Member Info for Tricky_Dicky

Unknowns to some are knowns to others.

Not entirely silly bald_eagle,

Taking known facts and trying to force them back into the shadows, where they remain unknowable and undiscussable, is a central tactic of corrupt governments.
Many institutions are guilty of a sort of ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ in relation to pretending that they don’t have an overwhelming crisis on their hands regarding abuses of power, harassment, discrimination, and serious health and safety breaches.

Perhaps the attempts to cover up dirty secrets are where known knowns are 'whitewashed' into becoming unknowns.

Tremor is a bit of an unknown at the moment, let's hope it's not being 'whitewashed'.
Come on Tremor - you can do it!

bald_eagle,

My original post, honest or otherwise, was not a typo and neither was it a Rumsfeld quote, although strangely enough there was a U.S. documentary film 'The Unknown known' featuring, you guessed, Donald Rumsfeld.
I can absolutely understand that you only like to see things in black and white and I have admitted that logically (and axiomatically), you are quite correct in that a statement and its opposite cannot both be true - at the same time and place.
I am willing, in all humility to say that I should (with hindsight) have said there are 'unrealized' knowns, as per my previous explanations, which should stand to common reason.
This puts the difference between unknown and unrealized into some sort of context.
Unrealized = unknown until the penny drops through time, using reasoning, after demonstration of the facts.
The time factor is the only part I am willing to admit failure on, but the rest I defend 'to the hilt.

curlykev,

You really should care deeply about knowns and unknowns.
Investing here is a bit like a game of chess, the expert (grand-master) has an ability to see ahead, by 7 or 8 moves.
The possible (chess-piece) challenges are already well-known, but the outcome depends on an ability to predict (and counter) them.
Dancing on the head of a pin is a side-show.

Life is teeming with unknown knowns:

In the O.J. Simpson case the blood-stained gloves were known to exist but their inability to fit the alleged culprit's hands was an unknown until he was asked to try them on.
That was not a known unknown until demonstrated - it was an unknown known.

From bald_eagle:
"There is no such thing as 'Unknown knowns', for if something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown'.

True on the face of it as a logical construct but if something (a fact) is known it does not mean that it is believed.
As Rumsfeld pointed out, when you don't see something that fits with your previous knowledge base, you might be likely to dismiss it.
The demise of Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas on February 1'st 2003, was the result of a hole in one of its wings that filled with hot gas, a hole that had been caused by a piece of insulating foam that fell off the fuel tank. But five days later, NASA still didn't think that the foam was to blame—it simply couldn't be, was the thinking.
The U.S. and the U.K. went to war with Iraq on the unknown, but widely promoted belief that weapons of mass destruction existed (i.e. were taken as a known) but later evidence overturned the supposed known.

Let us agree to differ, bald_eagle, or are you indeed Carson, the head butler from 'Downton' Abbey' and always right?

Milhous, you miss my point. There is no such thing as 'Unknown knowns', for if something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown'.

Yes and no bald_eagle,
Yes if you are talking logically about one thing in particular.
But if we are talking about, for example, a teacher who can't explain a mathematical solution to a student and becomes very irritated and punishes the unfortunate novice.
The poor teacher does not grasp his/her own unknown knowns.
They may (by the slow impeachment of life) know something that they do not know that they know (fail to put it across) and hence are blind to understand why the poor student struggles.

The Wizard of Oz illustrates the attributes that the characters sought after were within them all along. The journey on the yellow brick road simply cleared their blind spots and helped them see their unknown knowns.

bald_eagle stated 'unknown knowns' - 'no such thing'.
The quote re- 'unknown knowns' (popularised by D. Rumsfeld, or otherwise) is absolutely valid and has to be factored into, for example, insurance risk.
The specific result of a accident may be unknown but it is known for sure that accidents will happen - hence the premiums.
A deadly virus attack may present an unknown risk, yet it is known to be out there.
A massive meteor strike on earth is currently unknown to be just around the corner, yet it is still a known possibility.

As for stt1, who is both wilful and ignorant in order to fire up an agenda of hatred towards this particular company, that is so all-consuming that many errors of fact and evidence are overridden for all to see.
Many times have I shown stt1's arguments to be way off the mark.
So way off indeed that a child could do better.
I am unsure why the sudden 'unknown' warmth by bald_eagle toward sst1, it's 'known' to be questionable from my point of view alone.

unknown knowns
unknown unknowns

Loads of speculation here, might as well talk to my glass of water.

Yes! gdog - Milhous - that's the one.
And those were the days.

Crucially stt1 has never had a clue about where the industry is heading.
Just enjoys criticising management decisions to cut out parts that are no longer relevant.
Trying to prove that skeletons still exist in the cupboards and using outdated ideas about how the business model should be run.
Has no ability to keep up and is negative overall.
Quotes examples of failures in the ad tech industry that are wholly incomparable.
Tries so hard to offer opinions that are ignorant of the latest trends.
A sad, bitter and twisted individual, hoist with its own petard so many times and yet failing to see the folly of its ways.
Paid to be a fool perhaps but then why so inept?

I don't think gdog is being treated fairly at all.
What are you guys on?
He states his case openly and people try to find fault.
And for what?
We are all gamblers and the sooner we accept that the better.

gdog, you have hit the nail on the head.
It must surely be the goal of many a company listed on AIM to eventually gain traction and do just that, achieve a NYSE, or better still a NASDAQ listing.
They are not hitting the targets to achieve that sort of respected listing right now.
Without 'a real exchange' they will never catch up with TTD or RUBI.
Share buybacks will not suffice, better performance is required.
I think we are still in a holding pen, found yet to be wanting before clearance is granted.

...then get rid of the '1' and put 'A big' in front of the I between the two t's.

Tremor originally had a year-end programme of buybacks but recently reduced it to September.
Not sure exactly why.
Basic supply and demand usually mean that the market price increases when more than about 20% of the daily trading volume (avaiable shares) is bought.
Buy orders elsewhere would then trigger sell orders at a higher price.
Lots of room for speculation and allegations, but there again this is AIM.

stt1 refuses to wake up and smell the coffee
His link refers to November 2018
What is he on?

I thought stt1 was a rat's ass!

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, along with DOJ is not above raising serious investigations against home-grown companies, such as Google and Microsoft.
The EU is capable of (and has a history of) issuing some very stiff fines, (against Microsoft, for example) but not enough to make any real difference when Microsoft (or Google's parent company, 'Alphabet') are each worth well over 700 billion.
Only the U.S. could force a break up of such companies, it is rare for the U.S. to do so, but not unheard of, with Standard Oil and AT&T being the two biggest examples.
In the U.S. government’s effort to break up Microsoft. the Justice Department won a preliminary victory in 2000 but this was reversed on appeal. The case settled with Microsoft intact.
Google is under fire in the U.S., but the U.S.Justice Department's antitrust probes more often result in an agreement to change certain business practices.
Typically, as sb88 points out, some sort of deal is usually agreed upon.

stt1 said:
"I don't believe revenues from Unruly will replace revenues lost from the rthm operations closed"
What revenues exactly?
Second-guessing to suit a negative agenda, using unquantified 'revenues' is just piddling in the wind.

Not very helpful stt1

Wanting to appear knowledgeable by using whatever fits your agenda.
Reading the past to both prove and deny the future, always in a negative manner.
What hope is there for you?