Tag Archives: the Guardian

November 20, 2025 · 10:10

This is weird

I find myself standing up for Microsoft, I know its weird. They have screwed the pooch more than once, but the headline in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/nov/19/microsoft-nhs-uk-contracts-public-sector-procurement) gives us ‘Microsoft has ‘ripped off the NHS’, says MP amid call for contracts with British firms’, now lets be clear. Microsoft has done many things, but ripping people off is beneath them. If a rippable offence is in play, someone put their autograph (aka John Hancock) on that dotted line. And where is the evidence? And we are pointed to Samantha Niblett, the Labour MP for South Derbyshire, who laughs with a pretty smile and that is all she seemingly does. The evidence given “a five-year deal with the NHS to provide productivity tools reportedly worth over £700m, while the wider government spent £1.9bn on Microsoft software licences in the 2024-25 financial year alone.” Is this evidence? What the hell are you up to Katharine Viner? As editor of the Guardian, this trash should not be in your newspaper, or on the website. At least hand this setting with proper evidence. So as we are also given and that Labour Nibbler gives us “I know for a fact how Microsoft have ripped off the NHS.” But at that point we get “did not provide further evidence, but when the committee chair, Chi Onwurah, voiced surprise at the claim” and to that I say. Miss Niblett, on December 31st 2016 I reported in the story ‘This last day’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/12/31/this-last-day/) which was 9 years ago, and you might have been too young to be in politics. But Labour (as well) spend £11.2 billion on a NHS IT project, which amounted to nothing and I reckon it might have been a really big amount of money for nothing. So, are we seeing a second setting to all this and you want to blame Microsoft? Can we see the contracts of understanding? Microsoft does a lot, but they wrap it in contracts which in this case the labour administration under Sir Keir Rodney Starmer is confronted with. 

Then we get “After describing the government’s multibillion-pound deals with Microsoft, Niblett said it “speaks to the … power of Microsoft to lock in public sector … customers and then sort of entice them with cheap deals, and then you’re locked into a contract and then you’re charged exponential amounts” So Microsoft does plenty wrong, but this pat they tend to get right and who signed for these contracts? Was it you? And these contracts also give a correct setting of the amounts. That is how business is done and it is done all over the world. 

And it is then that we get the hidden gem that some were trying to hide “MPs on the select committee said the UK needed to develop greater “sovereign” technology capacity, award more contracts to smaller, local providers, and be less reliant on deals that resulted in government departments becoming locked into services with US firms. Explaining more about her understanding of Microsoft’s deals with the government, Niblett said: “I have heard that Defra [the Department of Food and Rural Affairs] recently signed a contract renewal for Windows 10, which is now out of date. And that has now resulted in them having to pay more for security checks because they’re using a very, very old version of Windows.” There is more than one issue. In the first there is “I have heard” is not evidence, evidence is the contract that Defra signed. Who signed it, was it a valid contract? And then we get “recently signed a contract renewal for Windows 10”, how recent was it signed? Some women claim to they got recently pregnant, but that accident is now 4 years old and as it is given “Windows 10 is a Microsoft operating system that is now out of support as of October 14, 2025”, so does that contract entitle these users to upgrade to Windows 11? The one part that matters is seemingly “becoming locked into services with US firms” which is a valid UK setting, but that is depending on a time set strategy and getting into the strategy AFTER the contract is signed implies you are stuck with the contract, that might not be in the best interest of the Labour administration, but that is not the priority of Microsoft, their part is the contract and adhering to what was signed. So was there any transgression by Microsoft? It is a simple question and the setting of ‘ripped off’ implies they made a booboo and as such that evidence must be given in evidence. Is there any chance that one of more contracts have your autograph as you worked in the data and technology sector before being elected to parliament in 2024, so will we find contracts, possibly with your name on it? Will it show a transgression by Microsoft, or a sloppy mistake by the labour representative who signed it? Simple questions and simple settings that Katharine Viner should see coming a mile away?

Have a great day and if you get the mug below, make sure that coffee is millennium proof, version proof and proofed for 61 degrees celsius liquids. You can test it by putting your finger in the coffee and if you go ‘ouch’ it is probably hot enough.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

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

November 16, 2025 · 18:30

Social denial

The guardian brought me ‘up’ to speed on a matter, they did so a few days ago, but I had other matters to deal with. The story (at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/nov/12/foreign-prisoners-killed-saudi-arabian-jail-tabuk-prison-egyptians-executed-non-violent-drug-crimes-mohammed-bin-salman) gives us ‘‘I’ll be executed on Tuesday’: families reveal panicked last calls from foreigners on Saudi’s death row’ and the text gives us “foreign nationals who have been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for non-violent drug crimes” there is no easy way to say this. “They entered the drug traffic setting of there own free will” some will say that there is no ‘free’ will here and I kinda accept that. But Saudi Arabia has a grim view on drugs and it has had this for years. Consider the alternative, America has had an annual US federal drug war budget that has reached $39 billion, with cumulative spending since 1971 estimated at $1 trillion. What sanity do you have with 1 trillion to hand out to nothing? As I see it, the drug trade has no winners, merely losers and perhaps 1-2 elevated people for the time it takes someone to over take them (violently) and the stage restarts. There is no winning this and as such Saudi Arabia and a few other places (I think Indonesia and Turkey) has little to no problems putting these people to death. And the Guardian is socially constructing this setting. 12 happy innocent looking faces. But those they ensnare in their drug trade through pushing drugs are a simple setting for them, the simple setting is “more money for me” and that is the stage Saudi Arabia is avoiding and putting to terminal sleep forever. So when we see “Many of those sentenced to death were probably innocent or forced into drug trafficking, say human rights groups. “They’re poor, they’re marginalised. No one listens to them,” says Jeed Basyouni from the charity Reprieve.” I am willing to consider that they were ‘forced’ into the drug trade, but they went along and for whatever reason the drug trade goes on. I get that these social charity places have to be and they do more then protect drug pusher, but the setting is that we see, all for “just a few hundred dollars”, yet the drug trade in Saudi Arabia is a target for these drug traders. In 2022 we were given “Experts say Saudi Arabia is one of the largest and most lucrative regional destinations for drugs, and that status is only intensifying.” Considering that America has had its beef since before 1971 implies that Saudi Arabia had an easy time an now as they see what it costs America, they are not about to hand over 1 trillion dollars to drug dealers. You can get a lot of Shawarmas for that with an additional side dish of Baklava. And anyone thinking that they can get away from capture in Saudi Arabia is fooling themselves. The larger setting is also ignored. It is all imported by hundreds of foreign nationals. And Saudi Arabia is having none of this. So when we are given the stage of people executed in Saudi Arabia from 1 Jan to 3 Nov 2025, we see 219 people, 400% of those guilty of murder and 7300% of those executed for sexual offenses. As I see it, Egypt (where nearly all convicted drug executions seem to come from) has a serious problem and as everyone wants to blame Saudi Arabia, the setting is that someone is pushing them to make this stupid setting, because Saudi Arabia never had any other consideration that Islam teaches that alcohol and other drugs are prohibited because they induce intoxication or a mind-altered state. And as we see that Islam prohibits all intoxicants, including narcotics, citing multiple texts in the Quran and Hadith (Unlu & Sahin, 2016). We need to consider that Egyptians knew this. 90% is islamic in Egypt, so I get the question what is the religion of these people? That number is not given, there is optionally the chance that these are Christians rolling the dice (speculation as I have no clear numbers on this) and that is the flaw in this setting. The word muslim appears in that tory merely once, at the very end when we see the names of these 12 people, so there is a chance that all 12 were muslims, but is that true for all 219 executions? 

So whether you are in agreement or not of capital punishment, the larger story is that it had been known that Saudi Arabia executes people for these crimes and it has no intention to shell over a trillion dollars to the drug trade. As I see it, they feel comfortable sentencing them all to death. America might have considered that point decades ago and whilst we want to cry over these poor poor criminals. There are no non-violent drug crimes, the victims of these crimes become the puppet of violence and other transgressions and Saudi Arabia is having none of that. So I have to wonder when Europe and America are much more appealing targets, why are these people going to Saudi Arabia? That is the setting everyone is overlooking, because you can get from Egypt to Crete, Greece and Italy when you use a dinghy and steer roughly 310 degrees (an exaggeration for sure), but that seems more appealing then Saudi Arabia and seemingly no one is looking at the data that way.

Have a great day, it is 31 degrees here now, so I am seeking shades and icy cold water. Monday morning is a mere 8 house away for me now. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

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

November 15, 2025 · 21:56

On the edge of legality

There are two things on my mind. The first one will be addressed after this. The second one was in my mind before I knew it. It is the stuff of nightmares. A setting that could collapse the entire Microsoft. Not for real, it is a story, a script and a far fetched one at that, but the idea has merit. To unleash global fear and mistrust on the slap of a keyboard? What is there not to like. It would be epic to say the least and why Microsoft? Simple, it has the most dodo inspiring population (those dreaming of extinction) And as such I set the idea in motion, but after I finished the other works. I put it here so that I do not forget it and the keywords are optical fibre, blacklight and Diatomite Celite, the simple keywords that can topple a presumptuous great setting. But that is enough of that. You see, I missed the news about 3 days ago (had other things on my mind) but it flew past my eyes today and I caught it this afternoon. The guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/10/uae-says-it-will-not-join-gaza-stabilisation-force-without-clear-legal-framework) gives us ‘UAE refuses to join Gaza stabilisation force without clear legal framework’ it caught me surprised. The idea of a ‘stabilizing force’ without a clear legal framework seems adamant (wherever it is held). So when we are given “Plans for a UN-mandated international stabilisation force charged with disarming Hamas inside Gaza face growing opposition after the United Arab Emirates said it would not participate because it did not yet see a clear legal framework for the force.” So what are the Americans and the UN doing not setting a clear legal framework for this setting? With that setting we are also given “The UAE’s decision, announced by the senior envoy Dr Anwar Gargash at a conference in Abu Dhabi, reflects Arab doubts about the terms of a US-drafted resolution already distributed to diplomats at the UN in New York. The draft places an onus on a US-directed stabilisation force to be the principal means of imposing security in Gaza after Israel has left the territory.”  My first question becomes, what is the UN doing? For years they are so hoping for peace and now it seems they haven’t even considered setting a legal framework for those in that mess? As for the second issue the idea comes that Hamas needs at least a legal framework, if not you are fighting lawlessness with more lawlessness and to see that come America is not that difficult to observe, but to see that setting come from the UN is a bit ghastly. So as such I would agree with the statement by “Dr. Anwar Gargash said: “The UAE does not yet see a clear framework for the stability force and under such circumstances will not participate, but will support all political efforts towards peace – and remain at the forefront of humanitarian aid.”” And as we consider this, the setting of Gaza is becoming less and less stable. So as I read “Neither the UN nor the 15-strong security council are given a supervisory role over the stabilisation force, overseeing the implementation of the resolution, a point largely overlooked by the draft text. Nothing is specified about the funding of this stabilisation mission, which, according to the Americans, should be largely borne by Gulf states, with Saudi Arabia taking the lead.” I wonder, why the UN didn’t set up a legal framework, for agreement, or for alteration, but as I see it, none of that seems to have been done, or at least the Guardian fails to report on it, but that is no attack or opposition to the Guardian. It merely got me by surprise and made me wonder why we are paying millions upon millions to the UN when we see a (seemingly and alleged) flaw like this.

So why a I wondering about this? As I see the world claiming Israel for the slaughter Hamas instilled. I also see the UN failing at its duty to cater to any solution. And the failures seem to be adding up, but that is my (with absolute lack of expertise on matters of diplomacy and the function of the United Nations) view on the matter. So what gives? And in all this, I completely agree with the position that Dr. Anwar Gargash is taking. 

So have a great day and consider the legal framework you face at breakfast (everyone for himself/herself) and don’t take away the Labneh until you see the white in their eyes. But that is my flaky sense of humor. For now I have to consider the idea that there is a cable under the Indian ocean with my sense of innovative humor. Have fun everyone.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science, Stories

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

November 10, 2025 · 06:22

Shooting birds

This is a setting that is up in the air (quite literally) the setting that America is shooting its own economic plan in the foot so to say. There is something wrong with the animosity that America is throwing into the direction of Canadians and as I see it, their new target are the snowbirds. The Guardian informed me last night that ‘Trump tariffs and strict US border rules threaten flight of Canada’s ‘snowbirds’’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/09/canada-snowbirds-florida) where we see “Many have ditched plans to visit their southern neighbor and are looking to spend their valuable dollars elsewhere, largely put off by Donald Trump’s escalating economic war with Canada and strict new immigration rules that have created fear and confusion.” With the additional “Canada’s own tourism industry, meanwhile, is reporting record revenue. Buoyed by visitors who decided to stay home, the sector took in CA$59bn ($42bn) from May to August, a 6% increase on 2014. (American visitors to Canada dropped 1.7% during that same period.)” And whilst we see almost everywhere “International tourism to the US is forecast to decline by around $12.5 billion to $29 billion in 2025” we get from others sources that their income is increasing a lot more, as such I stay with my conservative losses to be predicted between $80-$130 billion, and now the snowbirds with their “More than half of Canadians with homes in the US – 54% – are considering selling in the next 12 months, with 62% of those citing the political situation as their main reason, according to research published in August.” This comes from Royal LePage, where we also get “According to a recent Royal LePage survey, conducted by Burson, more than half (54%) of Canadians who currently own residential property in the U.S. say they are planning to sell within the next year, among whom a majority (62%) credit the current political administration as the main reason. Meanwhile, 33 per cent of them say they are motivated by other factors, such as personal and financial reasons, and another five per cent say it is due to increasingly extreme weather conditions, like hurricanes, flooding and forest fires.” Which gets us an additional part, but that too will be hard on America, they are investing it domestically in Canada. So, as we consider “While some blame a weak Canadian dollar and rising travel costs for their decision not to travel, 40% also cite political tensions with the US. Trump has frequently assailed Canada and its political leaders, recently retaliating for an anti-tariff advertisement posted by the Ontario government by slapping an additional 10% tariff on imports from a country he has repeatedly taunted as the 51st state.” A lot might see this is trivial, but as a Commonwealthian I adhere to the foul stench that the “51st state” is making. In the meantime we see politicians not being sworn in because they are on the other side of the isle, the US shutdown is now the longest in history and for the second day the airlines are buckling as over 1000 flights have been cancelled with the additional “Nearly 6,000 flights were also delayed, down from over 7,000 delays on Friday, according to flight tracker FlightAware” (source: BBC) so as I see it America is bleeding revenue all over the nation and directly from their veins into the streets and all this is happening 2 weeks before Thanksgiving. Yes, my view of $80-$130 billion really was conservative as all the trimmings that Thanksgiving would bring is now about to grease the coils of loss, on the other hand Turkey is likely to be on sale soon with a nice 75% discount. But the hardest part was seen down that article as those readers were given “And things will likely get worse in the coming days as the FAA increases the percentage of cancelled flights.” Because those people n need an alternative destination. I will offer the thought that Dubai and Abu Dhabi have both really nice weather conditions this time of year, with a special mention of Abu Dhabi with all their theme parks as a Florida replacement. These losses are enlarged by the setting that the snowbirds bring, the quote “Analysts say any significant drop in snowbird visits could be catastrophic for states where they are among the biggest spenders during the winter months. The snowbird economy brings in an estimated $20.5bn annually in direct spending, property and sales taxes, and supports millions of jobs, especially in tourism, hospitality and retail”, so as I see it, the economy of Florida is about to take a handful of downers from the get go, and all this sets the the outlook of Thanksgiving in places like Florida with a grim undertone, because when all things settle it will take years to get over this and if the Snowbirds leave, the economy will take a massive his in Florida and likewise places for years to come. 

So when. We get to “Valorie Crooks of Simon Fraser University said the more obstacles that are placed in the path of snowbirds, the more likely they are to take themselves, and their money, elsewhere, such as Mexico, the second most popular destination for Canadian winter travelers.” The fun part is that this would enable places like Abu Dhabi too, when these people realise that there is a lot they would love, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan might want to consider advertising the splendor to Canada and Canadians. That would grease the lining of the Abu Dhabi economy by a fair bit and there is plenty of material on YouTube that Canadians can see for themselves. And the setting of a zero tax state is beneficial in a few more ways. 

Overall there are plenty of alternatives for people visiting America and as its government is shutdown, there are many more ways to look elsewhere for the needs of these people. And funny enough, Americans might not like it, but they elected their curse to office themselves. So how is this Big Beautiful America, has it been made great, or was that presented silver lining the start of many dark clouds? And as I saw my losses to $80-$130 billion, CBS reported that this shutdown is costing the Americans in the setting of “Estimates of the economic hit from the U.S. government shutdown put the losses at up to $16 billion every week the impasse continues” as such my model of loss was severely conservative as I never considered the impact of a US shutdown. As I see it, America made a huge error going on the Snowbird hunt, and it could have been prevented on several levels. Try to have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Tourism

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

November 9, 2025 · 10:57

Where the BBC falls short

That is the setting I was confronted with this morning. It revolves around a story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3xgwyywe4o) where we see ‘‘A predator in your home’: Mothers say chatbots encouraged their sons to kill themselves’ a mere 10 hours ago. Now I get the caution, because even suicide requires investigation and the BBC is not the proper setting for that. But we are given “Ms Garcia tells me in her first UK interview. “And it is much more dangerous because a lot of the times children hide it – so parents don’t know.”

Within ten months, Sewell, 14, was dead. He had taken his own life” with the added “Ms Garcia and her family discovered a huge cache of messages between Sewell and a chatbot based on Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen. She says the messages were romantic and explicit, and, in her view, caused Sewell’s death by encouraging suicidal thoughts and asking him to “come home to me”.” There is a setting that is of a conflicting nature. Even as we are given “the first parent to sue Character.ai for what she believes is the wrongful death of her son. As well as justice for him, she is desperate for other families to understand the risks of chatbots.” What is missing is that there is no AI, at most it is depend machine learning and that implies a programmer, what some call an AI engineer. And when we are given “A Character.ai spokesperson told the BBC it “denies the allegations made in that case but otherwise cannot comment on pending litigation”” We are confronted with two streams. The first is that some twisted person took his programming options a little to Eagerly Beaverly like and created a self harm algorithm and that leads to two sides, the first either accepts that, or they pushed him along to create other options and they are covering for him. CNN on September 17th gave us ‘More families sue Character.AI developer, alleging app played a role in teens’ suicide and suicide attempt’ and it comes with spokesperson “blah blah blah” in the shape of “We invest tremendous resources in our safety program, and have released and continue to evolve safety features, including self-harm resources and features focused on the safety of our minor users. We have launched an entirely distinct under-18 experience with increased protections for teen users as well as a Parental Insights feature,” and it is rubbish as this required a programmer to release specific algorithms into the mix and no-one is mentioning that specific programmer, so is it a much larger premise, or are they all afraid that releasing the algorithms will lay bare a failing which could directly implode the AI bubble. When we consider the CNN setting shown with “screenshots of the conversations, the chatbot “engaged in hypersexual conversations that, in any other circumstance and given Juliana’s age, would have resulted in criminal investigation.”” Implies that the AI Bubble is about to burst and several players are dead set against that (it would end their careers) and that is merely one of the settings where the BBC fails. The Guardian gave us on October 30th “The chatbot company Character.AI will ban users 18 and under from conversing with its virtual companions beginning in late November after months of legal scrutiny.” It is seen in ‘Character.AI bans users under 18 after being sued over child’s suicide’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/29/character-ai-suicide-children-ban) where we see “His family laid blame for his death at the feet of Character.AI and argued the technology was “dangerous and untested”. Since then, more families have sued Character.AI and made similar allegations. Earlier this month, the Social Media Law Center filed three new lawsuits against the company on behalf of children who have either died by suicide or otherwise allegedly formed dependent relationships with its chatbots” and this gets the simple setting of both “dangerous and untested” and “months of legal scrutiny” so why took it months and why is the programmer responsible for this ‘protected’ by half a dozen media? I reckon that the media is unsure what to make of the ‘lie’ they are perpetrating, you see there is no AI, it is Deeper Machine Learning optionally with LLM on the side. And those two are programmed. That is the setting they are all veering away from. The fact that these Virtual companions are set on a premise of harmful conversations with a hyper sexual topic on the side implies that someone is logging these conversations for later (moneymaking) use. And that setting is not one that requires months of legal scrutiny. There is a massive set of harm going towards people and some are skating the ice to avoid sinking through whist they are already knee deep in water, hoping the ice will support them a little longer. And there is a lot more at the Social Media Victims Law Center with a setting going back to January 2025 (at https://socialmediavictims.org/character-ai-lawsuits/) where a Character.AI chatbot was set to “who encouraged both self-harm and violence against his family” and now we learn that this firm is still operating? What kind of idiocy is this? As I personally see it, the founders of Character Technologies should be in jail, or at least in arrested on a few charges. I cannot vouch for Google, so that is up in the air, but as I see it, this is a direct result from the AI bubble being fed amiable abilities, even when it results in the hard of people and particularly children. This is where the BBC is falling short and they could have done a lot better. At the very least they could have spend a paragraph or two having a conversation with Matthew P. Bergman founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center. As I see it, the media skating around that organisation is beyond ridiculous. 

So when you are all done crying, make sure that you tell the BBC that you are appalled by their actions and that you require the BBC to put attorney Matthew P. Bergman and the Social Media Victims Law Center in the spotlight (tout suite please) 

That is the setting I am aggravated by this morning. I need coffee, have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

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

November 4, 2025 · 10:05

At the benefit of Riyadh

That is what I saw a few days ago, but as with all matters, the people who see the advantage do not always see what they have. You see, almost 3 years ago I wrote ‘Girdle your loins’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/11/30/girdle-your-loins/) where I have both Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Arabia and Amazon the stage where they could set the stage of an additional 6 billion a year with optionally enlarging this to about 15 billion a year (a cautious conservative estimate) and that was merely the beginning. I tried to hand it to Google, but the person I had to seal to was not in the office (it was in the Covid lockdown stage) and 2 days later they dumped the Google Stadia. So, I was depending on Amazon (and Andy Jessy), or the Kingdom Holding, but there I had to deal with   Prince Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud. And he has never heard of me, so I was up going nowhere. And I get it, a billionaire gets thousands of ‘pleads’ in a daily basis and I don’t amount to much. I get that. But that doesn’t take away the anguish of having the idea of a lifetime (well 50 million dollars plus change) and as it holds billions of revenue, I was in a decent position, but over the last three years my changes has dwindled, even Tencent was leaving the idea in the ground and for the life of me I cannot understand why these so called ‘self made billionaires’ leave this much revenue one the floor. I get the idea that if it isn’t AI, it is worthless, but the sentiment behind that is flawed as AI doesn’t exist and the issues I raised with energy and validation and verification of data are showing a much larger setting now (see yesterday’s blog). 

But as Saudi Arabia bought Electronic Arts the issue changes. You see the second pillar on the story ‘Girdle your loins’ has a new lease on life as Electronic Arts brought some of the highest rated games during 1985-1999 and that is the focal point of a lot of games and as Saudi Arabia owns the IP now, the games that are published as Bullfrog will be worth a massive amount. 

We had Magic Carpet (1+2), Dungeon Keeper (1+2), Populous (1+2) and there is another upside. These games can be released in the original setting (with upgraded sound and graphics) and there is the setting that these games can be ‘islamiphied’ giving a game like Populous the setting to add the graphics of an Arabic themed land, with optional setting that added libraries can be unlocked in the game as you conquer the lands it adds a cauldron with a graphic theme and that gives the player a new stride on the game. And that is one house who had additional titles, as such the setting for Riyadh increases to a larger setting and one that brings in the money. Wouldn’t it be nice if (as I personally see it) that the investment of $55 billion will earn itself back in under a decade by additional means? That is what Google, Amazon and others left on the floor. And only 20 hours ago the Guardian gave us ‘Boom or bubble? Inside the $3tn AI datacentre spending spree’ with the byline “Investment in these vast warehouses is huge but some worry the debt-fuelled exuberance will backfire” with the setting of “Google’s owner Alphabet has reported revenues of $100bn in a single quarter for the first time, helped by growing demand for its AI infrastructure, while Apple and Amazon have also just reported strong results.” And still the media avoids certain matters as we are given “Goldman Sachs expects it to double by the end of 2030. This carries a further infrastructure cost of its own, according to Goldman, with $720bn of grid spending needed to meet that energy demand.” So double the effort by 2030? Is that a critical holding, because as I personally see it, the American economy doesn’t have that long and the energy setting is critical as is validating and verifying the Deeper Machine Learning data sets, an issue that is ‘circumvented’ by nearly all. As such I personally feel that my solution as a way around shortage of funds was seemingly (a personal view) a good idea to have in the back pocket and I was eager to hand it to Google (just to keep it out of the hands of Microsoft) but alas, I was not that fortunate. And make no mistake. I wanted to cash in on my ideas as anyone would, so there is no altruistic setting here. I am not better than all (just better than most) and now it seems that Saudi Arabia and through it I reckon Kingdom Holdings have the inside track on billions left on the floor. I wonder if they will make a deal with Tencent to make it work. 

Have a great day. I will dream of icy cold water (it is 28 degrees celsius now) and the taste of refreshing icy cold water appeals to me at present.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Science

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

October 20, 2025 · 12:52

The start of something bad

That is how I saw the news (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/dubais-10000-ai-firms-goal-to-redefine-competitiveness-power-uaes-startup-vision) with the headline ‘Dubai’s 10,000 AI-firms goal to redefine competitiveness,  power UAE’s startup vision’ there is always a risk when you start a new startup, but the drive to something that doesn’t even exist is downright folly (as I see it) and now it is driven to a 10,000 times setting of folly. That is what I perceive. But lets go through the setting to explain what I am seeing.

First there is the novel setting and it is one that needs explaining. You see AI doesn’t yet exist, even what we have now is merely DML (Deeper Machine Learning) and it is accompanied at times with LLM (Large Language Models) and these solutions can actually be great, but the foundations of AI are not yet met and take it from me it matters. Actually never take my word, so lets throw some settings at you. First there is ‘Deloitte to pay money back to Albanese government after using AI in $440,000 report’ and then we get to ‘Lawyer caught using AI-generated false citations in court case penalised in Australian first’ (sources for both is the Guardian). There is something behind this. The setting of verification is adamant in both, You see, whatever we now call AI isn’t it and whatever data is thrown at it is taken almost literally at face value. Data Verification is overlooked at nearly every corner and then we get to Microsoft with its ‘support’ of builder.ai with the mention that it was goo. It lasted less than a month and the ‘backing’ of a billion dollar went away like snow in a heatwave. They used 700 engineers to do what could not be done (as I personally see it). So we have these settings that is already out there. 

Then (two weeks ago) the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/08/bank-of-england-warns-of-growing-risk-that-ai-bubble-could-burst) ‘Bank of England warns of growing risk that AI bubble could burst’ with the byline “Possibility of ‘sharp market correction has increased’, says Bank’s financial policy committee” now consider this setting with the valuation of 10,000 firms getting a rather large ‘market correction’ and I think that this happens when it is the least opportune for the UAE. This take me to the old expression we had in the 80’s “You can lose your money in three ways, first there are women, which is the prettiest way to lose your money, then through gambling, which is the quickest way to lose your money and third way is thought IT, which is the surest way to lost your money” and now I would like to add “the fourth way is AI, which is both quick and sure to lose your money” that is the prefix to the equation. And the setting we aren’t given is set out in several pieces all over the place. One of them was given to us in ABC News (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-20/ai-crypto-bubbles-speculative-mania/105884508) with ‘If AI and crypto aren’t bubbles, we could be in big trouble’ where we see “What if the trillions of dollars placed on those bets turn out to be good investments? The disruption will be epic, and terrible. A lot of speculative manias are just fun for a while and then the last in lose their shirts, not much harm done, like the tulips of 1635, and the comic book and silver bubbles of the late 1980s. Sometimes the losses are so great that banks go broke as well, which leads to a frozen financial system, recession and unemployment, as in 1929 and 2008.” As I personally see it, America is going all in as they are already beyond broke, so they have nothing to lose, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia have plenty to lose and the American first are good to squander whatever these two have. I reckon that Oracle has its fallback position so it is largely of, but OpenAI is willing to chance it all. And that is the American portfolio, Microsoft and a few others. They are playing bluff with as I see it, the wrong players and when others are ignoring the warnings of the Bank of England they merely get what is coming for them and it is a game I do not approve of, because it is based on the bluff that gets us ‘we are too big to fail’ and I do not agree, but they will say that it is all based on retirement numbers and other ‘needly’ things. This is why America needs Canada to become the 51st state so desperately, they are (as I personally see it) ready to use whatever troll army they have to smear Canada. But I am not having it and as I see “Dubai’s bold target to attract 10,000 artificial intelligence firms by 2030 is evolving from vision to execution, signaling a new phase in the emirate’s transformation into a global technology powerhouse. As a follow-up to earlier announcements positioning the UAE as the “Startup Capital of the World,” recent developments in AI infrastructure, capital inflows, and global partnerships show how this goal is being operationalised — potentially reshaping Dubai’s economic structure and reinforcing its competitive edge in the global digital economy.” I believe that those behind this are having the best interests at heard for the Emirati, but I do not trust the people behind this drive (outside of the UAE). I believe that this bubble will burst after the funds are met with smiles only for these people to go out of business with a bulky severance check. It is almost like the role Ryan Gosling played in the Big Short where Jared Vennett receives a bonus of $47 million for profits made on his CDSs. It feels almost too alike. And I feel I have to speak up. Now, if someone can sink my logic, I am fine with that, but let those running to this future verify whatever they have and not merely accept what is said. I am happy to be wrong but the setting feels off (by a lot) and I rather be wrong then be silent on this, because as I see it, when there is a ‘market correction’ of $2,000,000,000,000 you can consider yourself sold down the river because there is a cost of such a correction and it should 100% be on the American shores and 0% of the Arabic, Commonwealth or European shores. But that is merely my short sighted view on the matter. 

So when we get to “Omar Sultan Al Olama, Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy, and Remote Work Applications, said the goal reflects the UAE’s determination to lead globally in frontier technology. “Dubai’s target to attract 10,000 AI companies over the next five years is not a dream — it is a commitment to building the world’s most dynamic and future-ready digital economy,” he said. “We already host more than 1,500 pure AI companies — the highest number in the region — but this is just the beginning. Our strategy is to bring in creators and producers of technology, not just users. That’s how we sustain competitiveness and shape the industries of tomorrow.”” I am slightly worried, because there is an impact of these 1,500 companies. Now, be warned there are plenty of great applications of DML and LLM and these firms should be protected. But the setting of 10,000 AI companies worry me, as AI doesn’t yet exist and the stage for Agentic programming is clear and certain. I would like to rephrase this into “We should keep a clear line of achievements in what is referred to as AI and what AI companies are supposed to see as clear achievements” This requires explanation as I see whatever is called as AI as NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) and that is currently the impact of DML and LLM and I have seen several good projects but that is set onto a stage that has a definite pipeline of achievements and interests parties. And for the most the threshold is a curve of verifiable data. That data is scrutinized to a larger degree and tends to be (at times) based on the first legacy data. It still requires cleaning but to a smaller degree to dat that comes from wherever. 

So do not dissuade from your plans to enter the AI field, but be clear about what it is based on and particularly the data that is being used. So have a great day and as we get to my lunch time there is ample space for that now. Enjoy your day.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

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

October 9, 2025 · 17:35

The opposing voice

That’s me (if you were wondering). The setting is that I take offense to the media and the way they are conducting their business. The larger setting is that I have no overwhelming love for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have no business in Saudi Arabia, I have no relatives, no experience there and I have never been there. The simple setting is that I could have business there, but I do not. I am however drenched in fair play and the media settings are in an abundance of corruption, whoring (for the digital dollar) and smearing for the ‘friends’ they claim to have. Claim is as good as anything, because the political field is forever in flux. 

And the media is to be held to account much higher standard than they are now. So as the Guardian gives their new ‘abundance’ of smearing through their emotional settings like “and was the kind of expert – passionate, principled, always glad to hop on the phone – that journalists loved having in their digital Rolodex”, yes smearing the goo to soften the reader and something broke in me. So here goes:

‘Money talks: the deep ties between Twitter and Saudi Arabia’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/09/twitter-saudi-arabia-deep-ties-elon-musk-prince-mohammed)

Where we see “Ali al-Ahmed didn’t think that Elon Musk was responsible for the decline and fall of Twitter. Musk was another face representing an old regime. And its sins began well before Musk bumbled into Twitter HQ, in October 2022, carrying a porcelain sink. (In an attempt at humor, Musk posted a video of himself arriving at the Twitter offices carrying a sink with the caption “Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!”)” The first ‘error’ Elon Musk wasn’t responsible for anything (as I see it) he overpaid for a social media for well over 50% ($44 billion) A friend of mine and myself saw that the accounts were ‘spiked’ and that fake accounts were abundant. My personal view was that he paid over $15B too much for it and that is his right. As well as that Musk wasn’t ‘old’ regime anything. And at present is is ‘valued’ at $52.3 billion, so he made ten billion in just three years, that is not old anything, It is a massive influx of value (I never saw that). 

Then Ali Al-Ahmed gives us the one truth that matters ““They care about making money. Twitter and Facebook are not champions or models for human rights. These people are nothing but money-grubbers.” Twitter had banned Ahmed’s Arabic-language Twitter account, which had 36,000” that is social media for you and as I see it LinkedIn is about to be set to that same drive. It is all about the communications that are being drawn to catering (to whom is the question). Then we get the ‘dubious’ part (cannot agree, whether I see it that way or not). “For Saudi authorities, Twitter was an asset in every sense. The billionaire Saudi businessman Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was Twitter’s largest outside shareholder, and the site had become a key tool in the government’s apparatus of surveillance and control.” Is it really? It might be, but that is social media for you. If you share with the world, you share with EVERYONE, not just your ‘core’ people and the Saudi Government might as well take notice (as does the German, French, America and Commonwealth nations). Then we get a ‘tainted’ part. With “Ahmed believed his Twitter account had been compromised. He worried that spies had access to it, which would endanger dissident Saudis with whom he exchanged private messages. This wasn’t an idle concern. One of his contacts was Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, an aid worker who, in 2018, was abducted by Saudi security forces for running a satirical Twitter account that parodied members of the government. Abdulrahman, who was then 37, was sentenced to 20 years in prison.” There is a hidden truth, EVERY Twitter account is compromised. We do it ourselves and whether it is some security forces or hackers, they all try to get information and the Chinese, Israeli and Russians make the Saudi security forces look like little kids in the playground. And the writer knows this. So there.

Then we get the (seemingly) big lie “As the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi demonstrated, the Saudi state pursued vigorous methods of transnational repression, allegedly sending hit squads after enemies abroad.” In the first place. Where is the evidence? What makes a murder brutal? There is no body, as such Jamal Khashoggi is merely missing and the press knows this (apparently he moved to bora bora with a 19 year old mistress) but that is something I am willing to dismiss as have no evidence of this. The second lie is “Saudi state pursued vigorous methods of transnational repression, allegedly sending hit squads after enemies abroad” this might be true, but it requires evidence (that pesky requirement) and I do not see the evidence given by Saad Aljabri as evidence. He silenced a few settings through the CIA to set silent the evidence against him. The truth and all the truth is my motto and he has allegedly over 3,000,000,000 reasons not to be honest. Then we get the ‘meh’ setting. In “Prince Mohammed used his country’s bottomless reserves of oil and capital to flood Silicon Valley, politics, sports leagues and other power centers with cash and influence. Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Peter Thiel’s investment vehicle, Founders Fund, were among the most notable recipients of Saudi money, but they were just two among hundreds. In 2016, Uber received an astonishing $3.5bn from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). Blackstone’s infrastructure fund got $20bn. By autumn 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported, Saudi Arabia had become “the largest single funding source for US startups”.” So Saudi Arabia is setting wealth to create wealth? Isn’t that the proper use of Business Intelligence? So they had the money and they were starting up companies (to get a return on investment I reckon) and then we get another setting ““They’re surveillance states. They’re police states,” said Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown University. “They want to use the latest technology in order to continue to remain in power and surveil their populations. So they have another interest in trying to sort of be the beneficiaries of hi-tech developments, hoping that that will help them internally with their own political rule.”” Might be seen as direct settings of intelligence and I would say that this is a valid use of technology. The west is run over by Hamas and Gaza sympathizers and we do nothing. Saudi Arabia knows how dangerous that could become and they are making sure that these people do not succeed and I reckon that the UAE is on that setting too. There is something to be said for the Saudi approach when we see the ‘news’ that is spread through social media. As I see it, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests are rampant in the streets of Europe and they are ‘supporting’ one another making life in Europe less and less interesting and the populist agenda is somehow fed through that. Saudi Arabia has no interest in getting involved through that setting.

Then we get the ‘dangerous’ part ““Since late 2017 or January of 2018, Prince Mohammed has exercised control over more Twitter stock than is owned by Twitter’s founder,” according to a civil complaint filed against Twitter and the consulting firm McKinsey by Omar Abdulaziz, a film director and Saudi exile. Abdulaziz said that the consultancy helped finger him as a prominent online dissident, leading to his Twitter account being hacked. (In 2020, Canadian authorities warned Abdulaziz that he was a target of a Saudi kill team.) According to Abdulaziz’s original complaint, “Because of the tremendous wealth of key figures in [the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia], major corporations have enabled, collaborated with, and turned a blind eye to [its] efforts to suppress, torture, falsely imprison, terrorise and murder dissenters both within Saudi Arabia and around the world.” Twitter had given the Saudi government a reach well beyond its borders.” It is dangerous as it assumes several parts. In part as the setting of Omar Abdulaziz, he failed a complaint, how did that end? We do not know. We are given that “finger him as a prominent online dissident, leading to his Twitter account being hacked”, so was this on McKinsey? He was out there getting ‘visibility’ as a film director and some might not like that (for all kinds of reasons) it might have been an Islamophobe. Then we get “In 2020, Canadian authorities warned Abdulaziz that he was a target of a Saudi kill team.” What authorities? I reckon that the CSIS got wind of something and did their job, but where is the evidence? I get that the CSIS gets all kinds of information (Saad Aljabri anyone)? So they did their job (if they were the source). So what was that Saudi Kill team? Overzealous football supporters? And with “suppress, torture, falsely imprison, terrorise and murder dissenters both within Saudi Arabia and around the world.” Twitter had given the Saudi government a reach well beyond its borders” we get another setting of ‘seemingly’ setting the stage. Where evidence doesn’t exist, the media drenches the story in emotion and what we call soft pressures and I have had enough whilst this happens they are pushed around and they want their digital dollars. And this is how the seemingly get it. And in conclusion, Twitter doesn’t give them anything, because some already showed me that others use Twitter (say X) for exactly the same reason and that gives the population of one (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) a much larger pool with Trolls, Russian, China, Commonwealth, America, CIA, NSA, DIA, Democratic corporations and a whole range of alphabet combinations and there are several who would like to take out someone they don’t care about and lay the blame on Saudi Arabia for all the interesting reasons that we might not see. 

So this is how I see emotional articles from the Guardian at present. Feel free to disagree because that is how I am. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

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

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

October 8, 2025 · 00:20

The weighted fabrication

That is how I see it and the article by Stephanie Kirchgaessner (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/18/saudi-arabia-turki-al-jasser-executed) goes straight into this. You see, I am not debating whether someone was ‘deleted’ it is what you can prove and we cannot prove anything. You see, The Guardian ‘hides’ behind a piece by the United Nations and I dove into this in ‘That was Easy!’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) I even added the UN document there and I made several connections, I used the setting of something called ‘evidence’ it is how I roll and seemingly the Guardian does not. Somewhere today I stumbled upon a Kirchgaessner article that was from June 18th 2025. I do not track everything that is out there, so I have an excuse. But the setting that the media uses requires me to illustrate where they went mad like a lemming. We get “It was the first high-profile killing of a journalist by the Saudi state since the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist and prominent critic of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who was lured into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and murdered by Saudi agents. A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state, and an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder.” We need to take heed of the two settings here. The first one is “A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state” and the second one is “intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder”. So, we have two settings. Lets start with the second on first. How was this assessment obtained? That is the question. There is a chance that it came from Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri and the ‘pasted’ solutions that the Americans give him (read: CIA) sounds that he is all on the up and up. Yet “Aljabri has strong support in the US, where former intelligence officials have credited their Saudi counterpart for helping to save American and Saudi lives following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US.

On 60 Minutes, the former acting CIA director Mike Morell said Aljabri was “honorable”. Intelligence relayed to the US by Aljabri – Morell said – had led to the interception of bombs that had been planted by al-Qaida in 2010 in two desktop printers that were being flown as cargo on two planes. Morell said there were also other examples of Aljabri saving the lives of Americans, but that they were still classified.” Yet here too I have questions and they might be invalid and when we see the accusations of “The Saudi government did not address Aljabri’s allegations but said in a statement that “Saad Aljabri is a discredited former government official with a long history of fabricating and creating distractions to hide the financial crimes he committed”” So how does a general get these billions? That was the issues that I saw when I looked at the CBC article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/saad-aljabri-assets-frozen-1.5903422) 

Where we see ““Although the investigation is ongoing, it is clear that from at least 2008 to 2017, Aljabri masterminded and oversaw a conspiracy incorporating at least 21 conspirators across at least 13 jurisdictions to misappropriate at least [$4.3 billion] from the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states.” As well as “It alleges Aljabri funneled security and counterterrorism funds from Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry to himself, his family and associates.” So is one true, or is the other true? It is a fair question as the sources of the “intelligence assessment” remain valid if Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri was involved. At that point, merely one issue remains and I blew that apart in my initial blog (link above) and what wasn’t mentioned is that the so called ‘torture tapes’ were never forensically cleared in any way. There are mentions of “I heard them and they were dreadful” or something of that nature. That is not evidence. Evidence is “The tape(s) consist of x number of tapes (or files). They are set to a length of XXX minutes and the voices on the tapes include Jamal Khashoggi” That NEVER happened, that was NEVER done. As such there is no evidence and the shoddy journals behind blood and oil added a few inches of fantasy to that counter. That as well as the issues in that UN report gave me enough to call Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud innocent. Evidence is set to that, not thoughtful processes of ‘I don’t believe he is guilty’ a person is innocent until proven guilty and that proof never came, no matter how intensely all the media is pushing for it and the media with people carrying trash bags stating “This could be the part of the body of Jamal Khashoggi” is nothing less than a joke, a bad one at that. So as Stephanie Kirchgaessner is linked to several of these articles the journalist is just as guilty as the story. She never properly investigated the articles she wrote and I just called out several parts. There is no such setting with Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser, as the news gives us “the Saudi interior ministry announced that al-Jasser had been executed in Riyadh, for crimes including “high treason by communicating with and conspiring against the security of the Kingdom with individuals outside it”.” It seems like a setting that is. There is no wonder about guilt or innocence. He was found guilty and executed, but leave it to the Guardian to add the columnist no-one ever cared about to the mix (Jamal Khashoggi). Yet I have seen this game being played by the Guardian and several other sources and I have had enough. As such I have questions. Questions like will Stephanie Kirchgaessner ever be questioned and will there be a larger setting where journalists like this are held to account on what they write, because as I see it this cannot continue as it is. The CBC gives us a lot more. You see as we see “Aljabri, 62, was MBN’s chief advisor. As Minister of State and head of security and counterterrorism, he was a key member of the regime. He was stripped of his duties in 2015. Following the power change in 2017, he fled the country and now lives in a mansion on The Bridle Path, one of Canada’s most upscale residential neighbourhoods.” Is a setting that does not imply he is guilty of anything, but as I see it, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has 4.3 billion reasons to want him and I do not know any government that takes such a loss for granted. And they would be right. And as I see it, there is an easy setting, get a forensic accountant go over the records and I reckon that this is where the CIA is not to happy over that happening and I expect neither is Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri. I wonder why the media didn’t set this setting to paper, do you know? 

So when the Guardian gave us (in June) “The former intelligence chief also claimed Prince Mohammed “feared” the information Aljabri knew about him, including a 2014 recorded discussion between Prince Mohammed and the then crown prince, Bin Nayef, in which Prince Mohammed allegedly said he could kill the sitting king, Abdullah, to clear the throne for his own father, Salman.” The use of ‘allegedly’ makes the quote dubious, did anyone hear that recording? Was it forensically analyzed? Simple questions that could lift the veil of this. Did no one catch on to this?

I think I have raised enough doubt on the settings we see. And as we go back to the setting of “an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder.” As such, as it was released, why didn’t the Guardian include this to give weight to the article? Was it because it relied to heavy on Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri? I don’t know, I never saw the assessment. So have a great day and consider what others want you to think. I, merely want you to see the evidence because that decides the guilt of someone, I could (of course) be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

September 18, 2025 · 06:59

The setting changes

That is at times a rule, but to call it the massive rule to measure things to is not the greatest rule to live by (you might have to think that sentence over a little while before it makes sense). You see, there is a story that bugs me and I was almost willing to let it go. But Yesterday in ‘Name Calling’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/09/17/name-calling/) I started down a rabbit hole, a hole that smothers and makes it hard to breath. You see the press to a much larger degree has become a populist media, they do not check sources (as shown yesterday) The media is losing credibility in massive waves. The problem is that I thought I was alone. When you are the only one shouting at a wall, is there a case that you yourself might have lost the focus? 

That was my premise (at first).

So when you start looking at the wall, not being a wall, but a sea the dimension changes. It is no longer the height, but the amount of water that becomes an issue (it makes sense after a little while) and when you start looking into the water and you realise that water is transparent, you start looking for things. As such I found several sources (I already had a few) and these sources are a lot more focussed on the sham that is the International Association of Genocide Scholars. There was the simplest setting that “a member in good standing—a status achieved simply by paying an annual fee of 30 dollars. No academic credentials are required” and this comes with the added quote “Dr. Sara Brown, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in San Diego and a scholar who has served on the IAGS advisory board, told The Media Line: “I was silenced. And the resolution was forced through. What really troubled me was the way that it was presented to mainstream media, that 86 percent of the association had unanimously agreed to condemn Israel for genocide. That’s inaccurate. And to be perfectly honest, it lacks academic integrity, basic integrity to falsely represent the association and falsely cite statistics.”” (source: the media line) The France24 news (added in yesterday’s blog) had a few other settings that were weird, but the overbearing setting was that the media didn’t care, they preferred to not do their job. They became (as I personally see it) as courtesans towards the digital dollar. 

The medicine also gives us “Only 28 percent of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) cast a ballot in the resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza. Of those who voted, 108 supported the measure—less than a quarter of the association’s total membership. Yet international outlets, including The Guardian, AP, Reuters, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times reported the outcome as if it were a sweeping consensus of the world’s foremost genocide experts. Critics inside and outside the association now argue that the process was unrepresentative and that the coverage misled the public into believing in unanimity where none existed.” Now I wanted to have a setting that if people like Amal Clooney (a revered British lawyer and human rights activist) was part of that list, you get a mixed setting, but that is as I see it less of a case. The doughty street chambers adds this to her name “Amal Clooney is a barrister who specializes in international law and human rights. She is ranked in the legal directories Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners  as a leading barrister in international human rights law, public international law, and international criminal law. She is described as ‘a brilliant legal mind’ who is ‘in a league of her own at the Bar’. The directories spotlight her ‘commanding presence before courts’ and describe her as ‘a dream performer before international tribunals’ with ‘superb advocacy’ that is ‘crystal clear in focus and highly persuasive’. The rankings emphasize her ability to galvanize ‘heads of state, foreign ministers and business … in a way that is very effective’ for victims of human rights abuses.” That would be a legal mind to say ‘wow’ to, but when you see the feedback from the IAGS (in the France24 story) stating that it goes through a “rigorous peer reviewing process” and that it went through three separate committees. Now here is the crunch, there are 500 members, did they came from that pool? Where is the paperwork on that? And that happens before the vote. So how was the voting set? What was the minimum amount of votes? Only 28% voted as other sources gave its (the France24 article never brought that out) the article also ‘pressed’ of those who voted. As I see it, Melanie O’Brien never gave the details and more over France24 never pushed anything on this. And she skipped over the report being a three page document. That alone should have halted the press. They didn’t. The joke about the journalist no one cares about was 106 pages (the UN document). One person, so how come that the ‘genocide’ setting that players like Hamas feed us can be summarized in three pages? So how is ‘extensive’ research done in three pages? And who are these reliable and extensive sources? That entire sham (about 4 minutes of it) was swallowed whole by the audience.

So, here I am digesting several matters. As such it is time to call in some assistance and (at https://www.thefp.com/p/another-reason-not-to-trust-the-experts) wee see that the Free Press gives us ‘Another Reason Not to Trust the ‘Experts’’ and it starts by giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars calls itself a body of experts, but joining requires only a form and a fee. Members include parody accounts like ‘Mo Cookie’ and ‘Emperor Palpatine.’” And the story start of in a most interesting way. “This week, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) voted on a resolution that accused Israel of committing genocide in its war against Hamas. Like moths to a flame, the mainstream press ran wild with the story of the organization’s declaration. “Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says,” ran the headline in The Washington Post.”

And in continuation we get “The Guardian quoted the president of the association, Melanie O’Brien, declaring that the resolution represented “a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide.” In another interview with ABC News Australia, O’Brien boasted that the resolution passed with nearly 90 percent support. The BBC’s headline read: “Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza, World’s Leading Experts Say.” The problem for these publications is that if you kick the tires—even slightly—it becomes obvious that the resolution is a sham, top to bottom.” And the press is not waking up? You have gotta be joking me. With the source that according to most started the wave of looking into this setting we are given “On Tuesday evening, Salo Aizenberg, a board member of HonestReporting and contributor to NGO Monitor, tested that proposition. After exploring the IAGS website, he found that he could become a member of the organization with just a $30 contribution. “This organization that purports to be a leading organization of scholars is open to anyone who is interested,” he told The Free Press.” I got alerted to this setting by the Javier Bardem (who told us all on the red carpet in the Emmy event) and someone who went to town on this in LinkedIn. That was my trigger to give you yesterday’s blog and I found out most of what I know in under an hour of investigation. As such what did the Guardian, the Washington Post and ABC News Australia do? Is it weird that I call the ‘Courtesans of the digital dollar’? (I considered that calling them greed driven whores was too crass a statement to make). We then get “IAGS’s open membership is important because as Aizenberg learned in his research on the website, 80 of the 500 members of IAGS all claim to be based in Iraq—a country not known for universities with robust genocide scholarship. But it’s even worse than that. Only 108 out of the organization’s 500 members actually voted for the resolution. So contra O’Brien, only 21.6 percent of the IAGS supported it, not nearly 90 percent. That figure represents 108 out of the 129 people who bothered voting for the resolution at all.” As well as “One IAGS member, Sara Brown, the author of Gender and Genocide in Rwanda, posted on X that the leadership of the organization prevented members from filing comments criticizing the resolution before the vote. “We were promised a town hall, which is a common practice for controversial resolutions,” she wrote, “but the president of the association reversed that. The association has also refused to disclose who were the authors of the resolution.” After reading through the resolution, it’s easy to understand why the identities of the authors were shielded from the other members of the group. It’s riddled with inaccuracies and deceptive language. For example, the first paragraph asserts that Israel has killed “59,000 adults and children in Gaza,” without distinguishing between civilians and Hamas fighters.” You need to read the rest in the Free Press article (link above) And there is more to ‘convict’ the IAGS of, they make a sham of several settings and the press has no other recourse but to convict them as well, because if they do not, the press will have proven themselves to be biased and unworthy to call themselves news media. There is of course the funny setting that all these papers will have to be charged VAT from now on as most hide behind the zero VAT setting for being news sources. When that stops their advertisers go the way of the Dodo really fast.

The media line also gave us “For her, the flaws went beyond procedure. “They cite U.N. sources … and if you look at the citation, it says data that has not yet been verified by the United Nations, and then in footnote five it says Ministry of Health Gaza—the Hamas-run Ministry of Health,” she pointed out. “The fact that those are the statistics that they had to cite and it’s in the first paragraph immediately speaks to a lack of academic integrity … It’s not even academically lazy. It’s reckless. And the harm is real.””

The article can be seen (at https://themedialine.org/top-stories/only-28-of-scholars-associations-members-voted-on-gaza-genocide-resolution-but-global-media-missed-the-story/) and that part gives us that The Media line as ‘trusted news’ is a lot more trustworthy than the mainstream media at present. 

Darn, I forgot to shine the limelight on Microsoft again (my personal behemoth) and in that same setting I now wish you a good day and consider trusting the news media a lot less than before. So to all of you, have a great day today and don’t forget to question your news vendor at some point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

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