Unmasking the Self-Interest Behind Global Giants and Altruism Claims | March 04 2026, 19:00

I don’t believe in the altruism of giants. When it comes to large states or billionaire corporations, believing that they are guided by “principles of good” and “the common good” appears, in my view, to be either naivety or dangerous self-deception.

The real goal always remains in the shadows. Why? Because if everyone understands the true intentions, achieving them becomes much harder and more expensive. Or more precisely, everyone does understand them; it’s just that the circle of those in the know is small.

Take “liberation wars.” When a dictatorship receives democracy at the point of a bayonet, it’s not about human rights. It’s a way to infiltrate another system and show who’s the “alpha.” There are always specific interests in that state. Simply put, it’s about creating a geopolitical “roof.” In certain cultures, respect is earned only through strength. If you don’t show dominance, you’re not listened to. But if you do show it, you get invited to the “council of elders” and asked to “solve some problems.”

If a corporation suddenly starts caring vehemently about the planet—look for the ulterior motive. Most likely, their old production method has become too costly to maintain and needs changing. But under the guise of “reducing emissions,” modernization is warmly welcomed. Tax breaks, grants, and the chance to earn on government contracts come as bonuses. Ecologically, it’s just a pretty façade for expense optimization.

Often, the initiative does not come from inside the system, but from outside. Example: A luxurious park with benches and ducks is being built in the area. Concern for people? Relatively speaking. The main stakeholders are developers. Apartments in buildings near the park cost 20-30% more and sell twice as fast. Whether it’s a business or a politician, they just support an idea that generates profit (financial or electoral) for specific groups.

Even the holy of holies—science—is not held up only by curiosity and the desire to create a better future for people. A huge part of discoveries is driven by mere vanity. For a scientist, it is important to leave a name for the ages, step higher in the hierarchy, or at least feel like a “rock star” at a profile conference. Personal ambitions move progress more effectively than an abstract desire to help humanity.

When tech giants launch free satellite internet or distribute cheap smartphones in developing countries (Africa, India), it’s presented as a “mission to connect the world.” The real interest—markets in the developed world are saturated. The only way to grow is to create new consumers. By providing “free” access, the corporation hooks people to its ecosystem, gains access to the biometric and behavioral data of millions who are yet not protected by privacy laws. It’s the colonization of the digital space in the 21st century.

The largest philanthropic organizations often spend billions fighting diseases or hunger. The real interest—tax optimization and “soft power.” Transferring assets to a foundation helps avoid inheritance or capital gains taxes. Meanwhile, the founder maintains control over the funds through the board of directors. A bonus is the status of being “untouchable” in the media: criticizing someone who “saves children” amounts to reputational suicide. It’s the best insurance against antitrust investigations.

Mass promotion of “agendas” in Hollywood is often seen as a triumph of liberal values. The real interest—risk minimization and audience expansion. Film studios are huge bureaucratic machines. For them, “diversity” is a checklist that insures against boycotts and scandals (which cost money). Additionally, by adding a character from a specific ethnic group, the studio automatically taps into that group’s local market globally. It’s pure reach arithmetic.

The world is ruled not by kindness, but by interests and hierarchy. And possibly, that’s even good—at least, it’s predictable and logical. This was all about the altruism of giants. But I very much believe in the altruism of individual people.

The Lasting Legacy of Heaven’s Gate: A Cult’s Continuing Online Presence | February 28 2026, 04:09

Remember the American cult that had 39 members simultaneously self-extinguish in a mansion near San Diego, believing that they would be picked up by aliens? Well, their website is still up and running. The earliest version of this site from 1999 is virtually indistinguishable from what’s on the site now. The only difference is the ® symbol, which was after the name of the cult in 1999, but not now.

I Googled what’s up with their trademark registration. Just recently, in 2020, the company “The Evolutionary Level Above Human Foundation” registered (or renewed) rights to this trademark. The category is indeed listed as Lace, Ribbons, Embroidery, Fancy Goods, but the name of the company leaves no doubt that they are thinking about aliens.

I Googled some more. Turns out, this foundation, The Evolutionary Level Above Human (TELAH), acts as the “guardian of the legacy of the group ‘Heaven’s Gate'”, and has sued Stephen Havel and other defendants for copyright and trademark infringements, accusing them of illegally distributing archival materials and selling themed merchandise. The last update shows the parties are obligated to hold a meeting by the end of March 2024 to try to negotiate confidentiality and authentication of evidence without further judicial intervention.

Specifically, the foundation consists of real people from Arizona, Mark and Sara King, and the organization is registered as a corporation. They respond to emails and send out books and cassettes if you transfer them money.

Other former members are trying to challenge their “right” to use cult materials, such as recordings on tapes in court.

In short, some kind of life goes on there.

That is, the next time you think of Flat Earthers as “some pranksters pretending to be weirdos”, remember these folks, maintaining their website and selling books by their “prophets”.

Navigating the Tricky Path of Online Donations: A User Experience Dilemma | February 20 2026, 19:02

Here we have the ultimate tricksters. If you accidentally choose an answer for “would you like to donate?”, getting to “oh, I don’t want to yet” takes about 10 minutes and is fraught with the risk of losing your seats. Because 1) there is no option for ‘don’t want to’ 2) any selection ranges from $5 to $9.60 3) refreshing the page results in an error, forcing you to reselect seats and try not to hit those radio buttons again. And by the way, these were the last two seats in the auditorium. They weren’t available yesterday, but showed up today.

US Visa Freeze for 75 Countries Amid Public Charge Concerns | January 14 2026, 15:23

If Fox News is to be believed, the US State Department is indefinitely suspending the processing of all types of visas for citizens of 75 countries, including Russia. Supposedly these measures will come into effect on January 21, 2026, and will remain in force until the department completes a full reassessment of verification procedures. It is stated that exceptions to this rule will be extremely rare and possible only after a thorough completion of all checks.

The reason is the aim to tighten the fight against “potential burdens on the American social security system”. Consular officers must deny visas to those who may become a “public charge”. Age, health status, English language proficiency, and financial situation are among the criteria.

P.S. Curious why there are so many chairs. Ten minutes ago, I sent Nadya a message on iMessage (!) “let’s buy a chair for mom on Ozone” after discussing chairs with mom on Signal. It seems like iMessage has not been known for leaking topics. Before this, I had no interest in chairs at all for many many years. Either advertising networks adapted quickly or it’s such a coincidence, I don’t know.

Curiosity Click: How Facebook’s Ad Previews Captivate | November 21 2025, 21:51

Facebook keeps showing me ads (in this case – a vest) and occasionally chooses very “successful” spots for a freeze frame that serves as a video preview in the feed. But, I must say, it achieves its goal and I click to see what kind of madness this is.

Decoding Insane Prices in the Art Market | November 20 2025, 19:03

Let’s be honest about the art market (and why the prices there are insane).

Actually, there’s no mystery to it. It works somewhat like NFTs, only with a longer history and a better reputation.

The scheme is simple:

You take an item that hasn’t been on the market in this form yet (a painting, sculpture, installation — doesn’t matter). You call it an “important artifact”. It helps if you have connections — galleries, auction houses, billionaire collectors. If you don’t have connections, then find someone who does and sell the cow to them. Since uniqueness is required, there will be no paintings of bears in a pine forest, no matter how brilliantly they are done. There will be something distinct.

The very notion of “this is a painting/sculpture” — is just a convenient formality. The main thing is that the object can be incorporated into the already established art trading system.

Art is such — one of the most convenient ways to “optimize” taxes and move large sums of money. Paid 18 million euros for someone else’s work, and then someone “on your side” bought some of your work for the same 18 million. Virtually no money was really lost (just taxes), and now in catalogs and rankings, two works are each priced at 18 million. The price can be pushed up by selling them cascadingly. Win-win. Auctions are just in on the deal. Further, if you donate this work to a museum for charity, you can even cut more taxes. But it can also be sold. And here’s why.

Currently, there are simply too many free funds in the world. The number of billionaires and their wealth is growing faster than the availability of truly rare assets (real estate, companies, gold, etc. have all been divided already).

Art is one of the few markets where “scarcity” can still be created literally out of nowhere.

If you have access to a hundred such wealthy simpletons and you can tell stories (“this is an investment for 20-30 years, it will only increase”), then selling is purely a technical matter. Two or three interested parties = bidding already starts, and already you see +50-100% to the price.

Over time, real cases appear: someone bought in 2000 for 2 million, sold in 2024 for 80 million.

These cases are used to convince the next buyers. New buyers with their money confirm and amplify these cases. The cycle is closed.

Result: the rise in prices in the top segment of art is directly tied to the increase in the number of super-rich and their capital. As soon as a serious global crisis occurs and the extra trillions stop being printed/earned, and the pyramid collapses, the market will very quickly show where there was real cultural value, and where it was just a beautiful financial scheme.

P.S. This doesn’t mean at all that all contemporary art is a bubble. There are works that are really important historically and culturally. It’s just that at the very top of the price pie, cultural value has long ceased to be the main driver.

But at the summit of Olympus of the most expensive paintings of classic genius solitaries, there will never be, because galleries and dealers need artists who can produce 20-50 works a year to satisfy demand, organize exhibitions in five capitals simultaneously, and maintain turnover. Artists like Lopez Garcia, Odd Nerdrum, or Ron Mueck make unique pieces that will become especially valuable only after the artist dies.