Tag Archives: BBC

Creation of thoughts

This started 2 days ago for me. An actress posted a clip on Twitter. I read it and gave my view on this and I got blocked. Fair enough, not everyone agrees with my assessment. That is until last night I saw the news on SBS (at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/jeremy-clarkson-said-he-wanted-to-see-excrement-thrown-at-meghan-markle-his-daughter-wasnt-happy/nzwukmwpn) there I saw the clip was from from Jeremy Clarkson. The article gave me more. And also reenforced that my view was almost spot on. 

It was the clip from Dan Walker that supported my view that there were red flags all over the place. Optionally the same I saw. The reference to Game of Thrones season 5 episode 10 was clearly on top. So not only are the thoughts of Clarkson plagiaristic to say the least, the fact that he sets a medieval view in todays world. Now lets be clear, Harry and Meghan are for all intense and purposes royals and I am a royalist. I do not care for reality TV, no matter who brings it. I did not watch the episodes just like I avoid the Kardashians. I do not hate the Kardashians, I think that  reality TV is for those who forget to live and I am not one of those people. Then the idea of hatred to that ‘cellular’ level. I personally believe that unless you personally know a person this level of hate is not real, it is optionally a mental condition, but like I wrote to the actress (name not important) that this is a determination that needs to be made by professionals. But the allegedly delusional setting gives me that there are mental health issues in play. Am I right?

That is under debate, but I believe that a professional needs to assess it, until then Jeremy Clarkson has become an optional danger to the royals and he needs investigating by MI5 and Scotland Yard. The change of endangering a royal makes that essential. Yes, we saw messages that the column is now removed, which gets me to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64029690) where we see ‘Jeremy Clarkson says he is ‘horrified’ over Meghan column’ an hour ago, this is not sincerity, this is damage control.

I see the damage control as an essential act when over 12,000 people wrote to complain, but I reckon that is merely the UK, A-listers tweeted the column and the damage is a lot larger than we can see at present. It goes to the degree that I think that MI5 and Scotland Yard needs to investigate a little more and in a wider field. Endangering royals is what I perceive to be a serious crime and “I put my foot in it” does not hold any bacon as I see it. A column is not written in seconds, it is not on the trail of a simple typo, or an oops moment. This took time and it festered, the mention that he lies in bed at night contemplating it makes it wore and it instills the thought to others. The additional worries are seen with ““Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way,” he added. “But what makes me despair is that younger people, especially girls, think she’s pretty cool. They think she was a prisoner of Buckingham Palace, forced to talk about nothing but embroidery and kittens.”” I do not, but mostly for other reasons. The issue becomes that this should not have met with approval of the editor of the Sun, which as far as I know is edited by Victoria Newton and Keith Poole. So both could have stopped this from print and the fact that Clarkson was overwhelmed by a scene from the Game of Thrones should have impacted their block even stronger. 

It gets to be worse when you realise (I did not initially) that the referenced Rose West was a serial killer who, along with her husband Fred, murdered at least 12 young girls over 20 years. That makes it a lot worse, the fact that a Royal is hated more than a mass murderer? I have no real thoughts on the two royals as I do not know them, I have no real intent on getting to know them, I have a life and it is slightly ruled by my desire to sell my IP before I retire. It is a setting of priorities, personal priorities, it is that simple. 

Yet what also happened just now is that SBS and the BBC have not mentioned the Sun (other than casual) or the editors/chief editor of the Sun. This all passed the barge and was published. There is no pointing fingers at a columnist here, yes the brunt of the blame will be on Jeremy Clarkson, but the Sun and its editors do not get away with clean hands here. They are at least in part to blame, whether it was for visibility, digital dollars or whatever reason, they are now part of this and the media protect itself, no matter how disgusting their peers are. 

I wonder if any attention will be pushed in that direction, I doubt it, but we could all remain hopeful.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Bonking to a new place

It started on December 3rd (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/12/03/how-to-destroy-an-economy/)  with ‘How to destroy an economy’, now we see an article giving us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63948740) ‘Bali sex ban: Indonesia tourists won’t be charged under law’, it is a fair response, but one given in fear. You see it becomes LAW, and at that point there is no distinction, the issue was from the start “and foreigners alike” that is the killer, so when we see “the governor of Bali, a holiday hotspot, said authorities would not check the marital status of tourists.” We need to see that the man is acting in fear, stopping that law could have prevented it, but some lame excuse with the added “Authorities would not check” will not work, the law is in effect (well in three years). How long until some person makes an open complaint to the Indonesian media? Optionally in an election year. At that point will make an example of one or two couples to get by. Do you want to be the example they make? And lets be clear, if you are married you are fine, it is the other 60% that has a problem coming their way and no amount of wheeling and dealing will help. Their only option is to adjust the law to make sure that this law does not apply to tourists. So how many nations have you seen adjusting their laws to tourists? I personally have not seen any, as such Indonesia will see its tourist economy drain only to see it crash near completely in 2024. 

And the quote “Indonesia’s deputy justice minister promised foreigners would not be prosecuted” does not help. The next deputy Justice minister could have a very conservative islamic view and the problem rears its ugly head again. Stopping the law is the ONLY option Indonesia has at present. ABC adds to this (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-13/indonesia-summons-united-nations-official-after-laws-criticised/101763920) with ‘Indonesia summons United Nations official after criticism of newly ratified criminal code’. Here we are given “deputy chief of Indonesia’s tourism industry board Maulana Yusran said the new code was “totally counter-productive” at a time when the economy and tourism were starting to recover from the pandemic”. Yes, he would be right and he sees similar data to me, Indonesian tourism will take a 40%-60% fall in the first few years, and that is before you take the Australian backpackers and schoolies into account, the damage will hurt the Balinese economy to a massive degree and after that there is no coming back for close to a decade, the law would require a rewrite and before that is all in effect it could be 2027 with a large number of commercial places already shut down. And the tourists? They will be bonking in a new place like Singapore, Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur. 

I honestly do not understand what the Indonesian law bringers were thinking when they did this and the setting was three words “and foreigners alike”, all whilst the stage of “tourists are exempt” would have prevented this, three words to destroy billions. This has got to be the most expensive typo in history.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Will you never learn?

I just got across an article from December 5th. It was given to us by the BBC with the headline ‘I had £8,000 stolen but Revolut won’t refund it’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63796738). When we google Revolut we get all the bells and whistles. No hidden fees, ATM withdrawals in 120 currencies and transfers in 29 currencies directly from the app and it sounds amazing. The fact that most people will never see these countries is beside the point. But what is not beside the point is “as of December 2022 they did not have a UK banking licence” and “it does not reimburse victims of authorised push payment fraud.” And now for the stupid people in the back. A financial institution is not a bank, in this day and age if you are not with a bank, anything goes wrong it is on YOUR dime. It costs you! So when we get back to the BBC article we see “The fraudster said her bank account was under attack, and persuaded her to download some software that allowed him to take control of her computer.” Which is never a good idea to say the least and these fraud attacks tend to go on, and until we get clearance to execute fraudsters you are on your own and not being with a bank you will have nothing to protect you for these events. Financial Institutions wash their hands and come with some kind sounding answer that boils down to ‘Not our problem’ and that is what you face. So when we get that Revolut is an e-money company that offers digital banking services, we see the words, but the important part that they are not a bank is missing. And my idea of using targeted killing against these fraud people (not the fintechies) is not without merit. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63736573) gives us ‘Police text 70,000 victims in UK’s biggest anti-fraud operation’, which means that we could keep well over 70,000 people safe by killing these economic terrorists. Yes, they are not merely criminals and we do not care about their age. Just like they did not care about the financial situation they put their victims in. There comes a time when any action is better than the level of inaction we see here. In addition people need to know that places like Revolut is not a bank, they applied a year ago, but they are not at present and the call for reduced fee’s does not hold water, not when you end up with a loss of £8,000, but that is something you see after the fact. 

To be honest, there is another side. There is more and more indications that banks are seemingly not bringing home the bacon in regards to their customers. We saw that in the Guardian when the people were told in June 2022 “UK’s largest banks are no longer “too big to fail” and could foot the bill for their own failures, the Bank of England has said” it does not help people much, but it needs to be clear that you need your savings in a bank, because no matter what you have some protection, with e-money companies, financial institutions and other FINTECH options you have little to no protection, or you are in danger of having no protection and a banking license is pure protection for the bank and its customers. And my so called over reaction? Consider that in this economy a new criminal is born every minute, all hoping for that score. When you start executing the offenders and making sure EVERYONE knows, the wannabe’s might seek other avenues of income, not all of them legal, but avenues that keep them alive. And with 70,000 victims in the balance, I have little problems blowing off a head or two, three, four, five. You get the drill.

We want to be the ones finding a peaceful (non terminal) solution. But the police is losing this war too fast, there are too many victims and the parents do not get to cry that their son (or daughter) was such a good person, not with 70,000 people in the mix and one losing £8,000, and there is clear evidence that this was not the biggest gain. There comes a time when we need to acknowledge that the floodgates are bringing in too much trash and do not worry about where to leave them, Exmoor National Park could shelter well over 1000 cadavers, so there is space to grow.

Worried yet? 
You should be there is too much happening and nowhere near enough being achieved and I am not blaming the Police, they are fighting this war with both hands on their backs and it is time to alter the game a little, enough for some of these criminals to get worried. And the price is decent, 70,000 victims is not nothing, even as we see “as many as 200,000 people in the UK may have been victims of the scam” and to tamper your anger, we are also given “Fraudsters paid between £150 and £5,000 a month in bitcoin to use the iSpoof service, contacting, at times, 20 people a minute. Those behind the service are allegedly earning £3.2m and living “lavish” lifestyles” as such I believe they had their life, time to end it and capture these funds. Whose with me?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Slapping Fortnite

Yup, it happens and I have with some expectation of entertainment slapped them in the past myself. But this is different and I am not in agreement. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63911176) gives us ‘Children stopped sleeping and eating to play Fortnite – lawsuit’, as I personally see it, a debatable article and the BBC knows this, because there is no journo name here. You see, there are a few elements missing and anyone with half a bran knows this. When we see “One of the children cited in the lawsuit played over 7,700 hours of the game in less than two years. The legal action claims the game was deliberately developed to be “highly addictive”.” The first question I have is “How do you program a game to be additive?” It is a serious question. Every game designer would like to know. The second question is that the equation gives us that this child had to play over 10 hours EVERY day to get past that point for two years. So where were the parents? You want to hand this to Epic and not hand any responsibility to the parents? And the one element they all ignore (even the lame journalist) is the fact that peer pressure is a real thing and that is set in stone. More importantly, the parents have to shield these kids from peer pressure. I see nothing of that here either. 

Now I am all for slapping greed driven Epic Games, but lets do that for the right reasons, and lets give some responsibility to the parents in this equation. And the clear stage of “their children would forgo sleeping, eating and showering because they were hooked on the game.” Hands a portion of that blame and the issues surrounding them to the parents, where are the parents in this equation? Anyone with half a brain will miss them too.

Lets be clear, I am not claiming Epic is innocent, but I believe that there are a massive amount of questions and as such Epic is entitled to some support and I am happy to give it, even as I mostly dislike Epic Games with a passion. But I do believe that fair is fair and we need to start with that in mind. I reckon that the legal team and its fearless leader (CLO of Epic Games) will take a serious look at both the parents and peer pressure, two elements that are clearly in the top-line of the equation and the BBC made sure it never got mentioned. I will leave it to you to wonder why.

Enjoy the day wherever you are. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media

The other white paper

Yes, there are always white papers, but which one is true? You see, they are all true, they are all a point of view. Yet the truth from a point of view is relative, that has always been the case. This is why we have peer criticism for academic papers. Yet that is not the case for the media, they are all fighting to remain around with some feigned form of value. This has been the case for over a decade and now the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63869013) ‘Meta threatens to remove US news content if new law passes’, you see the truth of the matter is that the people no longer need the news, the news is no longer if value. It started when the media starting soliciting (aka whoring) for digital dollars. Flamed bring revenue, actual news not so much. The events surrounding Elon Musk, the abstinence around Jack Dorsey and a dozen other cases made it so. The newspapers are irrelevant and they know it, so in a last gesture to remain not completely irrelevant they rely on laws to force funds from social media. Even as the shared instances from places like the Australian link to paywalls, they are all about ‘lost revenue’ And the Australian is not alone, loads of American newspapers and media (like Forbes) do EXACTLY the same thing. They will tell you the scoop AFTER you pay, so how is that lost revenue? Not all papers are like that, but many are and now we get “It would give publishers and broadcasters greater powers to collectively bargain with social media companies for a larger share of ad revenue”, I believe this is to be a false setting and Meta gives it to you in the form of “Meta claims their platform, in fact, provides increased traffic to struggling news outlets.” They are correct. Consider the truth, it I simple, how many times did you go to the news site? How many times was this because THEY shared news on social media? This has been the case for a decade and now that Meta is taking off the gloves, we see how irrelevant the media has become. In the last year alone I highlighted close to a dozen cases of incompetency and a lack of information vetting by the media, so why should they get paid for shortcomings? It is almost like the decapitated chicken.  It’s running around, but it is already dead, the rest of its body did not figure it out yet. Is it fair? Does it matter? No, the media had the option to evolve, it merely decided that is was cheaper and more profitable to hang onto someone else’s coattails. It did not work out well for them and now they cry foul, almost like the yellow pages. Their era died and they just never adjusted in time and I am adding to the pain as my 5G seemingly goes to China. Setting a new stage in several ways and taking advertisement power away from all and leave it where it should have been all along, with the advertising people. With the locations of advertising and that is the lesson that they never picked up on, and it is not their fault. A place like Google missed it too and I mentioned it at least twice this year. 

A stage that is moving away from them faster and faster and if Meta makes the move it is threatening to a lot of players in the media world will be done for. Such is life, Media Erectus is getting eaten before passing on its whinges. So do not focus on the whinge, consider the place technology had for almost 2 decades and see where the media is not, and they have not been where they needed to be for almost a decade and now that they are about to become irrelevant they cry laws. Bu the way these same people never championed law changes to the environment, law changes to taxation and they simply went for the emotional targets, it had more expected digital dollars, so where are these dollars now? 

And when we see “Media companies argue that Meta generates huge sums of money from news articles shared on the platform.” So where is THAT evidence? Meta generates advertisement towards people through free accounts, and this gets me to (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ) the congress statement April 2018 where the answer is ‘We run ads’ a setting that was in place for well over a decade. The news was never an element and as such the media better be quick with presenting ACTUAL evidence in that case.

When I see how irrelevant the media and Microsoft have become and I see them cry like little chihuahua’s all whilst they screw up options left right and centre, what the actual F*** (censored word) the world around them is doing protecting something this irrelevant is beyond me, it actually is.

We can debate things but look at the numbers. the Paris based World Association of Newspapers, which represents 18,000 newspapers gives us that there are a lot more. The world has 8,000,000,000 people, which implies that there is an average of 445,000 people per newspaper. When you start doing the math, you will see that the numbers o not add up. The newspapers that are still relevant are so as they have well over 2 million subscriptions. The Washington Post has 3 million, and The Wall Street Journal 2.4 million subscriptions. The Dutch Telegraaf had in 2001 807,000 subscriptions, in 2017 it was only 393,000. The larger national newspapers are losing ground and now we see the larger play. There are 195 countries in the world. So why are there 18,000 newspapers? They nearly all rely on Reuters, making at least 17,000 irrelevant already. But these are the numbers no one looks at, and they are all vying for advertisements. Look at ANY newspaper and look how many advertisements they have and how much they charge and you will see their actual loss. They are no longer a relevant advertisement group, digital media replaced them, they lost relevancy by allowing to become a family of 18,000 brothers and sisters and that is before you see the rest of the media relying on advertisement sales to qualify their existence. But no one looks at that side are they?

The other white paper that no one gets to see is the one no one in media wants to look at, it merely shows how irrelevant they have become.  

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

How to destroy an economy

Yes, we wonder at times how this is done. You can influence the game from far, or simply put a hatchet to the bottom of your boat and sink it yourself. It is the second version we will take a look at. To see this, we need to look at facts around the setting. We get “Tourism contributed around US$19.7 billion to GDP in 2019. In 2018, Indonesia received 15.8 million visitors, a growth of 12.5% from last year, and received an average receipt of US$967.” Now Indonesia has a problem, because in 2023 onwards they are about to lose 65% of that. You see Indonesia is wildly popular with Australian students, backpackers and all manner of tourists. With that in mind consider the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63838213) ‘Indonesia set to punish sex before marriage with jail time’ with the added text “Bambang Wuryanto, a politician involved in the draft, said the code could be passed as early as next week. The law, if passed, would apply to Indonesian citizens and foreigners alike.” And do not trust your travel agent, this will be law in a week, so any hormonal driven teenager with a desire for babes, beaches and (the other B word) will be in serious waters. Prison time will be your share and her too. If you are not married, and in some places living together does not count, they will all be in danger of prison time. Anyone stating that this will not happen is lying to themselves. Rolling the dice on a chance in an Indonesian prison is folly to say the least and as such these people need to find a new destination now. Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Thailand. These come to mind initially, but there are other destinations. I do not know what drove Indonesia to set this in law and I am not the party with knowledge to criticise that part, but the impact is clear. Millions need to seek another place to stay now and it will cost Indonesia, it is about to cost them a lot. And 50%-65% of $20 billion is at least $10-$13 billion. Indonesia never had that level of leeway to begin with, as such there will be a much larger impact. 

And the game gets a lot more dicey after that considering “The law also allows the parents of unmarried people to report them for having sex”, there have been (allegedly) events where Americans reported the ‘dangers’ to their daughter, but in Indonesia it will have far stretching consequences. I cannot say why it was such a deal to make this law, and I cannot see why it was such an event, but the impact is clear for the foreseeable future that reaches past 2025, Indonesia as a tourist destination will end and that ends their economy to a much larger degree. And the larger stage is set to three words ‘and foreigners alike’ it only took three words to end two decades of tourist growth to waste it all away. What a loss.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

What is real?

Some things we know are real, some are part real and some are neither. But for the most I have relied and believed, in a few instances I learned much later that I was deceived. The Catholic Church influenced my education giving me false information. Later that same church did everything to ‘protect’ their paedophilic priests. Now the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63636641) where we see ‘Gold coin proves ‘fake’ Roman emperor was real’ there we learn “The final blow came in 1863 when Henry Cohen, the leading coin expert of the time at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, considered the problem for his great catalogue of Roman coins. He said that they were not only ‘modern’ fakes, but poorly made and “ridiculously imagined”. Other specialists agreed and to this day Sponsian has been dismissed in scholarly catalogues.” As such the ‘experts’ dismissed Sponsian who ruled in a time line where 11 others ruled, so there are issues. But in all this we wonder what is real. We get it, there were issues with the ‘evidence’ there were rejections, but the coins could not have been the only evidence. More evidence was destroyed or suppressed and we do not know when that happened.  There is every chance that some evidence was mislabelled, as such are all the facts of these 11 other rulers correct? Perhaps it is, but forensic research on 1600 years old data and collections is not easily verified of checked. It will take new technology to do this, adjusted technology. 

The first thing we see is the Tibetan library, there we see that only 5% has been translated. Players like Google can make a huge difference. It will not answer the Italian issue, but as our libraries become more and more complete, we can identify a lot more. We have been lucky to some extent, but that luck is running out. If we are to make any kind of lasting impression, it will be the need to get as much information ready for long term storage and long term recollection. But this is overly simplified. We would rely on experts, but these experts trivialised Sponsian and experts tend to be more stubborn than politicians believing in Jedi’s. And there are political issues in play as well, and that setting transfers to Tibet (China being an issue), and a few more. The issue becomes interesting, it is more than a data puzzle, it is a puzzle of verification which is not the same. Yet, I am intrigued with the speculative process of reverifying 1800 years of data, we might merely have lost a step, but there is every indication that dozens of steps were wrongly assigned and there the stage that these steps require verification as well. More importantly, were some of them every assigned correctly? A puzzle that is enticing, very very enticing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Theranos the Vampire

Yes, it was a stage in the making. The media painted every railing in immaculate white. The media made sure that she always looked her best but last week the hammer fell down and 4015 days in Hotel Penal became her new lodgings. Yet the stage was for a lot not that clear was it?

So let do some recap (my way). First there is the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901) with ‘Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology’, the headline avoids a few terms and gives us “company founder Elizabeth Holmes holds up a tiny vial to show how the startup’s “breakthrough advancements have made it possible to quickly process the full range of laboratory tests from a few drops of blood.”” It also gives us the fact that the firm was at some point valued at 9 billion dollars. USA Today (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/03/15/behind-theranos-rise-and-dramatic-fall-powerful-backers-money-tech-and-politics/426364002/) gives us ‘Behind Theranos’ rise and dramatic fall: The powerful backers in money, tech and politics’ and there we get “Theranos raised money on the strength of Holmes’ ability to pitch her vision, whose reality often didn’t match up. But there were plenty of takers. Theranos’ fundraising resulted in a valuation of $9 billion — half of which belonged to Holmes, making her one of the youngest billionaires on the planet, at least on paper.” This article leads to “Shultz quit, and despite warnings from Holmes — she allegedly called the elder Shultz to warn him about his grandson’s threats to expose the company — decided to contact New York state’s public-health lab and alleged Theranos had manipulated its test results. This was the first known regulatory complaint about Theranos, whose issues would soon grow exponentially.” As such Tyler Shulz was the first brick that decided that the wall did not make sene, the wording “she allegedly called the elder Shultz to warn him about his grandson’s threats to expose the company” making the words ‘intent’ finally float to the top and an issue was finally raised. As stated the first. So how long was she out and about with this at present? Then we get the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63672103) where we are given ‘Theranos: Silicon Valley holds breath for Elizabeth Holmes sentencing’, the article also gives us “In January a jury concluded she had deliberately misled investors. She was convicted of four counts of wire fraud – with a maximum sentence of 20 years. However, it has taken an eternity to get this point – sentencing. Her legal team is arguing for 18 months of house arrest. The prosecution wants her to serve 15 years in prison and to pay back the best part of a billion dollars to investors.” So one side wants her to bake in sing sing for 15 years and the other side want to give her house arrest for 18 month a sway of no less. A mere 10% for the fraudster with nice tits. You think this is crude? How about the investors? So we get things like the dozens of letters have been submitted vouching for Holmes’ character. Character of a Fraudster? “one from Cory Booker, a US Senator for New Jersey, who wrote to the judge.

The Democrat said they’d bonded over vegan food at a dinner six years before she was charged with fraud, and they had remained friends. He appealed for clemency.” This can be seen in two ways. One is what we read, the other one is the one where the Fraudster is setting up a hedge fund of good calls, at the expense of other people. You decide. 

Last there is the BBC again (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63685131) where we see ‘Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes jailed for fraud’ it is here that we get “Once hailed as the “next Steve Jobs”, she was at one time said to be the world’s youngest self-made billionaire. She launched Theranos after dropping out of Stanford University at age 19, and its value rose sharply after the company claimed it could bring about a revolution in disease diagnosis.” And how did faking test results help there? How do we get “Holmes, 38, who is pregnant, tearfully told the court she felt “deep pain” for those misled by the scam”? I am of the mind that she got pregnant to soften the blow of punishment, but that might merely be me. And how can she feel deep pain? The actions against Tyler Shulz seem to indicate that, I feel for Tyler Shulz who is the one setting this in motion. I cannot state that others were aware, well one other seemingly was. But he is the one who stopped it, but the Wall Street Journal wrote that away in an epitaph easily enough. It seems that only NPR took a better look in appreciation of what he did, what he found and how the ball got rolling. The Wall Street Journal went straight for daddy.

NPR gives us “he was the first to report troubling findings at the company to regulators. At the time, it was a risky and bold move, but it helped accelerate scrutiny that would ultimately end in the company’s implosion.” I have two issues here. The first I why only NPR is taking that stand, the second one is seen with “it was a risky and bold move” it was risky to warn the SEC for fraud events? In addition we get “Shultz had worked countless hours in labs. Armed with this scientific know-how, he quickly realised something was amiss when he looked inside of the Edison device.

“There is nothing that the Edison could do that I couldn’t do with a pipette in my own hand,” he said. Then he discovered another alarming thing: When Theranos completed quality-control safety audits, it was running tests not on the Edison, but on commercially available lab equipment. That did not seem right. “It was clear that there was an open secret within Theranos that this technology simply didn’t exist,” Shultz said.” The article (at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1070474663/theranos-whistleblower-tyler-shultz-elizabeth-holmes-verdict-champagne) gives a rundown that none of the papers hd and NPR had it in January 2022. It seems that the media is all very forgiving towards fraud, it implies that fraud is applauded as long as you get away with it. So how come NPR has what the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and the BBC do not? In addition the fact that the hard and ‘risky’ choices that Tyler Shulz made, not his father are seemingly ignored all over the place. And you wonder why I do not trust people with my IP? You have got to be joking. In the end we have a much larger problem, the media! They have gone out of their way to give space to a fraudster and only now, only after the verdict of 11 years is passed do we see the rundown, but till to the smallest degree and that is proven with the NPR article that was given to us 9 months earlier. Hell, a woman can get pregnant in that time. The fact that most media steps largely over Tyler Shulz might be seen as additional evidence.

Was it a simple story, or have they all been compelled by a vampire? I reckon someone has to ask the expert witness Sarah Michelle Gellar for insights.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Euphemism for the sake of reporting

It happens, there is no fault, at least often enough there isn’t one. In this case I have issues and it is withe the BBC who gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-63649695) ‘Gambling: Boy, 16, lost thousands after seeing advert’. In this, did he lose it, or did he steal it? Lets look at the reported facts. In the first we are given “Nick Phillips, from Swansea, said the boy opened an account in his father’s name an hour after a match.” As such the boy committed identity theft. Then we get “after seeing the gambling ad”, here we have a problem. Yes it is an advertisement and we can argue that the advertiser is not at fault, yet the ‘boy’ needed an hour to arrange for the opening of an account. So where were the checks and balances? Why is there no mention of the lack of checks and balances by the banks? Then we get (of course) the reference to loot boxes. I do not agree with these assessments, but I get that some see it different than me and that I fine. Then the BBC gives us the part that is indeed important. With: “Every video game console has a parental or family settings area. One of the things I really like is the ability to say ‘can this account make transactions? can it spend money? Also, how much can it spend?’” That is true, as such safeties can be imposed and I am fine with that, but the stellar amount of non-accountability is not OK. The boy was a thief and it had nothing to do with the advertisement. He took an hour to get an identity and get spending, according to the article thousands. I do not see, or agree with ‘this poor lad’, no it is ‘the degenerate criminal’. OK, the word ‘degenerate’ is optional, but it is a setting that we need to heed. In an hour a family member took the identity of another family member and how was that possible? How was it possible that credit cards, identity papers were so readily available? They mentioned he had a gambling problem, so why were certain blocks not in place? And we still haven’t seen anything on HOW it was done in an hour and what facilities gave rise to this stage? I am assuming that there were bank issues, but that is merely an assumption. I reckon that the credit card, if suddenly a certain amount goes into a non usual place alarms go off, did they? 

So why is there such a lack of information, and we see ‘poor boy’, references to loot boxes and whilst we agree that kids need to be protected, my personal view is that if they were so easily swayed to crime, the problem resides equally somewhere else and in this the parent get the blame. To be honest, I am not entirely sure that this is fair, but when a 16 year old can overcome legal loopholes and enter the field as an identity thief, we can agree that the parents failed to some degree at this point. I am not willing to fully blame them as peer pressure could be massive at that age (I was a teenager once, yes it is true, I was). 

But there is a lot more going on and the BBC (as I personally see it) intentionally decided not to inform you on that. And I wonder why.

I have no issues with euphemism. There is nothing to gain by telling someone that their child was decapitated. It makes sense to phrase it more like ‘He got ahead of himself and was unfortunately a casualty of events’, but when factual parts are misplaced and not reported on, is it still to serve the greater good, or to cater to an agenda? I will let you decide.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Politics

Information through confliction

We all have such moment, we are given some parts when things go wrong, this happens, but to the degree we see at present, does it make sense? I think that it is clear that there is almost no one left on the planet who has not heard the name ‘Sam Bankman-Fried’, the media has been bringing it like Jesus of Nazareth was the second coming of this individual. It was only three weeks ago when we were given ‘FTX TO LAUNCH ITS OWN STABLECOIN SOON, SAYS SAM BANKMAN-FRIED’, there we see “The fresh capital injection, which is still subject to negotiations, would keep the crypto conglomerate at the same valuation it had landed after a $400 million funding round back in January. At the time, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by Sam Bankman-Fried was valued at $32 billion. According to leaked financial documents, global trading revenue generated by FTX hit $1.02 billion in 2021, having increased more than 10 times from the $89 million recorded in 2020. Additionally, FTX’s operating income swallowed $272 million throughout last year’s bull run from $14 million a year earlier. FTX saw net income of $388 million last year, up from just $17 million in 2020” and there has been too few questions, no one was looking into matters. Just like the issues surrounding Jack Dorsey. The media had forsaken its duties. It’s like all the paparazzi’ were heralding a 42nd crack maiden as she was giving out free blowjobs to anyone coming along. They had no problems slapping Elon Musk, because he was too arrogant, he was evil. The media had forsaken its duties to the largest degree. To properly inform us and it was at that point when someone informed me of a Dilbert comic. I know off Dilbert, but I do not religiously follow him. I have a book with Dilberts, but that book is at least 20 years old. So I had to look him up and I placed him below.

So here we see what I have been telling you for years, but the person was onto something. If we are to accept the wisdom of Scott Adams, the ‘We’ in the second image represents governments, corporations as well as media interests? It is the last one that was a little forgotten. Not by me, but I was equally not s inclusive as I had needed to be. 

This part becomes clear when we see the Australian Financial Review (at https://www.afr.com/technology/ftx-came-dangerously-close-to-upending-futures-markets-20221117-p5bz5m), there we see ‘FTX came dangerously close to upending futures markets’ with the added “FTX’s ambitions were grandiose: It wanted to carry out every aspect of customers’ crypto derivatives needs on its own, using algorithms rather than brokers to help clear trades”, you think this is it, but it isn’t even close. Yet it lifted the veil and gives us the question “Why was the media asleep?” Things of these nature get noticed and the media was not asking questions. It goes from bad to worse when we see the Guardian giving us ‘Why were so many smart people so dumb about FTX? Did they seriously just like Sam Bankman-Fried’s ‘vibe’?’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/why-were-so-many-smart-people-so-dumb-about-ftx-did-they-seriously-just-like-sam-bankman-frieds-vibe-), it is actually a much better question than you think it is. The ‘vibe’ part is indicative and subjective, but the setting of smart people being dumb is central. The media is allegedly supposed to be smart and they never saw it, they never investigated. Was it them or their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers that could not stand the sight of critical questions? The fact that I found 6 billion that Google and Amazon overlooked implies they are merely reckless, shortsighted and only optionally stupid. But tell me what company goes around ignoring 6 billion in revenue whilst they are getting ready for recession dropping employees left, right and centre? Then we see the subjective part “The collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange will cost investors billions. But why would anyone give money to a man who plays video games in important meetings?” There is a dangerous stage here. They are not wrong, but it also implies that the important meetings are egocentric. I found 6 billion through video games, in addition, I knew WHERE to look. It implies that these so called important meetings are important to some and not others. Are they therefor important? And we get more information when we see “It seems, however, that FTX was doing some very dubious things: namely, furtively shifting customer funds to Alameda Research, a firm also operated by Bankman-Fried, which then gambled them away on risky trades. Instead of becoming the world’s first trillionaire, SBF saw his net worth plummet from $16.2bn to about $3 overnight. Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers has likened FTX’s collapse to the Enron scandal, saying that from the reports, there were “whiffs of fraud” about it.” And the information we get is not about SBF or FTX, it is that the media fucked up, it massively fucked up. Who in the media started to look into Alameda Research? How much of the $6.2 billion was lost by the time someone woke up? All questions that the media will not look into or shed light on. Too many got burned by Leveson and when we illuminate that the media has more priority towards digital dollars than to inform the people on events, it is at that point that the people will demand investigation of the media and that scares them. Like fucked up Chihuahua’s they will cry the freedom of the press and the fact that they can police themselves, yet there are enough indications that there is no freedom of the press, there has not been for quite some time and the final push is seen through the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63662396) where we see ‘New FTX boss condemns crypto exchange’s failure’, a stage that happened 13 hours ago where we are given “The firm filed for bankruptcy in the US last week and, in court filings, Mr Ray said he had never “seen such a complete failure of corporate controls”. Mr Ray, who replaced Sam Bankman-Fried, also criticised a “complete absence of trustworthy financial information”.” In a stage that is a mere three weeks old we see someone from second coming to financial terrorist getting nailed to a cross. And when we realise that this is a stage that was 3 years in the making and the media ignored too many signals and it is time to demand answers. So called idiots making environment claims a mere two days go with “30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view”, how about you do your fucking jobs and report the news, the actual news, not filtered information!

That setting has been clearly out in the open, but the media does not investigate itself and we are now at a point where the people ned to hold the media to account. When we are given by the BBC “Mr Ray also criticised what he said were “erratic and misleading” public statements by his predecessor. Mr Ray said that FTX had concentrated control in the hands of a “very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals”, and that it did not maintain centralised control of its cash. Instead, he said, there was an “absence of an accurate list of bank accounts and account signatories”. So far he said it had been possible to locate “only a fraction of the digital assets” held by the firm.” All this whilst the media was praising some crypto brat like he was evangelising the new economy, and there were no checks, no balances and the media was nowhere to be found. A place like FTX made over a million victims, lost over $16,000,000,000 and the media was nowhere to be found, oh yes, when the carcass was out in the open for everyone to take a bite from, but such numbers aren’t created in a day, there was a long stage of planning and the media was nowhere to be found. Why not?

In light of all the stupidity I see there is now a decent stage where people should consider handing their IP over to China and hope for the best, because our system made a righteous mess of it all and that kind of damage does not happen overnight, it requires the media to forsake its duty to a massive amount. And this is not one media, it is the bulk of them. And my view? When the BBC reports “Meanwhile, Mr Bankman-Fried has told the Vox news website that he regretted filing for bankruptcy.” Vox? And the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Times, the Guardian and others aren’t wondering why the Vox got that little part and none of the others are all over the Crypto Brat? Makes you wonder what else they aren’t looking at, not?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media