Tag Archives: science

November 6, 2025 · 16:38

Ignoring the centre of the pie

That is the setting that I saw when I took notice of ‘Will quantum be bigger than AI?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04gvx7egw5o) now there is no real blame to show here. There is no blame on Zoe Kleinman (she is an editor). As I personally see it, we have no AI. What we have is DML and LLM (and combinations of the two), they are great and great tools and they can get a whole lot done, but it is not AI. Why do I feel this way? The only real version of AI was the one Alan Turing introduced us to and we are not there yet. Three components are missing. The first is Quantum Processing. We have that, but it is still in its infancy. The few true Quantum systems there are are in the hands of Google, IBM and I reckon Microsoft. I have no idea who leads this field but these are the players. Still they need a few things. In the first setting Shallow Circuits needs to be evolved. As far as I know (which is not much) is that it is still evolving. So what is a shallow circuit. Well, you have a number of steps to degrade the process. The larger the process, the larger the steps. Shallow circuits makes this easier. To put it in layman’s terms. The process doesn’t grow, it is simplified. 

To put this in perspective, lets take another look. In the 90’s we had Btree+ trees. In that setting, lets say we have a register with a million entries. In Btree it goes to the 50% marker, was the record we needed further or less than that. Then it takes half go that and does the same query. So as one system (like DBase3+ goes from start to finish), Btree goes 0 to 500,000 to 750,000 to 625,000. As such in 4 steps it passed through 624999 records. This is the speediest setting and it is not foolproof, that record setting is a monster to maintain, but it had benefits. Shallow Circuits has roughly the same benefits (if you want to read up to this, there is something at https://qutech.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/m1-koenig.pdf) it was a collaboration of Robert König with Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset in 2018. And the gist of it is given through “Many locality constraints on 2D HLF-solving circuits” where “A classical circuit which solves the 2D HLF must satisfy all such cycle relations” and the stage becomes “We show that constant-depth locality is incompatible with these constraints” and now you get the first setting that these AI’s we see out there aren’t real AI’s and that will be the start of several class actions in 2026 (as I personally see it) and as far as I can tell, large law firms are suiting up for this as these are potentially trillion dollar money makers (see this as 5 times $200B) as such law firms are on board, for defense and for prosecution, you see, there is another step missing, two steps actually. The first is that this requires a new operating system, one that enables the use of the Epsilon Particle. You see, it will be the end of Binary computation and the beginning of Trinary computations which are essential to True AI (I am adopting this phrase to stop confusion) You see, the world is no really Yes/No (or True/False), that is not how True AI or nature works. We merely adopted this setting decades ago, because that was what there was and IBM got us there. You see, there is one step missing and it is seen in the setting NULL,TRUE,FALSE,BOTH. NULL is that there are no interactions, the action is FALSE, TRUE or BOTH, that is a valid setting and the people who claim bravely (might be stupidly) that they can do this are the first to fall into these losing class actions. The quantum chip can deal with the premise, but the OS it deals with needs to have a trinary setting to deal with the BOTH option and that is where the horse is currently absent. As I see it, that stage is likely a decade away (but I could be wrong and I have no idea where IBM is in that setting as the paper is almost a decade old. 

But that is the setting I see, so when we go back to the BBC with “AI’s value is forecast in the trillions. But they both live under the shadow of hype and the bursting of bubbles. “I used to believe that quantum computing was the most-hyped technology until the AI craze emerged,” jokes Mr Hopkins.” Fair view, but as I see it the AI bible is a real bubble with all the dangers it holds as AI isn’t real (at present), Quantum is a real deal and only a few can afford it (hence IBM, Google, Microsoft) and the people who can afford such a system (apart from these companies) are Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sergei Brin and Larry Ellison (as far as I know) because a real quantum computer takes up a truckload of energy and the processor (and storage are massively expensive, how expensive? Well I don’t think Aramco could afford it, now without dropping a few projects along the way. So you need to be THAT rich to say the least. To give another frame of reference “Google unveiled a new quantum chip called Willow, which it claimed could take five minutes to solve a problem that would currently take the world’s fastest super computers 10 septillion years – or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years – to complete.” And that is the setting for True AI, but in this the programming isn’t even close to ready, because this is all problem by problem all whilst a True AI (like V.I.K.I. in I Robot) can juggle all these problems in an instant. As I personally see it, that setting is decades away and that is if the previous steps are dealt with. Even as I oppose the thought “Analysts warned some key quantum stocks could fall by up to 62%” as there is nothing wrong with Quantum computing, as I see its it is the expectations of the shareholders who are likely wrong. Quantum is solid, but it is a niche without a paddock. Still, whomever holds the Quantum reigns will be the first one to hold a true AI and that is worth the worries and the profits that follow. 

So as I see this article as an eye opener, I don’t really see eye to eye on this side. The writer did nothing wrong. So whilst we might see that Elon Musk was right stating “This week Elon Musk suggested on X that quantum computing would run best on the “permanently shadowed craters of the moon”.” That might work with super magnet drives, quantum locking and a few other settings on the edge of the dark side of the moon, I see some ‘play’ on this, but I have no idea how far this is set and what the data storage systems are (at present) and that is the larger equation here. Because as I see it, trinary data can not be stored on binary data carriers, no matter who cool it is with liquid nitrogen. And that is at the centre of the pie. How to store it all because like the energy constraints, the processing constraints, the tech firms did not really elaborate on this, did they? So how far that is is anyones guess, but I personally would consider (at present, and uneducated) that IBM to be the ruling king of the storage systems. But that might be wrong.

So have a great day and consider where your money is, because when these class actions hit, someone wins and it is most likely the lawyer that collects the fees, the rest will lose just like any other player in that town. So how do you like your coffee at present and do you want a normal cup or a quantum thermal?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

November 2, 2025 · 18:42

Speculative power of the mind

That is at times the setting. We think that we are clever, or intuitive, but is that the case? I just (in the last two days) had two ideas. One involves ‘organic technology’ and I think I will talk about that soon. But for now I had an idea that was on Twitter (of all places) and the setting was ‘exposed’ through the image below

It was simple setting someone used their ‘AI’ filter to turn the top of the Toronto CN tower into a pumpkin. A simple and funny thing that pretty much anyone (especially the Torontians) will love as it was Halloween. Innocent fun that was ‘disrupted’ by a community note.

So I saw it as harmless fun, I asked the tower if he was offended, but I phrased it as ‘You were not offended were you?’ and would you know it, I never got a response and in the old days only the offended speak out, so another issue averted. But my mind started to think, what if it was not completely an Attached Insemination plot? 

As such I started to think a few things out. I started with a tangerine. Consider a carpel, 4-8 carpels to make a circular setting, the parts look like the carpels of a tangerine (or orange). Both sides of these parts have a hollow seem, They fit a magnified pieces of Polycarbonate (or a rubbery rod, a length of around 1.5 meters with two magnet per part and they can fit together making a buildable rod for the length of the segment. 

Then we have one side of a larger zipper on both sides and they are fit with a mechanical zipper. As it progresses, both sides are zipped together and the magnets click together making to solution a lot stronger. It is my view that either silk or whatever they use in parachutes now is set to the fabric, light and highly weather resistant. When the entire solution fits together you get a large ball and unlike the one in Dubai or Las Vegas a lot cheaper, but not as big.

Now as the ball is placed, the projection on the inside can relet whatever you need and I reckon that there are plenty of applications. Halloween might set it off, but a Blue Jays victory, A country flag, and the numerous other applications can be set to whatever the advertiser (local government) has in mind. 

A simple setting that might have a lot of applications. I reckon that they inside of the ball needs a strap with a carabiner connection to anchor out to a point (like a flexible tie) for the mast it is connected to. It is just an idea and perhaps it might not make the ‘shortlist’ of any creator of advertisers, but it was an idea and I thought I put it here.

I am still figuring out how to best project, but I reckon there are more professional minds that already have experience with this, so I will let them figure that out. And there might be a market for this. We have

Toronto – CN Tower
Rotterdam – Euromast
Gerbrandy Tower – IJsselstein
Heinrich-Hertz-Tower – Hamburg

And the list goes on, and there is another part. It can also fit really tall buildings and there are plenty of those around. You just need an erectable centre coil with a big weight at the bottom and you are off to the races. I reckon that this could set the optional clientele to many countries on the word. Anyway, it is just an idea I was having and it could fit plenty of places and I reckon it is the sneaky sly salesperson that can find numerous other players for this idea.

Have a great day, I have done my bit today in the creativity sandbox, so I leave the rest up to you out there. Have a great day and feel free to become a little more innovative if you dare. Vancouver still has the whole day ahead of it, I am in the last 6 hour stretch of today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Science

Tagged as , , , ,

August 17, 2025 · 22:08

A speculative nightmare for some

That is the setting I just ‘woke’ up from. A fair warning that this is all PURE speculation. There are no hidden traps, there is no revelation at the end. All this is speculation. 

You see, some will recall the builder.ai setting and there we see “Builder.ai was a smartphone application development company which claimed to use AI to massively speed up app development. The company was based mostly in the United Kingdom and the United States, with smaller subsidiaries in Singapore and India.” At this time we are given “The real catalyst wasn’t technical failure — it was financial mismanagement. According to reports, Builder.ai was involved in a round-trip billing scheme with one of its partners. Essentially, they were allegedly booking fake revenue to make the business look healthier than it was.” And the fact that Microsoft was duped here makes it hilarious. But was it? You see, as I see it AI doesn’t exist (not yet at least) so this setting didn’t make sense, it still doesn’t. Apart from the fact that there were 700 engineers involved (which made the setting weird t say the least) and that was set in a larger space. But what if there was no ‘loss’ for Microsoft? What if builder did exactly hat was required of them? When I got that thought, another beeped up. What if this setting was a mere pilot? You see, there are data issues (all over the place) and Microsoft knows this. What if these 700 engineers were setting the larger premise. What if this is the premise that Sam Altman needs? What if the enablement the is caused between Sam Altman and Satya Nadella and their needs? What if that setting isn’t merely data, but programmers? What if OpenAI is capturing all the work created by programmers? You see, data can be collected, capturing the work of programmers is a little different and OpenAI gets at present “OpenAI is set to hit 700 million weekly active users for ChatGPT this week”, as far as I can tell 90% is simple rubbish, but that 10% are setting their fingerprints on the programming of the future. And whilst this is going on, the ChatGPT funnels are working overtime. As such these programers are pushing themselves out of a job (well not exactly) they still have jobs in several places, but the winners here is team Altman/Nadella. They are about to clean house and when the bulk of the programmers is captured, automated program settings are realised. It isn’t AI, but the people will treat it as much. And this setting is really brilliant. We all contributed to a new version of Near Intelligent Parsing. One that has the frontlines of the crowds, millions of them. And no-one is the wiser as such. 

Perhaps some are and they do not care. They will have their own partitions on this all and the setting will regurgitate their logic and as such they will be the cash makers in the house. So, we are pricing ourselves out of a jobs, out of many jobs. But as I said, this is merely speculative and I have no evidence of any kind. Yet this was the setting I see coming.

Now, let see if I can dream lovely dreams involving a lovely lady, not an Grok imaginative lady of the night. You know what I mean, Twitter is filled with them at present. 

Have a great day, it’s 5:00 in the morning in Vancouver, I’m almost seeing Monday morning, less than 2 hours to go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

February 21, 2025 · 04:46

To all these sales losers

Yes, it sounds a little vindictive and that is where I am. So to get to this, we need to assess a few things and as always I do assess where I am. To set that stage, we need to see the elements. As I early as February 8th 2021 I have stated “AI does not exist” I did so in ‘Setting sun of reality’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/08/setting-sun-of-reality/)

I have done so several times since and as always I got the ‘feedback’ that I was stupid and that I didn’t understand things. I let it slide over and over again and today the BBC handed me my early Christmas present. They did so in ‘Powerful quantum computers in years not decades, says Microsoft’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3e3252gj8o) where we find “But experts have told the BBC more data is needed before the significance of the new research – and its effect on quantum computing – can be fully assessed. Jensen Huang – boss of the leading chip firm, Nvidia – said in January he believed “very useful” quantum computing would come in 20 years.” In 20 years? I can happily report I will be dead by then. Yet the underlying setting is also true. If actual AI is depending on a quantum chip and fully explored shallow circuit technology, we can therefor presume that true AI is at least 20 years away. I believe that another setting is needed, but that is not here nor there at this point. 

Don’t get me wrong. What we have now is great, even of a phenomenal nature, but it is not AI. Deeper Machine Learning is becoming more and more groundbreaking. And the setting together with LLM is amazing, it just isn’t AI. Together with the Microsoft setting of ‘in years’ comes nice. In an age that hype settings are required, the need for annual redefinition of something it isn’t will upset massive amount of sales cycles. They will suddenly need to rely on whatever PR is running with marketing setting the tome of what becomes next. A new setting for sales I reckon.

I have some questions on the quote “Microsoft says this timetable can now be sped up because of the “transformative” progress it has made in developing the new chip involving a “topological conductor”, based on a new material it has produced.” My question comes from the presumption that this is untested and unverified. I am not debating that this is possible, but if it was the quote would include (along the lines of) “the data we have now confirms the forward strides we are making” as such the statement is to some degree ‘wishful thinking’ it isn’t set in verifiable rule yet. It seems that Travis Humble agrees with me as we also get “Travis Humble, director of the Quantum Science Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, said he agreed Microsoft would now be able to deliver prototypes faster – but warned there remained work to do.” But the underground on this is set to a timeline that gives doubt to the set of Stargate and its $500 billion investment. Consider that the investment is coming over the next 4 years, all whilst ‘interesting’ quantum technology is 20 years away. So what will they do? Invest it again? Seems like a waste of 500 billion. In that case can I have 15 million of that pie? I need my pension investment in Toronto (apartment included). The larger setting of wasteful investment. Does Elon Musk know that there is 500 billion in funds being nearly wasted? 

And the simplest setting (for me) is also overlooked. It is seen in the quote “meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades”, that implies that there is no real AI at present. And my ego personally sees this as “Game, set and match for Lawrence”, as such all these sales dodo’s with their “You do not know what you are talking about” will suddenly avoid gazes and avoid me whilst they plan their next snappy come back. In the meantime I will leisurely relax whilst I contemplate this victory. It is the second step in my blog, the timeline shows what I wrote and when I wrote it. It could have gone the other way, but my degrees on the technology matter were clearly on my side.

And “Microsoft is approaching the problem differently to most of its rivals.”? Well, that is the benefit of taking another step, optionally innovative step in any technology. Microsoft cannot be wrong all the time and here they seemingly have a winner and that’s fair, they optionally get to win this time. 

In the setting of ego I start the day (at 04:30) decently happy. Time I had a good day too. As such there is nothing to do but to wait another 240 minutes to have breakfast. Better have a walk before then. Have a good or even better, a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

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

February 11, 2025 · 22:46

Just Asking

Today I started to ask questions within me. I have been an outspoken critic on the fact of AI and knowing it doesn’t exist questions came to mind. Question that, as I see it the BBC isn’t asking either. So lets get to this game and let you work out what is real.

Phase One
In phase one we look at AI and the data, you see any deeper machine learning solution (whether you call it AI or not) will depend on data. Now we get that no matter what you call this solution it will require data. Now that Deeper Machine Learning and LLM solutions require data (as well as the fact that the BBC is throwing article after article at us) who verifies the data?

Consider that these solutions have access to all that data, how can any solution (AI or not) distinguish the relevant data? We get the BBC in January give us this quote “That includes both smaller, specialist AI-driven biotech companies, which have sprung up over the past decade, and larger pharmaceutical firms who are either doing the research themselves, or in partnership with smaller firms.” My personal issue is that they all want to taste from the AI pie and there are many big and small companies vying for the same slice. So who verifies the data collected? If any entry in that data sphere requires verification, what stops errors from seeping through? This could be completely unintentional, but it will happen. And any Deeper Machine Learning system cannot inspect itself. It remains a human process. We will be given a whole range of euphemistic settings to dance around that subject, but in short. When that question is asked, the medical presenter is unlikely to have the answer and the IT person might dance around the subject. Only once did I get a clear answer from a Chinese data expert “We made an assumption on the premise of the base line according to the numbers we have had in the past”, which was a decent answer and I didn’t expect that answer making it twice as valuable. There is the trend that people will not know the setting and in the now there is as I see it, a lack of verification. 

Phase Two
Data Entry is a second setting. As the first is the verification of data that is handled, the second question is how was this data entered? It is that setting and not the other way round. You must have verifiable data to get to the data entry part. If you select a million parameters, how can you tell if a parameter is where it needs to be? And then there is a difference between intrinsic and extrinsic data. What is observed and what is measured. Then we get to the stage that (as the most simple setting) that are the Celsius and Fahrenheit numbers correct (is there a C when if should be an F) you might think that it is obvious, but there are settings when that is a definite question mark. Again, nothing intentional, but the question remains. So when we consider that and Deeper Machine Learning comes with a guidance and all this comes from human interactions. There will be questions and weirdly enough I have never seen them or seen anyone ask this (looking way beyond the BBC scope).

Phase Three
This is a highly speculative part. You see environment comes into play here and you might have seen it on a vacation. Whilst the locals enjoy market food, you get a case of the runs. This is due to all kinds of reasons. Some are about water and some about spices. As such the locals are used to the water and spices but you cannot handle either. This is an environmental setting. As such the data needs to be seen with personal medical records and that is a part we often do not see (which makes sense), but in that setting how can any solution make a ‘predicted’ setting when part of that data is missing?

So, merely looking at these three settings. I have questions and before you think I am anti-AI. I am not, it merely doesn’t exist yet and whilst the new Bazooka Joe’s are hiding behind the cloak of AI, consider that all this require human intervention. From Data Entry, to verification and the stage of environmental factors. So do you really think that an Indian system will have the same data triggers as a Swedish one? And consider that I am merely asking questions, questions the BBC and many others aren’t seemingly asking.

So take a moment to let that shift in and consider how many years we are away from verified data and now consider all the claims you see in the news. And this is only the medical field. What other fields have optionally debatable data issues?

Have a great day and when Mr. Robot say all is well, make sure you get a second opinion from a living GP. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

January 5, 2024 · 13:59

Is it more than buggy?

Very early this morning I noticed something. Apple had made a booboo, now this isn’t a massive booboo and many will hide behind the ‘glitch’ sentiment. But this happened just as I was reading some reports on AI (what they perceive to be AI) and things started to click into place. You see AI (as I have said several times before) does not yet exist. We are short on several parts and yes machine learning and deeper machine learning exist and they are awesome. But there is a extremely dangerous hitch there. It is up to the programmer and programmers are people, they will fail and with that any data model connected will fail, it always will.

So what set this off?
To see this we need to see the image below

It was 01:07 in the morning, just after one o clock. The apple wedge gives us on all 4 timezones that it was today. Vancouver minus 19 hours, making it 06:07 in the morning. Toronto minus 16 hours making it 09:07 in the morning. Amsterdam minus 10 hours making it 15:07 in the afternoon and Riyadh with its minus 8 hours making it 17:07 in the afternoon. And all of them YESTERDAY. Now, we might look at this and think, no biggie and I would agree. But the setting does not en there.

Now we get to the other part. Like hungry all these firms are tying to get you into what they call ‘the AI field’ and their sales people are all pushing that stage as much as they can, because greed is never ending and most sales people live from their commission.

So now we see:

In addition there is Forbes giving us (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2024/01/04/not-data-driven-enough-ai-may-change-that/) where we see ‘Not Data-Driven Enough? AI May Change That’ where we are given “Eighty-eight percent of executives said that investments in data and analytics are a top priority, along with 63% for investments in generative AI.” To see my issue we need to take a step back. 

On May 27th 2023 the BBC reported (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769) that Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff got his material from a colleague of his at the same law firm. They relied on ChatGPT to get the brief ready. As such we get: ““Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,” Judge Castel wrote in an order demanding the man’s legal team explain itself.” Now consider the first part. An affidavit is prepared by the current levels of machine learning and they get the date wrong (see apple example above). An optional mass murderer now gets off on a technicality because the levels of scrutiny are lacking. The last part of the case in court gives us “After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.” A court case for naught and why? Because technology isn’t ready yet, it is that simple. 

The problem is a little bot more complex. You see forecasting exists and it is decently matured, but it is used in the same breath as AI, which does not yet exist. There are (as I personally see it) no checks and balances. Scrutiny on the programmer seemingly goes away when AI is mentioned and that is perhaps the largest flaw of all. 

There is a start, but we are in its infancy. IBM created the quantum computer. It is still early days, but it exists. Lets just say that in quantum computers they created the IBM XT computer of Quantum, with its version of an intel 8088 processor. And compared to 1981 it was a huge step forward. What currently is still missing due to infancy are the shallow circuits, they are nowhere near ready yet. The other part missing is the Ypsilon particle now ready for IT. The concept comes from a Dutch Physicist (I forgot the name, but I mentioned it in previous blogs). I wrote about it on August 8th 2022. In a story called ‘Altering Image’ You see that will change the field and it makes AI possible. In the setting the Dutch physicist sets the start differently. The new particle will allow for No, Yes, Both and None. It is the ‘both’ setting of the particle that changes things. It will allow for gradual assumptions and gradual stage settings. Now we will have a new field, one that (together with quantum computing) allows for an AI to grow on its data, not hindered (or at least a lot less hindered) by programmers and their programming. When these elements are there and completed to its first stage an AI becomes a possibility. Not the one that sales people say it is, but what the forefather of AI (Alan Turing) said it would be and then we will be there. IBM has the home field advantage, but until that happens it will be anyones guess who gets there first.

So enjoy your day and when you are personally hurt by an AI, don’t forget there is a programmer and its firm you could optionally sue for that part. Just a thought. 

Enjoy THIS day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

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

October 4, 2023 · 12:19

Delivery for Granny Smith

Yup, I went there. A delivery for granny (Tim Cook). Yet, what set this off? I was watching some YouTube and there I saw the repair of a MacBook Pro. It was all because of the battery. I wasn’t looking for this, I am massively happy with what I have. Yet, what I saw was unexpected. It was unexpected because I never gave it much thought. This happens. We care about stuff, we do not care about stuff and the latter part often tends to be because we simply do not know. 

So there I was watching the repair of a MaBook Pro and a thought came to me. Now, lets be clear. This is nothing against Apple and perhaps they went this way a long time ago and rejected the idea (for whatever reason), but I believe that true innovation comes through sharing thoughts. It is a lesson that a greed driven like Microsoft seemingly never learned. So when an Apple engineer sees this and laughs his (or her) ass off. no hard feelings. Perhaps that same person will think ‘This won’t ever work’, however, if I change this and that and perhaps…… This is how true innovation becomes a reality and I am placing it here as a delivery for granny (Tim Cook) with zero expectations. It isn’t always about the money. The idea that I set in motion a new innovation in battery technology is a reward all onto itself. Yes, If it comes with a few million (50 would be nice) I will take it, but it is not about that. My mind went into creative mode seconds into that video and it came up with an idea in a field I never ever dabbled in. It was never my field, but creativity will not be set in borders (is Microsoft or Ubisoft reading this?). You see creativity opens up new frontiers and perhaps the next idea does touch on one of my existing IP and it will push it forward even more. Creativity also (for the most) cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the bounce of other ideas and perhaps Apple (the non sour edition) will place ideas somewhere and it will drive other fields (like its own Apple Arcade). These fields require interaction and often the interacting party is an indie developer that got to its very own stage by juggling ideas that Apple never considered. We all have blinkers that stop us (even me). We use these blinkers to focus the thoughts and ideas we have, but we need to be aware that we now have a limited field of vision.

It reminds me of a small conversation I had earlier today. You see the FN FAL is a 7.62 rifle. It as invented in 1953 and I trained on that little bugger in 1981. The rifle was that good and that dependent. The thought that came to me was that the PSA AK-V MOE Rifle is a relatable 9mm version (it has a 9mm version too). The reason to consider this puppy is because it is a lot more accurate than the Israeli Uzi, yet the downside is that the Uzi will work under the most disastrous of conditions, when sand clogs up 98% of all firearms, You remove the magazine from the Uzi, hit it against the side of a jeep until the sand is gone and the Uzi is ready for combat. The PSA will be useless at that point. However a PSA with cop-killers and a silencer will shred armour like butter. Downside/Upside. This relates to the battery that it is an idea I had.

The pad is like a bandaid to be inserted (at fabrication) in the inside of the battery. The purple pad is like a pampers pad, stops liquid and let gasses slowly get through. The blue pad is a gauss that hold any liquid that made it under the pressures, an extra safety. The images showed me that these batteries keep tremendous pressure and the ‘bandaid’ allows for the escape of that pressure, leaving the MacBook Pro relatively unscathed. Now, I get it, some Apple engineers will laugh at this idea, but someone will iterate this into a real working solution. Innovation also comes from sharing, not by harnessing the idea hoping to make a quick buck.

Is my idea any good? I have no idea, but it was a creative approach, as such it was worthy of a page. Tune in next week when I show you how I got the idea to make the entire a satellite network by the private spaceflight company SpaceX useless using a naval invention from 1908. It might not make for a useful invention, but it could make the setting of great suspenseful TV. Consider that the sky has 4,852 working satellites in orbit and SpaceX is adding over time 1000% to that (yes that was not a typo), so I reckon that having a new imaginary danger on TV makes for good ratings. And lets be clear, when the world suddenly losses their Facebook panic is almost a certainty.

Have a nice creative day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

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

September 27, 2023 · 00:47

One card to rule them all

This morning I was confronted with an image. The image wasn’t the unsettling part, it was the part that the image did not give. You see, I got my first smart-card in 1991 by Unilever. They already had smart-card security when it was a myth at best. 

Now consider the set-up above. This level of card cloning can now be done by a high schooler. And people think that this level of protection works? How quaint.

So my old noggin started to mull things over, we need to upgrade this stuff by a lot. I know all the people will state that this isn’t needed. But when insurance companies catch on that people are cutting corners the premium goes up by a lot. Now, my idea might not be the best solution, but I leave this to the ACTUAL cyber boys to mull this idea into something workable.

In my view the smart-card has 3 layers, the lowest layer is an RFID shield, this makes scanning the cards really hard, the middle layer is the circuitboard and the top layer is the plastic layer. Now the circuitboard can have 7 nano sims, but only a minimum of two are required. You see, all that cheap corner stuff is done for. The 6 sim locations are connected through printed circuitry, the one part a hacker cannot copy or clone. As such these sims become part of a non-repudiation process. And as they are specifically created for each client, you have 64 options right from the start and when you consider that each nano sim and the circuitry adds a few thousand combinations we can safely say that these hackers stop being a problem.

The centre sim is where specifics are programmed on site (hotel, corporation HR), the other one, or up to 3 other ones are SPECIFIC to that client. Yes, it could all fit ONE sim, but that is where people get into trouble and cyber criminals will have a field day.

You see, what we do is raise the threshold. The image below gives the side I was after. 

The lower part are the wannabe hackers, simple thieves and so on, that is a little over 50% of the lot and they are taken out of the equation completely. They lack the resources to make it work. The yellow are partial threats, these are the high end hackers. They are driven to results and finance, so if the goal is not the required need, it is left alone. That doesn’t make them a non-issue, but unless they have something really interesting to gain, they aren’t interested. The green ones are the remaining threats. People with government access, or serious funds. We have now removed a little over 90% of the threat that was in existence. You think and insurance company having to pay out millions upon millions will try to avoid having to pay at all. We can come with all the usual culprits, but that is not where it is at. Consider that a player like Northrop Grumman needs to keep their IP safe, the first stage is non-repudiation.  That person and that person alone could have done this and a cloned card makes that part near impossible. In the end some will always have access, but when we can remove 90% from the equation, that part matters and it matters a lot. So that is what I was mulling over and this idea came to the top. Perhaps not everyone’s cup of tea, but that is not my concern. I had another idea, number 4 (or 5) this week alone and now I will snore like a sawmill, it is Wednesday here now.

Enjoy the day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 9, 2023 · 22:09

Huh? Wha? Duh!

I was a little baffled today. The article that I saw in Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/8/google-shares-tank-8-as-ai-chatbot-bard-flubs-answer-in-ad) had me. I saw the headline ‘Google shares tank 8% as AI chatbot Bard flubs answer in ad’. So I got to read and I saw “Shares of Google’s parent company lost more than $100bn after its Bard chatbot advertisement showed inaccurate information”, now there are a few issues here and one of them I mentioned before, but for the people of massively less intelligence, lets go over it again.

AI does not exist
Yes, it sounds funny but that is the short and sweet of it. AI does not exist. There is machine learning and there is deeper machine learning and these two are AWESOME, but they are merely an aspect of an actual AI. We have the theory of one element, which was discovered by a Dutch physicist, the Ypsilon particle. You see, we are still in the binary age and when the Ypsilon particle is applied to computer science it all changes. You see we are users of binary technology, zero and one. No and Yes, False and True and so on. The Ypsilon particle allows for a new technology. It will allow for No, Yes, Both and Neither. That is a very different kind of chocolate my friends. The second part we need and we are missing for now are shallow circuits. IBM has that technology and as far as I now they are the only ones with their quantum computer.  These two elements allow for an ACTUAL AI to become a reality. 

I found an image once that might give a better view, the image below is a collection of elements that an AI needs to have, do you think that this is the case? Now consider that the Ypsilon particle is not a reality yet and Quantum computers are inly in its infancy at present.

Then we get to the next part. Here we see “The tech giant posted a short GIF video of Bard in action via Twitter, describing the chatbot as a “launchpad for curiosity” that would help simplify complex topics, but it delivered an inaccurate answer that was spotted just hours before the launch event for Bard in Paris.” This is a different kind of candy. Before we get to any event we test and we test again and again and Google is no different, Google is not stupid, so what gives? Then we get the mother of all events “Google’s event came one day after Microsoft unveiled plans to integrate its rival AI chatbot ChatGPT into its Bing search engine and other products in a major challenge to Google, which for years has outpaced Microsoft in search and browser technology”, well apart from the small part that I intensely dislike Microsoft, these AI claims are set on massive amounts of data and Bing doesn’t have that, it lacks data and in some events it was merely copying other people’s data, which I dislike even further and to be honest, even if Bing comes with a blowjob by either Laura Vandervoort or Olivia Wilde. No way will I touch Bing, and beside that point, I do not trust Microsoft, no matter of ‘additions’ will rectify for that. It sounds a bit personal but Microsoft is done for and for them to chose ChatGPT is on them, but does not mean I will trust them, oh and the final part, there is no AI!

But it is about the error, what on earth was Google doing without thoroughly testing something? How did this get to some advertisement stage? At present Machine learning requires massive amounts of data and Google has it, Microsoft does not as far as I know, so the knee-jerk reaction is weird to say the least. So when we read “Bard is given the prompt, “What new discoveries from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) can I tell my nine-year-old about?” Bard responds with a number of answers, including one suggesting the JWST was used to take the very first pictures of a planet outside the Earth’s solar system, or exoplanets. This is inaccurate, as the first pictures of exoplanets were taken by the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in 2004, as confirmed by NASA” this is a data error, this is the consequence of people handing over data to a machine that is flawed (the data, not the machine). That is the flaw and that should have been tested for for a stage that lasts months. I can only guess how it happened here, but I can give you a nice example.

1992
In 1992 I went for a job interview. During the interview I got a question on deviation, what I did not know that statistics had deviation. I came from a shipping world and in the Netherlands declination is called deviation. So I responded ‘deviation is the difference between true and magnetic north’, which for me was correct and the interviewer saw my answer as wrong, but the interviewer had the ability to extrapolate from my answer (as well as my resume) that I came from a shipping environment. I got that job in the end and I stayed there for well over 10 years. 

Anyway the article has me baffled to some degree. Google is better and more accurate all of the time, so this setting makes no sense to me. And as I read “A Google spokesperson told Reuters, “This highlights the importance of a rigorous testing process, something that we’re kicking off this week with our Trusted Tester programme.”” Yes, but it tends to be important to have rigorous testing processes in place BEFORE you have a public release. It tends to make matters better and in this case you do not lose $100,000,000,000 which is 2,000 times the amount I wanted for my solution to sell well over 50,000,000 stadia consoles for a solution no one had thought of, which is now solely the option for Amazon, go figure and Google cancelled the Stadia, go figure again.

The third bungle I expect to see in the near future is that they fired the wrong 12,000 people, but there is time for that news as well. Yes, Wednesday is a weird day this time around, but not to worry. I get to keep my sanity playing Hogwarts Legacy which is awesome in many ways. And that I did not have to test, it was seemingly properly tested before I got the game (I have not spotted any bugs after well over 20 hours of gameplay, optionally merely one glitch).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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

January 6, 2023 · 11:03

It is the same coin

I got alerted to something via Twitter. It has two sides and a friend of mine had one side, as such I give you the tweet below. This of course made me look at the YouTube by Simon Pegg (the Hot Fuzz man). 

He was emotional and he has a point, but so does my friend. Optionally they do not realise that they are both a side of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. It is a flaw in those heralding science as the one solution, it never is. It merely becomes some Theranos creation, all science and too much of it debatable. You see my friend had the answer in her tweet. Alan Turing created something from nothing. A setting that is utterly impossible. He got there through an artsy side in him. Alan Turing created the foundations of computers and AI, both required an art element to get there. You see, even when we realise it was all science, his brain had to make some leap of faith and that requires art, science alone will not let you do that. He created these two and his foundation of AI is still used today, over half a century later, with all the elements of evolved science, his artsy side overcame what did not yet exist. It is one of the reasons that (even if I was not eligible), I would have voted for Brian Blessed to become Chancellor of Cambridge in 2011, but I was not eligible. It became Lord Sainsbury of Turville, my issue here is that science was taking too big a chunk of what was almost an even Steven setting. I personally believe that Science without art is pointless, art without science is useless. It is not completely true, but as an axiom it often works. Science without art cannot grow because science for the most relies on previous data and as such NEW technologies cannot evolve. Alan Turing created (for the most) the foundations of electronics. It required investigations into the electron as well, but when you see that Alan Turing created AI half a century before we had any partial foundation of that is optionally evidence enough. 

The other side needs to be illuminated as well. Simon Pegg did this (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHEpywFCtwA) in his own emotional way and he does have a point, but so did my friend. The artsy people tend to ignore that science is their friend. Take any movie, the lights are set up to maximise the effect, it is not art, that foundation is science, science created the camera and a lot of other parts. They use that technology and they use it well. But it supports art and that is forgotten. That being said that children need maths, but they need art too and the science pushers are all about ‘forgetting’ the art and that power. You see, if you have all science and no art, you end up creating Theranos minded creators. The ones that are convicted for fraud and end up well over 11 years in prison. Art might have prevented this (and created an actual solution). In that same setting it might be the flaw that created FTX and the $33,000,000,000 losses it ensued. 

I myself tend to grasp back to an old Market research credo. “The scientist, or mathematician will show you the course of best margins of profit, or best results. The presenter, or politician makes sure that you look forward to the attached invoice” it is a bit artsy but therefor not any less true. We need to realise that art and science are to sides of the same coin. Science made it circular and the artsy people gave it a nice image. We need another and there is one part we should all agree to, if Rishi Sunak wants to imbue a sense of science, he better be ready to imbue an equal measure of art in these people, because Simon Pegg is right about that part. Science without the art will have far reaching negative impacts. We need one another to see it, one shows us, one presents it and that has been the case from before that writer William Shakespeare became a reality. It goes back all the way to the outdoor Theatre of Dionysius where in 500BC Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, and Aristophanes performed, but we forget that science created the stage for over 15,000 people to enjoy, that part was science, not art. And it was there centuries before Christianity became reality.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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