Tag Archives: Financial Times

Two sides of technology

There are always two sides on any technology. The question is whether they are aligned or not. The first story is found at (at https://www.edgemiddleeast.com/ai/tsmc-and-samsung-consider-100-billion-uae-chip-projects) where the Edge Middle East gives us ‘TSMC and Samsung Consider $100 Billion UAE Chip Projects’, it all comes across as straight forward. We are given “Semiconductor giants TSMC and Samsung are in early talks to establish massive chip-making facilities in the UAE, potentially marking a significant expansion in global production.” It seems to me that this is a straight forward option, especially for the UAE. We are also given “develop potential chip projects in the United Arab Emirates, with investments that could exceed $100 billion. The discussions, which are still in the early stages, were first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday” and this article ends with “Should these plans move forward, they would mark a significant milestone in the UAE’s efforts to position itself as a global technology hub.” The second article was initially from the Financial Times (but they are behind a paywall), as such I I cannot give the link, but the headline reads ‘UAE president meets Joe Biden in push for more US AI technology’ where we are given “Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan seeks to formalise fledgling partnership between both countries” as well as “The United Arab Emirates’ leader met US President Joe Biden in Washington on Monday to advance artificial intelligence co-operation as the Gulf nation tries to secure easier access to US-made technology” and “The UAE is one of the US’s most important allies in the Middle East, but relations have been strained at times in recent years. Talks for a formal security pact with Washington have stalled, and Abu Dhabi was infuriated by what it saw as a lukewarm US response to attacks on the UAE’s capital by Houthi rebels from Yemen in 2022.” This is a dangerous time for America. The trivialisation of the Houthi terrorists will cost America dearly, it has before and it will cost America more than they imagined. You see, as I personally see it. There is a bigger fish. The option that China will play nice with Taiwan when there is a larger part of the $100,000,000,000 could give China the edge they need. And in this setting China will have several bonus options that would fall away from American. That alone would entice China to play nice with Taiwan to a whole larger degree. Is it viable? I honestly cannot say as the media is massively anti-China. Ask Huawei is you doubt my view on this issue. 

How could this happen?
There are several options, but if I were a betting man China would offer Taiwan independence UNDER China. Would Taiwan accept this? I don’t know, but if China would enable a diplomatic solution via the United Arab Emirates it could happen. China is more interested in the collapse of America sooner and will hand an independence ‘option’ to Taiwan. And the setting with Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan gives China a larger option to manouver. It is my believe that the Biden administration is driven to not make my speculation happen and for that it needs a slice of the UAE AI business and America will offer whatever it has to to make their entrance a done deal. On the positive side if Microsoft gets involved there is every chance that their affinity to mediocrity will blow up in their faces and the American stance becomes a whole lot weaker. This is not ‘fear mongering’, this is merely the view I have on Microsoft and the blunders they have made in the recent past. The UAE embraces perfection, as such Amazon (AWS) or Google would be a much better fit. But this is not about bashing Microsoft (it is fun though). The AI investments that could be coming the way of the UAE, there is a larger field. We hear all about ‘AI’ and the developers (Amazon, Apple, Google, et al) but most forget that Huawei has its own system. The FusionMind AI platform. I don’t know how good it is. Whatever the media tells us, once Huawei gets to demonstrate their system. No matter what others think, if the UAE considers it good enough, the American race for revenues goes in the wrong direction (for America that is). Don’t ask me how good or how bad the Huawei system is, because I have never seen it, but I know about it and the media is doing its best to ignore Huawei, but I am not convinced that this is a good move to make. The IT people (like me) want to assist people with solutions that WORK. I do not think it is a good idea to ignore the Huawei system. And I believe that neither Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates are ignoring the Huawei technology side of it all. For me the larger setting isn’t merely what works, but it is the dim witted view of accusing Huawei whilst not offering ANY clear evidence. That is the larger stage and if Huawei, or the Chinese government can convince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan to allow Huawei to present their case, American will have additional worries to deal with. I personally think that Google AI with Mandiant would be personally the better option. That is merely because I have have limited exposure to AWS and no exposure to Amazon security solutions. So my view is slightly biased. In all this, Google needs to convince the UAE that they have what the UAE needs. After that Saudi Arabia should be shown these solutions too (likely they have already seen them).

When we see these sides, one side is the technology, the other side is the software and when we optionally see these chip solutions the bigger winner becomes whomever sets the premise of their software to the hardware provided. I personally hope for Google (I am biased here), but the end game is nowhere near concluded at present. I reckon the Biden administration is hoping for a memorandum of intent, but that is something we might see on Wednesday. So keep looking.

It is almost Wednesday here and Vancouver is following in 18 hours. So anything is possible. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

What’s in an advertisement?

I have been called many things (not all of them nice) but I do not care, I call it as I see it. This time it is Google that hits the spotlight, you see it is not all Microsoft that I cater against (often I do though). This time it is Cyber News (at https://cybernews.com/news/meta-google-youtube-instagram-advertising/) that gives us the news. This came from the Financial Times and the headline gives us ‘Meta and Google had secret ad deal to target teens on YouTube’, I am not judging this, but Google has stated on a few instances that they would not target kids. Still we get here “Google Ads help page itself says that the “unknown” category refers to people whose age, gender, parental status, or household income are supposedly unidentified. In theory, this could allow ad buyers to reach a wider audience” but we are also given “according to FT, Google could use app downloads and online activity to determine “with a high degree of confidence” that the “unknown” group actually mostly consisted of younger users” Now, lets take a different look and for this I use the Apple population (not people eating Granny Smiths) So lets go by the simple set of an iPad and around 128.5 million units of tablets were shipped worldwide in 2023. A little over 40% in the USA. The younger population uses their iPad for over 4 hours a day to do gaming. I took a small measurement in two hours I was fed around 2 dozen advertisements. Now consider that we have 80 million gamers on the iPad, as such 4 hours represent 40 advertisements per user and that represents 3.2 billion advertisements EVERY DAY, you think that Google, Apple or Meta walk away from that? And when we add the mobile gamers on Android and iPhone it becomes a much larger and more interesting number. 

On one side it works out well for one of my IP issues if we consider the larger premise. You see some are all about hijacking revenues from others, I took it into a different direction. When these three players lose a little over 20% of that advertisement industry. How strapped for cash will they end up being? Don’t trivialise this (many so called captains of industry will), when you need your revenue and you get to face a decline of 20% panic is ensured to come to the table. Like the advertisement bitches who cried fowl when Google wanted to do away with cookies. The setting I had was enable Amazon to a much larger degree, optionally enabling Kingdom Holding (Riyadh). A simple setting that many forgot about, because they all wants us to look to the horizon to the land of honey and AI, but that is at least a decade away, as such I saw another shore. 

But back to the story. So the response from Google was ““We prohibit ads being personalised to people under 18, period,” Google said in a statement to the publication. “We’ll also be taking additional action to reinforce with sales representatives that they must not help advertisers or agencies run campaigns attempting to work around our policies.”” And it could have worked if Google set through the cookie stage, but they did not. Now the setting is different, advertisement gaming is developing and we get a dozen versions of the same game and they all run on advertisements. And the game becomes worse for some ad streamers now also include advertisements. As such they are one step removed from the old setting that Electronic Arts tried to include in their sport games, the billboards in a game all showing the advertisements that EA could sell. In the long run it could have given them a revenue boost. Now the game sets a different premise. You see you can fight of getting more revenue, or you can make sure the others cannot get any, that was the premise that I went for and Saudi Arabia does not have to cater to Americans, more importantly they could deny America well over 20% of that revenue. Consider that the big three techs have to report a drop of 20%, how does that work out? In addition to that loss you could capture a part of that revenue. You see the USA is all about monopolising issues, all whilst no one looked to the shores behind them to see what they lost and that was the place where revenue was all over the floor.

The setting is given, but when we consider that they either confess on targeting minors, or take the losses. And my solution doesn’t target at all, putting this solution largely in the clear.

Still, the EA premise had me thinking, not a similar approach, but a very different approach. One that give a much higher premise of engagement. Like the cheaper Netflix, set the console with a gaming portal and that portal has a niche for advertisers one that pays the viewer in credits, which could go towards a lower fee, or game coins to get free updates (enhancements) for in game shopping, any game on the platform. That was a side no one (seriously) looked at. Games are set to a developer, not to a portal and when they want to be there they will have to agree. Consider any console with 50,000,000-200,000,000 gamers, do you really think a game designer wants to be cut off? Consider that the Xbox Game Pass has only 18 million users. And the numbers I stated were conservative, this solution would be next to the PSX2 (over 155,000,000) and the Nintendo Switch (144,00,000) that is what was at stake and Google shot themselves in the foot (my speculation) as they dropped the Google Stadia, as such the Amazon Luna and the Tencent console are all that remains. And when we see those numbers, a larger base exists for advertisers, but in my view a more limited one. Still, there is (to some degree) an option whilst removing a massive chunk (I think around 20%) away from Apple, Google and Meta. It was an evolution to the system as I set it up and the advertisement funds are merely the icing on the cake. 

The added ‘protection’ that is given could sway plenty of parents to go this way, not my initial interest, especially when phase one 50 million is reached. The system will fuel itself towards users like the CBM64 did in the mid 80’s. Still the others need to rethink their system, because for now they think it is all OK, but when the setting changes it will already be too late. Look at the Cookie stage, only when they finally switched it off in part, the advertisers starting to cry like little bitches. Three days ago we were given “This latest twist in the Privacy Sandbox saga is a wake-up call for the entire digital advertising ecosystem, according to Upwave’s George London.” Wake up call? This setting was known for a couple of years, as such these people had plenty of time to revisit the sands of opportunity, but they thought that it wouldn’t get to that, and the money would keep going in. Now the premise will likely become that they lose out on a population that gets into the millions, no free ride for cookies (cookie monster ate them all) as such they will have to put the prices down by a lot, because targeting is soon to be a real issue, for this the Google and Meta setting comes into play. Either regulators demand a larger scrutiny (expected turn) or the advertisement world will lose 4.3 billion advertisements on iPad alone, now consider how many game on their mobiles? That is a reported 79% of an expected 18,250,000,000 billion in 2025. Set that to revenue numbers. Yes what one party tells is not what some do, or they tell them where not to look for certain restrictive papers. Oh, and my simplistic number stage gives me around 2.8 billion advertisement options are optionally soon lost or diminished. Yes, my 50 million consoles were hilariously conservative. 

What’s in an ad? Nothing a gamer wanted to see anyway, as well as a few other clusters of pushed to watch advertisement people. So how will Meta continue at minus 20%? Apple will do fine and Google will have its android, but when that newly reinvented shore comes, Google will also have to make due. As such,  they can bite the bullet or set up a fee for Youtube, which will make TikTok happy to no extent 

They say all is fair in love and war, did you ever consider that the people have a voice too, that they are pushed towards apps with no avoidance? What happens if you cater to those people? Google should know, they grew their search in a very similar way.

Have a lovely time and see you perhaps in a place without advertisements every couple of minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Science

What makes a lobbyist?

That is a serious question, because at times I have no clue what a lobbyist is. That is the question that the CBC leaves me with. There was even more power behind the article at the Financial Times, but their paywall prevents me from mentioning them. So here we are relying on the CBC. They did nothing really wrong and the article ‘At COP28 climate summit, there’s concern oil and gas lobbyists have too much influence’ (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/climate-dubai-cop28-lobbyists-canada-1.7042376) is a good read. Yet the question that follows be from the beginning which we see with “With tens of thousands in Dubai for the climate talks, environmentalists and policy experts are expressing concern over the growing presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the meetings”. So, from the start we get the connection to a lobbyist. Which according to the dictionary means “a person who takes part in an organised attempt to influence legislators.” Yet I believe it is more then that. Another version is “a special interest group that hires a lobbying organisation to influence an elected official on a particular policy” which seems to apply better. And with COP28 (any COP actually) the need for lobbyists is clear. Yet if it was ONLY fossil fuels there would not be that much attendance. You might think that “An analysis from a coalition of advocacy groups found representatives of the fossil fuel industry have been in attendance a total of 7,200 times at the annual United Nations climate talks over the past two decades” would be enough. But how many ‘representatives’ would have been in attendance 7200 times? Lets just say that it might be a career, but I think that any lobbyist would be washed out after 100 visits, let alone 7200. So, there is a part missing and when we think COP there is EPA, there is EEA, there is also WWF, Earthjuice and a lot more and at this event they all are rushing to see if their needs are being met. The last part is given by the CBC and concerns Canada. So consider “Saskatchewan is also hosting a pavilion, at a cost of $765,000, where it will hold panels by industry leaders”, now consider that to break ‘even’ they need to see around $10 million (stand, flights, hotels and so forth). So you tell me what Saskatchewan is doing there? I honestly do not know, but they are there (hopefully) for a reason. 

The fun part is that the COP28 has a green zone and a blue zone, the blue zone is only for UNFCCC. A part that the CBC did not give us (the Financial Times had that in their article). So there are two strains of lobbyists, so who goes where? All parts that were missed be many media. Another part is that a player like Bentley systems (not the car) as well as Monash University are also there, they both have their own lobbyists, but neither gave us those goods. In a semantical mood I would state that there was an event (23 AD) where less than 0.1% was a virgin (the only virgins there were the Vestal Virgins representing Vesta, the rest were men, wives, whores and slaves and the event was at Circus Maximus on the order of Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus. The entire setting mattered and it matters for COP28 events too. Without the entire enchilada we get a mere slice of what is going on and in that setting we see a misrepresenting of lobbyists as well as the COP28 event. You see, the people in the green zone do not get access to the blue zone (as far as I can tell) and the blue zone is where it is all at. So as such many articles do not give us the whole story (the Financial Times was more complete). All settings that matter, all settings that were (intentional or not) missed and that is where we are at. 

So what was the missions of these lobbyists and what policies were they supporting (or not) for governments? All questions that mattered, but we aren’t told that, were we?

Enjoy Sunday, I still have 8 hours to go, Vancouver is still on Saturday, lucky bastards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

It started with television

To get the entire mess I will start with a television episode.

The line was “Not that I don’t appreciate the sentiment behind your nightmare scenario” it was linking a conversation between President Bartlett and Dr. Takahashi. The episode was ‘A good Day’ season 6 episode 17. Yes, this part is fiction and some of the mentioned elements were too, but not all and that is the striking part. This episode aired in March 2005. You think that would be the end of it, but you would be wrong. Lets take a look at reality.

The Financial Times gave us ‘Saudi Arabia cuts holdings of US Treasuries to 6-year low’ on august 17th (at https://www.ft.com/content/2925952d-1e20-4748-8fa4-05b3605fc46a). There we are given “Saudi Arabia sold down its holdings of US Treasuries in June to the lowest in more than six years, as the kingdom directs more funds to foreign equity and domestic investments. The kingdom held $108.1bn of Treasury securities in June, down $3.2bn from May and below the $119.7bn it held at the end of last year, according to data from the US Treasury department.” This is merely part one, the second part is seen with ‘China likely to cut more US debt holdings’ (at https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202308/16/WS64dce79ba31035260b81c880.html) this is not the end, this is merely the beginning of what was described in the West Wing as the nightmare scenario. You would think that the EU and Japan would come to the aid of the US, but you would be wrong. Mario Draghi overspend trillions in the past and now the EU credit card is stretched to the max. Japan had in March 2023, a Japanese public debt is estimated to be approximately 9.2 trillion US Dollars, or 263% of GDP. Japan has no place to go and that is the beginning of systems collapsing. The US is in its endgame towards becoming an economic third world nation. 

Yet there is more tom come. We also get (at https://finance.yahoo.com/news/death-entire-financial-monetary-social-180841464.html) ‘‘It’s The Death Of The Entire Financial, Monetary And Social System’: This Market Expert Warns The U.S. Dollar Is Quickly Losing Its Reserve Status.’ I do not know Jing Pan and I do not know whether she is correct, but she gives us one part that struck a nerve. She gives us “In March, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank grabbed major headlines. After the bank sold its Treasury bond portfolio, it incurred a substantial loss, causing depositors to question its liquidity and leading to a bank run. Amid this market upheaval, Silvergate Bank, First Republic Bank and Signature Bank failed as well. “This banking crisis is not over,” she said. “Maybe they’ve been able to paper over it, and so everybody is calm, and you have consumer confidence going up and all of this other kind of garbage. But it’s built on a house of lies.”” It struck a nerve because I got there through different means. You see when the SVB issues was playing out, we suddenly get a news article with Janet Yellen who is keeping tabs on the situation. Janet Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury. Not some governor from California, not someone from the banking industry. No, it was El Jefe from the treasury herself. It was overkill. I had issues and I wrote about them earlier (not sure when). I wondered why the SVB was in that setting and why Yellen personally took notice. I wondered who was holding the US bonds. Because banks had some of the bonds, but no one had a list of how much and no one had a clue (or remained silent) on how much the SVB was holding. 

As such I had an issue, things weren’t adding up. And now the two largest finders of the planet are shedding the US debt. As I see it the US has painted themselves in a corner and things will go ugly soon enough.

This is where the next article comes in. The article (at https://tickernews.co/u-s-credit-card-debt-levels-just-surpassed-1-trillion/), which is not the only source gives us ‘U.S. credit card debt levels just surpassed $1-trillion’, as such 300 million people have a collective debt of over on thousand billion. This amounts to the degree that every American has a debt well over $3,000. So how will this unfold when the dollar drops? Now, I am generalising but the larger stage is now set. Bonds are going nowhere and in 2022 long-dated U.S. notes lost 39.2% in value. So how safe are those bonds now? We know about the inflation and that it is rising, but CNN reports that ‘US banks sitting on unrealised losses of $620 billion’. This came to us in March, as such the SVB issues are rising, are they not? So where are those bonds? Who is reaping the losses on that one and the nightmare scenario that a television series gave to us in 2005 is about to become a very real issue in 2023 and 2024. 

We might have thought 20 years ago that bonds were the safest place to be, but only 20 years later and this is no longer a reality and moreover the allies of the USA are shedding them, or cashing in to reduce the damage from them. This leaves America in a very vulnerable position. As I personally see it, they painted themselves in a corner and the windows on the two adjacent walls are soon out of reach to anyone in that corner. To add to this, the paint is red and massively toxic (as I see it), so no release unless someone can find a little over 20 trillion to help the US, the usual suspects are out of cash and I reckon Russia will not offer help either. Consumers have a total accumulated debt that surpasses a trillion and the bad news keeps on stacking up. All because politicians were playing the ‘screw it’ card. Now that the ledgers are up for grabs the US is sitting in the worst spot it has been in in well over a century and corporate and business America is looking for any way out of the US at present. 

When you see that image and you add the failures of Microsoft a different image comes to mind and it is not a pretty one. So why Microsoft? Because it is part of the Dow Jones Index. It might only be for 4.9% but when that goes south the DJI will see a much larger problem. You see it is not merely Microsoft, it becomes an issue for Goldman Sachs as well and when the dollar collapses. What do you think that places like UnitedHealth Group, Johnson & Johnson, VISA, American Express and Walmart will be left with? When over 150 million will have no money left the consumers pushing the aforementioned companies up will also fade pushing rates and results down. All things that could have been seen will over 2-3 years ago. And there is no blaming the Russian-Ukrainian war, this would have happened no matter what. Optionally it happened sooner, but not much sooner. 

Even if ‘A good day’ was the start, the settings have been in place for years. I believe the media merely looked the other way, because the other view was sexy and optionally offered more digital dollars, another funny money business. 

So am I wrong?
That is the question. I could be and relating articles like I am is to some degree folly, but it was all I had at the time. And if there is an economic person (I am not one) giving us a clear answer why I am wrong, I would accept that, but there are too many issues in the field and there are too many issues out in the open. I wonder if anyone could counter them all. But I will keep my eyes open to see if someone goes that way.

Anyway, have a great day and I am about to start the final day of the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

How on earth?

This was my first thought that went through my mind. It came from the BBC and I was reading this in a decent degree of unknowing. The title ‘China property giant Country Garden warns of up to $7.6bn loss’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66470170) where we see “Country Garden, which is one of China’s biggest property developers, has warned that it could see a loss of up to $7.6bn (£6bn) for the first six months of the year” and I am quite frankly at a loss. You see, a developer gets (read: buys) a piece of land, he places a building on it and sells this place(s) and in the end there is a profit, it might not always be a great profit, but a profit nonetheless. So when I see a loss of $7.6bn, the math in my head goes that at $250K it sets the stage for 30,400 houses and if a place costs 1.5 million we see the bungling of 5,065 places. Now it is not that simple. I get that, but the idea that someone set a stage where 30,400 houses are sold for $0 is equally laughable, implying that the problem is a lot larger than we can see. We saw it in the UK with Carillion, we saw a few examples and they all wanted ALL the profit and as such they did it all, all the elements of construction and all elements of the service. That never works, the moment a short cut is made, people start filling to holes and creating more holes in the process. 

Then there is the larger financial impact. How does a company like Country Garden has any setting that allows for that kind of a loss in the first 6 months? Even as the article gives us “The expected loss compares to a $265m profit for the same time last year. The firm also said it has set up a special task force, headed by its chairman Yang Huiyan, to find ways to turn the business around”, I reckon it might be close to ‘too late’, which is seen with “rating agency Moody’s downgraded the company’s rating, citing “heightened liquidity and refinancing risks”” and don’t expect me to give explanations. I have none. I have a few speculation, the first we saw in the beginning. But there was also the 2021 event when 15 buildings were demolished all in one go (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om6b0_ffyFQ), I cannot tell you the reason, I merely saw the YouTube on USA Today, and we get that one building needs to go at times (still sloppy), but 15 buildings? Now consider those costs and I am certain that those building in total would not have surpassed $2 billion. So now consider that one developer has well over 300% of those losses. Something does not add up and I cannot tell you what it is. In the first I do not have an economics degree, I have engineering, IT and Law degrees and I am still grasping for nothing at this time. The speculation I made earlier makes the most sense of stupidity. Yet it was speculation, so I could be wrong. As such, in an age in China where there are no jobs, there is a housing shortage and there are a few more issues. The 15 building demolition raises questions, the loss by Country Garden gives even more question marks. The Financial Times gives us “Nine months later, it is dangerously short of cash. The company expects to have lost Rmb45bn-Rmb55bn in the first half of the year and is confronting what it calls “the biggest difficulties” in its history.” (At https://www.ft.com/content/c266f377-33dc-4cf6-89a1-b62998896027) and it is not the first time. Evergrande in 2021 has a massive default and it seems to me that all these firms ‘doing it all’ are imploding. Is it a mere setting of idle time? Me and idle time go way back, all the way to the early 90’s and it is not the first time that idle time is overlooked or seen as a linear event, which it is not. It does not explain these billions of loss, it really does not but to see this in China implies that there is a lot more going on than we are able to see and that is never a good thing.

Enjoy the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media

And Canada is the first to do so

Well, that might be the case. It is CBC that gives us (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/fox-news-crtc-ban-canada-1.6875894) ’LGBTQ rights group argues Fox News shouldn’t air in Canada’, to be honest, not the worst step to take. It is the funny response by Fox Channel “Fox’s argument that the application to remove its news network from Canadian cable TV packages is “moot” in the wake of prime-time host Tucker Carlson’s ousting in late April.” Are you effing kidding me? Egale Canada wrote an open letter to the regulator in early April, asking it to consult the public on the removal of Fox News from the list of non-Canadian programming authorised for distribution in Canada. And when there is a larger stage with a lot more channels than there are space for, the BS that Fox News gives us should have no place in any Democratic nation. That news was reenforced when we were given (see below)

Even as ABC gives us that “A longtime producer for Tucker Carlson is out of a job after being deemed responsible for the onscreen message this week that referred to President Joe Biden as a “wannabe dictator.”” It should not matter. These levels of unacceptable airing of thoughts gives rise to the thought that whatever Fox airs is no longer acceptable for human digestion. The idea to openly call any clear Democratic person as a ‘Wannabe Dictator’ is beyond humour, at least what the average man calls acceptable.

There will be a need soon to sanitise the airwaves of those airing the need of populist voices, the fact that Canada dropped nine channels implies that Canada and other nations are depreciating the value of media people (I am avoiding the term journalists). A massive change is required and the ousting of Fox Channel might give rise to these people bettering themselves instead of copying the wrong people. In addition, their way of pushing Republican voices is not out of law, but the way this is done. The Financial Times (at https://www.ft.com/content/78826749-892b-42b6-9053-ef613016ae93) gave us in April ‘Fox News and the marketing of lies’, there we see “Donald Trump and his conservative backers have done more than anyone to popularise the term “fake news”, rebuffing criticism of him by opponents and “mainstream” media as deliberate falsehood.” In addition the fact that Fox settled the Dominion case for well over a billion does not help. There is a massive flaw at Fox and its board of directors hiding behind ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘entertainment’ is not the way to go and as such I reckon that Egale Canada might have a case. I enjoyed Fox News years ago, but they set a tone that I found beyond offensive and the departure of people like Bill O’Reilly is setting a different tone. The Financial Times also gave us “It is regrettable that the settlement spared Fox News executives and presenters, and the Fox Corporation chair Rupert Murdoch, from testifying in weeks of hearings that would have shone more light on to the affair.” It shines the light on just how wrong Fox News has become. I would also add to the argue that someone naming its channel ‘News’ has no business reporting it as entertainment, some issues are just too serious at present. I would add to that that there is no visible vetting of that news channel and whilst that might be acceptable in the US, I think that a larger case for the Commonwealth nations could be made to scrap them. And face it, if this is about a republican side, they can stick that to the US and keep it there (and there alone).

I reckon that the moment a second nation adds to Canada and Egale Canada panic gets a grip on its board of directors and Rupert Murdoch. No matter how that evolves, the first pebble is cast and even as the outcome is not certain, there is a larger stage where the people should consider how long they are willing to openly deceive themselves. We don’t mind getting lied to at times, but 24:7 by a news channel? Who is willing to sign up for that? 

As such I feel that not only does have Egale Canada a case, they might end up setting a larger wave among nations that have had enough of this kind of ‘presentation’ of fake news. 

Enjoy the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Another player to push Microsoft down

Yes, a week ago Sony got more light in the Financial Times (at https://www.ft.com/content/4b410761-78d8-4bec-a48b-79f1373d42e1) gave us ‘Sony chief warns technical problems persist for cloud gaming’ there we are given “Promise of technology remains unfulfilled after more than a decade of development”. This is expected, but in light of certain steps, it is a little disappointing that Sony is not on a better horse. It works out well for me, but that is not the point. You see, these streaming solutions are great if properly aligned. In addition to that we do know that it will depend a lot on a full 5G deployment and in that both Japan and the US are underachievers. Japan is in a much better position than the US and the EU, but those two places is where the actual consumer base is for Sony and they need them, just like Microsoft needs them but they fumbled the ball a few times over. We are also given “Sony’s chief executive has warned that cloud gaming is still technically “very tricky”, playing down the risk to the console maker of the industry quickly converting to a technology on which its rival Microsoft has bet heavily”, as well as “I think cloud itself is an amazing business model, but when it comes to games, the technical difficulties are high,” said Yoshida, citing latency — the fast response times demanded by gamers — as the biggest issue. “So there will be challenges to cloud gaming, but we want to take on those challenges”. In this Kenichiro Yoshida is not wrong, but as I saw in articles I wrote months ago and in at least two cases 1-2 years ago I mentioned that Microsoft and now Sony are both looking in the wrong direction. They are in a stage where they are looking wearing the wrong glasses and that is the rub (for both). You see at present Tencent Technologies is seemingly looking in the right direction and that is the problem. If Sony doesn’t adjust its scope and its approach it will fall short. You see both companies need two parts, the first is a population and the second is the technology. At present all three have the technology, but the approach to getting a population is skewed and optionally right out wrong. This is a problem because Tencent is taking a much wider approach and they have the option to win this game at present. It does not make me happy as I am a Sony person. Some like dogs, some like cats. I like cats and my PlayStation. Yet I am a gamer at heart and that is why I am not turning my back on what Tencent could be bringing. This might not appease the American or Japanese ego, but that is not my concern. As I see it, the stronger the competition, the better the systems. The Xbox led to the Xbox360 and that pushed the PS3 to become a much stronger PS4, of that I have no illusions. Now with the Tencent system, we will see whether Amazon and Sony will become stronger adversaries, or if they will through in the towel as Google did. No matter how we see it there are issues in that Kenichiro Yoshida is completely correct. How they are overcome or swirled around is all up to Sony. One issue is partially seen in “many users have yet to switch from a console or high-end gaming PC to streaming games entirely over the internet, fearing the lags that can be caused by slowing internet connectivity and server speeds”, you see the error here is the ‘switch’ part. That is not likely to happen any day soon. It is why I and many others have a Nintendo next to our PS4 or PS5. The streaming console will be the third system when the offer is interesting enough. And for a gamer the currency is games. For that all three systems need time and they need to focus on what could be gotten now and what can be developed in the near future. The second one is important as is sets a long term goal and I put the design for nextgen streaming solutions as Public Domain for Sony and Amazon free of charge as to give Microsoft greater worries.  There is nothing more nagging when they spend billions on software houses and you hand new ideas free of charge making their investment an anchor around their necks. But that is the price you pay for screwing with gamers and taking away their free choice. They were allowed to do that, they did nothing wrong, but the price is a much larger issue and I was happy to give it to them. 

Yet this news article is not a new setting but one that leaves me with questions. Not merely is the article completely correct and on point? You see this is new technologies and a person like Kenichiro Yoshida will give what he can not optionally all he does have to tell, I get that. 

Yet the quote “The promise of cloud gaming is still unfulfilled after more than a decade of development” gives a rather irritating issue. You see there has been no information on certain developments and that is fine. The press does not need to know everything (at times they are unaware of anything), but it makes me wonder if Sony made the same mistake that Microsoft has made and that would give Tencent Technologies a much larger advantage. This is all on the premise of what I do know and I admit right of the bat that there is a whole lot I do not know. Yet that to is under the stage of certain elements and as I see it so far my assessment has been correct, as such I wonder what is in store for us. How deep will Tencent Technologies penetrate the western gamers world? At present their stage looks good, but as I stated, it does depends on a few items and what I have seen from some of the Unreal Engine 5 demo’s they are on the right path and some other information gives us that they are looking in a few right directions and that might bank them well over 50,000,000 consoles global within 2 years, which would shatter whatever Microsoft thinks it can sell and it will also shatter the expectations of Sony, but that is on what I presently know.

So enjoy the weekend and remember Monday is but a day away. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Science

Too big a workforce?

Yes, there is a speculative setting where this happens. The BBC revealed yesterday (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65305165) the clear message ‘EY cuts 3,000 jobs in US blaming ‘overcapacity’’, and I wonder what really the issue is. You see when you have to shed 10-20 jobs there are all kinds of explanations. But when you shed 3000 jobs something else is going on. I wonder what it is. And there is plenty to question. You see on their website they claim “Apply now. We recommend applying early as we will be recruiting on an ongoing basis, and positions will close once filled.  View the current opportunities below. There are a small number of programs which have closing dates. Once we open for those programs, their closing dates will be listed underneath the program.” My issue is that when you shed THAT many jobs, you need to adjust your career page as well. I personally think that this is a job for HR, but that remains debatable. When you shed 3000 jobs and your career pages imply that it is business as usual another setting comes to mind. To be honest I am not sure what it is, but something is there. In the 90’s and ten years ago it was in IT and several other places about shedding the expensive staff members and getting cheap labour (graduates). Now there are a few issues. The first is that Ernst and Young has over 360,000 people. This means that only 1% is affected and that happens. Yet this only affects US staff and the number I gave you is global. There are issues in banking and that could be a setting, but whatever I give you is speculative and might not apply. But in the US we see that there is slowing but they are surpassing the numbers, as such these numbers do not add up. But the BBC gives us a handle. We are given “The move comes as corporate America is bracing for an economic downturn”, OK I can get along with that, it merely implies that EY was ahead of the curve which is never a bad thing. And they are not alone, we are also given “Accenture is slashing 19,000 jobs or roughly 2.5% of staff globally, while McKinsey is reportedly cutting about 1,400 roles or 3% of its employees” and there is more bad news, but not for EY. You see, in an age of aging losing that much staff might become counterproductive later on. We see the events that call for an economic downturn and that is fine, this happens. But in other news we see Europe going on (slightly less god than now) and the Middle East and Asia is making waves, larger positive waves. I would think that retrenching staff in the latter two areas might give a raise to better times down the track and optionally sooner. OK, I am pretty much alone in this. Most BI people say I am bonkers and they might be right. But the idea of losing qualified staff in a world where relocating them might offer more seems weird. You see, only two days ago the Financial Times gave us ‘Dubai court orders KPMG to pay $231mn for Abraaj fund audit failure’ according to the courts KPMG dropped the ball, which in sales terms means that their customers are looking around. That could be good news for EY and we do get that these grounds are not the same, but to get parties shifting into these areas implies that other areas need filling up and losing 3000 staff is not a healthy way to fill places and relocate people to fertile accountancy lands. Even as we see that most are shed from the consulting division, the truth is that most consultants are versatile, there are grounds of not losing that much staff, but that is purely a personal view on the matter. Consider the cowboy stage of cyber divisions, the need for consultants are more and more pressing, not merely on the Cyber part, but on the price-tag setting. That part could need addressing quite soon and that is where we find that EY cannot vie for such clients as they just told 3000 people to vacate the building. That I how I see it, but I could be massively wrong here and I am not an accountant. And when you see that Accenture is ridding itself of 19,000 jobs implies a larger failing all over the field. In 2003 Telia shed thousands of jobs, as far as I can tell they never rose to the old Telia, but that was merely me seeing it as I personally saw it. Is it the wrong thing to do for EY? I cannot say, but to shed 3000 jobs in the US implies more than just Economic downturn, it implies that they are already losing customers and long term projects, or they aren’t gaining long term projects, which implies that there is another issue at EY, not merely overcapacity. Yet, this is a personal view on the matter and I have no idea on how they could solve it, but as I see things around me I wonder what consultants are doing not merely to get the job done, but how to get new clients and that is the stage for the next article, because the story I wrote on February 24th 2022 ‘Red Flags’ gets a new lease on life. About that more in the next article, lets see if people actually learn from their mistakes.

Have fun (I will)

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

The anger within

We all have it, something sets us off. It is not always fair and just, but to some extent, the buttons pushed are getting to us all, and I am no different. It all started (again) this morning with 

Here we see a retweeted Tweet. We get to see dozens a day and we cannot verify the truth on most of them, people with hatred of Elon Musk whilst no one is asking that procrastinating wanker (Jack Dorsey) to properly explain himself. If Musk has a case to fire thousands, then the previous custodians fucked up, they screwed it all up royally and it is all about floating the value of the company, but the media (with less credibility than a crack pusher) refused to set the stage of asking serious questions and it is the bulk of all media, the little who asked seemingly critical questions asked too little of them and they never followed up on them or reported on the simple fact that Jack Dorsey did not elaborate. His feigned apology was all we got and the media helped him massively. We still have no clear stage of the bots, a clear stage of fake accounts and hen this comes to light it will be too late, Dorsey took the billions and ran, with massive help from the media. Media is now slapping Elon Musk every chance he gets and he is waiting time on answering whilst setting the stage for a trimmed and optionally more profitable Twitter. This sinking ship came with a $45,000,000,000 cost. Did you think that it was a hand off to get Dorsey to buy a more luxurious coffin for himself? 

Then we get the Financial Times with the claim that Twitter use went up. OK, fair and also a lot seemingly (what I saw) based on people spouting negativity regarding Elon Musk and no one asking clear questions on the changes that came AFTER Dorsey left. Some things do not add up. Several accounts losing hundreds and some claim to have lost thousands. Why would changing the guards have such a setting? Yes, a few hundred might have bailed to an alternative, but when the alternative does not deliver, they will come back. Their ego’s will make them come back and then we will see the excuses of ‘Lets give him a chance’ all whilst that should have been the starting position. I get that some might create a Mastodon (or was that a Megaladon, sorry Jason Statham) account. Makes perfect sense, especially if that person is an influencer, they will go where the masses are, but the right influencer would have a Mastodon already. The stage of one person having a dozen accounts to butter the conversation are in a stage that they do not know where their ‘powers’ are going. That makes sense too, but I would need clear data to identify that part. I do know someone who has that but he is too busy looking after other things. 

I do not get the stupidity of the attacks on Elon Musk, even the clearly presented lies and misrepresentation. It goes nowhere, in the end we merely cut ourselves. It is clear that Twitter needs time to get itself on  a new path and the media seems very driven to not let this happen. Especially when you consider how much leeway they gave Jack Dorsey, months of reporting constitutes that evidence. You merely need to Google search ‘Twitter’ and see how much critical questions were asked of Jack Dorsey and how much non-accusation based questions were asked of Elon Musk, the numbers should scare you and most people  with their attack on Elon Musk are part of that trend. I? Well I do not know what will happen, so I will await until the dust settles and see what happens next. I will fall several steps as I see no need to buy a blue checkmark and more important will be reduced in the seek algorithm. I will not care, I will see the people I follow and I should see their tweets. Only if that fails will I consider moving. We need to take care who we follow with their loud mouths and their needs for attention with failing evidence. Yes there are parody accounts, but we either follow them or we might not care. The anger within is fuelled by the loud making statements that evidence does not support and why is that? It is their ego, or their need for attention as they try to become influencers. There is of course the singular person seeking the limelight for self, but they are seemingly a huge minority. Happy to see them go into the dusk of yesterday. Oh and that statement of government making statements regarding Twitter. I think we should seek these people and their links to Jack Dorsey. Because the loudness of that equation does not make sense, it only makes sense when we consider who they cater to, especially in the beginning of a new equation, they never did that in the age of smoking or anything else, only two hours past the 11th hour did we see the government react to smoking dangers. They had filled their pockets s much as they could and that is a dangerous stage, I get that. But to filter Elon Musk in hour 1 seems adversarial actions that seemingly have no foundation, especially as they never bothered asking Jack Dorsey several serious questions, but that is merely my speculative view on the matter. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Early Christmas for China

Yes, it is not the headline you wanted to see, but there is a not unrealistic chance that Christmas for China is coming 10 months early. It is seen in the first in ‘Saudi Arabia may run out of interceptor missiles in ‘months’’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/9/saudi-arabia-may-run-out-of-interceptor-missiles-in-months-ft). Al Jazeera tells us here “As Houthi rebel attacks escalate, Riyadh has ‘an urgent situation’ as it runs out of missiles for its air-defence system, Financial Times newspaper reports” this is the wake up call. It is “There is an interceptor shortage. Saudi Arabia has asked its friends for loans, but there are not many to be had,” one of the people told the publication” that takes the cake. Terrorists are firing missiles (with Iranian support) on Saudi Arabia and civilian targets and we have to be serious on “there are not many to be had”?  Are you freaking kidding me? Well, there is an alternative, a Chinese alternative and when someone states that the interceptor is better, I cannot really counter that with other than “You have no stock, so what do you care?” A stage where the Americans decided to upheave their arms sales, first planes, then Navy and now Interceptor missiles. Well, the Chinese have the HQ-9, or Sea Red Banner-9 missile. There are a few alternatives so the Chinese will have a few versions for Saudi Arabia. So when we see “In February last year, Biden said he would end US support for Saudi Arabia’s “offensive operations” in Yemen, including “relevant arms sales”” we can all nod or realise that the interceptor has a defensive nature. But that might be me. In all fairness, my goal is still to get the 3.75% commission, and on sales that now could extend well beyond the $300,000,000,000 ends up being a really nice sum of money and as I see it, America does not need that revenue, they can go bankrupt with or without it. And there is the other side that Saudi Arabia would enable a much larger set of infrastructures to go via China, the EU seemingly not needing international revenue to go their way either.

When will people realise that it is too late for some high moral point of view? It is nice if you have the coffers to feed nations, but the US and the EU nations gave that away to banks and meaningless spending, as such they have to chose whether it is a population going hungry. It is just like these politicians having a go at Google and Amazon, all whilst Microsoft is overlooked as they install bloatware after bloatware interaction reducing the options and rights of billions. So when will these people take the proper scope in sight? For me there is a selfish reason. I am not Saudi, but I am massively anti-stupid and anti-enabling. So when the media gives us “in light of the October 2018 murder of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi operatives in Istanbul” all whilst no clear evidence has ever been reported or presented is just too stupid for words. So if I can get a few crumbs of billions by high lighting that, why would I not do that?

And in the second setting. The fact that Houthi forces have anything left to fire on Saudi Arabia and no one has stock to replenish, what does that tell you? When will these idiots act against Iran? Whilst we are treated two hours ago to ‘Iran denies interim nuclear deal reached – report’ (source: Jerusalem Post), so why are we getting denials, deferences and deflection in a stage where one player is becoming more and more dangerous. There is now an actual stage where at least one nation is willing to go to war. I tried to avoid that by making an idea to melt down the Iranian reactors without the need for bombs, so I did my bit and it is growing ever more likely that China will do their bit to, so where does all the inactions leave President Biden with the USA and his administration when inaction is all that they can offer? It is the worst political stage of enabling a competitive nation (China) I have ever seen and the EU is in a stage not much better at present. 

So where do they go when they have nothing left? I reckon it will be the path of the Chihuahua, but that might just be me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics