semester what sources to use. I learned that Austlii and Jade were the good sources, as well as a few others. The US probably has other sources to check. As such relying on ChatGPT is massively stupid. It does not has any record of courts, or better stated ChatGPT would need to have the data on EVERY court case in the US and the people who do have it are not handing it out. It is their IP, their value. And until ChatGPT gets all that data it cannot function. The fact that it relied on non-existing court cases implies that the data is flawed, unverified and not fit for anything. Like any software solution 2-5 years before it hits the Alpha status. And that legal team is not done with the BS paragraph. We see that with “He has vowed to never use AI to “supplement” his legal research in future “without absolute verification of its authenticity”.” Why is it BS? He used supplement in the first, which implies he had more sources and the second is clear, AI does not (yet) exist. It is a sales hype for lazy sales people who cannot sell Machine Learning and Deeper Machine Learning. 

And the screw ups kept on coming. With “Screenshots attached to the filing appear to show a conversation between Mr Schwarz and ChatGPT. “Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find. ChatGPT responds that yes, it is – prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”.

After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.” The natural question is the verification part to check Westlaw and LexisNexis which are real and good sources. So either would spew out the links with searches like ‘Varghese’ or ‘Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd’, with saved links and printed results. Any first year law student could get you that. It seems that this was not done. This is not on ChatGPT, this is on lazy researchers not doing their job and that is clearly in the limelight here. 

So when we get to “Both lawyers, who work for the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, have been ordered to explain why they should not be disciplined at an 8 June hearing.” I merely wonder whether they still have a job after that and I reckon that it is plainly clear no one will ever hire them again. 

So how does prototyping rhyme with dotty? It does not, but if you rely on ChatGPT you should have seen that coming a mile away. 

Enjoy your first working day after the weekend.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

The optician’s folly

It is a setting that exists. I don’t think that I have ever faced it myself. I have met short sighted managers, people whose pupils have reshaped into dollar signs, so if it didn’t meet their revenue goals it would be invisible to the eye. I have met all kinds of stupid people, not those who lacked intelligence, but those who pig headed ran into a situation regardless of the consequence. I have seen all those and I was in the military. I saw the middle east through non touristy eyes, even though my own point of view was warped to say the least. We all have been there or saw something to that degree. Yet the larger stage that the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65724065) is totally new and a new kind of weird. The article ‘Navy finds ‘perfect storm’ of problems in elite Seals course’ doesn’t really come close or do it justice. This is not on the BBC or the writer. They reported and reported correctly. Yet this setting on the US Navy Seals is beyond comprehension. It starts with “The US Navy’s report found that the programme put “candidates at significant risk” of injury and death. The investigation followed the death of a 24-year-old sailor during the course in February 2022” and goes arctic pretty much soon thereafter. You see, I was taken aback when I saw “Naval investigators found that medical care at the course was “poorly organised, poorly integrated and poorly led”, factors which it believes “likely had the most direct impact on the health and well being” of candidates.” Consider that you have a collection of sailors, they are good, really good. As such the Navy have a vested interest to keep them safe. Now some of them think that they have it to be the best of the best of the best of the best. There will be a decent amount who will not make it, we get that. To become one of the elite is questionable on a few levels, but I get that some are driven to become elite and I accept that. I would never be that good, but I get that some are. Now consider that these were already way above average sailors and that is fine. So in what universe is it OK to handle a “poorly organised, poorly integrated and poorly led medical unit?” If they are not the stuff of legend and they state that this is an attrition rate of between 70% and 85% per class. Why not keep those safe and more important keep those who make it even more safe? Even as we get the doctors lollie with “a Navy official said that 10 people identified in the report – including two high ranking officers – are facing possible prosecution for Mr Mullen’s death” the larger issue is not that it was happening, but that there was a cluster of 10 men. This implies a much larger failure and for what? There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this level of failure and I wonder how that sails on the court martial hearings of the top brass involved. 

Then we get to “The report also found that some students turned to performance-enhancing drugs to improve their chances of completing BUD/S, a long-standing issue that the Navy had been slow to address.” This is another notch on the top brass addressing list. A place like the Navy Seals with ‘a long-standing issue that the Navy had been slow to address’? The Navy Seals no less, someone didn’t want this to be dealt with. A sort of accepted level of cheating. Will the person do whatever needs to be done? That is more than a tall order and it stands that those who make it, some will be dopey’s and more importantly they will have mental health issues, because when you are willing to do whatever needs to be done, the civilian side in that person will not be working properly and that person becomes a hazard to all around him. That is a setting that is clear from the very start and the top brass did not see that? Where did they get their ranks? With a pack of butter at the 7-11? 

I have ousted and firm believes and I get that plenty will not adhere to that, or even accept that. I was in favour of targeted killing from the start. To see this I need to give you the talk. You see most judges are to my point of view cowards, they adhere to the golden calf. Why you ask? The law is there for us all and it keeps 80% within lines. 19.997% are criminals and repeat offenders and the law deals with that, I am all for that. Yet there is a 0.003% that are driven by chaos, to hurt and kills whatever needs hurting or killing. They will never stop and until they are dead everyone is at risk. So it is a rare thing but it needs to be done. Now consider that the Navy has a training camp that creates people that are part of that 0.003% group. This is not fighting fire with fire, this is creating a fire and walking away, let nature run its course. Now in the wild this might optionally happen. Yet what to do when such a fire is set in Tampa Florida? A place with over 35% forests in the city and that city has 387,000 people, what then? As such, for a unit like the Navy Seals better than expected medical needs would be essential, when you unite these two views you will see that keeping these seals at the top of their game would be essential. As such the failure of the top brass here is a much larger failure than anyone ever considered. I am not sure if the Navy and its secretary Carlos Del Toro have any clue how large the failings are in this place. If not for those who are then at the very least for the ones who did not make it, because no one in the navy likes failure. We get that some have their sights set too high and this happens, but that is why these training camps exist. Many will wash out and they will understand it was not for them, but they were still better than good sailors and that waste is perhaps the most grievous failing. They failed the man of the navy to an unacceptable level and for the “slow to address” side? Well that is a whole other enchilada that the Navy and its JAG division will need to take a hard and harsh look at.

Enjoy the near end of the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

The perception of others

This is a case, this is often a case and in this case. I am one of the others. You see the ‘news’ is no longer that, it is often filtered information. Information that is accepted by shareholders, stake holders and advertisers, as such the people are seen and treated more often than not as a distant fourth. This setting came to the forefront when I saw ‘G7 takes stand against China’s “economic coercion”’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65662720) where we are given “And in not one but two statements, the leaders of the world’s richest democracies made clear to Beijing their stance on divisive issues such as the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan. But the most important part of their message centred on what they called “economic coercion””  Now here we need to pause. These people do not lie (at least I hope they do not), but lets take a look at the evidence. The first is the ‘world’s richest democracies’, these nations are

1. Canada, debt around $ 2,100,000,000,000
2. France, debt around € 3,000,000,000,000
3. Germany, debt around € 2,600,000,000,000
4. Italy, debt around $ 3,000,000,000,000
5. Japan, debt around $ 9,300,000,000,000
6. UK, debt around £ 2,500,000,000,000
7. USA, debt around $ 32,500,000,000,000

Yes, they are really rich (in debt). To give a little consideration “As of April 2023 it costs $460 billion to maintain the debt, which is 13% of the total federal spending” for the US, their interest is $460,000,000,000 to pay for the interest and 13% of the entire budget is to pay for the interest. So all this talk about debt ceilings is close to null and void. Not unlike a Ponzi scheme the US government is taking out new loans to pay for the INTEREST of old loans. When did that ever go good? But that is not what this is about. The next stage is about ‘economic coercion’ something America and others have done for decades. Economic coercion is a political tool that the US pushed all over the middle east, and now that Saudi Arabia and other are pulling their contract with the US and giving options to China it is coercion? I mentioned it a few days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/05/19/the-stupidity-of-some/) in ‘The stupidity of some’, I made mention of some elements then and several other articles before that. One should not bite the hands that feeds you and I reckon that is why other players were invited to this party as well (no matter what they say). The US is broke and needs others to do some of the heavy lifting. This is OK, or at least that is why allies stick together, but the bulk is deeply in debt with Canada and Australia in a much better position. Germany had industrial revenues so it is not that bad off either. But this is not bout that, it becomes clear when we see “Now, they worry they are being held hostage. In recent years, Beijing has been unafraid to slap trade sanctions on countries that have displeased them. This includes South Korea, when Seoul installed a US missile defence system, and Australia during a recent period of chilly relations.” They worry? So are they being held hostage, or are they not. Lets be clear all these players have engaged with some form of economic coercion in the past, it is a valid political tool, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, the US is worried. It is losing its grip on the Middle East and as Saudi Arabia is uniting its nations and leagues with the added Syria, Egypt and now optionally Iran as well, the stage changes for the west in the Middle East. China has been invited there now and that worries all players of team G7. You see with them losing 5%-10% revenue to China due to all kinds of reasons they are now scared that someone (the big banks like the Rothschilds) will cancel THEIR credit card and that has them scared silly. I would be to, I really would. This is just a few reasons why I tried to sell my IP to Saudi Arabia and Kingdom Holdings (optionally the UAE too). Amazon and Google were asleep and not caring (perhaps they didn’t like my IP) and Microsoft is not invited to that party and optionally Tencent Technologies is.

You see, the stage, several stages are turning to China as an option. Does China have any less debt? I cannot tell, but they are drilling into new business like nothing we see and that has the G7 scared. 

So when we get to “They called for “de-risking”- a policy that Ms von der Leyen, who is attending the summit, has championed. This is a more moderate version of the US’ idea of “decoupling” from China, where they would talk tougher in diplomacy, diversify trade sources, and protect trade and technology.” We see the larger stage, the ‘west’ will diversify trade sources, so that new and emerging economies can only do business with them if they do not do business with China. Almost like Sony did with retailers in 1998/1999. Those who were showing the SEGA Dreamcast would not be getting the PS2. It scared a lot of retailers because PS2 was a winning system and it did. The same was done much earlier with VHS pushing out Betamax (which was superior). A tool used again and again. Yet the larger stage is not these emerging economies, they are a factor, it is what will Saudi Arabia and the UAE do, they are now aligning the next decade and they were the big spenders all over the place and that setting is now heading for China (not sure if it is a done deal) and in this Egypt is important. With them championing Huawei and their G5, Egypt aligns with Saudi Arabia and a lot of commerce and Egypt then becomes a 5G beachhead all over the mediterranean and Africa. This will benefit China a lot. And as we get to “The US is already doing this with its ban on exports of chips and chip technology to China, which Japan and the Netherlands have joined. The G7 is making clear such efforts would not only continue, but ramp up, despite Beijing’s protestations.” This is the stage that is evolving and it is a dangerous move to make. I get why it is done. In the first I am not stating that China is innocent, I am stating that they all used these tools and the debts are drowning their actions. The danger is that if there are any innovative people in China, they will come with an alternative. I have no idea what, but I recall a nice example. The US created a specific ballpoint pen that could be used in space, they spend millions on that solution somehow and Russia? They used a pencil. We saw the Huawei block by Google and now Huawei is rocking the Harmony OS which is available in 77 languages. It is different from both Google and Apple, so what happens when Harmony becomes the tool of choice in the Middle East? You can ban and block, but the danger is that someone finds another way just like Toshiba in Russia decades ago and there was no alternative, as such Toshiba grew and grew with an entire market where they had no competition. Will it happen again? I am certain of it, when one resource closes people look for another resource, it is a natural continuation. Only really stupid people think that no one can get around them and I wonder what will come next. As such I have issues and the BBC did nothing wrong here, they reported, they used quotes and they adhered to something (not sure what). I am showing you that what is said is not merely dangerous it is deceptive. It these are the richest democratic economies, why is there a 50 trillion dollar debt (actually it is decently higher at present). A debt of 50,000 billion and no one is asking questions. I get it (to some degree) Russia is now a problem, the Ukraine is dealing with it, but it can only do so much. It needs support and I agree they do need it and I believe they deserve all the help we can give them, yet across the waters there is no one dealing with the actual debt, they are merely prolonging a complete collapse that will have too many deep in debt for decades. Retirement plans will collapse, health care will collapse and we will all blame someone, but no one is looking at how we all let this happen and now those with the option will look towards the Middle East (including me), a lot are looking at China as an option and a global brain drain will be the consequence. All settings that the G7 will have to consider, because they all have a lot to lose.

Enjoy the start of Monday up to 12 hours (for some) from now. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

The house wins

Yes, that has been the case since before WW1. In gambling the house wins and I got an interesting surprised served up by the BBC. It was the article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65610851) where we see ‘Cryptocurrency: Treat investing as gambling, MPs say’ OK, that was a little unexpected, but when you think of it not the weirdest step to make. We see this with “The risks posed by crypto were “typical of those that exist in traditional financial services and it’s financial services regulation – rather than gambling regulation – that has the track record in mitigating them”, a Treasury official told BBC News.” I can get behind that. Lets not forget that crypto has no gold backing like currency, so not only is it a gamble, but in many cases it is a long shot at best. There is however a consideration we need to have and it is seen with “Gambling helpline charity GamCare told the BBC that, in the past two years, it had heard from more than 300 people who said they were struggling with investing in cryptocurrency and other forms of online financial markets.” It is seen with ‘struggling with investing’. I personally wonder that if you are struggling with an investment, then why invest in it to begin with, but that might be me. 

The plot thickens when you see “He said he had lost about £150,000 investing in crypto, including money he had borrowed, and that checking his phone to see how the market had moved had become an obsession. “There was no break at all, I was just I was on my phone constantly watching it and just couldn’t sleep,” he recalled.” So one person borrows to invest? I would not do that to buy stock in reliable options like Tesla or IBM, as such I will never ever do it in something fleeting as digital dollars. That is an orgasm more fleeting than trying to get one from a hooker with aids. I do not now, not ever trust digital currency. I accept that there are moments that this is the one payment option, but it will only exists until I get to the nearest bank to convert it to something more reliable. As such there is a rather nasty breach here. I would never invest in it and I do get that some do. And to be honest if I had the money in 2010 I might have bought 5-10 Bitcoins and that would have set me right, but I do not trust any digital currency and I still see all these ads come past with the statement ‘How rich would you be now if you had bought even one bitcoin in 2010?’ Yet that ship sailed and when you consider the grifters and BS artists trying to get you on digital trades, the idea to treat it as gambling makes a lot of sense to me and with gambling comes a lot more oversight. 

In the end, I have no idea where this will go, but the idea that all these new ‘students of digital currency’, the idea that they are soon to be privy to gambling oversight does seem appealing to me. And I do get it, it might be me, I might be too old for this new currency. 

I will let you decide, have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Pregnancy optional

Yup, that happens apparently. Or so we can believe. You see, the story I saw at the BBC hours ago seemingly pried loose a few issues. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65556437) gives us ‘UK men offered £10K to pose as dads in visa scam, BBC investigation finds’ Here we re given “Scammers are using Facebook to tout for business and claim to have helped thousands of women in this way. Facebook says such content is banned by its rules.” Which got me two feathers rustled. Lets be clear this could be happening and it likely is. So where does the BBC get the word ‘thousands’? The article gives us “Thai, who didn’t advertise on Facebook, said he would concoct a convincing backstory in order to successfully dupe the authorities.” We are also given “Another agent, calling herself Thi Kim, claimed she had helped thousands of pregnant migrant women. She said she could provide a British man and it would cost “ten thousand for the dad”, with her fee being £300.” You see, this is an income track with a short lifespan, and she taking £300 whilst paying the man £10,000 rings untrue. £2,300 and £8,000 would sound more believable. The entire setting is one that comes across particularly nasty. So when we get to “However, last year 4,860 family visas were granted to “other dependents” – a category which includes those applying to stay in the UK as parents of British children. Deliberately giving false details on a birth certificate is a criminal offence.” It is at this point I wonder what the game of Patrick Clahane, Divya Talwar & Khue B Luu is about. Is it about what we shallowly read, or is one of their friends anti-immigration? You tell me, because this story could go either way. How were the thousands ‘found’ and the fact that scammers are using Facebook is nothing new, but in this case how many are on Facebook? Then we combine the ‘thousands’ again but now we look at where these women come from. Thousands and there is no top-line listing? The names are Thai and asian sounding, but how many are from South America or Russia? And the last quote was “The BBC could not estimate the scale of the fraud, as the Home Office was unable to provide data on the number of cases it had investigated.” Well, the numbers we do get gives us over 41% (thousands divided by 4860) and that is merely the top, there is too much inaccuracies. So are the BBC again biting at the steak of emotional baggage? I wonder what is actually true here and it is not the first time that the BBC is reporting in a questionable way. 

So what will be the next stage, vacations to dubious locations are offered free of charge so that you can impregnate (read: have sex) with a dozen women, all for free? If the article has any truth in it then it would be the part where we see “how desperate these women are”, mainly because for a lot of non-europeans the UK still represents a slice of golden future. That was never in question. The question becomes the BBC and what they consider making news. As I see it “has not responded to the BBC’s request for comment” is a mere approach to give validity to something that is not and I have a few questions on the article that lacks a whole range of validity. So how about Tim Davie? Will you improve the story quality and the numbers on this or are you destined to be the next Uber driver? They are taking resume’s at present.

Enjoy your non impregnating (or non impregnated) day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Having the ball

Yes, sometimes we have the balls, sometimes a little less so. Yet in the BBC court we see two players (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65244351) one is FIFA the other one is EA. So whilst we got on April 24th ‘Fifa no more? EA Sports rebrands its biggest game’. Yes it has been 2 weeks, but I do not particularly care about FIFA, so I left it alone. Yet this afternoon a few thoughts fell through. They came up in the first hour I noticed it, actually they came up about 5 minutes after the announcement that EA was going to drop FIFA. There was a plan for them, I had no doubt about that and 2 weeks ago we got the gist. “the developer behind one of the most successful franchises in gaming history, moves on to its new football game, EA Sports FC.” Just like Fortnite having its spasms, EA has a plan to avoid FIFA costs and I reckon that they wanna keep all 5 billion of that revenue. And we get “Mr Jackson emphasised that more than 19,000 footballers, 700 teams and 30 leagues will still be represented in the game, despite the split from football’s governing body.” Yet the larger impact is one some are not realising. How are these all represented? The IP of football shirts are partially set things like “the FIFA online store for officially licensed national team kits” are in many places, as such EA has issues. They are ‘focussed’ on “EA has also unveiled its FC Futures programme, which it says will support grassroots football projects across the world” which I personally see as ‘the party line’, but FIFA has its claws in its field, so the player is in for a surprise or two. Now, this is not necessarily bad, but the history of the loot-box is fresh, they need a new approach and I have no idea how they will go about that part. Also FIFA was way too big with 700 teams, so what gives there? 

And then we saw the game in a dangerous setting “The new Fifa game, Fifa 25, 26, 27 and so on, will always be the best e-game for any girl or boy”, and as this becomes an E-game, parents better realise that this comes at a cost. I reckon EA will play it softly and slowly change their grip from silk glove into a vice. Five billion is nothing to be sneered at and no matter how slow it happens, it will happen. We will see all the excuses, all the ‘mis communications’ but no that FIFA is cut off, EA will play a very different game. Some will be thrown by “everything you know and love from the modern FIFA games, including Ultimate Team, Career Mode, Pro Clubs, and VOLTA. You can expect the same attention to detail and number of official licenses, too.” In this I am not certain, but I need to see evidence before making that call and EA is playing this close to the chest at present.

And here is the kicker, as far as I can tell, at present there is no confirmed news on whether EA will follow the free-to-play route with EA Sports FC or not. This matters, because an E-sport that is not free to play could easily start at $5 a week, that is almost $25 a month making the game a lot more expensive whist after month 2 EA will be raking in the money. If it is free to play, the player will need to rely on premium packs at $7 each, so how does that math work out for you? 700 teams, 19000 players. How many packs will that be? Perhaps the player has one free team (depending on where they are) the rest not so much. And this is a problem, but also this view is speculative. EA is keeping its hand closed, so until they reveal we really do not know. 

The larger stage is ‘avoided being seen’ with “We do see ourselves as the world’s game. And as a result, we need to meet players and fans, where they are. This is a great embodiment of our commitment to football in general.” You see, I did (and still do) see loot-boxes as non-gambling. Yet FIFA was in a stage of exploitation and now that they cannot ‘hide’ behind the FIFA brand they have a much larger issue, because like most companies, they are hesitant to give away the 5 billion in revenue, even though they keep most of it now, they aren’t Amazon or Google (who wasted billions) EA has a bottom line, it has revenue depending shareholders, so if this goes south there will be a culling in EA management. 

Yet until the ACTUAL announcements come (not all the speculations we see everywhere) we will have to wait and as the game is expected to come in late September, I expect that the whole enchilada will be revealed no later than July, so roughly 8 weeks away, but that too is speculation from my side.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media

The empty wall

That happens, the writings is not always on the wall and now with the writers strike in the US, that wall may be empty for some days. Before I go into the now, lets consider what happened 15 years ago when the writers had their fill of exploitation. They went on strike for 100 days and the cost to the California economy was a thumping 2 billion dollars. That setting just now after covid would buckle many players all at one, making the US economy take a turn down in a stage it cannot afford it. There are other elements as well, but they do not matter at present. I was thrown by stories last week about writers that were living on US support. The people that are the foundation for billions in profit are not given a fair shake. How is that for greed and exploitation. They are not asking for the moon, they merely want a fair shake, a decent income. And I cannot see why not. I write stories, I created the foundation of movies and TV series. As such I identify with their needs. Not because of the income or the work I am in. I write for fun and to keep my skills honed. Yet the power of creation is strong and I can identify and side with anyone who made that their life’s ambition. 

As such when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65447046) gave me ‘Hollywood strike: Late night comedy shows to go dark as writers’ walkout begins’ I took notice. It wasn’t merely “A Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike, the first in 15 years, saw more than 11,000 writers – 98% of voting members – walk out from midnight. Tuesday’s late-night shows are expected to shut down first, while forthcoming shows and films could face delays.” This wasn’t merely a majority rules setting. 98 percent agreed, that is more than strong. It shows that the greed driven parties have taken things too far. I know it is not that simple, but that is the feeling it gives us. In. Place like the US where most people cannot agree one way or the other, 98% agreed and that number needs to sink in with many of us. We see the late night show references, but the larger stage is that this is not about one employer, one show or one movie. This is about the bulk of all and that matters, especially when a person like me throws the terms ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ into the mix, because that is how I feel about it. When I see stories about creators of successful series being on government support, something does not add up and these two term come to mind. 

And there is a larger stage with “This time around, writers are clashing with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) – which represents the major studios, including Amazon, Disney, Netflix and Paramount – in demand of higher pay and a greater share of the profits from the modern streaming boom” the BBC gives us part, but I believe that there is more. You see when we see ‘a greater share of the profits’ we think it is the writing, but what we forget that streaming profit streams in ‘ad infinitum’ and even if that were true, that is not what the writers get, nowhere near what the writers get. To give a simplistic version, if that setting was completely true. A person like Dorothy Catherine Fontana could (due to her involvement in Star Trek The Next Generation) buy David Hasselhoff out of his $51 million mansion and take it for herself. Even if she got a mere $0.05 per episode, Star Trek TNG has been running in syndication since it aired in 1987 and it is still running at full speed on Netflix, even today. Not all series get there and not all do that well, but there is a time gap, there is a larger stage. Consider that a radio station has to register every record they play, because the composer gets a royalty fee, this has been going on for decades. So why is there no setting for streaming? Now, I am over simplifying this and I am setting a slightly inaccurate example but the premise stays the writers want a fair shake and when we see that industry make billions, why not? The stage is that streaming is a new media that is not completely understood. Some see it as a temporary stage, some see it as the next iteration in media and there is a reason that studios are jumping on that train, it is where the consumers are and during that jump some thought it was a sweet deal in a few ways, yet the people creating those series are largely forgotten, that is how the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and its members feel about it and when you have to make ends meet that feeling of happiness sour in seconds and that is what I believe we see now. 

And when we see “Key issues in the talks have been how writers get paid for shows which often remain on streaming platforms for years, as well as the future impact of artificial intelligence on writing.” And here again we see two different settings. You see AI does not exist, whatever comes from these solutions isn’t created from the mind, it comes from data, data that these writers contributed. See it as an IT solution to cloning the writers mind, based on data the IT solution never created in the first place. So how long until they are made obsolete? And when I see “The AMPTP said it had offered a “comprehensive package proposal” including higher pay for writers.

But it was unwilling to improve that offer further “because of the magnitude of other proposals still on the table that the Guild continues to insist upon.”” I do not see a solution or a proposal, I see a stalling tactic, a way to keep more and hand out less to a people who created the success in the first place. In this Jimmy Fallon (the comedian) gives us “Arriving at the Met Gala, Fallon said he hoped the strike would not go ahead, but at the same time wanted to see “a fair deal” agreed for writers. “I need my writers real bad, I got no show without my writers”” which I think is the true part and with ‘a fair deal’ he hits the WGA nail on the head, I wonder how long it will take the AMPTP to take a serious stand and not true to negotiate part by part and with a ‘win’ on every segment. You see,100 days is enough for some streamers to find whatever they can in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, not to overlook Korea, Japan and India. All players that will have time and with 100 perhaps even longer to find players to go for THEIR solutions. They have been in the dark a lot longer and they are hungry for desperate streamers. How much damage will that bring. I reckon it will be more than the $2,000,000,000 the industry had the last time and when that happens, who will win? I feel certain that at that point the AMPTP will not feel like a winner. You see, a player like Netflix relies on its 230 million subscribers, especially outside of the US, their subscribers will look for other solutions when Netflix does not deliver. All this whilst the WGA and its members merely seek a fair deal? This could end up being a mopping exercise whilst the tap remains running. A lot of energy going nowhere and the spectators can clearly see that tap running. The empty wall is not merely the lack of creativity, it will be the result by not decently rewarding creativity. But it is early days, it is merely week 1 of the setting, the writers are adamant. How strong is the AMPTP deal? I honestly do not know because I have not seen any of these documents, but writers that take hunger over food whilst being underpaid is not a good setting, greed never wins over desperation, history taught us that lesson the hard way a few times over.

Enjoy this marvellous day past Sunday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, movies

The premise of danger

That is what I feel is in play, but there is a word of warning, my premise is speculative. To see this we need to take a look at two new articles, both from the BBC. The first one is ‘First Republic makes last ditch bid to find rescue deal’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65441302). I will go into details shortly. The second one is ‘US Fed admits failure to take forceful action on SVB’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65428206) which came in a day earlier, but it all links to ‘I honestly don’t get it’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/03/12/i-honestly-dont-get-it/), which I wrote on March 12th. As such we have a growing concern that stretches well beyond 6 weeks and now we get “According to reports, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a US financial regulator, sought bids for First Republic by the end of last week and has been assessing them over the weekend. Investment banking giant JP Morgan Chase is believed to be one of the banks invited to bid for First Republic, according to news agency Reuters. Bank of America is also understood to have been approached.” And in those six weeks I made a few clear presumptions/speculations. Yet NONE of the media looked into any of that, not even by their own accounts. The setting is that slippery and as such the media has shown that it can no longer be trusted. You see, there was a clear premise that some banks have too many US Bonds, but no one is willing t report on it and now people are withdrawing cash. The global setting becomes that putting your wealth in your mattress (or in a Saudi or Dubai bank) tends to be safer and that is not a good thing. No one is willing to look into the bulk of the US bonds and where they are, more importantly, no one is looking into which banks have US Bonds and how may they have of them, but the journalistic joke (ICIJ) was willing to play the NSA game (Credit Suisse leak) and emotionally speculate away whatever they could. The media is failing us all, because many are driven to ‘governmental’ needs. Yet, this is speculative, but look at what was published and what we are told, the numbers do not add up (neither do the topics). And in the second article we get “The US central bank has said it failed to act with “sufficient force and urgency” in its oversight of Silicon Valley Bank”, as such they didn’t learn in 2008 and they are seemingly not learning now. I use the word seemingly because of the Bonds issue, as I personally see it, some aren’t willing to report on connected matters and that is a whole different kettle of fish, but it is my view and if there is decent evidence proving me wrong, I will accept that. 

So when we are given “Michael Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, who led the review, said the US central bank should toughen its rules in response to what it had learned from SVB’s demise” we need to consider a few things. Basel III was created in 2010 (13 years ago) and in the US it was named the “Dodd-Frank Act” which was supposed to stop banks from taking excessive risks, which was partially repealed on May 24, 2018 by former President Trump. And now we have several new messes that could (in a most dire setting) bring about a new age of poverty in the US. Yet the larger setting that pushed for this is how many banks have US Bonds and how many do they have? 

And there is enough evidence out there, but for some reason the bulk of the media will not go near it, why not? If you follow the timeline and you start digging into 

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)
Signature Bank
First Republic Bank
Credit Suisse
UBS Group AG (they bought Credit Suisse)

A weird setting starts to evolve and I am not an economist, as such someone will tell me I am wrong, but when you start comparing where $20 trillion in US Bands are, the picture shifts. Some are well established ‘banks’ like Rothschild & Co, as such plenty will have bonds, but some took a chance on getting rich quick and the partial repealing of the Dodd-Frank act allowed them, as such several are now in problems and there are more in this level of problem, but someone is brushing these facts under the carpet (and the banks themselves are hiding issues), as such I expect to see more revelations like this over the next 2 quarters. I recon the US Central banks are doing whatever they can to douse that fire before a full baking meltdown is on the horizon and the media is assisting, because if they were not, we would see a lot more facts come to light. Or as my grandfather would say ‘the best secret keeper of an adulterer is a brothel’, to state that someone is getting rich of keeping the secret at present and as I personally see it, the media is assisting them. Why is that? It is (again as I personally see it) because you are no longer entitled to getting the actual news. You get filtered information. News that is censured and approved by share holders, stake holders and advertisers.

Take notice of that small fact and enjoy Monday, only 112 hours until the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

You wanna be this stupid?

Now this comes from a place of frustration, optionally leaning to anger. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65409971) gives us ‘What Europe’s royals could teach King Charles’ by Katty Kay. Now she could do all kinds of things (like taking care of 4 kids), she could focus on pumps, on corsages and on many things. But the idea that a yank is telling the UK what its king ‘could’ do is definitely no on with me. You see, His royal highness King Charles III has an example. A role model if you wish. His mother was Queen Elisabeth II, from 1952 until 2022, one of the longest reigning monarchs in history and perhaps the greatest monarch in human history. But the rather stupid person forgot about that part. What was this a simple article to get some money? With examples from Norway, Denmark and Belgium, so what about the Netherlands? What about Spain? Not good enough examples? So how about “After 21 years at the BBC, Kay left in May 2021 to join Ozy Media as its senior editor and executive producer. However, she resigned six months later from the digital media company following a New York Times report from Ben Smith alleging Ozy executives committed securities fraud”? What happened after that? Tail between your legs back to the BBC? This is a script by someone who made her own mistakes and that is fine, we all do. Yet this article without a mention of his mother who by a lot of people is regarded as the greatest monarch in history is one article too far. If only she had included her in this whatever you want to call it. The UK monarchy has had its share of issues, including a deceptive BBC journalist, who by my assessment is guilty of enabling the death of the Princes of Wales, formerly known as Diana Frances Spencer until her untimely demise in 1997. And it was that BBC shit Martin Bashir who had a hand in her death, you should have considered that before you opened your stupid mouth and decided to start writing silly articles. Katty might have gone further in her career writing about the latest style of pumps. 

Personally I see that it becomes more and more important to sanitise the BBC and see what other stupid people are there. It is turning into a second Fox News and we should prevent that whenever possible. 

Wow! I don’t think I have been this angry in a while, it feels good to let loose and we should. No matter how we see the coming reign of King Charles III and the challenges ahead of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but the greatest role model was the greatest monarch in human history, his mother. I think we can just sit back and relax whilst he gets a handle on matters. His family has earned that much (and much more).

So you all enjoy Sunday. I am going to see what more I can find. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics