President Trump: Capitol Officials Controlled by Pelosi Rejected My Recommendation of 10,000 National Guard for January 6 Because of Optics

President Trump spoke about the January 6 riot at the Capitol during a phone interview with Steve Hilton on the Fox News Channel program the Next Revolution that aired Sunday night, saying he “hated to see it.”

Trump denied reports he was watching the riot on TV and liked what he was seeing, saying, “Well, that’s incorrect reporting. First of all I wasn’t watching TV. I turned it on later on when I heard about it and did a lot of moves. You know, we said to the Department of Defense, the top person, days before we had the rally, cuz that rally was massive…(Trump comments on large rally crowd)…and I said that I think you should have ten thousand, I think I gave the number, I definitely gave the number of ten thousand National Guardsmen, I think you have ten thousand of the National Guard ready. They took that number, from what I understand they gave it to the people at the Capitol which is controlled by Pelosi and I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it looked good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

Hilton pressed Trump on how he feels now about the riot. Trump said, “I hate to see it, I think it’s terrible, I hate to see it” and went on to compare the “double standard” of the reaction to the Capitol riot with the riots last year by Antifa and the radical left in Washington, D.C., Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis.

CNN’s Olive Darcy posted a video clip of the interview with a typical for CNN misleading description.

The Daily Caller reported Saturday that Capitol officials said Pelosi’s office had made it clear in the months before the riot that National Guard should not be deployed to protect the Capitol because of optics.

In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Former Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving recalled to House Admin how previous discussions with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her office factored in to his “blender of decision making,” according to three sources with direct knowledge of Irving’s talk with House Admin.

Pelosi’s office had previously impressed upon Irving that the National Guard was to remain off Capitol Grounds, Irving allegedly told House Admin. The discussions, which centered around “optics,” allegedly occurred in the months prior to the Jan. 6 riot, during a time when deployment of federal resources for civil unrest was unpopular with Democrats and many members of Congress.

The three sources who confirmed the discussion to the Daily Caller did so under the condition of anonymity, citing the fear of putting a chill on further witnesses to how the security situation unfolded Jan. 6. The discussion, if accurate, raises questions as to what role Pelosi’s office had in the security failures that resulted in the resignations of both Irving and former Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund. Pelosi’s Deputy Chief of Staff Drew Hammill did not deny the allegations in a statement to the Daily Caller.

“The Speaker’s Office has made it clear publicly and repeatedly that our office was not consulted or contacted concerning any request for the National Guard ahead of January 6th. That has been confirmed by former Sergeant at Arms Irving in sworn testimony before Senate committees. The Speaker expects security professionals to make security decisions and to briefed about those decisions,” Hammill said.

“It is our understanding that Committee on House Administration Ranking Republican Member Davis was briefed in advance of January 6th about security preparedness, but took no action to address any security concerns that he might have had,” he concluded.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a statement on January 5 that she did not want any help from federal law enforcement agencies, “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway.”

The AP reported January 4 on Bowser’s request for a light contingent of unarmed Guard for traffic control, noting that no Guard would be deployed at the Capitol.

…Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested a limited National Guard deployment to help bolster the Metropolitan Police Department.

…According to a U.S. defense official, Bowser put in a request on New Year’s Eve to have Guard members on the streets from Jan. 5 to Jan. 7 to help with the protests. The official said the additional forces will be used for traffic control and other assistance but they will not be armed or wearing body armor.

…Some 340 D.C. National Guard members will be activated, with about 115 on duty in the streets at any given time, said the defense official, who provided details on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The official said Guard members will be used to set up traffic control points around the city and to stand with district police officers at all the city’s Metro stops. (Acting D.C. Police Chief) Contee said Guard troops will also be used for some crowd management.

…The defense official said that there will be no active duty military troops in the city, and the U.S. military will not be providing any aircraft or intelligence. The D.C. Guard will provide specialized teams that will be prepared to respond to any chemical or biological incident. But the official said there will be no D.C. Guard members on the National Mall or at the U.S. Capitol.

Like President Trump said, “That was a big mistake.”

Sidney Powell on Evidence To Diminish The Election Results

Attorney Sidney Powell and retired General Michael Flynn were guests on Erskine’s weekly podcast on Saturday.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is a former United States Army Lieutenant General who served as President Donald Trump’s 25th National Security Advisor. During the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Flynn played a key role in defining US counterterrorism policy and disarming insurgent networks, and he was assigned to a number of battle arms, conventional, and special operations senior intelligence assignments. The Field of War, his novel, is amazing.

Sidney Powell spent ten years in the Department of Justice and has based her private practice on federal appeals for the past two decades. She became Director of the Appellate Division for the Western and Northern Districts of Texas after becoming the youngest Assistant US Attorney. Sidney Powell has been called a “Super Lawyer” and one of the “Best Attorneys in America” by her peers. Licensed To Lie, her best-selling book on Amazon, reads like a legal thriller. CONVICTION MACHINE: Standing Up to Prosecutorial Violence is her most recent book. Discover the Facts about the 2020 election and what it means for the United States.

To start things off, Sidney Powell had this to say. “Well, Erskine, it seems to me that every institution of law enforcement and the rule of law that we have trusted in this country since its creation to protect the law and the people from government violations has fully collapsed.

“There’s all sorts of precedent for fixing what happened in this election, from Bush vs. Gore and other cases as well,” Sidney Powell said of the last election. There are votes that are fractionalized. That’s exactly what we have here, based on a computer algorithm that we can prove in several counties and could prove around the country if anyone would issue an order authorizing inspection of the machines.

The fact that Dominion and other corporations refuse to allow voting machines to be inspected should tell everyone what they need to know. Election reports must be held for 22 months under federal law… In this case, forensic inspections of the machines and examinations of all paper ballots are required. We all know this isn’t going to work. There were ballots that were not real. “Oh, yeah, they did a full audit in Georgia,” people said. You’ll get the same result if you just keep running the same counterfeit bill through the same counting machine.

NYT Haberman: Cuomo’s Apology Is ‘Breathtaking’ — He Knows He’s in ‘Real Trouble’

New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman said Monday on CNN’s “New Day” that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D-NY) apology after a second former aide accuse him of sexual harassment was “breathtaking.”

In a statement released Sunday, Cuomo said, “I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation. To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

Haberman said, “Look, hearing Andrew Cuomo apologize for anything is breathtaking. I have covered him on-and-off for 20 years, and I can’t remember another time when he has done that. I think it speaks to the degree to which he knows he is in real trouble.”

She continued, “I think he was trying to avoid having Tish James, the New York attorney general, end up with an independent probe into what has happened. I think he resisted that repeatedly. I think ultimately, he had to throw up his hands and give in to it yesterday. We saw multiple statements from his office come out about such a probe. And eventually, he appeared to just give in.”

She added, “Look, I think that there have been many moments where Andrew Cuomo was in trouble politically over the last 20 years. I think this one is different. I do think it’s worth noting about his statement that he is saying that, you know, essentially, it’s her fault. She misinterpreted. I was doing something, it had no intent at all, and it’s on her. A lot of women have heard that over the years, and I think that on any level in 2021, having an older man make comments like that to a subordinate, particularly a governor, is jarring.”

Follow Pam Key On Twitter @pamkeyNEN


Nancy Pelosi Decides Andrew Cuomo’s Sexual Harassment Allegations Are ‘Credible’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D-NY) sexual allegations “credible,” breaking her silence Sunday just 24-hours after a second woman came forward with fresh claims.

“The women who have come forward with serious and credible charges against Governor Cuomo deserve to be heard and to be treated with dignity,” Pelosi said according to a report. “The independent investigation must have due process and respect for everyone involved.”

Cuomo said Sunday night he was “truly sorry” if “some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation,” as he sought to rebut claims by a former aide she was sexually harassed by him.

“To be clear I never inappropriately touched anybody and I never propositioned anybody and I never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable,” the 63-year-old said in a statement released by his office, adding he had teased people about their personal lives in an attempt to be “playful.”

“I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended. I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation. To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that,” he said.

Cuomo’s claim of innocence came after he asked the New York state’s attorney general and chief judge to appoint an independent investigator to examine the allegations of sexual harassment made against him.


Never ever write off Trump

The Australian mainstream media will have a lot to answer when this goes off like an atomic bomb

[embedded content]

Drastic implications for the Australian political system and manipulated election results since at least 1987

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen’s nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no ‘government’ of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.


Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin supplies

Those readers wishing to obtain these ‘Covid’ cures and preventatives should first seek medical advice: (a waste of time in Australia)

Vitamin D from a US dietician who

 recommends 50,000 IU vitamin D at the first sign of illness for at least 3 days,  then taper down once symptoms begin to improve.

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen’s nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no ‘government’ of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.


Is The Rock’s New Series Just A Trial Balloon For A Run For President?

“The Young Rock” has everything you would expect a weeknight comedy show from Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson to include: a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” origin story, an homage to the world of professional wrestling, and a tongue-in-cheek hint at his inevitable presidential run.

The premiere of the new series drew the largest audience for an NBC comedy in years. The show is set in the year 2032 during The Rock’s presidential campaign. In a series of sit-down interviews with actor Randall Park, who plays himself but as a future network news anchor, the candidate narrates as he weaves together stories from his childhood, teenage years, and college football days.

Just two episodes in, “The Young Rock” is funny but wholesome. The characters are corny but extremely likable and perfectly cast. Even though the tales of his childhood and gritty adolescence are carefully crafted, and seemingly written with a rose-colored-glasses nostalgia, it still feels honest. As if it’s exactly how The Rock would tell you stories over a beer about his high school crush or the complicated relationship with his wrestler dad, Rocky “Soul Man” Johnson.

Some of the stories seem surreal or exaggerated for television, but The Rock insists “everything happened,” if only a few edits to dates and cities. He told The New York Times how he and show creators Nahnatchka Khan and Jeff Chiang would use his stories to write scripts.

“It required a lot of hours of sitting down with Nahnatchka, just talking and sharing stories and then walking away, going back home, writing things down, meeting back again, going over more stories,” he said, admitting tequila was also involved in helping him recall memories.

Just like wrestler-turned-actor-turned-entrepreneur himself, there is so much to like about The Rock’s stories. Wrestling fans will appreciate the nod to legends like The Iron Sheik, Andre the Giant, and Vince McMahon. College football fans will smile at the appearance of a young Coach Orgeron and the legendary Hurricanes team of the early ’90s.

Although the presidential campaign framing of the show feels like The Rock is just teasing fans who want him to pursue a political career, it also conveniently doubles as an ingenious way to portray him in the minds of voters and get ahead of the stories should he ever want to run. After all, The Rock did once call the idea of him running for president “a real possibility.”

After Donald Trump paved the way for a serious celebrity presidential candidate in 2015, The Rock acknowledged that the idea of him as a viable candidate was being presented to him more and more. In 2017, someone filed to create a campaign committee with the Federal Elections Commission on behalf of The Rock called “Run the Rock 2020.”

“There was a real sense of earnestness, which made me go home and think, ‘Let me really rethink my answer and make sure I am giving an answer that is truthful and also respectful,’” he said at the time.

Although “The Fast and the Furious” star endorsed candidate Vice President Joe Biden in 2020, he’s not typically partisan. He doesn’t post woke PSAs or lectures on his Instagram, and he refused to endorse Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016, although both campaigns asked. Some might consider him more in the Matthew McConaughey camp – no agency pledged to either Democrats or Republicans and a commitment to hearing out those he disagrees with.

“[If I didn’t agree with someone] on something, I wouldn’t shut them out. I would actually include them,” he said. “The first thing we’d do is we’d come and sit down and we’d talk about it. I [would] take responsibility for everyone. Especially when you disagree with me. If there’s a large number of people disagreeing, there might be something I’m not seeing, so let me see it. Let me understand it.”

When the internet mob tried to get everyone, including The Rock, to boycott Under Armour in 2017 after the company’s CEO made positive but innocuous comments about Trump, The Rock shut down the keyboard warriors with the perfect response. He invoked his responsibility to the company, directing respect to the “diverse group of hardworking men and women” who work on his successful Under Armour clothing line, adding “debate is healthy. But in a time of widespread disagreement, so is loyalty.”

Since he made those comments about running for president in 2017, he’s seemed far more occupied with his own business ventures. In just a few short years, he’s built a production company, an ever-expanding clothing line, a tequila brand, an energy drink company, and purchased the XFL football league for $15 million. And that’s on top of all the movies and television series he stars in each year.

The Rock is a product of the American dream, and clearly loves and respects the country that made him the wildly successful person he is today. Could the presidency really be next?

If only we could be so lucky. We are only episodes into the premiere season of “The Young Rock,” and will have to wait and see where the fictional 2032 campaign trail takes him, but he’s certainly not ruling it out.


No, Sen. Ron Johnson Didn’t Promote A ‘Conspiracy Theory’ About The Capitol Riot

“Facts are stubborn things,” John Adams famously said as the lawyer defending the British soldiers involved in the 1770 Boston Massacre, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

More than 250 years later, The Federalist provided an eyewitness account of events outside the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. From the Washington Post to Whoopi Goldberg, members of the chattering class tried to alter the state of facts and evidence they didn’t like.

As the Post headlined the day before the Feb. 23 hearing, “at stake” was “the story of the Capitol riot, and who is responsible.” The hearing, the Post reported, could devolve into “a battleground for competing narratives over what prompted the riot and who was responsible for it.”

Federal Prosecutors Confirm the Violence Was Planned

The prevailing narrative was that the violence was the spontaneous action of hordes of Donald Trump supporters incited into insurrection by the then-president’s rambling speech. That narrative collapsed weeks later.

Federal prosecutors issued indictments alleging that the Capitol raid was, indeed, a conspiracy planned in advance. FBI investigators agreed. Prosecutors say that elements of the criminal conspiracy began as early as November 3, 2020.

At the Senate hearing, current and former top U.S. Capitol security officials gave similar assessments, saying that “wide-ranging intelligence failures” prevented detection of what became a “military-style, coordinated assault.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who co-chaired the hearing, concluded, “This was a planned insurrection.”

The Federalist article said that from the beginning, on Jan. 14. I was the eyewitness who wrote it.

Johnson Enters the Article into the Senate Record

Sen. Ron Johnson read extensively from the article, summarizing it in parts, during the hearing. The Wisconsin Republican asked that the full text be entered into the official record. The Federalist article was accepted without objection from senators of either party. The eyewitness account was now officially evidence for the Senate investigation.

Johnson was one of the first senators to suspect that the riot had been planned. In The Federalist article, I identified four groups that appeared to have planned for violence well in advance.

Video of the hearing shows Johnson saying, “He [Waller] describes four different types of people: plainclothes militants, agents provocateurs, fake Trump protesters, and then disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. I think that these are the people that probably planned this.”

Johnson accurately related what I wrote in The Federalist article. That was a faithful summary of my exact description of the four organized groups of operatives I witnessed before the violence began in the Capitol:

  1. Plainclothes militants. Militant, aggressive men in Donald Trump and MAGA gear at a front police line at the base of the temporary presidential inaugural platform;
  2. Agents-provocateurs. Scattered groups of men exhorting the marchers to gather closely and tightly toward the center of the outside of the Capitol building and prevent them from leaving;
  3. Fake Trump protesters. A few young men wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards and who did not fit in with the rest of the crowd in terms of their actions and demeanor, whom I presumed to be Antifa or other leftist agitators; and
  4. Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. A column of organized, disciplined men, wearing similar but not identical camouflage uniforms and black gear, some with helmets and GoPro cameras or wearing subdued Punisher skull patches.

The Fact Too Terrible to Be Told

Three of those descriptions would not have been controversial. But one of them was too inconvenient for some people to bear: the fact that, during the march along Constitution Avenue from the White House to the Capitol, I saw furtive, small groups of left-wingers wearing Trump-supporting attire.

“I presumed these fake Trump protesters were Antifa or something similar. However, that entire afternoon I saw none of them act aggressively or cause any problems. At least, not from my vantage point,” I wrote. I didn’t know then that a notorious leftist from Utah had been at the vanguard of the fatal attempt to smash down the door to the House chamber and ran through the Capitol screaming that it should be burned down.

That didn’t matter to a lot of the journalists covering Johnson’s comments. To them, the fact that I had seen “fake Trump protesters” before the riot was a fact that had to be discredited and destroyed, before it could even be evaluated.

New Narrative: It’s a ‘Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory’

And so began a new narrative to recover the old: That Johnson and others were pushing a fake story to exculpate right-wing extremists and blame it all on left-wingers. That false narrative became international “news.”

Then came the gush of headlines, with reporting of equal caliber, exaggerating and distorting what I wrote and what Johnson accurately said, and accusing the senator of spreading a false, ridiculous, extreme, baseless conspiracy theory:

  • CNN: “Ron Johnson just dropped a ridiculous conspiracy theory at the Senate Capitol attack hearing,” by CNN Editor-at-Large Chris Cillizza;
  • New York Daily News: “Sen. Ron Johnson airs conspiracy theory about ‘fake Trump supporters’ in Senate hearing on Capitol riot,” by Dave Goldiner;
  • Washington Post: “Ron Johnson’s extreme effort to distance Trump supporters from the Capitol Riot,” by Aaron Blake (who tried to discredit me by deploying a 12-year-old quote from the former head of my place of employment);
  • Huffington Post: “Senator Ron Johnson Defends Capitol Rioters During Hearing,” by Matt Fuller;
  • Daily Beast: “Johnson Pushes Deranged ‘Fake Trump Supporters’ Theory During Capitol Riot Hearing,” with the topic “Gaslighter-In-Chief” by a “Breaking News Intern”;
  • Washington Examiner: “Ron Johnson shares dubious article blaming ‘fake Trump protesters’ and ‘provocateurs’ for Capitol riot,” by Haley Victory Smith (and we know why she took the “dubious” swipe at The Federalist);
  • Boston Globe: “Senator Johnson pushes false claim that insurrectionists on Jan. 6 were ‘fake Trump protesters’ during hearing,” by Amanda Kaufman and Christina Prignano;
  • The Independent of London: “Who is Ron Johnson? The pro-Trump senator sharing conspiracy theories about Capitol assault,” by Alex Woodward;
  • Daily Mail of London: “Republican Ron Johnson makes conspiracy theory claims at Senate hearing on riot that anti-Trump ‘agents provocateur’ incited violence and police fired tear gas on ‘pro-police, jovial’ mob,” by Geoff Earle.

There you have it: A rash of fake news, whipped up in a jiffy.

To his credit, Earle from the Daily Mail, unlike the “quality” media, did try to contact me before running the story and I didn’t receive the message in time. The next day we spoke at length and he wrote an updated article with the lively headline, “Chuck Schumer blasts Republican Ron Johnson for spreading ‘mindless garbage’ about ‘fake Trump protesters starting the Capitol riots.’”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, who did read The Federalist article, did not bother to call me, as a professional journalist would do. So I called him out on Twitter and corrected his error that I blamed the leftists.

Blake tweeted back a single line: “Please tell me where I said you blamed them solely.” I answered, “Your entire premise was that I blamed anti-Trump people for the January 6 violence. You are wrong. You never even bothered to clarify anything with me prior to writing your ‘analysis.’ You lied.” That’s the last I heard from that Washington Post blogger.

Not that it matters, but even Vanity Fair had something to say, with Bess Levin headlining her Levin Report: “Republican lawmaker Ron Johnson: Capitol rioters were actually Democrats disguised as Trump supporters.”

Then the wise sages of popular culture began offering their thoughtful critiques. Actor Rob Reiner, the Lincoln Project donor most famous as “Meathead” from Archie Bunker, tweeted that Johnson “bald faced lied.” On ABC’s “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg called Johnson’s reading of The Federalist a lot of “boo hoo.”

Someone Got It Right

Only one mainstream journalist, veteran reporter Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, got the story right:

At a Senate hearing on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson defended the Trump supporters gathered that day as overwhelmingly pro-police and suggested a small group of ‘provocateurs’ turned unsuspecting marchers into an invading mob.

Johnson also suggested Tuesday that police actions — firing tear gas into the crowd — altered the psychology of a previously peaceful gathering, turning pro-law enforcement demonstrators against the police.

Gilbert then quoted from this writer’s Jan. 14 article in The Federalist. For the record, the editorial position of the Milwaukee paper is strongly critical of Johnson. Gilbert the newsman told both sides of the story and reported the context without omitting or twisting key facts.

Such good journalism shouldn’t be too much to ask. But it isn’t as titillating as conspiracy theories.


Product Development Life Cycle for AI Solutions

Before a product is launched in the market or released to the customers, it undergoes through a series of stages where the product’s efficiency is analyzed and ensured that it satisfies all the business requirements. These series of stages collectively is known as Product Development Life Cycle or PDLC. 

Same way, when an AI-based product or solution is implemented, it also goes through a Product Development Process. However, there is not a standardized PDLC or any framework for implementing AI solutions.

Meanwhile, AI is also becoming an integral part of many businesses world-wide. Here, we will discuss different stages in AI product development life cycle (PDCL) that might be helpful for your business.

Stages Involved In AI PDCL

Understanding the Customer

The first step is to look at the product from the customer perspective. For this, a team must be built that includes the product manager, marketing team, sales team and other teams that might help to know the customers.

It is really important to learn from the data and understand the problems that customer is facing and how these problems are impacting or will impact the business. 


Break down these problems into fragments. It will help to find out the pieces which require urgent attention. Focus on these complicated pieces and determine if the problem requires an AI solution (as most of the problems can be solved without AI).

Now wireframe the idea or design and convert it into a testable hypothesis. Study this hypothesis and develop an accurate prototype which is then tested in real-world to validate the idea.

It is crucial to make sure
that the Product Manager is leading the design to ensure favourable outcomes.
By the end of this stage, you will be provided with an operational prototype.

Business Analysis

Before the experiment, it is essential to gather information on various business requirements. This includes business values, goals and objectives, and find out any flaws that have to be addressed. Analysing business requirements will allow you to understand the priorities of the organization.

It will also help you get an idea about the impact of AI solutions, the risks involved, and the trade-offs. Once you examine all these information, you would now be able to organize the information and prioritize it. This will guide you to define the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and successful metrics at both business and product level. 

Model Development

This stage requires great coordination and teamwork from the Product Manager and Data Scientists. It is the responsibility of the product manager to clearly explain the KPIs, goals and limitations to the data scientists. The data scientists carry out the research and propose a model to achieve the solution.

Now, the Product Manager and data scientists collaboratively evaluate the model and the trade-offs and come up with a final decision. Once the model is developed by the data scientists or developers, the next step is to determine if the model is appropriate to solve problems. It is important to experiment with the simplest approach or model to solve the problem to see if you are going in the right direction. 


The model is now handed over
to the testing team to analyse its efficiency before the release. They run the
model and find out if it satisfies the KPIs, metrics and other objectives.
Along with this, it is necessary to create and follow a framework that not only
helps to identify and assess the risks involved but also to monitor and control
those risks. Multi-funnel testing, A/B testing, multivariate are some of the
testings leveraged to evaluate the model. If the model satisfies all metrics of
the model, the product manager makes the final call for release.

Before implementing a project, it is crucial to understand the problem from the customer perspective as it builds the foundation for your project. There is no doubt that AI empowers your business and plays a significant role in its success.

However, it is equally important to determine if the problems really requires an AI solution. It is always better to implement AI for complex problems or areas that will improve the efficiency and productivity of your business. 


  • 1 March, 2021
  • –>

  • 81 0




Perhaps the most remarkable development in my time in the law has been the growth of public law cases. Fifty years ago there were hardly any.
The principal diet of the House of Lords consisted of commercial and tax cases. Now the Supreme Court is predominantly a court of public law, often performing the role of a Constitutional Court.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is in part responsible for this. Courts for the first time have to rule on the legitimacy, under international law, of Acts of Parliament and to consider areas, such as the conduct of our armed forces in action abroad,

that would once have been held non-justiciable. Sometimes the Court is required to apply a test of proportionality when balancing individual rights and the public interest.

96 pages.


If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.