Tag Archives: the United Kingdom

September 23, 2025 · 11:30

The time has come

I have been sitting on a story for about three days. I have been hesitant as it is a field I am thoroughly unaware off, but it could hit me in the future and as we are given (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-19/first-guardian-shield-collapse-asic-and-superannuation-flaws/105783328) the setting of ‘First Guardian, Shield superannuation disasters expose deep flaws in Australia’s $4.3 trillion retirement system’ we see that ABC is giving us not only cause for pause, but also cause for alarm we are set in a stage of almost desperate inability to protect our retirements. And lets be clear if Australia is set to a $4.3 trillion danger, what is the dangers towards America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany? 

I tried to illustrate dangers like this in ‘Wages of fear’ which I wrote in May 2023, two years ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/05/02/wages-of-fear/) and there I wrote “Lets be clear, this was NOT his fault, but the point where we cannot avoid what comes next was achieved. If only people had woken up a lot sooner. But there we got past a point where the problems would accelerate and now we are almost at that point. And the banks will be no help. I tried to warn you a few times over. Some of their risk and liquidity is in US bonds and when the US forfeits payment your 401K and many other things will become worth close to nothing” Now the fair question is, is this the same? I don’t think it is, but there is a larger failing into the retirement systems as it is not a hands on pathway. ABC in another story hands us “Ms Wohlers is one of about 12,000 Australians haunted by the loss of more than $1 billion of retirement savings after the collapses of First Guardian and Shield.” As well as “ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court, who has commonly described the First Guardian and Shield cases as “industrial-scale misconduct”, says the regulator acted as soon as it could. “We don’t think we missed red flags,” she told ABC News ahead of ASIC’s appearance at a parliamentary hearing on Thursday, when she was grilled by politicians about whether it was a tough cop on the beat properly identifying financial misconduct.” And it relates to the story we are given with ‘140 targeted by ASIC on Shield, First Guardian’ as I see it, a mess of a disastrous kind. Where the latter gives us “So, for example, the financial advisers are saying to us ‘you can’t hold us accountable for this because the ratings house had rated the Shield Master Fund as of investment grade’, while superannuation fund trustees are telling us the same – ‘well, we relied on the ratings houses’, or ‘we relied on the fact that these members had financial advice’,” (Source: Financial Newswire) I see it as a setting where there is a ring setting with no beginning and no end. I am in a setting where Microsoft could steal my IP and my only defense would be to convict 280,000 Microsoft employees to death and kill them myself. I get that this is utter madness, but that would be the result of one party just playing a game with other whilst that party knows that they cannot be held to account. I remember the rating houses in 2008 and they got away whilst millions lost it all. I see the simpler setting “You take from me, I take from you” and the setting that Microsoft losing over 45% of its staff (I am utterly destined to fail) making it implode on itself. Now take that to the setting of rating houses and the the truth comes out (if it ever does) the people need to react and react harshly. It is not ‘business as usual’ it will become business at the cost of souls and that is a harsh reality to face.

So whilst some will lawyer up and that is their right, they should not be allowed to walk away with even a dime. I reckon that they will sue the rating houses and those rating houses will need to get sanitized (to some extent) because losing billions is a larger setting and when Australia with their billions in losses (up to 4,300 billion) the setting for America and Canada is a lot more severe. And America up to ten times as much as Canada faces. And about a month ago we were given ‘ASIC takes further action against Ferras Merhi over First Guardian and Shield superannuation advice’ where we are given “ASIC has sought leave from the Federal Court to expand its existing proceeding against former financial adviser Ferras Merhi to allege he engaged in unconscionable conduct, failed to act in the best interests of clients, gave conflicted advice, and provided defective statements of advice whilst receiving millions of dollars.” Yet my question becomes did Ferras Merhi do anything illegal? You see, in my setting I would be, but did he do anything illegal? The setting revolves around “provided defective statements of advice whilst receiving millions of dollars”, so what makes a statement ‘defective’? You see, I am not protecting Ferras Mehri. I am looking at the following:

s12CB of the ASIC Act – engaging in conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of financial services, which was in all the circumstances unconscionable.

So, what makes the setting of “all the circumstances unconscionable” an economist looks at this in one way and I as a law graduate and IT technician in another way. 

Then we get:
s952E of the Corporations Act – providing defective disclosure documents. As such, what makes the documents “defective disclosure documents”, I do not know and I look at them separately as that is what the law does and when merely one law falters, it all collapses (it matters later on).

Then we get:
s961B of the Corporations Act – failure to act in their client’s best interests, and what is that at the start? Most clients are ‘greed’ driven, they want the highest return and that is ‘their’ best interest. It is a hard lesson to learn that looking back the client gave the wrong advice to the advisor. I myself only work a balanced portfolio, I will never make large leaps but then again I am unlikely to lose a lot either. 

So in that setting we see:
the Court made interim freezing orders over Mr Merhi’s property. These orders remain in place until 12 December 2025 (25-024MR).
ASIC cancelled the AFSL of FSGA, effective 7 June 2025 and permanently banned its responsible manager (25-102MR).
In July 2025, the Court made travel restraint orders against Mr Merhi. Those orders prevent him from leaving or attempting to leave Australia until 12 December 2025, or until further order of the Court (25-024MR).

That is fair enough I reckon. But now we get to the settings that ABC at the top gave. We see there “In all of these cases, no criminal charges have been laid, but ASIC is heading to court to make allegations against the people at the centre of the Shield and First Guardian funds — those involved in managing and promoting the schemes.” The no criminal charges gives pause to consider that no criminal acts have transpired and when we look at some of the allegations the two that take the cake (a Tiramisu cake) is that the settings of “defective disclosure documents” must be proven and the lawyers will fight that. Then we get “all the circumstances unconscionable” and that is the ballgame, ‘unconscionable’ is not per se illegal and it is about the legality of the matter in court and that is the setting we see. So when I made a statement two years ago saying “Some of their risk and liquidity is in US bonds and when the US forfeits payment your 401K and many other things will become worth close to nothing” we see what bonds were worth 5 years ago. There we see “For the year, long-term U.S. Treasuries were by far the best-performing fixed-income investments, with a nearly 17% gain,” (source: Reuters) at present they are “the 10-year yield settled around 4.36%” that represents a loss of 13%, so who pays for that bond? This was a danger I saw 5 years ago (as uneconomical as I am) and 10 years ago I heard people to buy bonds as the interest is like free money and I stopped. There is no free ride and this is almost pushed into the AI field all whilst there is no verification in place. All settings that are interconnected and we now see the ABC giving us “expose deep flaws in Australia’s $4.3 trillion retirement system” so, what do you think you will end up with because as I see it, there is the chance that these people can do what they like all whilst there is no criminal accountability. Yes, he is stopped for now, but Ferras Merhi is about to walk away with more than $19 million in payments. As such he is willing to sweat it out for a few months. It is a lot more (like 79.2581 times more) than I ever made in my lifetime. 

So I see this case that ABC alerted me to with some suspicion. These people live by the setting of walking the edge of legality, there is no risk at that edge and I expect that Ferras Merhi is doing just that not doing anything illegal. As such 12,000 Australians are about to learn that they could lose it all without any illegal actions transpiring and I fault it to two settings (mentioned above) and we all considering setting the clocks to Islam where we see “Islamic banking prohibits the use of interest, speculation, and excessive risk. It emphasizes profit and loss sharing, fairness, honesty, and transparency in financial dealings.” By the way this setting was in place for hundreds of years. 

Have a great day and see that Statista gives us “Robusta, named because it can grow at a wider range of altitudes and temperatures, sold for 1.87 U.S. dollars in 2018, projected to sell at 5 U.S. dollars per kilogram in 2026” did you predict in 2018 that you would be setting your retirement to pay 267% for your coffee?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

May 30, 2025 · 15:34

The size of that

Something no woman has ever sad to me, but that is for another day. You see, the story (at https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/saudi-arabias-ai-co-humain-looking-for-us-data-center-equity-partner-targets-66gw-by-2034-with-subsidized-electricity/) In this DCD ( Data Center Dynamics) gives us ‘Saudi Arabia’s AI co. Humain looking for US data center equity partner, targets 6.6GW by 2034 with subsidized electricity’ and they throw numbers at us. First there is the money “Plans $10bn venture fund to invest in AI companies”, which seems fair enough. But after that we get “The company said that it would buy 18,000 Nvidia GB300 chips with “several hundred thousand” more on the way, that it was partnering with AWS for a $5bn ‘AI Zone,’ signed a deal with AMD for 500MW of compute, and deployed Groq chips for inference.” I reckon that will split and split again, the shares of Nvidia. Then we get the $5 billion AI zone and then the AMD deal for 500MW of compute and deployed Groq chips for a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Yes, that is quite the mouthful. After that we get a pause for the “How much of Humain’s data center focus will be on Saudi-based facilities is unclear – its AMD deal mentions sites in the US.” As such, we need to see what this is all about and I am hesitant to mention conclusions for a field that I am not aware of. Yet, the nagging feeling is in the back of my mind and it is jostling in an annoying way. You see, lets employ somewhat incorrect math (I know it is not a correct way). Consider 18,000 computers draining the energy net of 500 watt per system per second. That amounts to 9,000 GW energy (speculatively), and that is just the starting 18,000. As such the setting will be several times the amount needed for fueling these AI centers. Now, I know my calculations are widely of and we are given “At first, it plans to build a 50MW data center with 18,000 Nvidia GPUs for next year, increasing to 500MW in phases. It also has 2.3 square miles of land in the Eastern Province, which could host ten 200MW data centers.” I am not attacking this, but when we take into consideration that amount of energy requirements for processors, storage, cooling and maintaining the workflow my head comes up short (it usually does) and the immediate thought is where is this power coming from? As I see it, you will need a decently build Nuclear reactor and that reactor needs to be started in about 8 hours for that timeline to be met. Feel free to doubt me, I already am. Yet the needed energy to fuel a 66GW Data centre of any kind needs massive power support. And the need for Huawei to spice up the data cables somewhat. As I roughly see it, a center like that needs to plough through all the spam internet it gets on a near 10 seconds setting. That is all the spam it can muster in a year per minute (totally inaccurate, but you get the point). The setting that the world isn’t ready for this and it is given to us all in a mere paragraph. 

Now, I do not doubt the intent of the setting and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is really sincere to get to the ‘AI field’ as it is set, but at present the western setting is like what builder thought it would be and overreached (as I see it) and fraudulently set the stations of what they believed AI was and blew away a billion dollars in no time at all (and dragged Microsoft along with it) as they backed this venture. This gives me donut (which I already had) on the AI field as the AI field is more robust as I saw it (leaning on the learnings of Alan Turing) and it is a lot more robust then DML (Deeper Machine Learning) and LLM (Large Language Models), it really is. And for that I fear for the salespeople who tried to sell this concept, because when they say “Alas, it didn’t work. We tried, but we aren’t ready yet”, will be met with some swift justice in the halls of Saudi Arabia. Heads will roll intuit instance and they had that coming as I foresaw this a while before 2034. (It is 2025 now, and I am already on that page). 

Merely two years ago MIT Management gave us ‘Why neural net pioneer Geoffrey Hinton is sounding the alarm on AI’ and there we get the thing I have warned about for years “In a widely discussed interview with The New York Times, Hinton said generative intelligence could spread misinformation and, eventually, threaten humanity.” I saw this coming a mile away (in 2020, I think) You see, these salespeople are so driven to their revenue slot that they forget about Data verification and data centers require and ACTUAL AI to drag trough the data verifying it all. This isn’t some ‘futuristic’ setting of what might be, it is a certainty that non-verified data breeds inaccuracies and we will get inaccuracy on inaccuracy making things go from bad to worse. So what does that look on a 66GW system? Well, for that we merely need to look back to the 80’s when the term GIGO was invented. It is a mere setting of ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’ no hidden snags, no hidden loopholes. A simple setting that selling garbage as data leaves is with garbage, nothing more. As such as I saw it, I looked at the article and the throwing of large numbers and people thought “Oh yes, there is a job in there for me too” and I merely thought, what will fuel this? And band that, who can manage the see-through of the data and the verification process, because with those systems in place a simple act of sabotage by adding a random data set to the chain will have irreparable consequences in that data result. 

So, as the DCD set that, they pretty much end the setting with “By 2030, the company hopes to process seven percent of the globe’s training and inference workloads. For the facilities deployed in the kingdom, Riyadh will subsidize electricity prices.” And in this my thoughts are Where is that energy coming from?” A simple setting which comes with (a largely speculative setting) that such a reactor needs to be a Generation IV reactor, which doesn’t exist yet. And in this the World Nuclear Association in 2015 suggested that some might enter commercial operation before 2030 (exact date unknown), yet some years ago we were given that the active member era were “Australia, Canada, China, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), France, Japan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States” there is no mention of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and I reckon they would be presenting all kinds of voices against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (as well as the UAE) being the first to have one of those. It is my merely speculative nature to voice this. I am not saying that the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) is a passively safe generation III+ reactor could not do this, but the largest one is being build by Hitachi (a mere 4500MW) and it is not build yet. The NRC granted design approval in September 2014, and it is currently not build yet. That path started in 2011. It is 2025 now, so how long until the KSA gets its reactor? And perhaps that is not needed for my thoughts, but we see a lot of throwing of numbers, yet the DCD kept us completely in the dark on the power requirements. And as I see it the line “Riyadh will subsidize electricity prices” does not hold water as the required energy settings are not given to us (perhaps not so sexy and it does make for a lousy telethon) 

So I am personally left with questions. How about you? Have a great day and drink some irradiated tea. Makes you glow in the dark, which is good for visibility on the road and sequential traffic safety.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

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

May 3, 2023 · 09:23

The empty wall

That happens, the writings is not always on the wall and now with the writers strike in the US, that wall may be empty for some days. Before I go into the now, lets consider what happened 15 years ago when the writers had their fill of exploitation. They went on strike for 100 days and the cost to the California economy was a thumping 2 billion dollars. That setting just now after covid would buckle many players all at one, making the US economy take a turn down in a stage it cannot afford it. There are other elements as well, but they do not matter at present. I was thrown by stories last week about writers that were living on US support. The people that are the foundation for billions in profit are not given a fair shake. How is that for greed and exploitation. They are not asking for the moon, they merely want a fair shake, a decent income. And I cannot see why not. I write stories, I created the foundation of movies and TV series. As such I identify with their needs. Not because of the income or the work I am in. I write for fun and to keep my skills honed. Yet the power of creation is strong and I can identify and side with anyone who made that their life’s ambition. 

As such when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65447046) gave me ‘Hollywood strike: Late night comedy shows to go dark as writers’ walkout begins’ I took notice. It wasn’t merely “A Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike, the first in 15 years, saw more than 11,000 writers – 98% of voting members – walk out from midnight. Tuesday’s late-night shows are expected to shut down first, while forthcoming shows and films could face delays.” This wasn’t merely a majority rules setting. 98 percent agreed, that is more than strong. It shows that the greed driven parties have taken things too far. I know it is not that simple, but that is the feeling it gives us. In. Place like the US where most people cannot agree one way or the other, 98% agreed and that number needs to sink in with many of us. We see the late night show references, but the larger stage is that this is not about one employer, one show or one movie. This is about the bulk of all and that matters, especially when a person like me throws the terms ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ into the mix, because that is how I feel about it. When I see stories about creators of successful series being on government support, something does not add up and these two term come to mind. 

And there is a larger stage with “This time around, writers are clashing with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) – which represents the major studios, including Amazon, Disney, Netflix and Paramount – in demand of higher pay and a greater share of the profits from the modern streaming boom” the BBC gives us part, but I believe that there is more. You see when we see ‘a greater share of the profits’ we think it is the writing, but what we forget that streaming profit streams in ‘ad infinitum’ and even if that were true, that is not what the writers get, nowhere near what the writers get. To give a simplistic version, if that setting was completely true. A person like Dorothy Catherine Fontana could (due to her involvement in Star Trek The Next Generation) buy David Hasselhoff out of his $51 million mansion and take it for herself. Even if she got a mere $0.05 per episode, Star Trek TNG has been running in syndication since it aired in 1987 and it is still running at full speed on Netflix, even today. Not all series get there and not all do that well, but there is a time gap, there is a larger stage. Consider that a radio station has to register every record they play, because the composer gets a royalty fee, this has been going on for decades. So why is there no setting for streaming? Now, I am over simplifying this and I am setting a slightly inaccurate example but the premise stays the writers want a fair shake and when we see that industry make billions, why not? The stage is that streaming is a new media that is not completely understood. Some see it as a temporary stage, some see it as the next iteration in media and there is a reason that studios are jumping on that train, it is where the consumers are and during that jump some thought it was a sweet deal in a few ways, yet the people creating those series are largely forgotten, that is how the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and its members feel about it and when you have to make ends meet that feeling of happiness sour in seconds and that is what I believe we see now. 

And when we see “Key issues in the talks have been how writers get paid for shows which often remain on streaming platforms for years, as well as the future impact of artificial intelligence on writing.” And here again we see two different settings. You see AI does not exist, whatever comes from these solutions isn’t created from the mind, it comes from data, data that these writers contributed. See it as an IT solution to cloning the writers mind, based on data the IT solution never created in the first place. So how long until they are made obsolete? And when I see “The AMPTP said it had offered a “comprehensive package proposal” including higher pay for writers.

But it was unwilling to improve that offer further “because of the magnitude of other proposals still on the table that the Guild continues to insist upon.”” I do not see a solution or a proposal, I see a stalling tactic, a way to keep more and hand out less to a people who created the success in the first place. In this Jimmy Fallon (the comedian) gives us “Arriving at the Met Gala, Fallon said he hoped the strike would not go ahead, but at the same time wanted to see “a fair deal” agreed for writers. “I need my writers real bad, I got no show without my writers”” which I think is the true part and with ‘a fair deal’ he hits the WGA nail on the head, I wonder how long it will take the AMPTP to take a serious stand and not true to negotiate part by part and with a ‘win’ on every segment. You see,100 days is enough for some streamers to find whatever they can in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, not to overlook Korea, Japan and India. All players that will have time and with 100 perhaps even longer to find players to go for THEIR solutions. They have been in the dark a lot longer and they are hungry for desperate streamers. How much damage will that bring. I reckon it will be more than the $2,000,000,000 the industry had the last time and when that happens, who will win? I feel certain that at that point the AMPTP will not feel like a winner. You see, a player like Netflix relies on its 230 million subscribers, especially outside of the US, their subscribers will look for other solutions when Netflix does not deliver. All this whilst the WGA and its members merely seek a fair deal? This could end up being a mopping exercise whilst the tap remains running. A lot of energy going nowhere and the spectators can clearly see that tap running. The empty wall is not merely the lack of creativity, it will be the result by not decently rewarding creativity. But it is early days, it is merely week 1 of the setting, the writers are adamant. How strong is the AMPTP deal? I honestly do not know because I have not seen any of these documents, but writers that take hunger over food whilst being underpaid is not a good setting, greed never wins over desperation, history taught us that lesson the hard way a few times over.

Enjoy this marvellous day past Sunday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, movies

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

September 16, 2021 · 08:13

The same gramophone

It started over a month ago with ‘From horse to course’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/23/from-horse-to-course/) there we saw the attack and the debatability on some of the presented evidence. Today we see (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/sep/15/eu-poised-to-tighten-privacy-laws-after-pegasus-spyware-scandal) ‘EU commissioner calls for urgent action against Pegasus spyware’ and it would make sense, until we get to “The investigation was based on forensic analysis of phones and analysis of a leaked database of 50,000 numbers”, so in well over a month there are no top-line statistics? The list was attacked by a few well over a month ago, but here we see the Guardian, specifically Daniel Boffey hash over the same stage with nothing to show for it, so is he what some might call ‘a fucking tool’ for stakeholders or a wannabe journalist? Consider that we pretty much get the same details we saw in my article and these parts came from the BBC and the Guardian’s own article from last July. That article gave us “NSO has said Macron was not a “target” of any of its customers, meaning the company denies he was selected for surveillance using its spyware, saying in multiple statements that it requires its government clients to use its powerful spying tools only for legitimate investigations into terrorism or crime”, so whilst we now see “analysis of a leaked database of 50,000 numbers, including that of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and European Council president, Charles Michel”. So did Daniel forget to do his homework or was he acting on the needs of a stakeholder? I actually do not know, hence I ask here. The largest failing is that the Guardian gives us some emotional charged article and no homework was done, there is no top-line on the nations involved with the 50,000 phone numbers. All whilst I also showed (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/28/retry-or-retrial/) a few days later when The Verge got involved that 50,000 numbers imply a cost of no less than $400,000,000 which is still not looked at, so why is the Guardian (BBC too) this unable to perform? In that article ‘Retry or retrial?’ We see the Verge giving us “The Washington Post says that the list is from 2016” and that journalist no one cares about was still alive. A setting that is seemingly overlooked by TWO news organisations and none of them vetted information through a top-line which is what I would have done first. So how many of these numbers are EU numbers? How many are in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany or Sweden? In over a month neither newsagent got that part done and if the Verge is to be believed the 2016 list without a top-line shows newsagents to be massively incompetent. 

Added here we see the added part “A consortium of 17 media outlets, including the Guardian, revealed in July that global clients of the Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group had used hacking software to target human rights activists, journalists and lawyers”, that part negated is that the NSO group is a service branch towards governments on the tracking of criminals and terrorists. This caper costs a government “$500,000 for an extra 50 phones” (source: The Verge) all whilst the entire list represents a minimum value of $400 million. So which governments spend that much on these numbers and when you consider that it was a list of governments, we see additional info that the leaked list is a fictive list, there is no leak that hands the phone lists of all these governments and that is before we consider that one number might be on several lists. Consider that both Macron and Johnson want to know where Merkel gets her lingerie (ha ha ha). OK, that was a funny, but the setting is valid, there is a genuine need for several governments to keep track of a person and when we consider that I could have made a top-line within a week (depending on how the data looks) why did the Guardian and the BBC not succeed? Why do they not have any reference to the leaked list being a 2016 list? 

Also in the end we see the Guardian give us “NSO says it “does not operate the systems that it sells to vetted government customers, and does not have access to the data of its customers’ targets”” when we consider that we see more debatable sides to a list of 50,000, we see the lack of actions for well over a month (almost 2 months) and at no stage do we see any clear allegations against any government apart for some mention of Hungary, all whilst the top-line results could have pointed the finger at someone. Do you actually believe that the UAE or Saudi Arabia have any interest in a Dutch Human rights activist? At the prices that the NSO charges, I very much doubt it. 

So here I stand asking the Guardian (and specifically Daniel Boffey) what on earth do you think you are doing? Who are you serving, because the lack of evidence and lack of clear verifiable data implies you are not doing this for the readers, if that were true the article would have looked very different.

2 Comments

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

August 18, 2018 · 12:17

A new danger

There is a setting of dangers, the dangers are not merely setting, and for the US it is inequal discussion on how many allies they have left in the near future. It is not a new danger; the actions have been under scrutiny for some time. Yet last night something changed. We understand that electing the 45th president, a ‘former’ greed driven billionaire would always have consequences, yet the amount of consequences shown is now escalating.

The Washington Post gave uis 90 minutes ago ‘GOP fundraiser Broidy under investigation for alleged effort to sell government influence, people familiar with probe say‘, the article (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-fundraiser-broidy-under-investigation-for-alleged-effort-to-sell-government-influence-people-familiar-with-probe-say/2018/08/17/c9e55792-a185-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.774c7a3358da) a different setting. We always knew that there are two sides and the ‘less progressive’ republican side was always a little of a hot potato to some. Yet with “The Justice Department is investigating whether longtime Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy sought to sell his influence with the Trump administration by offering to deliver U.S. government actions for foreign officials in exchange for tens of millions of dollars“, that hot potato has now turned into a handgranate. With the quote “As part of their efforts, prosecutors have subpoenaed casino magnate Steve Wynn, the former RNC finance chairman and longtime Trump friend, for copies of records and communications related to Broidy” we see that there is a much larger net being used. It is not merely about Broidy, with names like Steve Wynn we see that there are several names involved, all people with almost direct access to the President of the United States, and with names like Jho Low and Guo Wengui we see another side of ‘entrepreneurship’ hitting the limelight.

Yet how real is the setting?

Part of it is seen in the Wall Street Journal, and with “through June and into July, Mr. Low had been living freely in China, a person aware of his travels said”, as well as “Mr. Low had a close relationship with former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who in turn was courted by China. Malaysia’s new government suspects Mr. Low helped arrange infrastructure projects, financed by China, from which funds were diverted to cover debts”, the second part now giving us that America as well as other players wanted access to Mr. Low, yet that in itself is not evidence against Elliott Broidy. What it does tell us that multiple players want access to this billionaire, all for their own reasons and with the US with a debt surpassing 21 trillion, we can only wonder what some people want Mr. Low for. The additional part is that Malaysia is now pulling all the plugs. This is seen as Channel NewsAsia is reprting that “The Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft, estimated to cost US$35 million was allegedly bought with money belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB)” (at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-to-prove-jho-low-private-jet-bought-stolen-money-1mdb-10621726). It seems so flaky and weird to merely focus on one plane. The amounts are massively larger then the $35 million, so in that case, if that evidence falls over, will the case on that side against Jho Low collapse? When we look in that direction and look at Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, we see that hsi platform is set upon anti-Chinese activities and when we see the accusation “critic on Chinese ventures in his home country for being too expensive and has suspended three China-backed projects worth around $22 billion that were signed under the previous administration”, we see that there might be  case in that part, yet why focus on $35 million in a $22,000 million setting? We also see an additional stage in “Explaining his decision at a news conference last month, the veteran politician said the contract and loan terms behind the deals were unfair, noting that the interest rates on China’s loans were much higher than the 3 percent figure at which the government normally borrowed, the Associate Press reported“, is this all about the money, or merely a way to set the stage for re-negotiation. In that setting, the sound strategy becomes that Elliott Broidy was setting the stage for the United States to poach the finance deals away from China and in that setting, getting Jho Low to give the goods would help the US pretty decent. In addition, when we look at the education of Jho Low, we see that he is an alumni of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the same school that has President Trump, as well as the bulk of CEO’s that at one stage were the captains of the Fortune 500 lists, it includes dozens of airline CEO’s, so in that setting the Malaysian government goes looking for a $35 million plane?

So what is exactly the danger?

It is not on merely the setting of Elliott Broidy in all this, it is the setting where we all need to realise that there is a cost to doing business and it has transgressed borders for the longest of times that, whilst we accepted that in Europe to some degree, Americans never accepted or comprehended that. The media players used that part in all kinds of election setting and fear mongering for the longest of times. From my point of view (optionally a wrong one), we see how people like John Brennan is a danger to that setting. People dedicated to the protection of that their nation will not accept the global cost of doing business; they are in line with monarchists and devoted workers to their nations like we see in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, as well as Canada. In republics, republicans are in a setting that this time is gone; it is the age of the corporate setting of common sense towards pragmatism. The problem as I see it is that those of no use to the needs of such a republic lose value overnight, that whilst the monarchist setting is to embrace all the citizens and protect them all. It is done at a cost, one that those people tend to accept. Yet in the republican view, these costs are counterproductive to corporate profit, the non-consumers are a cancer, needed to be cut out. When globalisation sets in to the business degree that will be a lot easier and that is where we see the stage. So when we see “In the 48 hours since President Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, over 70 former intelligence officers and leaders have come forward denouncing the president’s decision to revoke or threaten to take away security clearances from former government officials, including a list of 60 former CIA officers who signed a statement today, obtained by Axios“, we also see that America (or is that Wall Street) are confronted with a change no one was ready for, so the economy becomes a stagnant danger to them, one where they do not make profit.

When we see names like:

  • Jeremy Bash, former CIA and DoD chief of staff
  • Bob Flores, former CIA chief technology officer
  • Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer for East Asia and CIA director of public affairs
  • George Little, former chief spokesman, CIA and DoD
  • Phillip Mudd, former CIA analyst
  • John Nixon, former CIA analyst
  • Greg Vogel, former CIA deputy director for operations

We see that the USA is in an upcoming setting of polarisation and that is just within the republican side of government and its administration. There is a change coming and the outcome is hoped for (on both sides) but the outcry gives us that this is a round that Wall Street is likely to lose this battle and that changes the game. In addition, when we see the required application of intelligence data and who gets access to it sets a new border, the fact that others (like France and UK) need to realise that shared intelligence data is no longer safe, because the data shared within corporations while used to set a very different stage of what is regarded as needed for security. The corporate side is already countering the advantage that a national intelligence system has. We see this in part when we look at Business Wire (at https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180806005526/en/Global-Database-Valuable-Italian-Business-Intelligence-Data), where we see ‘Global Database Makes Valuable Italian Business Intelligence Data Available – Completely Free‘, before you dismiss this, also consider that “Any registered user can now access key information about 7,564.575 registered companies in Italy“, registration is free and that is merely one of close to a dozen places where this is happening. All connected, it is an optional setting of open source intelligence that is merely a foundation pillar. You merely have to add LinkedIn and Facebook to have a dataset that will allow you to extrapolate data that will make plenty of intelligence groups envious. You see, this is not about finding the criminal, or the terrorist. They are either known or not an issue. This is the setting of finding economic opportunities, the setting to see who is connected and interacting with the alumni of places like the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A group of people with connection and access to funds totaling well over 157 trillion Euro, so whilst we wonder on the fear of where is the terrorist (whilst the danger of getting run over in the street is 20 times more likely, we forgot that our futures, any future is set in the stage where there is economic viability and availability.

That is the part that we see to forget, or even worse actively avoid contemplating. In the time when we are led to believe that there is economic upturn everywhere, we seem to forget that as the river of economy changes, we will either be in a place of plenty, or we are set into the next stage of drought and it will be the one view we have until the end of our lives. It is about ability to live with a level of expected comfort which is likely no longer set to national boundaries, it will be set to the boundary of the corporation or business group that we work for and facilitate for, it will be as cold as that, and until we get past this greying generation, which is optional until 2035, that is how it will be for those in this era. The man behind the Global Database, namely Nicolae Buldumac has figured parts of that out, so that is why he and 30 others in London are doing this. When we look at the article (at https://medium.com/@buldumak/cookie-audience-vs-data-audience-which-is-better-44971ad12ee4), we also see ‘Cookie Audience Vs Data Audience: Which is Better?‘, he found a way to not create the best of both worlds, he found out how he can make both work for him and that is where he created more than economic opportunity. He has found the stage where he can optionally get the facilitators work for him and that seems to be exactly what he is doing. When he is done he will have a similar setting for France, Germany, the UK and Spain. So basically the 5 largest European economies are opportunities where he has the keys and data to.

So when we get to look at the US again, do you think that this will be about Elliott Broidy or people like him in an outdated setting? No, they are the garnishing of economic times that surpassed them and it is the data makers and facilitators like Nicolae Buldumac where the republican mindset of corporations will rely on next, they are the future and their path for enablement is what sets the stage for Europe. This is not clever technology (well in a way it is), it is about the quality of data and what it allows for and that is where we see that the moment that data hits a critical point, it will equal the value of Facebook or more. Some will argue that most of that is all in any Chamber of Commerce and they would be right, but those entities do not talk to each other, they are founded on borders of a national level or lower and in the entire euro setting they for the most never aligned, so someone did it for them and on their own dime, optionally replacing them, or better stated, reducing those previous players to mere data entry points. Governments had to realign their data dimensionality a decade ago, but everyone was so busy keeping their own pond clean that they forgot that the pond is only important to the land surrounding it, when that floods, the ponds become merely crevices of a lake, Lake Europa, that is where Nicolae Buldumac it taking them, so soon others (like Asia and America) they will look at the parts of Lake Europa and see where fishing is the best, those land borders no longer matter and that is the stage we find ourselves in. A changing setting of what sets the identity.

Am I the first?

Hell no! This was all done before. Forbes in 2013 gave us an article by George Bradt. The article called ‘How Army Intelligence Techniques Apply to Business Leads‘. Here we see “Marketing may have a bias to giving sales people a large number of leads, while sales people seek potential customers they can engage with. The answer is to move from big, unstructured data sets to “finding that guy” that really cares. This was Mishor’s ah-ha moment, realizing that army intelligence techniques could be applied to business“, yet it goes further, when you consider one, and the other, you should also realise that the parameters are bidirectional with the proper data flags. So when we see the two streams lead to the same insight. “On the one hand, Mishor is creating value with a systemic, scalable way to connect seemingly unconnected data to identify the most valuable target customers. On the other hand, Mishor built his business by connecting seemingly unconnected hopes and needs of his prospects” we see the solution at both ends, and in addition we see that we can define the need much more precise. From my point of view we can see a third direction. That part is not easily seen, so I will give an alternative example.

In factor analyses we go from many to one. We get the setting that the numbers equate to a factor, it is basic statistics. When we go into the other direction we see the foundation of a discriminant analyses. The third part is seen in that the data setting when something is proven in a factor analyses, it should almost always fail as a discriminant analyses and vice versa. I tend to use humour on that and state ‘It is sarcasm, when it backfires it is merely irony‘. The intelligence data was always on finding the person, yet in a stage of lacking resources, being able to safely remove a person as a threat is equally valuable. If you cannot find that one person, reducing the 5,000,000 stack to a mere 5,000 with 99% certainty is just as valuable, because the one final link could reduce that to 50 whilst not having to revisit the previous 4,995,000 considerations. As I see it in this day and age, not only is the stage of military intelligence and business intelligence not mutually exclusive, they are more and more overlapping. The overlapping field becomes an insightful pool of data where it will no longer be about the one person, it will be more and more about a setting where the value of Analysis of covariance will be important.

In the intelligence it could be seen that it is not merely about the terrorist and its connections. It will be about the moneyman and who else links, both optionally to the mastermind. In business intelligence that setting is not merely see as to where a person studied. It is more and more important on where the patents are and who has them as well as the people creating those patents. In this economy the economic value of a patent over overwhelmingly important. That part is seen when we get back to the 5G race, we saw that last march when we were confronted with “U.S. President Donald Trump has blocked microchip maker Broadcom Ltd’s (AVGO.O) $117 billion takeover of rival Qualcomm (QCOM.O) amid concerns that it would give China the upper hand in the next generation of mobile communications, or 5G“, in addition Forbes gives us within the article ‘Ericsson Vs Huawei: Who’s Winning The 5G Race?‘ Yet there we see two parts. The first is “However, two of particularly significant scale and market presence are Ericsson and Huawei. Will one conquer overall?“, as well as “Financial strength matters. Ericsson will have to turn the ship towards profitability and growth waters, in order to continue the required investment in product development”, which relies on “Ericsson recently announced what seems on the surface to be an impressive 5G patent application. Calling it an “end-to-end” submission, the filing combines the work of 130 Ericsson inventors and promises to include everything needed to build a complete 5G network“, the ability to set 600 million will give the optional 60 billion in return and it will in addition set the stage for European growth to a recently unprecedented (or was that non-presidential?) scale and America wants slices of that pie, if not the whole pie. The stage of corporate setting versus national setting in direct exposure of what is to come and the 5G battle theatre will be a big one, because the winners there will be the next kingmakers and everyone will want parts of it; that was never in doubt. The evidence is all over the place.

Forbes also gives us the new danger setting with the question ‘Does a global geographic footprint matter?‘ It is close to everything in this game, if only that the global footprint lets corporations walk all over government. Amazon, Apple, IBM and Microsoft have been doing that for the longest of times.

There is one part with Forbes that I do not agree with. They state “I would give Ericsson the edge here, considering its global presence includes North America“, I believe that Europe is the much larger powerhouse. You see, America is a mere 325 million, whilst the EU represents 512 million with direct access to India, China and Russia. All stages that America denied itself; if the setting of data (amounts and quality) determines their value; which players and where would they be able to grow this path the fastest and longer? The fact that Ericsson is not merely in the US, but they are showboating in Saudi Arabia is also a sign that they realise that stronger growth everywhere matters, the presented quote “Saudi telecom operator Mobily and Ericsson held a 5G demo at the Mall of Arabia in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, showcasing the functionalities of the next-generation mobile technology. Ericsson supplied Mobily with a standalone 5G system, including a prototype 3.5GHz radio, baseband, and prototype UE device for the 5G demo, which showcased 5G throughput, targeting speeds of up to 1Gbps. The demo is part of Mobily’s plan to highlight expected 5G benefits consumers and industries across Saudi Arabia“, is merely one of many.

The question now becomes: ‘is exponential growth, growing too fast in all directions not a danger all on itself?’

 

Leave a comment

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

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

August 17, 2018 · 12:18

A short sighted Senate?

This was always going to happen. Whenever there is a political setting, it will always be about the money. In this, I will be trying to have a field day. So, a paper will be drawn, demanding that the Australian psychiatrists and researchers will have to sign; they will not get a choice in the matter. They do not deserve a choice in the matter. It will be fun for them to openly condemn Telstra, Apple, Amazon, JB Hi-fi, David Jones and a few other places, because in the end they are all linked in this, even though they do not even realise that yet. It is as I see it, the consequence of a biased setting and we need to make sure that these people will not merely get the limelight, they will, in this setting be responsible for the economic fallout. That is as I personally see it the consequence of greed driven bias.

You see, it is clear that this is about money. The fact that we see the flock gather around a person, who is so stupid that I equally demand that this British person, who is clearly too stupid for his own thoughts must be barred from credit cards for life! If he cannot control himself to that degree, we must protect him from being that stupid ever again.

You see, you think that it is an emotional part, but it is not. Even as I accept “Video games have generally been considered games of skill rather than games of chance and thus are unregulated under most gambling laws, but researchers from New Zealand and Australia, writing in Nature Human Behaviour, concluded that “loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling”“, a setting that I do not agree with (explanation to follow), the quote coming from Aaron Drummond and James D Sauer, which was published in ‘Nature human behaviour‘, I feel uncertain to comment on, or oppose that part as I lack the proper psychological education in this.

Why is it not gambling?

That is the important part. Yes, there is a setting of luck, but ever loot box has a similar setting. We see one rare element, 2-3 uncommon elements and the rest will be common elements. So how did this come to be? For that we need to look at the father of loot boxes, the game Magic the gathering. Consider that on a piece of paper (size A0) cards are printed. An A0 page (841 x 1189 mm) will fit 12 cards per row, and 12 rows. The cards (usually 63 x 88 mm) get 144 cards on one page. In this setting we work with 288 cards, and if printed on 4 pages, we get 576 cards. So here we see the initial setting where we see that on these pages, the rare cards would be printed once, for example, two columns of 12 per page, in total 96 cards, the uncommon would be there twice, which gets us 192 cards and the remaining cards three times getting us the 576 cards, a set of 288 cards. So we always know that we get a certain combination, but we merely cannot tell which one. So this Australian government that allegedly is ruled through law, sets the stage (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-02/crown-casino-pokies-maker-aristocrat-court-decision/9387168), where pokies are not deceptive, whilst loot boxes are?

Am I digressing?

No, you see, in the CCG we see that there is a physical part to all the cards, with the virtual loot box it is not entirely the same setting. So even when we consider the ABC Quote “It argued the Dolphin Treasure machine, which is manufactured by Aristocrat and available to players at Crown, had been deceptively designed to give players the impression they had won, when they had in fact lost money“, yet in that same light, we see that a loot box, always gives a price, yet is it the price the buyer wanted? In this case I revert to the previous setting, now we add what is called a booster box. In a box are 35 packs (can be 30-36 depending on the CCG game), so we could argue that when we buy 3 boxes, we should have the complete set, yet with the 105 packs, we do get 105 rare items, but in that same setting, over the 96 rare items needed, if only 10% is double, we no longer get the complete set and we will have to swap with others. With physical cards that is an option, with virtual items that is not always possible. This is indeed the trap, yet is that gambling? When we know that we get a rare item, yet we cannot guarantee that item is that gambling? That is the question, yet in the case of the Crown Casino, the judges stated that that there was no deceptive conduct, and neither is there in this case. With Loot boxes you are ALWAYS a winner, but is winning and winning the price you want enough difference to warrant it gambling?

The economic setting

That is also part of this, because some power players are all about facilitating towards casino’s (go to Barangaroo if you doubt me), and we are also treated to “This is a win for 140,000 Australians who have jobs because of poker machines,“, as well as “Every year Victorians lose more than $2.6 billion on the state’s 27,000 poker machines that operate outside of Crown Casino“. This hypocritical setting is about money, plain and simple. This is a setting where the loot boxes are funds that go directly to the makers of those games and they are not in Australia. Unlike the other setting where we see “The State Government receives more than $1 billion in tax revenue from pokies every year“, yes all things are definitely not equal!

Are there issues?

Well, the quote “Games with loot box mechanics have long proven controversial” is actually true. There are two settings. Loot boxes you can earn and those you can buy. We will forever hear the argument of the game Mass Effect 3, for all, the golden standard. They could be bought, or won, the same loot box. Earn enough points in the game in multiplayer mode and you had the option to buy a golden box with earned points, instead of purchased credits. That was the best of all settings. Now we have these boxes that can be bought only, yet the foundation is that the game can be played and completed WITHOUT EVER buying a loot box, so those people are merely buying the boxes to get the insane chance of getting an over the top powerful item, which is weird in some ways. In support of some we must also acknowledge that EA Games as one of the players in all this decided to cut themselves in the finger and that is all on them. End Gadget gives u that (at https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/13/electronic-arts-loot-box-mea-culpa-e3/), so when we see ‘How EA talks about loot boxes depends on who’s listening‘, which might be good business practice, but it is really really stupid. You see, with “EA wants you to know that it has changed; that it isn’t the same company that put pay-to-win progression systems and loot boxes in two of its biggest games last fall. “We are always trying to learn and listen, and are striving to be better,” CEO Andrew Wilson said before closing out the keynote address“, we see one side, and with: “He thanked the investor for his question, saying that EA was working with “all the industry associations globally” and talking with regulators in territories where loot boxes had been deemed gambling, without naming any specific regions. He said that his company and the regulatory bodies concluded that Ultimate Team wasn’t gambling. Since players know they’ll get a certain amount of cards in each pack, and that the distribution of each pack is the same (i.e. one rare footballer, three uncommon, two common in each) it doesn’t break any laws“, here we see the part that I partially agree with, but it also shows that EA Games is all about the money and the ‘FIFA Ultimate Team‘ part of all this represents billions, billions that they do not want to lose.

There are two big parts in all of this, that is aside for that one person who could optionally be the most stupid person in the United Kingdom, especially when he ‘discovers’ he’s spent £7,500+ on FUT Ultimate Team cards (source: Daily Star 29th July 2018). The first is that FIFA is a game played by non-adults, so they will desire to optionally spend on these cards. The fact that there is no limit set is optionally an issue, if EA Games has set the stage where per month no more than £25 would be spend, that is close to half the cost of the full game, so it might need to be lowered. The second is the chance to swap any double won, so the fact that you are missing a Beckham, but have two Pele’s, you can seek someone who had the opposite setting. That could have saved a lot of issues, possibly all issues and EA Games merely made it harder by (as I personally see it) being stupid. That evidence is seen (at https://www.fifauteam.com/best-packs-fifa-18-ultimate-team/), Yet is also gives us that EA Games has free packs and they also give us “FREE PACKS. Not available to purchase on the store. They are assigned to you in the beginning of the game, as daily gifts and as draft, SBC, FUT Champions, objectives and seasons rewards“, so if free packs can be won, why is the entire matter still an issue? We also are given “Jumbo Premium Gold pack and Silver Upgrade pack both cost 15,000 coins but the first one may be purchased with 300 FIFA Points while for the second we only need 50 FIFA Points. Players should also pay attention to this aspect“, Yet I am also given “You can earn FUT Coins by playing FIFA Ultimate Team (FUT) and trading within the Transfer Market, but you can’t buy them. Buying coins from a third party, promoting coin buying, or coin distribution is against our rules“, so we can transfer? Then again, why is there an issue, when there are so many factors that are not funds driven?

There is an interesting video on this (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=Igs5Ca9Nw4M), the man talks too fast for his own good, but it is very informative, giving us a clear view that there is a clear way to get items and players making it weird on how someone would have paid £7,500+ on FUT Ultimate Team cards. I do not doubt that this was done, yet it asks a few additional serious questions on the mental status of some video gamers. In all this I see several issues on both sides, but for the most, the entire setting is gambling and with the options for free packs and transfers, there is less and less a setting of gambling, merely the oversized need of greed by a government wanting non-taxable parts to stop. Yet at the bottom of the FIFA team page is also a comments section and we see the most interesting part that was also on the video.

Q: You say that we can buy coins directly?

A (Admin): My main suggestion is to trade. Buying low and selling higher is easier than most of the people think.

All given actions based on common sense, a part that someone paying £7,500+ for these cards is the setting of a person lacking common sense in spades, diamond and in clubs, basically the buyer was seemingly without hearts and common sense. Reverting to overspending and hiding behind gambling statements when there are trades and free options is overly unbalanced.

Yet I agree that this is all mostly based on FIFA, so how does that fare in other parts? With Overwatch (at http://overwatch.wikia.com/wiki/Loot_Box), we see that they are bought, yet they are also awarded.

  • One Loot Box is earned every time a player levels up.
  • One seasonal Loot Box is earned for the first time accessing the game in a seasonal event.
  • One Loot Box is earned for the first time winning some game modes in the Arcade, for example 1v1 Mystery Duel or 3v3 Elimination.
  • One Loot Box is earned for the 3rd, 6th, and 9th winning by playing Arcade game modes within the time between 2 resets. This cycle resets every week whether or not you win 9 games.

So these are options that do not require funds (yet can also be bought). It merely requires you to be a decent player. A decent player will have the option to three boxes a week by winning enough times, in all this, we see skill based progression.

This is the setting that we are faced with, and in this I wonder how thoroughly is the issue investigated, or will this merely be a senate exercise on lost (read: non-taxable) revenue?

In the end, when we move back to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/aug/17/video-game-loot-boxes-addictive-and-a-form-of-simulated-gambling-senate-inquiry-told) and we see no mention whatsoever that loot boxes could be earned, or are optional (under the right setting free), what other parts is the writer Patrick Lum not informing us on? In addition, when I see “Australian psychiatrists and researchers have called for greater regulation of video games that encourage players to purchase chance-based items“, whilst there is no mention on the earning option, or the initial free options that pretty much every game seems to have offered. When that part is equally missing, how fair will this inquiry be?

The article has two additional issues. the first is seen with: “The Office of the eSafety Commissioner estimated that 34% of young people made in-game purchases in the 12 months before June 2017, while the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia cited research finding that around 20% of simulated gambling players moved on to online commercial gambling and 5% of young Australians would develop gambling problems before they were 25 years old“. When we see ‘estimated‘, it should be made clear that this is not factual evidence, more important, what was the estimation based on? We are unlikely to get clearly informed on that part. In addition, the part ‘the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia cited research finding that around 20% of simulated gambling players moved on to online commercial gambling‘, is under scrutiny, because in that regard, I would want those so called ‘Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia‘ to produce the evidence and the raw data on how the ”around 20%” was obtained.

The second issue is seen with “Dr Marcus Carter, a former president of the Digital Games Research Association of Australia, argued that “predatory” practices were “pervasive”, citing potential variable odds manipulation, push notifications about limited-time offers and other player retention mechanics“, although I find his setting a much better one, there are still issues with the use of ‘potential’ in that, without evidence it is merely highly speculative and even as I would accept the danger of ‘variable odds manipulation‘, that part can be addressed clearly enough. The requirement is that there needs to be evidence that this is happening and a pre-emptive setting of making the optional issue of ‘variable odds manipulation‘ unacceptable in legislation is not wrong, yet requires proof. In addition, the entire setting of ‘push notifications about limited-time offers and other player retention mechanics‘ is equally valid, but can be stopped by an opt-in setting, in addition if that is addressed, we need to accept that all ‘limited-time offers’ in advertisement on media and TV are to be equally banned, because we could optionally get a ‘buy a new pair of shoes’ addiction (for a limited time that is). If that is to be accepted (cheating small time businesses out of advertising as well as taxable advertisement funds go right ahead, Or perhaps make it illegal to have ‘limited-time mobile offers‘, and we leave Dr Marcus Carter to explain that change to mobile providers, who will be crying over lost revenue. You see, when all players are equal there is no setting of fair play at all, merely the setting of expedited needs, in this case the government. All that when it was made aware of lines like “EA earns $1.68 billion in micro transactions in FY2017“, that whilst Australia’s biggest super villain (read: Taxman) never got a cent of any of that.

That is the actual setting and that got all those trying to set this all to gambling. Including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and now Australia, they are all about getting a slice of that micro transaction pie, all that could have been prevented 15-20 years ago by them using their brains. Yet at that time ego and greed got the better of them and they were unwilling to kick Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and all other e-store players where it would have hurt, they were in my personal view mere cowards letting actual physical shops fend for themselves, as their business was pushed online and away from them. Now we see patch upon patch, all players trying to get as much of the cream as possible whilst trying to hide the fact that they had no backbone in the first place, all merely equipped with paper backs ready for recycling.

The mere setting of ‘All online items are GST set and paid for in the country of the purchasing consume by that nations legal setting‘ would have sorted 98% of all this, but the politicians in those global nations were, in the end merely as ‘solid’ and morally strong as wet tissue paper.

So in all this there is a huge issue with the loot box and gambling setting, merely from the point of view that I have that this is not about gambling, it is about non-taxable income, a very different issue to say the least.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

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