Tag Archives: BBC

The pun remains

We all seek confirmation, it is for the most in our core, even now (after the idiocy ordeal) of dealing with Indeed and their ‘so called tests’ on a multiple choice test for answering the phone, I remembered things that actually mattered (to me that is). You see, Iran lost a nuclear physicist, the man Mohsen Fakhrizadeh did not see the beginning of December. And when we see “the architect of Tehran’s nuclear strategy, was killed on Friday on a highway near the capital in a carefully planned assassination”, I merely wonder how carefully the stage was planned. Yes, there is a chance that Mossad arranged for the release in stress to the State of Israel, there is also the chance that some hardliners are thinking that the nuclear escalation is not fast enough and they needed to increase tensions, or basically the IRGC promoted Mohsen Fakhrizadeh from citizen to dead citizen. Now, mind you, my view is highly speculative, but think on the lack of security a scientist apparently has in Iran and how little the IRGC has done to ensure ‘prompt response’ on those failing protection, is that not weird?

So whilst the Guardian gives voice to Hassan Rouhani and the quote “blamed Israel and reiterated that Fakhrizadeh’s death would not stop the country’s nuclear programme”, we can look at the horizon for a few matters. So whilst SBS relies to some degree on “Fakhrizadeh has been described by Western and Israeli intelligence services for years as the mysterious leader of a covert atomic bomb programme halted in 2003, which Israel and the United States accuse Tehran of trying to restore. Iran has long denied seeking to weaponise nuclear energy”, I merely wonder, how many scientists do YOU know that sit on their hands for 17 years? How many academic papers has he released since 2003? That too is evidence, if he actually worked towards safe nuclear energy. It is the same as the traps the Rotterdam harbour made in the late 80’s, idle time is NEVER linear. So when we get to the goods we see “He was the only Iranian scientist named in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 2015 “final assessment” of open questions about Iran’s nuclear programme. The IAEA’s report said he oversaw activities “in support of a possible military dimension to (Iran’s) nuclear programme”. He was a central figure in a presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018 accusing Iran of continuing to seek nuclear weapons”, and my need for precision needs to say that this too does not constitute evidence, merely alleged accusations, it is where is his team? A man like that does not work alone and his team and their actions are part of the chain of evidence, so where is it and what did the media uncover (if they took effort). It is a stage and the scientific stage tends to be ego fuelled, the man with the largest team is the most important, that is true pretty much everywhere. Only the established experts in a field that is too limited, too precise tends to be small, the nuclear field cannot boast this setting. Oh, and as for Mossad getting an operation this deep into Iran, weird, but OK, I can go along with excellence and well managed, yet that too is evidence. It implies that the IRGC is dropping essential balls all over the place and that is also an indication, perhaps Israel might be interested in Gorman One and Evia Miden, I have to sell to someone, Christmas is coming and I want to give myself a nice present, I reckon that these two weapon systems will do just that, how pathetic is my life? Me, willing to sell a weapon system to harm Iran for a video game and a cheese pizza? (Which was me oversimplifying matters).

 And in all this, we still have not seen any acceptable level of evidence to show it was Israel tht did the attack, for all we know it was Turkey who did this, lets face it we saw the headline ‘Erdoğan uses syncretism of neo-Ottomanism and pan-Turkism to build Greater Turkey’, and they cannot go after Greece, the EU won’t let them, Greece has too many friends, so who has no friends and can be used to show greatness? Ah yes, Iran! The evidence is super flimsy, but Iran is used to super flimsy evidence, so I jut thought I would help them out. You see, when you stop relying on actual data and evidence. Where do you end? Well, that is merely part of the evidence seen and in light of the nuclear aspirations of Iran, we need to start worrying on the EU taking actual notice of the dread that is Iran, when an attack does happen, and the target is Israel, it will hit the Mediterranean and as such it will hit European interests in no less than 8 countries, it is time for the EU to wake up, so when I see the Guardian giving us “Iran calls on international community – and especially EU – to end their shameful double standards & condemn this act of state terror”, we need to consider the play that follows this and ‘especially EU’ was not a suggestion, it was a specific tone meant for a specific person, as such we need to consider what we are all getting into, the EU especially because the nuclear game Iran is aiming for will happen in the EU backyard with decades of damage to follow, anyone not seeing that is a clear and proper fool.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Science

Data, Mind setting and Intent

It has always been the case that dat allows for more, Cambridge Analytica might have brought it to the surface, but it was there, it always was. I have been involved with data since 1992, so I see no surprises here. Even as some are ‘befuddled’ or ‘baffled’, I, and many others were not. So when I see the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54915779), I merely shrug my shoulders and go ‘Meh’. Yet the larger part is not seen, it is partially hidden by “buying someone’s name can lead to making guesses about their income, number of children and ethnicity – which is then used to tailor a political message for them”, when I see ‘making guesses about their income’, I wonder who was setting that strange event. When I have a name, I do not need to do any of that, When we combine the election roll data, when we set the stage via social media and when we add real estate data that some have (Equifax, Transunion, Thomson Reuters, Experian, Dunn and Bradstreet), we can start to combine information. I have don this for well over a decade. So when I see the statement from Lucy Purdon, I merely wonder if she is intentionally stupid. You see, it is not about “Data collection is out of control and we need to put limits on what is collected”, it is about “Data collection is out of control and we need to put limits on what is connected”, the shift is two letters which is a huge stage. I have been combining real estate data, past connections, as well as location information. There are really good programs out there and in some cases, I can combine the details of close to a dozen sources, as long as I can create a unique key and that is often possible (not always), privacy is what you had before there was an internet. When we got to the combinations of Merchant house data (Dutch: Kamer van Koophandel), I had the givings of well over a million people, a million more if multiple connections were made and that was in 1994, that was well over 25 years ago and that world did not stop, it never stopped running. Over 10 years ago Oracle introduced array tables, the manual states “Unbounded means that, theoretically, there is no limit to the number of elements in the collection. Actually, there are limits, but they are very high—for details, see Referencing Collection Elements”, it was a game changer, as I saw it it was the first real instance where we could create many to many relationships as well as set that data to a single person. In IBM Statistics I had to be clever and make a workaround, which was per person and a little time consuming, Oracle gave the setting where the computer did all the work, the more powerful the computer. The more data and the quicker we saw results, this was over 10 years ago, and a person like Lucy Purdon should know this, making her either super stupid, or she has an agenda. I do not think that she is stupid, so I am going to make the agenda assumption. There is a stage on what is collected and what is connected, she should know this. Financial institutions are ahed of that curve, because it gives them additional mitigated risk, this is one reason why Google Financial institutions need to keep a Chinese wall on their data away from their Financial Institutions, I gave that view somewhere two weeks ago in ‘A fair call’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/09/a-fair-call/), so when we see the events all clinging together, what are we chastising Google for when the stage is a lot worse? And when the BBC gives us ‘So how do the parties get my data in the first place?’ With the added “The electoral register forms “the spine” of data sources, according to PI, but beyond that it is surprisingly difficult to work out what the parties use”, well, I think I have just given you the run down on the way I did it for aver a quarter of a century, as such the gap the BBC is claiming to have versus is weird, especially when they do not give us “We think that they get from A, through B,C ,D and E, through to the result, we merely cannot prove it at present”, but they didn’t give us that, did they?

Several players have the data, and they have the mindset to make the connections in their need to set an advantage, but the stage of the intent cannot be proven, it remain allegedly, and in light of optional data (if others can acquire that data). It was never about collections, it was about connections and enough players know this to set some serious question marks to this article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

News, fake news, or else?

Yup that is the statement that I am going for today. You see, at times we cannot tell one form the other, and the news is making it happen. OK, that seems rough but it is not, and in this particular case it is not an attack on the news or the media, as I see it they are suckered into this false sense of security, mainly because the tech hype creators are prat of the problem. As I personally see it, this came to light when I saw the BBC article ‘Facebook’s Instagram ‘failed self-harm responsibilities’’, the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55004693) was released 9 hours ago and my blinkers went red when I noticed “This warning preceded distressing images that Facebook’s AI tools did not catch”, you see, there is no AI, it is a hype, a ruse a figment of greedy industrialists and to give you more than merely my point of view, let me introduce you to ‘AI Doesn’t Actually Exist Yet’ (at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/ai-doesnt-actually-exist-yet/). Here we see some parts written by Max Simkoff and Andy Mahdavi. Here we see “They highlight a problem facing any discussion about AI: Few people agree on what it is. Working in this space, we believe all such discussions are premature. In fact, artificial intelligence for business doesn’t really exist yet”, they also go with a paraphrased version of Mark Twain “reports of AI’s birth have been greatly exaggerated, I gave my version in a few blogs before, the need for shallow circuits, the need for a powerful quantum computer, IBM have a few in development and they are far, but they are not there yet and that is merely the top of the cream, the icing on the cake. Yet these two give the goods in a more eloquent way than I ever did “Organisations are using processes that have existed for decades but have been carried out by people in longhand (such as entering information into books) or in spreadsheets. Now these same processes are being translated into code for machines to do. The machines are like player pianos, mindlessly executing actions they don’t understand”, and that is the crux, understanding and comprehension, it is required in an AI, that level of computing will not now exist, not for at least a decade. Then they give us “Some businesses today are using machine learning, though just a few. It involves a set of computational techniques that have come of age since the 2000s. With these tools, machines figure out how to improve their own results over time”, it is part of the AI, but merely part, and it seems that the wielders of the AI term are unwilling to learn, possibly because they can charge more, a setting we have never seen before, right? And after that we get “AI determines an optimal solution to a problem by using intelligence similar to that of a human being. In addition to looking for trends in data, it also takes in and combines information from other sources to come up with a logical answer”, which as I see is not wrong, but not entirely correct either (from my personal point of view), I see “an AI has the ability to correctly analyse, combine and weigh information, coming up with a logical or pragmatic solution towards the question asked”, this is important, the question asked is the larger problem, the human mind has this auto assumption mode, a computer does not, there is the old joke that an AI cannot weigh data as he does not own a scale. You think it is funny and it is, but it is the foundation of the issue. The fun part is that we saw this application by Stanley Kubrick in his version of Arthur C Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is the conflicting part that HAL-9000 had received, the crew was unaware of a larger stage of the process and when the stage of “resolve a conflict between his general mission to relay information accurately and orders specific to the mission requiring that he withhold from Bowman and Poole the true purpose of the mission”, which has the unfortunate part that Astronaut Poole goes the way of the Dodo. It matters because there are levels of data that we have yet to categorise and in this the AI becomes as useful as a shovel at sea. This coincides with my hero the Cheshire Cat ‘When is a billy club like a mallet?’, the AI cannot fathom it because he does not know the Cheshire Cat, the thoughts of Lewis Carrol and the less said to the AI about Alice Kingsleigh the better, yet that also gives us the part we need to see, dimensionality, weighing data from different sources and knowing the multi usage of a specific tool.

You see a tradie knows that a monkey wrench is optionally also useful as a hammer, an AI will not comprehend this, because the data is unlikely to be there, the AI programmer is lacking knowledge and skills and the optional metrics and size of the monkey wrench are missing. All elements that a true AI can adapt to, it can weight data, it can surmise additional data and it can aggregate and dimensionalise data, automation cannot and when you see this little side quest you start to consider “I don’t think the social media companies set up their platforms to be purveyors of dangerous, harmful content but we know that they are and so there’s a responsibility at that level for the tech companies to do what they can to make sure their platforms are as safe as is possible”, as I see it, this is only part of the problem, the larger issue is that there are no actions against the poster of the materials, that is where politics fall short. This is not about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This is a stage where (optionally with intent) people are placed in danger and the law is falling short (and has been falling short for well over a decade), until that is resolved people like Molly Russell will just have to die. If that offends you? Good! Perhaps that makes you ready to start holding the right transgressors to account. Places like Facebook might not be innocent, yet they are not the real guilty parties here, are they? Tech companies can only do so such and that failing has been seen by plenty for a long time, so why is Molly Russel dead? Yet finding the posters of this material and making sure that they are publicly put to shame is a larger need, their mommy and daddy can cry ‘foul play’ all they like, but the other parents are still left with the grief of losing Molly. I think it is time we do something actual about it and stop wasting time blaming automation for something it is not. It is not an AI, automation is a useful tool, no one denies this, but it is not some life altering reality, it really is not.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Citizens of Jahannam

Yes, the bulk of us transgressed to a new village, a new town, optionally a city. We all moved to the city of Jahannam, we enabled the politicians who diverted the laws that enabled the corporations. And as Eve spoke to the guy on her needs of an apple product, she stated, yes that would be nice. So he got her a iPhone 7 SE (Swedish edition) and to make sure that it would last longer, the maker of Apple products slowed the battery down, to enable it to be older. Does it sound familiar? The story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54996601), give us ‘Apple to pay $113m to settle iPhone ‘batterygate’’, basically it took 76,000 victims to break even. Yet the news gives us “Millions of people were affected when the models of iPhone 6 and 7 and SE were slowed down in 2016 in a scandal that was dubbed batterygate”, and as such we see the first part, the second part is seen in the Verge who gave us “11 million customers that didn’t need to buy a new iPhone”, you still think that crime does not pay? Yes, there will be all kinds of noise that there wee more cases, more settlements, but all that money is TAX DEDUCTIBLE, as such we get to see a larger stage and it is high time that the people involved get the limelight. When we consider “Any legal fees or court costs incurred will be deductible as well as the cost of resolving the suit, whether the company pays damages to the plaintiff or agrees to settle the dispute”, So this is how you get to become a trillion dollar company, you set the stage in one direction, and as long as it cannot be proven, you tell the people something fitting, take the profit and pay the fee which is a tax option, so can we come to the conclusion that in this world criminals are better protected than the victims ever will be?

That consideration comes (in part) from “Two fatal crashes of Boeing 737 Max aircraft were partly due to the plane-maker’s unwillingness to share technical details, a congressional investigation has found” (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54174223), with the additional ““Boeing failed in its design and development of the Max, and the FAA failed in its oversight of Boeing and its certification of the aircraft,” the 18-month investigation concluded”, even as we suspect t the there is something wrong with the statement ‘the FAA failed in its oversight of Boeing’, yet could that ever be proven? What does matter the the lives of people are optionally ignored when the bottom line of a corporation is under fire, just like the USS Zumwalt that cannot fire any of their smart bullets (at $1,000,000 per shot). As such, when we read the “The nearly 250-page report found a series of failures in the plane’s design, combined with “regulatory capture”, an overly close relationship between Boeing and the federal regulator, which compromised the process of gaining safety certification”, I wonder what the optional price was of ‘an overly close relationship between Boeing and the federal regulator, several ideas come to mind, none of them really proper for vocation, yet the setting is there. Again corporate needs are protected as the courts seem to be in a stage of protecting those who do not deserve it and fail to protect those who were in need of protection. And the people wonder why we do have become so distrustful of governments, really?

We might have a few questions on the unrealistic minimum-cost estimates of the USS Zumwalt, yet will those who heralded the unrealistic minimum-cost estimates the inside of a court having to explain their actions, I doubt it, as such is the thought that we have become Citizens of Jahannam.
Too much of a leap? 

Consider the issues that we face, the political egos we allow for and ask yourself, how much more will we have to accept before the law does what it showed do and protect victims? As such, we need to ask the questions we at times fear to ask. And even as we accept the pragmatism is at times the safest course of action, yet the acts of Apple and Boeing give us a very different story, the story of pragmatism being the death of far too many people, yet that is a side we are seldom to see, is it?

I merely wonder what corporations are saved from facing next, I wonder if my choices to be slightly selfish were so bad in the end. If Apple can become a trillion dollar company the way it did, could I not become slightly less rich without dec option and by keeping my (slightly stubborn) disposition of fair play?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Cursed by choice

It is a setting some will remember, some fondly, some less so. It is a state where you have too much options. Let me try to explain this, for example, your iPod you find after a year and you see hundreds of songs you have not heard for some time, but you cannot decide, or perhaps a choice of 5 RPG games and you have select one to play. The inability to seek between good options if you want.

It is a setting the reflects on to situations. The first is the one, the only, the musk (Elon to insiders). BBC reports “Tesla’s share price surged about 14% in New York following the news it was being added to the index. Given Mr Musk’s 20% stake in Tesla his net worth rose to $117.5bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His wealth has jumped $90bn this year as Tesla’s share price has continued to rise”, I look at the setting differently, some say he has the Midas gene, he can anything he touches to gold, I reckon like Steve Jobs and a few others, he has the ability to turn generic outliers into commercial successes. We can go from the fact he knows what is useful, we can go with he knows where to push, who to push and how much to push. We can look at it in different ways, but in basic “Tesla’s share price surged about 14% in New York following the news it was being added to the index. Given Mr Musk’s 20% stake in Tesla his net worth rose to $117.5bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His wealth has jumped $90bn this year as Tesla’s share price has continued to rise”, and that is before he realises (perhaps he already knows) that he is optionally sitting on an additional $1.2 trillion (meaning $1,200 billion) and the wired has seemingly no caught on, I had a few ideas in support of that, but the IP is already his, so why bother, he will figure it out. And that is before he goes to space, there he might make a few coins more. 

It is one setting and the opposing view is seen when we look at the lovely youthful youngling known as Taylor Swift. That BBC view (at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54969396) gives us “Writing on Twitter Swift said it was “the second time my music had been sold without my knowledge””, here we want to answer in anger, yet the article also gives us “Swift signed a deal with record label Big Machine in 2004 granting them ownership of the master recordings to her first six albums in exchange for a cash advance to kick-start her career”, as such if there is no clause with a mandatory first option to buy back, I wonder if Scooter Braun did anything wrong. The news gives us that she signed over ownership on her first 6 albums, so I understand that she is not happy, but did Scooter do anything wrong? She is not the first, I learned a lot later in life that Paul McCartney has lost ownership of Beatles songs. I actually never knew that. And he is not alone, as such, and especially as we know and have seen that Taylor is very intelligent, why she learned her lesson the hard way. As one is cursed by many options, the other one was forced by a lack of options. The most dangerous part in all this is doing something expecting them to act in another, when we see “US entertainment magazine Variety first reported on Monday that Braun had sold the rights – known as masters – to an investment fund. It said the deal is thought to be worth more than $300 million (£227m)”, I wonder how much the songs were bought for, as such still, one third of a billion is a whole lot of money, I would not sell my IP for that (I would set it to a percentage of the patent value), yet overall I could be tempted. And there is a setting switch, it is about awareness, how many people in the music industry have a real grasp of IP and what it is worth nowadays. Games, movie, TV series, they are all in need of music and there is so much one can compose, it was perhaps one of Ubisoft most brilliant moments in all this, get well known songs or well known artists to support the IP, Imagine Dragons is perhaps one of the more known artists, it propelled the game, not merely the graphics, the music was a large part of it and Ubisoft was exceedingly clever there, they might not own the IP, but they knew a good deal when it was there and musicians need to catch up, especially in this age of Netflix and streaming. Now this is not an attack on Taylor Swift, this might have been her only option, yet the stage remains, what kind of legal advice did she get? I do not know, I am merely asking. So when I see (according to the BBC) “When his company, Ithaca Holdings, paid $300m to acquire Swift’s former record label last year, Swift saw it as an act of aggression that “stripped me of my life’s work”. She accused Braun – who also manages Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato – of “incessant, manipulative bullying”” we see a lot of emotion, but the stage is did Scooter Braun do anything wrong or illegal? We might say immoral and unethical but neither is a crime according to law and that is the setting we need to see and perhaps Taylor should have appealed to Elon Musk who has well over 3,000 times what she apparently needed, it is merely food for thought, although, I reckon that Elon gets a dozen of these attempts to contact an hour, and optionally when he figures out where his optional missing $1.2T is even more.

Such is life!
There are two groups cursed by choice, one group has too many, the other has (far) too few. Which one do you belong in? And what makes you think that you are in one or the other, because that contemplation tends to be a solution in itself at times.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Science

Ignoring the dangers

We all do the at times, we ignore or minimise the dangers we are facing, some do it so the they can get their own needs filled and others again do it for what they call ‘the bigger picture’. So as Al Jazeera showed us ‘Iran blasts ‘hate-mongering’ in Saudi king’s comments’, I decided to take a quick gander in the Google Search, When seeking ‘Iran Saudi Arabia’ in the news, the western press was abundantly absent on the matter, yet the BBC did gif us 4 days ago ‘US election: Gulf Arab leaders face new reality after Biden victory’, they seemingly all have other ‘important’ news to give us. 

Yet the Al Jazeera article is more important than you think. When we consider the BBC ‘Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile ’10 times limit’’, it is the first of a lot of markers, it is the setting for more, when we consider the constant interference from Iran into Yemen, with the Houthi forces ‘US warns of possible Houthi missile strikes on Saudi capital’, the issue here is that the missiles and drones cannot be made in Yemen, the infrastructure is not there, as such only Iran could have smuggled them and it seems that the so called Western Navy has so far been unable to stop anything. Now that Houthi forces are deliberately targeting civilian population centres the stage is set in other ways too, Saudi Arabia has little choice but to hit back. So when we see “US officials warned of possible Houthi missile strikes on Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, after the kingdom reported it intercepted several armed drones and missiles fired by the rebel group in Yemen”, even as we get the watered down ‘US special representative on Iran, checks what Saudi officials claimed were Iran-made Houthi missiles and drones intercepted over Saudi territory last year’, we see Brian Hook on stage, but the International media remains in denial (through silence), on the simple fact that the Houthi forces cannot manufacture these missiles, they have a supplier named Iran and too many of these Iranian events go unnoticed by the western media steering clear of it. So when we are treated to “The kingdom stresses the dangers of Iran’s regional project, its interference in other countries, its fostering of terrorism, its fanning the flames of sectarianism and calls for a decisive stance from the international community against Iran that guarantees a drastic handling of its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and develop its ballistic missiles programme”, we see more than a truth,. We see a setting stage where we must act now, or it will be too late. Iran is too careless with what it has and it is willing to arm anyone willing to fire on either Saudi Arabia or Israel. When that happens we have a stage that can no longer be turned. So the tactic seems clear as Iran gives us “Iran criticises Saudi monarch urging global action against Tehran, calling for unity among Muslim nations”, yet it is the Iranian actions that require actions. The non actions, when it is too late these so called ‘world leaders’ in the EU and the USA will have to sit back and remain silent. They had their option but their ego’s are too consumed with some action plan that will never work in Iran over the essential need to call Iran to attention. 

We have ignored the stage for too long and there aren’t many moves left, the move we make when it is too late will seal the deal where no-one in Saudi Arabia will be willing to take calls from anyone in the EU or the US, is that what we truly want? Diplomats have been played with and kept on an Iranian leash for well over 5 years and it is time to learn our lesson, Iran will never be a civil voice in any of this. How is the for ignoring the dangers? How does any of the actions from the EU and the US even make sense in all this, it is time to act, we played for too long with the brazen incriminations and actions by Iran. So whilst the Arab News gives us ‘Iran and Turkey ‘losers’ in emerging new Middle East order, say analysts’ what do you think that people in Turkey and Iran will do with their overinflated ego’s? Do you think they play nice? 

As such when Alex Vatanka, senior fellow and director of the Iran program at The Middle East Institute gives us “I see Iran as a loser in the sense of losing out geopolitically, ideologically and politically at home”, how do you expect Iran to react? They will not care on the lives of Houthi or Saudi forces, they merely want to look important and they are willing to send all the wrong toys to Yemen. His majesty King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is correct, the problem is not what he is saying, it is what the EU and the US are not willing to listen to and that is the larger game, ego. Ego in the people who think the they can till matter still look important all whilst Iran has decided not to listen. I reckon an enriched Uranium stockpile of 1,000% of what was allowed is sufficient evidence, as are the Iranian missiles fired on Saudi Arabia from Yemen. Either is enough, but for the global players to ignore two pieces of evidence? I will let you decide on how dangerous the game with Iran has become.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Brother, can you spare a clue?

Yup, we all need clues at time. In some cases it is a simple as a vowel or a consonant, a stage where the word is still hidden to us. At times it is a clue to a larger picture, like the Guardian giving us ‘Biden to Trump – you’re embarrassing US’, now I am no Trump fan, yet the elections are not called yet in two states (31 electoral votes), we are optionally facing a recount in Wisconsin and Arizona (21 electoral votes), and there we see the larger difference, it is up in the air who becomes president. The media is shouting and screaming that Biden has won, which would be nice, but I deal in certainties and this is not certain. Georgia is leaning towards Biden, North Carolina is not. Yet until these two are officially called this race is still on. We can scream ‘count every vote’ and I support that, but not all the votes have been counted yet and there we have the larger station.

Then we see China optionally requiring a legal clue, we see this in BBC article ‘Hong Kong disqualifies four pro-democracy lawmakers after China ruling’, a lot of us might go all huffy and puffy, yet does that remain when we see “The expulsion came moments after Beijing passed a resolution allowing the government to disqualify politicians deemed a threat to national security”, as well as “China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee says that lawmakers should be disqualified if they support Hong Kong independence, refuse to acknowledge China’s sovereignty, ask foreign forces to interfere in the city’s affairs or in other ways threaten national security”, a setting that is open to interpretation. Especially when I consider “Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person—in every civilisation. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes”, which President George Bush gave us from the White House in 2002, it comes in context with The National Security Strategy (NSS) which is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government of the United States for Congress. It sets a tone towards the outlines the major national security concerns of the United States and partial methods on how to to administer these plans for dealing with issues. The legal foundation for the document is spelled out in the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The document is purposely general in content (read: Ambiguous), and its implementation relies on elaborating guidance provided in supporting documents. Both are choices in execution the need for a national security. Did you actually believe that the stage where Britain obtained a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898 was the end of that? After WW2, 50% of that lease period was surpassed, what did you think was going to happen? China giving up on the most profitable region in history? It is emphasised when we consider the Conversation giving us a year ago “Since 9/11, American domestic and international security policy has been focused on individual terrorists, terrorist groups and rogue countries as the primary threats. The country’s defensive response has been focused on the military and law enforcement capabilities. That’s natural, because the military knows how to shoot, drop and launch things at threats like that. And those dangers still exist”, do you think that China was not doing that as well? Since 2000 almost 100 attacks (mostly lone wolves) have been nipping at the heels of the USA, do you think that China is waiting for an attack? It will be minimising risk and Hong Kong is seen as all risk. 

Yet these matters are out in the open, there is a whole range of issues the remain in the dark, in the US, in China, in the Middle East and in Russia, each having its own baton of transparency, each having a different working method and in position we see the media pushing buttons and giving a partial view whenever possible, they too have their share holders, their stake holders and their advertising needs, it does not help many of us getting a clear picture. Consider the AP 4 days ago when they gave us “On Saturday, Biden captured the presidency when The Associated Press declared him the victor in his native Pennsylvania at 11:25 a.m. EST. That got him the state’s 20 electoral votes, which pushed him over the 270 electoral-vote threshold needed to prevail”, which is by all accounts a fair call, but the votes are not counted yet, the 31 out in the open and the end result could become Biden 276-Trump 262. This is an awful close call to be celebrating when votes are still being counted, one contested state is all the is required to show is all overboard and Wisconsin with 10 electoral seats might get us Biden 266 – Trump 272, that is the ball game. This is where it is at and the previous stage will be abandoned by so many it will scare you. You see, I am no Trump fan, and the chaos will ensure that the US will see several attacks, it infrastructure is massively undercut, its resources strained in the wrong directions and we are all screaming: Biden save us, all whilst the stage is not yet set, a stage that the Lone Wolves are really liking at present. Consider Savannah Georgia, Long Beach California, Seattle, Houston and South Carolina, they all have something in common and they neglected a lot in the last decade, the finds were not there. So when problems come calling the American people better have a real focal point instead of the reds versus the blues, we saw how that happened in Gangs of New York, how did the city fair there? It was set to Herbert Asbury’s 1927 nonfiction book The Gangs of New York. Yet what set it all apart, how do you remember the New York City draft riots? You think it does not relate? Consider that it was the moment when the population of New York fell below 11,000 and the area’s demographics changed pretty much forever as a result of the riot. You think that the second time around it will be better? When the reds versus the blues come calling instead of uniting, the US stands to lose a massive amount more from the start and this time around nationwide. I agree, it does not help when one of the players isn’t the sharpest tool in the tool chest, but the stage needs to be secured, China did it from the start, here we see a stage that is open for all with a gun and a loud mouth. Still thinking I have gone coo-coo? Consider ‘Three-quarters of Americans fear post-election violence and riots, Independent reveals’ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/election-results-2020-riots-trump-biden-b1700559.html), a stage given to us 2 days ago. That stage still exists, and it still holds water and there is the larger danger, not the rioters, but the opening the they give the lone wolves waiting for a signal. We are given “Such fears appeared directly linked to Americans’ concerns that it will not be clear by 4 November who won the presidential race”, now consider that one week later this issue is still in play. I watched two states remaining at 99% for 3-4 days, so what is hampering the final count? 

As you can see, in light of the unknown and there is quite a lot of it, brother, can you spare ME a clue?

Oh, and I was not done yet (well, not completely). You see, the Goldwater-Nichols Act is the foundation of a larger issue (at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525942.pdf), you see when we consider “Goldwater-Nichols may have made DOD more efficient but at the cost of civilian control. It has also politicised the Armed Forces. Like the law it replaced, it has created a national military command structure that ignores the separation of powers. The amended National Security Act has consolidated dispersed powers into one office, unintentionally establishing conditions under which an imperious Secretary might abuse them”, as such we can surmise that the US will be under a larger version of exposed danger until the 19th of January, 2021. You did not actually think that these lone wolves are sitting on their hands, did you? The danger is not red versus blue, it is those seeking an advantage during that time and as I personally see it, the US is not ready to deal with that danger.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Is it me? Perhaps it is!

Yup, we need to look into matters and I am willing to concede that I am the stupid one, yet the BBC is setting a stage that is not set to the proper players and it shows (well, to me it does), so as I look at ‘Facebook, Twitter and Google face questions from US senators’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54721023), we see ““[It] allows digital businesses to let users post things but then not be responsible for the consequences, even when they’re amplifying or dampening that speech,” Prof Fiona Scott Morton, of Yale University, told the BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “That’s very much a publishing kind of function – and newspapers have very different responsibilities. “So we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society.”” You see, the stage is larger, even as we see a reference towards section 230 with the added quote “some industry watchers agree the legislation needs to be revisited”, so can we have these names? 

Section 230
Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Yet the stage is a lot larger, most common law nations (civil law nations too) have similar protections in place, and ever as we see the repose by Professor Fiona Scott Morton giving us “we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society”, most parties refuse to hold the posters of the online information accountable. It is too hard, there are too many issues, but in the end, I call it a load of bollocks, the avoidance of accountability has been on my mind for close to a decade, the lawmakers have done nothing (or close to it). These lawmakers do not comprehend, the politicians are mostly clueless and the technologists cannot abide to the lack of insight that the other two are showing they lack.

So as we see “both sides agree they want to see the social networks held accountable”, yet neither is willing to hold the poster of the transgressor accountable and that is the larger issue. So even as we see the so called political ploys and no matter what the reason is, when we see “Both President Trump and his election rival Joe Biden have called for the removal of Section 230, though for different reasons”, yet both ignore the obvious, the posters want a medium and outside of the US they have all the options to continue. Basically the only thing that the US will accomplish is isolation, all whilst the dreaded posts from those who seek to harm society will never be stopped, they merely change location, and now that the US is ranking 8th on the 5G speed lit at a mere 13.29% of the speed of number one, things will go from bad to worse, limiting big tech is the larger error in their thinking pattern. 

Any form of censorship strangles freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Holding the speakers accountable is not censorship, it merely sets the frame that these social media speakers will be held to account, optional in a court for WHAT they say. It was never that complex, so why push the side that resolves nothing? So whilst we see all these media articles on AI and how AI is NOW the solution that one can purchase, the factual reality is “experts have predicted the development of artificial intelligence to be achieved as early as by 2030. A survey of AI experts recently predicted the expected emergence of AGI or the singularity by the year 2060”, a stage we seemingly forget whenever some short sighted politician makes a twist towards AI and the solution in social media, the reality is that there is no AI, not yet. Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/10/how-far-are-we-from-achieving-artificial-general-intelligence/#389ade286dc4) introduces us to “Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can be defined as the ability of a machine to perform any task that a human can”, you see, commerce couldn’t wait for AI to come, so they pushed it into AGI, and the AI they all advertise is merely a sprinkle of AI, scripted solutions to singular tasks and even that part is debatable, because the application of AI needs more, I wrote bout it almost two months ago. I wrote “until true AI and true Quantum computing are a fact, the shallow circuits cannot cut through the mess”, I did this in ‘About lights and tunnels’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/08/about-lights-and-tunnels/), you see, IBM IS THE ONLY PLAYER that is close to getting the true Quantum computing up and running, Shallow circuits are still evolving and that matters, because they only launched their first quantum computing solution a year ago. When they complete that part we see the first stage when a true AI can become a reality, only then is there an actual solution available to seek out the perpetrators. So as we look at all the elements involved, we can see to a clear degree that 

  1. There is no real solution to the problem (at present).
  2. Section 230 is doing what it was doing, even as there are issues (no one denies that).
  3. As such we need to hold the posters accountable for what they post.

As I see it these three parts are only the top layer, and in no way is adapting or editing section 230 the solution, it might if all nations adopt it, but what is the chance of that? The only thing that the US and its senators achieve is scaring business somewhere else, when that happens the US and its data gathering stage will take a spiralling downward turn, one their economy is certainly seen as a near death experience. I think that these senators need to stop selling shit as peanut butter. To realise that part we merely need to turn the clock back to April 2018 and consider Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg how he is able to sustain a business model in which users do not pay. The answer was simple “Senator, we run ads” (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ). A stage where someone was allegedly this unaware of the stage of digital media, when they rely on questions that are a basic 101 of digital media, how can we take the efforts, or the presented efforts of both the democratic and republican houses serious? 

It is a stage where you will need to take a deeper look at what you see, it is not easy and I am not asking you to believe me, I for one might be the one who sees it wrong, I believe that my view is the correct one, but when all these high titled and educated people give sides, I am willing to go own faith that I need to take another look at what I believe to be correct. And wth that, I get to my very first article. The article ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/19/the-accountability-act-2015/) was me seeing the change in 2012, seeing the need for an accountability act, an essential need in 2015, it never came to be and people more intelligent than me thought it not essential. So whilst I wrote (in 2012) “I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others”, as such, I saw a setting that we see now more and more clearly, I was ahead of my time (well, my ego definitely is). 

We need a different setting and we can blame the big tech companies, but is that the factual setting? When we use the quote from the AFP giving us “Capitol Hill clashed with Silicon Valley Wednesday over legal protections and censorship on social media during a fiery hearing a week before Election Day in which Twitter’s Jack Dorsey acknowledged that platforms need to do more to “earn trust.””, yet the big tech companies do not write laws do they? Yes they all need to earn trust, but trust is also lost through the newspapers using digital media to set the stage of ‘click bitches’ reacting to THEIR stories, as such, how guilty is big tech? So when we are confronted with the ludicrous headline “Kim Kardashian is accused of having SIX TOES in snaps from THAT controversial birthday getaway: ‘Why is this not trending’”, something that comes up apparently every now and then, yet this is a NEWSPAPER, as such as they also use digital media to push forward their economic needs, the stage of section 230 is a little larger, and the fact that what I personally would see as fake news, we see fake news coming from news agencies, so when we consider that some talk about “earn trust”, I think that we demand this from newspapers and see how long they accept that stage before greed takes over, or should I say the needs for clicks on digital media? A stage we saw in the Leveson Inquiry and as greed took over, I wonder whether these senators have any clue on the stage that is before them and the size of that stage. A stage that has additional sides and I am willing to wager that they haven’t got a clue how many sides they are unaware off. The US (and some others) need big tech to be as it is, if I can innovate 5G beyond their scope, that matter will merely increase when they break up, making the US more and more of a target against innovators they have no defence against, because the innovators are no longer in the US, and those they thought they had are moving away to greener pastures.
It might not hurt the big tech companies with offices outside of the US, but I reckon those senators thought of that, didn’t they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

Freedom to insult

That is the stage that we see reopen an hour ago on Reuters. The article ‘Saudi Arabia condemns cartoons offending Prophet Mohammad’ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-boycott-saudi/saudi-arabia-condemns-cartoons-offending-prophet-mohammad-idUSKBN27C0FE), which pretty much repeats my view given in ‘Creation of doubt’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/18/creation-of-doubt/) almost 10 days ago. Even as the BBC gives us ‘France targets radical Islam amid row with Turkey’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54692802), the larger issue is avoided by almost all. In a stage where we see ‘freedom of expression’ versus ‘disrespecting religion’ how can this ever be right? We see it in Hedbo in their view of christian values and in this there is no real setting, there is no doctrine against an image of Jesus, or an image of cardinals or the pope. Yet there is a clear directive on images of the prophet Mohammed, and Islam is quite outspoken of that part and that is ignored again and again.

The Reuters article gives us “Freedom of expression and culture should be a beacon of respect, tolerance and peace that rejects practices and acts which generate hatred, violence and extremism and are contrary to coexistence”, yet we see a lack thereof by the teacher Samuel Paty, in this I believe that the action against him were wrong, yet I wonder what drove a teacher to intentionally insult Islam, yet the media is driving around that question, driving around it by well over a mile. In this the BBC gives us “The government believes the response cannot only be about law enforcement. They also need to manage social networks and associations, because this tragic case shed light on a whole network which spreads hate speeches within the population. The system needs changing”, an interesting quote, yet if we look at ‘a whole network which spreads hate speeches within the population’, yet that applies to a schoolteacher as well as the person who beheaded that teacher, and that part is largely missing. And by the time we get to “Marine Le Pen has also cast the peaceful public expression of Islam as a threat to French national identity”, in this it is not about “peaceful public expression of Islam”, it is the intentional disrespect of Islam that is the larger part here, and ever as some state that this is the need of Macron to win a reelection, the stage of intentionally insulting religion has a much larger stage all over Europe, and as far as I can tell the big newscasters are all in silence there, they will skate around the subject and most of them are doing just that.

Even as the Guardian gives us yesterday ‘Macron’s clash with Islam sends jolt through France’s long debate about secularism’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/macrons-clash-with-islam-sends-jolt-through-frances-long-debate-about-secularism) we get a set stage, and as such we need to look at that stage.

First there is secularism, which means “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”, as such we need to see “rejection of religious consideration” when it is set against ‘insulting religion’. In an age of discrimination laws where some might accept “The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed is not covered by freedom of expression” (source: Al Arabiya), the stage is not that clear as France rejects the Blasphemy Law, as such France is in a different pickle, yet the stage of ‘insulting religion’, and until that part is dealt with, the stage remains and might actually get worse.  So whilst we all accept and see that beheading a teacher is wrong, no one is wondering why a teacher is allowed to openly insult religion, insult Islam. Even as some papers give us “some of them caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, during a history lesson about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience”, I would have had the same stage in 2015, I protested like others Je suis Charlie, yet at that point I did not know why the action was taken. I believe that the protest was valid, but the lack of validity that goes with openly insulting religion is not addressed, not by any news paper. Why is that?

Now that I know that images of the prophet Mohammed are taboo, why would a teacher repeat the same insult? If it truly was about freedom of expression, why not use the christian examples (we christians do not object to this) and refer in that same lesson that Islam has specific rules on idolisation, yet the papers and plenty of other sources steer clear of that part, I wonder why?

It is clear that there is a gap in secularism, as such we need to take heed on how we openly insult the religions around us, why do this, what is there to gain? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

What ya gonna do?

It started two days ago, actually it started a lot earlier, but I basically had enough of the BS stage that we are given. Just to be sure, this is for the largest station not a media thing, so even as the BBC flamed my mood, the BBC is not responsible. As such before I go into ‘Google hit by landmark competition lawsuit in US over search’, I need to set the record straight according to the view I have and you might decide that I am wrong, which is perfectly fair. 

History gives us that Larry Page (aka Clever Smurf) and Sergey Brin (aka Papa Smurf) developed PageRank at Stanford University in 1996 as part of a research project about a new kind of search engine. It was not the first attempt, or perhaps ‘version’ is a better setting, there were earlier versions that go all the way back to the eigenvalue challenge by Gabriel Pinski and Francis Narin. So two bright surfs came up with the setting that big people players like Microsoft and IBM ignored for the longest time, and as such Google had the patents. The idea of link based popularity had not syphoned through because a lot of these wannabe bullet point managers basically did not understand the internet, they merely understood the options of selling concepts, yet in that age of selling concepts Google had the inside track to sell a setting that was ready and able as early as 1998. As such I have watched with my eyes desperately focussed on the heavens, asking our heavenly father to smite some of these stupid people, we now see “The charges, filed in federal court, were brought by the US Department of Justice and 11 other states. The lawsuit focuses on the billions of dollars Google pays each year to ensure its search engine is installed as the default option on browsers and devices such as mobile phones”, the same organisation that ignored Netscape and gave free reign to Microsoft is now seeing the government data lights? So when we see ‘the billions of dollars Google pays each year to ensure its search engine is installed as the default option on browsers and devices such as mobile phones’, all whilst it truthfully should say ‘Google installs its search engine on its mobile operating system Android, an alternative to the largely unaffordable iOS iPhones’, consider that the three generations of mobiles I have bought containing Android in times when the Apple alternative was close to 250% more expensive each and every time. The last time around the iPhone was $1999, whilst my Android phone (with almost the same storage) was $499, I will let you work out the setting. So when I see “Officials said those deals have helped secure Google’s place as the “gatekeeper” to the internet, allowing it to own or control the distribution channels for about 80% of search queries in the US”, I merely see (with my focal points partially towards the history of things) “Google was active and affordable in an age when Apple was not, Apple was unaffordable as they set themselves up as the larger elite provider, Android had affordable models by Motorola, Huawei, Google Nexus, Google Pixar, Oppo, HTC, Samsung, Oneplus. A setting that was open and affordable. And the officials that are raving on ‘allowing it to own or control the distribution channels for about 80% of search queries in the US’, these (as I personally see it) so called idiots, optionally way too deep in funky mushrooms are ignorant of the stage that Google catered to the user, Apple (the alternative) catered to its own bottom dollar way too often. In that same trend we need to see that “Apple’s iOS operating system has a share of 50 percent of the mobile operating system market in the United States”, so how come that Google has 80%? They thought things through, the BI management idiots with their bullet point presentations never thought things through. I have at least two examples that predate Facebook and well over half a dozen examples of 5G IP that is beyond the comprehension of mot of them (with the exception of Google and Huawei), these two UNDERSTAND systems, the others merely use and use to their nature towards limited comprehension, or at least that is how I see it. And in this ZDNet was a happy supplier in January of ‘Microsoft is about to force Bing onto Office 365 Plus users. But does even Bing think it’s better than Google?’, which is a nice setting, because I can ask bing on my Android, yet it seems that Microsoft forces Bing on its system, but it allegedly seems that they get way with that. The article has a few nice tidbits, but I particularly liked “Why Hasn’t Bing Improved To Become Better Than Google?”, an 2016 article by Forbes. With the article (at https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-google-better-than-bing-i-asked-google-and-bing-and-got-surprising-results/) giving us the added “and why Bing has a bit of a reputation as ‘the porn search engine’”, it seems that 18 years later bing is still sliding very much behind Google, Google had a few things better and better set. It is the final two parts that matter, the first one is “Both companies might try to offer something authoritative, but you should always use your own judgment and realise the vast limitations and algorithmic biases of all search engines. If Bing works for you, be happy. If Google does, be happy too. In both cases, though, be wary. Can you cope with the responsibility?” Yet in all this Bing never shows up in any official part does it? The second part gives the larger stage “in Bing searches, the entries under the News tab were far, far more dated than those in Google”, consider the need of us, the users, when do we accept dated information? It seems that any competitor of Google is vastly behind, even the rich bitch Microsoft. When we see that part of the equation, we need to wonder what is the play that these officials are making? What is it actually about? The BBC article also gives us “Google called the case “deeply flawed”” and that is the larger truth, the Bing setting proves that side of it, and more important, Microsoft who pushed Netscape out of the market is not being asked any questions in this regard, or is used to show the inferiority of what they have countering the vastly superior solutions by Google. As such, when we see “Politicians in Congress have also called for action against Google and fellow tech firms Amazon, Facebook and Apple in an effort that has united Democrats and Republicans”, no one seems to be wondering what Russia and China have on the market, because the advantage Google has now could become the stage of a fight against whatever Russia and China offer, in this data is the catalyst in these systems and before anyone starts trivialising that, consider that TikTok is Chinese, when we consider that over 2 billion people have downloaded it and it nw has a value between 110 and 180 billion, in a stage that only had Google before (YouTube), yet even in that setting the larger US tech giants set on their hands and they never came up with it, a Chinese entrepreneur did, so what else can they come up with? In a stage with non comprehending officials on just how cut throat this market is, they are weighting down on the tech giants all whilst Chinese innovators are going to town. And none of them have my IP yet. Another stage they ALL overlooked. What else do you think they will miss, because I do not think of everything (I just cannot be bothered thinking of everything), so what else is not seen? 

Consider that when you look at these so called ‘lets kick the tech-giants’ because at this speed the US will only have these four tech-giants left, the rest is most likely Indian or Chinese, the hungry tend to be innovative and in America these so called innovators haven’t been hungry for the longest time, so their track record wanes more and more. That is partially seen with ‘Quibli is the Anti-TikTok’ (at https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/09/quibi-vs-tiktok). Here we see the article from April where we are given “Rather than iterating toward product-market fit, it spent a fortune developing its slick app and buying fancy content in secret so it could launch with a bang.Yet Quibi’s bold business strategy is muted by a misguided allegiance to the golden age of television before the internet permeated every entertainment medium. It’s unsharable, prescriptive, sluggish, cumbersome and unfriendly. Quibi’s unwillingness to borrow anything from social networks makes the app feel cold and isolated, like watching reality shows in the vacuum of space”, with that consider that Quibli was founded 2 years AFTER TikTok, as such the stage for a better product was there to a much larger extent, and as Tech Crunch states “It takes either audacious self-confidence or reckless hubris to build a completely asocial video app in 2020”, and when we consider the fact that TikTok was created earlier by 2 years, the lack of innovation in Quibli is easily seen and as such after 6 months it shut down. These officials need to wake up and smell the coffee, the race is on and even as scare tactics towards anti-China might work to some degree in the US, the EU with 700 million consumers have little faith in US Hubris and that is where the stage changes, especially now with data laws in place. If Chinese and Indian innovators get the name and therefor the people and consumers, the marketshare of US companies will collapse more and more, as I see it 2022-2025 will not be a pretty picture for the US, the 5G backlog is starting to show and it will show more and more soon enough. 

As I see it, Google has two wars to fight, one with its own political administration, one with the true innovators out there. The second war they can win as they have true innovators themselves, but the one with the US political administration is a larger issue, because that war will also hinder the second war, which would be a bad situation for Google to be in.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Politics, Science