I joined a new gym yesterday. They gave me this nice-looking black and orange badge I have to tap when I go in and out. So now they know 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐈 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻.

When I signed up, they took a picture of me and said “it’s so we can tell when someone steals it and uses it”. Fair enough. BUT, there are cameras inside, which means they can probably see 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 (not that difficult with today’s image processing).

Now, who would even care how much I work out and what kind of exercises I do? Probably no one. But it’s not just me. It’s 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐠𝐲𝐦. What if that data gets linked to our health records from the last 10 years? One could predict many things like who is at risk of 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 or, let’s say, who is 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝.

Who would need to do that? 𝐚.𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚: to develop better-targeted drugs or therapies; 𝐛.𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: to calculate risk more precisely, personalize premium coverage based on high-risk behavior patterns. …and many other industries. How would they get the data? I don’t know, maybe they already have.

The bottom lines is that we give out our data for free all the time, sometimes we even pay to hand it over.

Yet, here I am, doing squats while maybe somewhere an algorithm decides whether I’m stressed or pre-diabetic. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐈 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐝, 𝐡𝐮𝐡?

People act fastr when they fear losing something. Most people do not move unless they sense a risk of loss. The pain of missing a chance is stronger than the joy of gaining one. If a person thinks they can return later, they delay. If they believe they may lose the offer, they decide now. This fear of losing a chance is what drives quick action.

Quick action changes how people see vale. When a product moves fast, people think it must be worth more. Scarcity signals importance. A limit turns a simple offer into a rare one. Once people see others acting, they fear being left behind. Value grows when time or access runs out.

Being left behind creates pressure and pride. No one wants to be the one who missed the last spot. Saying “only three companies can buy this” builds tension. It also creates status — being one of the few feels like wining. People move to avoid loss, but they also move to feel special. That mix makes FOMO work both ways.

This mix of fear and proof strengthens belief. When two out of three slots are gone, the offer feels real. Buyers trust what others have already chosen. Each sale shows demand and confirms value. Seeing others act turns waiting into risk. Proof turns curiosity into commitment.

Commitment only lasts when the limit is true. If the rule is false, trust collapses. A fake “only three left” breaks the very power it tries to use. Real scarcity builds long-term credibility. Once people know the limit is honest, they will act again next time. Truth is what keeps persuasion alive.

When you read a book or take a course, you earn +1 self-respect. When you scroll for an hour, you lose -1. This works because the rules are simple: choose growth over distractions to earn a point. Don’t measure progress by how close you are to your goal. Results take time, and you might feel like efforts are wasted when they don’t show immediately. Measuring self-respect means every step counts. Even if progress isn’t obvious, you’re building habits and discipline. This way you might achieve your goal without noticing because you stayed focused on the process. Even if not, you’ll have built self-respect and confidence. Focus on the process, and results will follow.

Instant gratification outweighs growth, which undermines consistency

People often choose instant gratification, like scrolling, over personal growth activities, such as reading or learning. Success is usually judged by how close someone is to achieving their goals. This approach causes frustration when results don’t appear quickly. Just remember … you often rely on seeing quick results to stay motivated. When those results don’t come, it’s easy to feel discouraged and give up.

Motivation is unreliable — it comes and goes, leaving you stuck

Motivation is a feeling that helps you start, but it isn’t consistent. Your mood, energy, or environment can change, and with them, your motivation. Relying on it alone isn’t enough for long-term goals.

Motivation is like a spark — it lights the fire but burns out quickly. For example, if you want to exercise every morning, motivation may make it easy at first. You feel excited and enjoy waking up early. But a week later, when you’re tired, motivation might fail. Motivation thus isn’t something you can count on every day.

This is because motivation is tied to the results. When you tie your actions to results alone, frustration becomes inevitable as not all days make visible progress.

Don’t focus on results. Build self-respect daily

Instead of focusing on results, think about the self-respect you build every time you make progress. If you read a book or take a course, you give yourself +1 self-respect. If you scroll on your phone for an hour doing nothing important, you take away -1. This system is simple: every time you choose growth over distractions, you earn a point.

Why does this work? Because you’re not measuring success by how close you are to your goal. Goals can take time, and results aren’t always immediate. If you focus only on the outcome, you might feel like your effort is wasted. But when you measure self-respect, every positive action counts. Over time, these actions add up, helping you build habits and discipline.

Even if you don’t notice progress right away, the self-respect you gain from making good choices translates into confidence. You might even achieve your goal without realizing it because you stayed focused on the process. And even if the goal takes longer than expected, you’ve built habits that make you stronger and more consistent. Measuring self-respect means every step counts. This way you might achieve your goal without noticing because you stayed focused on the process. Even if not, you’ll have built self-respect and confidence.

This isn’t about being perfect. It’s about making small, steady improvements every day. Enjoy the process, not just the outcome, and let your self-respect guide you forward.

The 29th UN Climate Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, ended in disappointment.

1. No Deal on Climate Funding

Rich countries and poor countries failed to agree on climate funding. Rich nations offered $300 billion a year by 2035, far less than the $1.3 trillion requested. This deadlock left small nations without the help they need.

2. A Problematic Host

Azerbaijan, a country dependent on oil and gas exports, hosted the event. Critics said this was a conflict of interest, as the nation profits from the very fuels driving climate change.

3. Scandals and Distractions

Officials at COP29 were accused of discussing fossil fuel deals during the summit. These reports raised doubts about the event’s purpose and fairness.

4. Rights Abuses

Ahead of the event, Azerbaijan cracked down on activists, arresting climate campaigners and silencing critics. This undermined the credibility of the host country.

Conclusion

COP29 failed to make real progress. The lack of a funding deal and the controversies surrounding the host nation damaged trust in the process. Without reforms, future climate talks risk repeating these mistakes.

A year ago, before I ever stepped into a gym, I thought I knew why people went there: to get big muscles. It seemed simple. Six months into regular training, I see how wrong I was. Muscles might be the most obvious result, but they’re far from the most important. The real gains aren’t what you see in the mirror — they’re what happen in your mind and brain.

The Gym Boosts Your Confidence

Picture this: it’s been a tough day at work. By the time you leave the office, your stress is sky-high, and your mind feels like a mess. You could go home, crash on the couch, overthink or just scroll on Instagram.

Instead, you could head to the gym. After a warm up, you lift something heavy — maybe heavier than last time. Your body protests. By the time you’re done, you’re exhausted but also feel lighter. When you push your body, you prove to yourself that you can handle tough things and even on a bad day, you leave with a win. That moment when you finish the last set or hit a new weight isn’t just about muscles—it’s the fact that you accomplished something hard. The gym doesn’t just ease stress; it replaces it with control. For that hour, you’re in charge.

Exercise Sharpens Your Mind

Gym gives your brain a boost too. When you work out, your heart pumps faster, sending blood, oxygen, and nutrients to your brain. It’s like giving your thoughts a fresh start. Ever notice how problems feel easier after a workout? Exercise gets your brain working at its best. Your neurons fire faster, and your thinking clears up.

And it’s not just a short-term fix. Regular exercise helps your brain grow and stay sharp. It releases a chemical called BDNF that builds new brain cells and improves memory. So while you’re building muscle, you’re also making your mind stronger. So, the gym doesn’t just help you feel better — it helps you think better.

Muscles Are Just a Side Effect

Yes, muscles look great, but they’re just an extra. The real rewards are inside: a calmer mind, a sharper brain, and the knowledge that you can handle hard things. The next time you put off going to the gym, remember: you’re not just skipping a workout — you’re probably missing the chance to become a more relaxed and productive version of yourself.

This guide focuses on the default amounts to tip — not the extremes of extraordinary service or frustration — so you can feel confident that you’ve shown appreciation without overthinking.

Why Tipping Matters

Tipping isn’t just about leaving extra money; it’s a way to acknowledge someone’s hard work and make their day a little brighter. Many service workers rely on tips as a significant part of their income, especially in countries where tipping is customary (like in Germany). In other places, service charges might already be included, making tipping less critical (that is the case in Armenia where I am from; but we still tip).

How Much Should You Tip?

The type of service, local customs, service quality, how long you stay, and many other factors can influence how much you tip. Here’s my simple guide to help you decide on a fair amount — one that feels right for you and shows appreciation to the person who served you.

BONUS: Pay the Tip “Forward”

When I plan to revisit a place, leaving a thoughtful tip often ensures great service next time. It’s a simple way to build goodwill. I’ve had many instances where staff recognized me from a previous visit and went out of their way — a free cookie here, a surprise espresso there — just because they saw me as a loyal customer. Some might say I overthink it, but I enjoy leaving a good impression. It feels good to know I’m remembered positively, and I’m confident I’ll get excellent service in the future. So for me tipping can be an investment in future experiences.

Picture this: an exam room in the Univercity of Lyon, a test paper before me, and I sat there, pencil down. Not because I didn’t know the answers, but because I chose not to engage. The test had little impact, and my focus was on more important subjects.

It wasn’t careless, but pragmatic. I could have studied like others, but my time was better spent elsewhere. This was selective prioritization — a key part of how I approach decisions.

This moment highlights a broader truth: success isn’t about doing everything but focusing on what truly matters.

In life and business, prioritization is strategy. Economists call it “opportunity cost” — choosing one thing means sacrificing another. I left that exam because bigger tasks had more value.

Companies do this too, shifting resources to higher-growth areas. Time, energy, and capital are limited. Trying to do everything leads to mediocrity.

Multitasking feels efficient but rarely is. Like a student spreading themselves too thin, it dilutes effectiveness. Real success comes from mastering key areas, not juggling everything.

In my experience, focusing on high-return tasks and letting go of lower priorities is far more productive.

Not all tasks are equal. Some don’t matter much; others define your future. The key is knowing which to focus on and realizing doing less often achieves more.

Prioritization is both a life skill and a strategic choice. Individuals and companies alike must invest energy where it brings the greatest return.

In that exam room, my silence was a decision — to focus on what truly mattered. Success isn’t about doing everything — it’s about doing wrong things as little as possible and put most of the time on a specific one.

Time shapes our lives, urging us to make each day count. But what if — just imagine — time no longer mattered? What if we could live forever? You’ve probably thought about it. Maybe you’ve even joked with friends, “If only I had more time, I’d learn piano or travel the world!” But really, what would life look like if we all had endless years? How would we change? And how would the world, and especially our economy, adapt?

Imagine waking up each day with a limitless future. With all the time in the world, would you feel the same drive to accomplish things? Would you push for that next promotion or feel excited about retirement? With eternal life, the idea of “retirement” loses meaning, doesn’t it?

And the economy?

If you are not the only luck getting immortality, that we will have a world of immortality, and in such case the economy would undergo profound changes. The traditional labor model of “enter, work, retire” would vanish, as people no longer face the same pressures of time. Without retirement, job openings could become scarce, creating intense competition, especially for younger generations. Career advancement might shift from a vertical climb to a broader journey, with individuals mastering multiple fields over centuries. With no end in sight, some might explore several careers, changing how society values skills and training. The labor market might divide between deep specialists and those who continually reinvent themselves, creating a unique dynamic.

Without a set life expectancy, financial planning would stretch over centuries. Savings and investments would build for lifetimes, with compounding interest reaching unprecedented levels. This could allow the wealthy to accumulate vast fortunes, widening the gap between those who began saving centuries earlier and those struggling to catch up. Traditional retirement savings and social security would lose relevance, forcing governments to rethink welfare systems or consider universal basic income as a safety net. Real estate values could skyrocket, as people hold onto homes indefinitely, making property one of the most valuable and exclusive assets.

Access to life-extending technology would likely intensify existing wealth disparities. If immortality had a high price, only the wealthy could afford it, effectively buying centuries of life. This would create a class of “immortals” distinct from the mortal majority, widening economic divisions. Stark intergenerational inequity could arise, with younger and less wealthy generations unable to break into established cycles of power and wealth. Addressing these disparities could become a major challenge for policymakers.

With fewer young people and limited generational turnover, innovation might slow. Some might become complacent, focusing on stable, low-risk investments. People could also grow risk-averse, avoiding high-stakes ventures that could jeopardize their long-term future. This could reduce economic dynamism, as people prioritize cautious investments over bold ideas that often drive growth.

Consumer behavior would shift from material goods to experiences. With unlimited time, people might focus on meaningful experiences, new skills, and exploration. Lifelong learning would become the norm, with education evolving into an ongoing journey. Companies that offer unique, immersive experiences would thrive, catering to those seeking personal growth.

But an immortal population would strain Earth’s resources, making sustainable consumption urgent. Population density could rise sharply, especially in urban areas, increasing competition for essentials like food, water, and energy. Economies might shift toward renewable resources and circular systems where products are durable or recyclable, creating industries focused on efficiency and sustainability.

With lifetimes spanning centuries, people might face memory overload. An economy around memory preservation and management could emerge, helping people store, curate, or even erase memories to reduce emotional strain. Services for mental health would expand, as counselors and new professions support people coping with the psychological toll of endless experience. Memory curation could become a vital industry.

Lastly, our concepts of productivity and time would shift. Without urgency, people might work less intensely but over longer periods, redistributing productivity. The drive to leave a legacy might diminish, allowing people to focus on enduring contributions. Without mortality’s constraints, purpose could shift from short-term goals to lifelong pursuits, changing how we think about careers, growth, and fulfillment.

In a world of immortality, the economy would transform in ways hard to predict but impactful across society. From labor to spending, from time’s value to the ethics of wealth, the changes would be profound, reshaping how humanity views work, resources, and purpose.

So, What Would You Do with Forever?

That’s the big question, isn’t it? What would you do with limitless time? In the end, maybe it’s good we don’t have all the answers. For now, time moves just as it always has. And while immortality sounds intriguing, there’s something beautiful about knowing that each day counts, just as it is.

So next time you feel the pressure of time, take a moment to appreciate it. After all, it’s what makes each of our lives uniquely precious.

STATUS QUO: Human Behavior Shapes Reality.
Behavior and habits are simply the choices people make when they have options. A one-time choice might not make a big difference, but when choices become routine, they can either improve or harm people’s well-being. For example, drinking once a month probably won’t cause big changes, but drinking seven beers daily likely will lead to health issues. The same goes for positive behavior: people who stay active and exercise regularly tend to live longer and have fewer health problems.

One person’s behavior mostly affects their own life and, to some extent, the lives of friends and family. But when many people act the same way, it shapes society, affecting everything from personal health to industry decisions and public spending.
For example, if more people choose electric cars over gasoline cars to reduce their carbon footprint, it can help lessen environmental issues like global warming.

This shows why positive actions are important for society’s welfare, and why we need to replace harmful habits with positive ones.

PROBLEM: Positive Habit Changes Rarely Happen on Their Own.
Positive habits are not easy to build. They usually take more effort. Running every morning means going to bed early and waking up earlier, while scrolling on social media takes no effort. Positive habits are hard to develop because they require long-term effort (e.g., one day of running won’t make a big change, but doing it for years will), while many negative habits provide quick rewards (e.g., smoking gives a quick boost in seconds).

Companies often use this bias to sell products with quick rewards, like junk food, drugs, alcohol, or social media apps. By using ads and labels, they encourage bad habits, which makes the problem worse. That’s why many people struggle to build positive habits, which affects society as a whole.

SOLUTION: Policies Should Encourage Positive Behavioral Changes.
Because people have biases and their actions can lead to negative effects, we need a system that encourages positive behavioral changes and healthy habits.

Governments can help because they set the “rules” in society and regulate how industries and areas of life operate. Better product labels, like on cigarette packs, can motivate people to quit. Encouraging positive behaviors doesn’t have to mean banning things or making life harder. It’s about creating an environment where better choices are easier and more rewarding, while bad habits become less appealing.
For example, cities can promote digital services for public transport, which would save money and improve experiences. However, many may stick to old habits because they’re easier.
To encourage change, cities could reward digital users with cashback and make the old system harder by limiting access points for non-digital users.

Encouraging positive behaviors doesn’t have to mean banning things or making life harder. It’s about creating an environment where better choices are easier and more rewarding, while bad habits become less appealing. For example, cities can promote digital services for public transport, which would save money and improve experiences. However, many may stick to old habits because they’re easier.
To encourage change, cities could reward digital users with cashback and make the old system harder by limiting access points for non-digital users.

Conclusion
Good habits are essential for building better societies and welfare. But positive behavioral changes rarely happen on their own. That’s why government policies are needed to encourage such changes.

Productivity is about how we can do more with less.

We obsess over productivity. Can I squeeze in another project without giving up the weekend? Will working from home save me the commute? Could this course help me to automate some of my tasks? Self-help books on productivity, like “The 7 habits of highly efficient people”, “Deep work”, “Atomic Habits” or “168 hours”, fly off the shelves.

From an economic perspective, productivity holds the same meaning as it serves the ultimate goal of economics: improving the standard of living. To increase output — goods and services — there are two ways. One is to increase resources (such as through population growth), which raises total output. However, living standards, measured as income per person, remain unchanged because adding more people to the workforce doesn’t inherently improve income per person. The only way to raise living standards is to increase the output produced by each unit of resource i.e. to increase productivity. It’s that simple.

Productivity in EU

In the European Union, income per person is on average one-third less than in the United States, mostly because of lower productivity.

Is that so important? Low productivity directly impact economic growth. A Low-Growth World Is an Unequal, Unstable World.[1] Low growth has environmental consequences as well. Without economic growth, countries struggle to invest in sustainable practices, slowing the transition to greener economies. Low productivity reduces resources for combating climate change, making it harder to meet goals like reducing carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy.

But what is the cause of low productivity in the EU? The IMF Regional Economic Outlook, Europe’s aggregate productivity problem can be traced back to performance differences at the firm level.

Among large companies, productivity and innovation have diverged markedly across both sides of the Atlantic. Market valuations of US-listed firms have more than tripled since 2005, while Europe’s have grown by only 60 percent.

Europe also suffers from a broader lack of business dynamism beyond large corporations. There is a lower number of startups, and too few among them grow fast and eventually become large firms. In the United States, the fastest growing young companies employ six times more people (as share of total employment) than their European counterparts. With fewer successful young firms, there are also fewer large and highly productive companies later on. There is, instead, an overabundance of small and low-growth firms.[2]

Supporting ongoing transformations in traditional industries and financing innovation in startups could help with low productivity.

Governments should wield a two-edged sword to address inefficiency. They should invest in innovation to boost long-term productivity while driving industrial transformation in sectors where proven alternatives already exist, particularly in larger companies. For industries where alternatives are not yet available, especially in smaller businesses, policies should focus on developing new, less harmful solutions.

1. Financing innovation in startups

First, governments should focus innovation and R&D finance to only startups and small companies and limit the one to big companies. Public R&D spending for businesses increases. Based on conventional economic models, that kind of increase in R&D spending should have led to accelerated economic growth rather than the slowdown that actually occurred. Research found that small businesses are more innovative relative to their size, suggesting they use R&D resources more efficiently. As companies grow and dominate their markets, they often shift their focus from innovation to protecting their market position. Research shows that large businesses are much more likely to benefit than smaller ones. Larger enterprises tend to innovate less and instead engage in activities that limit competition.

As businesses climb the ranks among the largest 20 players in their industry their patent production declines. Big enterprises hire key employees from younger competitors, often by offering higher salaries. However, instead of using these new employees to drive innovation, the big businesses may place them in roles that do not fully leverage their skills. As a result, these individuals become less innovative, and the overall innovative capacity of the economy suffers. By hiring away top talent from rivals, these companies potentially disruptive innovations elsewhere.

This suggests that while countries have been increasing overall R&D spending relative to GDP, the shift of inventive talent toward large, old businesses has not led to the expected boost in productivity. These industrial incumbents often prioritize maintaining their market dominance over pushing the boundaries of innovation. This defensive stance means that even though more resources are being funneled into R&D, they are not being used as effectively as they could be in smaller, more agile companies. This underscores the importance of not just the amount of R&D investment but also where and how it is allocated. To truly harness the power of innovation, policies and incentives need to shift to encourage more dynamic, risk-taking behavior, particularly among smaller enterprises and start-ups. This could lead to the kind of productivity gains needed.[3]

2. Supporting ongoing transformations in traditional industries

While effectively allocating investments in innovation will contribute to long-term productivity growth, short-term productivity challenges still need attention. The government should also focus on boosting productivity in large industries. In some cases, industries improve productivity automatically, either through organic growth or by absorbing innovation from external sources, such as mergers and acquisitions of startups by larger companies.

Many industries are already undergoing transformations aimed at increasing productivity, and the government’s role is to support and facilitate this process. By encouraging and backing these transformations, governments can help industries adapt, innovate, and ultimately enhance their productivity.

• Example of innovative air conditioner (ACs)[4]
• The example of renewable energy sources [5] [6] [7]
• The example of Electric Vehicles (EVs)
• The example of Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs)

Benefits:

• Higher Total Factor Productivity (TFP) productivity due to efficiency in resource allocation
• Higher labor productivity due to “sustainable” society (lower emissions, higher life expectancy, lower DALYs)

This dual approach encourages both the adoption of existing technologies and the creation of new ones, fostering productivity and sustainability across industries.

Where to find resources to finance innovation in startups?

As industries evolve, new forms of taxation can help bridge the financing gaps for innovation in startups. Governments could consider expanding the use of sin taxes — taxes on activities that create negative externalities, such as pollution — to encourage a shift away from traditional, low-productivity sectors. For example, implementing carbon taxes can both reduce environmental damage and generate needed revenue.

Higher carbon tax will also alleviate another headache for governments — namely, how to regulate and tax emerging sectors like artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies. AI and Crypto mining and data centers now account for 2 percent of global electricity use and nearly 1 percent of global emissions, and their footprint is growing. ChatGPT queries require 10 times more electricity than a Google search, due to the electricity consumed by AI data centers. On the flip side, AI applications could lead to smarter and more efficient power use, which some have posited could help ease electricity demand.

To limit global warming to 2 degrees, countries would need to introduce additional measures equivalent to a carbon price rising to $85 per ton by 2030.[8] The EU should advocate for a global carbon tax, similar to the global minimum tax, to prevent AI and crypto companies from relocating to jurisdictions with weaker environmental regulations. Without such a coordinated effort, companies could simply move elsewhere, undermining the goal of reducing global emissions.

Alternatives are available so time for harmful options to be costly to use — Record-breaking electricity generation from low-emissions sources — which includes nuclear and renewables such as solar, wind and hydro — is set to cover all global demand growth over the next three years.

[1] A Low-Growth World Is an Unequal, Unstable World (imf.org)

[2] The Innovation Paradox (imf.org)

[3] The Innovation Paradox (imf.org)

[4] New tech can make air-conditioning less harmful to the planet (economist.com)

[5] Electricity 2024 — Analysis and forecast to 2026 (iea.blob.core.windows.net);

[6] Sun Machines | The Economist;

[7] Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power (economist.com)

[8] New tech can make air-conditioning less harmful to the planet (economist.com)

[9] Carbon Emissions from AI and Crypto Are Surging and Tax Policy Can Help (imf.org)