Nome dell'autore: Fabio Panzeri

In an era dominated by algorithms and automation logic, the creative process risks becoming sterile, homogenised, and predictable. Yet, it’s precisely today that we feel the urgent need to return to materiality, gesture, and human error as the spark of authentic innovation. Creativity cannot emerge from a screen alone. It must return to getting its hands dirty. It must start from things. The “Wrong Reassembly” Method Disassemble and reassemble. Apparently, without logic. Just as Rick Owens did with his deconstructed garments: off-centre shoulders, visible seams, jackets mounted backwards. Mistakes? No, vision. Each piece was a dialogue between form and function, between art and technique. And in that misalignment, it found its identity. Owens doesn’t “make fashion.” He sculpts concepts. Similarly, in furniture design, Ron Arad has shaped seating like the “Big Easy” that seems born from the collision between sculpture and comfort, between industrial curves and material softness. Objects that don’t seek market approval, but pose questions. And they endure because they speak to deeper levels. Creativity as Friction: Designer + Technician The creative process then becomes a space of positive tension. It’s in the confrontation—and even in the clash—between those who envision the form and those who guarantee its function that products destined to last are born. There is no real innovation without continuous dialectic. The laboratory, physical or mental, is the true beating heart of the idea. Consider Boris Bidjan Saberi, whose work is characterised by architectural silhouettes, experimental material treatments, and a monochromatic palette dominated by blacks and grays. His designs merge technical innovation with artisanal craftsmanship, often featuring raw edges, visible seams, and unique textile manipulations. Saberi’s controlled extremism manifests in his meticulous attention to material experimentation—working with leather, waxed fabrics, and natural dyes through processes that blur the line between traditional technique and avant-garde vision. Here, the creative tension isn’t just conceptual but materialised in garments that challenge conventional forms while maintaining exquisite functionality. Detach to Be Recognisable It’s not about rejecting technology. On the contrary, it’s precisely by maintaining distance from its dominion that the creative process can dialogue with it in a fertile way. We aren’t against innovation. But we reject standardisation. The idea is that everything must be optimised, replicable, and fast. Projects that endure are those that take time. That evolves. That makes mistakes. That’s a confrontation. That change was conceived while being conceived. And, above all, remain human.

I stopped to read some articles that spoke in triumphant tones about the future colonization of Mars. A dream, they say, a new frontier for humanity, the first step toward an interplanetary civilization. But the more I read, the more I realized how absurd it was. Why are we so obsessed with the idea of abandoning Earth instead of saving it? Why do we spend billions to escape to a dead rock when we still have a living planet, even if it is battered by our stupidity? And this is where the real question arises: the race to Mars is not progress—it is a cowardly and delusional escape driven by egomaniacal billionaires and ruthless politicians. Humans are the only species that destroy their habitat with suicidal greed, and when they realize they’ve ruined it, instead of fixing it, they decide to run away. But run where? To Mars. A place that has nothing: no oxygen, no water, no livable climate. A radioactive desert, the worst possible hellscape for human life. And yet, billions are being poured into this insanity while Earth drowns in wars, pollution, and climate disasters. And who is leading this race to cosmic nothingness? Elon Musk is a chronically deranged fool, a billionaire whom many mistake for a genius because he’s rich. Elon Musk: The Prophet of Tech Nonsense Musk hasn’t invented anything revolutionary. Tesla? He didn’t create it—he bought it. SpaceX? A company that burns public money for utopian projects. Neuralink? An idea straight out of a poorly written sci-fi movie. And yet, the world hangs on the lips of this lunatic who dreams of sending a million people to Mars. To do what? Die of starvation in metal boxes? Musk keeps selling the fantasy of a “new Martian civilization” while ignoring the real issue: The problem isn’t the planet—it’s humanity itself. If we can’t manage Earth, imagine what a disaster we’d make of Mars. It’s like a gang of arsonists burning down their house and then deciding to move to the Sahara, convinced they can build a skyscraper with a shovel and a bucket. Politicians and Dictators: The Tiny Men of Destruction And while Musk plays space messiah, the world’s governments behave like monkeys with nuclear bombs. The leaders of the major powers—the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, North Korea—are nothing more than tiny, power-hungry men, convinced they’ve been divinely chosen to rule the world. Religion and politics—the toxic cocktail that has been rotting civilization for millennia. Nuclear weapons waved around like toys, pointless wars that only make arms dealers rich, all for what? To prove who has the biggest missile? Pathetic. We are ruled by imbeciles who think they’re gods while the planet suffocates under the weight of their greed and stupidity. Earth Doesn’t Need Humans—Humans Need Earth The truth is that we are not the center of the universe. If the human race went extinct, Earth would heal itself. Chernobyl proves it: in just 30 years, nature has taken over, and wildlife thrives better without humans. The planet doesn’t need us—we depend on it. But instead of protecting it, we choose to believe Musk’s bullshit and the fantasy of space colonization, spending billions to escape to a dead rock while our paradise is being destroyed. The human race does not deserve Earth. And maybe, in the grand scheme of evolution, extinction is the only fate we have earned.

In a hyper-connected world that scrutinizes every move of its corporate titans, Meta and its founder Mark Zuckerberg have offered a case study in strategic opportunism, wrapped in the guise of leadership. Recent developments—from a conspicuous alignment with Trumpism to tone-deaf criticisms of Europe—highlight a troubling pattern of choices that prioritize power over principles. The Appointment That Speaks Volumes Among the most significant signals of Meta’s shifting ethos is the appointment of a Republican to head its global affairs division. This move, coinciding with Donald Trump’s return to prominence, suggests a calculated pivot to align Meta’s strategy with the changing political winds in the United States. While businesses often adapt to political realities, this particular shift appears less pragmatic and more opportunistic, raising questions about the long-term vision and moral compass of Zuckerberg’s empire. Trumpian Rhetoric Meets Silicon Valley Zuckerberg’s recent critiques of Europe’s regulatory environment carry an unmistakable Trumpian resonance. Framing the EU as a hindrance to innovation is not only inaccurate but also a transparent deflection. The reality is that Meta’s struggles—ranging from waning user trust to stagnant innovation in the face of rising competition—are largely self-inflicted. Blaming Europe for enforcing regulations that demand accountability and fairness only underscores Meta’s unwillingness to adapt to a changing global landscape. Meta’s Selective Ethics Perhaps the most glaring inconsistency lies in Meta’s much-touted “community standards,” which seem to flex conveniently depending on the situation. While the platform is quick to suppress or ignore content that challenges its interests, it has shown an alarming leniency toward misinformation, hate speech, and other harmful narratives that align with powerful actors. Such selective enforcement fosters an environment where profit trumps principle, painting a bleak picture of Meta’s ethical stance. A Leader Without Leadership? Zuckerberg’s attempts to emulate figures like Elon Musk further expose the limitations of his approach. While Musk, for all his flaws, embodies a form of visionary leadership that inspires loyalty and debate, Zuckerberg’s actions often feel performative and hollow. Leadership is more than wielding influence—it requires accountability, a clear vision, and the courage to stand by principles, even when inconvenient. Zuckerberg’s recent decisions suggest that Meta is sorely lacking in these qualities. What Lies Ahead for Meta? As the political landscape shifts and Trump’s influence resurges, Meta appears to be hedging its bets, positioning itself as a willing participant in whatever power dynamics may emerge. This lack of a defined ethical framework leaves the company vulnerable to being perceived as a tool for political opportunism rather than a platform for global connection and innovation. Accountability in the Digital Age Meta’s trajectory is a stark reminder of the need for accountability in the digital age. Platforms of its scale wield unparalleled influence, shaping discourse, policy, and even democracy itself. Yet, with great power comes great responsibility—an adage that Meta seems increasingly willing to ignore. As users of these platforms, we hold significant power. It is up to us to demand transparency, challenge inconsistency, and hold these corporations accountable for the impact they have on society. Leadership, after all, is measured not by wealth or power but by integrity and vision—qualities that Meta must demonstrate if it hopes to regain the trust of the connected world.