Microsoft Bing | Lawrence van Rijn

Yup, the Amazon. And if you think we are talking about that woman in a tight leather bodice hiding perky breasts looking like a 30 something woman called Gal Gadot, you’d be wrong. We are talking about the other Amazon, the one with a wrinkly face selling books. A few articles hit me a few hours ago. The first one on the table (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjjr7kzj2o) is the BBC, Fortune with its paywall was rejected) is the one we see first. It sets the tone with ‘Amazon to spend $11bn on satellite firm in growing Starlink rivalry’, now I accept and respect competition and the quote “Amazon is aiming to build-up its satellite business to offer internet and mobile phone services by spending $11.57bn (£8.5bn) on an acquisition of Globalstar. The deal, announced Tuesday, will allow Amazon to get thousands of satellites into low-earth orbit through the Amazon Leo project the company has been working on for several years.” But the added part starts making this setting a more desperate look, with “Amazon will be in closer competition with Starlink, an increasingly popular satellite-based internet and phone service company launched by Elon Musk in 2019. Starlink has a significant head-start on Amazon’s Leo, which currently only has around 200 satellites in orbit. Musk’s company, which is private, says it already has more than 10,000 active satellites offering internet and mobile phone service to more than 10 million paying customers.” Star link is already seeing head waves with the rejection by Canada and next Europe with the sabres rattling that President Trump is throwing in the air. The last words have not been spoken about that and as soon as Ursula von der Leyen is setting the tone of what the American Administration is accepted to get hearing of, this field will become a lot less profitable. But besides that, under the guise of AI (lets keep it real and call it fake AI) “As of January 2026, Amazon is cutting approximately 16,000 corporate roles to reduce bureaucracy and embrace AI, following a previous round of 14,000 job cuts in October.” We are already raising eye brows as that is setting too many people out into the cold and now they are playing with $11.57 billion to play with the competition they have no chance of catching up to? 200 makes no competitor out of 10,000 satellites and as I see it, Starlink is setting several amazing views, does Globalstar have anything to match it? Its like Microsoft with its 5% market share stating that it is time to replace Google, who has over 88% share. It is never going to happen and as I do not trust AI, I will still google things, no matter what some media claims people do and millions of people are on the same side that I am on.

I reckon that $1 billion could have given these 30,000 people a job and that is before we take under consideration a few other things. Some say that a data centre has 3 to 5 years (source: Fortune) so how can you keep these data centers when the return on investment is at least 5 years out? These are the makings of a pot stew, one that usually is standing besides a few players playing some version of poker. It sounds like the consolation price for something no one needed, or at least that sounds to be the case. You see, this drive to data centers requires a population and as I see it Europeans are now actively rejecting Microsoft and everything that comes with it (like data capturing). So what gives?

Then we get CNBC, who (at https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/amazon-ceo-andy-jassy-ai-spending.html) gives ‘Amazon CEO Jassy defends $200 billion AI spend: “We’re not going to be conservative”’ with some of the key points being “Amazon CEO Andy Jassy released his annual shareholder letter, where he once again made the case for huge investments in artificial intelligence. The company has said it expects to spend roughly $200 billion on capital expenditures this year, with the lion’s share going toward AI development. Jassy wrote that AI revenue in its cloud computing segment has hit a $15 billion annual run rate.” And here we expect a few things. You see, investing $200 dollar to get back $15 per year sounds stellar, but it also means that you are 13 years away from getting the original $200 back and now when it concerns billions, there is the matter of interest. Given that they might be drowning their revenue, there is no interest, but it is a large thing to take into account if it is the company handheld on the white that AI becomes real in the next 13 years. I think it is touch and go there, but still the second sized wave of technology will be massive. Once IBM releases the shallow circuit advantage they have, the will cost Amazon billions too, I have no idea what Google has on that term, but as I see out Amazon does not. So, as I see it, Amazon is paying poker with a bank of over $220 billion and the outcome is definitely a gamble and one of the highest order as well. So as CNBC gives us “Amazon shares have struggled so far this year as investors question the company’s aggressive AI spending plans and grow increasingly impatient about when the investments will pay off. Amazon shares closed up 5.6% on Thursday. The stock is up more than 1% year to date. Jassy has said that Amazon needs the capital to go after “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” and to keep pace with “very high demand” for the company’s AI compute.”
I merely wonder if anyone has a clue what kind of a gamble Amazon is making, because that bill comes due and it comes due in a most unfashionable way. So whilst we look (and optionally gawk) at what is shown, can anyone see what about to happen?

Then. We are ‘hit’ with the final setting and it is given to us (at https://nationaltoday.com/us/wa/seattle/news/2026/04/14/goldman-sachs-lowers-amazon-price-target-ahead-of-key-earnings/) where we see ‘Goldman Sachs Lowers Amazon Price Target Ahead of Earnings’, which is always going to happen, but the quote “Wall Street analysts see both opportunities and risks in Amazon’s AI-driven growth strategy.” The one side to look at this (an optionally wrong one) is that the added risk is downplaying the opportunity in the field here. That is beside the point, as I see it, that the added quote is merely filling with “Goldman Sachs has lowered its price target on Amazon stock to $275 from $280, while maintaining a Buy rating ahead of the company’s expected earnings report on April 30, 2026. The revision signals a broader shift in investor attention toward the key risks and opportunities shaping Amazon’s next phase, including the performance of Amazon Web Services, the impact of rising energy prices, the commercialization timeline for Amazon Leo, and the growth of Amazon’s advertising and marketing platform.” But what matters is “Amazon’s aggressive push into artificial intelligence through AWS has become a critical driver of the company’s growth, with AWS already reaching an annualized AI revenue run rate exceeding $15 billion. However, the heavy AI spending also comes with trade-offs, as Amazon is significantly increasing capital expenditures, which could pressure free cash flow in the near term. Investors are closely watching these developments to understand Amazon’s trajectory in 2026 and beyond.” As I see it, the risks are adding up and we are likely to see an addition of maturing trade-offs to make the screens, making investors jittery. Personally I don’t think that it is the “pressure of free cash flow”, I believe that there are several risks of Globalstar ignored and that will rear its ugly head soon enough, because at some point Starlink will boost their presence with requirements towards ‘space safety’ and whilst no one is expecting this, I reckon that Globalstar is not ready for those ‘demands’ and as such $11.52 down the toilet as they say, a risk that is (at present) undocumented, but that will raise the risk levels on a few levels, but what do I know. I am originally from tech support, not in any way connected to economic forecasting.

A setting that gives us that in almost every way it is more appealing to watch Gal Gadot with perky breasts in a leather bodice than it is to look at the presumption of revenue by speculative economic forecasters of Amazon inc. But that might be my hormones talking and not my wallet, which has zero Amazon stock, so I am not listening to my wallet at present, who is eerily empty.

So you all have a great day and consider the risks you are facing today, if you are watching Gal Gadot, the risks are good, if your fortune is in Amazon, a little less so.

Yes, today is all about the Bogus Blablabla Congregation (BBC). And even as they give us ‘Martin Bashir: BBC fell short over Diana interview, report finds’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57189371), the stage is much worse and much more rotten then ever expected. Yes, more than expected, because of all the news agencies until yesterday the BBC had one that is one of the highest on the planet. We saw the veneer chip with their settings of Gaza, but now with the protective levels towards Martin Bashir, we can safely say that the BBC should now be regarded as just another exploitative media channel and that view will not improve for years to come. You see, as I personally see it the view of “Mr Bashir apologised for mocking up the documents, but said they had no bearing on Diana’s decision to be interviewed. Princess Diana’s interview with Martin Bashir for Panorama was a huge scoop for the BBC – in it, the princess famously said: “There were three of us in this marriage.”” But the stage is already rotten, the element of deception and basically forgery, not ‘mocking up’ shows Martin Bashir to be a shitty little cockroach, just like other reporters from places like the Sun, Daily Mail, or News of the world. The scoop was a stage of forgery where the person interviewed was pushed into a stage of defensive protection of her family and the shitty little roach knows this. So when we get to “Mr Bashir had later lied when he told BBC managers he had not shown the fake documents to anyone, and described significant parts of Mr Bashir’s account of the events of 1995 as “incredible, unreliable, and in some cases dishonest”, it shows the rotten core of the BBC that is largely absent of checks and balances. So when we get to ““The BBC should have made greater effort to get to the bottom of what happened at the time and been more transparent about what it knew. While the BBC cannot turn back the clock after a quarter of a century, we can make a full and unconditional apology. The BBC offers that today.” The chairman of the corporation, Richard Sharp, also said the BBC “unreservedly accepted” the report’s findings that there were “unacceptable failures”. “We take no comfort from the fact that these are historic,” he said.” We get to see a stage where people like Richard Sharp is just as much a roach as the other roaches. I get it, they want to limit the damage, but the BBC is showing itself to be just like all the other Murdoch wannabe’s. In what Lord Dyson calls ‘woefully ineffective’ we see “In early 1996, the BBC carried out an internal inquiry that cleared Mr Bashir, Panorama and BBC News of wrongdoing” We get to see a setting where some at the BBC saw the issues in play and saw the shit storm that would hit if it got out and the only option was a delay and they were able to set a delay for a quarter of a century. So when we see “Last week he left the BBC, citing ongoing health issues. He had been the corporation’s religion correspondent and editor since 2016”, we see optionally one truth, because the British people are at present ready to Lynch his ass and hang him in a nice high tree overlooking some BBC building. An option that might actually happen, his deception will anger the people to no end, and the BBC is partly to blame. You see we see that part when we consider why a little journo roach like that would endure ‘Martin Bashir lost £ 125,000 when he hurriedly sold his London home to the boss of a lingerie company’, I personally believe that people in the BBC and other part of the UK government were eager to show him out any door possible and the anger of the British people would not have made that place a safe place to live. So as London News today (4 weeks ago) gave us “A BBC reporter moved in the midst of a ruckus over fraudulent tactics allegedly deceiving the princess. Two large removal vans appeared at his front door on Friday before the sale. It is not known that the two-story house is listed on the market, and neighbours seem to know little about the move, leading to speculation that it was a panic sale”, we see and accept a panic sale and that implies that someone gave him a tap on the shoulders, perhaps even Richard Sharp himself. A 25 year career based on a lie and he will most likely get away with it optionally crying that he is merely a victim of a media system. And the exploitation does not stop there, the BBC already has a way to bounce back with “A Panorama investigation into the interview delayed from last week” will most likely show Martin Bashir as the evil deceiver and the rest will be made to be naive and good of faith, or as I see it, a system without checks and balances, a shortcoming that was visible from the time when Guy Burgess was part of the BBC, as such how innocent is the BBC or Panorama? On a slightly different tone, if I put a .338 bullet in the head of Bill Gates, will that solve the issue of Bing hijacking 5 times an hour on my Google Chrome iPad? It is pissing me off and I am already vexed with the BBC as much as it is at present.

Personally I also have an issue with “Lord Tony Hall – the director of news who carried out the 1996 investigation – said he accepts it “fell well short of what was required” and he was “wrong to give Martin Bashir the benefit of the doubt”” If it is truly short of what was required, Lord Tony Hall should be seen as incompetent, but the other media players are unlikely to push for that side, are they? And that shows just how screwed up the media has become, they are in a stage of keeping each others heads above water so that they can all enjoy more revenue. Did anyone consider the stage that some roach relying on a career based on a lie could end up with a £1.9m London house? Consider that and the information “Editor salaries at BBC can range from $76,291-$114,619” the income and house do not match up, even as we saw late last year “Martin Bashir was one of the greatest journalists in the world right now. He worked for the major part of his life”, it is my speculative view that someone was protecting Martin Bashir, consider the facts and you might get to that same conclusion especially when you realise that his wife was not the expected cause of such an expensive house.

I personally reckon that looking into Lord Tony Hall will show a few more items in all this. The fact that it took me less than an hour to see certain matters, OK, merely AFTER some revelations were made might not matter. There are a few settings that were out in the open, the lack of checks and balances being one of them. I wonder who else thinks that the UK media is lacking a massive overhaul and in all this it merely shows that Lord Justice Leveson was more and more correct a decade ago, so how long until the people realise that the UK media (actually a global overhaul of media) is long overdue? Especially now that the BBC is shown to be coming out of some sewer reeking of shit and vile crap?

Tag Archives: Microsoft Bing

About that woman

Falling short into an abyss

Recent Posts

Archives