Tag Archives: Facebook

August 19, 2026 · 14:31

Representing Mr Morningstar

That is the setting I see and it is the one I have been bound to. As Lavrinthi of Tartarus, I have been ‘summoned’ to represent a certain mr. Morningstar in docket 0520260819-666/05 in this to unravel the settings of what is seen as sourced by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5r7vr7q1o) where we learn ‘Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, US court hears’ and the evidence presented (as I have seen it, is rather flimsy) but to unravel this I need to ask questions. So whilst some will argue that this is on Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California. I merely giggle, soon she’ll be dead and she becomes food for the pits of tartarus. She gets a chance to prove herself gains peers and that is when the dual opportunity ends. The first choice will be the Biden, the trident or the the xiphos and shield A rule my grandfather set in motion and he is after all Lord Hades of Tartarus. She might want ‘hide’ behind the armor of the law, but the rules of tartarus are simple. Win and survive or lose and become food for the winners (quite literally). It is a solution that has been in play for over 5000 years and if you are good enough, you become one of the winners and serve in on of 5 phalanxes of Tartarus. But that is later, first you must survive 20 fights and as you are made a kappa, you get assigned patrol duty and a much better weapon. At present we need to see the evidence (as little as there is).

So when we are told “Meta found “millions” of 11 and 12-year-olds were on Instagram and “did little to keep them off” as the trial opened on Tuesday.” So where are these ‘children’ from? What is the law on these kids being on Facebook and/or Instagram? What exactly is ‘keeping them off’? Are there clear legal settings? The article does not bare that out. It is written to tell the story that regardless Meta is guilty. So what exactly is “social media addiction” you see, parenting is also a need and most kids do not have it because both parents are up to their eyelids in work, they seemingly have no time for parenting. Which is a first setting. Then we get that the United States and several other nations are whining doubt the freedom of speech, but never about the accountability of the spoken word. They tend to go hand in hand. As such we are given “Meta has put forward in at other litigation this year – that social media addiction does not exist” If there is, it must be proven and that is where the trough goes leaking all over the floor. You see, Is this addition clearly described in the ‘The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition’? If not, what evidence is there? So, whilst we take notice on ““There can be no dispute that Meta has recognised people struggle, or can struggle, with their use of social media, and has come up with tools to try and address that,” Schmidt said.” But what is a struggle? And whilst we see and take notice of “The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states, including California and New York. They claim there have been numerous violations of federal and state privacy laws for children.” My question becomes “What violation and what laws were broken?” You see, nearly all children lie (around 99%) they do so out of peer pressure and peer pressure through influencers, to being to a group and they want to belong, especially as the parents are often no where to be found, but that is my take on this and I am not a parent. So when we get to the greed driven stage we see “The states seeking billions of dollars from Meta and are demanding it make changes to Instagram and Facebook, including ending “like” counts and infinite scroll.” So what exactly are these ‘like counts’ and infinite scrolls? There is a like setting to nearly all stages (LinkedIn, BlueSky and Twitter have them too), so what is the problem? Social media is less then 30 years old, less than one generation and there are things that would required adjusting, but for that matter. How was this addressed in Microsoft products? “The “like” feature in Microsoft ecosystem applications lets users quickly react to, endorse, or acknowledge messages, comments, and files without sending a full reply. It is available across tools like Teams, Outlook, and Word”, it seems to be all over the IT and internet field. What makes Facebook stand out? It is a part of social media, deal with this. And it is not merely Microsoft, Google has this too. So either show the whole field or that setting is merely discriminatory. So as I go into my usual ‘funny’ setting of “I hate discrimination and Xbox users” you might get the point. And this case is seemingly set to over 3 years as we were given “a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states” so which states? And more important what “state privacy laws for children” were broken? There is a lacking summary and I get that this is not the setting people like Megan O’Neill might like, because if it was all good then we would see this broken down here. I reckon that there are sides that she is ‘unhappy’ with because she might lose at that point. So when we get to this we see “In her opening arguments Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California, relied heavily on information found in millions of documents provided in the case from Meta. They included internal research, employee emails, and chat logs that went all the way up to Zuckerberg.” So the simple question becomes. Who tested these millions of documents? You see when we see “internal research, employee emails, and chat logs” there is the setting of verification and validation. And as I wonder if she read them all, she shouldn’t be using statements like ‘millions’ and how many times did Mark Zuckerberg papers interact with these papers? A mention of his name doesn’t do the legal settings. Which is why as Lavrinthi of Tartarus I can see beyond the light of name calling and Auntie Aphrodite always says “People note that personal growth and confidence are often internal psychological shifts rather than strict proof of divine contact.” (It was something about yearning) which makes sense. As such I see the evidence stack against Megan O’Neill’s statements. So what is in a chat log? Were all the people verified and validated? Because who will see me as Lavrinthi the speaker for mr. Morningstar and not ‘some’ cook? Baking the preserved nature of non-data driven academic essays (an eloquent way of stating fiction)? 

So then we get the ‘good’ stuff. We are given “One piece of internal research on Instagram stated: “Teens have an addict’s narrative about use.”” Merely one piece of internal research? There are allegedly millions of documents and you only have one piece of research? So was it merely one piece or one peace of research showing what YOU needed? Then we get “Despite Meta’s awareness of potentially negative impacts, O’Neill argued that Meta targeted young people as users of Facebook and Instagram. Meta, she said, went out of its way to “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids”.” So what is potential impacts? 

Negative of not, Meta is a business and it needs evidence showing that impacts are negative. Which is a loaded setting as plenty of youthful adults are inclined to lie, as such the data becomes a wisp of claimed settings. So whilst we get that “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids” was it a lie? Where is the proof that there was danger to children? I don’t know if either is true, but the BBC is not giving us those details are they? Neither are others (as far as I can tell) so that is the stage were it all goes dark and that is when (as I personally see it) that O’Neill needs to really on a warped sense of needs whilst trying to get favour for children and let the dice fall where they may. 

And when we get to “O’Neill outlined to the jury how Meta’s business model could be summed up. “Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements,” she said.” My question to that ‘defense’ would be “Show evidence of ‘hold them for as long as they can’” Pretty please? Users can quite Facebook any moment of the day, I did that 2 years ago when Facebook made a turn for the filtering of data. I merely gave up. They could too and this raises the stage of ‘hold them for as long as they can’ as trivial and untrue, because it is not up to Meta, it is up to the user and O’Neil cannot prove any of that, she can merely imply and hope it is enough for a jury. It is what you can prove that sets the court right and by my reasoning she failed to make the case, they can merely let this ride on and on and hope to get as much coins out if it as they can. And as I see it, Meta is merely being used to get a few cats and turn them into fat cats. As I see it, it is not evidence, merely wasting the courts time (as I personally see it).

So have a nice day and consider if you are a parent if you are watching or talking to your children about social media and about personal safety in these spaces, which any parent really needs to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 10, 2025 · 23:01

Opportunity lost

That is the setting and not everyone agrees with me on this. Gaming has been accelerated like the  armistice race. Some people in gaming having no real gaming life and merely a setting in business intelligence are chasing the wrong niche in gaming. Gaming is so much more. And they are missing it. Yet the Arabic setting I considered might take it more seriously (and then there is Tencent) You see, gaming is seen in all walks and sizes and When you consider boardgames, that never left our minds. I got into boardgames at a very early age in the Netherlands. It was called “Mens erger je niet” in England it was called Ludo and based on the iIndian game Pachisi. 

And now it is almost forgotten, Facebook on a blue Monday set a few of these games on their servers, but overall, they didn’t last long. But take that setting and put it on a streaming console with options for single player (against the CPU), or even multiplayer with a setting for up to 4 players. Settings where you invite family, friends or even strangers. And this is merely one of many settings. Then there is the notion that some of these games have IP protection. It could optionally be averted if not digital settings exist, but when we go deeper, we see that there are dozens of these games that have no real ownership. So why did no one take up the baton to ‘revolutionize’ these games? Then there are dozen of MB games that could take a similar track and lets face it, the system that has the numbers of games has an advantage. So why did no one connect the dots?

Then we get the life long titles like Snake and Ladders and Clue (1943) so what stops these game makers from using a small team of programmers to bring forth one game a month, within two years there would be an abundance of these games. Kids playing with their parents, or even grandparents. Playing each other and so on. What baffles me is that these Business Intelligence people never figured that out, not in the last 4-5 years and when you take a longer look at this path you will agree that it is not a path that should be overlooked. Yes, we all love our times in the Wastelands when we play Horizon Zero Dawn or its sequel, but there are times when you and perhaps others might fancy a game of Snakes and ladders and a streaming system will easily do that. So why is it overlooked? Why are these dozens upon dozen of games ignored? Is it a mere IP thing? Doesn’t the programmer seem cool enough? Streaming systems have different metrics and they all seen to go over the amount of data passed, what it fails to look at is the joy it will bring, because joy is the true metric of a game and its gamers. 

We are all looking towards the new strides, but as I said more than once, when did you look behind you to see where the new course in front of you could be plotted. Have a great day today, Vancouver joined us in the present day as it is 4 am there now and I am 55 minutes away from Tuesday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 7, 2025 · 01:52

Blame who?

You see, we all like to blame the first party we see and the richer that person is, the more guilty he can be painted. That was the setting I saw in the Reuters story (at https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/) where we are given ‘Meta is earning a fortune on a deluge of fraudulent ads, documents show’ and the underlying text “Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods, documents seen by Reuters show. And the social media giant internally estimates that its platforms show users 15 billion scam ads a day. Among its responses to suspected rogue marketers: charging them a premium for ads – and issuing reports on ’Scammiest Scammers.’” Seems to lay the blame squarely in the lap of Sir Mark Anthony Zacharias of the Zacharians from the city of Rome (I need to introduce drama here) but is that correct? I am not claiming he is innocent, but is it completely there? Or is there another side to this. You see, Meta, Facebook and legions others are in that same setting. What brings out the stage of Meta is the numbers of ‘willing to be fooled fish’ in that batter. And when we are given “A cache of previously unreported documents reviewed by Reuters also shows that the social-media giant for at least three years failed to identify and stop an avalanche of ads that exposed Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s billions of users to fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.” We see the blame and the blame at the top of the hill is a youthful young sprout (41) called Mark Zuckerberg with his $251,000 million in his wallet (I am willing to wager that this amount does not fit in his wallet) and there is a reason for my approach here. You see, everyone is so happy that there is a setting for advertisements and that ball is thrown all over the place and as I personally see it, I reckon that LinkedIn is in a similar place and there another setting exists. The scammers place an job ad in LinkedIn and from there they get their pool of optional gophers to dig into. In the last week I have had over half a dozen scam attempts and I believe the source to be LinkedIn. As such I have a different setting. I reckon it becomes a massive essential development to tackle the Advertisement settings of these settings. Better protection is required and larger systems are required to vet the advertisers. I know that all kinds of people will object for whatever reason, but that means that you do not get to whine if you are scammed. And what about the FTC? The FTC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material. You can report consumer fraud to the FTC. So what did they have to say? And that becomes interesting as the Article by Jeff Horwitz does not mention the FTC, not even once. So what did they have to say? Or was the win here to paint the guy with the big wallet? So how does that play out with LinkedIn, what about TikTok (I am not on TikTok, so I am clueless here), I also dropped Facebook over a year ago. 

But the setting is clear, the Reuters story is massively not-finished. And there is a bigger setting. We went with the old settings and applied them to social media, but there are different rules that need to be applied and a simple portal or over the phone advertisement sale will not be sufficient for the safety of the consumers getting scammed. So, basically I am merely on LinkedIn and as such (with the scammers to try me) there is every chance that they have a similar problem and in that setting there are several job sites that need thorough sanitation (my personal view) because they are in the setting that every advertiser is revenue in the bank and that is not always the case. 

So the short and sweet of it is that there is little doubt that Mark Zuckerberg holds some of the blame, some, not all. Because as I see it, the FTC has a much bigger problem. And where is the Federal Trade Commission in all of this? And when we see “A cache of previously unreported documents reviewed by Reuters also shows that the social-media giant for at least three years failed to identify and stop an avalanche of ads that exposed Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s billions of users to fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.” As such the FTC remained dumb dumb for over three years? And Reuters never fave that any thought? Neither did many other players and the FTC never went to the media saying that the advertisements require a larger overhaul giving them a new setting of hunting down scammers. And as most of them are abroad, other settings need to be considered, but Reuters missed that part too.

Have a great day and if you get an email from a prince in Nigeria telling you that you inherited a million dollars, there is a chance that this is not on the up and up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 27, 2025 · 21:42

Forgotten greats

That is where I saw myself. Thinking of a near forgotten great. It was 1935 and a relatively unknown director (in those days) it was his second movie for a new firm and that movie, the setting have been burned into my memory for over half a century. It takes a lot for something to happen to anyone. I am talking about the 39 steps. Even in 1935 the dangers of industrial espionage were seen as monumental and today this is worse. So as I see it. Based on the book by John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir the movie by many that matter is seen as an absolute masterpiece (one of them is Orson Welles). As such I see a setting where someone can sort of rewrite the story to be more contemporary. The indication quote given in the movie is “The 39 Steps is an organization of spies collecting information on behalf of the foreign office of…” and we never heard the end because mr Memory was shot at that point in during the public performance. The act out of clear fear is a setting that should not be underestimated. Now, I would love to have a bite at that, but I already have three more running originals, one is a miniseries, one is a story in three seasons and one is an open endeavor spanning 3-4 seasons for now. As such my hands are full and the first work hasn’t even been sold yet. That one is a movie meant for Arabic streaming channels. As such, I need to hand it over to someone who feels frisky to go up against a great like Alfred Hitchcock. Trying to equal this masterpiece is already a herculean task, surpassing it will be close to impossible, but do try, I challenge you.

Consider the settings we have now. NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing), ‘AI’ advertisements by Facebook (or Meta) and that is merely the start. We have woke ‘idiots’ and we have religious nuts, take in measure the settings of a political administration that shoots itself in the foot, the disability of acting out against Russia and everyone is considering the yellow peril (aka China) setting the new frontier. All elements that can make a massive impact in a storyline. 

So as we consider the IP that is starting to make waves (Hyper-loop, AI (aka NIP)) and that is intertwining in western, eastern and Arabic settings. If that doesn’t make for a compelling story, it is out of my hands. Oh, and before you think it is merely governments. Consider the settings that Google, Microsoft, Meta, TikTok and Huawei take on the global stage. And they all want the same thing whilst aiming for similar goals. 

I think there is enough space for a rewrite of the 39 steps, the politics, business and technology are setting the stage that all want to ‘enable’ empowering that setting. And even as the 1935 original was merely implying that setting. Consider that we were given this month “Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.” Yet that is a two way stream. As I see it, the west has close to nothing to counter the innovations of Huawei and there is more. So what happens when a ‘dedicated’ corporation merely sets the goals towards profits and become the axial of all this? A sort of SMERSH in real life (like Bond faced in the 60’s) but there is no need for Mr. Memory. So what happens when data sets are given to OpenAI (or ChatGPT) and that system links (falsely or not) the parts that matter? So what happens to the overseers of such a system? I am merely opening doors for someone to pick up the quill and parchment (a laptop is so passé) but the idea comes across I hope. And considering last week, news with the alleged hacks by Violet Typhoon, this movie plot could thicken.

So what happens when that is the setting towards the conclusion, the middle is the start and during the movie you get start to middle in segments and that goes towards the conclusion of someone getting to the end of the story. My idea is that this could make a magnificent movie with a woman in the lead. Perhaps Florence Pugh, Jenna Ortega, Sydney Sweeney, Anya Taylor-Joy, Saoirse Ronan, or Elle Fanning could be cast. You see, this needs to be a ‘younger’ actress. As I see it under 30. A side story would be that she is into climbing, a loner that is driven to succeed in her IT/Consultancy job. Oh and these are merely characters I know off, there are plenty of actresses that could apply. I am merely thinking of the type, not the exact character and I think that this is meant for the one taking up the baton. Would be great if a Canadian or Nordic picks up that challenge. And I got a few more ideas. It could be set against actual political events of 2025. As I see it, this movie makes a massive impact if the movie starts with:

This movie is entirely fictional, any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental

As a wink to the 1932 claim against MGM is entertaining enough, but when you base this on 2025 events it will gain traction by millions of conspiracy theorists who will drive the movie along making a lot more interested in seeing this work.

A simple setting that should make Alfred Hitchcock wink at the writer and director, in equal measure Orson Welles would applaud the setting as it is a wink towards The Night That Panicked America and the October 30 1938 broadcast it was based upon. It was one hell of a peekaboo. 

I reckon this can be done again and nicely on the bog screen. So if you reckon to be a script writer, here is your chance.

Have a great day. Another fine idea released before Monday morning.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, movies, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 26, 2025 · 22:06

The tradeoff

That is at times the question and the BBC is introducing us to a hell of a tradeoff. The story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kglle0p3vo) is giving us ‘Meta considers charging for ad-free Facebook and Instagram in the UK’, the setting is not really a surprise. On April 10th 2018 we were clearly given “Senator, we run ads” and we all laughed. Congress is trying to be smart over and over again and Mark Zuckerberg was showing them the ropes. Every single time. There was little or no question on this on how they were making money. Yet now the game changes. You see, in the past Facebook (say META) was the captain of their data vessel. A system where they had the power and the collective security of our data in hands. There was no question on any setting and even I was in the assumption that they had firm hands on a data repository a lot larger than the vault if the Bank of England. That was until Cambridge Analytica and in March 2018 their business practices were shown the limelight and it also meant that Facebook no longer had control of their ship of data, which meant that their ‘treasure’ was fading. 

So now we get “Facebook and Instagram owner Meta is considering a paid subscription in the UK which would remove adverts from its platforms. Under the plans, people using the social media sites could be asked to pay for an ad-free experience if they do not want their data to be tracked.” It makes perfect sense that under the guise of no advertising, the mention of paid services make perfect sense. This is given to us via the setting of “It comes as the company agreed to stop targeting ads at a British woman last week following a protracted legal battle.” I don’t get it, the protracted legal battle seems odd as this was the tradeoff for a free service. Is this a woke thing? You get a free service and the advertising is the process for this. As such I do not get the issue of “Guidance issued by the regulator in January states that users must be presented with a genuine free choice.” This makes some kind of sense, so it is either pay for the service or suffer the consequences of advertising. And lets be clear the value of META relies on targeted advertising. What is the use of targeting everyone for a car ad when it includes the 26% of the people who do not have a drivers license. There is the addition that these people need to have an income of over $45,000 to afford the 2025 Lexus RX $90,350 which is about 30%. We can (presumptively) assume that this get us a population of about 20%-25%, so does it make any sense for Lexus to address the 100% whilst only one in four or one in five is optionally in the market? Makes no sense does it? As such META needs to rely on as much targeted advertising as it can. And as you can see, The advertising model, known as “consent or pay”, has become increasingly popular. And at some point they were giving the people “But it reduced its prices and said it would provide a way for users not willing to pay to opt to see adverts which are “less personalised”, in response to regulatory concerns.” That is partially acceptable, but I have a different issue. You see, I foresee issues with “less personalised”, apart from gambling sites, there is a larger concern that even as Facebook (or META) isn’t capturing some data. There is the larger fear that some will offer some services and now care about capturing collected data. For example sites outside the EU (or UK). Sites in China and Russia like their social sites that collect this data and optionally sell it to META. You see, there is as I currently see it no defense on this. Like in the 90’s when American providers made some agreement, but some of them did not qualify the stage of what happened to the data backups and those were not considered, when they were addressed it was years later and the data had left the barn (almost everywhere). 

There is a fear (a personal fear) that the so called captains of industry have not considered (I reckon intentionally) the need of replacing and protecting aggregated data and aggregated results. Which allows for a whole battery of additional statistics. Another personal fear is the approach to data and what they laughingly call AI. It is hard to set a stage, but I will try. 

To get this I will refer to a program called SPSS (now IBM Statistics) so called {In SPSS, cluster analysis groups similar data points into clusters, while discriminant analysis classifies data points into pre-defined groups based on predictor variables.}

So to get data points into a grouping like income to household types, this is a cluster analyses.

And to get household types onto data points like income to household types, is called a discriminant analyses. Now as I personally see it (I am definitely not a statistician) If one direction is determined, the other one should always fail. It is a one direction solution. So a cluster analyses is proven, a discriminant analyses to income ill always fail and vice versa. Now with NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing, which is what these AI firms do) They will try to set a stage to make this work. And that is how the wheels come of the wagon and we get a whole range of weird results. But now as people set the stage for contributing to third party parsing and resource aggregation, I feel that a dangerous setting could evolve and there is no defense against that. As I see it, the ‘data boys’ need to isolate the chance of us being aggregated through third parties and as I see it META needs to be isolated from that level of data ‘intrusion’. A dangerous level of data to say the least.

There is always a downside to a tradeoff and too many aren’t aware of the downside of that tradeoff. So have a great day and try to have a half cup of good coffee (data boys get that old premise)

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2025 · 11:59

What is the difference?

A note to start with. This is pure presumption, there is no evidence that this is happening at present. And the second part is that I will be talking about AI in this article, all whilst I know it doesn’t exist yet. The setting of ‘AI’ is the conclusion of LLM and deeper machine learning at present and the solution in some cases is amazing, yet it is not AI (and that never will be the case), yet players all over the field (like for example Microsoft) they are set to the ‘AI’ field and there lies the danger, too many will snap their teeth into this field and they do not know what they are doing. The ‘et al’ parties in this like the revenue and will to some extent ‘accomodate’ what comes and what will connect to it. 

If this is the first setting of that stage, the second would be the accusation that ‘Meta Opens Floodgates For AI-Generated Accounts On Facebook, Instagram’ (source: Forbes). This sets up a new stage in data collection and data gathering and this connects to a movie called ‘Free Guy’ (with Ryan Reynolds) and that set in motion some thoughts that occurred to me. This part will be speculation to some, presumption as I see it for the simple reason that I have seen decades of lazy programmers and not to clued in data scientists who rumble to appease their data collecting masters. 

The premise
A man is going out on a date with his girlfriend, they are having a lovely meal and at that point he gets arrested for an outstanding warrant in Riverwood NSW, as he is accused of stealing merchandise from a shop and he is sought out to answer questions for the death of a police officer in that location, he is not wanted, but is a party of interest. He goes along with the setting, as only to see what is going on. He is certain that they aren’t looking for him. 

You see, the man is not the person they are looking for, to be honest there is no such warrant but there is the snag. Someone mixed up profiles and his gaming profile where he visited the Riverwood Trader in Riverwood in a place called Skyrim. You think I a kidding? No that is the reality we face when AI’s, who are not AI’s as AI’s do not yet exist. In the bungling mess that data scientists face they will cross the wrong paths and leave a lot of people in a dark setting as they are in line of warrants and black marks by the setting of that stage. And when someone will query the stage and ask if Riverwood NSW and Riverwood Whiterun are the same locations, or virtual ones. The computer will simply answer “What is the difference?”

Settings
The setting of correct staging of locations and perhaps the simpler settings that a game crime is not a real crime the computer throws a NULL, it was never taught the distinction. The data Scientist never thought it would become a reality. And there is the stage when we get fake profiles collecting data. No distinct verification of data required (apparently).

It was a danger I saw years ago, but no one seemingly caught on and now as everyone wants to trow in their ‘AI’ to be more efficient in data collection, real profiles and real people get twist in a setting of what is reality and that setting will become the event of the day for a lot of people.

I am not looking forward to the arrest warrants from Florence and Rome for killing these so called Italian Carabinieri. I killed dozens in Florence and Rome and they will not realise that those done as my Altar Ego (Ezio Auditore) were not real, but leave it to any data scientist to leave that little setting out in the open. Now that some are pushing their ‘AI’ delusional reality to the larger profile and matching stages with all kinds of profiles we face these dangers. Should anyone say “That will never happen, we are to clever for that” I will answer “Why are you selling AI while it doesn’t exist yet?” These are stages that will soon come to fruition and even as it is not exactly that exact, there will be cross linking social media sources a they think it is their great O (ask any girl, she’ll know what I mean) and the simplest setting is decades old. You can not compare a basket of apples and a basket of oranges by calling both baskets ‘fruit’ the simplest setting ignored for simple greed. Because these ‘AI’ systems will accept both as fruit, even as an actual AI system would see the difference and simply state “I cannot compare a multitude of Oranges and Apples in the same comparison. The difference between a real system and an orchestrated system. 

Have a warrant free day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 3, 2024 · 08:41

As history catches up

On the first of February 2022 I wrote ‘The opportunity for 2022’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/02/01/the-opportunity-for-2022/) where I set a stage for augmented reality, at a later stage I also set it for glasses and windows (an actual window pane) and with that I started a thought process that could revitalise malls on a global scale. I initially covered tourism, but soon thereafter I covered commerce, advertising and awareness creation. The focus for me was the Eaton centre (Toronto) as it was a clear case of awareness improvement. There were a few other sides for mobiles, but this stage was explored by my mind and last week I was given a jolt of energy as Meta (at https://about.fb.com/news/2024/09/introducing-orion-our-first-true-augmented-reality-glasses/) gives us the Orion, previously codenamed Project Nazare, as I kind of envisioned it. I thought that Google and/or Amazon would have picked it up, but no, it was Meta. So as I see it Meta now has a clear advantage over advertising and a new realm of awareness creation. So whilst Amazon and Google were cutting staff, cutting all kinds of enablements Meta now has more than the inside track. They can whisk advantages in advertisement, tourism, awareness creation and a few other directions. This is what sets them apart from the wannabe innovators. And I left all the evidence all over the internet, as such I can truthfully see myself as an innovator. As I see it, the one part not grabbed by Meta is the mobile layer where they can grab the attention of jewellers on a global scale. I am not merely talking about the small players, I am talking about Pandora, Harry Winston, the Swiss Richemont Group, Bernard Arnault and his LVMH scoundrels (as the expression goes) and a few other players. They all become very willing players in this realm. A stage that wan’t open to many of us, now becomes a new stage of revitalisation. And the malls need them and as such Meta gets to surpass Google with YouTube and Amazon with whatever they have. I actually didn’t think to be this ahead, I was in some believe that this was 5-10 years away. History catches up with me. Oh, and I was thinking also a bigger picture. You see this could work well for publishers and book shops as well. As the jeweller has its domain, the domain of books could equally profit from augmented reality. 

Meta already has the skills to put in place the technology to set the domain for advertisements and with that the malls could revitalise soon enough. For me it is another moment of bliss. Whilst several people made claims that I was nuts, the technology now exists to make larger parts of my ‘delusion’ a reality. I feel awesome, those shouting I was a nutcase have just exposed themselves to be nothing more than wannabe’s with a lack of creativity. 

And later today I will add another story, it will be all about books. Well one in particularly. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2024 · 16:36

What is the colour of cowardice?

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 9, 2024 · 15:20

I missed this setting

That is the premise. So, why didn’t I think of this? We all have this and on the defence of Microsoft, they had the ‘slogan’ at the launch of Windows 95 ‘Without even thinking’ the premise was brilliant as was the innovation from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95, no doubt about it. And without even thinking applies to so many applications and conditions, it is a brilliant created stage (credit where credit is due). So here I was reading the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d1y0z4z9no) and that gave me the nudge to wake up. You see I wrote about Ruja Ignatova, now mentioned in ‘Fugitive ‘Cryptoqueen’ hit by asset freeze’ with the lines “Ruja Ignatova, known as the Missing Cryptoqueen, is now subject to a global freezing order which prevents her assets from being sold or moved.” I had written about it some time ago and now we see “The freezing order, made public on Wednesday at London’s High Court, is part of a group action brought by more than 400 OneCoin investors”, I looked at this ‘crypto queen’ somewhere in May of June last year, it could have been two years ago. 

What made me consider this is that it has taken 6 years to do this. The questions come to mind is why this took 6 years. Come to think of this, why didn’t my sneaky way of thinking consider this. And in that light it she had moved all ‘her’ cash in some trust setting in Switzerland or Saudi Arabia it might not amount to anything. Those two countries have massive protections in place and anyone of them transgressing on their banking laws are in deep trouble. It is like rowing towards the end of the Niagara falls without an anchor in place.

So why did this global freezing order take 6 years? There might be a good reason, but the article doesn’t hand out the reason. Then we also get “The freezing order does not just target Ms Ignatova but seven other people and four companies – all alleged to have been connected with OneCoin in some form” which gives me another setting. Is ‘alleged’ enough to put a freezing order in place? Don’t get me wrong it sounds nice, but when was alleged enough to prosecute people and companies? Doesn’t that require proof? 

Then we get to “Sebastian Greenwood, who is in a US prison serving a 20-year sentence for his role in the fraud. Also subject to the freeze are British businessmen Christopher Hamilton and Robert MacDonald, who appeared in court in London” which get us the added “The pair are accused by US authorities of laundering OneCoin proceeds, however attempts to extradite them to the US to face trial have failed”, now I do not known enough of either Christopher Hamilton and Robert McDonald, but why did the extradition fail? There might be a procedural or legal reason, but the BBC does not give us this. It might not hit the core of this story, which is Ruja Ignatova, yet in light of the time settings it becomes a liked interest, so why is it missing? 

There are a few speculative sights to this. The first is that she was murdered (read: executed) and whomever was left with the bundles of cash is pretty much singing ‘do wa Diddy Diddy’ on a sunny beach. The second one that I considered was that she has a new identity, living it up in the UAE whilst her cash is in an optional Saudi bank, gaining 5%-10% interest over several billions, and as such you can live like a queen in Dubai or Abu Dhabi living off $100,000,000 plus each year. She might have been seeding the non captured funds to assure her of non-capture and non-freeze cash. This is all speculation but the stage that we see with 6 years vanishing makes these two the most likely scenario’s. And there are more places she could go when the cash is securely non-freezable. 

This gets me back to the number one question. Why did the global freeze order take 6 years? There might be a really good (or correct) reason, but the BBC article does not give us that.

Something to consider especially When we consider the Khaleej Times exposed last June that ‘UAE scams exposed: How thousands of residents ‘lost it all’ in bogus investment schemes’ and this is one nation. They report “over 40,000 UAE residents have collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars to fraudulent investment schemes” that is a serious amount of money and this is one nation. Don’t you think there is now a pressing need to up the effort to upgrade banking laws to take this factor out (or at least diminish it massively). I understand that a fool and his money are soon parted and that it is everyones responsibility to take steps to make it harder for these criminals. I think that the one clear lesson is that there are no free gifts (EVER). The second part is that nothing comes for free. Now we get that not all ‘currencies’ are the same. Look at Facebook. Their currency is data and a lot of people do not care about data, especially as they do not know what it could cost them. One question I have always in mind when someone offers me a deal to good to be true is “if it is too good to be true, it must be a false setting”, this has (up to now) prevented me a few times to lose my cash. The second thing is that if someone (an unknown person) comes to me with such an offer. My initial question becomes ‘Why doesn’t he (or she) go to friends first?’ The situation might have come up, or they might not have any friends. But when you deliver on ‘great’ deals you suddenly have more friends than anyone ever bargained for. 

This is a paranoia setting, but it is not paranoia when everyone is after your bank account. Just a thought to consider.

So whether your funds are in a fridge or not. Make space by removing the venison and make yourself an awesome Bambi burger, with forrest unions and mushrooms. Bon appetite and have a lovely weekend when you get there. I get there in 2 hours. Now I need to find some venison, I suddenly feel peckish.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 5, 2024 · 13:28

How right I was

I knew I was right. It wasn’t merely my own conviction of self, it was the exposure of two sets of ‘evidence’ as given by some media. The first was my view of gaming, mobile gaming to be presenting the ‘evidence’ Even as it was an ‘advertising’ of the events. It still shows that I was right. You see gaming always pushing the view forward and they forgot what they left behind. I tried to warn Amazon of this, but did they listen? I fear not. Yet that setting now gives Tencent an approachable 5 billion annually as well as give their Tencent Cloud Streaming Services (CSS) an option to not just break into cloud streaming, they also could be handing their TGP (Tencent Gaming Platform) Box a play for the title role in gaming platforms within a year. As it goes forward the TGP will not be an unknown, it will grace third position nearly instantly with only Sony and Nintendo to pass afterwards. I reckon that within 2-3 years it will surpass Sony and Nintendo after that. The benefit for Tencent will not be replacing these two, it will mean that they will be placed next to either or in some cases both. That was the setting that Amazon faced. Yet whilst they heralded ‘Amazon Luna adds more than 40 new games, all from GOG’ last month, they failed to see the larger picture and now Tencent and their TGP are optionally set in a world where they surpass the streaming game providers nearly instantly. Amazon only had to look at the historic market and considered what was possible. Yet their executives didn’t look (apparently) further than the length of their nose and non of them had the nose of Cyrano de Bergerac (or C.D. Bales for that matter). The resulting setting is that Tencent (or as the US fears, China) now gets a new area with gaming Europe and the Middle East as new customers. Another field that the US (with assistance of a short sighted Microsoft) where they hand the keys to a Chinese company. And they did this to themselves. I opened the door by informing Amazon in November 2022 that this field was approachable and ready. So what do we see three days ago in the Financial Review? They title ‘Amazon shares drop as AI costs spook market’ is merely one part, the underlying “investors have signalled growing impatience with tech companies’ efforts to profit from their massive investments in AI”, as well as “Andy Jassy has been cutting costs and focusing on profitability in Amazon’s main online retail business while spending heavily on AI services, which the company has said represent a “multibillion-dollar revenue run rate business”” and all along (for at least 21 months of options towards an estimated $5,000,000,000 annual revenue ignored. How that for captaincy of a ‘Big Tech’ company? And as I saw the gaming precedency go in all directions except for the right one I see that my vision was correct all along.

In a place here they got to drill into new customer places they handed it all to the Chinese opponents. Yay to shortsightedness. 

The second part is a little harder to spot if you do not look in the right direction. That being said, there are a few debatable sights to that. In the first it is my interpretation of these layered facts and if proven right it is less of an issue. Yet I believe that Facebook set the larger premise by not properly investigating the ‘evidence’ they claimed. Their short sighted overseeing hat is going on (relying on ‘their’ AI) and not properly looking at the ‘rules’ or policies they have implemented now gives rise to an altering consumer base that could skip town (their platform), optionally handing a decent chunk of their customer base to Tencent as well. It will not drown them. But answer me this, if you have to report that 10% is skipping your platform. How many shareholders will be happy with the underlying speculated statistics that we get is “The company estimates that 4-5% of those accounts are fake, meaning there may be as many as 150 million fake accounts.” these are the numbers from Facebook. Yet the ‘reality’ from some is that it is 10%-15%. Now consider that these numbers remain and the percentage over the 100% base becomes a number over their ‘new’ 90% base. As such the new base is that it becomes 111% and I believe that 120% is more realistic. Now consider that every investor paying X mounts of dollars now hands their money to 8.3% non valid accounts. It sets the new premise to nearly one out of 10 advertisements misses the target completely. How long until they have to drop prices or actually resolve that issue whilst millions are going somewhere else. That was the second premise that Amazon missed and now we have a massive larger issue. Tencent seemingly has a larger target. In the first to gain their new consumer base all over the world and Facebook (and others) start losing market share. If you think this is nothing ask Microsoft (edge) how they faired against Chrome and whilst they will deny any losses consider that Edge only has a 5% market share against Chrome 65% and Safari 18%. Take that into the settings. Considering that Tencent has a larger reason to promote Harmony OS. A stage that would make China happy as a clam. It will not have a short term impact in view, but in this all Android users in several nations will now have an option to switch Android devices. And the Apple case that is before these courts (se yesterdays article) merely strengthens the premise. I reckon that the Eastern Europe, African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries have a first impact and in that setting  America is the first to lose global market share. This last bit I gave you is highly speculative, but as my settings are confirmed I feel that this is a direction is a valid one. And it is all founded on two players (Amazon and Facebook) let is happen on their watch. Don’t believe me, feel free to read the articles I put on my blog from November 30th 2022 onwards (and several before that). The captains of industry and their governmental tools believed their own spin (read: marketing BS) and took what they spun as ‘truth’. All whilst there were visible parties out there. 

Granted, I am talking in my own street and that is also debatable, but you could read up and conclude for yourself. As such two elements handing billions of revenue that certain players left lying on the floor and I have no non-existent AI, merely my own noggin and it is working fine, thank you very much.

Enjoy this Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,