Managing liars (Part One)

How do we deal with liars once they’re identified as such? What form will our relationship take with them? These are brave and important questions, and it’s a good thing that they don't stop at just asking “how to spot dishonesty”, but what to do with that knowledge. 

Human relationships are messy, and lying sits right at the intersection of trust, fear, insecurity, and self‑protection. There isn’t a single “correct” response, but there are patterns that should help us navigate it with clarity and self‑respect. We’ve seen before that not all lies and liars are the same. People lie for very different reasons and it’s important to understand the type of lying they use to helps us decide how to respond. 

Let’s start with the situational or fear-based liars, those who lie because they’re scared of consequences, embarrassment, or conflict. There is a figment of hope with that group as it can change, because some individuals usually feel guilt. In fact, they may lie less when they feel safe enough to be honest. Next, we have the habitual liars, those who lie reflexively, even when the truth would be easier. They’ve often learned lying as a coping mechanism and if they’re willing and able to put in the effort, they might change, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

The following and scarier group are the manipulative or self-serving liars who lie to control, exploit, or gain advantage. These are dangerous dudes. They rarely change without major consequences or professional help, so don’t ever touch them with a ten foot pole! That brings me to the subject of whether or not we should consider working with someone who lies. 

 This might be tried, but only with boundaries. We could work with someone who uses fear-based or minor lies, if they acknowledge their behavior, show consistent effort to improve, and we are clear-headed about what to expect and can live with the consequences. Clearly, do not work with someone who lies if they use it to manipulate outcomes, deny or justify their flaw and use them to harm others or undermine trust in the team. 

If a liar ever is a candidate for working in a professional setting, the key is structure with documented agreements in writing what the expectations are and there can’t be any reliance on verbal assurances alone. This isn’t punishment — it’s protection. 

Tomorrow, we’ll see if we can continue any relationship with liars. Could we be stay friends with them? Reform them? Or should we just shun them?

2-12 The “art” of lying… (Part Two)

Obviously, even when somehow related, lies are all different. Today, we’ll try to bring some clarity to their vast diversity. So, is there a good way to classify them into buckets that range from their intensity, immorality, expediency, and issues that define one’s character. 

What follows is a framework that attempts to capture all this. In sorting them out by intensity, we measure how far a lie departs from reality. Is it creating minimal distortion, like small exaggerations? Is it of moderate fabrication, like mixing truth with fiction? Is it on the contrary total and complete invention, creating a false reality? 

Then it gets worse with a lie that sustains deception by maintaining a falsehood over time. That intensity factor often correlates with the effort required to maintain the lie. If we sort lies by moral weight, how much harm does the lie cause or intends to create? Are they just harmless / prosocial lies that are meant to protect feelings? 

There are these neutral lies used for convenience, privacy and to avoid embarrassing situations. We also find self‑serving lies that are there to protect ego or avoid consequences. It gets worse again when lies become harmful in order to cause clear damage to others. That goes also for malicious lies that are intended to deceive for personal gain or to hurt. In those instances, the liar’s nefarious intent becomes totally visible. 

When we sort lies by expediency, it measures how quickly they can solve a problem. Like the instant‑relief lies used to escape a moment of discomfort. The so-called “strategic lies” that are planned, calculated and often manipulative are much worse. Those are chronic lies, the convenient, habitual shortcuts that are used to avoid responsibility. Expediency often reveals whether the lie is impulsive or deliberate. 

Finally there are the lies that reveal a liar’s character. This is probably the dimension people care about most. It begins with the occasional, low‑stakes lies that are part of normal human behavior. Then there are these that are used to avoid accountability, signaling immaturity or insecurity. In dialing up we find the lies that harm others for personal gain, showing some clear, ethical cracks. 

When the mind gets too cloudy for its own good, there is compulsive lying that signals the need to talk to a mental professional. Today with Trump and his enablers, we see lies that rewrite history and reality, white signaling a strong dose of narcissism or a fractured sense of self.

Of course, character isn’t measured by whether someone lies — everyone does — but by what and why one’s lies about, how liars behave when confronted with the truth. So to conclude this voyage in a world of lies, we should wonder if there’s more lying today than in the past? 

It may not be more common, but it’s more visible because digital communication leaves permanent traces, social media rewards exaggeration and performance, public figures go for casual dishonesty, people live in echo chambers that normalize bending the truth, and anonymity reduces accountability. So the perception of widespread lying is strongly amplified. 

I don’t think there’s any falsehood in making that statement!

The “art” of lying… (Part One)

It seems that lying has never been so prevalent, at least that is the way I think it is. In fact, I tend to believe that Trump “legalized” the practice. So, this leads me to wonder why do people lie, and if anything how lies can fall into categories like, intensity, immorality, expediency and can they help us gauge someone’s character?

Whether lying is actually more common or simply more observable in a hyper‑connected world is debatable, but the experience of being surrounded by dishonesty feels very real for many people. What we’re talking about is the psychology of deception and the moral “spectrum” of lies. In other words, why people lie, how those lies differ, and what they reveal about character. What I’m really asking is what does lying say about who someone is? 

Of course, it depends on the motive, the stakes, and the pattern. A single lie tells us almost nothing but a pattern of lies generally tells us everything. Let’s go deeper into any of these dimensions, especially the character side, which is where the topic gets most interesting. People lie for a surprisingly small number of core reasons, even though the forms vary endlessly. 

Most lies fall into one or more of these categories. First it’s for self‑protection, that’s the most common motive. They want to avoid embarrassment, punishment, conflict, or loss of status. Next comes the need to boost one’s image, competence, or desirability; we’ve all seen that. This includes exaggeration, humble‑bragging, and résumé inflation. 

There is also lying to protect others, what’s often called “white lies.” It’s used to sooth feelings, avoid hurting someone and maintain good harmony. In a more dishonest category are those who use lying to gain some advantage, through manipulation, exploitation, or strategic deception. This is where lying becomes morally darker. 

We also have all those who lie by habit or compulsion. They just lie reflexively, even when the truth would work fine. In these situations these people should clearly seek mental assistance. Naturally there are also the lies many of us use for “social lubrication” (or hypocrisy) like saying “It’s so great to see you” or “I love your dress – or your car – or your new skis”, etc. 

Finally, there is what’s called “Identity maintenance” when people lie to preserve a story they’ve built about themselves, even to themselves. Maybe the kind of mode of operation Trump uses daily? Tomorrow, we’ll explore how we can classify lies and measure them, so please stay tuned and don’t forget to bring a measuring tape!

Who originated paragliding? (Part Two)

In 1985, As Jean-Claude Bétemps, along with Gérard Bosson and André Bohn were busy developing their new sport, came Laurent de Kalbermatten. A Swiss pilot, he made the jump from modified parachutes to "La Randonneuse," the very first wing designed solely for paragliding (using non-porous fabric and rigid lines).

This is when paragliding ceased to be a variant of skydiving and became a free-flight sport in its own right. This model was at the beginning of mass production. Other manufacturers and designs soon followed. With more models available, the number of practitioners increased along with marketing and competition between companies, all this resulted in the technical development of paragliding in terms of ease of use, performance, and safety. 

The first recorded record in free flight distance is 69.15 km and was set by Hans Jörg Bachmair on 10 June 1989, which has been officially recorded by the International Aeronautical Federation (FAI). Soon paragliding was organized as a legitimate sport. The first European championship was held in 1988 in St Hilaire, France. The following year, the first world championship was held in Koosen, Austria. Much later, in 2004, the Asian championship in Handong, South Korea and in 2008, the Pan-American in Castelo, Brazil. 

My friend Anselme Baud who was a faculty member at the ENSA, the Chamonix-based school for mountain guides and ski instructors, in addition to being one of the pioneers of extreme (steep) skiing, played a role in adding the use of skis to the practice. In the early winter 79/80, on Plan Praz, at the Brevent’s gondola mid-station, in Chamonix, as Jean-Claude Bétemps was conducting tests with his "paraplane" (the name for the early paraglider). 

Instead of taking off on foot, Anselme Baud ​​ket his skis on to gain speed. He launched himself down the slope, took off for a few hundred meters before touching down on the snow again and skiing away. Anselme saw in the paraglider not just a flying machine, but a "mountain tool" allowing him to descend faster or overcome obstacles impassable on skis.  

In conclusion, Jean-Claude Bétemps, along with partners André Bohn and Gérard Bosson, while an instrumental trio in inventing the sport, were more focused on the technical development and the promotion of paragliding as a new, accessible sport, rather than aggressively marketing and monetizing it like a Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg would have done. 

The sheer popularity of their innovation created a massive boom in the 1980s. Independent manufacturers quickly stepped in to improve the equipment, leading to a booming industry that they paved the way for, without enjoying the fruit of their invention. 

Now, just like me, you know the whole story...

Who originated paragliding? (Part One)

Paragliding has always amazed and interested me, even though I knew nothing about its origins. It was preceded by the delta-wing, hang-glider, a key precursor to foot-launched aviation, invented in 1963 by John Dickenson, an Australian engineer for water-ski towing. 

It’s Bill Bennett and Bill Moyes that further developed Dickenson's design in the early 1970s, turning the water-ski kite into a foot-launchable hang glider which hooked many of my French countrymen. Hang-gliding led to paragliding which history is quite fascinating because it’s not based on one single invention, but on a series of pioneers who transformed a survival device (the parachute) into a fun implement. In searching for those "truly" at the origin of the sport as we know it today, we find a group of technical precursors. 

Before paragliding became a sport, it was necessary to invent the double-surface wing that would allows it to work. In 1964 an American, Domina Jalbert, the real inventor, Domina Jalbert, patented the Parafoil. Consider it as the birth certificate of the cell wing. Before him, parachutes were round; after, they became rectangular and capable of generating real lift. 

One year later David Barish, a consultant for NASA, developed the Sailwing (a single-surface wing). He was the first to practice what he called "Slope Soaring" on a ski slope at Hunter Mountain, near New York, dropping 200 feet. 

Although Barish was technically the first "paraglider," the activity did not catch on and fell into oblivion for more than a decade. 

On June 25, 1978, in Mieussy (17 miles from my hometown of Montriond, in Haute-Savoie) three parachutists from the Annemasse aero-club decided to take off from a Mieussy slope instead of jumping from a plane to save on flying costs. 

Their idea came from reading an article in the 1972 Parachute manual that referenced David Barish's Sloape Soaring. Jean-Claude Bétemps, who will turn 77 this year, often called the father of paragliding, was the one who performed the very first test (a small jump down the slope).

André Bohn: a high-level Swiss skydiver followed and made the first true sustained flight later that year, taking off from a slope on Mont Pethuiset and landing 1000 meters lower in the valley, on the Mieussy football field. 

Gérard Bosson structured the activity and in 1979, founded, with Michel Didriche and Georges Perret, the world's first paragliding club and school: "Les Choucas" in Mieussy. He was instrumental in promoting the sport internationally. 

Tomorrow, will see how further improvements and adaptations have molded the practice of paragliding...

Age and risk-taking

The accident just sustained by Lindsey Vonn at the Olympics reminds me of another ski comeback, that of Bill Johnson, former downhill Olympic champion at the 1984 Sarajevo Games. At age 40, weighed down by personal struggles and chasing a sense of former glory, he attempted an improbable return for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. 

The bid ended abruptly on March 22, 2001, when Johnson crashed during a training run before the downhill race at the US Alpine Championships in Montana. The injuries were catastrophic — severe brain trauma, a nearly severed tongue, and a three‑week coma. His body simply couldn’t cash the checks his competitive instinct kept writing.

I’m not in Lindsey’s head, but watching her come in fast, catch air, catch the gate and lose control, we can almost feel the split-second where instinct and physiology parted ways. That’s the paradox of aging: the mind stays young, hungry, convinced it can still summon the same reactions, while the body quietly rewrites the limits. 

The gap between intention and execution becomes just wide enough for disaster to slip through. I half-jokingly call this the “Biden syndrome” — not political commentary, but a shorthand for that universal human illusion that we’re still 25 on the inside. It’s a reminder that experience doesn’t always compensate for the slow erosion of reaction time, balance, and resilience. 

More than ever, I’ll try to learn from this when I ski or drive. Respecting one’s limits isn’t cowardice; it’s wisdom earned the hard way by others who pushed past theirs.

Why older skiers can’t get back up? (Part Two)

Besides what we covered yesterday, aging also affects the inner ear, joint receptors, and neural pathways that tell us where we’re in space. This makes it harder to coordinate the “roll, plant, push” sequence needed to stand up on snow. 

Balance decline is one of the major contributors to fall‑related difficulty in older adults. On flat terrain, where gravity can’t help us, this deficit becomes even more obvious. Even strong older athletes experience slower reaction times and reduced “explosive” force, like that quick impulse needed to rise from the ground. 

This isn’t just muscle mass; it’s the nervous system firing more slowly and less efficiently. As we age, knees, hips, and spine lose flexibility and range of motion. Getting up from a fall requires hip rotation, knee and ankle flexion and the ability to bring the torso over the center of mass. Our ski boots lock the ankles, so the hips and knees must do even more work in the exact places where stiffness tends to accumulate. 

Then there’s fear as older adults often hesitate to do what they remember doing because they’re subconsciously protecting joints or worried about falling again. This “mental brake” or apprehension, reduces the fluidity needed to stand up efficiently. 

Ski instructors who work with older clients emphasize that getting up with skis attached is dramatically harder unless the slope is steep enough to help position the hips above the feet. On flat terrain, people get stuck and the only way out of a fall is to release the bindings and take off the skis.

Heli‑ski operators know this, which is why they often restrict older skiers, not because they are not good enough to ski, but because they may not be able to self‑recover after a fall in deep snow and will unnecessarily hold the group. 

So the obvious conclusion of this quick discussion is to avoid falling and if this still happens remember that we’re goddamn lucky to still ski as septuagenarians or even older!

Olympics opening ceremony

Yesterday afternoon, skiing wasn’t good enough to go out and try to have fun, so, instead my wife and I watched the entire Olympic ceremony. Something we hadn’t done in a very long time. We liked some of the acts, like as always the athletes' presentation and fashion show in which the best outfit is the enemy of the good.

Some acts were a bit over the top, but that’s a question of personal taste. We found the event far too long. Almost 3 hours could have been done in two. I liked it when J.D. Vance and Israel got jeered. 

Still, we liked the speech by Zimbabwe’s Kirsty Coventry, the new President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as of June 2025. 

We felt bad that people still die in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine, while thousands have fun in Italy, but I guess humanity can still walk and watch their smartphones at the same time…

Why older skiers can’t get back up? (Part one)

After the age of 70, skiers increasingly find it quite difficult to get back up after a fall, especially on flat terrain. This is so bad that ski helicopter operators discourage, or simply disallow older skiers from boarding their aircraft. 

Besides a drastic reduction in overall loss of muscle mass, we’ll see today what’s really behind that disability. Obviously, the answer turns out to be more complex than “less muscle.” Muscle loss matters, but it’s only one piece of a larger age‑related shift in how the body moves, stabilizes itself, and generates coordinated force. 

Research on older adults and fall recovery points to several interacting factors that make getting up from the ground, especially with ski boots on, on snow, and with skis attached, disproportionately difficult after about age 70. Standing up from the ground requires a sequence of movements that many of us simply stop practicing as we grow older. 

Physical therapists will tell us that rising from the ground demands hip mobility, core engagement, shoulder stability, and rotational control, all of which decline with age even in active adults. Ski boots and skis amplify this problem: they restrict ankle flexion, limit leverage, and make it impossible to plant the feet under the body the way younger skiers instinctively do. 

So what we’re up against in that case is a combination of reduced mobility, weaker balance, reduced neuromuscular response, less self-confidence and a ski gear that literally stands in the way. Muscle loss is only one contributor, so tomorrow we’ll try to get the whole picture!

A step down, now what? (Part Two)

What sparked yesterday’s two-step story, was skiing with my daughter the day before. Over the years, I always stayed comfortably ahead of her in difficult terrain and conditions, but now that I’m 78, times might be changing as she’s now nipping at my heels. This, to me, means that I'm getting old and close to taking that infamous "step down". 

We're both very good skiers and current snow conditions in Utah are extremely challenging at the moment and it’s what gave me the “step down / step up” idea. Skiing is a visceral way to notice change, with speed, balance, reaction time, concentration, confidence on such variable snow and terrain conditions. It’s one of those activities where the body tells the truth before the mind has fully caught up. 

True, at 78 I’m still in love with skiing and still seeking tough terrain and conditions. This isn’t true of all the folks my age. Most aren’t on the mountain at all, let alone keeping pace with a strong 43‑year lady who’s been skiing all her life. The fact that she’s “nipping at your heels” instead of disappearing in front of my eyes over the ridge perhaps is telling about my baseline. 

My daughter catching up isn’t just about me slowing down, it’s also about her hitting her own peak. She’s in that sweet spot of strength, experience, and confidence. I’m witnessing her ascend while I adjust; a generational handoff, not a personal failure. I see that shift with clarity, not self‑pity, without reacting defensively or denying what’s happening. I simply observed it, named it, and then used it to spark a philosophical idea about balance. 

Let’s call this a mental “step up”! Sure, our current thin and hard snow conditions amplify everything. Icy, scraped‑off, or refrozen conditions punish even small changes in strength or reaction time. On soft powder, the gap might look different. Conditions shape performance more than pride wants to admit. 

A physical “step down”, even a small one, can be matched with a “step up” in something else, like refining one’s technique, becoming even more efficient and deepening the joy of skiing with my daughter rather than ahead of her. That’s not compensation, it’s just evolution. What I experienced on the slopes wasn’t just aging; it was a moment of recalibration. 

And the fact that I’m thinking about it with nuance is not a sign I’m losing ground, I’m only shifting terrain!

A step down, now what? (Part One)

Since life is far from being a linear experience, as time goes by and as we age, there are unavoidable “steps down” that come along the way, and I believe that logically, for every “step down” we should imagine and implement a “step up” to compensate for it. If one is physical, the compensatory other could be mental, spiritual, or just perhaps physical too, but much easier to carry on. 

This would offset a sense of loss through an equal transfer into something different. This idea that popped up inside my mind this morning, strikes me as surprisingly practical. Perhaps a personal version of homeostasis, the way living systems maintain balance by adjusting one part when another shifts. In that case it applies to the emotional and existential terrain of aging, change, and loss.

It’s probably my way of rejecting the myth of linear decline that treats aging or setbacks as a one‑way slide downward. My view acknowledges the “step down” but refuses to let it define the whole trajectory. Instead, I’m proposing an adaptive upward motion which is not denial, but recalibration. I like it because it matches the dynamic nature of life. Physical limitations don’t have to be the end of growth; they can signal the beginning of a different kind of development. 

A loss in one domain can open space in another without being a compensation in a shallow sense but a whole redistribution of energy. This could mirror how we naturally evolve. For instance a runner with knee problems becomes a swimmer, someone who loses physical stamina deepens their intellectual or creative life or a person who retires from a demanding job invests becomes a philosopher. I’m just articulating that instinct consciously. 

While a “step down” often feels imposed, this concept reframes it as an opportunity to choose a “step up”, something intentional, nourishing, and self‑directed. That alone can soften the sense of loss. Of course, it’s not about pretending the decline didn’t happen. It’s about refusing to let it be the whole story. In many ways, I see this as a workable tool, not just a philosophy that would begin by noticing the step down. Instead, it’s choosing a step up in another dimension while letting the two coexist without resentment. 

Some kind of an emotional counterweight, a deeply human idea, honest about limitation, but not fatalistic. It respects the reality of aging while preserving the possibility of growth. And it avoids the trap of trying to “win” against time; instead, it suggests adapting with grace and creativity. I’m so grateful, this thought came to me. 

Tomorrow, I’ll share with you what actually triggered it.

The apprentice diagnostician (Part Two)

Playing diagnostician and not succeeding the first time is a common occurrence. This practice, in my opinion, is more art than science and is linked to some important factors. The first one is that our brains love an obvious culprit. 

For instance, when something breaks, it feels satisfying to identify a single source. New device installed? Must be the device. We’re wired to prefer clean narratives over messy systems. It’s very hard to think thoroughly about systems, because they’re inherently complicated. Most real‑world problems involve interactions between multiple elements. 

To return to yesterday’s thermostat story, there are so many things involved aside from the thermostat itself, the furnace, the electronics, the wiring, the ducts and the various sensors. 

Still, our intuition ignores these other components. It’s the same reason people misdiagnose car problems, software bugs, or even interpersonal conflicts. 

In addition, the familiar quickly becomes invisible. We had that furnace running like a clock for a dozen years, so as a loyal servant, it faded into the background. 

The thermostat was the novelty, so it got the blame. This is the “assumed good” bias — we trust what we know. All this to say that my recent experience is just how most professionals in engineering, medicine, and aviation describe diagnostic errors. 

They warn against “anchoring” onto one explanation too early and “confirmation bias” by only noticing evidence that supports our initial assumption. We can only break out of that loop by stepping back and widening the frame. That’s the real skill: not just fixing one lone defective part, but recognizing a narrow way of thinking. If anything, my story is a perfect reminder that most problems aren’t isolated but relational. 

The thermostat wasn’t misbehaving alone; it was dancing with a partner I forgot to watch!

The apprentice diagnostician (Part One)

No matter what we’re trying to resolve, coming up with the right diagnosis isn't always simple. In recent months, I've struggled with the functionality of some new Google-Nest thermostats, and on repeated occasions, I’ve been so narrowly focused on these specific devices, that I forgot that "it takes two to tango". 

In my whole myopia, I had forgotten that my heating furnace could play some role attributed solely to my thermostats' behavior. That let me to take a serious, long look at the furnace and, to make a long story short, I finally determined that it was indeed the source of all my troubles. I have tried this with ski boots when the main problem was not canting, but their longitudinal placement on my skis, or in struggling with ski-tuning issues when my technique constituted in fact the insurmountable hurdle. 

We always learn a lot from our self-administered sloppy diagnostics. Isn't it a common mistake we all make when trying to resolve a problem? We're so obsessed with one piece that we conveniently forgot that it might be perfectly linked to another one in the overall puzzle? What I just described is one of the most universal cognitive traps we humans fall into. 

That’s what is called “tunnel vision” or “fixation error”. When something isn’t working, the mind instinctively narrows its focus to the most obvious or most recently changed component. In that most recent case, the new thermostats were the shiny, suspicious newcomers, so they drew all the attention. Meanwhile, the furnace, the “old reliable maid”, quietly escaped my angry scrutiny. 

If you’re curious to find out the causes for this weird way of thinking, read tomorrow’s blog...

Salomon’s boot business (Part Two)

The lack of performance available in its rear-entry boot left Salomon vulnerable to criticism coming from better skiers, the retailers’ selling staff and the specialty press. This male-dominated group, at the time, suddenly and forcefully turned its back on the rear-entry design, to the point that Salomon's R&D team didn't have the time nor the leeway to further improve upon the concept.

This happened to the chagrin of countless users who love its convenience and inherent simplicity,  as well as large volume rental operators. I might also add that to a  degree, it probably hurt the growth of skiing. Probably blinded  by its efforts to launch the ski, Salomon blinked and missed the opportunity to remain the dominant brand in boots. 

By the late 1980s, rear‑entry boots were widely adopted by recreational skiers, and Salomon was considered the market leader in the category and particularly in comfort‑oriented boot design, that are the ones the vast majority of the market want and need. When the rear-entry boot design fell out of favor by the mid to early 90s, and the company scrambled to acquire San Giorgio (a reactive purchase of an also-ran Italian brand making 4 buckle boots), 

Salomon had to learn from scratch the art of making conventional boots that worked, and as result, went from dominant to non‑competitive after the mid 1990s. This was one of the most dramatic product‑driven declines in ski‑equipment history, but it was never quantified publicly. 

Today’s boot market is totally fragmented among Lange, Tecnica, Nordica, Atomic, Dalbello, and Salomon with no single brand holding an overwhelming share. Still, Salomon returned to being a respected boot brand, especially with models like the X‑Pro and S/Pro but never again dominated the way it did during the rear‑entry era. 

The brand remained strong and even grew in other categories (skis, clothing, footwear, later trail running) but is now far more associated with trail running and outdoor footwear than with ski boots. A surprising turn-around from a pioneer!

Salomon’s boot business (Part One)

After writing the blog comparing Nordica to Salomon, I decided to add some thoughts about Salomon and its remarkable influence and legacy on the entire ski business. 

From artisan to industrialist,  Geoges Salomon was focused on scaling up his metal ski edge business into, at first, bringing to market rudimentary safety ski bindings with releasable toe-unit and cable system before ushering in modern ski bindings as we know them today, while at the same time, hiring Roger Pirot to run his marketing department. Simultaneously, this appointment turned his already efficient manufacturing company into a juggernaut marketing machine. 

The development of the Salomon ski boot was part of a growth plan capable of offering bindings, boots and skis as part of a whole package. It also coincided with a vanguard company's focus on its all-powerful retailer network that could make or break any ski supplier as the market was then fully dominated by ski or sport shops. 

The bindings and then the boots were developed with ease of selling, installing and adjusting in mind and not necessarily with a deliberate focus for on snow performance as this was totally secondary. With this consideration in mind, its sole boot division was expected and able to pay for developing the ski, the third component of its plan.

Only Austria’s Marc Girardelli heavily modified it to bring a semblance of functionality to it. No reliable source gives a detailed, technical list of the exact modifications made to Marc Girardelli’s boots. The “bucket” that Salomon rear entries were, had to be “tortured” by adding lateral stiffness through internal stiffening plates, reinforced cuff pivot using stiffer plastics. 

Girardelli’s liners were foam‑injected liners with heel‑hold reinforcements. Flex also had to be improved as the SX series were way too soft for racing in stock form. Salomon’s race‑room stiffened the rear spine and added flex‑limit stops. Forward lean, boot-board angle and canting were also modified. Closure and buckles were also beefed-up with shorter and stiffer cables, high‑tension cams, reinforced heel‑retention mechanisms that improved the biggest weakness of rear‑entry designs. 

The talented Austrian racer made up the difference. Salomon had no other option but totally transform a boot never meant for racing use in the hope to create its non-existent performance image. In the next blog, we’ll see how this fairy tale of sorts ended. 

Turning routine a bright spot...

Routine occupies a huge part of our lives and is, for the most part, necessary. I was thinking about it while preparing the morning coffee. Still many folks end up loathing it and I always look for ways of making routine more palatable and even exciting. It’s undeniable that routine gets a bad rap because most of us associate it with monotony, obligation, or the erosion of spontaneity. But routine itself isn’t the enemy, it’s in fact the way we relate to it. 

The truth is that some of the most creative, fulfilled, and resilient people rely on routines not as cages, but as launchpads. With that in mind, I wanted to explore ways to make routine feel less like a treadmill and more like a pleasant rhythm. Perhaps we should begin by turning routine into ritual that we have to do with intention. An approach that I follow systematically is trying to improve the ways in which I execute all of my routines. The action might be the same, like making coffee, going for a walk, cleaning up the kitchen and it’s up to us to embellish it.

Our routines say: “I must” but a ritual would say: “This matters.” We can shift the emotional burden of a routine by adding small sensory elements, like a special mug, a favorite music or a thought of gratitude. Then we can add a tiny bit of novelty to what we have to do. We probably don’t need constant change, but just small injections of difference. 

Things like standing on one leg when I brush my teeth, taking a different route on our daily walk, changing the order of our morning steps, choosing to listen to different music, podcasts or just silence. Also trying a new breakfast menu once a week. These tiny variations can keep us alert without destabilizing what’s needed to do. We can also break a rigid approach by replacing linear routines that go 1, 2, 3, 4 and repeat. 

Replacing predictability with creating modular routines, like choosing different morning options, rotating set of evening wind‑downs or adopting a flexible work-start ritual. This preserves predictability while giving us some control over what’s necessary. We can also turn routine from obligation into meaning. A routine becomes draining when it feels like maintenance and it becomes more energizing when it feels like alignment. We would accomplish this by asking ourselves, what value does this routine support? How will this make me grow and make me reach what’s important to me? 

If we can connect a routine to identity, like “I’m someone who takes care of my body,” or “I’m someone who creates calm in my home” it no longer feels like drudgery. Another trick is to pair routines with pleasure, for instance, by only listening to our favorite music while doing chores, having a special playlist for the commute or listening to podcasts or audiobooks while exercising. Finally, notice and appreciate the results of our routine work as it’s filled with tiny satisfactions we often overlook. 

Things like a clean countertop, the first sip of good morning coffee or the pleasure of perfectly clearing the driveway from snow. I’ve heard people say that routine is the “scaffolding for spontaneity”, that it creates freedom and give us more space for creativity, exploration, excellent work and play. Routine should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling!

Nordica HF Pro vs. Salomon SX92

My surprisingly high level of satisfaction about the new Nordica HF Pro is is changing my biased view on rear-entry boots. To illustrate this point, I'm comparing that new product to the Salomon SX92 that came up on the market 35 years ago. 

In what follows I’m attempting to show a fair comparison between the two products. Even though both boot designs share the rear-entry concept, they have very little in common in terms of skiability, comfort, and construction.

For its part, the Nordica HF Pro, if sized correctly, might not be as easy to get in and out as its Salomon counterpart, but still better than a conventional 4-buckle boot, especially if its shell is stiff, temperatures are low and the user is old. The Nordica uses a thicker, cork heat-moldable liner that provides even support, without pressure points. 

The Salomon had much thinner liners, a cable tightening system over the instep that could be felt and a rigid tongue offering the comfort skiers still accepted in the 1990s, with a last often too wide and a flex too stiff, depending on the foot and also with much less precision and support. 

In terms of skiability, the Nordica HF Pro (flex 110 or120) features a laterally stiffer shell providing plenty of energy transmission for recreational to performance-oriented use, in a smooth, progressive and predictable behavior. Perhaps not a boot quite fit for competitive racing but that could easily be modified and adapted towards that use. 

In contrast, the Salomon was stiff in the front but lacked lateral rigidity, offered limited energy transmission, especially on modern carving skis with a notable lack of progressiveness, exhibiting sometimes an "on/off" behavior. 

One of the shining features of the Nordica is its remarkable heel-hold that comes from its “high-sill” in the back, making entry somewhat difficult if the boot has been sized right and renders liner removal almost impossible. The Nordica’s support is found in the shell material selected, like PU or Grilamid depending on the version. 

Its weight is reasonable and, being a new product, its durability remains to be seen. The bottom line is that the Nordica HF Pro may look like a "modern SX," but is infinitely better, taking all the brilliant benefits of ​​rear entry, but correcting most of its flaws. 

That’s probably why I’m enchanted with the product after using it just 15 times.

Message to my Congressmen

Dear Senator and Representative,

After Minneapolis, I really feel that Trump, Noem and Miller are behaving like murderers. 

I realize that you are terrorized by Trump, so as the president’s enablers, among most elected GOP members, can you please beg him to get rid of Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller? 

Thank you.

Is the World Economic Forum compromised? (Part Two)

Yesterday, we discussed the hijacking of the Davos Forum by Trump and today we’ll see what’s likely to happen following this new development. To begin with, the media spotlight has become too narrow, with coverage focusing on the most dramatic personalities and celebrities of the moment, but no longer on the substance of the sessions. 

Another development that we might see is the forum becoming a stage for political signaling, with some leaders eager to exploit what was an important global gathering to project their strength, shape their narrative, try to influence the market and hopefully reassure allies or create even more chaos in the world order. 

All these transformations will not only overshadow, but pervert the Davos forum’s intended purpose. Let’s not forget that public trust erodes when the conversation feels skewed. We all expect global forums to address global problems, but when we can easily spotlight shifts to political theatrics, it clearly feels like the institution has lost its seriousness. 

The most optimistic among us might hope (good for them!) that the underlying work (economic modeling, climate coordination, policy frameworks) will continue quietly in the background. Of course, a more useful question than just “Has the forum become irrelevant?” would be to wonder if the forum is still doing meaningful work behind the scenes, even if the public narrative is distorted? 

Perhaps and hopefully the answer will be yes, but the visibility of that work will gets drowned out by the gravitational pull of a single political figure dominating the news cycle. I’m not certain this will be the case and I’m pretty sure my view of the moment is not so far from reality as global institutions are struggling to maintain focus in an era where media attention is shaped by bullies, polarization and circus-style spectacle!

Is the World Economic Forum compromised? (Part One)

You may feel differently, but it seems to me that the World's Economic Forum has been hijacked by Trump and that his obsessions have been the sole subject debated at that venue, falling largely outside the focus of the meeting. Has this annual economic summit become tainted and irrelevant? 

I know that I’m not the only one who wonders why global gatherings sometimes feel dominated by a single political figure or a single country’s internal drama. It’s clear that large international gatherings like the World Economic Forum, G20, COP summits, or UN assemblies are extremely sensitive to whatever or whoever dominates the global media environment. 

When a political figure like Trump generates all the headlines, provokes strong reactions, shapes geopolitical uncertainty and influences markets or alliances, their presence or absence can overshadow everything else. 

Historically, highly polarizing or unpredictable leaders have often pulled the attention to themselves, even when the official agenda was something else entirely. 

The Davos Economic Forum’s stated purpose is to address global economic trends, climate and sustainability, technological change, geopolitical stability and long‑term systemic risks. But as we’ve just seen, the media ecosystem rewards conflict, personality, drama and controversy. 

So even if the official sessions cover climate, AI governance, supply chains, or global inequality, the public conversation can become dominated by someone intent on stealing Greenland. This creates a perception gap inside the forum and outside the forum with the limelight turned on the most polarizing attendee. 

That gap can make the event feel “tainted” or “off‑mission,” even if the internal agenda hasn’t changed. Has that forum become irrelevant? Not necessarily, but its public narrative has become distorted. Tomorrow will explore the consequences of that situation and where it leave all of us.

Who is poisoning humanity’s well?

Not one day goes by with my wondering if the current depressive cycle everyone seems to fall into worldwide isn’t due to the fact our world is asphyxiated by Donald Trump as he’s bullying entire Nations, occupying the whole media-sphere and being an awful menace hovering over us all. 

Many are feeling worn down, tense, or discouraged, and when a single political figure dominates headlines, conversations, and social media, it’s natural to assume that saturation is part of the emotional weight we feel. The global mood is depressed and anxious because media saturation amplifies stress when one individual dominates the news cycle, which seems to appear in every headline. 

When every controversy becomes a global conversation, social media algorithms push the most emotionally charged content, all this creates a sense of being “under siege,” even if the actual political impact varies by region. 

Most of us interpret this as a personal emotional burden, even though it’s really an information‑environment burden. 

News outlets are definitely guilty of highlighting conflicts. outrage, threats, scandals and polarization. When the coverage is only negative, people feel tense. This malaise is compounded by global uncertainty as most of us are navigating through economic instability, climate-change anxiety, rapid technological change, social fragmentation and post‑pandemic fatigue. 

As these pressures stack up, the presence of a highly polarizing public figure like Trump can feel like the final straw. This creates a real emotional contagion as the tone around us is echoed by friends that are stressed, angry negative social feeds, dramatic news and conversations that are contaminated by all this background noise. 

Again, to protect our inner world and our sanity, we can only regain balance by limiting exposure to constant news, grounding themselves with family, good friends, and our local community, focusing on meaningful, tangible actions and remembering that the world is bigger than the news cycle. We’re not imagining the heaviness of our times but we’re also not powerless in how we can respond to it!

Is Trump a paper tiger?

When Donald Trump said he would “rescue” protesters if Iranian authorities started shooting, demonstrators believed him as it was the first time in their lives that the president of the United States had promised to help demonstrators. 

Reassured, they took to the streets, joining the growing crowds, just to get shot without the US doing anything. On 8 January, the internet was shut off, Iran went dark and thousands were shot. Trump urged Iranians to keep protesting and to “take over your institutions”, telling them “help is on its way”, as reports grew that a strike on Iran was imminent. 

But just a day later, Trump abruptly did an about-face, telling reporters that he had received assurances that Iranian authorities would not execute anyone, walking back from military intervention in Iran. 

Likewise, Trump made an 180 degree turn on his threat to take Greenland by force and impose tariffs on some of the EU nations opposed his moves, condemned his rhetoric and threatened immediate economic and diplomatic retaliation. 

Trump’s "turnaround" followed a meeting with NATO leaders where a "framework" for an Arctic security deal was allegedly established, addressing US security concerns without a full acquisition.

The bottom line was that in both cases Trump backed off from his strong words showing that under pressure he was no more than a “paper tiger”. 

Some will say this is a subjective point, based on his perceived inconsistent actions or rhetoric, while his supporters (including Trump himself, who applied it to Russia) see it as a descriptor for perceived weaknesses in opponents or allies. 

Supporters of his “paper tiger” persona point to instances where Trump allegedly backed down from strong stances, used China for leverage, or struggled to enforce tough talk with world leaders, while some political figures, like Chris Christie, have called him this to suggest a lack of real threat behind his bluster. 

At any rate, the man must always be pushed back as any bully should, to lose their venom, their effect and their all-powerful facade. This emperor has no clothes!

When skiing is really bad…

So far, my ski days are still under 20 and I’ve skied so little in such awful conditions. So, people could be wondering what positive value I'm getting out of it. 

The snow is hard, irregular and seems to be intent on catching my skis for no good reason, so getting on the snow appears to have no redeeming value, but then again, as some caustic sportsmen say: “If skiing were easy, it would be called snowboarding!” 

So here I am, the guy who thrives on harsh conditions, on challenges of all kinds, on the most terrifying terrain, recycling Nietzsche’s comment that “If the snow conditions don’t kill me, they’ll make me a lot wiser!” 

So, as you see, the proposition is compelling and if I want to become the real man I aspire to be, I should have the courage to go out and measure myself against the uncooperative elements. Does it make sense? Probably not, but at least it seems to be the best fight I can deliver against some unexciting ski conditions...

Six years meditating… (Part Two)

Long-term meditation practice is also associated with a physical reduction in the size of the amygdala region of the brain (the "fight or flight" center). This leads to permanent lowering of baseline anxiety. At the cellular level, long-term meditation appears to slow down the "clocks" inside our cells. Telomeres are the protective caps at the end of our chromosomes. 

Short telomeres are markers of aging and disease. On that subject, a study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology showed that long-term meditators (averaging 5+ years) have significantly higher telomerase activity. This is the enzyme that repairs telomeres, suggesting that daily meditation may actually slow cellular aging and increase longevity.

In addition, our brains have a "Default Mode Network" (DMN) that is active when we are not doing anything specific, like "mind-wandering" and worrying about the past/future. A Yale University study found that in experienced meditators (10+ years), the DMN is permanently transformed. 

They don't just "quiet" their minds during meditation; their brains have a new "default" state where mind-wandering is reduced, leading to higher levels of daily happiness and presence. This said, some of the most extreme results come from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which studied intense meditators (10,000 to 50,000 hours of practice). 

These showed massive increases in Gamma wave activity—the highest frequency brain waves associated with peak concentration, "flow" states, and feelings of universal compassion. Crucially, these high levels of Gamma activity stayed even when they were not meditating, suggesting that after 10 years, the "state" of meditation becomes a permanent "trait" of the person. 

Clearly, the more years and minutes we put into meditation, the more our brain changes for the best. Pretty cool! Do you need more incentive?

Six years meditating… (Part One)

It’s been more than six years that I’ve been meditating daily and from what I have realized, this practice has changed my life and has been the best thing that recently happened to me. That prompted more research on my part to understand what scientific studies had found on the subject. 

What I’ve been able to find is that studies on the effects of meditation over 5 to 10 years move us away from the "feel-good" temporary benefits of the practice and into the domain of permanent structural and biological changes. 

Because it’s jstf to keep a control group from meditating for a decade, most research in this time span is cross-sectional (comparing "expert" meditators with 5–10+ years of experience against "novices"). However, the results are remarkably consistent across various peer-reviewed studies.

Beginning with the physical brain structural neuroplasticity, the most significant finding is that meditation "thickens" the brain in areas responsible for attention and sensory processing, while "shrinking" the areas responsible for stress. 

A landmark study by Dr. Sara Lazar (Harvard/MIT) found that long-term meditators (average 7–9 years of practice) had increased gray matter thickness in the prefrontal cortex—the area responsible for decision-making and executive function. Most importantly, Lazar found that 50-year-old long-term meditators had the same cortical thickness as 25-year-old non-meditators. Meditation appeared to offset the natural thinning of the brain that occurs with age. 

There’s even more to this and I’ll share it with you tomorrow...

Skiing with family or friends

Any time I ski with family and friends, my old ski instructor background and attitudes come to the fore. Here I am literally putting myself on the skis of my guests as long as they are a tad less proficient than myself, which, it seems to me, at least, continues to be the case. I pick runs and conditions that I feel are best adapted to them and that they will thoroughly enjoy in perfect safety.

As much as humanly possible, I always preselect the itinerary I chose beforehand to make sure it’s appropriate. This is my top priority. When we stop, I ask them how they do, if they’re hot or feel too cold, tired or are having any problem, if their equipment works okay for them and if everything feels great. 

As I precede them and ski down the mountain I turn my head around and look behind me as regularly as I can to make sure they’re still following and see how they’re doing. By doing so my enjoyment shifts from a personal one to a much greater, richer one as their welfare, safety and own enjoyment takes precedence over my little person. 

Call this the pleasure of sharing what I love, pleasing those I value, the true joy of giving!

Surviving a “down” cycle? (Part Two)

Anyone who sustains long-term projects doesn’t stay motivated all the time. People just stay connected to why they started, even when the emotional charge goes down temporarily. Sometimes it helps to write down the reason we care and revisit it during low-energy phases and remind us that the work still matters even when the spark dims. 

During these times, it’s also helpful to break the mission into something small enough to succeed at today. 

This is understandable, because when we’re in a down cycle, the big picture can feel overwhelming and shrinking its scope is more likely to help us stay in motion without burning out. 

This could be illustrated by small actions like: 

• “I’ll make one phone call” 
• “I’ll write for ten minutes” 
• “I’ll fix one small thing in the house” 

Easy, small wins rebuild momentum faster than waiting for inspiration to return and can put us back on the rails. In addition, let’s never forget to reconnect with people who share our values as isolation amplifies discouragement but connection dissolves it. Even a short conversation with someone who knows how to deal well with “ups and downs” can reset our emotional compass. 

We don’t need a pep talk, just a reminder that we’re not carrying the world alone will suffice! In conclusion, we always need to keep the long view in mind, as any meaningful effort whether it’s personal, political, creative, or social experiences “seasons” like Growth, Plateau, Doubt and fortunately Renewal. 

A down cycle is often the precursor to the next insight or breakthrough, like the compost that feeds the next growing season. When we zoom out, the dip becomes only one part of the story, not the end of it. Lastly, sometimes the most courageous thing we can do is stop pushing for a moment. 

Rest isn’t quitting, it’s just maintenance for the part of us that keeps showing up. We can’t lose momentum by resting — we lose that momentum if we ignore the need to rest!

Surviving a “down” cycle? (Part One)

Sometimes it's hard to remain optimistic and charged up, no matter what. Everything is cyclical and when the "down" cycle comes, how to keep the faith in what we're doing without getting discouraged? I know that it’s completely human to feel that dip — that moment when the energy drains out of the room and the purpose that felt so clear yesterday suddenly feels foggy.

When that happens to the best of us, we’re not doing anything wrong. we’re just brushing up against the natural rhythm of being people who care deeply and pushes too hard. So how can we stay steady through these cycles? 

First, we need to remember that down cycles aren’t signs that we’re off‑track. They’re just part of the track. We ought to treat the “down” cycle as information, not judgment and not think things like “Something’s wrong with us”, “Maybe we’re not cut out for this” or “Why can’t we stay motivated?” But in reality the dip is often simply our mind saying: 

• “I need rest” 
• “I need perspective” 
• “I need to reconnect with meaning” 

All this means that we must re-frame the dip as a signal, rather than see it as a failure. Above all, we must remember that if motivation is cyclical, commitment should remain steady. A good example is to see the two elements as follows: Motivation is like weather — it shifts, sometimes dramatically. Commitment is like climate — it changes slowly, with intention. 

In the next blog, we’ll see how to handle dips in order to re-emerge much stronger, so please, stay tuned!

I hate Trump, what can I do?

Since I can't stand Trump and his regime, what can I do to make it bearable, and better yet, what steps can I take to fight it effectively? I know that I’m not alone in feeling this way, and it makes sense to want both emotional resilience and effective action when political leadership feels incompetent, cruel and misaligned with our values. Here are a few ways we can address that quandary. 

All are constructive, grounded ways we can choose to take when we feel politically discouraged or want to create change. The first thing we all can do is make the situation more bearable. Political stress is real, and it can drain our energy if we don’t systematically manage it.

So here are a couple of ideas that should work for us, starting by protecting our mental space, limit “doom‑scrolling” on our smartphones and instead choose a few trusted news sources instead of the mindless feeds that are served to us. We must also set boundaries around political conversations that leave us depleted. This isn’t avoidance, it’s simply preserving our capacity to act. 

We must also make sure to stay connected to people who share your values as community as a powerful antidote to political frustration. Of course, we must focus on what we can change or influence, so when national politics feel too overwhelming, local action often has more immediate impact and is emotionally grounding. 

This said, I vote in every election, encouraging others to register and participate. I also regularly communicate with my Senators and my Representative (that happen to be all Trump supporters as we live in a Republican, fascist state). I do it concisely but as forcefully and originally as I can so my message can’t get ignored. 

If you live outside of the United States and don't appreciate Trump, it's easy to boycott everything US from Amazon to X (ex-Tweeter) including Apple, Boeing, Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc. You have plenty to do if you muster the courage to just do it!

In the end, I never miss an opportunity to speak up my mind and tell things the way I see them. Freedom and democracy are too important to me!

Running the world with AI? (Part Three)

Well, you’ve now discovered most of the answers to my question. All of these answers are, for the most part, hypothetical. This said and with all of its flaws, I still believe AI management would be far preferable to Trump, Putin or Netanyahu’s horrible style of leadership. Also, AI is self-learning and as long as it is programmed to behave well and follow a world’s constitution, there are very good reasons that it can keep going in the right direction for an indefinite amount of time. 

Again, I believe that given the dismal state of our political leadership, we have to worry about humanity being able govern itself wisely in an era of climate instability, resource pressures, rapid technological change, ideological polarization, short-term political incentives, views and programs, widespread corruption, as well as whether a system grounded in shared global principles could help us avoid self-inflicted disasters. 

That’s an urgent, serious and very human concern. If the question is what an “AI guided by global ethics” would look like, an AI guided by global ethics isn’t a robot president or a digital dictator. It’s more like a planetary operating system that helps humanity make wiser choices while staying anchored in shared moral commitments. 

Think of it as a system that blends technical intelligence with ethical guardrails drawn from global frameworks like the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and climate‑sustainability principles. 

Something that could be kept accountable whether it is supposed to help with climate, conflict, or inequality and the many times human leadership has failed due to bias or short-term approaches. 

In conclusion, my vision of running the planet with AI is a vision of perfection, but when you think about it, there’s might be nothing as boring and demotivating as perfection. Of course, the day we change our mind we quickly long for the good old day when Trump, Putin or Netanyahu did not exist as politicians! Could we all live with that concept and who among us really wants it or needs it?

Running the world with AI? (Part Two)

Great ideas bring with them their good and bad unforeseen effects. 

To begin with the good news, where could AI outperform human leadership, not necessarily as a ruler, but as a decision-support system? On the subject of evidence-based policy, AI could analyze climate data, economic models, and demographic trends without political pressure. 

In terms of long-term planning it could literally shine as humans and their short-sighted political leaders tend to prioritize short-term wins. AI could optimize human life conditions for decades or centuries. As it will become a global leadership device, AI would not be subjected and bound by borders or national interests. It could also be designed and adjusted to minimize certain human biases (though it can also inherit others if it’s not carefully built). 

Naysayers will object that there are areas where AI as we now envision it could not replace human leadership. Even the most principled AI has limits, like in terms of its legitimacy, as people accept leadership when it feels accountable and human and as it now stands, AI could not replace democratic consent or cultural legitimacy. Besides, there are those who believe that some decisions require human values, empathy, and lived experience. 

Then, there’s the accountability issue. If an AI makes a harmful decision, who is responsible? This is could be a major unresolved ethical issue. Furthering the list of limitations, there are risks of misuse of AI, as any powerful system can be co‑opted by authoritarian governments, corporations and military forces. Even if the AI is principled, its operators might not be. 

Realistically, most experts envision not “AI replacing leaders,” but see it ,more used as a sounding board or a global advisor in evaluating policies, predicts long-term consequences and flagging human-rights risks. It could play a huge role in modeling climate and resource impacts and helping leaders avoid catastrophic decisions.  

Perhaps we should see it as a UN‑aligned guardian of long-term thinking, not a ruler. This hybrid model would preserve human accountability, democratic legitimacy, cultural nuances while offering at the same time data-driven insight, long-term planetary perspective and reduced impulsiveness. 

Tomorrow we’ll search how my question can really be answered…

Running the world with AI? (Part One)

Given the appalling mediocrity of our elected leaders, I often wonder if an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on the UN general principles will be better than our elected leaders and dictators for managing and leading humanity and planet earth? 

Maybe I’m not just the only one thinking that way as a lot of people are wrestling with right now: whether a system built on shared global principles could outperform the messy, inconsistent behavior of our present human leaders.

First, when I talk about “UN general principles”, I mean the UN Charter and related frameworks that emphasize human rights, peace and conflict prevention, environmental stewardship, equality and non‑discrimination, international cooperation and sustainable development. 

Hypothetically, if an AI were built to strictly follow these principles, it would be oriented toward long‑term planetary well‑being, minimizing harm, seeking fairness across populations and evidence‑based decision‑making. 

As you can see an enormous difference from how many human leaders operate, as they often face short election cycles, national interests over global ones, pressure from donors, parties, or elites, personal ambition and cognitive biases. 

All this means that, in theory, an AI could be more consistent, less self‑interested, and more long‑term oriented than our politicians. In a next blog I will see the true possibilities and challenges with a government by AI...

Unorthodox ski boot testing

Last Sunday, I was still unsettled with my new Nordica rear-entry boots that I felt I needed to push their assessment a tad farther. During my active career in the ski industry, I’ve been in charge of marketing ski boots and that activity, as well as my ski background, took me testing boots on many occasions as well. In the process, I became keenly aware of testing methods (and their highly subjective nature) as well as assiduously scrutinizing test results, mostly those of ski publications. 

Today, I realized that the way we’ve been testing boots all along was pretty much flawed, in the way we neglected “direct comparison” when we evaluated different pairs of boots. We would put on a pair of boots A and then boots B, C, etc. and try to remember how A, B and C compared to each other. Remembering sensations is extremely hard, if not impossible that way.

That’s perhaps why, the Saturday before I did that new test, I got an insight that the way to test a pair of ski boots was to put on foot into A and the other one into B (the sole lengths being identical and requiring no binding adjustment), and this is exactly what I did the next day. When I hit the slopes no one even noticed that I had two different boots on. 

As soon as I was on the chairlift I could compare the pressure point locations on either foot, with a weighted or unweighted boot, and the same went on as I initiated turns, carved or just skidded my turns. Very soon I could feel the difference which, to my surprise, was just located around the ankle bones, a frequent occurrence with brand new boots that had not yet “nested” the bones protrusions. 

Yet, I was impressed by the excellent skiability of this new rear-entry boot that I could clearly sense and judge on the hard packed portions of my runs. In fact, what makes this rear-entry so good technically is its amazing heel purchase. On that subject and as I had previously noticed, entry was not that easy as the heel had to clear a sill of sorts that let the heel move back inside a well designed heel pocket that held it in place remarkably well while skiing. 

Again, this boot's secret weapon! That secured heel position was also what made getting out of that boot not that easy as the heel had to clear the heel pocket and demanded a specific effort for it. This was more a disappointment with the product than anything else as I precisely bought the boots to facilitate their exit at the end of a ski outing. 

In spite of it, at the end of the afternoon, I was still sold on my new boots and impressed with my direct comparison method and feedback I got from testing one different boot on each foot!

The “Lego” home building system (Part Two)

Now that we learned all the obstacles that get in the way to making our home building techniques more in line with modernity, where do we see efforts made in that direction? Well, there are still companyies currently Trying to disrupt this situation by the boundaries.

I don’t know what’s going on in Europe or in Asia, but in the United States, 

• Plant Prefab is a California‑based company building high‑quality, architect‑designed modular homes by focusing on sustainability and speed. 
• Villa is another outfit focused on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are easier to standardize and ship than full homes. 
• Biltwise is another modular builder working on efficient, sustainable prefab systems. Method Homes is known for custom, high‑design modular homes built offsite. 
• Dvele is a high‑tech modular home company emphasizing energy efficiency and smart‑home integration. 
• Module based in Pittsburgh is a mission‑driven modular housing company focused on affordable, community‑oriented housing. 

The list goes on with more companies aiming a that goal, but the question remains, why hasn’t a “Tesla of Housing” emerged yet? It’s simply because housing is not like cars or phones. 

Again, it’s regulated locally, it’s still built on‑site, its tied to land, heavily dependent on local labor, if made far away, expensive to transport and the industry remains slow to adopt new methods. Even very well‑funded disruptors like Katerra, backed by SoftBank, collapsed under the weight of trying to industrialize a fragmented industry. 

This said the companies that are succeeding tend to start small (ADUs, small homes, repeatable designs), stay regional instead of going national, are partnering with local builders instead of replacing them, focusing on sustainability and energy efficiency and using panelized or hybrid systems instead of full volumetric modules. 

So, at this moment, the future of modular may not be giant Lego‑like blocks, but smarter, lighter, more flexible prefab systems, until we become all surprised by a new invention that will make us exclaim: “Why didn’t I thought of this!”