Sgarbe: Pedro, we've been talking for so long, and for so long we've never met in person, that I have the impression we're back in the 90s, with the idea of the web-friend — (laughs). Something that frequently unites us, back to the reality of this opinion piece, is journalism, especially, ironically, opinion pieces. This reminds me of my idol, Gladimir Nascimento. He prevented us, beginners that we were, from airing listeners' opinions without a criteria of respect for the individual expressing the opinion and for the one who would hear it. Something like Noah's sons covering up their old man who had passed out drunk. Having introduced the subject in the worst possible way, I ask if you think the press in 2022 is right or wrong to let so many jackasses pass as columnists, interviewees, etc. Shouldn't we avoid exposing these brethren to ridicule?
Pedro Ribeiro: Dear journalist Vinícius Sgarbe. In speaking with you, this old survivor of letters, or of the pen, as Nilson Monteiro says, feels gratified and certain that I will leave here with learning and knowledge. Having been honored as one of the "Voices of Paraná", in Professor Aroldo Murá's collection of personalities from Paraná, and now speaking with you, I even think I have a little importance or history in our journalism, where I started at Gazeta do Povo 45 years ago. A little. Just. Opinion pieces! You have no idea how many arrive for me per day at Paraná Portal. Each one is hair-raising. Therefore, after a filter, the ones I find interesting, I put a footnote: this article does not necessarily represent the opinion of this newspaper and is the sole responsibility of its author. Today, dear Sgarbe, with social media and so-called citizen journalism, everyone has contributed, in one way or another, with "opinion", to the construction of democracy and in the public sphere. Everyone has their reason. These are articles that, in many cases, spark debates, radical or not, and generate much controversy. Everyone who writes an article has full confidence that their opinion is correct and, sometimes, we have dogmatic examples. We can never confuse opinion pieces with journalistic reports, because, for me, journalism, although a space for counterpoint, its commitment is to the truth, to the reporting of facts, duly investigated. It is neutral. It has its values of freedom, dignity, respect, and openness to opposing viewpoints. Journalism, for me, my dear friend, is the pillar of democracy. Without newspapers, there is no democracy. It's difficult to have to, for example, tell a colleague that his article is nothing more than a press release of personal or corporate interest. He might be offended. I prefer to say that "the editorial board will evaluate it" (laughs).
Sgarbe: Today, I came across one of those podcast clips where a man says "only a fool doesn't change his mind". It even reminds me of the Free cigarette ad. I think that man is right. We can revise an opinion based on new facts. I'm reading a great book by Bion, "Learning from Experience", a psychoanalytic text. I frequently ask myself, daily, what have I learned, after all? One thing is that sarcasm can be very harmful to interpersonal relationships. With these relationships damaged, it becomes more difficult to transfer knowledge. I believe that sarcasm can even be a hindrance for those who are searching for truth. What I argue is that we, journalists, cannot bear the weight of a single point of view, we have to escape the slavery of "lacrolândia" [a pejorative term for excessively politically correct or "woke" culture]. A strong opinion is welcome — very different from the silly comments anchors might make because they have nothing to say. A strong opinion requires a strong individual, a "whole woman", a "whole man". It seems difficult for the 2022 journalist to understand that they don't need to, that they still don't need to, save the media's bacon, that the commercial and editorial roles are very well established. They have to do their job, be loved by their own family, by their friends, but they don't need to beg for success when reporting news.
Pedro Ribeiro: Abandoning a radical, intolerant thought and changing it with conviction is not shameful, on the contrary, it is knowing how to recognize that the earth is round and not flat, that life goes on. It's healthy, it's good for the soul. Reflecting and being self-critical about points of view oxygenates our brain and makes us follow a true path. Our country, one of the largest democracies in the world, demands this. It is a country that experiences and breathes freedom, at least in post-dictatorship journalism. What we see are some specific things like intolerance regarding electronic voting machines, coup attempts, small things that don't even scratch the democratic system. Nothing violent. Having an opinion is a right, but stupidity is unforgivable, because you have time to learn and innovate. As a journalist who writes editorials (opinion pieces of my own and of the newspaper's line of thought), I make mistakes and try to correct my mistakes and, sometimes, by changing my opinion. This is not shameful for me. Many friends ask me: are you going to vote for the thief? I answer with the puffed-up chest of a non-partisan journalist that I vote for whoever is the best and, in our case, today, for whoever is the least bad. The thief may have learned on the "pau de arara" [a torture device], with whips on his back, but the fool, the radical, is worse. This is my "opinion" and I can change it if someone proves to me that we will have, on the other side, an economic and social program for our country that privileges the thin layer of society and not the little more than 500 congressmen and another 55,000 authorities who have privileged jurisdiction. Secret budgets, tons of money from the Electoral Fund. This doesn't fit with my journalistic line of thought. In this case, I'm even radical and sometimes I overplay my hand. But I don't bend my knees. I see many fellow journalists today who have a correct line and pray by the book of good journalism like someone who swears with their hand on the Bible or before the Court, to tell the truth, only the truth. Our country is lacking in leadership. Brazil, today, is the reflection of its own rearview mirror, or mirror. Best regards, Sgarbe.
Sgarbe: Thanks for the lesson, Pedro! Best regards.
The discussion related to advancements in artificial intelligence, especially regarding the risks of human labor being replaced by robots and the creative potential that may offend those who consider themselves the crown of creation, seems affected by the phenomenon of polarization.
I recognize that this analysis is simplistic regarding the facts. On one hand, there's a perceptible unease caused by a new lunar race undertaken by the market in search of prestige and future profitability, which inevitably influences academic research. If research was once conducted with free software, today it is increasingly dependent on paid resources. On the other hand, in a stance that deliberately ignores cybernetics, part of the intellectual community offers resistance to the advancements of communication development.
In this context, those who wish to effectively keep up with the technological progress of language models like GPT and Gemini must face a learning curve that will certainly disturb their peace. It won't be surprising if, soon, each individual operates their own language model. Services like Google's Vertex AI already allow for the creation of highly personalized robots for a wide variety of tasks.
However, considering specifically the Portuguese language, one perceives that language models like the ones mentioned have little ability to grasp subjectivities and linguistic nuances. After all, if not even a human being is capable of fully understanding what users publish on the internet, what can be expected of the poor robot?
Recently, while driving down Brigadeiro Franco Street in Curitiba, I saw five city employees cutting the grass along the sidewalk. One of them held the mechanical mower, while the others served as mobile posts, holding a screen around the gardener. I thought, at that moment, about the last 300,000 years of human evolution synthesized in the scarcity of mobile supports, reducing the extraordinary human body machine to a mere screen holder.
It must be acknowledged, therefore, that certain routine activities—such as summaries and text generation from videos or audio—must, obligatorily, utilize artificial intelligence solutions. Otherwise, the physical and emotional intelligence of human beings is wasted on unrewarding jobs. Only someone who has had to edit hours of television or radio programs would have the authority to disregard the help of AI in these tasks, although this would reveal a penchant for martyrdom.
There is one last reflection that seems important to me and concerns a frequent technical distortion. It is not correct to generalize all of artificial intelligence by taking a specific language model as an exclusive reference—especially its free versions. Using ChatGPT is not the same as using the GPT model directly. Similarly, using Gemini's chat differs from exploring all the potentialities of the Gemini language model. Maximum extraction of the potential of these systems requires personalized execution, and this is precisely one of the tasks we develop at Lab Digital 2050.
A former White House advisor has warned about the potential dangers of developing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and the risk of an arms race with China. According to him, the pursuit of control over AGI could lead to international conflicts. Experts fear that China might react aggressively to any attempt by the US to monopolize the technology.
The information was published by UOL on March 9, 2025, in the article Is Artificial General Intelligence arriving? It's hard to be certain. The article cites a document published by experts, including the former advisor, detailing concerns about an AI arms race.
Artificial General Intelligence differs from current AIs in its ability to perform any intellectual human task. This technological advancement represents a potential leap in the development of various fields but also raises concerns about its misuse, especially in conflict scenarios.
The document suggests that an attempt by the US to exclusively control AGI could provoke an aggressive response from China, such as a large-scale cyberattack. The experts argue that competition for AGI could destabilize international relations and increase the likelihood of conflict.
The concern lies in the possibility of AGI being used for the development of autonomous weapons and sophisticated cyberattacks, which could quickly escalate to direct confrontation. The experts advocate for international cooperation to ensure the safe and ethical development of AGI.
A recent study published in the *Revista Turismo, Visão e Ação* (RTVA) reveals that older managers with longer tenures in restaurants tend to be more risk-averse in their corporate decisions. The research, conducted by researchers at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), analyzed data from over 2,000 restaurants in Europe between 2014 and 2016.
The study, titled "Influence of Management Team Characteristics on Risk Decision-Making: Evidence from the Restaurant Sector," utilized the Amadeus database and employed the least squares method to analyze the relationship between manager characteristics – age, tenure, gender, and team size – and the companies' level of financial leverage, used as a risk-taking indicator.
The results showed a significant negative correlation between the age and tenure of managers and their propensity for risk. Older managers and those who had held the same position for a longer period demonstrated a preference for more conservative decisions, opting to maintain the status quo rather than adopting innovative or risky strategies.
Contrary to some expectations, the study found no significant relationship between the size of the management team or female participation and risk-taking. Although previous research has suggested a possible influence of these factors, the data analyzed did not confirm this hypothesis in the specific context of the restaurant industry.
The authors suggest that the risk aversion demonstrated by more experienced managers may be related to the prioritization of stability and the reputation built throughout their careers. Familiarity with the sector and a concern to preserve accumulated gains may lead them to avoid decisions that represent potential threats to the business.
The study's findings have significant implications for restaurant management. The research suggests that the composition of the management team can directly influence the strategy and performance of companies. Restaurants with younger managers may be more willing to innovate and take risks, while those led by more experienced managers may prioritize stability and financial security.
The researchers highlight the need for further studies to deepen the understanding of the relationship between manager characteristics and decision-making in restaurants. Investigating psychological factors, such as individual risk tolerance, and analyzing data from a longer period could enrich the discussion and provide more precise insights for the sector.
I repeatedly fail. Even now, I failed in my intention to go to bed at 9:30 pm. For some reason akin to “what the hell! I don't sleep more than four hours anyway,” I surrendered to the drift of darkness. I fear a stern authority will weep to discipline me: “it’s not time to go to the bathroom.” Activities in general. The late-night chats have ended, covered in sand, disintegrated by a shock, incinerated. It’s a little sad. All that chaotic literature that brought me so many friends has gone mad, and speaks to itself in Mark's posts.
The book Maku sent me is well-written, of course, but it's read in super slow motion. The character begins to reveal herself through a desire to die. You don't find such honest people easily. Like toast with cream cheese and red fruit jam. It was the box, the jar. I switched to whipped cream. Whipped cream is foolproof.
This fractal, then: death and life explaining themselves poorly, speaking quickly and loudly, like Brazilian tourists with red lipstick and crossbody bags enchanting the world with smiling rudeness. My analysis, which follows, is sophisticated.
There are life’s discordances that are, it must be repeated, forces of nature. Discordances, in this text, are metaphorically Meryl Streep portraying Florence Foster Jenkins in the cinema, or any instrument that should vibrate a sublime "ooowooowooow," but ends up materializing Grandma Jephinha venturing off-key, without melody.
I like water because it doesn't waste time with stones or walls; it deviates, accepts a good tunnel, but, if necessary, breaks through everything. Water takes for itself lands that didn't even have a vocation for a swimming pool, resting there as a calamitous flood.
The regions of the world that are about to disappear need intellectual support to resolve issues of property, repatriation, and the return of predictable bureaucracies. You cannot erect an island on top of a two-story house; not even Japanese drainage cathedrals make a difference in the ocean. Such dangers equate our intelligence to nothing. Nature is one of the three notable sources of displeasure in Freudian psychoanalysis.
“And from all this out-of-tune instrument I was never an apprentice.” There's this verse in a Gabrielle Seraine lyric. And in her music too, when she sings “[out-of-]tune,” when she sings exactly “deceased,” the harmony shatters for a moment, like a little shit blowing a plastic flute. It's the valley before the peak, the “dark before the dawn.”
When the out-of-tune individual — the "medium" (of media, not of speaking to the dead) — emits noise, communication becomes clearer. Let's use the word "communication" as a future synonym for "spirit," a beautiful conception of Flusser's.
In the religions that deal with "spirits," note the similarity in the conduct of intentions: doors are opened and closed, people are stimulated to move their psyches, and even banal requests that are nothing more than predictable bureaucracies. One asks, promises, thanks, expels, infuses — all through the conjuring of human and intelligible words.
Accepting Jesus, renouncing Freemasonry, declaring victory, taking possession of the blessing, doing macumba for Dona Ida to die (children are very inventive) — all this requires speaking. From the spell of the Greek Father to the Seven Knocks on the Door of Grace prayer chain from Janine's people. Communication. Speech. Listening.
In some evangelical cults, faced with unsatisfactory communication, someone is likely to take on the role of the demoniac for the benefit of the group. The Catholic mass has so many communication resources that part of the sermon ends up being saved.
"Spirits" are an ancient, primitive subject. It was a way of keeping the dead nearby. Later, these dead became demons. History records in anthropological terms; I have here an original Frazer that I received from Luca. My point is: if spirits "are born" from domestic dead, it is natural that, before committing to events outside the home — speaking of spiritualist meetings, making wind — they are available in the family inventory.
There is power in psychoanalysis, in Transactional Analysis, in Narcotics Anonymous. But these endeavors require much more time, specialization, and opportunities for mistakes than can be achieved in a family, when a family is available. Family, of course, should be understood broadly.
A family that has understood the permanence of love, that has left the struggles for recognition for community practices, has a better chance of success in invoking powerful spirits.
The powerful spirit of the creator, for those who believe thus, has to make some difference. Is God dead? Don't be fooled. I write about communication. About conjuring, invoking, good communication. In the last line of the noise, "taking possession of the blessing," as well observed by Nina.
In Portuguese, "spirits" have been communication at least since 1976, when Cartola composed: "From each dead person, one will inherit only cynicism." From my tensioning, Flusser offers us a simplification: it's a lot of "spiritual battle" for little "talking like people."
Let's return. The relationship of the out-of-tune, the deceased — properly the word in question, noise, this thing that disturbs sleep — with clarity is not only poetry. The physics and computer engineering that support image generation proceed from the use of two very basic stages that do not harm each other.
To improve someone's skin in a photograph, you first need the caress of blurring, like a hyperope without glasses. Then, you have to add noise, something like an old TV without a signal. And then you can see better.
Thus, my suggestion for the group — laughter — is an appreciation of noise, along with a careful observation of the content of the disturbances. When this battery runs out, with more clarity, let us be arrogant in our pretensions of dignity.
Only I was going to write about something completely different. I'll make another post.
A journalistic suite is the continuation of a news story in new articles that update previous ones. Something like: "Two people were injured in an accident"; then, "Men injured in accident undergo surgery"; further, "Men injured in accident discharged from hospital"; and finally, "Company responsible for accident involving injuries fined." All these sensational headlines relate to the same original event.
Not every type of news warrants a continuation. Some events and accomplishments have the momentum for a single appearance. However, to appear once or several times in the newspaper, the "thing" must truly be news, which basically means it's not advertising or propaganda – but that's a topic for another time.
In terms of format, a suite is no different from a new news story. After all, a continuation only exists when a new fact is revealed. But it's in style, from what I've observed, that the "marmita das suítes azedou" – meaning why they've lost momentum in recent years. ("Marmita das suítes azedou" is an idiom meaning roughly that the suites have gone stale or lost their appeal).
Let's take a police investigation as an example. Journalism of both good and poor quality is interested in criminal stories. However, in both types of quality, a flavor of vice remains, perhaps originating from the pleasure of "scooping" (when a journalist is the first to report something). It's a haste that hinders more than it helps: not infrequently, versions are presented that collaborate with a story one wants to tell, which may have nothing to do with what actually happened.
In the case of Armed man threatens Black youth in São Paulo, and police officer refuses to act because she's 'off-duty'; watch video (sense-based translation), for example. This is a story that quickly captured the attention of journalists and the public because a video proves not only the omission of a police officer but also her aggression against a young man. Here, whether the police officer was right or wrong is not under discussion. At the same time, due to the lack of suites, the broader context of the three-minute video was missing.
A story told because of its intriguing nature can yield minutes of viewership and an increase in website visitors. However, without continuity, it's shooting oneself in the foot. In 2023, the Reuters Institute's Digital News Report identified that Brazilians' trust in journalism is 43%, a decrease of 19 percentage points since 2015. Statistically, the downward trend may reach 41% in 2024. In this scenario, all resources of intelligence and integrity are welcome to improve these numbers.
Suites are an opportunity to assure the public that editorial choices represent, even if against the majority view, the vehicle's commitment to a story told from beginning to end, with all its nuances. For this, the editorial line as a whole, and even more so the reporters and editors, must approach investigative activity with the detachment of recounting things as they are, and not as they should be.
The air of novelty that a New Year brings seems akin to the effect of renewing vows. It is, let's say, an opportunity. By analogy, a wedding ceremony itself is powerless to effect changes in a couple, in the sense of expanding trust and reciprocity, and the consequent happiness derived from these expansions. A ceremony in itself is nothing, but the couple's focus on achieving a better self-awareness is. With the new year, it's very similar.
It is entirely understandable to disregard the commercial calendar's timekeeping when one's intention is a free and fruitful life. A personal history should not (but often is) subjected to the mechanics of exhausting work: vacations, recesses, and holidays. Things of this category are very welcome, of course, but almost always correspond to the logic of industry and consumption. Hence the proverb: "The more you have, the less you are."
In these contexts, buying a new outfit for New Year's Eve can be an ambivalent act. On one hand, there's the obligation of purchase, the competition established with other party guests. On the other, there's a legitimate inclination towards self-care, and for the outward appearance to match the novelty of the innermost self.
To change the year within oneself requires a certain degree of the ridiculous. That is, to cross the line of the ridiculous. Instead of a costume, to dress in what truly corresponds to who one is. It's not about *pretending* to be, it's about being in essence. Something interesting is the fact that what one desires to be in the future can only be true if it is so right now. This is a very basic philosophical idea. It is also true that if something ceased to be, it is because it never truly was.
What I previously called ridiculous could also be called courage. To put on one's own shoes, to open one's chest: to think, speak, act, and celebrate from what one truly is, what always was, and will always be. But courage lies less in the behavioral aspect, which even a ham actor could interpret with utter cowardice, and much more in a permission for the individual spirit to communicate to the world what it came to do.