That is the setting for the US of A. The BBC gives us ‘US debt would increase under Harris and soar under Trump – study’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce81g9593dro). We are given that there is basically no escape for America, I have articles going back to 2018 where I give sight of what is coming. Oh, and by the way at what point do you cancel someones credit card? We are given “Donald Trump’s campaign proposals would increase the US national debt by double the amount Kamala Harris’s would, according to a new analysis by a non-partisan group.” We are also given “Trump would add $7.5tn” now consider that the interest on this would be around 450 billion, just on the increase alone. Now consider that the total debt is 500% larger and now consider that the US economy needs to come up 2.25 Trillion EACH YEAR to deal with the interest alone and I saw that coming 5 years ago and the news media and these so called financial experts never saw this? I do not believe this. We were all told and presented a story. And they are about to lose whatever leeway they thought they could hang over us. The media was the tool some were able to use (with what I speculatively see) as stake holders to ‘bring’ the presentation. And the media seemingly was left in the dark, or were they?
The problem is that we cannot see or prove any of this. But consider that I saw this coming for over 5 years and I do NOT have an economic degree. What makes you think that I am more clever than these financial wizard in the media (CNN, BBC, WSJ, the Guardian) and many more? Do you really think that they made a miscalculation? They isn’t nickel and dime stuff, this is about 35 trillion dollars. How much sneaky bookkeeping is involved to put such an amount under the tables? This would require the cooperation of media, banks and governments. So when your retirement falls away, who will you blame? The media? The Banks? The Governments? Seems ludicrous, almost some crazy conspiracy. But consider the facts. Consider the evidence and the avoidance of the media to address certain economic facts. That is not some cooky setting, the evidence is out there on the internet. Consider all the media and consider what the media never gave us. I can tell you more, but it is time to consider what I am telling you here and make your own mind up.
Now consider that the EU had six trillion euros in taxable revenue in 2022. Now we see that America is optionally about to increase its debt more that the taxable income of 27 countries and it does not raise an issue? Now we know that plenty of EU countries have a GDP that equals an apple and an egg. But together they should amount to a fair amount considering that these countries have a total population of 449.2 million, which is a lot more than America (about 34%). Now consider that people pay taxation, companies pay taxation as well. But the tax breaks are mostly for companies. As such I look at the people. There is a baseline that extremely roughly applies and when that baseline is applied the numbers do not match up as I personally see it and I have seen this setting for over 5 years and the media ignores it all.
Could I be wrong? Yes definitely, but overall certain numbers create levels of equilibrium and I see that these numbers aren’t here at the moment. And the media seeing these debt levels fail them could also be seen as optional evidence. So how does it work? It seems clear that the media can no longer be trusted (in my opinion). So how to get the numbers? I cannot give you my sources, so you are a little on your own in that regard.
Yup, you can make money in three ways. You create it, you steal it, or you can make the government reimburse you. The third one is one that has its own risks. Yet the BBC informs us ‘Customers of failed crypto firm FTX set for refunds’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0qz3dg21vqo) Where we are given “Creditors of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX are poised to receive up to $16.5bn (£12.6bn) under a bankruptcy plan approved in the US on Monday.” And we get more with “Last year, former boss Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of stealing customer funds ahead of the collapse and later sentenced to 25 years in prison. The deal will allow former customers to recover a sum worth about 119% of what they had in their accounts at the time of bankruptcy, according to FTX.” As such it seems that these customers get 19% on top of what they had in their accounts. There are ups and downs. We are also given “Some have suggested the repayment in cash will not match the loss of crypto holdings that would be worth far more today had they not been stolen. The value of bitcoin has more than tripled since November 2022.” As such I would surmise that someone went shopping with an approximate 180% of the total of sums. As the outstanding bill was set to “$8bn in customer funds were reported missing, not including debts to investors and others. Mr Ray’s team has since recovered assets worth $14.7-$16.5bn” As such 8 billion was found missing, Roughly double was retrieved and these customers only get 119%? I think there is a stinky fishy smell coming from the realm of banks. They might small consolation that Sam Bankman-Fried is convicted to 9125 days in Hotel Sing-Sing, but that might be merely the impression some feel. You see, the larger premise might be that we are given “the approval of the plan was a “significant milestone” in the firm’s efforts to repay the money to people and firms in more than 200 jurisdictions around the world” but the underlying issue that the BBC seems to ‘ignore’ is that people like Elisabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried (aka SBM) are given way to much leeway. Holmes was given 11 years imprisonment, where the Guardian on May 8th gave us that her sentence was reduced by two years and four months before original date. As such her sentence is reduced by almost 20%, so what reductions is SBM looking forward to? If is is a similar 20%, he could be out by 2044 and if he plays nice (good behaviour) he might be out even sooner that that. As such we might surmise that crime pays nowadays. And the media will milk these two for whatever they can be milked for.
I saw an article by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj31lpvnzl3o) where we are given ‘Netflix fails to get Baby Reindeer lawsuit dropped’ where we are given “The show, created by Richard Gadd, is billed as “a true story”, but certain key events, like the conviction for stalking, did not happen in real life, the judge concluded.” As we look at the ‘facts’ I got the idea that Netflix has a few more problems then they were ready for. Were they really ready for cutting the workforce? In 2023 we were given “The streaming giant said it was cutting 300 more jobs – roughly 4% of its workforce – mostly in the US, after axing 150 people in May” I wonder if one person was made redundant when that person could have given us the same solution that I had in mind and it would have saved them a court case. Instead of handing the viewer “a true story” when two words made the difference through “based on a true story” the word based hands the amounts of alleged inaccuracies towards creative writing and possibly makes the court case thrown out and the defamation lawsuit falls flat. Now, I could be wrong here, but that I how I see it. In the meantime Netflix will optionally have a larger issue. When defamation becomes proven you will see dozens of involved people go over every movie that Netflix had on their channel for 2-5 years. Leave it to people to see their greed driven pupils draw attention towards that what could leave them loaded with cash. Perhaps a little skeptical, but that is where I am. You see if I could come up with the two words that could save Netflix a defamation case? Why didn’t Netflix come up with that. But there is more, the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/sep/30/fiona-harvey-baby-reindeer-defamation-lawsuit-richard-gadd-netflix) gives us “the show was wrongly billed as a “true story” when Netflix “made no effort” to fact check Gadd’s story or disguise Harvey as the inspiration for Martha”. You see the fact check is another matter. I think that my suggestion could have prevented the case, but the fact check is another matter. I believe that any script writer could be ‘blamed’ for creative writing to give space towards super shrinking the alleged defamation case, but that is merely my point of view. So, what happens at Netflix? That is the question but that should require a lot more consideration on the structure of Netflix. To this part I raise the fact checking and the optional allotment of two words. And there might be more issues in the weeds. For this I would need a lot more knowledge in the inner working of Netflix and my script(s) are meant for Dubai Media and the SBA (Al Arabiya in particular). So whilst the Guardian gives us “US district judge Gary Klausner noted that because the show’s episodes begin with the line “This is a true story”, it invited viewers to take the story as fact.” As such they didn’t need two more words, they merely needed to change the first two words and that was not done. As I see it, if I interpret the words by US district judge Gary Klausner correctly, my change would negate his observation, or so I believe.
How much would I have saved Netflix, and to be brazen, can I have a slice of that? It might be easier to ask Sergey Brin for $11,000,000 post taxation and a Canadian passport, but I don’t have his phone number. You see, even I am drawn in towards optional cash, but it doesn’t control me or make me greed driven. That is merely the smaller (and optionally more desperate) cluster of people.
Have a great day. We are all on the Wednesday clock. From Vancouver in the East through to Wellington in the west.
This partial view comes from the BBC. When I looked at the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04depp2nro) the headline gave us ‘Can diplomacy bring Middle East ceasefire? Early signs don’t bode well’ it was the second part of the headline that woke me up. We are given “What they meant was they saw getting an agreement from key European countries and Arab states, led by Washington, as a big diplomatic achievement during the current explosive escalation. But this was world powers calling for a ceasefire – not a ceasefire itself.” It holds part of the problem I see. We also get “The statement urges both Israel and Hezbollah to stop fighting now, using a 21-day truce, “to provide space” for further mediated talks. It then urges a diplomatic settlement consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented. It also calls for agreement on the stalled Gaza ceasefire deal.” The first part that got to me was “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” There were ‘signals’ that were seemingly ignored. “It was unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council on 11 August 2006. The Lebanese cabinet unanimously approved the resolution on 12 August 2006. On the same day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a ceasefire. He also said that once the Israeli offensive stops, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel would stop. On 13 August the Israeli Cabinet voted 24–0 in favour of the resolution, with one abstention. The ceasefire began on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 8 AM local time, after increased attacks by both sides.” Now we ‘see’ the message that the resolution (1701) was never properly implemented. It has been basically 18 years. So what wasn’t properly implemented? Why do we see this now after 18 years? My issue is that there are a number of issues, and there are more players than Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas involved. The journalists taking a back seat to whatever digital dollars they are trying to get. The second are the politicians, both the involved and those connected. So why did we not see the repeated messages (via the media) to state who is was lacking in implementation and why?
So there is more than the early signs. As I personally see it there is a lack of follow up in these cases.
We then get “intensive diplomacy led by Washington has failed to reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas, with the US currently blaming a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel. Meanwhile, the US has continued to arm Israel. That doesn’t inspire confidence that Washington and its allies can now strong-arm Israel and Hezbollah into a quick truce, especially given the fighting on the ground, the intensity of Israel’s air strikes and last week’s explosive pager attacks on Hezbollah, which has continued to fire into Israel.” The part that I do not agree with is “a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel.” My issue is that (possibly) both players here have seen a massive lack of commitment from several sides. The very first is given through “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” I cannot tell who dropped the ball first, or which players lacked in their ‘commitments’ but there were players who failed (optionally merely Hezbollah and/or Israel), the simple setting taking us back 18 years as well as the fact that nowadays media (this last decade) is more driven to chase digital dollars then the news. That gives doubt to how far this thing goes. And it goes beyond the Lebanese borders. The setting that exists with Gaza is still evolving. The US administration, as well as the EU have been playing these settings fast and loose is a dangerous setting and these players are no longer regarded as reliable. That becomes the ball game. Mediation only works when the mediator or mediators are no longer trusted, no ceasefire will ever work.
It is my speculation, one I had for many years is, that the EU and the USA have been playing a dangerous game, optionally staged towards ‘a one step tactic from destabilisation’ and in this the games that Iran is playing do not help and now that it all goes to (assumed) shit, no amount of ceasefire prays will offer any decent insight into any resolution. So the ‘early signs don’t bode well’ is to be expected. That is clear, is it not?
If you wonder what can be done I am, like many others at a loss for words or advice. The problem is that too many player have had their own agenda in mind. That is less speculation, more presumption. In this I call for the first piece of evidence “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” and the evidence is that in 1982 I worked for the United Nations Security Council, and they have failed to keep the audience (as far as I know) properly informed for 18 years? So what good were they? I understand that they do not inform the audience, but they do report, usually governments, and this gets to the media one way or another. As such I see a massive failure in play. And you wonder why either Israel or Hezbollah has issues with either (or both) America and the EU? I wonder if this setting is not better served by mediation through a joined council of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and USA. The USA is essential to get Israel on board. I doubt that they will accept merely the other three parties but that is merely my speculation in this.
So as I just sailed into the night of Saturday, have a great day and as Vancouver is trailing us by 17 hours. I can report to them that nothing is happening at 00:03. Have a great day, wherever you are.
On the 11th of September I wrote ‘A brief recollection’, a story where I had issues with the setting of ‘monopolisation’ by Google and with that I also stated “Google innovated this market more than anyone ever considered. The fact that Microsoft has no chance and lacks expertise in software to make any dent in Google application is one part of the evidence. It also didn’t stifle competition, the fact that Microsoft had no option to push anything in Google’s path seems to me that this is the second part of the evidence is also nullified. After decades of ‘exploitation’ of customers, Google gave them all a fair chance. So why doesn’t anyone see that?” And now, less then four hours ago, the BBC gives us ‘Google scores rare legal win as 1.49bn euro fine scrapped’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rjd363j1o) with the text “It said the Commission had not considered “all the relevant circumstances” concerning the contract clauses and how it defined the market. Because of this, it ruled the Commission did not establish “an abuse of dominant position.”” That was what I basically said. The lack of creativity by others (read Microsoft) is no evidence of abuse. Their failure to see an equal footing five times over (once by Apple, once by Amazon, once by Sony and twice by Google) is not a setting of dominant abuse, it is merely dominant captaincy due to a failing to set the stage on creativity and I myself am about to give that lesson to Microsoft twice more. So how stupid do they need to get?
As such it seems that the legal profession had to admit defeat on the mere stage to scrap the fine with the quote “The Commission concluded Google had abused its dominance to prevent websites from using brokers other than AdSense when they were seeking adverts for their web pages”, which is not correct either. You see Microsoft has edge and its advertisement solution. It is however failing on several fronts It falls behind Chrome having 65% and behind Safari with its 18.5%, Edge has a mere 5.3%. And behold, Safari is only on Mac systems. In February 2024 MacOS systems had a mere 15.42% and PC’s had over 72% and even in that environment Edge has a mere 5.3%, failing to come close to Safari. Does that not tell you something. It isn’t that Google is abusing dominance, there simply isn’t anything close to compatible. It isn’t abuse, there is simply no equivalent in that game and the advertisement game is cut throat to say the least. And as I see that, I see two additional blows I can give Microsoft and that pretty much ends Microsoft to be the competitor. It is a mere agent of mediocrity and as such it loses more and more market share. I can give (for a fee) one to Google and the other one to Amazon and they can show Microsoft what it is to be dead last in a game that only has space for the victor. Soon America will try its luck on shaking down Google for cash as we are told “The US government is also taking the tech giant to court over the same issue, with prosecutors alleging its parent company, Alphabet, illegally operates a monopoly in the market.” I wonder how they tend to prove that when the competitors (mainly Microsoft) are showing to be ridiculously short changed on competition. As I see it, it is a court session waiting to fail. The nice side is that I could optionally still rely on Kingdom Holding and Tencent Technology to enter a deal with me to broker technology and is definitely worth it when it comes to Kingdom Holding, and optionally Tencent Technology would be a worth the talk to. Amazon waked away from this and once these two setting pan out, all can see how much of a shortage Microsoft had. And that is a shortage that has been visible to those who think critically for at least a decade. The media spin has no hold over them and as we are told ‘Microsoft Wants To Stop The Next CrowdStrike Error Before It Causes PC Shutdown’ a mere 10 hours ago is set against “Microsoft even got everyone together at a security summit earlier this month where the company had talks about changing the dynamics of who can access the Windows kernel and control the changes” with the added “Microsoft realises that unrestricted access to Windows kernel is the big reason why the Crowdstrike outage occurred in the first place. It was even pointed out that Apple will never give that kind of access to its partners and vendors, which explains why no Mac machine was down on that day.” As such we get that MAC systems never had the issue and the collaborated events give rise to the stage that the CrowdStrike issues could optionally still happen. Did anyone guess what happens to cloud systems when this is not addressed in the next 48 hours? How many vendors will switch to AWS as such? When we consider that “changing the dynamics of who can access the Windows kernel and control the changes” could not normally be resolved in 48 hours at all. This is the setting that Microsoft is up against and that is all before we realise that it is a fundamental shift required in search and advertisement systems that makes Edge even less of a competitor soon enough and that gives Google more leeway. That realisation is what these courts are fighting against. There is no monopoly when there is not competition. And Microsoft is no longer any kind of interfering factor. That merely leaves Google, Amazon and Apple. Amazon holds 7.3% of the online ad market, Apple gets 30% from Google, which only leaves the optional others. And when we consider that Amazon has a bigger share than Microsoft/Edge. How much of a competitor was Microsoft to begin with? So who is setting the fictive breach towards ‘abusive monopoly’? Isn’t that the critical question? What voices speak to the EU and US lawmakers? That is the question that matters and I personally think that it is those who have a personal gain through Microsoft stages that are screaming murder. They bet on the wrong horse and as I see it Microsoft is a horse no show. The EU had to cancel that €1.49B euro fine as this could optionally backfire as well. The stage as I saw it was always different. As Microsoft went its way into the boardrooms, they forgot that those dozen people (times Fortune 500) depend on millions of workers doing stuff and that was where Google grew. And the Microsoft strategy fell flat. I myself found another nice worth billions in pretty much the same way. As such one of my solutions was primarily for Amazon as Google dropped their Stadia, which made the Amazon Luna the only contender and Microsoft with its solution fell flat behind Sony (PlayStation) and Nintendo (Switch), yet Tencent came roaring with its solution and became a contender. This shows how certain people in the US are using the Department of Justice and as (September 9th) we were given “According to the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and a coalition of states in 2023, Google dominates the digital ad marketplace and has leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition.” I see the same failing happen under Google “leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition” and equal shortage as there are no innovators (they heed to solve their CrowdStrike issues before they also lose the cloud market and there is no competition as there is a competition of one, that is no monopoly, it is the lack of equally sharp minded people gaining serious forward momentum. That is the actual stage and that was the setting all along. And the setting is easy to fathom. Consider the mere first strike “On the 9th of October 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65 billion” In 2006 Microsoft had the cash and the option to buy this, but they did not.
The former employees of PayPal were out there and Microsoft didn’t see the option. That is how much they failed for 18 years. After that Microsoft had at least three options to compete, but they did not. 2005, 2006, and 2014. Microsoft did nothing (as far as I know). More over in September 2016 ByteDance created TikTok. In 4 years it surpassed 2 billion downloads and still Microsoft was in the dark on what they had missed. You think this is not related, but it is. The competitors a near complete lack of comprehending its audience for close to 18 years and that is where the Department of Justice comes in? Competition is created by the players who understand their audience. It is something that is known for half a century. A monopoly is created when there are like minded players stifle matters like innovations (which requires innovators) and competition (which requires market share) most (especially Microsoft) failed on both matters. Amazon had its own niche market and had its own 7.3%. The only one with any right to cry foul (or is that fowl) is ByteDance, but the Department of Justice are silencing that voice.
So as I am having fun because I saw the field correctly all along will (hopefully) soon have two more reasons to roll on the floor laughing and the fun part is that a player like Microsoft is too stupid to see the audience that they are disregarding.
That is seemingly the question. We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3y79llndo) where the headline gives us ‘TikTok to begin appeal against being sold or banned in US’ with the added text “TikTok will start making its case on Monday against a law that will see it banned in the US unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells it within nine months.” I don’t really have a voice in this. I do not use TikTok, I don’t have the app. I use YouTube and YouTube shorts and that fits me just fine. There is only so much procrastinating a person can do until the battery of his mobile/tablet gives out. I have nothing against TikTok, but YouTube got here first and it does more than I ever needed.
And for the text “The measure – signed into law by President Biden in April – has been prompted by concerns that US users’ data is vulnerable to exploitation by China’s government.” It gives me the question, what evidence is presented? What evidence has been verified? You see America has seen its OWN influencers hand over data (or make available) to Russia, after 8 years we FINALLY see action and more nations are following. As such I am weary of anything anti China appearing after the BS stage America did regarding Huawei and for that part we still haven’t seen clear evidence. A mere mention of ‘could’ and ‘possible’ were given, but no hard evidence. A mere case that was settled and 10 years old. Even as we are given “advocates of America’s powerful free speech rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, say upholding the divest-or-ban law would be a gift to authoritarian regimes everywhere.” I need to agree that these first amendment rights were never ready for the digital revolution we are seeing and we see that in relationship to the Russian paid influencers. I find it weird that they can call themselves ‘victims’ all whilst they got a million dollar deals. Influencers need to be addressed and cut short. If this is not done then you hand a victory to ByteDance and its TikTok. Then we see the accusation “Mr Wang also criticised lawmakers for being vague about the specific national security threats that they say TikTok poses”, really? So where were they (US intelligence) when social media influencers decided to invade national security for Russia. We have yet to see results from that and that is the setting stage for TikTok to be held accountable (if there is any accountability). We see too many anti-China rhetoric, all whilst America is merely trying to keep issues in America and still they cannot tax the minimum part of this, so what is it about? Another claim was seen in another BBC article. We are given “They fear the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over data about TikTok’s 170 million US users. TikTok insists it would not provide foreign user data to the Chinese government.” So how is this on ByteDance? As far as I can see it, Facebook already took care of that (via Cambridge Analytica), that is seen as we were given “Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on potentially over 87 million users, most of them in the USA” (source: the Guardian, NBC, CNET) oh, and that is not all. Politicians Ted Cruz and convicted politician Donald Trump were accused of using this tactic. From there we see the quote “It has not been proven, because the difficult thing about proving a situation like that is that you need to do a forensic analysis of the database”this gets us to the next session. What forensic analyses was used to prove the TikTok matter? It does not because as far as I can see, it is a revenue tactic using the accusation of data. So how often is a firm forced to sell on the accusation? In that case, what cases of forced sales exist for Microsoft?
That is one of the pillars we need to see and investigate. In March 2024 we got from the BBC “a similar test carried out by Citizen Lab concluded “in comparison to other popular social media platforms, TikTok collects similar types of data to track user behaviour”” does this not imply that similar settings need to exist to the other social media channels? America is a mere 325 million, Europe has over 742 people, the middle east 381 million people and Asia is near 5 billion people, America is a shoddy minority, but these settings are not tested against Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Whatever Elon Musk has and a few other players. This is as one-sided as it gets. And that is not even considering Russia and its poor poor influencer victims in all this. So how is that going? It frustrates me that Huawei had such scruffy treatment whilst NO evidence has ever been produced.
And in this a report that was given in 2023 where we see “Similarly, a report by the Georgia Institute of Technology last year stated: “The key fact here is that most other social media and mobile apps do the same things.”” So where is the banding of ties to these American social media settings because I do not believe that the NSA isn’t on that same page of collecting non-American data points. And then we get the largest issues “Although it irks privacy experts, most of us accept that handing over swathes of private data is the deal we make with social networks” it is the price of these free mobile networks. So what is this stage? It is fuelled by the item “Article seven of China’s National Intelligence Law states that all Chinese organisations and citizens should “support, assist and co-operate” with the country’s intelligence efforts. This sentence is often cited by people suspicious not just of TikTok, but all Chinese companies.” If people have an issue with that, that’s fair. However be warned that America let data go to Russia without so much as a threat for 14 years, in the end (2022) we get “Facebook owner Meta has agreed to pay $725m (£600m)” and as far as I know a mere £500,000 was the part for the UK, I think that America has a lot more issues than China. It had to overhaul its data policies at least a decade ago. So how many apps via Twitter, Apple apps, google apps (mostly games) and Facebook has been collecting data? This is seen with “Data was collected on at least 30 million users while only 270,000 people downloaded the app”, so where was the anguish there? I personally see this TokTok issue as a governmental money grab and a consolidation of data in America (away from China). If it becomes a side whether I want my data abused by America versus China is entirely up to the elections as I do not now, not ever trust Trump and I feel that China is the safer place for data and I know I am not alone in this. To be honest, I don’t want either to have it. Perhaps it is an option for Evroc to expand its governance from cloud to include social media data to be placed in Sweden (GDPR) or perhaps Saudi Arabia. It seems that bank violations are harshly dealt with there. If data transgressions are dealt with equally harshly it might be an option.
Just some food for thought, time for a sandwich for me, yummy. Enjoy your day this Monday, knowing it is almost Monday in Vancouver.
Yes, this is a little speculative, but the story is not. I just learned of the BBC story that they released 4 hours ago, 17 hours after I wrote the previous story. The BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq82852kkz8o) is giving us ‘Microsoft lays off more gaming staff in new cuts’ with the subtext “It laid off 1,900 staff in January and, in May, closed four studios bought before its purchase of Call of Duty maker Activision-Blizzard”, as well as “He said the decision to cut more jobs – about 3% of its gaming staff – was made “as part of aligning our post-acquisition team structure” and organising the business “for long-term success””. The ‘he’ in this story is Phil Spencer, and that long-term success? As I personally see it Microsoft will implode within the next 30 month, so that long term is relatively short (as I see it). And as for the layoffs being towards post-acquisition team structure. That might be the intention, yet the issue remains that the interest alone on a $69,000,000,000 purchase should be no less then 4.5 billion dollars and the gaming stage brought Microsoft (according to several sources) no more than 2 billion dollars. As such Microsoft is coming up short around 50% of the interest alone and that is before we factor in what more is needed to take care of the principle. And as Microsoft is dealing with all kind of fines and several angry people suing for what they think they are due, the numbers will not come up nice, more like tainted and covered in blood covered red. We then get “Xbox boss Mr Spencer told gaming website IGN he was expected to run a “sustainable” gaming business and show growth during a June interview”, so what does this Spencer person think what ‘sustainable’ means? In my book it means able to be maintained at a certain level, and how does that work when you lay off over 2000 people? Support? Managers? One gives relief to hardship and buggy environment to the customers (something that Microsoft is intimate familiar with) and the managers are often the creative part of the company and they have had the ears of their staff. Now these fired people could optionally use my freebees and create these games on NON-Microsoft systems. Giving Microsoft even more hardship. A game that makes perfect sense in the business mind of Microsoft, but gaming is mostly art and that is a setting that they seem to misunderstand. I like it when the unworthy give me resources and tools that can be used against them. Karma tends to be a bitch. The quote we see is “In its latest finance report Microsoft said its gaming revenues had increased, mostly due to its ownership of Activision-Blizzard, which also produces World of Warcraft, Diablo and Overwatch” what we do not see are the issues that Diablo 4 still has (on whatever system). It might have been the big cash cow (over $666M in the first 5 days) but what did it cost to develop Diablo 4? It took 6 years, that is nearly all we know about it and Microsoft is really happy to hide a lot of numbers and merely focus on the good stories which is to be expected, but as we now see that thousands have been cast out, there is every chance that these people could become their worst competitor and not in a good way. Another setting is seen (at https://www.inverse.com/gaming/xbox-enotria-delay-microsoft-ps5) where inverse tells us ‘Enotria Is Just the Latest Game to Hit A Mysterious Snag With Its Xbox Launch’ with the byline “Something’s amiss at Microsoft”, I think that it is a lot more. How is it possible that Phil Spencer can smilingly visit the board of directors as we are given things like “it was canceling the Xbox release of HAAK. According to the developer, it spent over 14 months attempting to register the game for release on Xbox, when it estimated it needed only about two weeks of porting work. However, bugs in Microsoft’s Partner Center and Support site prevented it from applying”, as such I wonder, when a we see registration issues and bugs. What is Microsoft doing, or better asked, not doing? 14 months? There seems to be an increasing issue with transparency and in gaming it is damaging, as such what is Microsoft doing? I see it as a setting where the walls come crumbling, but what if I am wrong? What if Microsoft has a more insidious plan? I have no idea what it is and I have no clue what they are doing but there is a setting where Microsoft is all about all games online and in the cloud. So what happens when gamers are all controlled from a singular place? I have no idea what is going on, it was a mere speculation, but the increasing amount of issues (including bugs all over the place) does not fill me with comfort. Consider this and wonder why they were willing to pay 69 billion, all whilst there is a lack of revenue. There is more going on and I think it is becoming more and more imperative to create games on OTHER systems and bleed Microsoft dry. The other part is that the (speculated) intentional lack of clarity in regards to the numbers we see reports of 160% year on year growth, but with gaming it is merely based on the next game and so far quality has been lacking. The failures that Redfall brought, the lack of issues in Starfield is one side, the lacking sales of the Xbox is the other part. When you see the list of issues we must understand that there are plenty of intelligent people at Microsoft, so what is this about? We can wait to find out, or we can create a wave of excellent games and give the gamers an option to select the Amazon Luna, the Sony PS5 (PS4 too), the Nintendo Switch or the Tencent Handheld as their new home. At this point China becomes a contender in the gaming industry. That should be a hard sell to the US government, would it not be? As such I set the gaming IP I designed as Freebee to non-Microsoft systems. I might not know what Microsoft is up to, but I do know that they are greed/revenue driven, and as such I know what would hurt them and should Kingdom Holding accept my offer the hardship of Microsoft merely increases. A nice way to end my career, by partially saving the gaming world (a bit presumptuous perhaps). Microsoft should never have done what they did, they wanted to become absolute ruler and that didn’t sit well with me, a such I created IP and stories for game developers. The one rule was, ‘not for Microsoft systems’. Making the ideas public domain made the most sense to me. Or as Frank Herbert wrote in 1965 ‘He who destroys a thing, controls a thing’ as such I went to work. Now I believe that the BBC is merely handing me a partial confirmation (as I see it) that I was right all along. When the staff leaves it becomes a problem.
Oh and as this becomes a new reality, China gets a real chance to pick up hundreds of people with a good grasp of gaming. That is merely my point of view and I could be wrong.
Yesterday I saw an article (source: BBC) that gave me reason to give a little recollection. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2dpkpmv1o) giving us ‘Google’s lucrative ad tech business goes on trial’ and the text “A trial beginning on Monday will hear the Department of Justice’s case that the search engine’s parent company Alphabet illegally operates a monopoly in the market.” set me off. You see, I worked on that system as an operator, a technical account manager if you prefer. I worked on this system in 2015. This is important because in the nine following years Microsoft and its ‘system’ Bing couldn’t even remotely get anything working that presented some weak looking imitation. The system was that excellent. And excellent is the operative word. You see before that advertising agencies were taking their clients in some kind of a looting ride. Prices were out of this world for the advertisers. It was a business limited to big business. The Google ad system was made so that everyone had a clear possibility, a fair system that didn’t overcharge, something that wasn’t possible before. That was a new approach to advertising.
Bid for place
Charged
9.00
1.28
3.00
1.27
2.00
1.26
1.25
1.25
The setting was that the higher bid was only charged one cent more than the previous one. The advertisement agencies would pocket the difference from $7.62 of the first bidder. Now consider this happening ten thousands of times every day. When you realise this you see how this was the better system. There was no monopoly, customers suddenly had a fair chance to their advertisement options. That part is missing. It is not the fault of the BBC, they merely report. They also give us “Alphabet has argued its success is due to the “effectiveness” of its services – but prosecutors say it has used its market dominance to stifle rivals” which is exactly what I am saying. But the prosecutors are exaggerating (as anyone would suggest). We then get ““It is a really important industry that grabs billions of consumer dollars every year,” said Laura Phillips-Sawyer, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.” A statement (possibly taken out of context) from a law professor from Georgia. The less excusable statement was “grabs billions of consumer dollars every year”, that is where my example comes in. This is not the way of this system. It tempers the cost and need for ‘over’ bidding. I gave an example of four, but the list goes on for a lot more. This illustrates the loss of Laura Phillips-Sawyer and how little she knows of this system. So its not “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation”, I believe that Microsoft minded people want to get into this business and the prosecutor is a possible way for these people to get in.
As such we see that the statement “Google dominates the digital ad marketplace and has leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition” Google innovated this market more than anyone ever considered. The fact that Microsoft has no chance and lacks expertise in software to make any dent in Google application is one part of the evidence. It also didn’t stifle competition, the fact that Microsoft had no option to push anything in Google’s path seems to me that this is the second part of the evidence is also nullified. After decades of ‘exploitation’ of customers, Google gave them all a fair chance. So why doesn’t anyone see that? How come that this is not shown to us all? Is it perhaps that the prosecutor has the ear of those people who lost their golden eggs? I am stating that not only is Google innocent in this, the world doesn’t realise how fair this system is. And the wannabe’s want to hack into this system for their own selfish needs. We are also given “It argues that competition in the digital ad space is growing, not contracting – citing increased ad growth and revenues for companies such as Apple, Amazon and TikTok as proof”, in this I say that the digital ad space is growing because Google made it more fair and as such players like Apple, Amazon and TikTok are given a space where they have millions more to advertise against the once exploitative system. What we do not get to see is that I enabled dozens of advertisers, small business units to get a grasp of advertisement space on. Monthly basis. They had the option to set a budget for as little as $5 a month to get several placements every day. Yes, they might not be above the fold as the expression goes, but they were on the page. The advertisement agencies would not have even talked to those. Now consider that this happens to tens of thousands of customers and realise that the statement “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation” becomes folly.
When we consider this the statement “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” is equally folly. And I wonder who Judge Amit Mehta was serving. Even as the judge was an optional idolising fair play person we need to realise that the Google rank system was re-invented
The eigenvalue problem behind PageRank’s algorithm was independently rediscovered and reused in many scoring problems.
In 1895, Edmund Landau suggested using it for determining the winner of a chess tournament. The eigenvalue problem was also suggested in 1976 by Gabriel Pinski and Francis Narin, who worked on scientometrics ranking scientific journals, in 1977 by Thomas Saaty in his concept of Analytic Hierarchy Process which weighted alternative choices, and in 1995 by Bradley Love and Steven Sloman as a cognitive model for concepts, the centrality algorithm. (Source: wiki).
Now consider that Sergey Brin and Larry Page made this system 30 years ago based on ideas dating back to (as quoted) 1895. And then three times more and no one at Microsoft woke up. They were all so focussed on greed and gaining the attention of board of directors at big business. Google focussed on the millions of people working there and getting the attention of people who needed a better option. “As of September 24, 2019, all patents associated with PageRank have expired” and now these systems are under attack. However, the data is already with Google and the larger players (read: Microsoft) will need decades to catch up and they know they are not able to, in case of Microsoft I personally believe that they merely have at most 24 months left until they collapse and that is it for the once computer behemoth. As per now, fr a player like Microsoft, the ad space is a much safer option to recollect lost revenue and keep their head above water. I admit that this is speculative, but it makes the most sense. Even in 1995 I saw how Microsoft was lagging behind, but they had serious problems (read: Netscape) and it get worse after that. But that is not the aim of this article. As I have shown here Google was a true innovator and you need to wonder if monopoly is a valid setting when all the others cannot even get close because their innovators are merely presented spinners, or optionally previous exploiters. How is it a monopoly when there is no other realistic contender for the crown? Is an island with a population of one totalitarian in nature?
Simple questions that are hard to answer. Enjoy your day today, this fine Wednesday where we start yearning for the coming weekend.
This is the setting I switched to. From Microsoft (too much issues) to a nice palette. Not to paint, but if the painting on an easel is the current version of a game.
There is another version, ‘my’ improved version. You see between 1985 and 2000 Atari (with their Atari 800 and Atari ST) and Commodore (with their Commodore 64 and Commodore Amiga) launched 10,000 games. Now if we only look at the top 10% of these games we end up with 1000 games. I am guessing that 50% has some level of IP protection (still an optional path) but 50% have no protection at all. That was what I was trying to tell Kingdom Holding. It is a path to about one third of the path to a 5 billion dollar annual revenue. And I recently completed the thought of a fourth game to relaunch. Consider that Microsoft with their 23 development houses have 2000 games. This path would gain 50% of that marker and Microsoft isn’t doing good (they will be in denial) and in that same setting, I got another idea. The top 10% are all set to a rating or 80% or better. This could be done with a lot less people and when the first two dozen games are out their streaming solution would only pick up more and more. The first stage would be reached with a setting of 50 million consoles. So as we were given “As of August 2024, lifetime unit sales of Xbox One consoles in North America reached nearly 33 million, while in Europe, lifetime unit sales surpassed 12.8 million. In total, nearly 58 million Xbox One units have been sold worldwide as of August 2024.” And my idea would equal that within 2 years. It took Microsoft 11 years to get to this and within 4 years I would have surpassed them. And that is just for starters. I speculatively (it remains speculation, not presumption) see the 100 million surpassed within 4 years. It would set this new console on the level of Sony and Nintendo. I personally (wishful thinking) see the new system equal the Nintendo Switch and the Playstation 2 in half the time they needed. This isn’t grandiose posturing. The path was made by them and now I see the option to reap the rewards. Either via Kingdom Holding or via Tencent, hoe doesn’t matter. I still see the vision of handing Phil Spencer the wooden spoon. He’ll end up dead last in a race he never really understood and as Microsoft enters more and more hard times divisions of Microsoft keep on being hollowed out. My work becomes increasingly easier.
So at this point it is largely a stage where my brain sets the premise of how to set the look of these games, not by ‘rad looking’ graphics, even though they will be a lot better. But these games it was largely about playing and the joy of playing. These ‘game makers’ are all about advertisement money. They all advertise ‘no wifi’ or even more ludicrous ‘no payments’ whilst they merely set the premise to another fitting. Pay to win, disguised as an clever way to pay to grind. How disappointing. I do not blame them. Too many gamers nowadays are delusional falling into a trap and that tend to be demoralising. My idea was handed before in this blog and a few people picked up on this, or they had exactly the same idea (I cannot prove how they got there) but that is fair enough. So I decided to remaster in my mind these games and I got game 5 to a second setting of the master version. I will keep these thoughts offline. I initially had the idea for Google, but 3 days later they dropped the Stadia, so basically Amazon (Luna) and Tencent (handheld) remained. Tencent has a satisfying bonus. These high and mighty captains of industry would have surrendered another industry to China. And they do not have a lot left to work with.
A simple setting that I solved three years ago, and they were all blind to what was staring them in the face. Soon I will have to write more about the solution I had for malls. Another path that a few corporations (like Google and Amazon) overlooked. That is fair, you can only run an industry when you have bright developers falling asleep on the job and when waking up they have that spark with a new idea. A never ending stage of deadlines tend to be debilitating in the end.
So how does these two link?
The idea I had came to me three years ago (and I wrote about it here) and in that time I merely revamped these games with more and more improvements, this is not against those games. Some of these games were launched before 1990 and I had 30 years to spin a few webs combine that with the graphic improvements we have now and the versatility of the hardware and we get an estimated 250% better game. And the captains of industry (specifically Microsoft) never looked beyond the spin hype they themselves created. A simple example Richard Garriott created the Ultimate series, ahead of its time and When you recreate Ultimate 4, Ultimate 5, Ultima 6 and Ultimate 7 on an Elder Scrolls Oblivion shoe anvil, there would be millions of gamers reset to this storyline. You see, the storyline of these games were perfect, the location (a whole world) was perfect and the setting we see with the virtues and the stones, mantras and a few setting more was perfect. I got hooked on Ultima 3 (Exodus) in 1984. This game never lost its appeal, not in 40 years. The games 4,5,6, and 7 have a very similar map and the fact that you play with a party of 8 people gives it even more bang. That is what Bethesda could never deliver (they were not trying to). Microsoft overlooked one of the greatest RPG IP’s EVER created and that is merely the tip of the iceberg. 1984 was a marvel in more than one way. The other game was Elite, now called Elite Dangerous by David Braben and he did something amazing. That is the stage Microsoft overlooked as well (or Braben was way ahead of them) and there are dozens more games that could fit the new bill on streaming systems. Another game from those days was Boulder Dash. Upgrade the graphics and you should have an amazing relaunch. That is the simple setting that still hold sway after 40 years. And you wonder why I think that these people were asleep at the wheel? Another stage is that with 2 games the fighting ring could be transitory. And there is space for Kingdom Holding (or Tencent) to enter this field as the current ‘captains of industry’ are seemingly about the “worst decisions of their career” whilst I showed up to three years ago showing that it was already a lot worse.
So what more can be done? I am not sure, I send the notion to both Andy Jassy and Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud, but I had no response. I am not surprised they both probably get hundreds of people saying that they had the golden idea. And now I get to address Tencent Holding. Not sure how that pans out, but the thought of a 5 billion revenue (annual) might appeal to them (if I get paid that is). I have no illusions that I might merely make 1%, but that still amounts to $50,000,000, as such I would not complain. Still the idea of asking for 1% of the revenue for 20 years seems more on point (for me that is) and if so I shall make the mall solution public domain.
If you look back in my blogs for these three years you will find a lot more, including the stage for a completely new RPG, with original ideas and a few stages I considered during me Oblivion playing days. As well as a completely new IP on RPG that hd not been done before. Including a setting between two worlds which was a little based on the idea Stephen King gave me from the book The Talisman. It was one way of traversing locations. Not a copy of his idea, merely the premise of his approach. All these things I see (in my mind) and game developers never caught on what else they could do. They merely went for ‘looking cool’ whilst wannabe gamers stood in a doorway keeping everyone else out. Oh, what a lovely stage. That is what passes for game developer? Wanting to be cool with multiplayer games all whilst plenty of people (a majority) where happy in single player mode). I still think they did this so that they never had to properly develop clever NPC programming. As such I even surpassed that when I came up with a setting though IP created by Vint Cerf, he merely saw the business need. I saw a whole new approach in gaming and as such his ‘IP’ should be open to me. Another path Microsoft overlooked. They merely bought Bethesda and thought that their problem was solved. I took one look and thought “Oh, perhaps I could do this?” One thought was all it took. So, where is Microsoft now? I reckon by 2026 on a whole new plane of problems (if they still exist by then). For tomorrow I need to write in protection (if protection is the right word) of Google, the BBC forced me to go nuts on my keyboard. Google deserves someone who stands up for them as well, although I feel certain they have that in hand. I merely want to give my support on that cause.
Nearly time for another Jalapeño sandwich with cheese. Have a great day.
That is my stance at present. It might be a wrong position to have, but it comes from a setting of several events that come together at this focal point. We all have it, we are all destined to a stage of negativity thought speculation or presumption. It is within all of us and my article 20 hours ago on Microsoft woke something up within me. So I will take you on a slightly bumpy ride.
The first step is seen through the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240905-microsoft-ai-interview-bbc-executive-lounge) where we get ‘Microsoft is turning to AI to make its workplace more inclusive’ and we are given “It added an AI powered chatbot into its Bing search engine, which placed it among the first legacy tech companies to fold AI into its flagship products, but almost as soon as people started using it, things went sideways.” With the added “Soon, users began sharing screenshots that appeared to show the tool using racial slurs and announcing plans for world domination. Microsoft quickly announced a fix, limiting the AI’s responses and capabilities.” Here we see the collective thoughts an presumptions I had all along. AI does not (yet) exist. How do you live with “Microsoft quickly announced a fix”? We can speculate whether the data was warped, it was not defined correctly. Or it is a more simple setting of programmer error. And when an AI is that incorrect does it have any reliability? Consider the old data view we had in the early 90’s “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. Then. We are offered “Microsoft says AI can be a tool to promote equity and representation – with the right safeguards. One solution it’s putting forward to help address the issue of bias in AI is increasing diversity and inclusion of the teams building the technology itself”, as such consider this “promote equity and representation – with the right safeguards” Is that the use of AI? Or is it the option of deeper machine learning using an LLM model? An AI with safeguards? Promote equity and representation? If the data is there, it might find reliable triggers if it knows where or what to look for. But the model needs to be taught and that is where data verification comes in, verified data leads to a validated model. As such to promote equity and presentation the dat needs to understand the two settings. Now we get the harder part “The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognising that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.” Now see the term equity being used in all kinds of places and in real estate it means something different. Now what are the chances people mix these two up? How can you validate data when the verification is bungled? It is the simple singular vision that Microsoft people seem to forget. It is mostly about the deadline and that is where verification stuffs up.
Satya Nadella is about technology that understands us and here we get the first problem. When we consider that “specifically large-language models such as ChatGPT – to be empathic, relevant and accurate, McIntyre says, they needs to be trained by a more diverse group of developers, engineers and researchers.” As I see it, without verification you have no validation and you merely get a bucket of data where everything is collected and whatever the result of it becomes an automated mess, hence my objection to it. So as we are given “Microsoft believes that AI can support diversity and inclusion (D&I) if these ideals are built into AI models in the first place”, we need to understand that the data doesn’t support it yet and to do this all data needs to be recollected and properly verified before we can even consider validating it.
Then we get article 2 which I talked about a month ago the Wired article (at https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-copilot-phishing-data-extraction/) we see the use of deeper machine learning where we are given ‘Microsoft’s AI Can Be Turned Into an Automated Phishing Machine’, yes a real brain bungle. Microsoft has a tool and criminals use it to get through cloud accounts. How is that helping anyone? The fact that Microsoft did not see this kink in their trains of thought and we are given “Michael Bargury is demonstrating five proof-of-concept ways that Copilot, which runs on its Microsoft 365 apps, such as Word, can be manipulated by malicious attackers” a simple approach of stopping the system from collecting and adhering to criminal minds. Whilst Windows Central gives us ‘A former security architect demonstrates 15 different ways to break Copilot: “Microsoft is trying, but if we are honest here, we don’t know how to build secure AI applications”’ beside the horror statement “Microsoft is trying” we get the rather annoying setting of “we don’t know how to build secure AI applications”. And this isn’t some student. Michael Bargury is an industry expert in cybersecurity seems to be focused on cloud security. So what ‘expertise’ does Microsoft have to offer? People who were there 3 weeks ago were shown 15 ways to break copilot and it is all over their 365 applications. At this stage Microsoft wants to push out broken if not an unstable environment where your data resides. Is there a larger need to immediately switch to AWS?
Then we get a two parter. In the first part we see (at https://www.crn.com.au/news/salesforces-benioff-says-microsoft-ai-has-disappointed-so-many-customers-611296) CRN giving us the view of Marc Benioff from Salesforce giving us ‘Microsoft AI ‘has disappointed so many customers’’ and that is not all. We are given ““Last quarter alone, we saw a customer increase of over 60 per cent, and daily users have more than doubled – a clear indicator of Copilot’s value in the market,” Spataro said.” Words from Jared Spataro, Microsoft’s corporate vice president. All about sales and revenue. So where is the security at? Where are the fixes at? So we are then given ““When I talk to chief information officers directly and if you look at recent third-party data, organisations are betting on Microsoft for their AI transformation.” Microsoft has more than 400,000 partners worldwide, according to the vendor.” And here we have a new part. When you need to appease 400,000 partners things go wrong, they always do. How is anyones guess but whilst Microsoft is all focussed on the letter of the law and their revenue it is my speculated view that corners are cut on verification and validation (a little less on the second factor). And the second part in this comes from CX Today (at https://www.cxtoday.com/speech-analytics/microsoft-fires-back-rubbishes-benioffs-copilot-criticism/) where we are given ‘Microsoft Fires Back, Rubbishes Benioff’s Copilot Criticism’ with the text “Jared Spataro, Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President for AI at Work, rebutted the Salesforce CEO’s comments, claiming that the company had been receiving favourable feedback from its Copilot customers.” At this point I want to add the thought “How was that data filtered?” You see the article also gives us “While Benioff can hardly be viewed as an objective voice, Inc. Magazine recently gave the solution a D – rating, claiming that it is “not generating significant revenue” for its customers – suggesting that the CEO may have a point” as well as “despite Microsoft’s protestations, there have been rumblings of dissatisfaction from Copilot users” when the dust settles, I wonder how Microsoft will fare. You see I state that AI does not (yet) exist. The truth is that generative AI can have a place. And when AI is here, when it is actually here not many can use it. The hardware is too expensive and the systems will need close to months of testing. These new systems that is a lot, it would take years for simple binary systems to catch up. As such these LLM deeper machine learning systems will have a place, but I have seen tech companies fire up sales people and get the cream of it, but the customers will need a new set of spectacles to see the real deal. The premise that I see is that these people merely look at the groups they want, but it tends to be not so filtered and as such garbage comes into these systems. And that is where we end up with unverified and unvalidated data points. And to give you an artistic view consider the following when we use a one point perspective that is set to “a drawing method that shows how things appear to get smaller as they get further away, converging towards a single “vanishing point” on the horizon line” So that drawing might have 250,000 points. Now consider that data is unvalidated. That system now gets 5,000 extra floating points. What happens when these points invade the model? What is left of your art work? Now consider that data sets like this have 15,000,000 data points and every data point has 1,000,000 parameters. See the mess you end up with? Now go look into any system and see how Microsoft verifies their data. I could not find any white papers on this. A simple customer care point of view, I have had that for decades and Jared Spataro as I see it seemingly does not have that. He did not grace his speech with the essential need of data verification before validation. That is a simple point of view and it is my view that Microsoft will come up short again and again. So as I (simplistically) see it. Is by any chance, Jared Spataro anything more than a user missing Microsoft value at present?
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 