Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash

Well, 2 very intensive and educational months on every level later, here’s another summary:

A week ago, the CEO of a company I’ve recently started working for gave me a Claude Code license. Since then I’ve been riding a learning wave like I haven’t experienced in a long time.

Sixtus has struck again! I always enjoy seeing his stuff; big fan.

Probably the best documentary on AI I’ve seen recently.

Edit 20.3.2026:
In addition to the dystopia, here’s a worth-watching positivist perspective:

From the popular series Loneliness Kills:

A woman once told me that she occasionally feels so lonely that she pretends to be asleep on the train so that the conductor will touch her on the shoulder.

Since there are repeatedly misunderstandings about distinguishing empathy from compassion:

Have I mentioned before how great I find it when ancient insights are scientifically confirmed? ;)

PS: Here is also a blog post by Matthieu Ricard on this topic.

Truth is a complicated matter. That’s why caution is warranted when someone comes along with simple “truths” and claims them for themselves. Basically, this only works in the natural and technical sciences (see wiki).
At least with everything biological, I’m a strong proponent of Radical Constructivism and especially with humans, I think it’s inhumane to deny them their own truth, i.e., to apply a strictly technical/mathematical definition of truth:
Let’s assume (e.g., in a war or something), a person sees something for a few seconds that traumatizes them for the rest of their life. Other people see this too, but it doesn’t affect them. For the former, this brief moment (over time) becomes “truth” because it changes their life. For the others, truth might be the sum of individual moments, which physically of course they’re right about. But to then tell the traumatized person: “You didn’t experience truth, because physically much more happened. Your truth is false/incomplete etc.” I personally find inhumane. If this is additionally argued with great self-evidence and conviction, one has to ask oneself whether and how much empathy is still present…

You can truly be glad about humanity’s development when you consider that speciesism has not only been overcome but even surpassed, because there are apparently people (presumably mostly female, PETA activists and tendencies misanthropic) who no longer deny animals or certain species their feelings, but humans: For them, the feelings of animals (especially horses) are automatically authentic, to be taken seriously and treated sensitively. Human feelings, on the other hand, are to be questioned, analyzed and tested for rationality and value. Speciesism 2.0 or Post-Speciesism?

Very reassuring that not only I find the current mood (psychologically and sociologically) dangerous, but that professionals (here: a psychologist) apparently see it this way too (or can see it).
At one point he even asks “have we learned nothing from 1933?” For such a comparison, I’ve been tarred and feathered in all chats and conversations so far (which for me is again a clear indication of how emotional and feeling-driven any discussion about this has become…)