There has been an idea going on in my head for some time: what if instead of just consuming media, I collect it and write about in on Sunday. Let’s try.

die Zeit (🇩🇪)

There is a very interesting interview with Paolo Benanti, the technological advisor to the Pope. The main idea is quite simple: the technology is fine, but the abuse of it by people needs to be addressed. The premise was, who could have thought, the American president and his misuse of AI-generated pictures, that have long crossed the border of blasphemy (this guy will be mentioned later once again, sorry).

As a hardcore atheist, I can’t help but have some interest in what has been happening in Vatican. A side-note: the comparison in media of the first year of Pope Leo and the first year of Friedrich Merz’s chancellory is a subject in itself. Go, Pope, I guess at this point. Tomorrow I am starting a 3-month project about reading everything I have on Christianity. Again, I am an atheist albeit a curious and an open-minded one. 

the Guardian (🇬🇧)

A very funny article on the visit of King Charles III to the former colonies. The bell from HMS Trump as a gift and the “And should you ever need to get hold of us, well, just give us a ring”. Pure British humour, and I mean it as the highest compliment. 

How come that the world made such a turn, that a monarch (Guardian spares no criticism btw) has to talk about democracy in a manner of a school headmaster. But it can happen in a timeline, where an elected leader thinks himself a king/emperor/God. Trump has no respect for anybody, we know that much, but his childish adoration for an institution where choice of participants is based on pure luck and genetics is astounding. That reminds me of how post-soviet boomer generation has undying love either for Stalin’s dictatorship or the tsars themselves. Not a single critical thought - pure emotion. 

The stark difference between the reception in the White House and the mood in New York further dives into the contemporary ideological divide. TikTok star (I do like his videos) and the Mayor of New York holds true to the principles of the Fathers of the American Constitution, by telling that if have had a chance, he would have asked Charles to return Koh-i-noor diamond from the Tower of London to India. I imagine such conversation being potentially rather awkward for some of the party. But hey, despite Charles being not that bad, the times have changed, maybe one day the diamond will be returned at last.

In the end the author of the article David Smith (the most British name ever, ironically) had to deliver the final punch in the face of Trump that was pure joy to read.

YouTube: Meduza (rus: there is no emoji with a white-blue-white colour)

An interview about social media with a developer who worked on the mobile side of aforementioned platform. Logically, he was in between of pride and shame. On the one hand, back in 2007 nobody could predict how algorithms on mobile platforms will turn us into slaves. On the other hand, he noticed very (and I mean it - VERY) early, how dangerous it is for the children to be left alone with tech unsupervised, just because parents are tired. 

Don’t know what to think there, the history will judge the big tech later, though the first glimpses of condemnation are started to appear.

📚: “London Falling” by Patrick Radden Keefe

I do not like true crime more because of the ethical uncertainty about being curious of gory stories, but this book is different. We all have seen the meme with the guy and the red threads suggesting a conspiracy. Well, justifiably, there is sort of one surrounding the death of a 19-year-old young Londoner. I have no desire to spoil anything from the book, just know, that is is an extremely deep dive into the milieu of con-artists and the influence we have from the ultra-wealthy and from damned social media. It might sound like a salad of topics, but it is immensely well-written. You might want to save time and read the original article in The New Yorker, but this book is definitely worth your attention.

Today Tour de France is a commonplace name for human endurance. You might not ride a bike, but you have heard about this elite competition. Well, in the beginning of the twentieth century it used to be brutal. Seriously brutal.

I first encountered the topic of early Tour de France on a GCN YouTube channel, where they recreated a stage of 1903 on original vintage bikes. It is worth watching, especially for the thoughts on how, even today, on good tarmac and with contemporary gear, like light (or bibs), it is an extremely hard enterprise. 

watch GCN video here

Now, imagine 1910, with the state-of-the-art bikes, that will not qualify today even for a commute in the city, unsupportive (mildly understated) organisers, over 4000 kilometres in three weeks in horrible weather and road conditions, and you will scratch the surface of how mad this race used to be. 

Nicolas Debon tries to convey the hardship of 1910 in frames as short as breath of a cyclist going uphill. He introduces the major contestants and their rivalry, the forces of nature these Giants had to endure, and the psychological toll too much to bear sometimes. "Murderers!" cries one of them to the organisers, and murderers these were. Circling the hexagon, as France is known, with the ever-changing terrain and climate, with inhumane rules and severe road conditions - we cannot fathom it today. 

One of the topics that particularly caught me off guard, is the further fate of the winners and other racers. When the first to places of the race in 1903 made it to their sixties, Louis Octave Lapize (1st place) and François Faber (2nd place) along with many others, did not make it to their thirties. The Great War claimed the Great Men. 

They are called Giants for a reason.