Tag Archives: Sergey Brin

September 21, 2024 · 12:40

Realisations

That is the topic of the day (for me). You see, we all have our ways and that is fine, however one app that I ‘embraced’ is Conqueror. Conqueror is a walking tool that keeps you on point to a degree. To a degree is a little ‘stiff’ but as I had to endure two open heart surgeries within two months, I thought it a good idea to embrace a little more active lifestyle. Conqueror had that and it was on point for me, the gamer in me embraced it. I am now on the third Tombraider challenge and I only started this third one yesterday.

The first thing I got was a gaming stage to a real deal, a virtual challenge. And with this, besides the ‘postcards’, the maps and the videos was a setting that with every 20% done a tree was planted. As such I have been the instigator on 10 trees so far. This gave me food for thought. You see it takes 8 trees to create the oxygen that I require. The first realisation was that if there are 8 billion people at this time. We need to have 64 billion trees to keep this world oxygenated. So, how many trees in the amazon, Indonesia and other places have been cut for the need of money? There is a limit that ‘brown gold’ gets you and in a global economy. What places have this? A partial fact was given in 2015 “We estimate that there are approximately 3.041 trillion trees in the world, an entire order of magnitude greater than the previous estimate of 400.25 billion. For each person on Earth there are 422 trees”, this presumptuous estimation is rough and not entirely believable. You see, in the last decade massive lumber issues were seen in several places. And when we consider  “there are approximately 3.041 trillion trees in the world, an entire order of magnitude greater than the previous estimate of 400.25 billion.” My issue in this is that there are always issues with these numbers, that’s fine but to make an estimation issue that is off by almost 800% is too far fetched. Even being off by 100% makes the issue dubious at best. One of the estimations was not done with a clear scope in mind. So was it the first or the second? In 2023 we were given “Cattle ranching and soybean farming are colossal culprits, with cattle ranching accounting for 80% of current deforestation in the Amazon. As demand for these products increases, more and more land is cleared to make room for crops and grazing.” Which gives us the first worrying issue “80% of current deforestation in the Amazon” the issue is the percentage. This doesn’t state this as a percentage of the stated Amazon, which might have been X. Then there was the issue in Indonesia and Global Forest Watch gives us “In 2001, Indonesia had 93.8 Mha of primary forest*, extending over 50% of its land area. In 2023, it lost 292 kha of primary forest*, equivalent to 221 Mt of CO₂ emissions. 144 kha of this loss was found to be within Indonesia’s official forest land cover classes and with a patch size larger than two hectares according to MoEF-WRI analysis.” As such, when we consider these two facts, how believable was the first numbers we got? There is no other way to consider these facts then the clear notion that certain people are trying to sell us a bag of (optional corrupt) goods. As such we need to get real numbers. Because we are wasting the oxygen we desperately need to breathe. The optional thought that I have 5-10 years ago that we would have to decimate the population by 97.3%, a harsh but not unrealistic number. This gets me to the third issue, the fires of New Guinea. It was stated that from 2001 to 2023, Papua New Guinea lost 139 kha of tree cover from fires and 1.73 Mha from all other drivers of loss. So how does the initial statement of “We estimate that there are approximately 3.041 trillion trees in the world, an entire order of magnitude greater than the previous estimate of 400.25 billion. For each person on Earth there are 422 trees” with these three simple setting there is no way that this is set to any level of truth. People are optionally lulled to sleep and the danger is that soon Russia with its East Siberian taiga is now the only region remaining having the title ‘the lungs of the earth’ possible shared with the forests of Africa. Namely the rainforest of the Congo Basin, the Guinean Forests of West Africa, which run from Sierra Leone to Cameroon; the Eastern Afromontane, which span Ethiopia to Southern Africa; the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa from Kenya to Mozambique; and the forests of Madagascar. So there are a few, however, how many trees there are remains a topic of debate. Is there any validity in the statement of “3.041 trillion trees” or “400.25 billion trees”. In both cases we are still OK, but in case of the second, I feel a lot better that I have contributed to my oxygen supply with so far 10 trees. I reckon that as these numbers are actually revisited and counted with some level of precision (Google, wake up, your Gemini talents are needed) we need to be cautious. I predict that someone will start vamping up the phrase ‘Oxygen neutral’ we might be in a lot more trouble than we think we are.

And that is merely the first issue. A second one was the challenge that I will be doing next (my fourth trial). Here I a stepping away from the gaming section to something more historically real.

It is the challenge ‘the St Francis way’. This is a virtual walk of 503km. 

It is the walk Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone made around 1204 when he went on a pilgrimage to Rome. The part I walk was a description from Florence to the Vatican. 

It is a ‘mere’ 503km but still a decent challenge. The ‘issue’ here is that we have become complacent in our luxuries. We are too eager to resort to cars and planes (I am not against any of them), I am merely a person who walked everything with a public transportation or two on the side. Living next to the office (place of business) is no longer an option for many of us. And as Sergey Brin is not likely to fuel my retirement, walking is nearly all I have. No complaints from my side mind you. I made my own bed and I accept my larger part in this. But as this trial came across my eyes I started to consider a few things. First of all the realisation what St. Frances accepted as his goals. He was a child of an Italian father, Pietro di Bernardone dei Moriconi, a prosperous silk merchant, and a French mother, Pica di Bourlemont, about whom little is known except that she was a noblewoman originally from  the French Provence and decided to marry his ‘lady Poverty’ as a bride. I have seen many things in my life, but the wealthy accepting the life of poverty is not one of them, and in all honesty, neither would I (although I have next to nothing), so what does that matter. The setting of walking that distance is not one of contemplation, it is a drive to succeed. A very different dive Giovanni ever had. And this challenge is one that we should all have, if it was only to get into a better healthier shape.

One mere app giving me more than one train of thought. There are still a few other trials to get and to complete after this one. The Harry Potter trials (7 of them) and the Lord of the Rings with 5 trials all towards an ending at Mount Doom is a wanting achievement as a Tolkien fan. So I can proudly state (if ever) to Elijah Wood: “I did that too. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” OK, I admit, a little childish, but at times proud moments must be diminished by simple words to make the act (a total 1095km) a seemingly trivial one. The distance or journey didn’t matter, it is the total achievement that has meaning (be it in my own mind). 

So what did you learn (virtual or not)? Have a great Saturday, I still have almost half a day to go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Politics, Science

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

September 11, 2024 · 03:01

A brief recollection

Yesterday I saw an article (source: BBC) that gave me reason to give a little recollection. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2dpkpmv1o) giving us ‘Google’s lucrative ad tech business goes on trial’ and the text “A trial beginning on Monday will hear the Department of Justice’s case that the search engine’s parent company Alphabet illegally operates a monopoly in the market.” set me off. You see, I worked on that system as an operator, a technical account manager if you prefer. I worked on this system in 2015. This is important because in the nine following years Microsoft and its ‘system’ Bing couldn’t even remotely get anything working that presented some weak looking imitation. The system was that excellent. And excellent is the operative word. You see before that advertising agencies were taking their clients in some kind of a looting ride. Prices were out of this world for the advertisers. It was a business limited to big business. The Google ad system was made so that everyone had a clear possibility, a fair system that didn’t overcharge, something that wasn’t possible before. That was a new approach to advertising. 

Bid for placeCharged
9.001.28
3.001.27
2.001.26
1.251.25

The setting was that the higher bid was only charged one cent more than the previous one. The advertisement agencies would pocket the difference from $7.62 of the first bidder. Now consider this happening ten thousands of times every day. When you realise this you see how this was the better system. There was no monopoly, customers suddenly had a fair chance to their advertisement options. That part is missing. It is not the fault of the BBC, they merely report. They also give us “Alphabet has argued its success is due to the “effectiveness” of its services – but prosecutors say it has used its market dominance to stifle rivals” which is exactly what I am saying. But the prosecutors are exaggerating (as anyone would suggest). We then get ““It is a really important industry that grabs billions of consumer dollars every year,” said Laura Phillips-Sawyer, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.” A statement (possibly taken out of context) from a law professor from Georgia. The less excusable statement was “grabs billions of consumer dollars every year”, that is where my example comes in. This is not the way of this system. It tempers the cost and need for ‘over’ bidding. I gave an example of four, but the list goes on for a lot more. This illustrates the loss of Laura Phillips-Sawyer and how little she knows of this system. So its not “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation”, I believe that Microsoft minded people want to get into this business and the prosecutor is a possible way for these people to get in. 

As such we see that the statement “Google dominates the digital ad marketplace and has leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition” Google innovated this market more than anyone ever considered. The fact that Microsoft has no chance and lacks expertise in software to make any dent in Google application is one part of the evidence. It also didn’t stifle competition, the fact that Microsoft had no option to push anything in Google’s path seems to me that this is the second part of the evidence is also nullified. After decades of ‘exploitation’ of customers, Google gave them all a fair chance. So why doesn’t anyone see that? How come that this is not shown to us all? Is it perhaps that the prosecutor has the ear of those people who lost their golden eggs? I am stating that not only is Google innocent in this, the world doesn’t realise how fair this system is. And the wannabe’s want to hack into this system for their own selfish needs. We are also given “It argues that competition in the digital ad space is growing, not contracting – citing increased ad growth and revenues for companies such as Apple, Amazon and TikTok as proof”, in this I say that the digital ad space is growing because Google made it more fair and as such players like Apple, Amazon and TikTok are given a space where they have millions more to advertise against the once exploitative system. What we do not get to see is that I enabled dozens of advertisers, small business units to get a grasp of advertisement space on. Monthly basis. They had the option to set a budget for as little as $5 a month to get several placements every day. Yes, they might not be above the fold as the expression goes, but they were on the page. The advertisement agencies would not have even talked to those. Now consider that this happens to tens of thousands of customers and realise that the statement “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation” becomes folly.

When we consider this the statement “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” is equally folly. And I wonder who Judge Amit Mehta was serving. Even as the judge was an optional idolising fair play person we need to realise that the Google rank system was re-invented

The eigenvalue problem behind PageRank’s algorithm was independently rediscovered and reused in many scoring problems. 

In 1895, Edmund Landau suggested using it for determining the winner of a chess tournament. The eigenvalue problem was also suggested in 1976 by Gabriel Pinski and Francis Narin, who worked on scientometrics ranking scientific journals, in 1977 by Thomas Saaty in his concept of Analytic Hierarchy Process which weighted alternative choices, and in 1995 by Bradley Love and Steven Sloman as a cognitive model for concepts, the centrality algorithm. (Source: wiki). 

Now consider that Sergey Brin and Larry Page made this system 30 years ago based on ideas dating back to (as quoted) 1895. And then three times more and no one at Microsoft woke up. They were all so focussed on greed and gaining the attention of board of directors at big business. Google focussed on the millions of people working there and getting the attention of people who needed a better option. “As of September 24, 2019, all patents associated with PageRank have expired” and now these systems are under attack. However, the data is already with Google and the larger players (read: Microsoft) will need decades to catch up and they know they are not able to, in case of Microsoft I personally believe that they merely have at most 24 months left until they collapse and that is it for the once computer behemoth. As per now, fr a player like Microsoft, the ad space is a much safer option to recollect lost revenue and keep their head above water. I admit that this is speculative, but it makes the most sense. Even in 1995 I saw how Microsoft was lagging behind, but they had serious problems (read: Netscape) and it get worse after that. But that is not the aim of this article. As I have shown here Google was a true innovator and you need to wonder if monopoly is a valid setting when all the others cannot even get close because their innovators are merely presented spinners, or optionally previous exploiters. How is it a monopoly when there is no other realistic contender for the crown? Is an island with a population of one totalitarian in nature?

Simple questions that are hard to answer. Enjoy your day today, this fine Wednesday where we start yearning for the coming weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

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

June 27, 2024 · 01:17

The side not illuminated

The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5111qxl2nro) is giving us ‘Apple in breach of law on App Store, says EU’ We get a few sides, but one side is not given to us. We are given “European Union regulators have accused Apple of being in breach of new laws designed to rein in big tech companies” It sounds nice, but at present the station “rein in big tech companies” is at least sanctimonious. We are also given “The firm charges developers an average of 30% commission on its App Store” and the penalty is given as we are given “The firm faces a potential fine of up to 10% of its global revenue if it fails to comply with the rules”. You see the one part we are NOT given is that all these developers get a channel to publish their work. The get their million by harassing people with advertising. These developers have no interest in giving gamers a real gaming satisfaction (some, but massively too little). So the EU should consider the fallout. You see Apple and Google could do two things. Pull all the games with an advertising channel, stating that this is not permitted. The second part is that they can start charging for the service. The bulk of these gaming ‘companies’ will soon thereafter collapse. You see when all these companies get CHARGED for spreading these games and cyber security. The net thing we see is that these companies will go somewhere else and the dangers of servicing hackers becomes rather large. 

The next part is that this becomes a new setting where the UAE and Saudi Arabia will get the option to offer the same thing Apple and Google did, but charging a mere 5% to 10%, the rest will probably going to China, making the EU and US lose even more revenue. 

All this because the shareholders of Epic Games wanted more revenue and they got this by throwing a tantrum like a child so that they get charged less for services. And lets be clear, they were eager to accept the deal when they were small, now that they are big they can afford to pay for the services. But that is not the only part. Epic Games wanted another path and when even one of these 3rd parties get to be hacked and the players get the damage, Epic Games will face the largest class action lawsuit in history. At that point I wonder how the shareholders will reflect on a pay cycle that will cost them billions. They had a safe environment with Apple and Google, but when that falls away these two will help to give the victims all the numbers and all the support they need to clean out the vaults of all the game developers who took the greedy way out. In addition the EU will get a new problem. As game makers fall flat and optionally move to China or the Middle East the EU will lose revenue. In the last 8 years 10 games made $13,000,000,000. So what will the EU do when that goes to China (or the Middle East)? There are over 200 companies, 105 made over $500,000,000. This was a bad call. These politicians have a socialistic mindset, Take from the rich, but they forget that these rich companies set the foundation of growth. Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos were real innovators. The mediocrity of Microsoft is pushing them back more and more. And whilst they might be shown as the richest, they are losing more and more ground. Now with the EU, more and more business will move to better (read: non-European and American) shores. 

And the EU did this to themselves. Consider the DMA:

  • Business users who depend on gatekeepers to offer their services in the single market will have a Fairer business environment (But these services come at a cost, no more Freebees)
  • allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations. (If hacked those services become nullified)

Just to part, the first will nullify these innovators, they cannot afford these services and they will go to a cheap solution making them a target for hackers. The second part will end some games, gamers have no patience and no humour. So when their game stops they will all cry like little children, their toy was taken away and when a hacker does get to upper hand, the class actions will come calling for all these companies. It is a war that the EU cannot win and the larger companies will become empty shells (my prediction). 

Until this first case was decided there was merely a threat of things, now it is coming to pass. 

I wonder what happens to the ‘fake’ economy in Europe when this starts. When advertising through gaming stops. What will the damage be? Amazon, Apple and Google have other means for getting advertising revenue. The others? Anyones guess, but there is a chance that a few hundred companies are sweating because no revenue meant no cost and that could stop now. So they need to find bankers. And what will those bankers demand? All issues that the DMA (Digital Markets Act) did not consider. I believe that this Apple case is opening a can of worms  no one is ready for and the implications are long term.

And now it is Thursday, Enjoy this day when you get to this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Law, Science

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

December 24, 2022 · 19:40

Yesterday’s news

Yup, that happens. We have a setting that involves the news, but it was yesterday. That was the quirky giggle I gave myself when I was alerted to ‘Ana de Armas fans told they can sue over Yesterday trailer’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64076747). I had no idea what it was about, but I was definitely curious at that point. So I had a gander at the BBC article. There we see “Two fans of the actress Ana de Armas filed a lawsuit in January after renting the 2019 film Yesterday. The actress was seen in the trailer, but the pair were disappointed to find she had been cut from the final film.” And moreover, the lost pounds (all three of them) results in “Woulfe and Rosza are seeking at least $5 million (£4.1m) from Universal in the case”, I believe it is a bit much, but that was decided. And if you think that this was the end of it. No no no no! There is more. 

It is the sad setting that I wanted to have some entertainment as well and I found it. You see, the events on the WIKI page are correct, yet Google gives us the image below.

The wrong information is handed to us by Google, so shame on you Papa Smurf (Sergey Brin), shame on you! And the giggle for me is that there is now at least ONE case where Wiki is more accurate than Google. Not a bad setting to start Christmas with. So anyone wanna guess how Google missed 6 billion in revenue that I did not miss? Well, still trying to collect on it though, which is a different task and a titanic one at that. I asked both Perses and Oceanus for advice, but they basically told me to fuck off (the greek equivalent is a lot less eloquent). 

Still, I found a little gem so I will enjoy my lamb stew a little more than I would have otherwise. So when ever you find something like this, enjoy the moment. The big techies can miss things too.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, movies

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

December 23, 2022 · 10:57

Rescue James Gunn!

Yes, that is quite the order and lets be clear, there is no indication the man needs saving. Yet there is the case that he and his compadre (Peter Safran) need to create an entire DC universe. And for some reason something triggered. Not sure what triggered it, or how it got triggered. Yet the creative mind in me started to mull things over. In the first it was merely about the Green Lantern (not Ryan Reynolds shining moment), but then my mind wandered a little further. It went to the 70’s when I read some of those comics, a friend had them. And I remember a moment when there was someone else. I had to look it up, because it was decades ago and it was the character John Stewart. I remember one image (Black and White) and the phrase ‘Beware my light!’ 

It is all I had, but it was enough for my imaginative brain, the images of a darker, grittier Green lantern started to evolve. A story about human slavery and smuggling. You see, on a planet like this where people are abundant, one could assume that smuggling the ones no one cares about would be well established. We see this in episode Anne (Buffy season 3 episode 1) and that was not the first instance. But to set in motion a complete human trafficking ‘solution’ that also has a way to resolve it all over the place Green Lantern way is not the easiest task. There remains the ‘realism’ part of course. Yet the stage where Green Lantern needs to shine it light becomes a much larger task, and lets be clear If the two Black Panther movies clearly set out is that there is a market for African American super heroes. In this my initial vote goes to Donnell Whittenburg. He has the physique, he has the agility to do the stunts that a Green Lantern needs to do and he could pull them off without breaking a sweat. There are more people who can equal it, but that is up to the casting teams. I am merely fuelling the idea for a new DC avenue. I cannot say whether Donny is up to the task, or if he has skeletons in his closet (just going by the issues that DC faces with Ezra Miller), but one has to start somewhere. In all we might get to see a cameo with Saint Lively less saintly husband to hand over the torch, we all have to start somewhere and it fits the rules of continuation. 

From there we have the ’formulated’ parts, but I believe that throwing a ‘hero’ of the deep end in a place where he has no hope of resolving anything, to a stage where he could get into his own trouble. I remember a comic where Hal Jordan gets exposed to Venom (what makes Bane strong), what if it opens up the imagination of the new Green Lantern, after he has to do serious battle with himself? I also just learned that there was supposed (or will be) a series based on this Green Lantern. So I am not sure where that is, but as some say. Great minds work alike. In the age of contracting economies, we need to find fuel for all kettles to avoid the rapids, which will sink any ship. As such the idea has merit, but there are a few issues all over the place. No matter how we see it, sometimes we hope that there is a thought that gives someone else the idea that they could use it, entire economies grew on the idea of others. Tesla (screw Edison), Marconi, Martin Cooper, Tim Berners-Lee and the dapper duo of Sergey Brin and Larry Page to name but a few. Oh right, I forgot about the Zuckerberg dude. Still good ideas are where you find them and the focal point on the idea. The world is full of them if you only listen and look in the right direction.

Well, I leave it up to you to create the other 173 DC fiends and villains. Have a great Friday and enjoy the holiday season.

Leave a comment

Filed under movies

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

June 16, 2022 · 18:39

Slapping the Google shop

Yup, when I wrote ‘Has Google lost the plot?’ Two days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/06/14/has-google-lost-the-plot/) I honestly thought that was it. Yes, there is a lot to mention on Google, but there is also a lot of good and I tend to focus on that (when you are not Microsoft). So when I saw the advertisement below (as I was looking for something specific), I kinda lost it.

So can ANYONE at Google explain to me the setting of a 2TB SD card for $8? You know what. As I am due retirement (soon), I will order 500,000 cards at $8, with the numbers I should be able to get a 15% discount. As such Google becomes responsible for the delivery of 500,000 properly working Micro SD Cards, the fact that Amazon is offering a 1TB Sandisk card for $200, I should be able to secure 500,000 times $220 getting me $110,000,000 enough to retire. The fact that the shipment would cost me $3,400,000 implies that my break even point is 15,000 cards. The rest is retirement heaven. 

I mean can I hold Google responsible? If a company can spin AI into sentience all whilst they are being scammed though their Google Ads gives me the conviction that my path has merit. The fact that AliExpress is offering something that is not allegedly in existence gives me pause to try this. The fact that my IP would have been cheaper is also reason to set this path in motion. Google has a clear responsibility of deceptive actions to be stopped, the fact that they are unable to, all whilst we see the spin of sentient AI, whilst AI, true AI cannot exist at present gives me the idea to take this to a new level and with me hundreds of thousands of others. Where else can you turn 3 million overnight into 110 million, you are making the money before the invoice is due. Google is failing this setting a little too often and a little too clearly. As I see it, ignorance is no defence. As such AliExpress would have to deliver, Google would have to deliver as their shop was the mechanic and I would be selling it through their shop too, so I get the money, the clients get cards and the refunds, AliExpress gets paid and Google gets settled with all the bills in sight.

Is it fair? That is not the question that matters. The question becomes “Where lies the border towards the cost of doing business?” I reckon that Google is about to meet its borders. The fair part is that AliExpress will deliver or they get to be removed from Google Ads. You see, this level of deceptive conduct also reflects on Amazon and Siemens. Who would buy their valid products when AliExpress is having a quick go at marketing through Google Ads (as I personally see it). And the ‘confusing’ text of “Micro card 2TB SD CARD 2TB memory card 2TB MEMORI CARD 2TB TF CARD 2TB tf card 2tb sd card 2tb for mobile phone memory card” and they will respond with “Ohhh, it is the memori card” (not the memory card), The ‘2TB TF CARD’ is something different. If that is so their sentient Abigail Immaculatus can shed light on it, right?

The fact that this article according to the webpage has 9 orders implies that there is more going on and the Google system is being used as such. 

In this is has become essential that slapping Google is essential. As I personally see it, if AliExpresss cannot properly explain it, their accounts are to be pulled for no less than 180 days and until their products are properly assessed the counter will not change. 

In the meantime, as I am now losing out on a profit of $106,000,000 could either Sergey Brin, Sundar Pichai, Ruth Porat, or Jon Marc Anthony help me out here? I lost my retirement future, it is unfair that you allow deceptive conduct whilst my retirement is now no longer an option. 

Yours sincerely,

This poor poor financial inept vagrant (formerly known as the Lawlordtobe)

Enjoy the day, I might actually have a great weekend coming my way (including long term leave until retirement).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

June 30, 2021 · 01:27

The future doorstop

That is how we sometimes see a book, a doorstop, a missile towards our partners (and sometimes really annoying elderly teens), a weight for the papers we need, when a book is not really what we wanted, it gets a secondary function. So even as some saw this specific book as ‘A beautiful defense of the common man and woman against a technological elite’, I consider a book like ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’ as one that is not stating the issues. 

Did I read it?
Nope, and I do not have to, the article clearly shows a republican (who looks like he recently stopped being a teenager) who is aiming for money from both the left and the right. When we see “According to Hawley, it’s not our politicians, our lawyers, our Ivy League graduates, or our Hollywood celebrities. It’s Big Tech – those big names like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google that have embedded themselves in our lives to an almost irreversible degree”, I see the beginning of a BS string of texts that will most certainly become debatable and utterly rejectable. You see Zuckerberg attended Harvard whilst designing Facebook, Dorsey came up with the idea for Twitter at NYU, Jeff Bezos was already done with Princeton when Amazon became the idea, Apple was the child of Steve Jobs who attended part of Reed and dropped out, Sergey Brin and Larry Page came from Stanford, so what is left of “not our Ivy League graduates”? Oh and I with my 5G IP am from UTS (Sydney), so there! And when we get to “have embedded themselves in our lives to an almost irreversible degree” we get a lot more. Apple (Macintosh) offered what consumers wanted, Google did the same, Facebook did it even more and created a new digital era and they all OFFERED it to consumers, they planned long term and they won, the small minded people lost. The exception is the Amazon guy who doesn’t need to spend on Shampoo, he offered something to rural people all over the world which they never had access too. In the US this is 60,000,000 people and in the EU it is 125,000,000. One firm aimed for a little over 180 million consumers. The people shops forgot and now Amazon is the bad guy? So this is the setting from the start and the man with the teenager look (Josh Hawley) is already off to a bad start. So when we see “the robber barons reshaped the economy into a corporate monopoly to serve their own ends, in which an aristocratic elite govern above the labouring masses”, all whilst the US government stole from the native Americans whatever they could (99.655% roughly) is like the pot calling the kettle black. In this one pushed what they wanted, the other (current big tech) let the people decide on WHAT they desired and the consumers liked the free 1GB email (Google) whilst the internet providers offered 20MB for a fee. What would you do? That same grocery store (still Google) came up with additional ways to service the consumers (cookies anyone?), the offered shopping, information and choice, whilst those dabbling on the internet wee all about grabbing whatever coins they could get. When the consumers were happy players like Amazon created the Amazon Web Services offering a pay as you go approach, a cloud approach to small businesses. First web services in 2002 and cloud services in 2008, it would take IBM and Microsoft years to offer anything near that, the big tech of then were made basically redundant. And with the pay as you go there was a larger SaaS (Software as a Service) setting. The big 5 became big not because “Big Tech is a direct descendent of the Gilded Age robber barons”, but because they offered choice when the others were unwilling to do so. In this Apple stands alone. They were always the elite DTP solution (a lot more expensive than others) and in 1998 they recognised the needs of the consumer and the iMac was born, all whilst the consumer got the amazing phrase “There’s no step 3!”, an affordable solution in an age where PC’s were still running behind the facts. If you were not up to speed you were either lost or you became an Apple user. All this whilst the writer wants to push “descendent of the Gilded Age robber barons”, a stage none of them pushed for, it merely is in the statements of those who were asleep at the wheel between 1996-2006, they lost it all by not pushing the envelope and 5 companies got ahead. The fifth (Netflix) was like Facebook, it offered something never offered before and whilst we had to seek TV provider after TV provider, they offered what we wanted, movies and specifically movies not hindered by advertisements. They went from sales to rental to streaming and as the firm started in 1998, Hulu, Stan, HBO Max and Disney Plus, some well over a decade AFTER Netflix, so the statement from Josh Hawley is not just bogus, it is utter nonsense. So when we see “Washington, D.C. politicians routinely protect the interests of Big Tech over and against the freedom and well-being of the American people” we see the joke that this book seemingly is. These systems were offered to consumers, you can walk away! I kept my Yahoo account for years later, until the information offered was too outdated or too much adjusted for localisation (against my will), so when we see ‘well-being of the American people’ I wonder what data he can actually produce (raw data, not aggregated and weighted data) and in the grand scheme of things, the US has 320 million people, Europe has 750 million and India has 1.3 billion. All enjoying what the five players are offering. In all that, the US is a mere 15% and on the global scale they do not add up to much, and the US is actually part of that failing. In the era of 1990-2010 American firms remained largely absent on the international scale, relying on someone to pick up the ball and none of them did and the American needs were swallowed by the voice of the consumers, no barons, no lawyers and no politicians. The people wanted what Google offered and Youtube now has over 2,000,000,000 viewers (I am one of them), so far none of the offerers were able to meet this and more important by 2005 both IBM and Microsoft were merely relying on Adobe Flash, these two players had nothing to offer. In 15 years they never really woke up and here I get to use Microsoft against itself with “Microsoft Stream is a corporate video-sharing service which was released on June 20, 2017 that will gradually replace the existing Office 365 Video”, so 12 years of inactivity, in comparison, the Chinese (the makers of Won Ton soup) gave us TikTok one year earlier and now has 100,000,000 active users. Players like IBM and Microsoft have been that much asleep at the wheel. As I personally see it, American BigTech is the only player (all 5 of them) that stops the USA from becoming utterly irrelevant, if they were not there China would be superpower number one and they are close of becoming that anyway, any issues with BigTech and every BS article in every newspaper with  some ‘alleged’ and ‘watchdog’ is merely another delay and it will help China to become the greatest tech power, US politicians (EU politicians as well) are helping China meet that goal.

BigTech, the virgin
BigTech is not holy, it is not innocent and it is no virgin (they got screwed by global politicians again and again, so they are definitely not virgins), BigTech are merely the innovators we always needed and the rest is merely a wannabe player, even Microsoft and IBM have fallen that much from grace. Microsoft had the most powerful console in the world and within 2 years they were surpassed by the weakest console of all (Nintendo Switch), IBM has its own stream of non-successes, and they are all crying to their politicians as to the bad bad tech companies. Most of them had no idea what the digital era was until they were surpassed by a lot of other players (some of them Asian). So when we consider the stage, we need to see the whole stage, not some setting of “Ending Big Tech’s sovereignty is about taking back our own, and we can begin to do that in the lives we live together. Big Tech works relentlessly to force individuals into its ecosystem of addiction, exhibitionism, and fear of missing out. It seeks to create its own social universe and draw all of life into its orbit. But the real social world, the life of family and neighbourhood – the authentic communities that sustain authentic togetherness – can act as a counterweight to Big Tech’s ambitions”, in this phrases like ‘force individuals’ is massively wrong, people have choices. I do not have Facebook on my mobile, I have no need for it there, I do not order from Amazon (I am a support your local hooker kind of guy) and I have currently no Netflix or Disney Plus subscription. That is 3 out of 5, I have an Apple because Microsoft dropped the ball 4 times in the last 5 years and IBM is too expensive for what it offers. I chose! We can all choose and that is where we realise that ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’ is like a Chicago politician, all hot air and not too much on substance (judging from the article (at https://mindmatters.ai/2021/06/a-book-review-the-tyranny-of-big-tech/). He might at some point present a few parts that are relevant, I am certain that he will, but as a former Missouri’s Attorney General he will tread on places where he knows the answers, so as I see “holding Big Tech accountable where others don’t dare tread. In investigations, in legislation”, I merely wonder how much legislation against BigTech made it through? It matters because it is what you can prove that matters, not what you claim. I made no claims, it is all timeline stuff, including the Chinese parts. 

Consider the choices YOU have, and make choices, it is your right. You need not be on Google, you can select Microsoft Bing. You will lose out on a lot but that is the choice you make. For well over 20 years Google offered choices, YOU were the consumer that selected WHERE you wanted to go and you went there. All whilst Microsoft could not be bothered, it seems to me that the Netscape Victory made them lazy and now they are no longer the relevant company, they are merely the Column B (or C) company. And consider being in a place like Antigo Wisconsin. Now try to buy a game, a DVD, a bluray, a 4K movie, a CD and a book. How many of these items will require Amazon? It was the foundation of 4G (Wherever I am) and it will be the stage of 5G (wheneverI want it), so when will 5G be available in Antigo Wisconsin? Consider these points and consider whatever Josh Hawley is trying to imprint on you and consider what you can find out for yourself. BigTech is not evil, BigTech is because the others became lazy, BigTech merely is and governments do not like the self sufficient organisations, the ones that do not make large contributions to them. In the end if you look into the shareholders and stakeholders of some of these players you get a very different picture, one you need to be wary of.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

May 30, 2021 · 20:17

An unfounded economy

It was hard to see through certain places, we all have that, it is not because we do not understand it. It is because the field is larger and has a few uneven spots that tend to make the situation quirky. I have been keeping my eyes on the UK for a few reasons, in the first (the selfish part) is set on an apartment and the need for either Jeff Bezos (or Sergey Brin) to wake up and take notice. The second side is that I have been to London plenty of times, as such I am not unfamiliar with the area. So today I took notice of ‘British retail faces “tsunami of closures” without rent help’ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-retail-rents/british-retail-faces-tsunami-of-closures-without-rent-help-idUSKCN2DA0IQ). The article makes sense and there is nothing against the article. Yet consider “The BRC’s survey found 80% of tenants said some landlords have given them less than a year to pay back rent arrears”. When you see this you want to be nasty to these evil landlords and that makes sense, but the stage is actually a lot worse. You see, shops in the city ‘hide’ behind ‘price on application’, the insanity of rental prices is to be voided at all cost, yet at the same time, I have seen annual rental prices of £1,600,000 that is well over £100,000 a month and that is merely the rent, now consider that this have been going on for YEARS. Does it even pay to have a shop in London? 

So when we now consider “With this in place, all parties can work on a sustainable long-term solution, one that shares the pain wrought by the pandemic more equally between landlords and tenants”, the words given to us by Helen Dickinson, chief executive of BRC (British Retail Consortium). Yes, I agree, she is right, but as I see it this should have been a political hot potato for well over 10 years. As rental prices spiralled, the landlords were given pass after pass, the rest either pay up or get lost. Yet the larger station is not that rent are out of control, life in London is only affordable to the top 7% income earners making it realistic that London will shrink to a population of 4.7 million soon enough and a lot of those are all over the planet at leat 50% of the time. When you consider these numbers, do you have any idea what happens to London? If London relies on 2 million people who have a global stage of spending, how long until the infrastructure of London implodes? As I personally see it, the problem was a larger stage from long before the pandemic. I saw places in London, shops where I had no clue how they were affording it, but they were there. It was as I personally saw it almost a legalised insurance scam where the tenant signed a lease that was approved by a bank, insured against bd weather, all whilst the numbers and the prices would never ever make sense. That shop should not be where it was, yet it was. I noticed it in 1997, in 1999 and in 2002. Yet the papers and the people were not asking questions, why was that? In one setting we see Matthew Carmona give us in 1997 ‘Policy is blind to their huge strategic and sustainable growth potential’, yet it is only one setting and it only works when everyone plays the rules straight, in the current setting it is a seesaw that has its axial point on one third and the short part is where the shopkeeper sits, the long end is for the landlord or the investment firm holding ownership of the building. As such the landlord needs merely 1/3 of its weight to stay ahead of the tenant, as such we could see that the rent is only for the really fat cat. So even if we agree on “if the government does not extend a moratorium on aggressive debt enforcement”, the stage is not ‘aggressive debt enforcement’, it is the setting that the seesaw is openly unbalanced and as I see it the players (banks and landlords) need to be investigated to the game that is being played and in all this the tenant has no option but to try and hope that his or her golden idea plays off. It is a game of legalised exploitation and politicians and policymakers are optionally wearing really dark glasses so that they might not notice what is going on. A stage where the people talk about ‘sustainable growth potential’, yet in actuality they are saying ‘growth potential: sustainability be damned!’ And now as we see (due to something really unforeseen) the dam breaking under the colossal debts, we will get to see more than a larger tsunami of closures, when this happens the insurance people want their day in court, the hedge funds want their losses covered and optionally the landlords too, but the tenant, he or she is royally screwed. 

We understand that there is a need for rent help, yet at what stage is there a need to cover investments? What is investment without risk that can be held against the investor? It is the premise of a nanny state for the really rich, who signed up for that part?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 28, 2021 · 00:28

When one is obsolete

We all face that moment, I will too, even with over 3 decades of IT experience, at some point I will become obsolete, it is the nature of things, we can all fight it, we can all swim against the current, but there you learn you must exceed the speed of the current just to keep even. At some point we can no longer muster the energy, as such, I have been preparing all my IP for public domain, I might become obsolete, but I will push close to half a dozen wannabe’s in that same stage, but I will have mattered, it is as good as it gets. Jeff Bezos or Sergey Brin might call with that £50,000,000 post taxation offer, but reality does not work that way (neither do fairy tales). As such the stage for Public Domain was created. Well over half a dozen IP points with a lot more on 5G, the application of Fibretech, and optionally Keno Diastima as well, I might never finish that work, perhaps it will make the setting of a few short stories, it is something I need to consider. I know that this is the route where I am heading and many more went that way too, some were aware, some believed that they would make it before the finish line and they did not.

Yet what happens when we do not realise that stage?

And in comes Haaretz with the view on Michelle Bachelet where we see “she had seen no evidence that civilian buildings in Gaza hit by Israeli strikes were being used by for military purposes”, so what evidence did she look at? Perhaps she had lunch with a very angry employee from AP News? As for evidence, have they looked into how 4,000 missiles were built in Gaza? Where the people with that level of knowledge is? Where these materials came from? So when we see “Israel’s deadly strikes on Gaza may constitute war crimes, and that the Hamas Islamist group had also violated international humanitarian law by firing rockets into Israel” a stage where Israel is guilty of war crimes and the actions of Hamas are trivialised. In addition, consider that Gaza is 365 km², it seems like a lot, but well over 70% is under 24:7 satellite coverage, as such, where does one hide 4,000 missiles? It is only possible if the population conspires with terrorists hiding them. Which at that point makes ‘no evidence that civilian buildings in Gaza hit by Israeli strikes were being used by for military purposes’ debatable at best. As such, I personally see ‘we have not seen evidence in this regard’, I see the statement as something a obsolete person would state, we do get “Each one of these rockets constitutes a war crime”, yet it was “Referring to the 4,400 rockets fired into Israel”, I see this as trivialisation of the act, the elements of that, which I showed 11 days earlier was ignored by the media at large. I am not claiming that Israel is innocent, neither side is innocent, too much has happened. Yet intentional overlooking by the media, trivialisation by the political power players at large shows the State of Israel that they are ignored, abandoned and those claiming to be allies are merely that for as long as it makes them rich (one way or the other), as I personally see it, all the events were merely possible through hefty support by a player like Iran and the larger group of media ignores that part too, what does it serve?  Perhaps we need to look into WHO it serves. 

And when we see “her office had verified the deaths of 270 Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including 68 children”, so how was that done? Most people cannot get anything done in a week in Gaza, and suddenly they were able to verify 270 cadavers? Who is writing these reports? What level of verification and who seconded these verifications? So when you look at Haaretz (at https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/un-rights-chief-says-there-s-no-evidence-that-israeli-strikes-hit-civilian-buildings-1.9849501), all whilst the larger media has close to nothing, we need to wonder what the others are doing. So when you look into all the publications that involve Michelle Bachelet, I see no CNN, no Washington Post, no NY Times, no Times, no Guardian. So is this a person swimming against the current to avoid becoming obsolete one more day? It is rough? Yes, it is, but in all this, there is no clear answers on 4400 rockets, that entire mess is trivialised up the gills and several military experts are in that same stage, I reckon they all agree that Iran is involved, but that requires evidence too. The fact that they are the only party who can and would does not make them guilty, that too we must accept. 

But this stage is seemingly more and more evolving on those who matter no more (or t least a lot less), when one week in we see ‘no evidence’, all whilst the UN avoided making calls against Syria in the 2013 sarin attack, how long did that take and what was achieved? And here (not in a chemical capacity) we suddenly see ‘results’ is about a week? There is a need to ask serious questions, but the media is not asking them, why is that?

A stage shown in several lights and they are seemingly all avoiding the limelight and there are no questions. I have an issue with that and there is too much facilitations towards Hamas, a terrorist organisation. When will the people wake up and tart taking notice? 19 hours ago Russell Brand gave us a doze of realistic truth (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs2_2jJlaqk), he gives us a doze of reality and it is true, I am not the greatest expert in all this, I never claimed to be. Yet, I did see questions that were not asked by those who should have asked them. There is a stage we need to see and one of the most ludicrous comedians gives us a doze of truth, we need to wake up, we are given a clear doze of realism and we need to take notice. And consider the final point, in 8 minutes we get more value from Russell Brand than we get from 3 hours of Michelle Bachelet, we need to realise that the fight against waves towards becoming obsolete is lot more important than you think, in this I raised the evidence used, the source and how evidence was located, verified and used is important, it taints what we see and the media gives us a side where credibility of media evidence is to be questioned to a much larger extent then we are doing, why is that?

Consider the questions I raised and ask your own questions, see where the ACTUAL and FACTUAL evidence is shown, and who offers them. It is a lot more important than you think.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

May 11, 2021 · 12:34

The tweets that flame

Yes, it seems harsh, and it is not meant to be. You see, this might be the tweet of today, but the setting has never changed not for three decades. Even as political windbags are all claiming that they are doing their bit, they are actually relying on emotional events to keep the flames going, especially when they do not resolve anything. My blog has covered it for almost a decade, and I have been stating it for another two decades. And this tweet is bringing it to the surface yet again.

People are all about ‘taxing billionaires’, ‘taxing corporations’, and ‘taxing churches’, the last one is nice, I hardly ever see that one. So let’s take a jab at this (yet again).

Taxing Billionaires
Yes, it is all about discrimination, taxing the billionaires. I still hope to become one, that is if Papa Smurf (Sergey Brin), Clever Smurf (Larry Page) and optionally Tracker Smurf (Sundar Pichai) wake up and take notice. OK, wake up is incorrect and uncalled for, they are likely awake 18 hours a day and they optionally take notice of a dozen matters every hour of every day, but so far they are not noticing my 5G IP (darn).  So at what point will we ‘tax’ the billionaires? Will we check their bank accounts and levy it for 20%? At what point do you think will these 614 billionaires move to Canada, or Europe and leave the US completely bankrupt? What do you think happens when $5,000,000,000,000 moves to another nation? I have another issue, these people made money in whatever way, and not all are a Lawrence Elliot, Mark Zuckerberg or Google top. As such do you really want the creative top of the world to vacate to another place?

Taxing Churches
There is a larger stage here and I am not against taxing the churches. The Catholic church has pillaged in their own way the planet for centuries. So will you tax one (discrimination) or tax all? It is a slippery slope, and ever as it is not the worst idea, it is a trap waiting t explode in all our faces, we just do not know how. 

Taxing corporations
They are getting taxed, it is the degree of required taxation that is the issue. 

The point is not taxing them, it is overhauling the tax laws and on both sides, both democratic and republican presidents, they all failed. From 1993 onwards the USA has had two democrats, two republicans and now another democrat President, the last 4 all failed to overhaul the tax laws.  As such, blame Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump for this failure. In April 2019 we saw “Amazon, Netflix, IBM, and General Motors are among the 60 big companies paying $0 in federal income taxes in 2018”, not one, not two, not three, but 60 big companies all avoiding taxation, avoiding not evading. Evading taxation is illegal, avoiding it is only paying what the letter of the law tells you to pay and that is how it should be, as such tax laws need an overhaul and this has been clear for 30 years, so why is it not done?

Because we see flames, we react to flames and no one is considering (intentional or not) to push legislation to overhaul the tax laws. It is the same joke again and again. Tax and gun laws are trodden on, we see all the crocodile tears, but people die and die again and until gun laws are truly overhauled, starting by giving the ATF the teeth they need to take a chunk out of guns, this will continue. And the media knows this too, but they cater to their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers and none of those three are happy about overhauling tax laws. 

And until the people unite complaining to the media nothing will change. It is funny that a valid objection by a journalist regarding an Oprah Winfrey interview, where we see a reported “Over 57,000 complaints have been delivered to Ofcom” regarding the point of view of a reporter, yet I am willing to bet that NONE of those 57,000 people ever complained on the need to overhaul tax laws. And we notice people complaining that nothing gets done, well, does this not start with you? A person can tweet to high heaven, but that does not change things. Getting hundreds even thousands complain to electable officials never happens (and the politicians, as well as corporations are happy about this), they need the rich to pay for their reelections and that will not happen when tax laws are overhauled.  

This is also not limited to the US, it is a global issue and if people really want poverty to go away, you need to demand an overhaul of the tax laws. It is really that simple. But beware, when you push corporations away it has other impacts. California is now learning that the hard way as more and more corporations are moving to Texas. So this is a much larger slippery scale and their will be consequences, no matter how we slice that tax cake.

But I am not against taxation, but I too will take the tax avoidance route when called on, it is not because I am against paying taxation, I am against paying too much taxation, that is why tax laws were created. A paper in 2014 gave us “‘Tax avoidance is a taxpayer’s course of action in line with the letter but contrary to the spirit of the law’. Definitions phrased along these lines can be found in many policy statements and legal provisions. They are common, but nonetheless problematic. It is the ‘spirit of the law’ part which poses problems. These difficulties not only have theoretical import; they also cast doubt on the legitimacy of efforts to combat tax avoidance. And the skeptics – ‘non-believers’ in the spirit of the law – are many.” The paper by Hanna Filipczyk gives us a lot in that regard, on the problems and on the 27 references that show that this has been going on for a long time, and until politicians stop wanking about the spirit of tax law and do something about the letter of tax law, this will continue, and its continuation will never cease. And the media is making it easy for them as they cater to part of that group. Should you doubt that, then wonder when the media told you to that to achieve a proper level of taxing, tax laws need to change. Do not take my word, check what THEY said, you will see I was right and I have been correct in this case for well over a quarter of a century. 

It was never hard, it was never complex, it merely needed to be done and the previous 4 presidents did not achieve it, why not? I will let you ponder that part for a little part longer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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