On my office shelf, a photograph of my father stands watch—silent, unchanging, and, in a way, unknowable. In it, he carries wood planks over his shoulder, his grin a fragment of unselfconscious joy. Behind him, the ski chalet he restored stands like a monument to competence and optimism. It’s the sort of picture that captures a person not as they were in their totality but as they might wish to be remembered—a distillation, free of the messier truths of illness, fatigue, or the gradual erosion of character that time so often imposes.
It has been twelve years since his death, long enough for the sharp edges of grief to blunt into something far more ambiguous. The photograph hangs there, but it no longer tugs at me the way it did in those first years when his absence was still a raw, open wound. This is what nobody tells you about grief: eventually, it stops. Not with the dramatic finality of an extinguished flame, but like a tide pulling back so slowly you don’t realize it’s gone until you’re standing on dry sand. And with that cessation comes its own peculiar guilt.
I am haunted less by his absence than by the knowledge that I have grown comfortable with it. Days pass, sometimes weeks, without him crossing my mind. It is not that I have forgotten him entirely—how could I, when I see fragments of him in my own reflection, in the way my hands mimic his when I tinker with something, or in the patterns of speech I’ve unknowingly inherited? But I have let the image of him, the essence of who he was, fade. And I wonder if that, too, is a betrayal.
What lingers most vividly are not his best years but his last—the slow decline, the hospice bed, the quiet indignities we both pretended not to notice. It is as though the memory of his vitality has been crowded out by those final months, eclipsed by the peculiar gravity of mortality. I wonder if this is the curse of the human mind, that it anchors itself in endings rather than beginnings, in decline rather than ascent. My children, born years after his death, will never know even the faintest outlines of the man he was, only the scraps I choose to tell them—and what kind of portrait is that? An heirloom, perhaps, but a fractured one, incomplete and inevitably skewed by my own failings as a storyteller.
Sometimes, I envy them their blank slate. They will not have to reconcile the man in the photograph with the man who faltered at the end, the man who was so thoroughly himself until he wasn’t. They will never have to wrestle with the slow erosion of memory, with the gnawing realization that what remains of him in my mind is increasingly curated, a selective archive where the joyful moments are preserved but not entirely authentic. I envy them because they will never carry the burden of forgetting, though it is a burden I feel I must bear.
Yet, the question persists: What does it mean to stop grieving? Is it a failure of love or merely the inevitable adaptation to loss? When I hold my own children, I feel the same love that I know he felt for me, and it strikes me that perhaps this is the answer. The dead do not need us to remember them in every moment; it is enough that we continue the work they began, shaping the lives of those who follow. My children, who will never know the man in the photograph, will know him through me, in ways so subtle they may not even notice. His humor, his determination, his restless curiosity—they live on, refracted through me and into them.
And yet, the guilt remains, lurking quietly, as guilt often does. Not because I loved him too little but because I feel, irrationally, that I should have loved him better—more consciously, more persistently, as if love could be measured by its constancy. But love, like memory, is not a static thing. It ebbs and flows, fading and returning in ways that are as unpredictable as they are human. The photograph remains on the shelf, watching, waiting, its unchanging presence a quiet reminder that grief, too, is not an endpoint but a passage.
By 2025, search engines and recommendation systems have moved beyond mere tools for retrieving information—they’ve become extensions of human cognition, functioning as externalized brains. Powered by advances in indexing, vector databases, and cross-referencing technologies, these systems reshape how we process knowledge. But as they grow indispensable, we must confront a critical question: Are they enhancing our thinking, or are we outsourcing it entirely?
In 1587, Queen Elizabeth I’s spymaster, Francis Walsingham, achieved one of the great coups in the history of espionage. Using little more than intercepted letters, ciphers, and the occasional tortured confession, Walsingham exposed the Babington Plot, a conspiracy to assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne. Walsingham's reward? Eternal gratitude from the queen, the continued survival of Protestant England—and, one imagines, the sort of satisfaction that only comes from outwitting murderous aristocrats. His tools were crude, but his mission was clear: decode the enemy before they destroy you.
It is the tragicomic fate of the American republic that it continues to lurch from the doddering to the demagogic, from the vacuously polite to the vulgarian grotesque, as though it were trapped in a slapstick routine without a punchline. Were this not the world’s most powerful nation, it might simply elicit pity. Instead, it commands a mix of horror and schadenfreude from those outside its borders and outright despair from those within.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, though rarely admitted in polite company, that Donald Trump’s economic ideas have the intellectual rigor of a soggy cocktail napkin. Yet here we are, in 2025, once again grappling with his devotion to tariffs—or as he might call them, the Mona Lisa of economic policy. Tariffs, that ancient tool of mercantilist folly, are now poised to drag the world economy backward, one ham-fisted policy at a time.
History, that tireless collector of humanity’s worst decisions, is littered with tales of leaders who rose to power not by the weight of their ideas but by the clever branding of their banners—often as empty as the heads waving them. The fall of Mrs Harris as a political force, and her Democratic Party’s fixation on identity politics, is yet another grim chapter in this story—a warning about the perils of elevating symbolism over substance.
Amidst a parade of electric vehicles that resemble sullen rectangles and expressionless bars of soap, Rivian's R3 emerges as a pleasant anomaly—proof that design doesn't have to surrender to the soulless tyranny of efficiency. It doesn’t look like it was drawn by an algorithm on a tight deadline, nor does it aspire to double as a Blade Runner prop. Instead, it dares to be approachable, elegant, and, most shockingly of all, human. The R3 suggests that the electric future need not sacrifice warmth and charm at the altar of technological inevitability.
There was a time, not so distant, when the artist’s labor was a rebellion against oblivion—a furious demand to be seen, heard, or understood across the gulfs of time. Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro wrestled with mortality itself; James Joyce redefined the limits of language as though daring humanity to keep up. Today, that struggle has been outsourced to a cold and unfeeling steward: the Algorithm, a faceless arbiter whose only metric is engagement, a deity whose offerings are served with a side of irrelevance.
In the austere marble visions of ancient Rome, a full life was conceived as a mosaic of many parts, each tessera contributing its own brilliance to the greater whole. The ideal citizen of the Republic was expected to begin as a soldier, honing body and spirit on the battlefield. This was no mere martial posturing; it was a rite of passage, a crucible through which courage and discipline were forged. The next phase called for the role of merchant or entrepreneur, extracting profit from the unruly seas of commerce and learning the art of negotiation and resourcefulness. Finally, when wisdom had been chiseled by the hand of experience, the citizen would ascend to politics—a domain for the wrinkled and worldly, where philosophical musings and rhetorical flourishes danced uneasily with power plays and poison-tipped daggers. This triptych of soldier, merchant, and statesman was no accidental sequence; it was a deliberate strategy, a life philosophy that embraced the full spectrum of human potential.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that autocrats come in two flavors: the tyrannical genius and the petty despot. Vladimir Putin—a man whose cult of personality hinges on shirtless photo ops and a permanent sneer—is firmly in the latter camp. A Machiavellian mastermind? Hardly. This is a man whose greatest achievements include turning Russia into an economic afterthought and staging the geopolitical equivalent of a high school drama club production.
In a world saturated with noise—literal, visual, and ideological—it is increasingly rare to encounter spaces that insist upon silence. Yet this is precisely what the work of Tadao Ando accomplishes: an audacious refusal to capitulate to the clamor of modernity. Ando’s structures, which temper the severity of concrete with the capriciousness of light, are not mere buildings but sanctuaries for the mind and soul. They embody a principle that has been all but forgotten in contemporary architecture: the power of restraint.
In 1916, Edward Johnston designed the typeface for the London Underground, a system as labyrinthine as it was revolutionary. Johnston’s task was not merely to create legible signage but to craft a typographic identity that would unify a sprawling and disjointed network. The result, his eponymous typeface, was a study in disciplined elegance: humanist proportions, clean geometry, and an innate sense of balance. It didn’t just guide commuters; it gave the city’s chaotic modernity a sense of order and calm. Johnston understood that type wasn’t a passive component of design but an active force, shaping perception and experience at the most visceral level.
To understand Marcel Proust is to accept the absurd and improbable fact that one of the greatest literary achievements in human history emerged not from a life of action, but from one of inaction—a life largely spent in bed. And not just any bed, mind you, but a fortress of hypersensitivity, meticulously arranged to shield its inhabitant from the twin horrors of modernity: noise and drafts.
There’s something delightful about a book that takes a subject as unsexy as “why stuff doesn’t fall over” and manages to make it both fascinating and, dare I say, funny. J.E. Gordon’s Structures: Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down is that rare sort of book—one that sneaks into your brain disguised as entertainment but leaves you a bit smarter, slightly smugger, and much more suspicious of bridges.