Nobody knows that I am also on Medium (dan-dan-daaaaan!). I registered for fun many moons ago, wrote couple of thingies and dropped the platform for Substack after I got zero feedback. I never deleted my account, because who does? So, I still receive the friendly Medium Daily Digest email. May the Gods be praised.

FYI, my selected interests are Tech, Culture and Society. Which for Medium roughly translate to AI, Random Art, Self-Help and American politics. The AI stuff is overwhelmingly the majority over the others and usually consist of a bunch of get-rich-quick ideas. Don’t trust my word, trust my Gmail:

The highlighted ones are not solely limited to AI but revolve around it in conjunction with another activity. I have to be honest; at the beginning I was reading them.

I have never forgiven myself for not getting AAPL at $90 or for throwing away my Neolithic crypto wallet. I am old, but maybe these young brilliant minds have it figured out. I will give them a change. Was I impressed? No. Will I share their secrets with you? Gladly.

Apparently, there is a foolproof process that will generate various amounts of money (from $100 to $100K) in a few simple steps:

• Step 1 — Pick a niche. You don’t know what a niche is? It’s fine, jump to step 2.

• Step 2 — Ask ChatGPT to help you identify opportunities to make easy, effortless, passive income without sweat. Writing a good prompt is important, try something like: “easy moneymaking idea? ELI5” He will know. *wink wink*

• Step 3 — Pick the idea you like the most and ask him to elaborate. Try “step-by-step success plan ELI10” for starters. If you have a specific skill you can leverage: “[my skill] + step by step success plan ELI10”.

• Step 4 — Do what ChatGPT says.

• Step 5 — Sit back, enjoy your earnings.

It’s a joke, because it is. The only things I can second is step 1. To be successful, finding your niche is important. That being said, it’s not what most people think of. In all those articles we are trying to find an unexploited niche to exploit it. In reality, people have skills and interests which in turn make them suitable to be employed in a specific niche.

You will find your niche, after you find your true self — Jesus (alleged)

The truth is you shouldn’t jump into something you don’t understand. Do you want to trade stocks? Then research and study stocks. Asking an LLM, a glorified tokenization system, for financial predictions is not a smart idea. You can make money; you can lose money. Luck will give you the same results. Real life gambling is NOT a strategy.

At the casino, you can gamble because the game has strict rules, you can calculate the odds and do your best to beat them. With stocks, especially the highly speculative ones, market price is volatile and rarely correlates to real life events. A company could do great, and stock go down for indirectly related reasons and vice versa. BE CAREFUL!

Another recurring example given is selling a simple algorithm to a small company to automate their workflow (usually PowerApps-related). This may work if (1) you have contacts (= you have a reputation) and (2) you know how to sell. There are plenty of companies that survive with outdated practices. You won’t convince them to embrace “the future”, let alone your future. In small companies, there is at least one nerd who can do what you’re selling. Real money is made consulting for big companies. There, this fluff is gold. Tell them all their practices are wrong, blind them with charts and data, sell them your solution. The executives will love it. No cap.

Last example is the worst: make AI generated content. My favorite “I Can’t Write. So I Used ChatGPT to Create a $9.99 eBook That Sells Daily”. It’s so bad that multiple people have posted it and one of them is currently suspended. Is it legit? I mean, nobody is stopping you to publish whatever you want. If you put it on Amazon, and it’s garbage, people will write a bad review. Pro tip: sell it directly through your site (or social media presence).

Seriously speaking, you see for yourself how many people write on Substack about how they got big on Substack. All the online gurus who know “the secret” will happily sell it to you. There is always a catch. You either make a product, or you pretend you know how to make a product and sell that. The latter is easier to do, especially with AI, and might give you the same (if not more) return if you are good at bullshitting people online.

Is everybody on Medium full of shit? Of course not, but they are pitching you a fantasy. Remember, AI or not, the grift never dies!

This news caught my eye. In order to understand it, I had to research a bit about Australia’s Online Safety Act. So, bear with me while I give you a bit of context before jumping into it.

TL;DR Last year Australia voted to introduce a regulation to restrict social media usage to citizen to age 16 and above. The measure will come in effect on December 10th, 2025.

On the eSafety Commissioner website we can read the reasons behind this decision:

The restrictions aim to protect young Australians from pressures and risks that users can be exposed to while logged in to social media accounts. These come from design features that encourage them to spend more time on screens, while also serving up content that can harm their health and wellbeing.

But what measures will be introduced? What services will be impacted? As of today, nobody actually knows. We know that the government is asking providers of services that allow for users to interact with one another to put in place systems to make sure only people age 16 and above will be on the platform.

It is important to note that, nor “under-age” users nor their guardians will be penalized if caught using social media despite the restriction. The burden will be entirely on the companies that failed to secure their platform.

This means there will be no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers. However, age-restricted social media platforms may face penalties if they don’t take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having accounts.

Australia’s proactive stance toward online safety is to be commended. This effort, started years ago, aims to create a holistic regulatory environment. Every major industry is regulated to ensure the customer (or end user) get safe products. It was only time before the legislature caught up with the internet revolution (and the company that profited from it).

Protect the Children!

There are many dangers a child potentially faces online, just to cite a few:

1. Predatory contact: direct messaging and comment sections expose minors to grooming, harassment, or exploitation and blackmail (you may remember the suicide of Amanda Todd in 2012).

2. Addiction to validation: likes and followers create dopamine cycles which in turn make children tie self-worth to engagement metrics.

3. Digital permanence: early posts form a public record of immaturity that can’t be erased later.

4. Algorithmic exposure: platforms push kids into adult-leaning content loops for engagement.

5. Commercial pressure: brands and “kid agencies” target minors for sponsorship deals, essentially recruiting them into labor.

6. Psychological fragmentation: children learn to split real identity vs. online persona far too early.

Family Channels & Children Exploitation

There are dozens of extreme well known “internet families” on YouTube broadcasting their family life to the world. The (huge) profits go to the parents, not the children. It can start out as a fan experiment, but with fame comes pressure… and greed. This is not exclusive to the internet (Britney Spears?!). In the news, we’ve seen many examples of parents who ended up in trouble for their abusive/exploitative behavior towards their children, just to cite a few:

1. 8 Passengers (1B views): a mother documented her family life in Utah with her husband and their six children. Viewers became concerned about the mother’s disciplinary methods. Eventually she was arrested in 2023 after her 12yo son, who appeared emaciated and had “open wounds and duct tape around the extremities”, had escaped through a window and asked at a neighboring house for food and water.

2. Fantastic Adventure (250M views): The scandal began when one of the children contacted the police after witnessing her adopted siblings being systematically abused by her mother.

3. DaddyOFive (176M views): cruelty labeled as “pranks”. The emotional and physical abuse caught on camera costed the parents the custody of their children.

Of course, the vast majority of content is SAFE and FUN, until it isn’t. It doesn’t need to be criminally illegal to be WRONG. The following are some examples that come to mind, major creators who faced backlash from the public:

1. Ryan’s World (62B views): this channel mixes family vlog and unboxing into an explosive combination. Ryan on screen for your pleasure since he is 3yo. Today after 10 years, he still is there for you (plus his parents, and twin sisters). Are you not entertained? By the way, it was contested by Truth Advertising that nearly 90 percent of the Ryan Toys’ Review videos have included at least one paid product recommendation aimed at preschoolers, a group too young to distinguish between a commercial and a review.

2. The LaBrant Family (4.6B views): family of young parents with 5 kids. Accused of having staged a wildfire evacuation in a 2018 video; a 2019 video in which they prank one daughter by telling her they are giving away her puppy; a 2022 video whose title was maligned as clickbait that misled viewers to believe their infant daughter had been diagnosed with cancer; and their 2022 anti-abortion documentary Abortion in 2022, which sparked backlash online for its comparisons of abortion in the United States to the Holocaust.

3. The Prince Family (3.9B views): basically, the Kardashians with 4 underage kids. Over-the-top flexing, very scripted “family drama” and prank videos, heavy use of their kids in thumbnails and titles. Rumors and public criticism that their “wealth” is exaggerated or debt driven.

4. Maddie Lambert (288M view): started 7 years ago with “Pregnant at 14” became another vlog content farm. She kind of exploited her own situation?! I believe this raise concerns about teenage exposure and their monetization.

5. Lil Tay (125M view): put on display at 10 as “the youngest flexer of the century” and a rapper. Parents allegedly exploited and scripted her behavior; custody battle ensued. Now she is still making music and OnlyFans.

Kids are easy to exploit on YouTube because they can’t say no, don’t understand the trade-off, and the system pays their parents to keep filming them anyway. Once they grow up inside the content-creation world, they don’t see it as a job; it’s their whole identity. All their skills are built around being watched.

Relocating to escape the ban

This brings me to the news. A family of 4, EMPIRE Family, is leaving Australia and moving to the UK to anticipate any potential issue with the social media ban. I have NEVER heard them before. I checked their YouTube content, 800M views! Can’t make this shit up, it’s a success masterclass.

Sensationalized thumbnail and clickbait content (with the Fortnite font of course).

While I was writing this article, their latest video from October 11th, “We are leaving Australia”, just went private.

I promise you I watched it, here is proof.

I watched the video, because I was curios to hear from their voice, what do they think about this whole situation. My main takeaways are:

1. They sit at the table (with perfect product placement) like 4 adults, discussing their careers. They are not wrong. As a package they are famous but, as individuals, the kids are even more. Both the daughter and the brother have consolidated media presence, at 14 and 17 years old respectively (they started 6 ago, you do the math). The uncertainty of how the ban will affect their careers is troubling.

2. They also inform us the daughter will be homeschooled to better accommodate her career (as was the brother, at least partially, in the past). The poor little thing had to miss MANY opportunities in the past because she couldn’t take time off school. She is 14. The brother confirms — school is a waste of time; you can get by studying couple days a week and you’re good to go!

3. They emphasize a couple of times that they are NOT against the ban per se. They understand bad stuff happens sometimes and somewhere, but their content is GOOD and SAFE.

4. The comments were disabled on this video. Now the video is private. Perhaps they wanted to limit public backlash and criticism? Who knows.

My conclusion

I don’t claim EMPIRE family content is bad; I don’t know it at all! Neither I claim they are/have exploited their children or brainwashed them into believe a content creator career is all there is to life. If they are happy, I am happy. But there is a certain level of distrust towards those who make this type of content. This is because we saw many situations similar to theirs that turned out to be a disaster for the children.

If not them, you can be sure somebody, somewhere, will exploit their children for profit and the system shouldn’t allow it. Since the platform don’t do shit about it, I am happy the government of Australia decided to act to safeguard its citizens.

You can be a master content creator and a bad parent at the same time.

The Australian ban is meant to protect children online but could end up saving them from their own parents’ ambition. It’s a win-win situation worth exporting.

I used to think inflation was the culprit behind the increasing cost of living. It is not wrong, but what is inflation exactly and how can we fight this invisible enemy?

Every product has a demand and a supply. Depending on the ratio of these two quantities we have an increase or decrease in prices. It makes sense that if we had bad harvest this year, supply will be limited compared to demand driving the prices. Next year’s harvest is great, no issues, does that mean prices will go all the way down? You, dear consumer, already “got used” to this increase so any price reduction will be welcomed, so why should they go all the way back to the original? They won’t.

Gasoline is a prime example of this phenomenon as its price is heavily ties to crude oil value on the market. Look at the chart below I made. You can clearly see how the gasoline prices in 2009, 2016 and 2020 are similar while there is a clear difference in the price of crude oil = petrol companies are making more profit!

Yes, they will use part of this additional revenue to make up for previous years profit loss but if you look at financial statements of Shell, BP or ExxonMobil, you will see decades of overwhelming profits punctuated by the occasional red year. Unlike you, they never struggled.

In the chart you can also see that, despite the cost of oil is similar in Europe and North America, in Italy people pay for gasoline roughly twice as much as in America. This is because the government figured out early on how easy it is to get quick money by placing additional taxes on an such an essential commodity. Italy, currently at $0.85/L, is the second highest taxing country in Europe. This point shows us how capitalism is not an exclusive of private companies.

We live in a free market society where companies compete to provide you, the customer, the best product at the lowest cost. It should be a race to the bottom, but then why are prices still going up?

Vertical integration and (de facto) monopolies

In 2012, Andrea Guerra the CEO of Luxottica went on 60 Minutes. After being pressured by a charming Lesley Stahl on answering to why their sunglasses and prescription glasses cost hundreds of dollars despite being cheap to manufacture, he gave a sly smile and said quietly but confidently this maximum:

“Everything is worth what people are ready to pay.”

There you have it, finally a CEO having the “honesty” to admitting customers are being squeezed for every cent and penny they “feel” they should pay. Value is not based on costs.

Why is this example relevant? We know greed always existed; capitalism didn’t invent it. Sure, but how did this company/group become so successful?

Iconic brands like Ray-Ban or Oakley are owned by them. Designer brands like Prada are exclusively licensed to them. The stores where you buy them are owned by them. The health insurance company EyeMed is also owned by them.

Owning all those brands and a vast distribution network allow them to have a de facto monopoly on sunglasses and prescription lenses despite having a market share limited to only around 30% (this figure is conservative, the true number is unknown and could be higher). These facts, combined with a highly vertically integrated business strategy (i.e. they control multiple all stages of the supply chain), is the true definition of circular economy: customer in, customer out, markups up to 1000%, repeat.

Profiting on survival

In our modern capitalistic society, the few players who managed to consolidate enough power and wealth are the decision makers. They buy out the competition, drive prices to whatever people will tolerate and re-invest in aggressive expansionism (for even more profits and tax cuts).

The Luxottica case is just an example, and it can be dismissed as a luxury scam, but every sector now runs on the same principle. You don’t need a pair of Ray-Ban, but you want them because they look cool. But what about groceries? What about housing? What about healthcare? What about everything?

To be fair, nobody should work for free, but while companies post record profits millions of people are living paycheck to paycheck. Where should we draw the line?

Is anybody preventing companies from exploiting the system? The answer is no.

Don’t hate the player

We often say “don’t hate the player, hate the game,” but let’s be real: if every major corporation froze operations tomorrow, society would collapse. We need them. They have so much power over our lives that they have power also over the regulators and lawmakers.

So, what should we do? Well, they need us too.

Stop normalizing everything

After Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air, many people threatened to cut their streaming subscriptions. This was enough to have him back. The executives understand only this equation: no profit = no good. That is the leverage we have.

• We should stop correlating “paying for the logo” to a badge of identity.

• Boycott shrinkflation. Same bag, same price, less chips and more air? No, thank you!

• Demand ownership. Why sell once when you can charge forever? We want perpetual licenses, not endless subscription where everything disappears if we opt out.

• Reject dynamic pricing scams. Yes, Ticketmaster, I am looking at you.

• Understand the cost of “free” services: you pay with your data, attention and lock-in. Nothing is really free.

Why this matters

The danger isn’t just that we’re overpaying for a pair of glasses. Once you’ve accepted the logic, it spreads.

Companies know you’ll complain, tweet about it, maybe even protest—but in the end, most people pay. Every time you tap your card, you’re teaching the market how much pain you can endure. Because until you stop paying, the market will never stop asking.

Congratulations! We’ve all become the luxury customer now.

Truth is some things can’t really be understood or fathomed if they aren’t experienced firsthand. Aside from few specialists, we (the sheeple) had no experience in our lifetimes of a similar event and therefore were underprepared for it.

For instance, I thought I could catch a plane and get home whenever I wanted, but I was grounded de facto for 3 years. I don’t think the measured imposed were excessive, I would rather live a less comfortable life than die in a hospital, alone.

This whole experience has been a wake-up call for me. The freedom I took for granted was limited for the greater good. For few years we lived a surreal reality.

Our lives changed quickly and radically for a period of time. Sudden major changes I never thought possible to be enacted, happened. This left me wondering, how quickly could we change the world to shape it to the future we need?

If you’ve ever dealt with public administration and bureaucracy, you know that even in the best case where the machine works, usually it’s a slow machine. The system has inertia.

“Lay the blame upon thy predecessor” - Article 1 of the Politician Constitution

It’s not that we don’t want to do it, it’s just that we inherited a disaster for the previous administration and we fixed it back to normal.

Interestingly enough, this normal situation is still a disaster for the new administration… and the cycle goes on and on. Why? The system has inertia.

If you look for how long people have complained about the same things over and over again, protested, went to strike, and things never actually seem to change. Why? The system has inertia.

During COVID we discovered that massive changes are possible, any high-inertia system can pivot quickly when (and if) motivated.

Travel restrictions that affected billions of people, the development, approval and deployment of a vaccine and the shifts in supply chains to keep our interconnected global economy at least afloat were implemented at once. Despite the haste, everything worked (mostly) well. Swift actions didn’t mean jumping the gun or sacrificing safety, in fact it was the contrary.

It was nice for once to see governments, companies and society cooperate through those difficult times, to ensure our survival and save our fellow citizens lives.

Unfortunately, some fringes still thought it was a great idea to spread baseless misinformation about the ongoing crisis. While we all had relatives or friends that died alone in the hospital, we could still read online how COVID was a hoax. The surgical masks that have been worn for decades by infinite doctors and healthcare workers were suddenly chocking us and dangerous. Mandatory vaccine akin to dictatorship hardships… yada yada yada. But enough of this!

Fast forward to the present day. There are several high-profile wars and conflicts that are constantly broadcasted. Global warming exacerbated by human activity is a reality we might not want to acknowledge with our brains but can definitely feel on our skin.

And what is the world doing? We are at the whims of the current US president, proudly acting (for our pleasure) the mad king persona. Sometimes it reminds me of the Wallfacers of The Three-Body Problem books. His actions make no sense, but it’s all part of the plan — trust me!

The results of his actions are projected on billions of people but most notably they shape the political western vibe. We can’t act on pressing issues the way we should because we need to keep playing BFF with America. Sadly, the situation is so dire that finally Europe is waking up and starting to think maybe it’s not the best idea to watch the world burn and people die but keep one manbaby happy.

But I am digressing. The question is, where is the power of collective action? We keep seeing lots of protest all over the world for peace, solidarity and end to atrocities but there is only so much we can do as citizens. We need the support from both the public and private sector.

If we were able to ground all airplanes worldwide at a snap of a finger, and a single man can throw the world in chaos with a tariff war, why can’t we reset the current geopolitical situation in favor of a more just situation? Why can’t we allocate more funds to expedite fusion nuclear technology or medical research to eradicate cancer tackle any major problem?

Lobbying, money, greed. That’s it.

As sad as it is, this is the true reality. Unless we are in mortal danger (not them), nothing will be done to change the status quo. If I can keep showing cheesecakes down my throat, who cares if someone else is dying? It’s greed pure and simple.

This is where I get stuck.

I see our potential, as we all did, to face crisis and make impactful decisions as in COVID, but I also see why our system (or any for that matter) is inherently rotten.

I remember watching in Star Trek mankind come together as one as soon as first contact with an alien race was established. It made sense that people, faced with objective reality, would naturally abandon old beliefs and finally embrace the fact we are all part of the same community. But is that realistic anymore? When you have millions of people proudly questioning the scientific consensus about consolidated secular facts you can see with your own eyes, would seeing an alien actually change anything? No. In 2025 reality is subjective, facts are subjective.

It’s enough to say “It’s fake news” to end of the conversation.

And why do we have fake news? Because somebody profits from it. And here we go again.

I am not sure what we can do to change the system, but I am sure it can be changed.

Extreme measures might be needed, they might restrict our freedom or limit our comfort, but should we really complain for years of discomfort when what we are giving in exchange is a better future?

If we spoke to one another clearly, directly, and honestly it might happen. If we wanted, we could do it. But maybe we are complicit too. If we were elected to a position of power and Mr. Lobbyist came to us with nice presents (or a even nicer blackmail), we could be bought out too. If we and our family could live in ultimate luxury, surrounded by our peers also living in ultimate luxury, would we care about the rest? Meh…

Will we ever muster the collective will to apply that potential to the crises that truly matter?

Billions of people worldwide reply to surveys claiming they belong to a certain faith. Inside this multitude, I suspect a vast majority identify with a religion more culturally than devoutly and a minority of hardcore followers. Just enough to keep the system afloat and relevant.

The contradiction problem

Despite our upbringing, there is inevitably a time when we discover that other faiths exist. Sometimes they are very closely related to ours, perhaps different branches of the same secular tradition that split in history for whatever reason, or sometimes completely different.

Some religions have a Bible or equivalent master text, others have an unspecified canon lore diluted in numerous texts. There is no clear-cut way to it.

Is my religion the true one? If so, is everybody else mistaken?

If I am mistaken, is everybody in my religion also mistaken?

What about our spiritual leader? Is he mistaken too?

The most convenient answer to those questions is that different religions simply have different revelations of the same truth. It’s a confusing concept, but we should accept it for what it is: something that is not supposed to be fully understood by us. That is why there are priests or other figure as such who study in detail the scripture and spend a lifetime perfecting and preaching their belief.

Let’s pretend all this is true so far. As we would, with any other theory, let’s try to apply it to a case and see how it goes. Let’s consider the concept of heaven.

People from different faith are devout believers but their cultures, values and commandments are totally different, assuming there is a version of heaven in their doctrine, what happens to them? If you take the inclusive heaven explanation some priests give, it leads to contradictions like finding victims and perpetrators (of different doctrines) in the same place. If you take the exclusivist stance instead, then most of humanity is closed out of this blessed realm — hardly fair in either way if you ask me.

Complexity vs. obscurantism

I am sure that if you present a priest with the dilemma above, he will be able to concoct a very convoluted explanation why this contradiction is not controversial, but it this really the kind of answers we should seek? I would like to emphasize that it’s not a matter of complexity, but purely mental gymnastics.

If it were simply complex, you could study it, as you do with science, and get to the bottom of things. When and if you reach roadblocks along the way, somebody else can step in later and go a bit deeper until the bottom is reached. It’s a generational relay, played by scientists throughout history that landed us where we are now.

In nature, sometimes the bottom can’t be reached, but when that is the case, it is proven: we can’t look inside a black hole, we can’t travel faster than light, we can’t go below absolute zero — these are facts.

Not knowing what there is, or knowing there is nothing are two completely different things: one is an unknown, the other is a certainty.

Before, during and after life

So, what happens after you die? Well, what happened before you were born?

If we give up our main character syndrome for a moment, we will quickly realize we are NOT at the center of the universe. Is this upsetting? Maybe, but it’s fine, isn't it? Do we need a higher plane of existence after death to give your life meaning? I would argue, it would be a great nice to have but not a hard must. Otherwise, we wouldn't be different from other animals.

We are lucky because we are born as the apex animal of our planet and can capitalize on billions of years of evolution for free. We have a brain, critical thinking, can study science or create art or become whatever we want to become. Our potential is unlimited, isn’t this the closest we’ll ever get to being gods?

Faith and Reason?

The general statement “Religion is not supposed to be understood” isn’t universally accepted. Some believers would fight back and claiming that mysteries are partially understandable and God gave us both faith and reason and these tools can and should be used together.

I believe it’s too convenient to cherry-pick whatever suits you best in different occasions. For instance, you can’t live your weekdays on antibiotics, GPS, and Wi-Fi and then switch to mystery mode on Sunday or when you have an existential crisis.

If faith is real, then science is unnecessary at best and blasphemous at worst. If science is real, then faith is a psychological comfort blanket.

Either you accept that the universe runs on laws that can be studied, tested, and proven or you accept divine mysteries that don’t need to be explained. Trying to stitch them together is just refusing to face the contradiction.

Science as a Model

There will always be mysteries (= things we do not know). We might never know what there is inside a black hole or form a grand unified theory of the main forces of the universe BUT still it is not a valid reason to come up with supernatural (made up) explanations.

Scientific uncertainty is honest and testable, while religious uncertainty is unfalsifiable.

I would like to remind everyone that science gives us nothing more than a model of reality. It’s our best description of the laws of nature. Something finite, sometimes approximate, but a model nonetheless. It allows us to make estimates with confidence.

If you accept this, then you must recognize theology is a whole different ballgame. If it helps you to deal with your psyche, go through painful moments, motivates you, gives you hope and joy, then you should indulge in it, but you shouldn’t abuse it.

The fear of the unknown built religion. The embrace of the unknown built science.

A few years ago I packed my bags and left behind what is now my old life. Along with it, the certainty of a job that was more or less stable, the warmth of a small but united family, the usual (more or less) superficial friendships we all have. A quiet life, in short.

But then why leave?

This madness was dictated by a sense of discomfort that I had cultivated over the years and that slowly led me to the sudden realization that I could not take everything around me anymore.

Maybe you know that feeling where things are going well, or normal, but you feel that something is wrong. Day after day, the same routine, the same job, the same colleagues who complain about everything, start weighing on you more and more. A weight you would like to get rid of. One day I asked myself “if you were not afraid to fail, what would you do?” and the obvious answer was to go on an adventure: live a life with exotic colors, flavors and scents, challenge myself, become truly independent, mature, a man.

I grew up with fairly traditional ideas about what a man’s role is within a couple, about what expectations there are at work, and I did my best to fulfill this role. There was nothing wrong with this, in a way I still think so, but I have evolved beyond this granite image of a man.

It is also undeniable that I have cultivated a sense of distrust towards the political world that promises to solve all problems, but only finds ways to fatten itself, and towards a population that likes to complain about everything instead of rolling up its sleeves and trying to change things.

I am also a victim of this mentality. In fact, in this climate of distrust, I told myself “every man for himself” and I made the selfish choice to live a life for me.

I would be lying if I said that I had no fear for the future while showing everyone confidence in my choice. I did not leave with the idea of never coming back, but simply to see how things would go, give myself a chance and challenge myself as if I were not afraid of anything. A tactical time-out of limited but unknown duration.

Finding myself suddenly in a completely new and foreign reality, by my choice, turned out to be the most enriching experience of my entire life.

I realized that the world around you can change in an instant, but if you carry weights inside, they remain. So I would like to dissuade those who get carried away by the magic of vacations where everything goes well or by breathtaking photos on Instagram.

Living abroad for many represents a shock. You probably leave with many expectations but basically with the same spirit as when you go on vacation. You imagine everything beautiful, colorful, fun, interesting. Often you ignore the more concrete reality. We have to deal with ourselves and the responsibilities we may think we have left behind. Make a clean break with our old life and prepare to face the new one. The surprise is that, one way or another, there will be paraphrased the same responsibilities.

Same responsibilities = same problems?

No. When the services we rely on work, when you can walk calmly feeling safe on the street, when you perceive a sense of “civility” in most of the people you meet and of care for their own country, you inevitably feel at ease, even in a completely different culture and with the same responsibilities (that we all have as adults).

There are countless famous travel bloggers and digital nomads who show us wonderful photos from breathtaking locations at an impressive speed. Our envy feeds the algorithm and their lifestyle.

Life in earthly paradises, for example in Southeast Asia, costs little and is made of a daily life all beaches and breathtaking sunsets. But if you really drop everything, take a plane and go to Thailand without having taken into account what you will do once you arrive, the only thing you will end up with is a nice burn (literally and figuratively).

The push to write this post comes after a brief conversation I had with a compatriot who lives abroad, in Australia, and has made tourism her job.

I am curious to see if she will develop this topic in the future, but for now I give you my opinion about it. Life is not so complex if you understand that there are some compromises you have to make. Just as you cannot have a quality product and at the same time pay little for it, there is no perfect country. The quality of life is a very personal yardstick that depends precisely on the type of life you live.

There are so many facets to consider: public services, healthcare, work, safety, climate, mobility and so on. Where to start?

If I had to give advice to a friend I would say this:

1. Get informed (general): do not just look at Instagram and the good life in the sun on social media. Check Wikipedia, look for news, or consult the basic information that your country provides on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. Get informed about the bureaucratic conditions necessary to settle legally in the desired country. Many leave and then figure out how to regularize their position once they have made a plan of action. It can be done, but personally I do not recommend it. Often and willingly you do not have access to fundamental services such as healthcare or a bank account without having a residence permit. It is good to understand what kind of limitations it imposes on you if you start to move as a temporary tourist. The embassy of the destination country has information about it.

3. Ok, the place seems nice and you could also live there. Fantastic. But once you move, how will you support yourself? Do you have an activity that you can manage entirely remotely? Do you want to find something locally? Is knowledge of the local language an indispensable limit? This is the most difficult point in my opinion.

4. Go take a trip but do not be a tourist: consider it as an inspection. Try to live a normal life where you go grocery shopping, enter a hospital, take a taxi, public transport, talk to local people, try to understand what the atmosphere is like.

5. Go, knowing that you can always come back. Before selling everything and cutting ties with everyone, start by doing a period (6 months? 1 year?) and see how it goes. This is not for cowardice or to have an easy way out, but to give yourself a minimum of serenity. In my opinion it will make you feel much more relaxed, and this will help because there will already be so many things you could not know and foresee before moving, the less stress you pile on yourself the better!

Maybe after reading this article you will already feel some of your enthusiasm fading. You start to glimpse clouds in the sky. And this is a good thing.

The worst thing you can do is leave with the wrong expectations. This in my opinion is the number one reason that leads this type of project (and also many vacations if we want to be honest) to fail.

The number two reason, which I want to emphasize, is that the problems we have inside we carry them with us. If there is something to solve at home, you will have it to solve abroad as well. Abroad, however, maybe you can find the tools to do it better.

At the end of the day, it is clear that everyone has to deal with their own situation, desires, ambitions and bad moods. Leaving to escape makes no sense, leaving to do a reset instead does (at least as far as I am concerned).

Do not let yourself be influenced too much by others and do not do anything that goes against your nature.

Maybe I’m just another victim of modern-day paralysis: too many options, too many paths, too many input to actually commit to one thing. Maybe it really was easier to start a business back in the day.

In a small town not far from where I live, once upon a time there used to be a little bakery. In the early 1900s, the owner invested his life savings and opened an artisanal pasta factory. The crowning achievement of his life. It was a great investment. Before supermarkets and large-scale distribution, that small pasta factory served the nearby areas with a quality product — the real farm-to-table, not the nonsense we peddle today.

The effort of the generations that followed allowed this business to grow into a top-level industrial company in my country. When I visited the factory, I was stunned by the size of the machines making spaghetti and macaroni. They’re massive, like small apartment blocks.

Of course, they had to make some trade-offs along the way. Fresh pasta was replaced by dried pasta, obviously. We’re talking about over 50,000 tons of pasta per year. Probably enough to feed me (unless I’m not too hungry).

I’m sure every generation cared about keeping the business profitable, to ensure a good life for the family and offer some security to their kids. I’m sure there was also pride, ambition, the drive to grow the family name and expand. But today, with pasta turned into an industrial product and competition everywhere, it’s no longer that simple. It’s like trying to open a bookstore and compete with Amazon: a game lost before it even begins, regardless of the size of the store.

Moral of the story? If you try to go head-to-head with giants, you’re toast.

The only way is to reinvent yourself, to stand out. Focus on quality, on experimentation, on doing what the big players can’t or won’t do. Produce less, but do it with care (maybe even with love). Sell a story, not just a product.

If done well, you end up with a ‘modern’ product, something appealing both locally and abroad.

But there’s always a price. The guy running the company now isn’t a craftsman, he’s a manager, backed by a boardroom full of execs and a team of specialists: marketing, R&D, logistics, finance, you name it.

There’s nothing wrong with being born with everything already in place, a roof paid off and a Porsche in the garage. But treating success as a condition instead of a conquest creates a split from reality.

That drive of someone who started from nothing, that hunger, can’t be taught. You don’t learn it at business school or in an overpriced MBA abroad. When a craft becomes an industry, something always gets lost. Maybe not right away. Maybe not in the second generation. But eventually the company’s soul leaks out, and all that’s left are numbers on an Excel spreadsheet.

Then comes the generation of the heirs, otherwise known as ‘the ambitious ones’, who go all-in on whatever their idea of legacy is.

Best-case scenario? They sell the company. Maybe to a competitor. Maybe to a faceless conglomerate chasing ROI. They drive off into the sunset in a luxury car, Rolex on the wrist, making hands-free calls with that fake-smooth business lounge accent.

Worst-case scenario? They run it straight into the ground. Convinced the family name will save them, that business instincts are hereditary. Then reality knocks at the door, and they realize having your name on the buzzer doesn’t protect you from being utterly unqualified.

In both cases, all that’s left of the people who poured their souls into the business are a few faded photos in the boardroom. Which, soon enough, will be taken down, filed away, and forgotten along with their ashes.

What would have been an otherwise mediocre shōjo (少女) manga artist is now a best-selling author. Good for her! 竜樹諒さんおめでとうございます! 🎊

How did she do it? 🤔

Can I do it too?

In short, no fucking way. There are two key things I lack:

• I don’t have a premonitory dream journal of catastrophes or shocking events. 🧙🏻‍♀️

• I don’t want to prey on the chumps out there. 🤡

A Taiwanese friend reached out, wishing me ‘to be safe’ since ‘a tragedy might occur’ — WTF is going on?

『私が見た未来』 — The Future I saw

Searching for inspiration for her stories, Tatsuki-san started recording her dreams in a journal back in 1978. After publishing almost 100 short stories in the shōjo manga genre, she’d had enough. She couldn’t keep those dreams to herself: they were too important not to share with the world! Thus, The Future I Saw was born. 良かったね！

What we know today, and what you see in the picture above, is the 2021 edition. It’s not just a reprint; it’s an extended, curated, and revised version.

The original 1999 edition was an anthology of strange dream stories, with supernatural and mysterious themes, designed to be easily digestible for a young audience hungry for paranormal reads. On the cover, a visibly disturbed woman appears alongside some diary pages with dates. The only future date? March 2021. In that note, we can see the word ‘great disaster’. No further details are provided (apparently not even in the book itself).

The language and style of the stories resemble those of carnival fortune-tellers. How to become a legit prophet? 🔮 Here’s my quick guide:

• Use vague phrases

• Mix in a few numbers and ambiguous details

• Pro tip: make it sound profound but only interpretable in hindsight

After 2011 Earthquake struck Japan, her fans (or maybe her publisher?🤑) remembered the premonition on the cover. What a great opportunity! How could she let that slip? 💡

Years in the making, in 2021 a reprint was born. It is an expanded edition including previously unreleased dreams (of course), in particular the one she (supposedly) had on March 15, 1996, where she recorded that on March 11, 2011, a great disaster will occur.

Incredible! A prediction accurate down to the exact day. If only we had known earlier, so many lives could have been saved. What a shame! But if there’s a prediction for the future, we absolutely need to know! And here comes the segue that turns this reprint into pure garbage, a yellow callout on a bright red background, screaming:

「本当の大災難は 2025年7月にやってくる」— “The real great disaster will come in July 2025.”

Oh sure, 2011 was one of Japan’s worst natural disasters, everyone remembers it vividly. But apparently that was just a warm-up. The BIG ONE is coming tomorrow. Exploiting that fear for profit? That’s bottom-feeding scum behavior at its finest.

The tragic thing is that the content’s actual validity doesn’t matter: all it takes is the aura of a warning, enough ambiguity to say, ‘What if it’s true?’

On social media, this book is promoted as ‘the book that predicted March 11’, and the date July 5, 2025, has surfaced fueling speculation, countdowns, and full-blown collective panic about an imminent disaster.

But the most disturbing effect of this operation is seen outside Japan. The book went viral among readers in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, regions where a mix of traditionalist culture and a tendency to believe in fate creates fertile ground for this kind of apocalyptic narrative. Many cite it alongside classic prophecy figures like Nostradamus or Baba Vanga: ‘the new Baba Vanga’. Some truly believe it. Others use it to monetize clicks. Everyone contributes to spreading the meme.

In April this year, NHK (Japan’s national TV) aired a report noting a drop in bookings from the aforementioned countries for July. The point isn’t whether the numbers are statistically significant (probably not), but that the stated reason revolves around a “comic book prophecy”. A coincidence turned oracle. A marketing stunt creating latent panic.

Yesterday the BBC published an article ‘Japan islanders sleepless after 900 earthquakes in two weeks’ that metions the book briefly:

A 1999 comic book by manga artist Ryo Tatsuki has been fuelling these rumours. In a new edition released in 2021, she claimed the next big earthquake would strike on 5 July this year.

How much will this phenomenon weigh on Japan’s economy? Nobody knows. Maybe nothing. Maybe it’s just another viral emotional spike, a social media flash that fades after July 6. But the problem isn’t how long it lasts. The problem is that it happened.

What should worry us is the precedent. A work, based on 20-year-old dreams and memories, relaunched with red graphics and two lines of yellow text, today manages to influence real economic decisions, shift tourist flows, and modify collective behavior. And all this in a hyper-connected system where bullshit never dies: it just gets reformatted, updated, translated, and monetized.

In other words: bullshit doesn’t stay online. It doesn’t stop at a Facebook comment or a TikTok reel. It has legs. It has weight. And it can interfere with economic, social, and cultural reality.

Japan is a seismic hotspot. Big earthquakes happen there roughly every century; that’s just the brutal reality of geology. Nobody can predict the exact moment. It’s not a matter of if, but when. So if this big one doesn’t hit tomorrow, then when? Next year? In fifty years? No one knows, because no one can know.

And here’s the cynical part: will it even matter when it finally happens? Probably not. The narrative will simply shift to ‘she got the date wrong, but it happened anyway’. Because that’s how this game works. Like a broken clock, these prophecies end up right twice a day by pure chance; and then they get milked for all they’re worth.

It’s less about foresight and more about spinning coincidence into cash. Meanwhile, the real risk stays ignored or misunderstood, buried under layers of hype and superstition.

Conclusion

The original version was an editorial flop, ignored by everyone until a national tragedy retroactively turned it into a prophecy. If the March 11, 2011 earthquake hadn’t happened, that manga would just be another forgotten gem gathering dust on a thrift store shelf.

The author is now enjoying all this publicity by joining the long list of charlatans who came before. Congratulations!

I wonder how she sleeps at night knowing she’s an impostor, a fraud, someone who profits off people’s gullibility. I only hope she doesn’t go overboard like some worse colleagues and settles for her fortune.

Retreat quietly to your hole, blow out the candle, and do us all a favor.

Amen.

Thanks for reading My Memory Dump! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Let’s face it: money is beautiful.

It doesn’t matter what currency or denomination. There’s something oddly satisfying about holding a banknote in my hands. The texture, the shimmering security features, the bold colors and even that distinctive smell are all strangely appealing.

Some people like to keep foreign change from their travels abroad. Yes, they are a reminder of the experiences made but, that aside, just how cool are they? I get it. They are a miniature work of art, a carefully crafted collage of symbols, figures, and ideals that reflect the identity and values of a nation.

Thanks for reading My Memory Dump! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Beyond its aesthetic, money is a survival tool, the ultimate Swiss knife. But there’s a (big) catch: it’s a single-use tool. Doesn’t matter how much you have, it will always be less than the number of things you could buy. Endless possibilities, one shot.

Once you use it, it’s gone. Or rather converted into something else, inevitably, at a loss.

How do you prioritize what to get to live well? What does “living well” even mean? How much money is enough? 🤔

Understanding the real value of money

Who hasn’t fantasized about winning the lottery? I used to dream of private islands, luxury cars, homes all over the world and never having to work again. But as I got older, I stopped playing Pokémon Red on my GameBoy Color and realized that kind of life wouldn’t actually make me happy. Well, that’s a lie, it took me waaay longer to come to that, but still…

Adulthood changed my relationship with money. I realized it’s not just something to spend but something that I must earn. And when I started to earn it, I started to truly understand it’s value. Things I wanted no longer cost a certain amount of abstract “money”, they were worth a part of my salary. And let me tell you, I was shocked: life is expensive! 😖

I got what I thought was within my possibilities, some nice shirts here and there and a sporty second hand car I really liked. It was nice to drive that to work every day, but when every time I went to the gas station, my heart sank. It was a constant reminder than stuff you buy cost more than the price tag you see in the store. Things need to be maintained and that is what, at the end of the month, didn’t allow me to save much. I was frustrated, it would have been easier to have been born rich, wouldn't it? Was I really “poor” or was I making the wrong choices?

Do we want wealth or freedom?

Fast forward half a decade and the salary improved significantly, my savings did not. I wasn’t (and am still not) financially literate: I get paid → goes on bank account → I buy stuff → rinse and repeat. Basically YOLO.

When I drove home, tired and exhausted, I was happy to remind myself of the paycheck that would come soon. My life was completely focused on work. In my free time, I did… nothing but rest. Work was a means to money and money supposedly a means to a good life, but I had no time to live it! What was the deal then?

I didn’t have everything I wanted, but wasn’t it enough already?

I recently read a very interesting book called Factfulness by Hans Rosling that showed me how poverty is not a black and white concept but a spectrum 🌈 (a recent popular buzzword).

Basically, it shows how an income difference of just a few dollars per day can mean the difference between owning a bicycle or a motorbike, having running water or walking to the river every day. If you earn more than $32/day, you are already in the highest global income bracket: you can afford a car, eat out, travel by air, and most importantly, have access to higher education and healthcare.

Of course, you need to compromise. Afford a car doesn’t mean a brand new Mercedes. Eat out doesn’t mean Michelin restaurant. Travel by air doesn’t mean going to Bora Bora on holiday. Access to healthcare doesn’t mean you will have the best possible care but some form of care. And so on.

(By the way, if you are curious about this topic in more detail, I have written an article where I go through the author’s content with my own interpretation)

This is the key to happiness: it’s a compromise. I need to remind myself that I am privileged. Not because I got cheese in the bank, but because I have everything I need, and then some. I will never be able to afford a Lambo or a private jet, but who cares?

True wealth is peace of mind

Instagram sells us a different story. Beautiful people, always traveling, always smiling, always surrounded by friends and cocktails. 🥳 But what exactly are these influencers influencing? It looks more like showing off than inspiring the world. Do we really want to imitate people whose main activity is self-promotion?

To me, success is when you don’t need to stress about money at the end of the month. The number will be different from everyone but I truly believe it’s much lower than we think it is. Of course, you are free to spend their money however you like. But many of the luxuries we envy are just waste disguised as status. Aren’t they?

What’s the point of ten houses around the world if you don’t visit them? Or a car collection that never leaves the driveway?

In this sense, what success and happiness look like in your life doesn’t need to conform to some made up impossible dream someone is trying to sell you.

How do all these so-called influencers afford their lives? By milking you. Their job is to pretend their lives are carefree and lavish while they are constantly forced to engage with you. They are more enslaved by their job than you are by yours. At a certain point you disconnect. You log off. Sayonara. They don’t. They can’t.

Are they rich? Sure. Are they free? No.

Success, money and personal collapse

I think the question ‘can money buy happiness?’ is flawed, too ambiguous. The real question should be: are you happy to live the life your money can afford? If the answer is no, then YES, having more money will be the key to happiness.

Money is a necessary condition for a good life, but not a sufficient one.

The entertainment world is full of examples of millionaires who spiral into self-destruction. Fame, fortune… and yet addiction, depression, loneliness. The death of artists like Liam Payne (and others even more tragic) shows exactly this.

It’s not about how much you have. It’s about what that money means to you.

Conclusion: be yourself

We live in a world obsessed with appearances. We chase after things we don’t even want, just to not feel left out. We follow trends that change faster than we can catch them, buying stuff to impress people we don’t know. It’s not ambition, it’s confusion wearing designer clothes.

It’s not only our wallets that need guidance, but our compass too.

I wish I’d learned earlier that true wealth is found in freedom, not in flexing.

Having the privilege to spend time doing what you like is the real meta.

Thanks for reading My Memory Dump! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Despite being almost indistinguishable from the previous (except for a new shade of glacier white that’s somehow supposed to change your life), as tradition dictates, Apple will declare it revolutionary, improved in every conceivable way, and naturally priced exactly the same (well, give or take 100 bucks).

Right on cue, the faithful will begin to gather. Akin to a pilgrimage, the fanatics will camp outside Apple Stores, like jaguars thirsting for blood, ready to seize the opportunity of a lifetime: the same rectangle with “all new colors” you’ll immediately hide under a reasonably priced, non-complimentary, matching $50 case (with MegSafe because maybe one day you’ll need it) and, if you really want to splush, hell get yourself also a charger for just $20; what are 20 measly dollars compared to a thousand? It’s a no brainer! You might feel a flicker of guilt. After all, Apple nobly aims to reduce e-waste by not including a charger, assuming, of course, you already have one. And you do. Along with the same charging cable. But hey, that’s next year’s marketing idea. Still, this is a gift to yourself. You deserve it.

Watching this predictable spectacle unfold year after year got me thinking: when was the last time something truly innovative changed our lives? I don’t mean a bigger camera bump or a “titanium” frame. I mean the kind of progress that actually pushed the boundaries forward for humanity, not just the quarterly earnings report.

I know, comparing world-changing innovations to the release of yet another iPhone might be like comparing apples to oranges (or Apples to everything else), but still… it made me think. 🤔

I think back to moments when real transformation happened. When electricity lit up cities and extended waking life beyond sunset. When computers moved from labs into homes. When the internet let us shop without putting on pants. When phones stopped being phones and became portals to an alternate reality When social media promised connection and delivered… something else.

Those were the milestones. But now? We seem stuck in a loop of polished upgrades and scripted applause. Our ambition hasn’t disappeared, it’s just been outsourced to marketing departments, who assure us that this year’s model is the future we’ve all been waiting for.

Thomas Edison — ⚡️ The development of large-scale electrical distribution networks

This guy, like the other legends in this article, is a true icon. Everyone knows his name, and nearly everyone thinks he invented the incandescent light bulb. (Spoiler alert: he didn’t.)

He held over 1,000 patents across various fields like mechanics and electronics, fueled by a restless curiosity and explorer’s mindset. He never set foot in a university. Educated at home by his mother, he started working at age 13 selling newspapers. Within a few years, he had explored countless business avenues that funded his experiments.

What really set him apart from contemporaries like Tesla was his natural knack for winning over investors and their resources. He knew how to sell. Tesla had to learn that skill; for Edison, it came naturally.

Here was a man who was brilliant, smart, and an expert businessman, all managed without Excel spreadsheets or computers, with a sharp eye for improving anything he saw. Some of his inventions were original, but most were upgrades of existing ideas, adapted with the technology of his time. The light bulb fits perfectly here. Edison didn’t invent it, but he found a way to mass-produce it by tirelessly experimenting with filament materials and sizes. This trial-and-error approach is what earned him credit for “inventing” the bulb.

But how do you spread light bulbs in a world without an electrical grid? That was the real challenge and also a huge opportunity. Electricity was precious and scarce, like ice in the desert (or really, anywhere back then). Controlling its generation and distribution would have enormous implications.

So, picture this: he had invested all his life in pursuit of countless ideas and project, and finally, with his direct current generation and distribution network, he had the means to bring America into the next century. He was paving the way; his name would be engraved in history forever. Money was pouring in. He was happy, investors were happy. He was on the path to becoming a tycoon. Then, suddenly, Tesla unveiled a clearly superior technical solution: alternating current. Edison met it with skepticism and turned to slander and ruthless lobbying. He flat-out tried to rally the public against AC by painting it as extremely dangerous. Spreading misinformation, instigating panic.

Officially, whether this was due to ignorance or a desperate bid to protect his interests is unclear; I lean heavily towards the latter. Am I really supposed to believe that the guy who taught himself science well enough to become a master of electrical engineering, driven by his passion for tinkering and experimenting since he was a kid, couldn’t understand Tesla’s technology? I might be wrong. History shows even the greatest minds can be stubbornly wrong. Tesla himself, in his later years, was obsessed with wireless electricity transmission, which works fine for short distances (hello, wireless iPhone chargers) but terribly over long ranges (because air is a lousy conductor).

We’ll never know the full truth. What remains is Edison (luckily) failed to crush Tesla’s competition but lost face in the process. He was pushed out of his own company after a merger, and shortly after, alternating current was openly adopted EVERYWHERE in the world. All of this was possible because Edison was wealthy, but not by today’s billionaire standards. He needed investors to fund his projects. If he had the resources of the people I will talk about in the rest of the article, I am sure his smear campaigns would have carried more weight, and perhaps today there would have been an Edison generator in your neighborhood.

What remains of Edison, for me, is the image of a man who heavily contributed to building the modern world but also a stark reminder that in the pursuit of progress and profit, we often sacrifice our dignity. In the end, he chose to die without ever publicly acknowledging he was wrong.

Bill Gates — 💻 The personal computer for everyone

To me, he’ll always be the richest man in the world. The first true nerd to ever reach rockstar status, for this fact alone he earned a special place in my heart. I am sorry, I am a nerd.

He’s not exactly a genius on the level of Edison or Tesla, but he did have one crucial insight: realizing, before almost anyone else, that software would become essential to making computers useful for the general public. A revolution waiting to happen, not just a huge opportunity.

At the core of his success is a questionable strategy: sell the idea first, then make it real; either by building it yourself or by buying it from someone who already has it. This is exactly what his company did in 1975, by developing BASIC for the Altair, and again in 1980, when they purchased an operating system by a third party and re-packaged it as MS-DOS and sold it to IBM. From there, riding on IBM’s widespread hardware adoption, Microsoft cemented his position at the top of the software food chain.

In the ’90s, Microsoft came under antitrust scrutiny in multiple countries for monopolistic practices. Then again, it’s easy to crush the competition or pay off whatever fine you are given when you have near-infinite resources. In many ways, Gates helped write the axioms of modern Big Tech’s playbook: tight control, vertical integration, and aggressive expansion.

Now, having a monopoly over a resource isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If you make a great product, a car for example, and it’s the only one people can buy, most will be content. But what happens when you lower the quality to boost profit? Suddenly everyone’s stuck with a crappy car and no alternative. Repeat this across every part of life, and you don’t just get unhappy consumers, you get systemic collapse. Ironically, a capitalistic monopoly resembles the very failures we associate with authoritarian communism: no choice, low quality, and zero accountability.

Bill Gates continues to influence Microsoft’s strategic direction, even if his role is non-executive and advisory in nature, but he is no longer involved in day-to-day activities. He is giving himself more time to explore new ambitions, mostly philantrophic projects.

With his (now ex) wife, he poured massive resources into tackling deadly diseases, especially in Africa, through the Gates Foundation. He didn’t hang onto his CEO seat into his nineties like his friend Warren Buffett. I credit him for this.

So what legacy does Bill Gates leave behind?

He shows that it’s possible to build an empire by playing your cards before the deck is even dealt. Once you reach the top, you can withstand any competitive attack unless someone rewrites the rules of the game. But more than that, he’s proof that being deeply invested in your work doesn’t prevent you from changing paths later on, keeping your personal life private, and living with (relatively) humble dignity.

We’ve all got skeletons in the closet. Still, it’s undeniable that Windows, while not open-source, remained accessible enough to let millions engage with it, not just as users, but as creators.

Jeff Bezos — 🛒 Convenient shopping in the internet era

I don’t know much about this man’s origin story, but Jeff Bezos made a real leap of faith by leaving his well-paying job as a hedge fund analyst to start a company and turn his idea into reality.

Sure, the internet was arriving like a storm. But it took years before Amazon resembled anything like the giant we know today. In the beginning, the business was simple, boring: buy books from a wholesaler, re-sell them online. Just like any brick-and-mortar bookstore. What made the difference for customers? The convenience.

Once you realize how easy it is to buy a book online, the next logical question is: why not do this with everything? Amazon capitalized on this, solidifying its market position before anyone else had the chance. Today, thanks to its massive scale and direct deals with suppliers, it offers prices nobody can compete with.

In 2024, Amazon reported $59.25 billion in net income. Thanks to smart accounting, it ended up paying just 14.7% in taxes, far below the 21% U.S. corporate tax rate. This is shocking, it screams tax evasion, but it’s all legal. Why? Amazon’s low tax payments are heavily linked to their continuous reinvestment and aggressive expansion.

The tax code encourages companies to invest in growth (factories, jobs, R&D, etc.) favoring long-term productivity instead of short-term gains. The idea is that, after expansion, you will become highly profitable and will then be taxed accordingly. Both the government and the company will profit in this scenario.

In theory it works, because the model assumes there is a natural “end point”:

You invest now → you grow → you profit → you pay your share

If you are relentless and keep re-investing, expanding, entering new businesses, you can basically the “pay taxes” step almost indefinitely.

Today, Amazon employs over 1.5 million people in more than 100 subsidiaries. Many work in extremely demanding conditions: their work timed to the point they skip bathroom breaks, automated systems flag you for being too slow, out delivering our stuff regardless of weather conditions. Shift after shift after shit. The true unsung hero of our generation.

For the consumer, the upside is undeniable: low prices, fast shipping, endless variety. But there’s a darker side. Fake reviews, sponsored listings that show up even when irrelevant, and hyper-targeted ads that follow you online (thank you aggressive cookie tracking!).

Jeff Bezos is definitely louder than Bill Gates. He doesn’t fly too close to the sun but he also doesn’t hide under the radar. Of course, he should live whatever life he desires and he can. What I wonder is when you’re in a position to afford anything and live any life you can imagine, how can you justify the need to keep hoarding more?

So what legacy does Jeff Bezos leave behind? To me, he shows, once again, how vital it is to have the right idea at the right time. Also, once you are balling at the table with the big boys, you can basically do whatever you want. He also proves that no matter how regulated the system looks on paper, companies like his are already finding every loophole they need; all while complaining they’re being held back.

By the way, I’m purposely not talking about Blue Origin: who am I to take a billionaire’s toys away? (And no, being pushed in a ballistic trajectory above the Karman line does NOT make you an astronaut. Nobody will say ‘Ah yes, astronauts… Neil Armstrong, Yuri Gagarin… and Katy Perry’) And I’m not even focusing on how Amazon’s rise put countless small businesses out of business. Honestly, it’s not that I don’t care, but hear me out: if Amazon had absorbed those businesses and treated its workers with dignity, I could have accepted it. Still crazy, but at least somewhat justifiable. The real problem, for me, is that they treat their workers like garbage while sitting on unimaginable wealth and living a life better than most humans in history. That disconnect is what I find hardest to stomach.

Mark Zuckerberg — 📣 Social media

Ah yes, the reptilian turned frat bro. How could we ever forget him? The man who single-handedly gave people a voice, proudly carrying the torch of his mission to “connect the world” and “empower users” everywhere and in all eternity. If you’ve ever watched his apperance in official hearings after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, you know exactly what I’m talking about (i.e. ‘Don’t forget to blink!’ 🦎).

I don’t want to oversimplify, but essentially this guy was in college, surrounded by a sea of fraternities, and realized no one had yet thought to use the Internet to build one. That’s basically what he did, creating a digital fraternity. Like Amazon and many other tech giants, the timing was perfect.

In my opinion, the real reason Facebook became so popular is because it let people interact without having to truly put themselves out there. Sure, there were earlier attempts at this kind of platform, but they didn’t catch on. As with any big success, a fair bit of luck was involved, and Mark had plenty.

When a product like this takes off, it grows exponentially. And growth comes with massive logistical challenges. Servers cost money, and when millions of people are using your platform simultaneously, they cost even more. The solution? The same one every other media company has used so far: advertising! Genius.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with covering costs through ads. It often makes services more accessible, even free. In the case of social media, that’s essential. You don’t pay to use Facebook, and in return, they monetize your attention. A true win-win situation.

And to be fair, Facebook has invested heavily in building features to attract more users and “connect the world” just like their mission states. And we are indeed connected and share everything. This has an appeal to advertisers too. And what’s better than hyper-personalized ads? If I’m into canoes, I see ads for canoes. That works for me and the canoe seller. Another win-win situation.

Unfortunately, the platform and its algorithm amplified this to the extreme. You end up in a bubble, surrounded by people who live and breathe the same ideas, values, political views, and knowledge as you. Yes, you can choose to sort your feed chronologically or by “relevance”, but you’re still inside the bubble. You have no real control over this feature. And just like that, we connected the world, then split it into groups and made them interact only with themselves. Maximum engagement achieved. The perfect echo chamber.

Now add to that this, a lack of real moderation. Facebook doesn’t act unless something is blatantly violent or horrific. But it lets misinformation run wild. It doesn’t matter that Zuckerberg told Congress it’s “too difficult” to moderate the volume of content on their platform. That is surely true but still, as the saying goes, ‘you wanted the bike, now start pedaling’.

If I build cars with the mission of connecting the world, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t care about their safety. I shouldn’t force the car to drive only on certain roads or reach only the destinations I, the Emperor-CEO, have chosen for you. Imagine if the CEO of Volvo said something like ‘Building cars is difficult, mistakes can happen, but look—people are more connected and empowered than ever!’. Cringe.

The logic seems obvious to me: if you develop a product, you need to take full accountability for it. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right.

The internet, and social media in particular, are still a work in progress. They started as simple ideas but have evolved into complex infrastructures we can barely wrap our heads around. Despite their seemingly chaotic nature, we know exactly who’s shaping them. It’s not a democracy. It’s not a mass of anonymous developers. It’s a handful of powerful people holding the most influential tool our generation has ever seen.

Faced with that truth, it’s almost surreal that Zuckerberg still insists, with a straight face, that their mission is simply to “connect the world”. As if, twenty years and hundreds billion dollars later, that’s still all he cares about.

So what legacy does this man leave behind?

I think about the millions who use Facebook to spread conspiracy theories, misinformation, and hate, whether in good faith or bad. No donation, no amount of philanthropy can undo the damage done when huge swaths of people are convinced of something false. People have the right to express their opinions. Sure.

The First Amendment protects you by preventing the government from limiting your freedom of expression. It does not apply to private platforms or businesses, unless you’re being discriminated against based on race, religion, gender identity, nationality, or disability.

This is why, if you insult a McDonald’s employee and still demand to be served, they can refuse you, ask you to leave, and call the cops to make sure you do. It’s not a public square. It’s their property, their business. When you walk through the door, you agree to follow their rules.

Letting ideas like ‘the last election was stolen’, ‘COVID was a government hoax’, ‘all news is fake except Fox News’, ‘the Earth is flat’ or ‘vaccines cause autism’ spread unchecked create a warped view of reality that has very serious, deadly, consequences.

So, dear Mark, stop hiding behind free speech and set real rules better for how people use your platform. No more excuses. You’re allowed to refuse service to “customers”, aren’t you? Or are you just too greedy? At least stop pretend it’s all just about connection.

Do you really think that if you told the world you don’t care about people, only profit, and are willing to push whatever garbage keeps users hooked, there would be any real consequences? Do drug addicts use drugs because they don’t know they’re dangerous? Did putting warning labels on cigarette packs stop people from smoking? Come on, dude.

Steve Jobs — 📱 The smartphone

The turtleneck prophet. The man who made minimalism cool, turned product launches into spiritual awakenings and, let’s be honest, convinced the world that rectangles with rounded corners were the future. He created the perfect product. Amazing how perfection keeps getting a yearly update.

My opinion of the man couldn’t be expressed more concisely than by what Bill Burr said on Conan:

Steve Jobs wasn’t just a visionary; he was a showman, a control freak, and above all, a master strategist. The 2007 launch of the iPhone wasn’t just about giving users a better phone. The real goal? Breaking into a market roughly an order of magnitude bigger than computers and doing it with a bang so loud it would echo across every industry. At the very end of the Keynote, in his own words: 1% of the phone market in the first year would mean 10 million devices sold. Don’t believe me? Just watch this for few seconds:

And it worked. The iPhone wasn’t just a product; it was a reset button on modern portable devices. It changed how people communicate, navigate, listen to music, do business, fall in love, get lost, get found, get distracted, and eventually get addicted. All wrapped up in sleek glass and aluminum.

The revolution felt magical from the outside, but from Apple’s perspective, it was chess. They weren’t just building a smartphone; they were building the next ecosystem, the next gateway drug to the Apple universe. The App Store would soon follow, turning developers into evangelists and iPhones into indispensable tools (or leashes, depending on how you see it).

And yes, the investors loved it! AAPL stock gradually exploded, riding the wave of global smartphone adoption and the kind of brand loyalty most companies would sell their souls for. The iPhone became THE financial engine that transformed Apple from a computer company into the most valuable corporation on Earth.

But let’s not forget: Jobs didn’t invent the smartphone. He just made the first one people wanted. The real magic trick was taking a landscape full of clunky PDAs, resistive touchscreens, plastic styluses and Windows Mobile, and presenting the alternative like it had just landed from the future.

And all that elegance, all that polish? It came at a cost. Inside Apple, stories of brutal deadlines, intense secrecy, and soul-crushing perfectionism aren’t rare; they’re the norm. The same energy that brought the iPhone to life also burned through employees. Not to mention the sweatshops in China.

So what legacy does Steve Jobs leave behind? A beautiful product. A generation of devices designed not to be fixed. A culture obsessed with design. An industry addicted to annual upgrades. And a world that now stares into screens more than into eyes.

He changed the world, no doubt. But he also made sure Apple would never be “just a computer company” again.

Elon Musk — 🚀 Humans on Mars, cooming soon!

I kept him last, because he is special. Elon Musk isn’t a visionary, he’s a snowball entrepreneur with a God complex. Sky is truly th†e limit.

I will be blunt with this one. Forget the myth. The guy doesn’t invent things. He doesn’t build from scratch. What he does is start Company A, secure subsidies, hype the mission, and use the momentum, and money, to launch Company B. Hire the top talent from his competitors. Rinse. Repeat. All while wearing the mask of a rogue genius too busy saving humanity to be held accountable.

Everyone knows Tesla. It’s public. There are earnings calls, there are investors. Yet, Tesla’s anti-union stance is no secret; the company has faced repeated allegations of union-busting, surveillance of organizing workers, and retaliation. During the height of the COVID pandemic, Musk reopened the Fremont factory against local orders and threatened to move operations out of California altogether. Workers were put at risk, and those who spoke out paid the price. In his world, labor is just another variable to optimize, like battery efficiency or manufacturing throughput.

And speaking of batteries: the EV revolution, for all its promises of sustainability, hasn’t accounted for the full lifecycle of its own products. For every sleek Model 3 hitting the road, there’s a looming question no one seems eager to answer: what happens at the end of its life? EV batteries are heavy, complex, and full of materials that are difficult to recycle at scale. We’ve built the demand, but not the decommissioning plan. And just like the emissions problem EVs claim to solve, we’re kicking that can far down the road, hoping future innovators will clean up today’s mess.

Ironically, while electric vehicles are hailed as the green solution, hydrogen fuel cell cars are quietly emerging as a strong contender. Unlike battery EVs, hydrogen cars emit only water vapor and can refuel in minutes instead of hours. The main obstacles today are expensive infrastructure and costly hydrogen production. However, once fusion energy, the ultimate source of clean and unlimited power, becomes practical (next 10-20 years?), hydrogen could be produced cheaply by splitting water at scale. After all, electricity is the core resource here. Whether you use it to charge a battery or produce hydrogen, wouldn’t a hydrogen car that avoids polluting batteries altogether be the better option?

At that point, EVs may look like a necessary but flawed stepping stone, a beta version of the true solution. And all those lithium mines, dead batteries, and gigafactories? A monument to an era that rushed forward without thinking about the endgame.

But every other major company in his empire is private, controlled, and shielded. SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company, and xAI operate with no transparency and no oversight. Just enough marketing stunts to build a myth, and just enough plausible deniability to stay untouchable.

Take SpaceX, for example. On paper, it’s about Mars and making humans a interplanetary species. Noble, inspiring. How do we do that? Use an agile approach of fast iteration of design and testing, break the mold, fail fast. Where did it lead? Elon claiming that breakthrough milestones are going to be reached within a year while his Starship rockets have exploded 56% of the time, a sharp contrast to NASA’s Saturn V, designed mostly on paper between 1961 and 1965, which flew 13 times, reached the Moon, and NEVER ONCE blew up. So what’s the deal with SpaceX? Entering aerospace and defense, getting the U.S. government as your best-paying customer.

By piggybacking Starlink launches on government and customer-sponsored missions, he built a global internet infrastructure and became a direct-to-consumer provider without having to pay the bill. Flawless strategy.

And where is SpaceX based? On the shores of Boca Chica. They promised not to disrupt the locals but ended up taking over the beach. Boca Chica Village become Starbase. Since very recently it became an official municipality, in Cameron County, Texas, where Musk’s company de facto owns the town. The man built a launchpad and regulatory loophole at the same time. What kind of municipal oversight can exist when the municipality is your company? There are residents who live within earshot of rocket blasts, and they have no voice. That’s not progress — that’s feudalism with better branding.

Then came Twitter. Or “X.” He didn’t just buy a social media platform, he bought a megaphone. He now controls both the internet’s distribution infrastructure (Starlink is in space, so immune to geopolitical instabilities) and one of its largest information platforms. We’ve already seen what he does with that power: promotes “free speech” while silencing critics, suspending journalists, reinstating extremists, and reshaping the discourse to serve his ego. Reality is his narrative now.

You think he won’t do the same with Starlink?

What happens when your country’s internet is beamed from satellites owned by a guy who blocks people for posting facts? When battlefield communications or disaster relief depend on his approval? We already watched him restrict Starlink access in military operations in Ukraine, citing concerns over escalating the conflict. Or was he just afraid of provoking Russia? After all, he still needs to sell them Teslas.

And let’s not even talk about Tesla’s so-called “Full Self-Driving”. It’s literally Level 2 autonomy, marketed as if it’s Level 5. It’s a branding stunt with fatal consequences. He knows it. The regulators know it. But the illusion, and the stock price, must go on.

This isn’t visionary leadership. This is conquest, one industry at a time: energy, aerospace, communications, information, now even municipal governance. He’s not building the future. He’s buying the present and rewriting the rules once he owns the board.

Similar to what I did for Bezos, I have to apologize for leaving out the full list of Musk’s ‘innovations.’ They range from impractical ideas like the Hyperloop to downright bananas ones like digging tunnels with The Boring Company to solve traffic… 🤦🏻

Conclusion

What do Edison, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Jobs, and Musk have in common?

They’re all innovators, not always inventors, but undeniably opportunists who saw the future a few steps ahead of the rest of us and made it theirs. Edison lit the bulb, literally and figuratively. Gates brought computing to the masses. Bezos sold convenience as destiny. Jobs made tech beautiful. Zuckerberg gave monetized the agora. Musk took the tech bro dream, cranked it to 11, and launched it into orbit (after making sure someone else paid for the rocket).

None of them were satisfied with simply building something useful. Innovation was never the endpoint: it was the opening bid. And once they hit escape velocity, they didn’t slow down to optimize or reflect. They scaled harder, pushed further, and expanded endlessly, often less for the sake of progress and more for the tax advantages, shareholder hype, and cult-like momentum.

Sure, they may have talked about changing the world and, in many ways, they did. But let’s not pretend the wealth wasn’t part of the mission. Their legacies are tangled: part visionary, part monopolist, part genius and part PR machine. In the end, their real superpower wasn’t just seeing the future. It was bending the present until everyone else had no choice but to follow.

Instead of rushing to Mars to ‘save humanity,’ maybe true survival lies in prioritizing ethical leadership, social impact, and sustainability.

Thanks for reading My Memory Dump! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Technologies we now take for granted—wireless communication, video broadcasting, digital and wearable computers, fusion energy research, autonomous vehicles—were all envisioned in science fiction long before becoming scientific conquests. Of course, not everything from sci-fi is destined to come true. And we know it. But we’ve still dared to envision flying cars, teleportation, faster-than-light travel, intelligent androids, fully immersive metaverses, and even the evolution of our species through mutation or the fusion of biology and technology.

Here’s the point: whether a technology exists today or is still just speculation, it has almost certainly appeared in some form of media. Technology never emerges in a vacuum—it lives within society and, in turn, shapes it. So, our perception of real breakthroughs is often colored by the fictional versions we grew up with, creating expectations—realistic or not—about how they’ll impact our world.

Too much expectation

By the end of this century, I believe Artificial Intelligence and stable nuclear fusion will be the biggest drivers of our progress as a species. These technologies have the potential to make a meaningful difference—helping us develop better models to tackle complex challenges in medicine, climate, energy, material science, and beyond. Most importantly, they could unlock true global energy independence.

Unfortunately, the public often associates anything “nuclear” with danger, radioactive fallout, disasters, or catastrophic failure; AI is generally viewed in a somewhat brighter light—but not without its own fears. Most people find themselves caught between two anxieties:

• the fear that AI will replace them—or someone they know—at work, and

• the deeper fear that we might create something smarter than ourselves… and then lose control! Ouch!

It doesn’t help that prominent figures like Elon Musk regularly use their platforms to amplify these existential warnings—overstated at best, unjustified at worst.

I’ll cover Elon Musk in a future article. Hit subscribe so you don’t miss out!

Is AI going to steal your job?

How did we go from horse and carriage to automobiles, trains, and airplanes?

“Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed; everything is transformed.” — Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (1789)

Historically, new technologies haven’t caused mass disruption to society because they tend to transform jobs rather than erase them completely, and their adoption is usually gradual, giving society time to adapt.

This happens because jobs exist to fulfill human needs, and those needs don’t disappear—only the way we meet them changes. Even in today’s fast-paced world, the transition is slow enough to allow for reskilling and the natural evolution of the workforce.

A plethora of new jobs and occupations will emerge—not only within AI but in entirely new industries we can’t even imagine yet. It will be a gradual shift, one that our children—and their children—will witness unfold.

How do you defeat an enemy that’s better than you in every possible way?

Ok, so AI won’t steal your job tomorrow (maybe). But are we safe? Once the singularity point is reached, AI will grow at an unimaginable rate. Nobody will be able to understand it, let alone hope to contain it.

This is exactly why AI makes such a powerful antagonist—it reflects our own insecurity about being surpassed. We think it’s a chess match, but AI has already planned every possible outcome and is ready to crush us even before our first move. This is what we’ve seen in fiction, but is that reality?

The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2100 BCE – Mesopotamia) is one of the oldest written fictional stories. It features a king who leaves home, faces gods and monsters, and returns transformed. This story archetype is known as the Hero’s Journey, which can be summarized like this:

A hero leaves the ordinary world, ventures into the unknown, faces trials, gains wisdom or power, and returns changed.

But more than just an adventure, the Hero’s Journey is a story about humanity itself—the struggle between the weak and the strong, where the underdog almost always triumphs. It’s a narrative that celebrates how, despite seeming vulnerability or limitations, the “weak” find a way to win against overwhelming odds.

A handful of humans, with John Connor, somehow manage to stand up to the formidable Skynet.

This idea resonates deeply with our ambitious nature—the desire to feel at the center of the universe. The thought that anyone, no matter how ordinary, can shape the world? That’s pretty badass. Not realistic, but ain’t nobody got time for that!

This has shaped how we perceive AI but why does it have to be like that. What if we could design systems that integrate human-aligned values—not simulate care, but actually act based on encoded empathy or ethical frameworks?

Hardware failsafe

The robots Asimov envisioned have positronic brains that get damaged and break if core laws are violated (= if the robot harms a human).

Software can be updated, hacked, or ignored—but hardware is deterministic. Once a constraint is embedded in the physical design, it becomes non-negotiable. You don’t argue with it—it just is.

This concept is NOT novel and is already utilized—perhaps without your knowledge—in most products we use. The rule of thumb is: if there’s a chance for catastrophic system failure, you can bet there is a built-in lower-impact failure mode to limit the damage to the minimum.

For example, in heavy industrial equipment, circuit breakers don’t just prevent overload—they’re often wired so the machine physically can’t operate unless certain conditions are met. These aren’t software suggestions; they’re hard-wired truths. Break the condition, and the system shuts down.

Of course, hardware can fail, but for that, other strategies are in place. Think of the last time Google’s datacenters malfunctioned and you lost your GoogleDrive data. Never happened, right? Issues arise, components fail, but redundancy is built into the system to ensure data integrity.

So far, it seems AI—or neural network models—have mostly been treated as a software challenge. The infrastructure relies on the best off-the-shelf hardware suited for the current computational task (aka GPUs). But is that really the bottleneck to achieving the singularity?

Sure, more computational power might make AI faster and more accurate with bigger datasets—but it will NEVER develop true intelligence. How could it?

Currently, AI runs on standard or task-specific hardware but is confined to a safe “virtual” space. Isolated from its own programming and training data, it’s nothing more than a black box: something understood only by its inputs and outputs, with no insight into its inner workings.

Unless we humans make a breakthrough, it won’t happen. It’s always going to miss that je ne sais quoi.

From Moore to more

Moore’s Law (1965) is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years. This held true for a long time, until in 2005 Moore realized that in 10 to 20 years we would approach atomic sizes, a fundamental barrier to further miniaturization.

This year, according to projections, we should develop 2nm technology, with 1nm around the corner in 2027. For reference, the diameter of a single silicon atom is 0.11nm. Fabrication costs follow the opposite trend: as we go smaller, investments in semiconductor manufacturing grow bigger.

Eventually, we will stop making things smaller and will be forced to rethink the whole system. And somehow, it’s already happening—to an extent. Intel, for example, famously introduced their “tick-tock” production model in 2007, where every new process technology was first used to manufacture a die shrink of a proven microarchitecture (“tick”), followed by a new microarchitecture on the now-proven process (“tock”).

Quantum computers have been deployed and are slowly entering public view, but they remain very specialized machines. Similar to analog computers, they excel at specific tasks. We now see “optimized for AI” stickers on GPUs, but it’s mostly marketing. In my opinion, to reach the next level we desperately need new hardware.

AI that builds itself — with boundaries

Current generative AI works simply as a tokenization system. As I mentioned earlier, it’s essentially a black box. The concept of neural networks is well known and serves as a good theoretical model for our brain—just with far fewer nodes. But is that the only difference?

I would argue that the way we learn math, science, and other subjects is not by repeating the same task millions of times with rewards for correctness and penalties for mistakes. We understand things on a deeper, abstract, meaningful level. The concept of “orange” isn’t a single neuron or piece of matter in our brain—it’s a complex construct but still a construct.

How does increasing the number of nodes in a neural network suddenly allow a computer to develop the same construct? I believe we need to develop a hardware-based system that encodes core concepts and structures the relationships between them in a way that creates predictable, aligned behavior. This architecture would act both as a failsafe and as a kind of conceptual scaffolding—guiding AI exploration while ensuring it operates in humanity’s best interest.

I’ll go further and say we face a paradox: to push AI forward, we must let it design parts of itself. The best experts working alongside a decentralized prototype of this intelligence—with funding to explore original paradigm-shifting solutions—is the only way forward I see. Current AI can’t do it alone. Experts can’t do it alone. Together, they might.

In January of this year, the Stargate Project was announced, a joint venture between OpenAI, Softbank, Oracle and other private entities that aim to invest $500B in AI infrastructure by 2029. I am particularly hopeful this will drive the technology — if not to the ultimate step — at least few steps forward.

I will be monitoring this with interest.

My conclusion

We’ve spent the last decade (maybe more?) marveling at what AI can say, write, solve, and imagine. But let’s be clear—that’s not intelligence. We’re stretching the word beyond recognition, and the more we do, the further we drift from its true meaning.

The next leap won’t come from more parameters or bigger datasets. It will come from the systems we design—not to simulate intelligence, but to help uncover it, to push the boundaries of our understanding. It will come from rethinking transistors, circuits, energy flows—from a return to fundamentals.

This technology will first emerge as a supercomputer—just like the early ancestors of our modern computers—and gradually become more accessible, until one day, it will be available to everyone. It will be instrumental in lifting ALL mankind toward wealth, health, and a life in harmony with nature.

A necessary step forward in our evolution as a species—perhaps even beyond Earth.

Thanks for reading My Memory Dump! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Leave a comment

Some two years ago, my very small family lost its eldest member. She was, for a part of my life someone I simply called mother. Our relationship was not the usual one you have with a great parent: I didn’t see her every once in a while or remember she existed at Christmas. Nor was the situation where childcare is delegated by parents to grandparents. It was more like a coexistance. It was a close relationship, as close as it gets. She knew me all my life and I knew her inside out.

Her loss happened at a time in my life of great changes. I was literally at the airport, waiting for my flight, on my way to relocate internationally. When the person crying on the other side of the phone gave me the news, my first reaction was to simply aske how did it happen. After the reply, I was instantly in peace. She was gone, the way she wished for herself to go.

In the following paragraphs I will attempt to put in writing why I did not shed tears, why I did not change my plan and go to the funeral on the other side of the world, how I carried on with my life.

Throughtout the decades we have known each other, as I grew into an adult, we always kept a very open dialogue about everything. She was up to speed with everything happening in my life and I believe one of the reasons she was able to keep a sharp mind long into old age was the fact that so often she interacted with a much younger person. The biggest difference between us was not age itself, but rather our experience of the world.

Her world was the city she grew up in and its immediate surroundings. Her community mostly composed of people she knew since youth. Aside from brief travels abroad some 50 years prior, she never knew actual foreign. On the other hand, I had always had the curiosity to explore the world and jump, to different degrees, into different cultures (this is definitely a story for another time). My community was ever-evolving and changing at a rapid pace. Those experiences made me see life from a different perspective and I shared with her my discoveries — thinking about this right now fills me with joy.

It was interesting for her to listen to me, but it was also a pleasure for me to be able to share that with her. In the same way my stories were surprising to her, her questions about them were surprising for me. We gave each other new ideas. It was beautiful.

She didn’t achieve any incredible feats during her life, but I can tell you it was a remarkable one. She lived through important historical events, such as the tragedy of WW2, and she was part of a big family with 8 other siblings. She always remembered with extreme clarity how she used to play with some of them, in particular they found exhilarating making pranks on the family elders. Married, made several children. Widowed too early. She had what I would consider a full life.

Of all the things she did in her life, when I met her in her late age, she was proudest about her house. She praised her house. She was constantly rethinking the layout of the rooms, what new curtains she could get, she loved her independence and made full use (or abuse) of it. She could control what her house would look like and she could mold it to suit her. This kept her active, busy and happy. The idea that, despite everything, people can see and will forever think she took great care of her house.

I wouldn’t define her as an atheist neither nor a fervent Christian, something in between. Of course she was raised Catholic, but how deep did her faith go? She used to go to Mass quite regularly and she prayed often. In the evening she would find comfort in praying the rosary, believing it was a bridge between her and her lost loved ones. I grew up with this too, and I liked it.

That being said, nobody seriously believed in the Creation of the Bible. What about the parting of the Sea? Water turned into wine? Skepticism. But she always referred to God as Our Father and she was wondering about his existence. She slowly realized that the clergymen, similarly to doctors, notaries, lawyers and judges are just men. Part of a caste, yes — but men nonetheless. What is the point of going to church? Can’t I just pray at home? Will Our Father care about the difference? In her mind, the whole thing started to lose its logic. I was with her in this journey.

What about the dead then? She always felt (or rather longed for) a connection. If something good happened it was because her late husband helped or interceded. How do you combine this belief with her newfound ideas? She couldn’t. For this reason, I believe she did spend her share of time (and money) with fortune tellers (more specifically cartomancers), but deep down I am sure she knew it was fake. She felt better, whatever they said, not because she believed in that but because it made her feel closer to those who already passed. She needed to do something to keep them alive. Praying or visiting cartomancers served this purpose. It didn’t make them disappear.

Not knowing what there is and knowing there is nothing are two very different things!

This sentence from my calculus professor changed my life: not knowing is an uncertainty, knowing there is nothing — while it can be disappointing — is a certainty. You can take a gamble with the unknown, but you shouldn’t gamble against a certainty. Your life span is unknown, death is certain.

With this in mind, I interviewed her, on multiple occasions, with tact. I wanted to prepare myself for when the time would come, leave no stone unturned and get to the bottom of who she was and what she thought. I didn’t want to lose her without this confrontation. I also hoped that, by reflecting together on such a sensitive matter, this could bring her to implicitly reflect on her own belief regarding those already past.

If you were to look back on your life, given all that has happened, is there anything you wish you did differently? If you were to die tomorrow, would you have any regrets?

She took time to ponder this. It felt like an eternity, but it must have been no longer than one minute. Obviously things could have played out in a different way if she made different decisions, but in which way? She realized that there is no way of knowing that. We like to think that if we could avoid a mistake then it will be for the best but you have no way to know how your fantasy will play out to its ends, it might as well be worse. It is uncertain. Despite the outcome of her choices, she believed she did the best she could at those moments and knew for sure where she stood now — in the house she loved. A certainty. Between uncertainty and certainty, she chose certainty.

She was absolute, in almost everything. She would not question things either, rather accept them, especially she would never second guess herself — typical of people of her generation. But I totally agree with her.

If, when presented with a choice, you make the best decision (in your opinion) with the information you have at the time, why should you later on regret it or wish you made a different one? It doesn’t make sense. You did your best, the past is past. You should process that, consider what you can learn from that experience and move on. You can make a decision to affect your future, literally anytime you want! Ah, but it’s too late! The opportunity is gone! — so be it!

As she grew older and saw her peers die, she was worried she might get some nasty disease that would take away her independence and pride. She didn’t want to carry on for years and years coming and going between hospitals, slowly but steadily losing her mind and most importantly losing her house!

She lived the way she wanted, she lived in her house until the end and that end came unannounced. When that moment came, do you think she was frightened? I don’t think so. If I knew her enough, she must have realized the end was there and acknoledged the fact that this is what she wanted after all. Sooner or later something like this had to happen. So why not now? She had no affairs left hanging, everything was settled. Everything that had to be said, was said. So be it. She was very stubborn and she had made up her mind! She firmly believed that, when time comes, the ones left behind will figure things out.

And she was right.

Her house still stands, all the things she loved are still there. Of course they would never be appreciated by others the way she appreciated them. She knew those who will come after will not appreciate them. And she didn’t care. If they don’t appreciate them, it’s their fault! — she would say.

She lived for herself and didn’t need to prove anything to anyone.

If you knew her as I did, you would not grieve by remembering her with tears. You would remember who she was truly like and the grit with which she lived life until the end. This inspired me to carry on with my life, the same way she would carry on with hers: always be in the present. Take care of your affairs, do what you think is best, be content (unless it’s about house decorations) and when it’s time to go, hopefully it will be sudden.

The ones left behind will figure things out!