Tag Archives: the Guardian

December 13, 2023 · 02:03

The Guardian just won’t learn

Yup, that is where it is at, but it starts with the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67679732) where they give us ‘UN climate talks in jeopardy in fossil fuel backlash’. Yup, we have an issue here, but it is one that is given to us with some debatable sides.  You see, we are given “A new amended version of the text is expected to be issued on Tuesday so that negotiations can continue. Humans burning fossil fuels is driving global warming, risking millions of lives, but governments have never agreed how or when to stop using them.” There are issues here. I do not completely disagree with the setting, but in that same side plenty of governments (US, UK, EU) never did what needed to be done for the longest time, as such we are all reliant and too much dependent on fossil fuels. In that light, the US is the BIGGEST exporter of fossil fuels, but we do not see too much about that, do we? And that is not the largest setting either, for this we need the Guardian.

Remember this image. We saw this as the larger stage of misinformation by the media. The EEA (European Environmental Agency) gave us a clear setting that 50% of the damage we see comes from 147 facilities. Yes, you saw that right, 147 facilities cause 50% of the damage and for well over a year the Guardian ignored this, did not make mention this, made no effort to look into these 147 facilities. No, first we get some BS story about corporate jets and the EEA story goes back to December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) where we got the goods. No, this time around we get Chris Armstrong giving us ‘‘Megayachts’ are environmentally indefensible. The world must ban them’, I do disagree, but I find more issues with a yacht then a jet. So whilst we are given “Abramovich’s yachts emit more than 22,000 tonnes of carbon every year”, I believe it to be BS. You see, some sources give us 7,020 tonnes a year. This number is smaller, yet equally debatable. You see a yacht tends to be twin engine and each engine is about the size of a Rolls Royce Spectre. Some are even bigger, so there is pollution. But where Chris goes off the rails is that instead of giving us “This yacht has 4× MTU 20V 1163 TB93 diesel engines, triple screw propellers, giving us X amount of pollution” we get merely a number and nothing is based on amount of pollution per hour. You see these people aren’t on their yachts 24:7, as such it is less pollution, and some will debate is that not too much either? It is a fair question and I do not have a clear answer here. And in that light, why was there no mention of that new yacht from Jeff Bezos? Is this just a handle of handing a Russian name to make the ‘ban’ more palatable? In addition when we consider “whilst over the last 15 years over 41,000 flights a day were added” and how much pollution is that? We do not get the real deal, the numbers and the evidence. It might be a opinion piece, but the Guardian is screwed up, to the highest degree going with hatchet pieces like this and not giving us any real numbers. And when we are given “Bill Gates might gain some plaudits for merely renting, rather than buying, mega yachts” they seemingly didn’t know “The impressive Wayfinder, one of the yachts in Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ fleet, is currently moored at the mega yacht marina in the Port of Malaga. Measuring 69 metres long and 14 metres wide, the Wayfinder has the task of servicing the Aqua mega yacht, the technology magnate’s main luxury vessel.” So he has a fleet, I didn’t know and for the most I do not care, but it shows just how much the Guardian embraces BS.

With the Guardian ignoring the EEA report, ignoring the fact that over 15 years 41,000 flights a day have been added and we do not get to see how much pollution that brings. So whilst we might trivialise some parts, the larger part is ignored and both the BBC and the Guardian might merely report and bring us opinion pieces, but we aren’t being informed. I wonder why that is. 

We might want to blame some of the players in that fossil fuel setting, but no one is pointing at the USA and its Brent crude oil, so why is that? I don’t have the answers and the media isn’t giving any. How weird is that? 

Enjoy your day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

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

December 6, 2023 · 02:36

Angle, Bigotry, Chauvinism

Yes, all words, these three words represent the bias of the media. And it has started some time ago. But here in this case lets take a look at Sky News (at https://news.sky.com/story/unprecedented-2-400-fuel-lobbyists-at-cop28-in-dubai-claim-campaigners-13023153). Here we are given ‘‘Unprecedented’ 2,400 fuel lobbyists at COP28 in Dubai, claim campaigners’ but that is not where the bias is. As we are given names like Amin Nasser (CEO Aramco) and Sultan Al Jaber. Yet what I find weird is that there is no names linked to Brent Crude oil, there is no mention anywhere in COP28 of anyone from Brent in this. Welcome to bias.

Then we get “At least 2,456 fuel lobbyists have been given access to the COP28 summit in Dubai” so not “more than 2,400” but an actual specific number. And it comes from the group called “Kick Big Polluters Out”,  or KBPO, which could also mean Keep Boneheaded Packs Out. You see, this is not on the oil industry, but on the media. When you consider “Many of the fossil fuel lobbyists are said to have gained access by being part of a trade organisation”. This gets us two questions. Were they all in the blue zone, or the green zone and what was the spread of these people? The second part is what countries were these 2456 people from? How many from the US? How many from Venezuela and Russia? All top-line numbers we aren’t given. So is this the angle Sky News (and others) are working with, or is this part of more? Like all the BS that places like ICIJ gives us with ‘emotional’ stories, devoid of real numbers, real groupings and clusters. The media is becoming less and less reliable. 

We see names like Shell, TotalEnergies, Equinor, BP, ExxonMobil and ENI. However, the name Brent Crude oil is absent, why is that? 

Why can’t the media do its job? Why can’t they give us CLEAR numbers. They got 2456, how did they get there? It might be right, but we aren’t given anything clear and that is the larger station. We aren’t given clarity and the media is making it worse through emotions, speculations and assumptions. How is that for media claiming to be independent, fair, balanced and proclaiming to be trustworthy.

The Guardian also gives us “Al Jaber is also the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, Adnoc, which many observers see as a serious conflict of interest”, yet no one is asking serious questions from the media and that is the larger failing. I have shown their failures for over two years and things are (as I personally see it) getting worse. It is all about the emotion and the digital dollar, in that process clear reporting seems to be going out the window. 

I wonder if we bulk all the reporting together, will we see anything clearly reported, or should we ask people from Monash University who sees to be there too? I will let you decide, but consider all the things we aren’t being told.

I have arrived to the middle of the week, see you all soon at this point as well.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

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

December 2, 2023 · 19:44

Two carbon based stories

Yup, we have carbon based cars, carbon based credit cards and also carbon based stories (this one). You see, two stories brought it up to the front in all this. The second story is given to us by the Guardian. It is ‘how a UAE sheikh quietly made carbon deals for forests bigger than UK’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/30/the-new-scramble-for-africa-how-a-uae-sheikh-quietly-made-carbon-deals-for-forests-bigger-than-uk) where we are given “The rights over vast tracts of African forest are being sold offin a series of huge carbon offsetting deals that cover an area of land larger than the UK. The deals, made by a little-known member of Dubai’s ruling royal family, encompass up to 20% of the countries concerned” and the one missing part is that this concerns Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum. We see here a larger impact into how business is done, how corporations and how governments do business. A simple setting, no laws broken and all on the up and up. 

You see, this relates to the entirety with the first article that we also got from the Guardian titled ‘Most sponsors of Cop28 have not signed up to UN-backed net zero targets’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/29/most-sponsors-cop28-not-signed-up-to-un-net-zero-targets). Here we see “Most companies sponsoring the UN climate talks in Dubai are not committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in line with globally recognised net zero targets, it has been revealed”. You see, the hands of the Guardian aren’t clean either. They refused (and failed) to report on the EEA report that showed that 50% of all the damage came from 147 facilities. They don’t give you that part do they? They will report on jets for rich people and whilst they hide behind their ‘walls’ they cater to who-knows-who. In addition there is the article from former NASA engineer Mark Rober (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7nJBFjKqAY) he showed how 20,000,000 trees were being planted. The article was from 2019 and so far they are at 24,513,083 trees. As such that team did more than most western governments. And they are still at it. So whilst we are pointing fingers and whilst the media is all about the blame game (more digital dollars) others are doing things, others are making it happen. Should Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum decide to donate to TeamTrees ($1 per tree) we could see that the UAE has done more by itself then all the European nations (and the United Kingdom) combined. Scary isn’t it?

Another field where America and Europe fall short. A simple equation and a simple outcome. So whilst we are all wondering what all that carbon tax is all about others are actually doing something about it, but the media will not give us that snippet of news, will they?

So whilst we consider that, also consider “The global accountancy firm EY, formerly Ernst and Young, which has been hired as the independent verifier of the climate record of all the sponsors, has also not set targets with the net zero scheme.” Another target not met, another target in the wind and the media stays quiet (or something like that). 

So whilst we look at COP28 and point fingers towards some, consider that it was that this Swedish Primary School kid named Greta Thunberg showed us that COP26 was all about ‘blah blah blah’ she was proven correct and how much media coverage did they get? So whilst CNN gives us ‘US announces rule to slash powerful planet-warming gas by nearly 80%’, the part we all seem to miss is that this target is set by 2038 and we should not forget that there is every chance that at that point there will be no United States of America left. When their debts explode, no environmental target will count, no target will matter but that part will only come to the surface AFTER the collapse (and that will make sense). 

So much blah blah blah and none of them are doing anything real about it, the only ones doing things and making things happen is TeamTrees, consider that this weekend.

Cheerio.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 28, 2023 · 00:55

Jokes in denial

Yup, we see that at times, we see the jokes making claims and then we see them equally in denial making us wonder what this was all about. This doesn’t start with the BBC article, yet it is a good starting point to make my case. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331) gives us ‘COP28: UAE planned to use climate talks to make oil deals’ and my first reaction is ‘and?’ You see good business is where you find it and a climate change event has hundreds of people all looking for an edge to make their bank accounts fat. This is not new, FIFA has done it for decades as has plenty of other players. But I digress. 

You see, we are then given “The documents – obtained by independent journalists at the Centre for Climate Reporting working alongside the BBC – were prepared by the UAE’s COP28 team for meetings with at least 27 foreign governments ahead of the COP28 summit, which starts on 30 November.” As such, where is the evidence? A mention of an independent journalist? Which one? Then we see a screenshot of something I could optionally create with PC Write in seconds (a 1983 text editor). If this is such a large issues, where is the ACTUAL evidence? This is the ICIJ joke all over again. Now consider the quote “This year it is being hosted by the UAE in Dubai and is due to be attended by 167 world leaders, including the Pope and King Charles III.” Now consider the setting the UK is in. Should the option arise where the UAE could sell the UK oil at $2 cheaper. Do you think that the UK would not accept? Consider that the UK In 2021, some 13 million metric tons of crude oil from Norway and that the larger image is “Norway ($11.7B), United States ($5.48B), Russia ($1.41B), Libya ($1.37B), and Nigeria ($1.19B)” (estimated numbers in 2021). That means that the UK would save well over a billion dollars. With the shortages they currently have a billion solves a lot of issues. Should it therefor not be done? Oh, and that is if there is ACTUAL evidence on the matter. I am willing to go on faith that ANY event will open doors to business arrangements. It will not hinder or lessen the impact of COP28 will it? And all this is related to someone claiming that they have documents, so where are they? What are these sources? Two simple questions.

The joke in denial
Now it is time to refer to the joke in denial. 

This all started with ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/), it was my response to that Guardian idiot with its ‘jets for the rich must stop’ You see the EEA had given us a document on environmental damage in December 2020, it shows that 147 facilities created 50% of that damage. I even added that document at the end.1% creates 50% of all the damage and the Guardian and the BBC never picked up on it, they didn’t even attack the document, they never drilled into the data. They did NOTHING. That makes them the jokes in denial. Now, if they opposed the document and handed us the evidence that would have been fair. But we got nothing and now we get even more garbage without actual or factual evidence. Why is that?

Consider that this day and have fun.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 21, 2023 · 06:31

Presentations by media jokes

It happens at times. Whilst we think that corporations are playing us, we are all being played by the media. The media and corporations hand in hand deceiving us all for a simple percentage. That is the feeling I have had for plenty of times, but this one (my speculated view) is just too opportune to ignore. So lets show you what I have and you can decide for yourself.

Part one
The first part is the story we have seen over the last 2-3 days. This version (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/11/20/sam-altman-will-not-return-as-ceo-of-openai/) is used as the other version I wanted to use (AFR) is behind a paywall. We see here ‘Sam Altman Will Not Return As CEO Of OpenAI’ with the added text “Supporters of Altman led by Microsoft and including investors and key employees had pressured OpenAI’s board of directors to take back Altman, or face the widespread resignation of OpenAI’s researchers and withdrawal of Microsoft’s support”. At this point three questions come to mind but I will hold off until a little later, it makes things a lot more clear. As such we see one corporation ‘cleaning’ its management setting, but ponder on those settings a little longer

Part two
The second part came hours later, but now we have a very strong defining place with ‘Microsoft hires former OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/20/sam-altman-openai-ceo-wont-return-chatgpt-talks-fail-emmett-shear-twitch) with the added “Microsoft has hired Sam Altman as head of a new advanced artificial intelligence team after attempts to reinstate him as chief executive of OpenAI failed.” At this point a few questions should emerge, but we are about to go into that part. 

Part three
This comes when we consider “At the end of a dramatic weekend of boardroom drama, the non-profit board of the San Francisco-based OpenAI has installed Emmett Shear, the co-founder of video streaming site Twitch, as the company’s third CEO in three days”

Part four
The questions that should come to mind are

  1. OpenAI is ruffle feathers when it is on a high in several directions?
  2. Sam Altman doesn’t have a non-compete clause?
  3. So, who is Emmett Shear, what is his expertise in presumed AI?

These three questions should have been on the mind of ALL media. OpenAI is on a high note on a hyped route towards whatever they present. But none of them did, I checked a dozen articles, they ALL overlooked issues here, so when does the media ‘overlook’ issues? We see all the emotional articles about staff resigning, about ‘demands’ in a stage where they (for now) have the upper hand. Oh and on a sideline, when you have such hyped IP, which corporation was the last place that had non-compete clauses in play, especially for players this size? 

That is beside the point on WHO became the replacement.

Part five
This is the kicker, this is the coup-de-grace of the entire equation. It is seen with Microsoft hiring Sam Altman. Microsoft now has a larger stake in a solution they wanted all along and through this media drama, they now get it a lot cheaper. So when would any player, in this case OpenAI shoot itself in the foot to this degree? We see now that ‘Weekend of OpenAI drama ends in a Microsoft coup’, ‘Microsoft Emerges as the Winner in OpenAI Chaos’ and ‘OpenAI’s leadership moves to Microsoft, propelling its stock up’, yes presentations by the media. The media used as the bitch of Microsoft and it is shown through questions that were clearly out in the open. Microsoft stock up and OpenAI becomes part of Microsoft for billions less. One could say (and I would not disagree) that this was a lovely play to reduce billions in tax payments and the media let it happen. All solutions that were clearly on the papers where ever you looked when you decided to seek for the right answers. As I personally see it, the media is simply the bitch of corporations and they all let it happen, all pushing the tax offices down the river in a canoe without a paddle. Well played Microsoft.

So consider what played over a weekend, consider what any corporation would do to protect its multi billion dollar value. I think that OpenAI was part of this stage from the very beginning, but that is my speculated view.

Enjoy your Monday, it’s Tuesday here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 22, 2023 · 19:08

The thin ice

We all know the expression, no skating on thin ice. Yet when you think of it, when was the last time you saw thin ice? We all hear it, but when did you yourself, with your own eyes see a case of thin ice? We tend to think it is a danger avoided, but when no one sees that danger, is it a danger? Don’t get me wrong, I am not doubting that thin ice exists, before ice is thick enough to carry our weights it will be thin ice. A lot of thin ice seeing is assumption. We see ice and we see no one else skating on it, as such we take it for granted that THAT part is thin ice. Hold on to that thought because I am about to give light to two very different articles.

Arab News
The first was Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2395561/business-economy) where we see ‘Saudi banks’ residential loans surge in August as apartments gain prominence’. This article seems nice, but when you read it we are given two parts. The first one is “Mortgage lending to houses, apartments and lands rose to SR7.14 billion in August from SR5.43 billion in July” This is a 30% rise in a month and that is huge. Now there are other factors on play like trends. How was that last year versus this year and a few other things, but 30% matters. In addition we are given “The increase in apartment financing by Saudi banks compared to house financing is due to the increase in prices of houses and private villas compared to the prices of apartments, which has made villas and houses unaffordable to average-income individuals,” and this comes from Talat Zaki Hafiz, an economist and financial analyst. There is the added “Notably, financing of houses still dominates Saudi banks’ new residential mortgage landscape, constituting a 70 percent share in August. While apartments comprised 25 percent of the pie, land financing held the remaining 5 percent.” It seems that the Saudi banks have things well in hand. We can also infer that people are in a better state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is in a better state and the people are setting their lives accordingly. Now, this is speculative, but if the economy was really bad real estate would not skyrocket by 30%, so something is going right there. 

The Guardian
The guardian gives us a very different story in the UK (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/21/mortgage-debts-and-bust-firms-put-uk-banks-profits-under-pressure) there we are given ‘Mortgage debts and bust firms put UK banks’ profits under pressure’. Now we can argue that the UK has twice the amount of people and that is true, yet as I personally see it, banking is banking. If a bank has a certain margin, having twice that margin implies that bank is twice as rich. Now, I get it, it is not that simple, but read me out.

We are given “Bosses watched in horror as a mini-banking crash led to the collapse of a string of US lenders including Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and later Switzerland’s largest lender, Credit Suisse.” Here we have a problem, what I speculated all along and I saw one part revealed in April was “SVB had few traditional banking uses for the cash that piled up, it instead invested $91 billion in Treasury bonds and U.S. government agency mortgage-backed securities between 2020 and 2021. This brought SVB’s investments to roughly half its total assets.” You see, this was stupid greed and I warned in advance of it, more than once actually and the Guardian does not mention treasury bonds once, there is a whole engine spinning news and misdirecting news all over the media. The speculative setting is that owners of US treasury bonds will auto renew or lose a lot of money, so what would you do if you were the idiot relying on a 2% payday of $91,000,000,000? That amounts to a $1.87 billion payday. I would do the same thing, but these banks used their clients money to hedge that bet and the US government was eager to cater to that level of greed. I reckon that this is why Janet Yellen kept a close eye on this. In addition, I wonder how deep Credit Suisse was involved. 

Yet the setting is housing and “By July, the former Ukip leader Nigel Farage went to war with NatWest over plans to close his accounts at its private bank, Coutts.” Really? One account has that much impact? You see ‘Coutts bank boss quits in row over Nigel Farage’s canceled account’ some might see this as a joke, but for Peter Flavel the boss in question it is not a joke. There is something wrong with banking and banks all over the west. Don’t ask me what, but all these events are part of a larger problem, a problem that involves stake holders blending the message for banks and as I personally see it, the Guardian has been catering to these stake holders. It is highly speculative but even as this truth is given “Speaking to broadcasters Thursday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it “wasn’t right for people to be deprived of basic services like banking because of their views.” I think it wasn’t the views (alone). I reckon that some views opposing the current need is a larger setting and people like Farage could be able to spot that in the documentation handed to them, moreover certain banks have been skating on the thin ice for too long and at some point someone will sink through the ice. That is the danger of the thin ice. For the longest time the thin ice was an urban myth at best, because we never aw cases. But the British banks are in a spot of bother and people like Nigel Farage would shine a big light on that problem, better to get rid of these people and when banks do that, when banks do that to politically A-listers, how much trouble are they really in. You see in March 12th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/03/12/i-honestly-dont-get-it/) I raised a few questions regarding bonds and the eager beavers in the media never looked at that part, not the Times, not the Guardian, not any respectable newspaper as I personally see it. So why not? What trouble is America trying to pass over thin ice? What are we not told and isn’t that the duty of banks to inform their customers? I reckon that Saudi Banks are doing a lot better because they do not cater to anything else but their goals and the goals of THEIR customers. I could be wrong, but considering that we are left in the dark for over 6 months, all whilst Saudi banks are doing 30% better in a month implies something. It implies that they are doing something right.

 Enjoy the last day of the weekend, Monday is soon here, here it will arrive in less than 300 minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

October 13, 2023 · 02:12

What is what?

That is the question and the Guardian brought it to the surface. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/12/human-rights-experts-warn-against-european-crackdown-on-climate-protesters) gives us ‘Human rights experts warn against European crackdown on climate protesters’ the story here is triggered by “The crackdowns have come in spite of calls by senior human rights advocates and environmental campaigners to allow civic space for the right to non-violent protest” I get it, it sounds acceptable, but it is not. By blocking roads these eco-terrorists decided to stop commerce. Especially in the UK, where there is a larger mobile workforce. These labourers are stopped as roads are stopped, as public transportation is blocked and these people often merely getting by with the smallest of margins miss sales points, miss consultancy points because of Just stop oil and the people have had enough. These labourers are now in a stage to work two jobs merely to get by, merely to feed their families. You see, a terrorist is described as “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”, as I see it “a person who uses threats and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims” equally applies. The threats are given by stopping people to make a living, endangering the living of the people relying on these craftsman. It becomes eco-terrorism. But I am willing to give these human rights people a chance. In accordance to the needs of just stop oil. Lets sign over 100,000 barrels a day, meant for the UK and hand it to China. You see we get two distinct settings. In the first the UK economy comes to a halt. These Just stop oil fools will win and that is fine. You see these 100,000 barrels of oil will be used. Now by China and now we see the larger picture. The Just Stop Oil fools gained nothing, merely the downfall of the British economy. But let’s leave this to the Human Rights experts. This was a setting that was clear from the very beginning. This world rotates around the commodity oil, there is no escaping it and when change was possible, the politicians acted against that and the USA is still acting against that. This is why the western economies are on the verge of collapse. In an age where every little margin counts the Just Stop Oil fools are just too stupid to realise that they have become part of the problem. 

Those in denials need every week they can get and these eco-terrorists are in the way of this. 

So, when we are given “Michel Forst, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders since June last year, described the situation in the UK as “terrifying”. He added that other countries were “looking at the UK examples with a view to passing similar laws in their own countries, which will have a devastating effect for Europe”” It is my personal view that Michel Forst isn’t working with a full deck. Governments have overspend their credit cards by billions, several by trillions. This implies that the only way out of this (deeply delusional) is to keep the economy working on all thrusters, whomever interferes with this is a problem for any government and that is the short and sweet of this and the people who are on the short end of that stick are happy to put eco-terrorists in jail for years to come. The larger station becomes who is fuelling these idiots at Just Stop Oil? You see, the papers (many) are calling this ‘civil disobedience’, yet the larger station isn’t that. They are disrupting places that are not part of the Just Stop Oil focus. How is disrupting a play, or a World Snooker Championship an protest against oil use? This is about unsettling the simple pleasures some people have and some want to watch world snooker. This is what makes them eco-terrorists. Threatening intimidation to gain points towards political aims and that isn’t working. Even the marriage of the former prime minister George Osborne was disrupted as an action. Some were eager to deny events, but the damage is done. The little sympathy they had in the beginning is all used up. The people have had enough and governments are not in an accepting state, their debts are adding to too much and that is a stage where whatever human rights values are out there, the moment it goes against the bottom dollar it is disregarded and people like Michel Forst should have known that. So it isn’t terrifying, it just is and it is the consequence of too much inaction. Too much inaction in the UK, in the EU and in the USA, optionally in Canada too and those boffins at the Human Rights Watch better realise that some things can no longer be tolerated all over Europe. It has gone so far that the total debt of the EU is suddenly nowhere to be found. We have the debt of nations, but I reckon someone is in a state of mind that we will not investigate. So consider Germany with a debt of 2,699,152,920,239 €, France has a debt of 2,699,527,284,525 € and Italy has a debt of 3,010,345,598,675 €. These are merely three nations of the EU. Three out of 19, the total debt of the EU is staggering, it now almost dwarves the debt of Japan and I reckon will equal the total debt of the USA within 5 years. That is how bad it is and you think these governments will allow Just Stop Oil to continue on its path? You must be joking. 

There is no good new, there is no relief. You see we all need oil and we do not have it. You can shout all you want and we can accept this. We can also give the reigns to Just Stop Oil and hand the oil to China. China will love this, yet the fact that the EU and UK economies collapse as oil becomes a non-option? Did anyone consider that? Also as the EU is now heading towards winter, the lack of oil will have larger impact on the citizens of the EU and UK, but I reckon everyone considered that part already, did they?

When human rights are set against the practicality of an economy, the economy will win every time it happens. And that is what we are seeing in action at this very moment. 

Enjoy the day, the weekend is about to land on our timelines. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

September 7, 2023 · 10:03

Media Markets

That was what stuck in my mind when I saw the Guardian view of Starfield. The writer Keza MacDonald crying like a little girl, giving us view and “Along with several others, including the greatly respected games publications Eurogamer and Edge, we were left waiting until the game’s early access release last Friday to play it.” Yes, there is seemingly some cherry picking happening, but that has been the case for years. What does matter is that Starfield is not that great release. Some ratings are as low as 70%, that is a massive miss for the budget and alignment of stars. Skyrim with one exception was a 90% plus all across the board. There is a reason that this game has been heralded since 11.11.11, not because 11 is the crazy number (yo figure that part out). Skyrim is no matter how critics see it mind boggling. It still rocks the current generation hardware based on a previous generation console specifications. So when the Guardian gives us “It is very much like No Man’s Skyrim, as much about menus and mining and navigation as it is about finding interesting quest-lines and exploring planets on a whim”. For me this is funny as both Skyrim and No Man’s Sky are ‘earth’ shattering products, they are both unique in their own way and it seems that Starfield is neither. The reviewer gives us “Starfield has had a mixed but broadly positive reception so far”. The article reads like a cry song on how the Guardian is not one of the chosen few, but does it give a good view of Starfield? Nope, it does not. No we are given “Negotiating all this is part of the job for games journalists” all whilst the title ‘Bethesda chose not to give us early access to Starfield – and it’s readers who lose out’. My view? Nope, the readers lost out as you whined like a little bitch. So when we are given “I am reliably informed that this is one of those games that might get its hooks into you after the first 10 or even 20 hours” with the added “though, the forthcoming fantasy Elder Scrolls 6 might be a more worthwhile investment of time” and that is a review? Go cry me a river. Oh, and before I forget the new Eder Scrolls 6 is (for now) not expected before 2026. Does that mean you will whine another 2 years? So the Guardian shirked their duty (as I see it), when the floodgates go away they could have given us the goods. What is good, what is less and what sucks. No, we get a ‘I am not a chosen reviewer cry song’. 

Early access is marketing and I get that and Bethesda, Microsoft and pretty much EVERY game developers will hand over their cherries to the best source of gaming news, which is in this case anyone with the right following that will sing praise of their game. A YouTube reviewer called Parris gave the game four out of five, which translates to an 80% game. He gave us the goods why it is great, on things that are not great and things that need improvement. His review (for a lack of better term) was stellar. That is the review that makes me buy a game and that matters to Bethesda, that was their goal and he delivered on that with  (what I believe to be ) a honest opinion. I see and in this case saw way too many reviews. Plenty of haters there too (not sure why). You see an RPG is rather specific. It is a niche game which grew from small to huge in less than 10 years and Bethesda has been the major driving force in that growth. I believe that they opened the floodgates with Oblivion and the flood never stopped since 2006. Bethesda pulled that off and the added water damage that Fallout 3 brought just kept on going. So we all might have set our views to high after Skyrim, a true crowning achievement for any developer. 

So what went wrong?
I believe that the media is part of that problem, the digital dollars made for a new kind of writing and games are not part of that equation. The media now relies on self proclaimed hypes and that does not sit well with the current developers. Portkey games is a mere example (Hogwarts Legacy) and now Bethesda. So will the media adjust, or will we see another cry story when Guerrilla Software selects their reviewers for the third Horizons game? There is no indication, but that might come before Elder Scrolls 6 (speculative wishful thinking). In the meantime there is a lot more coming and it is not on some developers. You see, I have been trying to keep tabs on the new Tencent Technology handheld console which they are doing with Logitech and how much media have we seen? Not that much. Is it an anti-China thing? That new console will bite into the marketshare of Amazon and Microsoft for sure. It will support Microsoft gaming and as such it will grow fast, but the media seemingly ignored it to the largest extent. I keep tabs on it as it could facilitate my IP and if Tencent wants the 50 million new subscriptions, it can. Amazon seemingly doesn’t want it, Google dropped it Stadia and now Tencent has the option of getting in excess of 50 million new ‘gamers’, surpassing Microsoft within a year, just like Nintendo did with its Switch. Should this come to pass, Tencent technologies will come close to Sony, closer than Microsoft has EVER been. This all matters because the media is keeping gamers in the dark. So when we reconsider the headline part ‘and it’s readers who lose out’ it is not that, it is the media who changed the way they wrote, to adhere to digital dollars, to adhere to emotional flames and that is what most readers are a little sick of. It drive me to create an IP that pushes Facebook and others out of the way. Gamers want to game, but the console has other options too and with streaming that now comes to the surface and a player like Google should have been on the front lines there, not dumping their stadia, but that might merely be me. 

So there will be an upside for Bethesda/Microsoft. Even as their console is no longer the bees knees (it never was), Tencent Technologies could fill a gap that Bethesda might assist filling. Yet I do believe that they need to have a very hearty conversation with reviewers like Parris Lilly (gamertech radio) to upgrade Starfield to ‘Starfield More’. It could propel Starfield from a average 70%+ game to the game that it needed to be (85%-90%) and that would be a massive increase and gamers will applaud that setting. What is funny is that streaming allows for this and for Bethesda to push that envelope to a new setting might be a way to go (merely one of a few) but the crying Keza MacDonald (at the Guardian) didn’t think that through. No, crying and waiting for a 2026 release was the answer that the reader was given. Within an hour I offered a new destiny, a new horizon and a new hope (yes, a Star Wars reference) which in this case applies in more than one way. 

And for me? Well if it comes to the Tencent handheld I might actually play Starfield as well, it might even be a reason to get that handheld (My Switch just died). And that is the gamer field, the gamer field is forever in motion. We might hate Microsoft, we might hate Sony, but we are always looking on that next fix that gaming provides for. All gamers seek it and we are minds forever voyaging (yes, a gaming pun). 

So what next?
Well to be honest, I had closed the Starfield book, mainly because I am not playing it. Yet the Guardian opened that door again with that pathetic article and blood needed to be drawn (I sharpened my Yanagiba knife for the occasion). As stated in earlier articles, I believe in fair play and being honest with shedding blood and tears. Simply put, I will not shed a tear when shedding Microsoft blood, they did it to themselves, but the media doesn’t get that consideration. The media market changed and even as it is not always visible, it tends to be overly visible in gaming. Gamers are a funny lot (I am one of them), pushing their buttons comes at a price, which Don Mattrick learned the hard way on May 21st 2013, now a little over 10 years ago and Microsoft is still bleeding from that event. More-so if Tencent surpasses them by December 2024. Still it is not merely Microsoft, it is the media spin that is pushing gamers into new fields and even as Starfield was to be that force, it is not to late for Starfield, they still have options. I believe that Bethesda has a hidden diamond there. Am I right? I am not certain, but a game that took this much time, energy and resources cannot die on an average setting, Bethesda has created too many great titles for a new IP just to sizzle and that is my view on the matter.

Enjoy the day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Science

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

August 20, 2023 · 22:20

Look back in anger

We all face moments when we sort of lose it. I had that yesterday when I saw an article by the CBC. I learned a long time ago that I should not write from a setting of anger (it never ends well for the writer), so I parked the article until now and now is the time. I am still angry, but a lot less so, as such I feel certain I can give the little bastard tit-for-tat.

The article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-us-cluster-bombs-1.6940961) gives us ‘U.S. provided Ukraine with cluster bombs to fight Russia. Survivors say they should never be used’ as a sentiment I cannot disagree, yet in this case Nick Logan (the bastard in question) is giving us a very one-sided non-informing setting. One view given to us is “Russian use has been extensive while Ukrainian use has been more limited. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are signatories of the of the 2008 convention limiting the use of cluster munitions”, and that is not all.

Another source gives us “Although the Russian side denies accusations of using cluster munitions in residential areas, international and non-governmental organisations have reported such attacks. By the beginning of April, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies were reporting cluster munition shelling in Kharkiv, Sumy, Kyiv, Donetsk, Odesa, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions. By July 1, Cluster Munition Coalition reports shelling in Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson and Chernihiv regions. Testimony from independent weapons experts confirmed that a number of cluster rounds were dropped on residential buildings and civilian infrastructure.” This comes as an amalgamation of sources which includes the Wall Street Journal, BBC News, the Guardian and the Monitor. As such, why is (what I regard to be a little shit like) Nick Logan diminishing the actions by Russia and mentioning Russia 16 times, but extremely often as a ‘victim’ all whilst Russia demolished most of the Ukraine, including Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson and Chernihiv regions and pretty much all of these regions whilst utilising cluster munition. Why is the article by Nick Logan falling short there? Russia is getting what it has served the citizens of Ukraine and that is the first thing that Nick Logan should have reported on. I get the sentiment that cluster munitions are horrible. War is horrible, yet the Ukraine did not start this and having someone making nice with Russia to THIS degree has no business being a reporter for CBC or a reporter for any Commonwealth nation for that matter. So when I look back in anger, I look towards the facilitation of a terrorist state by too many media sources. For that matter, how many corporations are still doing business with Russia? How many are Canadian (or Commonwealth for that matter) and how much longer will we allow people like Nick Logan making BS reports whilst facilitating for some terrorist state? According to several sources (see above) the Russians started using cluster munition in 2014. It was in July 2023 when we got told “John Kirby confirmed later on Thursday that Ukrainians forces have begun using the munitions.” That is almost 9 years later, but the CBC did not give us that, did they? They merely gave us “Police look at fragments of Russian rockets, including cluster rounds, that hit the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on Dec. 3, 2022. In July, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia had a ‘sufficient stockpile’ of cluster munitions, warning it ‘reserves the right to take reciprocal action’ if Ukraine uses the controversial weapons provided by the U.S.” So, how deceptive was that part? How much reporting do we see that Russia used these cluster munitions from 2014 onwards? 

As such the next part is for Brodie Fenlon (editor of CBC). Brodie you have some fixing to do. This level of reporting is unacceptable. I expected the CBC to be better than this and it is up to you to fix this, no one else. It was allowed on your watch, you get to fix your watch (and your watchdogs). A massive injustice was done to the Ukraine and to your readers by allowing this hatchet job to become mainstream news. 

I think I got the anger out of my system, after I let it wind down a little. I let you decide to see if I was wrong or not. 

Enjoy the last day of the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

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

August 15, 2023 · 19:04

When the marketshare is murder

That is the setting and at first I would not really believe it. It sounded correct, but to be honest. I did not think that a place like Microsoft would intentionally target victims, but then there was a second source, the Guardian no less and that’s hen the disgust set in.

You see we know advertisements, we know advertisers, but for a system like Xandr to intentionally target people with gambling problems is a new low, even for Microsoft. This is what the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/15/tab-gamblers-betting-australia-targeted-microsoft-xandr-advertising-database) gives us. The article heads the accusation with ‘‘Heavy TAB gamblers’ among groups targeted by online advertising database’, there we are told “The dataset of 650,000 international “audience segments” was discovered on the website of Microsoft’s advertising technology platform Xandr by Wolfie Christl, a privacy researcher at Cracked Labs. It listed dozens of data providers looking to offer advertisers the ability to reach certain types of people online”, so not only does the law seem unable to deal with drug pushers, now they are enabling a place like Microsoft to hit the internet by ‘gamble pushing’ victims of this event. As such we get “Of the more than 40 categories identified as related to Australian gamblers, the majority were split into subsets related to gambling interest, sport interest or a particular venue: “Gambling at Pub / Club”, “Spring Carnival Punters” and “Online Gaming – NRL”, for example”. I think it gives a new meaning to the slogan “Long may we play”, perhaps it should be “long may we exploit the gamer”, even though gamer is a stretch, the fact that I have seen scores of these advertising on on Apple, my thought might not be too far away from the reality that people face. Then we go into the unknown with “Everything from our location to our purchase history are data points that can be packaged and used to serve advertising, often through the creation of profiles based on assumptions about our demographics or potential interests. But we know remarkably little about how the ecosystem works.” So not only were we served all kinds of BS against Facebook and Google Ads. These same BS servers have no idea what Microsoft with its Xandr is up to? How is that for slow minded investigations? 

Even the excuse was ‘outdated’ and moronic. What we get is “Microsoft said in a statement to Guardian Australia that the document was inadvertently published on its website and was outdated. The spokesperson said Xandr’s data privacy practices were regularly evaluated “to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws”.” The words inadvertently and outdated are stop words into nothing. The fact that this data existed was wrong to begin with, they were going after a marketshare, the desperate (as I see Microsoft) are so hungry for revenue that they are willing to look the other way in too many cases. I believe it was 10 years ago when I wrote an article with data that Microsoft was uploading xbox data in excess of 20GB in a month. So, why was that? It was also on dates when I never touched a multiplayer game, I checked the data and the amounts and they did not add up. Was that to feed Xandr? Was that to feed other needs? So what would have happened when Microsoft got to complete the Activision Blizzard deal? How much data would Microsoft get access to? I wonder how many people took a hard look at that, because in March that was 368 million gamers and all that data would be going somewhere, would it not? It might be nice for Activision, but I have some hardcore reservations when Microsoft gets involved. And now that we see the accusations by the Guardian, the show changes. The fact that Microsoft would allow to hammer the people with a weakness to gambling makes me wonder how they are getting the other $198.3 billion in 2022 with 6.8% more in 2023. So how many victims did Microsoft approach? All questions, but there is a downside there, the questions should not even exist and that it the disgusting part of this setting. Until today I never thought Microsoft could sink that low, but there is space to think they could do worse and that is an unsettling stage. So where are these high and mighty senators now? They were all willing to grill Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg. Where are they now? Does Satya Nadella have too many friends in the senate? Is that why they think they could avoid this? Inadvertently is not an excuse, outdated is no excuse, that dataset should never have existed in the first place and that is now the larger question. Why was that dataset created in the first place. One source gives us “Xandr is used by 0.8% of all the websites whose advertising network we know”, yet what we need to realise that there are (according to some) 1,986,154,062 websites, even at 0.4% that amounts to 7944616 websites and if even one of them is Yahoo or any media site, the damage gets to be astronomical. But I reckon those senators will gladly pass over those numbers, won’t they?

We get it, advertisements are part of our daily life, but what happens when victims are intentionally targeted on their soft spots? Did you think that through?

Enjoy the week and remember the next gambling advertisement could be a mere click away if you are being targeted by Xandr.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Politics, Science

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