To resolve this last issue we add the subclause that the price for a company share is capped at the date of signature, which means not more than the share price at this point in time, but possibly less.

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein or/and publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

14:26 UTC+1
There is only one OS and Ov #2

There will be no Metaverse OS, or whatsoever, and certainly no Meta OS, no Metaverse extension of Unix, Linux, Windows, Android, iOS, etc., and no other illegal plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic System (OS) in the U.S.America, the European Union (EU), the P.R.China, and in any other country, economic union, and so on, as we have already made clear multiple times in the past.
The same holds for

• what is called Cloud-native technologies by us only for better understanding,
• what is wrongly called Web3 or Web 3 by others,
• what is wrongly called shared operating system for stationary devices, mobile devices, vehicles, robots, buildings, etc., and
• our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and what is called transformative, generative, and creative Bionics by us only for better understanding.

We already do have our OS, there is no need for an Ontoclone of our original and unique OS, and there will be only one OS.
Moral rights means no interfering with and also obstructing, undermining, and harming of the exclusive exploitation rights no matter how clever (not really) the dirty tricks are.
It has become just annoying that we have to make this explicitly clear once again.

02.April.2024

14:25 UTC+2
Legally, InterCloud and IntraCloud are same

From our legal point of view, no difference between the

exists, because they are both in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).
See also our Castle in the Cloud computing approach.

14:25 UTC+2
Damages, if governments ignore ©, ToS, e.g. JV

Copyright ©
Terms of Service (ToS)
Joint Venture (JV)

We simply recall:
A government, that refuses to comply with the national and international rule-based law and order environment, face a penalty of the higher of the apportioned

• unpaid royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• thwarted, obstructed, blocked, and otherwise missed commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities,

by performing and reproducing our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) in whole or in part without authorization respectively allowance and license, and interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S and our corporation,

or even blacklisting.

03.April.2024

18:35 and 23:59 UTC+2
UDPN obsolete and blacklisted

Universal Digital Payments Network (UDPN)
We quote a news message of a very smart (not really) company: "The UDPN, the [...] global payments messaging network supporting regulated stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), facilitates seamless interoperability among banks, businesses, and regulated digital currency systems worldwide."
Can our fans and readers recognize the big flaw and contradiction? Exactly, if we already have CBDCs, then we do not need stablecoins, but merely a safe and secure messaging network for example based on the blockchain technique, which has been created and introduced with our Ontologic System (OS) even with real-time capability, capability-based runtime and sandboxing, and what is wrongly called cloud integration.

Central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities together with our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) of our exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) are doing this anyway and we will enforce all exclusive rights (e.g. moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights) and properties (e.g. copyrights, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corporation worldwide.
This is a not debatable condition for opening our OS and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS) and it is just only stupid that governments, commissions, federal authorities and agencies, industries, companies, and other parts of their societies still refuse to comply with the

which requires the

• Media System (MS),
• Video Game System (VGS),
• Online Advertising System (OAdvS),
• Electronic Commerce (EC) with Marketplace for Everything (MfE),
• and other Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) subsystems and platforms,

and

• facilities (e.g. buildings, data centers, exchange points or hubs, and communication channels),
• technologies (e.g. (sub)systems, platforms, and backbones, core networks, or fabrics),
• goods (e.g. applications, devices, robots, and vehicles), and
• services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. Capability and Operational Models (COMs), Capability and Operational Systems (COSs), and Capability and Operational Platforms (COPs), (core) Infrastructure as a Service technologies (IaaSx), (utility) Technology as a Service technologies (TaaSx), Network as a Service technologies (NaaSx), Platform as a Service technologies (PaaSx), Backend as a Service technologies (BaaSx), Service as a Service technologies (SaaSx), Data as a Service technologies (DaaSx), Trust as a Service technologies (TaaSx), SoftBionics as a Service technologies (SBaaSx), etc.)

(see the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021 for the general architecture and organization, management and operation, and so on) among some other demands and legal requirements, which will become effective in the next weeks.

"Stupid is as stupid does.", [Mother of Forrest Gump et al.]. Playing stupid is still stupid.

04.April.2024

17:20 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We are continuing with the preparation of the takeover of the company Boeing.
But to be honest, we do have prepared alternatives in case this takeover will not happen.

Flying will never be the same again.

05.April.2024

14:07 UTC+2
SOPR recalls compensation for Russia exodus

Companies, that left the country formerly known as Russia in 2022, should submit an inventory of the costs, which are the result of leaving Russia, to our SOPR for discounting with the royalties and offsetting with them, where appropriate.

06.April.2024

11:28 UTC+1
F.R.G., United Internet, Ionos under investigation

Federal Republic of Germany (F.R.G.)

Fundamental and essential

in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) are part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.
And public tenders are made by our SOPR or a joint venture established together with our SOPR, but not a federal authority alone.
And the royalty is not a fixed fee, but a relative share according to the License Model (LM) of our SOPR.
They

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has the last word anyway. Court-proof.
That is the way how democracies and rule-based law and order environments work.

See also the notes

Soziale Marktwirtschaft oder doch nur assoziale Cliquenwirtschaft?

07.April.2024

19:15 UTC+2
Do not confuse creative and commercial aspects

The artist Ne-Yo and most potentially other artists are still confusing several facts in relation to the Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), the transformative, generative, and creative Bionics and the Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), all created by C.S.:

C.S. does hold the rights and therefore is allowed to prohibit any performance and reproduction. And we made an offer to restore and uphold law and order for other artists and C.S. and to resolve the problem with the unauthorized imitations respectively illegal performances and reproductions. And what C.S. asks for in return is quite simple:

This is a very simply logic and artists even do need a license from us sooner or later for various reasons anyway.

See the related notes publicized since some months on this website of OntomaX, specifically

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

08.April.2024

13:31 UTC+2
Once upon a time ...

... there was a robot taxi or simply robotaxi in 2013, a Tesla Motors robotaxi in 2019, a Uber robotaxi, a Lyft robotaxi, a General Motors robotaxi, a Ford and Volkswagen robotaxi, just another robotaxi, ....
And if they have not crashed, they drove happily ever after or are still driving today.

As usual, in the moment we do not disclose materials, which show them how to do it right on the one hand and they can steal on the other hand, nothing goes on or literally spoken moves foreward. And so we stopped with publication in 2014.
But before we all move on, the confirmation of moral rights, payment of damage compensations will be done, then the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies will be utilized, and then this and that. :)

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, specifically

14:14 UTC+2
U.S.American and British govs still in LaLaLand

Government (gov)

We quote a report, which is about Bionics and our generative and creative Bionics: "[...] the UK's "safety-first" approach to AI - a week after UK technology secretary Michelle Donelan signed an agreement with the US to collaborate on testing advanced AI models."

Comment
First of all, we recall that testing includes the tasks of validation and verification.
They

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has the last word anyway. Court-proof.
That is the way how democracies and rule-based law and order environments work.

11.April.2024

15:05 and 17:50 UTC+2
SWIFT AI/ML Platform obsolete and blacklisted

Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Machine Learning (ML)

We quote a website and a case study: "Case Study [] Learn how leading organizations are achieving more with [Kove Software-Defined Memory (]Kove:SDM[)].

01/08 SWIFT
02/08 Situation
SWIFT, the world's leading provider of secure financial messaging services, connects more than 11,000 banking and securities organizations and corporate customers in over 200 countries and territories. They process more than 42 million transactions worth over $5 trillion a day. Their mission: To ensure that each transaction is frictionless, secure, and instant.
03/08 Key Challenge
To create implement a platform that enables the next generation of transaction services, preserving the security and privacy of an on-premise solution with the capabilities of a state-of-the art, enterprise-wide, hybrid/cloud-based AI platform.
04/08 SWIFT Development Partners
Three advanced technology partners: Kove for high-performance, provisionable, scalable software-defined memory. [Plagiarist #3] for enterprise containers and hybrid cloud infrastructure capabilities. [Plagiarist #4] for AI expertise.
05/08 Kove's Role
To unlock the full potential of AI/ML and enable SWIFT to do what it could not have done before by providing the limitless memory size and breakthrough performance they need when and where they need it.
06/08 Solution
A high-performing, agile, and scalable AI platform that can instantaneously analyze transactions using enormous datasets, all in memory and without any hardware limitations - a cost-effective solution that could only be achieved with Kove:SDM.
07/08 Outcome
The SWIFT Federated AI Platform will transform the way machine learning is done, enabling SWIFT community members to boost operational efficiencies; launch new AI-native services for additional revenue opportunities; and heighten security and regulatory compliance, all while lowering transaction costs. With its maiden use case in anomaly detection and future applications that enhance IT operations and the customer experience, the new SWIFT Federated AI Platform offers their member community performance that no one else can match.
08/08 Outcome
"A unique product from Kove that provides software-defined memory [means] that we're going to be able to train the models, and monitor the network, really, without any computer or hardware limitations."
[...] Chief Innovation Officer, SWIFT"

Comment
We already do have our original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, copyright protected

• basic properties, specifically (mostly) being
  • reflective,
  • intelligent, and
  • collaborative,
• Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and
• Ontologic System Components (OSC), specifically
  • Ontologic storage Base (OntoBase) and
  • Ontologic File System (OntoFS),

and

specifically our

• Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay),
• Ontologic Payment Processing System (OPPS),
• Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange), and
• Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC), so to say the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications of the Next Generation (SWIFT NG) and the only legal successor of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

• Technology as a Service (TaaS),
  • Network as a Service (NaaS),
  • Platform as a Service (PaaS),
  • Backend as a Service (BaaS),
  • Service as a Service (SaaS),
  • Data as a Service (DaaS),

and

• Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay),
• Ontologic Payment Processing System (OPPS),
• Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange), and
• Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC), so to say the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications of the Next Generation (SWIFT NG) and the only legal successor of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

Furthermore, Kove Software-Defined Memory seems to be based on our Ontologic System (OS), which has already been proven with for example the operating system-level Virtualization (osV) or containerization (kernel process containers or address spaces), and what is wrongly called hybrid cloud and also the integration of SoftBionics (SB).
See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein or/and publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

The case study looks like a conspiracy and plot of the related entities against us, that have nothing created, presented, and discussed in the last 2 decades and now came around 17 years too late in total contrast to C.S.. Just only jumping on the bandwagon and free riding does not work.
"The protection of intellectual property is essential to the survival of small companies like ours operating in a world of global giants. We are grateful for the chance to have the contribution of our innovations measured by a jury."
Exactly. So we do, if they continue with ignorring and infringing the exclusive rights (e.g. moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights) and properties (e.g. copyrights, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corporation and refusing to sign, pay, and comply, including the payment of damage compensations and the transfer of all illegal materials. :)

12.April.2024

07:45 and 17:43 UTC+2
Our OS, our Ov, our Os, our ToS

Ontologic System (OS)
Ontoverse (Ov)
Ontoscope (Os)
Terms of Service (ToS)

We quote a report about our Integrated Wheeled Intelligence or Ontoscope on Wheels made in the P.R.China: "Biden urged to ban China-made electric cars
President Joe Biden has been urged to ban imports of Chinese-made electric cars to the US.
The chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Sherrod Brown, wrote "Chinese electric vehicles are an existential threat to the American auto industry".
His comments are the strongest yet by any US lawmaker on the issue, while others have called for steep tariffs to keep Chinese electric vehicles (EV) out of the country.
In February, the White House said the US was opening an investigation into whether Chinese cars pose a national security risk.
"We cannot allow China to bring its government-backed cheating to the American auto industry", Senator Brown said [...] on [a] social media platform [...].
Senator Brown, who is a Democrat from the the car-producing state of Ohio, is seeking to win a fourth term in office in November's election.
[...]
In February, President Biden said that China's policies "could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security" and that he would "not let that happen on my watch."
Washington could impose restrictions over concerns that the technology in Chinese-made cars could "collect large amounts of sensitive data on their drivers and passengers", the White House said.
It warned cars that are connected to the internet "regularly use their cameras and sensors to record detailed information on US infrastructure; interact directly with critical infrastructure; and can be piloted or disabled remotely".
[...]
This week, while on a trip to China, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned Beijing that Washington would not allow a repeat of the "China shock" of the early 2000s, when Chinese imports flooded into America.
[...]"]

Comment
No, it is not working this way. Think about the unauthorized Ontoscope reproductions iPhone and iPad of the company Apple and all those other illegal Ontoscope plagiarisms and fakes of the members of the One Handset Alliance (OHA), better known as Android consortium, which are manufactured in the P.R.China. The same holds for this specific Ontoscope variant, which is our Integrated Wheeled Intelligence™ (IWI™ or IWhI), also known as PC on Wheels™, PC with Wheels™, Mobile Device on Wheels™, Mobile Device with Wheels™, Smartphone on Wheels™, Smartphone with Wheels™, and also Ontoscope on Wheels™, Ontoscope with Wheels™, iTablet on Wheels™, and iTablet with Wheels™ with the optional capability of our autonomous robotic automobile with artificial intelligent and self-aware cybernetic logic module (named AutoBrain™ by us) or supercomputer on wheels (named Ontoscope on Wheels™ by us) called Knight Industries Two Thousand (K.I.T.T.) of the Knight Rider saga (guess who with what revived the television series and why such an SoftBionic (SB) system is called a brain), etc., etc., etc..

And we already mentioned that such a vehicle will be operated and managed with our Ontologic System (OS) and on the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SORP and our other Societies, which is not a problem at all, as already proven with the first reconfigured ones. It will even work with Over-The-Air (OTA) programming for wireless software update functionality on the basis of our secure Ontologic Net of Things (ONoT) in the sphere respectively trusted authority environment of our Ontoverse (Ov).
See also the related messages

and the other publications cited therein.

In addition, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

We have created it, including the option to destroy it again. This is only a very little and mild foretaste of what will happen to certain unruly enities, if we use our undisclosed second catalogue of original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. to protect and enforce the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commericalization (e.g. monetization))) and properties (e.g. copyrights, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corporation.

And we are very sure that the win-win is clear, specifically the payment of damage compensations, the establishment of new companies as joint ventures, the transfer of all illegal materials, and the utilization of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

Eventually, the U.S.America, the European Union (EU), and any other country, union of states, and economic zone

in this case, like in the cases of what is wrongly called Cloud, Global Brain, Metaverse, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Industry 4.0 (I 4.0), etc., and also Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup), Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.), and so on, or our SOPR will act accordingly, as multiple times discussed and announced in the past.

See also the related notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Are there any question? We have much more answers.
Is there anything else we can also help you with? We have much more competences.
Well, it is always better to collaborate with us. Is not it? :)

14.April.2024

00:00 UTC+2
Clarification

*** Work in progress - mode just started ***

We have mentioned and discussed several other works of art and their remakes and showed their connection to our Ontologic System (OS):

• "Paycheck" and its adapation as the movie "Paycheck",
• "The Golden Man" and its adapation as the movie "Next", and
• "The Minority Report" and its adapation as the movie "Minority Report", and also
• "Abre Los Ojos==Open your Eyes" and its remake "Vanilla Sky".

• "(Blade Runner:) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and its adapation as the movie "Blade Runner", and
• "Minory Report".

• "Tron",
• "Neuromancer",
• "Snow Crash", and
• "Abre Los Ojos==Open Your Eyes" and its remake "Vanilla Sky".

• "We Can Build You",
• "The Simulacrum",
• "Simulacron-3" or "Counterfeit World",
• "Ubik", and
• "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" and its adapation as the movie "Total Recall", and also
• "Tron",
• "The Lawnmower Man", and
• "The Thirteenth Floor".

• "The Matrix" and
• "Simulacra and Simulation".

Furthermore, in the

we also discussed the other major aspects behind our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS).

Due to the reasons that we are

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and also
• Ontoverse (Ov), and
• New Reality (NR),

we also came (once again) to the work titled "Simularcum and Simulation", created by Jean Baud, and publicized in 1981, and related works.

In this clarification we discuss the terms

and their relations to our Evoos and our OS in more detail.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject simulacrum: "A simulacrum (pl.: simulacra or simulacrums, from Latin simulacrum, which means "likeness, semblance") is a representation or imitation of a person or thing.[1] The word was first recorded in the English language in the late 16th century, used to describe a representation, such as a statue or a painting, especially of a god. By the late 19th century, it had gathered a secondary association of inferiority: an image without the substance or qualities of the original.[2] Literary critic Fredric Jameson offers photorealism as an example of artistic simulacrum, in which a painting is created by copying a photograph that is itself a copy of the real thing.[3] Other art forms that play with simulacra include trompe-l'œil,[4] pop art, Italian neorealism, and French New Wave.[3]

Original philosophy
Simulacra have long been of interest to philosophers. In his Sophist, Plato speaks of two kinds of image-making. The first is a faithful reproduction, attempted to copy precisely the original. The second is intentionally distorted in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers. He gives the example of Greek statuary, which was crafted larger on the top than on the bottom so that viewers on the ground would see it correctly. If they could view it in scale, they would realize it was malformed. This example from the visual arts serves as a metaphor for the philosophical arts and the tendency of some philosophers to distort the truth so that it appears accurate unless viewed from the proper angle.[5] Nietzsche addresses the concept of simulacrum (but does not use the term) in the Twilight of the Idols, suggesting that most philosophers, by ignoring the reliable input of their senses and resorting to the constructs of language and reason, arrive at a distorted copy of reality.[6]
French semiotician and social theorist Jean Baudrillard argues in [his philosophical treatise titled "]Simulacra and Simulation["] that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal [(hyperlink to the subject Hyperreality quoted below)]. According to Baudrillard, what the simulacrum copies either had no original or no longer has an original, since a simulacrum signifies something it is not, and therefore leaves the original unable to be located. Where Plato saw two types of representation [(list points added):]

Baudrillard sees four [types respectively delineates the sign-order into four stages (list points and quotes from an online encyclopedia about the subject "Simulacra and Simulation" (see below) added)]:

[7 [Baudrillard Simulacra]] In Baudrillard's concept, like Nietzsche's, simulacra are perceived as negative, but another modern philosopher who addressed the topic, Gilles Deleuze, takes a different view, seeing simulacra as the avenue by which an accepted ideal or "privileged position" could be "challenged and overturned".[8] Deleuze defines simulacra as "those systems in which different relates to different by means of difference itself. What is essential is that we find in these systems no prior identity, no internal resemblance".[9]"

We quote and translate an online encyclopedia about the subject simulacrum: "[...]
Simulacrum as an instrument of perception [or understanding]
According to Roland Barthes, a simulacrum reconstructs its object through selection and recombination, thus constructing it anew. The result is a "world that resembles the first, but does not want to copy it, but rather make it comprehensible". In this respect, the simulacrum is also a characteristic of structuralist activity:
"The aim of every structuralist activity [...] is to reconstitute an 'object' in such a way that in this reconstitution it emerges according to which rules it functions (which are its 'functions'). The structure is thus in truth only a simulacrum of the object, but a deliberate, 'interested' simulacrum, since the imitating object brings to light something that remains invisible or, if you prefer, incomprehensible in the natural object." - Roland Barthes: The structuralist activity. - [...]

Simulacrum as a trace
Jacques Derrida sees the simulacrum as a characteristic of the trace (and thus in contrast to Walter Benjamin's concept of the aura):
"Since the trace is not a presence, but the simulacrum of a presence that dissolves, shifts, refers, does not actually take place, extinction is part of its structure." - Jacques Derrida: The différance. - [...]

Media theory
The simulacrum is also a central concept in contemporary theories of virtuality respectively virtualization, especially by Gilles Deleuze, Paul Virilio, Pierre Klossowski and above all Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard distinguishes between various historical forms of simulacra (imitation, production, simulation) and is particularly concerned with the simulacrum of simulation as the dominant simulacrum of contemporary society determined by mass media. According to Baudrillard, this modern simulacrum is characterized by the fact that the distinction between original and copy, model and image, reality and imagination has become impossible and has given way to a general "referencelessness" of signs and images.
In constructivist media theories, too, a de facto dissolution of classical distinctions and differences is stated and examined under the keywords of virtualization, metamedialization, autopoietization, autologization, cybernetization and fictionalization."

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject "Simulacra and Simulation": "Simulacra and Simulation [...] is a 1981 philosophical treatise by the philosopher and cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard, in which he seeks to examine the relationships between reality, symbols, and society, in particular the significations and symbolism of culture and media involved in constructing an understanding of shared existence.
Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original.[1] Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[2]

Summary
Definition
["]... The simulacrum is never what hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true. [- Ecclesiaste]" [The alleged quote of The Book of Ecclesiaste by Baudrillard is a fake.]
Simulacra and Simulation is most known for its discussion of symbols, signs, and how they relate to contemporaneity (simultaneous existences).[4] Baudrillard claims that current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is a simulation of reality.[5] Moreover, these simulacra are not merely mediations of reality, nor even deceptive mediations of reality; they are not based in a reality nor do they hide a reality, they simply hide that nothing like reality is relevant to people's current understanding of their lives. The simulacra that Baudrillard refers to are the significations and symbolism of culture and media that construct perceived reality, the acquired understanding by which human life and shared existence are rendered legible. (These ideas had appeared earlier in Guy Debord's 1967 The Society of the Spectacle.[6]) Baudrillard believed that society had become so saturated with these simulacra and human life so saturated with the constructs of society that all meaning was becoming meaningless by being infinitely mutable; he called this phenomenon the "precession of simulacra"[";that is, the representation precedes and determines the real. There is no longer any distinction between reality and its representation; there is only the simulacrum"].[7]"

Stages
Simulacra and Simulation delineates the sign-order into four stages:[8] [(see the quote of an online encyclopedia about the subject simulacrum above)]
[...]

[...]

Phenomena
Baudrillard theorizes that the [loss or] lack of distinctions between reality and simulacra originates in several phenomena:[11]
[...]

Analogies
[...]
The transition from signs which dissimulate something to signs which dissimulate that there is nothing, marks the decisive turning point. The first implies a theology of truth and secrecy (to which the notion of ideology still belongs). The second inaugurates an age of simulacra and simulation, in which there is no longer any God to recognize his own, nor any last judgment to separate truth from false, the real from its artificial resurrection, since everything is already dead and risen in advance.[10 [Simulation and the Decay of the Real. [2004]]]
When Baudrillard refers to the "precession of simulacra" in Simulacra and Simulation, he is referring to the way simulacra have come to precede the real in the sense mentioned above, rather than to any succession of historical phases of the image."

We quote a work titled "Two Essays", written by Jean Baudrillard, and publicized in Science Fiction Studies, #55, Volume 18, Part 3, in November 1991: "Two Essays
1. Simulacra and Science Fiction
There are three orders of simulacra [(list points added and order of additional quotes of this work changed)]:

To the first order corresponds the imaginary of the utopia. To the second, SF in the strict sense. To the third...is there yet an imaginary domain which corresponds to this order? The probable answer is that the "good old" SF imagination is dead, and that something else is beginning to emerge (and not only in fiction, but also in theory). Both traditional SF and theory are destined to the same fate: flux and imprecision are putting an end to them as specific genres.
There is no real and no imaginary except at a certain distance. What happens when this distance, even the one separating the real from the imaginary, begins to disappear and to be absorbed by the model alone? Currently, from one order of simulacra to the next, we are witnessing the reduction and absorption of this distance, of this separation which permits a space for ideal or critical projection.
It is at a maximum in utopias, where a transcendent world, a radically different universe, is portrayed (its most individualized form remains the Romantic dream, wherein transcendence is represented in all its depth, even unto its subconscious structure; but, in all cases, the separation from the real world is maximal - it is the utopian island in contrast to the continent of the real).
It is diminished considerably in SF: SF only being, most often, an extravagant projection of, but qualitatively not different from, the real world of production. Extrapolations of mechanics or energy, velocities or powers approaching infinity - SF's fundamental patterns and scenarios are those of mechanics, of metallurgy, and so forth. Projective hypostasis of the robot. (In the limited universe of the pre-Industrial era, utopias counterposed an ideal alternative world. In the potentially limitless universe of the production era, SF adds by multiplying the world's own possibilities.)
It is totally reduced in the implosive era of models. Models no longer constitute an imaginary domain with reference to the real; they are, themselves, an apprehension of the real, and thus leave no room for any fictional extrapolation - they are immanent, and therefore leave no room for any kind of transcendentalism. The stage is now set for simulation, in the cybernetic sense of the word - that is to say, for all kinds of manipulation of these models (hypothetical scenarios, the creation of simulated situations, etc.), but now nothing distinguishes this management-manipulation from the real itself: there is no more fiction.
Reality was able to surpass fiction, the surest sign that the imaginary has possibly been outpaced. But the real could never surpass the model, for the real is only a pretext of the model.
The imaginary was a pretext of the real in a world dominated by the reality principle. Today, it is the real which has become the pretext of the model in a world governed by the principle of simulation. And, paradoxically, it is the real which has become our true utopia - but a utopia that is no longer a possibility, a utopia we can do no more than dream about, like a lost object.
Perhaps the SF of this era of cybernetics and hyperreality will only be able to attempt to "artificially" resurrect the "historical" worlds of the past, trying to reconstruct in vitro and down to its tiniest details the various episodes of bygone days: events, persons, defunct ideologies - all now empty of meaning and of their original essence, but hypnotic with retrospective truth. Like the Civil War in Philip K. Dick's The Simulacra; like a gigantic hologram in three dimensions, where fiction will never again be a mirror held to the future, but rather a desperate rehallucinating of the past.
We can no longer imagine other universes; and the gift of transcendence has been taken from us as well. Classic SF was one of expanding universes: it found its calling in narratives of space exploration, coupled with more terrestrial forms of exploration and colonization indigenous to the 19th and 20th centuries. There is no cause-effect relationship to be seen here. Not simply because, today, terrestrial space has been virtually completely encoded, mapped, inventoried, saturated; has in some sense been shrunk by globalization; has become a collective marketplace not only for products but also for values, signs, and models, thereby leaving no room any more for the imaginary. It is not exactly because of all this that the exploratory universe (technical, mental, cosmic) of SF has also stopped functioning. But the two phenomena are closely linked, and they are two aspects of the same general evolutionary process: a period of implosion, after centuries of explosion and expansion. When a system reaches its limits, its own saturation point, a reversal begins to takes place. And something happens also to the imagination.
[...]
But where can one find fictional works which already incorporate this condition of reversion? Clearly, the short stories of Philip K. Dick "gravitate," one might say, in this new space (although it can no longer be expressed as such because, in fact, this new universe is "anti-gravitational," or, if it still gravitates, it does so around the hole of the real, around the hole of the imaginary).
[...]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the person Jean Baudrillard: "[...]
Simulacra and Simulation
[...] "Baudrillard rejects the structuralist principle of the equivalence of different forms of linguistic organization, the binary principle that contains oppositions such as: true-false, real-unreal, center-periphery. He denies any possibility of a (mimetic) duplication of reality; reality mediated through language becomes a game of signs. In his theoretical system all distinctions between the real and the fictional, between a copy and the original, disappear".[45]
Simulation, Baudrillard claims, is the current stage of the simulacrum: all is composed of references with no referents, a hyperreality.[46 [Simulacra and Simulation]] Baudrillard argues that this is part of a historical progression. In the Renaissance, the dominant simulacrum was in the form of the counterfeit, where people or objects appear to stand for a real referent that does not exist (for instance, royalty, nobility, holiness, etc.). With the Industrial Revolution, the dominant simulacrum becomes the product, which can be propagated on an endless production line. In current times, the dominant simulacrum is the model, which by its nature already stands for endless reproducibility, and is itself already reproduced.

[...]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject HyperReality (HR): "Hyperreality is a concept in post-structuralism that refers to the process of the evolution of notions of reality, leading to a cultural state of confusion between signs and symbols invented to stand in for reality, and direct perceptions of consensus reality.[1] Hyperreality is seen as a condition in which, because of the compression of perceptions of reality in culture and media, what is generally regarded as real and what is understood as fiction are seamlessly blended together in experiences so that there is no longer any clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins.[2]
The term was proposed by French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, whose postmodern work contributed to a scholarly tradition in the field of communication studies that speaks directly to larger social concerns. Postmodernism was established through the social turmoil of the 1960s, spurred by social movements that questioned preexisting conventions and social institutions. Through the postmodern lens, reality is viewed as a fragmented, complimentary and polysemic system with components that are produced by social and cultural activity. Social realities that constitute consensus reality are constantly produced and reproduced, changing through the extended use of signs and symbols which hence contribute to the creation of a greater hyperreality.

Origins and usage
The postmodern semiotic concept of hyperreality was contentiously coined by Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation.[3] Baudrillard defined "hyperreality" as "the generation by models of a real without origin or reality";[4] and his earlier book Symbolic Exchange and Death. Hyperreality is a representation, a sign, without an original referent. According to Baudrillard, the commodities in this theoretical state do not have use-value as defined by Karl Marx but can be understood as signs as defined by Ferdinand de Saussure.[5] He believes hyperreality goes further than confusing or blending the 'real' with the symbol which represents it; it involves creating a symbol or set of signifiers which represent something that does not actually exist, like Santa Claus. [...]
[...]
[...]
[...] it is important to consider Baudrillard's texts as articulating an ontology rather than an epistemology.[11 [Is There a Subject in Hyperreality? [2003]]]

Significance
[...]
Hyperreality, some sources point out, may provide insights into the postmodern movement by analyzing how simulations disrupt the binary opposition between reality and illusion but it does not address or resolve the contradictions inherent in this tension.[17 [Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. [2001]]]

Key relational themes
The concepts most fundamental to hyperreality are those of simulation and the simulacrum, first conceptualized by Jean Baudrillard in his book Simulacra and Simulation. The two terms are separate entities with relational origin connections to Baudrillard's theory of hyperreality.

Simulation
Simulation is characterized by a blending of 'reality' and representation, where there is no clear indication of where the former stops and the latter begins. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance; "It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal."[18] Baudrillard suggests that simulation no longer takes place in a physical realm; it takes place within a space not categorized by physical limits i.e., within ourselves, technological simulations, etc.

Simulacrum [(see also the 2 quotes about this subject above)]
The simulacrum is "an image without resemblance"; as Gilles Deleuze summarized, it is the forsaking of "moral existence in order to enter into aesthetic existence".[19] However, Baudrillard argues that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes - through sociocultural compression - truth in its own right.
There are four steps of hyperreal reproduction [respectively four stages of the sign-order (see the first quote for a detailed)]:
1. Basic reflection of reality, i.e. in immediate perception
2. Perversion of reality, i.e. in representation
3. Pretense of reality, where there is no model
4. Simulacrum, which "bears no relation to any reality whatsoever"[20]

Hyperstition
The concept of "hyperstition" [...] generalizes the notion of hyperreality to encompass the concept of "fictional entities that make themselves real." [...]:[21]
Hyperstition is a positive feedback circuit including culture as a component. It can be defined as the experimental (techno-)science of self-fulfilling prophecies. Superstitions are merely false beliefs, but hyperstitions - by their very existence as ideas - function causally to bring about their own reality. - Nick Land
The concept of hyperstition is also related to the concept of "theory-fiction", in which philosophy, critical theory and postmodern literature speculate on actual reality and engage with concepts for potentialities and virtualities. An oft-cited example of such a concept is cyberspace - originating in William Gibson's 1984 novel Neuromancer - [...].[22] By the mid-1990s, the realization of this concept had begun to emerge on a mass scale in the form of the internet.

Consequence
The truth was already being called into question with the rise of media and technology, but with the presence of hyperreality being used most and embraced as a new technology, there are a couple of issues or consequences of hyperreality. It's difficult enough to hear something on the news and choose not to believe it, but it's quite another to see an image of an event or anything and use your empirical sense to determine whether the news is true or false, which is one of the consequences of hyperrealism.[23] The first is the possibility of various simulations being used to influence the audience, resulting in an inability to differentiate fiction from reality, which affects the overall truth value of a subject at hand. Another implication or disadvantage is the possibility of being manipulated by what we see. The audience can interpret different messages depending on the ideology of the entity behind an image. As a result, power equates to control over the media and the people.[24] Celebrities, for example, have their photographs taken and altered so that the public can see the final result. The public then perceives celebrities based on what they have seen rather than how they truly are. It can progress to the point where celebrities appear completely different. As a result of celebrities' body modifications and editing, there has been an increase in surgeries and a decrease in self-esteem during adolescence.[25] Because the truth is threatened, a similar outcome for hyperreality is possible.

[...]"

Comment
Note once again how certain bad actors want to mislead the public in relation to our OS, here on the basis of ontology and epistemology regarding The Proposal describing Evoos, and also cyberspace, as we have seen before in relation to "The Matrix" saga on the basis of postmodernism, simulacra, simulation, and hyperreality.
But as can be easily seen in the concluding comment and in the cited messages, clarifications, and investigations, C.S. created fundamentally different, original and unique works of art.

We also quote a work titled "Modules on Baudrillard II: On Simulation": "[...]
[...] 3) in the third order of simulacra [(simulation simulacra)], which is associated with the postmodern age, we are confronted with a precession of simulacra; [...]
Baudrillard points to a number of phenomena to explain this loss [or lack] of distinctions between "reality" and the simulacrum.
[...]

5) Language and Ideology.
Baudrillard illustrates how in subtle ways language keeps us from accessing "reality." The earlier understanding of ideology was that it hid the truth, that it represented a "false consciousness," as Marxists phrase it, keeping us from seeing the real workings of the state, of economic forces, or of the dominant groups in power. (This understanding of ideology corresponds to Baudrillard's second order of simulacra.) Postmodernism, on the other hand, understands ideology as the support for our very perception of reality. There is no outside of ideology, according to this view, at least no outside that can be articulated in language. Because we are so reliant on language to structure our perceptions, any representation of reality is always already ideological, always already constructed by simulacra."

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject ontology:"[...]
Ontology and human geography
In human geography there are two types of ontology. The first, small "o" accounts for the practical orientation, describing functions of being a part of the group, thought to oversimplify and ignore key activities. The second "o", or big "O", systematically, logically, and rationally describes the essential characteristics and universal traits. This concept relates closely to Plato's view that the human mind can only perceive a bigger world if it continues to live within the confines of its "caves". However, in spite of the differences, ontology relies on the symbolic agreements among members. That said, ontology is crucial for the axiomatic language frameworks."

Comment
Maybe hyperreality, simulation simulacra, and simulated reality hypothesis.

C.S. has read and studied a lot of materials in the second half of the 1990s and early 2000s, which peaked at around 1000 pages of documents, presentations, graphics, etc. per week over several years. And like in the case of the Global Brain metaphor, hypothesis, vision, idea, or genre (see the Clarification of the 15th of December 2023 and Clarification of the 26th of December 2023) we can remember that we came in touch with "Simularcum and Simulation", hyperreality, and so on.

But the oeuvre of J. Baudrillard is another nice example for what was too much blah blah blah at the time of first contact, although it has become more interesting again recently, like the GB 1.0, but in relation with showing the originality and legality of Evoos and OS.
The postmodernism, as advocated by J. Baudrillard, is too postmodern, too subjective, too ideologically transfigured and glorified, and too irrational for C.S..

Without something to hold on or to believe in the mind goes crazy and becomes unconscious and without symbol grounding no syntax, no semiotic, no semantic, no language, no logic, no reality, and no simulation.
What is truth, what is lie,
what is fact, what is fiction,
what is reality, what is simulation, what is hyperreality, what is virtuality?

But when creating our Evoos, C.S. had already concluded that something rational is still possible and correspondingly was already integrating, unifying, fusing, and designing something.

In fact, like in the cases of the

"Simulacra and Simulation" was not a source of inspiration, but a source of confirmation, because C.S. came to the same conclusions and solutions by taking a different path with

This different approach is also the reason why C.S. directly saw the deficitis of the prior art, which were solved by taking said own different path, creating own expressions of idea, conducting own research and development (R&D), designing own architectures and systems, and pioneering.

"Entropy may be one of the few processes that is not time-reversible and decides about the arrow of time" respectively the one-way direction or asymmetry of time. "Because of the second law of thermodynamics, entropy prevents macroscopic processes showing T-symmetry."
complexity and information theory

"There is a strong link between simulacra and language - arguably from a postmodernist Baudrillardian view, without language to describe it, our reality doesn't exist."
C.S.' view is rooted in mathematics and informatics and leads from signs and semiotics (sign processes or processing and the communication of meaning) to syntax and semantics, and linguistics (language processing and understanding) and logics (reasoning), which still is reality and not a model.

If one takes a closer look, then we get Gotthard Günther and his Morphogrammatics, Kenogrammatics, Proemial Relationship Model (PRM), and PolyContextural Logics (PCL), which is no wonder, because of cybernetics.

One can also see the foundation of the the Arrow System (AS) as part of the TUNES OS in the field of cybernetics.

C.S. concluded that what is collectively referred to as ontological relativism or the regime of total equivalency, including

is too much simulation simulacra or simulacra of simulation in particular, and too much referencelessness, complexity, and blah blah blah in general. From the point of Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT), describing and discussing the system adds much more complexity to the overall system, then just doing it or creating it, and eventually is an infinity reflection of reflection.

self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, and cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension beginning with function and operation of the brain
model-based, ontology, model-level reflection

grounding in rationality

1:1 mapping of real and physical over digital and cybernetical to virtual and metaphysical

One model is already discussed in the work titled "The Society of Mind" (1986), we have such a mapping, but also a fusion with the simple agents also called observation mechanisms by others, and neurons and actors by C.S. of the

C.S. concluded that this is a holonic system model, specifically a 2-layer variant of the Autonomic Cognitive Computer (ACogC).
See for example the works

This also leads to the fractal and holologic properties of both the structure and the function of a brain and eventually the architecture of our Evoos.
And it also shows that the

• Parallel Computing (PC or ParaC) (see also Tuple Space System (TSS), which "is an implementation of the Associative Memory (AM) paradigm for parallel computing and distributed computing. It provides a repository of tuples that can be accessed concurrently [following] the blackboard metaphor. [...]", and Multi-Agent System (MAS)), and
• Distributed SuperComputing (DSC or DSupC), including
  • Grid Computing (GC or GridC) (see also ontology, Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), and Global Brain (GB)), and
  • Wide Area Network (WAN) SuperComputing (WANSC) or Interconnected SuperComputing (ISC),

  and also

• Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and
• predictive coding, which is the top-down and bottom-up processing with feedback in the field of neuroscience,

  are included in our Evoos and the field of

• Cluster Computing (CC or ClusterC)

  is included in our OS, if it is not already included in our Evoos.

It made also click by these works and suddenly C.S. had created the 1:1 mapping, the reflection, the twin, the overlay, the integration, the unification, etc., and eventually the fusion.

signs and semiotics, syntax and semantics, linguistics and logics, representations, models, realities, simulations, emergences, etc., all suddenly {formulation not correct and because of fusion} get or have somekind of a twin or identical counterpart on the basis of a bidirectional homomorphism between reality and virtuality, physics and metaphysics, cybernetics and digitality, ...
the path that bridges the gap between them, see eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), and New Reality (NR), Ontoverse (Ov), and Caliber/Calibre.
All the rest is performance and reproduction, adaption, modification, simulation, etc..

So C.S. created the Zero Ontology or Null Ontology as the fractal sign O# and as a marker and grounding in the infinity and decided that this is the New Reality (NR). The simulation simulacra or simulacra of simulation becomes the simulation reality (realities) or reality (realities) of simulation.
fusion of realities
belief system
ontological argument about own existence

As we said in the Clarification of the 8th of May 2022, "the best choice is neutral, rational, true, safe, secure, flexible, and inexpensive, always fits, makes happy, and does not destroy anything to be able to go back in case of error".

reflection, fractal, holologic, holographic, or hologramatic, holistic, holonic paradigms and properties as the means to structure the perceptions (of realities)
As we showed in the Short summary of clarification of the 11th of June 2022, in the moment one counts, one is using a fractal and is having an order.
mathematics (and logics) as the language
for ideology free belief system and separation of reality and simulacrum, model and simulation
belief, truth, and justification
trust
epistemology
truth, existence, ontology
validation and verification
resilience
persistence, Non-Fungible Token (NFT)
closing the loop of quantum physics, microphysics, macrophysics, astrophysics
dynamic Theory of Everything (ToE)
Stars do not lie.

duality,
Binary-Relational Algebra (BRA) with binary-relational calculus, Binary-Relational Model (BRM), triple store, Arrow Logic (AL), model-reflection, and (hyper)graph model, graph-based OS, kernel-less, serverless,
Many-Valued Logic (MVL), Three-Valued Logic (3VL), Fuzzy Logic (FL)==Computing with Words (CW or CwW), signs, semiotics, linguistics, Computational Linguistics (CL), NLP and NLU, etc., see also "Fuzzy logic = Computing with Words" and "From Computational Linguistics to Computing with Words", and further to coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including our (modular, multimodal) Foundation Model (FM) or Foundational Model (FM), Capability and Operational Model (COM), MultiModal Artificial Neural Network Model (MMANNM), etc.,
deterministic chaos and order,
rational Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agent architecture

Every continous system has the Fixed Point Property (FPP).
"Any actor network can be treated as [cybernetic] feedback system."
"A unique least fixed point [...] exists and [can] be constructively found, if [a set of signal tuples] is a [Complete Partial Order (]CPO[)] and [an actor function] F is (Scott) continuous."
The FFP leads us to holologic, holographic, or hologramatic, holistic mind and connects it with neuron, actor, and (simple) agent network.

OntoLinux Further steps of the 21st of August 2010
"Simply summarized, the content of the document implies that the cycle dependance problem exists due to a desired functionality in the sense of 'standard programming lanugage vs. reflective programming language' or 'hierarchical(/standard) file/data storage system vs. cyclic(/reflective) file/data storage system', and its handling is not a problem at all. It also says implicitly that it doesn't matter if someone speaks about logical structures like reflective towers or cycles like 'a metadata is a data and a data is a metadata', 'a program is a data and a data is a program', 'a file is a directory and a directory is a file', or even 'a reification is a reflection and a reflection is a reification' itself. Said this, the document gives a general blueprint for a method to model and handle logical structures like circles by noncyclic processes that use a special metaobject, the metacontinuation, and a special stacking model for interpreters, the model of the reflective tower, without loosing the desired functionality."

cycle, cycle dependance problem
void, hole viewed as reality by Baudrillard
"[...] ([...] in fact, this new universe is "anti-gravitational," or, if it still gravitates, it does so around the hole of the real, around the hole of the imaginary)."

This also allows something totally new, a lot of entirely new things, specifically

C.S. takes a different direction in case of the 3rd order simulation simulacra, so that the

are preserved and the simulation is real, but is not hyperreal and includes the hyperreal, and the simulation reality includes the simulation simulacra.
Like our Ontoverse (Ov) is not the Metaverse (Mv), but includes it, our New Reality (NR) is not the HyperReality (HR), but includes it.
The kernel-less reflective/fractal/holonic New Reality (NR) closes the circle / reflects itself and roots the HyperReality (HR) in the Physical Reality (PR).

Furthermore, era of simulation, but also era of AI and ML in particular and Bionics in general, and the illegal and vicious utilization of our integration for bad and evil actions makes it so dangerous, as one can see with the so-called hallucinations and deepfakes, and also misinformations, and so on.

differentiation to mirror world, Cyber-Physical System, digital twin
distinction to Global Brain of the first generation (GB 1.0) and Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW)
in addition missing Bionics, and much more

"Where for Baudrillard there was no escape from the simulation, the Wachowskis offered hope in the "promise of a true natural world 'unplugged' and separate from the Matrix", explains [a scientist and the] editor of The Baudrillard Dictionary."
No, those plagiarists do not offer that, because their version of the Matrix has no Augmented Reality (AR) and Synthetic Reality (SR), no eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR), no New Reality (NR), no this and that, but only Simulated Reality (SR or SimR) and Virtual Reality (VR).

recall that in case of a kernel-less os (e.g. Dos), and a serverless microService and Function as a Service (FaaS), one still has an os (Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) or nanokernel) and a server as somekind of grounding. The question is how small the later can be or how simple or less complex it can be. This leads directly to Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT) on the one hand and the requirement of a grounding for cybernetic systems and ontological realtivism once again. This also leads to Computational Complexity Theory (CCT), and deterministic chaos (see the Clarification of the 29th of April 2016, Short summary of clarification of the 11th of June 2022, ... June 2022).

Clarification of the 16th of April 2016 and Clarification of the 29th of April 2016, ...
Symbol Grounding Problem (SGP)

Clarification of the 8th of May 2022
"We also take a closer look on the Arrow System and show that it is merely PCL in relation to the TUNES OS.
This leads to the

[...] Dynamic Symbol System."

"Kontextur Différance Kenogramm"

"Cybernetic Ontology and Transjunctional Operations""
"Many problems remain with the hypothetical "transjunction". One of the most important is the linguistic problem. How does one specify a system with transjunctions? All the existing logical operators (and formal systems for that matter) are based on natural language. When we are making statements we are always talking within a system (or we change systems sequentially). How do we talk *about* the simultaneous interwovenness of systems? To solve this problem Guenther is said to have proposed the idea of a "negative language", but I'm not sure exactly what he meant by it."
But this suggests that G. Günther at least accepted duality.

"The big mistake of G. Günther and Co. is to not understand that

It is exactly like with the electron, one must touch it to decide both, when and where it is. The same is with the universe to decide time and location.
At this point we always begin to talk about the length of a description and its complexity in relation to AIT."

Clarification of the 19th of June 2022
"{incorrect and misleading} But due to the lack of symbol grounding

are possible."

J. Baudrillard connects semiotics, linguistics, and science fiction with the career killer cybernetics and ontological relativism with his Simulacra and Simulation.

Evoos is an evolutionary logic, mathematic, bionic (e.g. genetic, cognitive), cybernetic, ontologic, model-reflective, multi-paradigmatic, multimodal, linguistic, autonomic, operational creation.

Ontologic System (OS) is an ontonic creation.
additional creations for the mapping, including Ontologic Zero, kernel-less, serverless, asynchronous without context switch, XMR or XR, etc.

The

but both acts are much more far reaching.

bridges physical reality and virtual reality, such as for example Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
fusion of realities
C.S. added with the creation of our Evoos and our OS

in addition to

as part of visions, compilations, integrations, unifications, fusions, architectures, components, applications, services, and so on.

This shows once again that our Evoos and our OS are original and unique, scientifically fictitious, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal, copyrighted, prohibited for fair use, and already iconic, sui generis expressions of idea respectively works of art respectively masterpieces, because

And as anticipated by us, they have taking our creation, and that nonsense of that crazy drug junkie Philip K. Dick, and then directly applied it against C.S. and our corporation.

16.April.2024

07:11, 16:11, and 22:11 UTC+2
SBaaS exclusive and mandatory by SOPR

SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS)

We quote a report about the companies Microsoft and G42: "[...]
Microsoft said on Tuesday that it would make a $1.5 billion investment in G42, an artificial intelligence [company] in the United Arab Emirates, in a deal largely orchestrated by the Biden administration to box out China as Washington and Beijing battle over who will exercise technological influence in the Persian Gulf region and beyond.
Under the partnership, Microsoft will give G42 permission to sell Microsoft services that use powerful A.I. chips, which are used to train and fine-tune generative A.I. models. In return, G42, which has been under scrutiny by Washington for its ties to China, will use Microsoft's cloud services and accede to a security arrangement negotiated in detailed conversations with the U.S. government. It places a series of protections on the A.I. products shared with G42 and includes an agreement to strip Chinese gear out of G42's operations, among other steps.
"When it comes to emerging technology, you cannot be both in China's camp and our camp," said Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, who traveled twice to the U.A.Emirates. to talk about security arrangements for this and other partnerships.
The accord is highly unusual, Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, said in an interview, reflecting the U.S. government's extraordinary concern about protecting the intellectual property behind A.I. programs.
"The U.S. is quite naturally concerned that the most important technology is guarded by a trusted U.S. company," said Mr. Smith, who will take a seat on G42's board.
The investment could help the United States push back against China's rising influence in the Gulf region. If the moves succeed, G42 would [or] will be brought into the U.S. fold and pare back its ties with China. The deal could also become a model for how U.S. firms leverage their technological leadership in A.I. to lure countries away from Chinese tech, while reaping huge financial awards.
[...]"

Comment
No, it is not working this way.
First of all, we note that it is our Ontologic System (OS), our Ontoverse (Ov), our Ontoscope (Os), and therefore our camp, in which they all are, want to have fun, and become happy.

Furthermore, like the companies Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Anthropic, Nvidia, Intel, AMD, IBM, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Aleph Alpha, Mistral, and Co., the company G42 has no authorization respectively allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of the specific parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) at all, specifically for everything related to SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) and our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including our (modular, multimodal) Foundation Model (FM) or Foundational Model (FM), Capability and Operational Model (COM), MultiModal Artificial Neural Network Model (MMANNM)), etc., and transformative, generative, and creative Bionics.
The Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) are clear in defining the scope of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

The ToS of our SOPR also

• political reasons and
• military use,

and

What we have here is a pattern regarding the goal, strategy, and realization.
In general, we see here another attempt to expropriate or democratize the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation by conspiring and plotting together with governments and supporting them with the illegal activity to implent essential parts of our Evoos and our OS as national infrastructures (president of Microsoft B. Smith), as we have seen before by conspiring and plotting together with research institutes, companies, and other entities and supporting them with the illegal activity to implement essential parts of our Evoos and our OS as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) (Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft S. Nadella), which is void and will be easily reversed by the transfer of all illegal materials and other legal actions.
In particular, we see here another attempt to expropriate or democratize the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation by

We

• do not have to exist at all (see for example the messages U.A.E. have to comply with ToS, SOPR considering to blacklist customers of Jais and Falcon of the 5th of October 2023, and G42 blacklisted of the 27th of November 2023, and also Mistral AI blacklisted of the 9th of December 2023) and
• do not have the allowance to get any as a Service technologies (aaSx) from Service Providers (SPs) at all (see the related message),

because it is our corporation anyway.

Therefore, the agreement with the company G42 and all other partnerships are void until our SOPR has finished its examination and assessment of each individual case and made its final conclusion and decision in accordance with the ToS of our SOPR (see above).
We also would like to note in this context that (global) markets and sovereign wealth funds do depend on our goodwill as well. Obviously, no accord, no agreement, no partnership, or whatsoever of this kind or any other nonsense is required in this case at all, but compromises by all entities concerned to enjoy a true win-win.
If at all, then a joint venture has to be established with our corporation in accordance with the ToS of our SOPR, where we hold the majority of voting shares, without blocking minority, etc., and they may have a one or more seats in the board.
It is that simple. :)

Eventually, the U.S.America, the European Union (EU), and any other country, union of states, and economic zone

in this case, or our SOPR will act accordingly, as multiple times discussed and announced in the past.
Our SOPR has the last word anyway. Court-proof.
That is the way how democracies and rule-based law and order environments work.
It is that simple. :)

We also demand once again that governments, joint venture partners, and licensing partners comply with the

and therefore protect the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. instead of always

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein or/and publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

18.April.2024

00:00 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.", [George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949]
It is a slogan of the Party in this novel.

See also the Comment of the Day of the 12th of April 2015.

Also note:
"I wrote 1984 as a warning, not as a instruction manual."
"And I created OS as a solution, not as a problem."

20.April.2024

04:36 and 09:44 UTC+2
SOPR looking at state contracts

We do not give any country a discount by accepting contracts with fixed or capped service costs, which even have to be submitted together by a joint venture (literally spoken operating company or utility company) with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), if an aaSx does not belong to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies anyway, but a share of the related overall budget, specifically if unwanted special services are required for whatever reasons, such as opaque access for illegal or legal reasons, in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).

In addition, our SOPR will look at some of those illegal contracts, agreements, etc. in the U.S.America, European Union (EU), West Asia, and other locations.

And of course, damage compensations are due even in case of a ministry, federal authority, and so on.
After all, we already pay taxes. And if a government is unable to manage a country in accordance with its mandate by the true sovereign, the people, then others have to finance the party ... and decide which music is played.

We do have several compromises, including the

Yes, it is working this way.

24:56 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We improved a variant of one of our technologies by around 30%.
We also looked at the applicapability of the resulting things.

We also adapted or modified a processing approach.

24.April.2024

03:17 UTC+2
No different sizes of OM

Ontologic Model (OM)

We have

For online and offline use, we will do it like our

A user or a device or a runtime environment can download a part of the singular overall OM by selecting specific ontologies, topic maps, interfaces, etc. regarding modality, language, culture, domain, category, topic or theme, use case, overlay, etc..

We have no need for a further refinement of the License Model (LM), because our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) already has introduced

In addition, they are in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) with its

For sure, our SOPR is open to any constructive revision of its Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and Main Contract Model (MCM).

25.April.2024

05:51 and 13:53 UTC+2
BYD Xuanji blacklisted

All variants of our Ontoscope (Os), including our

are copyrighted in one way or another, specifically when viewed as access places and access devices to our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) of our Ontologic System (OS) respectively in our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov), and managed and operated with our Ontologic System (OS) in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).
Therefore, the compliance with the

is required, which requires the

• Media System (MS),
• Video Game System (VGS),
• Online Advertising System (OAdvS),
• Electronic Commerce (EC) with Marketplace for Everything (MfE),
• and other Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) subsystems and platforms,

and

• facilities (e.g. buildings, data centers, exchange points or hubs, and communication channels),
• technologies (e.g. (sub)systems, platforms, and backbones, core networks, or fabrics),
• goods (e.g. applications, devices, robots, and vehicles), and
• services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. Capability and Operational Models (COMs), Capability and Operational Systems (COSs), and Capability and Operational Platforms (COPs), (core) Infrastructure as a Service technologies (IaaSx), (utility) Technology as a Service technologies (TaaSx), Network as a Service technologies (NaaSx), Platform as a Service technologies (PaaSx), Backend as a Service technologies (BaaSx), Service as a Service technologies (SaaSx), Data as a Service technologies (DaaSx), Trust as a Service technologies (TaaSx), SoftBionics as a Service technologies (SBaaSx), etc.),

to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS worldwide.

Furthermore, the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR demand that manufacturers of our Ontoscope (Os) install the network equipment of our corporation together with its Joint Venture Partners (JVPs) and Main Contractors (MCs).
Maybe we should begin with joint conversations about the complete AutoBrain™.
And if we remember correctly, then there was or still exists the 51% ownership regulation, also known as Chinese win-win poilicy, 51% + 49% Chinese win-win policy, and 51% Chinese win-win ventures. :)

We made these matter crystal clear over many years.
These are not debatable worldwide. :)

By the way:

08:32 and 14:24 UTC+2
% + %, % OAOS, % HW #5

The discussions, reasonings, terms and conditions, etc. have been publicized.

The next establishment of a new company as joint venture respectively transaction of the majority of company shares as damage compensations should be done with the company TikTok (including algorithms).

Other entities should not buy TikTok, because they would purchase a huge amount of unsettled payment obligations regarding royalties and damages.

A subsequent step would be a merger with this designated joint venture with the company Alphabet (Google) and its subsidiary Youtube, and the designated joint venture with the company Meta (Facebook) (see also the note % + %, % OAOS, % HW of the 28th of February 2024).

14:36 UTC+2
There will be no Meta AI in Metaverse due to our OS

It is just only a pipe dream of the company Meta (Facebook) that there will be a Metaverse, a Meta AI, a Meta OS, etc. in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), because this is original and unique, and thus copyrighted and C.S. does enjoy the exclusive moral rights, which Meta (Facebook) is not allowed to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm in any way (see also the note . Therefore, we demand once again the immediate payment of damage compensations, the transfer of all illegal materials to our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), and so on, or we will enforce our rights and properties worldwide.
And together with our designated Joint Venture Partners (JVPs), and also our designated Licensing Partners (LPs) and Main Contractors (MCs) we have already begun to take a significant portion of its online advertisement market share (think big), who obviously are much bigger and smarter, and have understood the signs of the time as is the case with shareholders of Meta (Facebook).
The fact is that Meta (Facebook) is completely overstretching itself, while having no legally required allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS), but only the right to utilize the essential facilities, or being more precise, to utilize the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

which again brings us back to the start of this note.

Furthermore, we do decide which Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and platforms will be installed and executed on our Ontoscope (Os), including its handheld, head-mounted, and wearable variants, and all the many users will not find Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp on their mobile devices, if Meta (Facebook) refuses to comply with the

And we will not debate the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation with Meta (Facebook), but only ask the last question: Hawaii or jail?

It is that simple. :)
Who tells it Mark Zuckerberg? Ooops.

16:44 UTC+2
Model as a Service technologies (MaaSx)©

Obviously, Model as a Service (MaaS) technologies (e.g. Capability and Operational Models (COMs), Capability and Operational Systems (COSs), and Capability and Operational Platforms (COPs)) (MaaSx) due to our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including ontologies, Foundation Models (FMs) or Foundational Model (FMs), Capability and Operational Models (COMs), Machine Learning Models (MLMs), Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs), etc..
Therefore, the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) are effective, which include regulations such as the demand for the utilization of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with its Marketplace for Everything (MfE) for the trade of row signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms.

26.April.2024

03:30 UTC+2
Robots, drones, etc. in Ov are Os

Ontoverse (Ov)
Ontoscope (Os)

Manufacturers of our Os in other variants than the head-mounted, and wearable variants, like for example Xiaomi and DJI with their surface robots and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), also have to install the network equipment of our corporation together with its Joint Ventures (JVs) and Main Contractors (MCs).

10:32 UTC+2
ByteDance has to comply with the ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

The Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) include regulations for the

• triple damage compensations induced, resulting from
  • unpaid royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
  • obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
  • thwarted, obstructed, blocked, and otherwise missed commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities,
• profit generated illegally, or
• value (e.g. share price, market capitalization) increased or gained illegally

  by

• performing and reproducing our Evoos and our OS in whole or in part without authorization respectively allowance and license, and
• interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S and our corporation,

• rights, including
  • moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights

  and

• properties, including
  • copyrights,
  • raw signals and data,
  • digital and virtual assets, and
  • online advertisement estate

  of C.S. and our corporation,

If one is unable to sign, pay, and comply, then it is the own problem.

We have not said purchase, but payment of damage compensations or alternatively takeover of TikTok, if this action is sufficient to settle the issue.

19:43 UTC+2
F.R.Germany and French R. govs still in LaLaLand

Government (gov)

We quote and translate a report, which is about the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) of the F.R.Germany and French Republic and our Ontologic System: "[...]
Pistorius and Lecornu emphasized that the state - unlike in other projects - is clearly acting as the client for the MGCS and that the industry had to adapt accordingly.
[...]"

Comment
No, it is not working this way.
They

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and Main Contract Model (MCM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has the last word anyway. Court-proof.
That is the way how democracies and rule-based law and order environments work.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Is that clear?==Ist das klar?==Est-ce que c'est clair?

27.April.2024

09:33 UTC+2
SOPR considering localization again

The development has already been anticipated by us around 20 years ago and has now become the trend worldwide: freedom, democracy, and globalization are becoming empty phrases and are being replaced by capricous protectionism, autocracy and despotism, nationalism and localization, and so on.
For sure, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has to cope with its social and societal environment respectively the societies and therefore adapt to this development.
In fact, we already discussed the matter, including specific problems and solutions, a few times in the past.

One point of this discussion going on is the

But the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies are not affected by this and still function as the interfaces and hubs, obviously, doubtlessly, and definitely.

If the U.S.America, European Union (EU), P.R.China, and any other union of federal states, single sovereign state, federal state of a union of states, economic zone, or zone of other interests do not stop their interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exlusive rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation immediately, then our SOPR will finally make its decision and act accordingly.
And this might happen in the very next future. The last warning has already be given to all of them. :)

10:08 and 24:15 UTC+2
It is like 2Pac's voice, but Drake's cadence

We like the song from the artistic point of view, because it is a very creative and personal expression of idea, and also a very good start of discussion.

But for sure, we also have some issues from the legal point of view, because

• two persons might have voices, which sound indistinguishable to a third person, and
• such a protection would give a person an unlawful monopoly regarding the copyright law,

and

by

• performing and reproducing our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with our transformative, generative, and creative Bionics and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) in whole or in part without authorization respectively allowance and license, and
• interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S and our corporation.

28.April.2024

07:27 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die.", [Supreme Court, Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957)]

Those

constitute nothing else than the blatant and unadorned

by a very small minority.

29.April.2024

04:20 and 06:01 UTC+2
Crackdown of Cloud-native in preparation

*** Work in progress - wording middle section***

We quote the document titled "CNCF Overview" and publicized in 2024: "[...]

End User Driven Open Source [...]
[Logos of] End User Members
[...]

[Logos of exemplary] End User Members
Adidas
Airbnb
Microsoft→Blizzard Entertainment
Deutsche Bahn
GMX
King
Microsoft→Linked In
Merck
Nasdaq
Porsche
ProSiebenSat.1 Media
Reddit
Rewe Group
Shopify
Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français (SNCF)
Swiss Post
The New York Times
TomTom
Volvo
Yahoo
Zalando

The world's largest cloud and software companies
[Logos of] Platinum Members
Alibaba Group→Alibaba Cloud
Amazon→Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Apple
Boeing
Cisco
Fujitsu
Alphabet→Google→Google Cloud
Grafana→Grafana Labs
HCLTech
Huawei
IBM
Infosys Limited
Intel
[Veeam Software→Kastem]
Microsoft→Microsoft Azure
[New Relic]
Oracle
IBM→Red Hat
SAP
Broadcom→VMware
ByteDance→Volcano Engine

[Logos of] Gold Members
American Express
Alibaba Group→Ant Group (formerly Ant Financial)
SoftBank→Arm Holdings
Baidu→Baidu AI Cloud
Capital One Financial Corporation
China Electronics Corporation→China Electronic System Technology Co.→ceCloud
Charter Communications
China Telecom
DaoCloud
Equinix
Ernst & Young Global Limited
Fidelity Investments
Tsinghua Unigroup→Unisplendour and Hewlett Packard Enterprise→HPE Aruba Networking&rarr3Com→H3C Technologies
Hitachi
Inspur Group
Intuit
JD.com→JD Cloud
JFrog
Mercedes-Benz
NEC
NetApp
Splunk
Deutsche Telekom→T-Mobile Us
Tencent→Tencent Cloud
Trend Micro
ZTE

And innovative startups [...]
[Logos of exemplary] Silver Members
1NCE
23 Technologies
Acent
Adobe
Akamai Technologies
Allianz Direkt
AMD
Audi
Autocloud[©™ copyright and trademark infringement]
Bancolombia
BlackRock
Bloomberg
Canonical
Citigroup
Comcast Corporation
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
Digital Ocean Holdings
Docker
NTT Docomo
Ebay
Ericsson
GE Healthcare
GitLab
Goldman Sachs
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
InterCloud [copyright infringement in the context of OS, Cnx]
Ionos
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Juniper Networks
Lenovo
Lockheed Martin
Mastercard
Materna Information & Communications
McKinsey & Company
Morgan Stanley
Nokia
NTT Data
Nvidia
Orange
[SAIC Motor
Samsung SDS
Solo.io
Spotify
Squarespace
Suse
Swisscom
Deutsche Telekom→T-Systems International
Thales Group
Toyota
VA Linux Systems Japan
Walmart→Walmart Global Tech→Walmart Labs
Aptiv→Wind River Systems]

[...]"

Comment
We have already shown that

and the other publications cited therein or publicized elsewhere on OntomaX.

{better wording} An operating system (os) is a complex system, and a Distributed System (DS) (e.g. Distributed operating system (Dos)) adds another dimension of complexity. Highly conspicuous and suspicious are the observed facts that over such a long period of time everything, all these Cloud-native technologies (Cnx) fit together like pieces of a giant puzzle, but also correspond exactly to the essential parts of our Evoos and our OS. We know from Complexity Theory (CT) and self-organization that this can only happen, {better or correct formulation} if the related organized information of a cognitive order and semantic information of a semantic order are coupled by a feedback loop to separate relevant and irrelevant elementary signals, which are the individual cloud-native projects, parts, etc., and holons with selectable internal states, internal modes, with internal dynamics of holons, which are the local-rule generators, which by the self-organization and their synergetics become a cognitive order according to a semantic order.
But the resulting semantic order is included in the compilations, architectures, components, and so on of our Evoos and our OS, which shows that they have been taken as sources of inspiration and blueprints, copied, modified, and utilized to

This holonic approach also cures the deficits of the copyrightability test (e.g. Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) as already discussed in the note of the 19th of December 2023.
Ultimately, the separation trick must fail sooner or later, and has failed in this case as well.
Furthermore, most if not all members of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) are participating in this conspiracy and plot, which has legal consequences, as already discussed in the past as well.

We have also made crystal clear that our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) are not an Application Programming Interface (API), the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), and so on, but sui generis==of its own kind or of its own class or unique in its characteristics creations, specifically expressions of ideas, compilations, modifications, integrations, designs, architectures, components, and so on in contrast to those illegal modifications and rebrandings of our Evoos, EosA, OS, and OSA.

We are also observing that more and more companies are understanding the true legal situation and trying to solve their huge legal problems. For example, we have seen actions to remove the Free from Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) either by

We do appreciate every move into the right direction, but we do not accept incorrect licensing, because such a compromise is not sufficient to comply with the

which already are the compromise.
Therefore, the exclusive rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation are still infringed, because we have the control over them and make the rules, or terms and conditions respectively Terms of Service (ToS) for their performance and reproduction, but no other entities, specifically not by blackmailing, gatecrashing, or conducting other illegal activities.
A

Eventually, we do not see that well-architectured, well-established, well-positioned, and well-whatsoever as claimed by them, but repeat once again that they all do have to sign, pay, and comply, which demands either to

though the payment of damage compensations and the transfer of all illegal materials have to be done anyway.
No, it is not working this way.

By the way:

• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in general and
• Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR in particular.

05:02 UTC+2
% + %, % OAOS, % HW #6 China special

As announced in the note % + %, % OAOS, % HW of the 28th of February 2024, "[t]he next estimations will be for certain companies of [...] our friends in the Republic of India and the P.R.China".

So we list some non-binding examples for the ratios of company shares estimated by us:

The next estimations will be for certain companies of our friends in the U.K. and the European Union (EU), and also Japan, India, South Korea, and other countries in Asia.

30.April.2024

07:46 UTC+2
Dell will participate in payment of damages

In case of the company Broadcom around 34.5 billion U.S. Dollar or 50% of what Broadcom payed the company Dell Technologies for the subsidiary VMware, including asumed debt.