THE UNEDITED

Free space for free expression in english & italian

There is a new economic security paradigm. The world is entering an era of the Golden Rule: “He who has the Gold makes the Rules.” Or in the terms of this article: “He who has the Uranium makes the Rules.” It appears the US military agrees.

On April 13, 2018, a draft bill was sent to the Russian Duma which would ban all trade between Rosatom (the Russian state-owned nuclear company) and US nuclear utilities. These proposed sanctions on nuclear fuel exports were in response to sanctions that the United States imposed on Russia earlier in the month on April 6th. 
The bill was unlikely to advance, given that Tenex (the marketing arm of Russia’s state-owned nuclear company, Rosatom) books over $6.5 billion in contracts with the United States every year, and the sanctions would only hurt Russia’s position in the global uranium market. However, this series of events highlighted a critical vulnerability for the United States. 
The US is the largest consumer of uranium in the world, using 46 million pounds U3O8 per year to fuel its 99 reactors. Nuclear energy represents 20% of US baseload power, and yet, the US will produce only 1.1 million pounds U3O8 in 2018, which means it imports 98% of its annual uranium requirement (and that does not include its military requirement). 
Of that imported amount, 40% comes from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Globally, Kazakhstan holds a dominant position in uranium production with 39% of the world’s annual mining output. Russia holds a dominant position in uranium enrichment with 40% of global enrichment capacity. So this threat from Russia has real substance and is a reminder that nation-state conflict is multi-dimensional, played out through kinetic violence but also through trade and financial flows.

The uranium section 232 petition

Commodity prices are famously cyclical given inelastic demand, unpredictable environmental and political factors, and long lead times for production. From the time a uranium deposit is discovered to the point a mine is permitted, built, and put into production - it can be 10 years or more. So when there are strategic vulnerabilities like uranium supply for the US - 98% of US supply is imported with 40% coming from Russia or Russian influenced nations - it cannot immediately be blamed on unfair trade practices or government subsidies for state-owned enterprises. 
This must be said because the most extreme Free Trade activists will decry any intervention into markets with a religious ferocity, not realizing that all markets have an underlying political construction. So yes, this author acknowledges that supply destruction naturally occurs in commodity markets due to their hyper-cyclical nature. With that said, uranium is clearly already a highly politicized market and market intervention deserves an honest multi-dimensional (economic and national security) assessment. 
The Trump Administration is currently reviewing a petition by two US uranium companies (Energy Fuels, UR Energy) that calls for 25% of the US uranium market to be reserved for domestic producers. In addition, it would require the US government to purchase uranium only from the domestic market. The Trump administration has already implemented trade restrictions on aluminum and steel based on a similar “Section 232” petition, so there is a high likelihood of trade actions resulting from the uranium petition (scheduled May-July 2019).

Market Pricing and the Strategic Objectives of authoritarian capitalism and democratic capitalism

Government intervention into markets is a spectrum ranging from completely free market pricing to government price fixing. The market “tool set” of authoritarian capitalism exists much closer to the price-fixing end of the spectrum. However, the failure of the Soviet and Maoist models have pushed authoritarian regimes to selectively implement market forces. Despite this, authoritarian regimes still distort global markets with their policies, subsidizing state-owned enterprises and their domestic resource markets. It satisfies their domestic population with lower input costs (fuel, materials) and with employment. When this subsidized source of supply is introduced into western markets, it acts as a syphon of financial resources and employment from the western world directly to the authoritarian regimes. In addition, it makes democratic capitalist economies more dependent on resources originating in the authoritarian capitalism sphere of influence, which satisfies a strategic objective for authoritarian regimes. 
The uranium market is no different. State-owned uranium companies in Russia, Kazakhstan, and China are operating at a loss, driving out the private sector from the market such that there is only one producing mine in Canada and two producing mines in the United States. Indeed, up to 90% of global uranium mines are currently operating at a loss. Western companies like Rio Tinto, BHP, and Paladin are all either cutting production or selling their assets. In the meantime, authoritarian capitalists are consolidating their position in the market - China just bought a controlling stake from Rio Tinto in the the Rössing mine in Namibia, one of the largest uranium mines in the world. It has already invested in and seeks to invest more in Canada’s Athabasca Basin, the world’s leading source of high-grade uranium.
It must be mentioned that other political and environmental forces have also acted on the uranium market price for decades. One of the largest sources of secondary supply was the Megatons to Megawatts program from 1983 to 2013, when Russians were downblending highly enriched uranium from 22,000 ICBMs to low enriched uranium and selling it to American utility buyers. In some years, they sold as much as 20 million pounds of uranium. 
Then of course the Fukushima disaster happened in 2011. Japan shut down all of its reactors (12% of global demand) and began to sell its uranium fuel reserves into the global spot market. For two years after Fukushima, the Megatons-to-Megawatts program continued to pour uranium onto the spot market, ultimately driving the price down to $18/lbs. In 2011 before Fukushima, the uranium price was $75/lbs, and in the commodity bull market of 2003-2007, the price of uranium reached $136/lbs. Thus, there are other secondary sources of supply that have weighed on uranium markets in the last few years besides government intervention by the authoritarian area into primary supply sources.
The point is that when commodity prices reach cyclical lows, authoritarian regimes can acquire assets cheaply and consolidate their position in the market so that when the price rebound occurs, they have already secured sources of supply. In contrast, at cyclical lows companies in the democratic capitalist area have trouble accessing capital and thus cannot accumulate assets at the same scale or speed as state-owned enterprises. Governments in the democratic capitalist area have an incentive to help commodity prices rebalance as quickly as possible so that capital flows back into democratic capitalist companies. Democratic capitalist nations can do this by collecting and broadcasting market data as well as direct types of action like the uranium Section 232 petition calls for.
Democratic capitalism relies on market price incentives for strategic objectives (like domestically-sourced uranium supply). Authoritarian systems can temporarily override market mechanisms to artificially inject capital into their state-owned enterprises at cyclical price lows and consolidate their market position at a time when no capital is available to democratic capitalist companies.

Is the US military engaging in economic security policy-making?

The uranium price is rebounding, up 42% in 2018, which means the market price is responding to a range of price-constructive supply and demand factors. The Megaton program is no longer running. Japan is now bringing its reactors back online. Kazatomprom has cut production. There are 59 reactors currently under construction worldwide. The IAEA estimates that the global all-in sustaining cost (AISC) for uranium production is $60/lbs. While Kazatomprom likes to tout production costs for its best ISR uranium projects in the teens, some analysts point out that the Kazakhs have not been reinvesting capital into their mines and the real cost of production is much higher. 
Why then, is the Trump Administration considering the Section 232 petition if the uranium market seems to be operating according to supply and demand? If the global AISC is $60/lbs, and the market is recognizing that the global swing producer Kazatomprom actually has much higher costs than reported (perhaps $45/lbs), then the market price will rise from the current $29/lbs and US uranium producers will compete again at closer to free market prices.
Of course, it is a reaction to the fact that Russia and other authoritarian regimes have consolidated the uranium market effectively. Section 232 petitions originate in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the President of the United States to adjust specific imports from other countries if the importation “is in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” What is interesting is that the CEO of UR Energy said in a recent interview that Rick Perry, the US Secretary of Energy, asked him to file the Section 232 petition. Meaning, the Trump Administration is pushing the Section 232 action, not responding to the appeals of domestic producers. 
The U.S. Department of Energy is an integral part of the national security infrastructure. It oversees the US nuclear weapons program and naval nuclear reactors. Now it is stepping into the uranium market itself for national security reasons. This is part of what appears to be a larger move of the US military and defense establishment into a more active role in US economic security policymaking. 
If true, it is not a surprise that the US military is taking on a more active role. Consider the newly implemented steel tariff. Inferior Chinese steel was being used for US military applications and was prone to failure. In fact, Chinese and Russian steel imports almost completely eliminated US domestic steel production capacity. Consider the recent news that chinese spy chips were found in hardware used by Apple and Amazon. Or consider that Russia supplies the RD-180 rocket engines used by NASA and the Pentagon because the US does not have a reliable domestic alternative. More than ever, the US military is being pushed into the realm of economic security, which has traditionally been the domain of financial operators. 
When Admiral Michael Mullen said in 2010 that US debt levels are the most serious national security threat to the United States, it signaled a heightened economic security awareness and emphasis among the military establishment. That level of engagement is increasing as the US military sees that financial operations are no longer sufficient to meet US economic security strategic objectives. (A personal note: this author has worked with Wall Street veteran, Jim Rickards, who is now training the US military in financial and non-conventional economic warfare.)

A new economic security paradigm?

When the US developed its economic security doctrine in the 1940s, it was built around two pillars - trade policy and the US Dollar as global reserve currency. Access to the robust consumer economy in the US incentivized the cooperation of its western allies. USD status as global reserve currency and use in global payments also afforded the US an “exorbitant privilege”. However, the 2008 financial crisis was a signal that US consumption can no longer support the global economy, and while the US Dollar still represents 60% of global reserves and 80% of global payments, recent “de-SWIFTing” efforts and the Chinese/ Russian response prove that US influence on global financial flows is attenuating.
Under the Obama administration, the US waged financial warfare against Iran, imposing sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities, and banning Iran from the U.S. Fedwire payment system. So Iran switched to selling its oil for Euros and transacting through the international SWIFT payment system. Next, the US leaned on its SWIFT partners to ban Iran from using that system. This measure was effective, cutting off Iran from its major source of hard currency through oil sales. There was a run on Iranian banks, interest rates rose to 20%, and the Iranian rial collapsed. US dollars were smuggled in through Iraq while gold and consumer goods were smuggled in through Dubai. (The Obama deal in 2015 eased pressure on Iran, only to be reversed by the Trump administration. Iran is again under pressure.) 
But how effective will such sanctions and “de-SWIFTing” measures be in the future? Russia has already created an alternative to SWIFT (the System for Transfer of Financial Messages) that is growing in use. China has created the China Interbank Payment System. These competitors to SWIFT will grow in use and compatibility, seriously limiting the US ability to wage financial warfare. The technology for digital currency and payment messaging is not difficult, and the distributed ledger technology used by cryptocurrencies helps to solve many of the Trust issues in information networks. So the outsized influence that the US holds over SWIFT cannot last indefinitely.
Likewise, in terms of trade, consider the example of Iranian oil - the US has no effective mechanism to stop China from buying Iranian oil, which gives the Iranian regime a substantial lifeline. Financial operations and trade mechanisms will be insufficient to ensure US economic security in the future. Both the United States “stick” (trade and financial enforcement mechanisms) and “carrot” (access to its large consumer market) are becoming weaker and weaker.
There is a common assumption in the United States that debt and other financial obligations have built-in coordination mechanisms (negative enforcement protocols and positive economic growth externalities). Likewise, the US and its allies are operating under the assumption that mutual gains to trade and increasingly complex multilateral expectations will lead to global cooperation. But these assumptions are built - whether it is acknowledged or not - on the monopolization of the use of force (US military). 
The former US economic security paradigm resulted in a brilliant global market structure for over 60 years. However, the US military now sees that structure as a threat to its ability to operate in its traditional security capacity. There are many arguments for why (Clinton allowing China into the WTO, collapse of Soviet Union putting undue pressure on the US market, etc), but regardless, Trump is introducing the world to the new economic security paradigm.

Conclusion

The Trump Administration recently released a list of 35 “critical minerals”, including uranium. The US is 100% import-dependent for 14 of the minerals and 50% import-dependent for 16 of the minerals. It has already taken action on aluminum and steel, and probably will soon on uranium. The US is taking concrete steps to secure supply of strategic raw materials. This author would encourage US allies to consider that these efforts, while protectionist in nature, may be an effort to grapple with the new economic security paradigm, not necessarily a response to the complaints (or inefficiencies) of domestic producers.
From the beginning of the Trump presidency, this author has viewed the Trump administration as essentially a military operation. The move into politics by the US military, albeit behind the scenes, started in 2013 when the military made a public rebuke of the Obama team for its actions in Syria. Obama retaliated by reshuffling the military’s officer ranks. 
What then are the intentions of Trump and the military? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who himself is deeply embedded in the US military establishment) said in a recent foreign policy speech that the Trump administration seeks to build a “new liberal order”, an “open, just, transparent and free world of sovereign states.” This mention of ‘sovereign states’ speaks directly against those elements in the US and European elite who are trying to build a world based on the primacy of multilateral institutions.

            If and how that “new liberal order” is built remains to be seen, but US allies should consider that it may be an honest effort on the part of the Trump administration that ultimately originates from the national security establishment itself, particularly its oldest and original elements that are most loyal to America’s founding principles. If Pompeo is speaking honestly, actions by the Trump administration to reformulate American economic security are not necessarily isolationist in nature, but are attempts to grapple with a new security environment.

Italy remains the least governable and most unstable member of Nato, not to mention the UE. Despite being one of the original six Founding Members and one of the principal financial supporters of the UE, Italy does not carry the political weight one would expect of the EU’s second major manufacturing Power. A question of leaders and leadership?

Fourteen months ago, despite an electoral law hastily redesigned to encourage multi-party politics as opposed to the bi-party politics of the Berlusconi “era," Italian voters, clearly sending a message to their leaders side-stepped the traditional parties and voted resoundingly for two up-starts known as the M5S and Lega parties. These two parties subsequently formed the first two-party coalition government in the history of the Republic. Known as the “Government for Change," that government was put into sudden-death overtime by Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega on August 8, 2019. 

After a little more than one year, Italians stand aghast as Italy’s leaders once again seem intent on playing “craps” with the lives of their fellow citizens. Naturally, for the good of all Italians, but most of all for the good of the Country’s numerous and highly paid bureaucrats and, of course, for the thousands of MPs and politicians required to represent a shrinking Italian electorate now down to about 50 million people.

No one on the right or left of the political spectrum can deny Italy needs “a better mouse trap”. In the age of real-time communications, smart phones, computers and broad-band internet connections, Italy needs a political machinery that    is democratic, quick to decide and cost effective.

The present Constitution and Institutions do not seem to guarantee any of the above. What to do?

1. Reduce the number of MPs. It makes little sense for Italians to pay for 1000 legislators when half would be more than enough to adequately represent Italy’s decreasing eligible voter population of some 50 million. An example? Italian Representatives represent 80,000 people each compared with 733,000 people each by their American counterparts. Italian Senators, which are less than half in number, represent 200,000 people each. However, in the US Senators represent the individual States and no comparisons are possible.
2. Cut the outrageously high cost of Italian politics. Italian MPs earn more than € 190,000.00 per year. They are the highest paid politicians in Europe or the Americas. The cost of running Italy’s Quirinal Palace (where Pres. Mattarella and retinue live and work) is five times that of Buckingham Palace and twice that of the White House! For most Italians, politicians are not worth the money they get, especially in these times of diminishing returns. Something must be done to stop the gouging of taxpayers.
3. Encourage the formation of a manageable two / three party system by rethinking voter districts, raising thresholds for winning seats in parliament and adopting a first-past the-post majority electoral system. The error is believing that more parties in Parliament equals more democracy. In the Italian case the proliferation of parties has brought nothing but confusion and hegemony often by parties representing but a majority only marginally superior to their own.
4. Neutralize the Italian Magistrature’s bid for political power by constitutional amendment where possible and/or by making the Magistratura accessible to lawyers and Notaries in private practice; the present closed system does nobody any good; civil servants and bureaucrats become more responsive to the needs of society when challenged by competition from the private sector.  

All systems are self-preserving and naturally Italian politicians believe the answer lies not in the above suggestions but in going even more proportional (in efforts to stop the “populist right” from spoiling their well-remunerated fun). For the good of Italy and to make sure it is “never again” for the likes of Salvini.

Come Tuesday, August 27, should Mattarella not send everybody to the polls sometime this fall, Italians risk falling back into the hands of the old cold-war leadership that nearly bankrupted the Country. If that were allowed to happen, self-determination could become the North’s only option. Caveat emptor!

La mancata consapevolezza dell’uso della tecnologia a volte ci porta a perdere alcuni diritti fondamentali che abbiamo guadagnato come quello alla privacy.
Non è insolito, quando un comune decide di installare delle telecamere di videosorveglianza in una via o in una zona di una qualche città vedere la nascita di comitati contrari che si battono in nome della difesa della privacy dei cittadini. Non meraviglia poi vedere quelle stesse persone che fanno parte dei comitati "dettare" un promemoria o un messaggio da inviare al loro assistente vocale o, una volta rientrate a casa, dire: "Alexa - o Cortana, o google- fammi ascoltare della musica".
Che relazione c’è tra le due azioni? Possiamo dire che entrambe sono un accesso alla nostra privacy, ma mentre nel caso delle telecamere il loro uso è regolamentato da leggi e il loro scopo è quello di una maggior tutela del cittadino, nel caso degli assistenti vocali, invece, non vi è alcuna regolamentazione specifica (se non quella generica sull’uso dei dati personali) e lo scopo è quello di fornirci un servizio personale.

Quello degli assistenti vocali non è un fenomeno nuovo anche se solamente negli ultimi anni ha iniziato a svilupparsi e ad essere veramente funzionale, grazie al miglioramento delle tecnologie di Machine learning e delle intelligenze artificiali.
A memoria di chi scrive già alla fine degli anni ’90 del secolo passato si iniziavano a vedere i primi programmi che permettevano di controllare il computer tramite la voce, aprire chiudere i programmi, dettare una mail, leggere un testo, prendere appuntamenti nel calendario ricordandoli e molto altro ancora. Uno dei primi software a funzionare nei computer domestici fu messo in commercio nel 1997 dalla Dragon System con il nome di "Dragon Naturally Speaking" ed era uno dei più sofisticati programmi di controllo del computer tramite l’uso di un linguagio naturale; la stessa Microsoft nella beta del sistema operativo WindowsNT5 (che poi diventerà windows 2000) aveva preinstallato un assistente vocale che si attivava tramite “Hey computer!” seguito dal comando. Ad esempio si poteva dire "Hey computer! start running word" ed il computer faceva partire il programma word.
Il problema di questi programmi era che avevano bisogno di molto tempo per "imparare" a capire la voce di chi parlava ed i comandi che venivano invocati, oltre a necessitare di molte risorse delle macchine sulle quali giravano.
Oggi ogni smartphone è dotato di assistente vocale, i computer dotati di windows10 hanno anche loro un loro assistente vocale chiamato Cortana, mentre le grandi compagnie del web sviluppano i loro assistenti che si integrano con i device di casa senza bisogno di un classico computer, come ad esempio Amazon Echo, o Google Home.
La prima azienda che nel secondo decennio del nuovo millennio diede un importante contributo alla rinascita degli assistenti vocali ed alla loro evoluzione è stata la Apple che nel 2011 lanciò Siri che ancora oggi è parte integrante dei dispositivi dell’azienda di Cupertino.
La principale differenza tra Siri (così come di tutti i moderni assistenti vocali) ed i programmi della generazione precedente è che la nuova generazione lavora tramite connessione internet in remoto: i comandi non vengono più elaborati dal processore della macchina sulla quale gira l’assistente vocale, ma la voce viene inviata ad un server remoto che la elabora e rimanda all’assistente il comando relativo alla richiesta. In questo modo il dispositivo che viene usato dell’utente diventa un semplice terminale e tutto il carico di lavoro viene relegato ai server, così si può anche evitare il tedioso passaggio del machine learning che viene già eseguito a monte.
Ma la sola intelligenza artificiale presente sui server ed il processo di machine learning dovuto a centinaia di migliaia di utenti che ogni giorno comunicano con il proprio assistente virtuale è sufficiente a creare quella interazione uomo macchina che permette di controllare una casa smart o sviluppare tutte quelle funzioni che offrono Alexa, Ok Google, Cortana e Siri senza sbagliare? Forse no!

Un reportage realizzato dalla televisione pubblica belga Vrt Nws ha messo in luce che Google, Apple e Amazon, con la scusa di migliorare i servizi offerti dagli assistenti vocali, hanno spiato la propria utenza attraverso gli stessi assistenti.
Il canale televisivo Vrt Nws sarebbe entrato in possesso di alcune conversazioni registrate "accindentalmente" senza che venisse attivato l’assistente vocale google piene di dati personali e dati sensibili come i discorsi fatti all’interno di un’ignara famiglia o quelli di un utente che parla della sua vita sentimentale. Il fatto inquietante è che non solo i dipendenti di google hanno accesso alle conversazioni ma anche le aziende partner per permettere di comprendere meglio gli ordini degli utenti. Dal canto suo l’azienda di Mountain View si è giustificata dicendo che "solo lo 0,2% di tutte le registrazioni è accessibile a chi lavora per Google e che i file audio sono comunque privi di informazioni che permettono di identificare l’utente". Mentre l’inchiesta della televisione belga era principalmente incentrata su google, un’ inchiesta del Guardian rivela che un processo analogo è operato anche da Apple tramite Siri e da Amazon tramite Alexa; Bloomberd, invece, racconta come Amazon tramite persone che lavorano anche nove ore al giorno in tutto il mondo e team di aziende appaltatrici che vanno dagli Stati Uniti alla Romania, dall’ India al Costarica, ascolta le registrazioni vocali catturate dai dispositivi Echo, le trascrive, le annota e quindi le inserisce nel software per eliminare le lacune nella comprensione del linguaggio umano da parte di Alexa e aiutarlo a rispondere meglio ai comandi.
Anche Amazon, come Google si è difesa dicendo che il campione di audio che viene ascoltato è molto limitato: "Abbiamo rigorose garanzie tecniche e operative e una politica di tolleranza zero per l'abuso del nostro sistema. I dipendenti non hanno accesso diretto alle informazioni che possono identificare la persona o l'account. Tutte le informazioni sono trattate con alta riservatezza".

In questo contesto non è facile capire se venga o meno violata la privacy dei proprietari dei dispositivi incriminati, ma, sicuramente, la faccenda ha preoccupato il garante della privacy di Amburgo che ha imposto una pausa temporanea alla pratica di 3 mesi a Google e suggerito agli altri big del settore di fare lo stesso, fino a quando non saranno concluse le indagini avviate riguardo l’uso che viene fatto dei dati raccolti: "L’uso di assistenti vocali automatici da parte di provider come Google, Apple e Amazon - evidenzia l’Autority - prova l’elevato rischio per la privacy delle persone coinvolte".
Questa pratica, comunque non è appalto esclusivo degli assistenti vocali. Anche l’azienda Facebook, si è scoperto, tendeva a trascrivere i messaggi audio delle conversazioni degli utenti della chat "messanger" e non è escluso che lo stesso sia stato fatto per whatsapp.
Quando si decide di utilizzare una tecnologia che non sempre è sotto il nostro controllo bisogna sempre considerare la possibilità di dover rinunciare a una parte, più o meno grande, della nostra privacy.
Ma il prezzo che stiamo pagando è giusto?
La risposta la sapremo solo in futuro

To the early and less enduring snow of late autumn, that year followed abundant precipitations that soon covered with a white mantle the mountains around Munich. It could have been the landscape printed on a Christmas card or the atmosphere depicted by Thomas Mann in many of his novels. Perhaps even Hitler would have taken inspiration for a watercolour. It could have for sure promoted the sale of the frame, although soon to be replaced with some work of better quality. I was getting stressed on the workplace, because of the requests I received by the far too many stakeholders I had interaction with. By the tone and the feasibility of the targets, they also reminded me of Hitler, while shouting unintelligible orders to his generals. They also had the tune of a DDR hymn, so deeply impregnated by optimistic propaganda. We will complete the plan within the next five days, employing a team of four people, two of which on vacation and the other two new hires who have not already received their laptops. Of course I had to be stressed, but I had also to consider that I was paid because of my well renown soft skills, i.e. negotiation and stress management. I actually felt quite unprepared with both of them, but that was not what I wrote on my resumée under the direct supervision of my career advisor. On a wednesday night, after having got home at 1 a.m. because of an extenuating meeting with the whole management of my area, I decided to break the piggy bank and take part to a guided tour on the snowshoes. The local section of the DAV, the German Alpine Club, organized many excursions during the week ends. Unfortunately most of trips were often cancelled due to the most disparate reasons. It was so frustrating that I had already abandoned the idea to become a proficient mountaineer. I had however to try. My good friend Cristoph was away for a long mission related to his job and I also had enough to spend most of my time reading on the web edition of the local newspapers alarming reports about the presence of radical Islam in Bavaria. If I had been a young Pioneer in the DDR times, my supervisors would have for sure approved
such a proof of bravery defying the decadent entertainment of the Western countries. Actually, without a good income, I would have ever hardly been available to buy the necessary equipment and the efficiency of the Warsaw Pact would have made the roads to the mountains quite impracticable if not for an highly sophisticated military vehicle. Perhaps available only to the NATO. I did not want to take care of the opinion of high paid professionals, but just to stay away from the town for a short while. I prepared my backpack carefully, not to be stuck in an unknown place without the essential equipment. Relying on technology, it was not necessary to carry a voluminous luggage. The iPad is good enough to contain all the entertainment I need for several years. While selecting the food and handling a pocket of dried fruit, I realised how such a tendency to condense all the necessary resources for survival has started centuries ago. A long road to innovation, should add the commentary of a boring video on the human evolution. I also felt that my thought lack of ingenuousness. Perhaps I was not reading intensively enough and I was looking for new ideas. Like those you easily pick up from the best renowned magazines and, by quoting, you can easily assert to belong to a restricted elite of intellectuals. I also doubted whether I should acquire my information from alternative resources. The only conclusion was to adhere to any plot theory available on the web. I then realized how honest intellectuals should have felt under the DDR. The choice to believe to the carefully manipulated scientific publications of the University of Lipsia or the option to nourish your brain with not verified notions, partially developed by the mind of an uneducated political prisoner. For the following two days, in the comfort of a wooden building, immersed in a white world, I made a truce with my troubles.