Marius Schober

There are many values, qualities, and virtues that we look up to. Most of us try to live ethical and morally correct lives. In business, we try to build a great culture where everyone feels welcome and challenged. We all try to be kind, compassionate, and loving to those around us. But no matter what value, quality or virtue we’re talking about, I’ve learned that we should all be very critical of those individuals or organizations that shout the loudest.

I have found that the people who use the word ethical the most are usually the ones who are the most unethical. Business people who talk the loudest about how trustworthy they are usually end up betraying you. Companies that talk the most about innovation tend to be the least innovative. Political parties that talk the loudest about saving the planet or helping the poor usually end up doing the opposite. 

Ethical people don’t need to advertise that they’re ethical – they just are. Trustworthy people don’t think about being trustworthy because they don’t know the concept of betrayal. The most innovative companies don’t need to talk about it – they let the results speak for themselves. Political parties help the poor and save the planet by doing the right things – not by talking about them.

When someone is unusually vocal about something – watch out.

I just stumbled upon this scientific article which basically says that:

Blue light from devices and certain lights can accelerate skin aging by producing harmful particles damaging DNA and activating aging-related genes.

This just confirms what I intuitively promote for several years now, which is lighting that is adapted to humans and which is mimicking the natural circadian rhythm.

By exposing ourselves constantly to artificial blue light, we are not only damaging our eyes but also our skin, as it seems.

More research is needed, but this is quite a concerning finding.

My vision is that with IOT we will develop technology that mimics nature: lighting, music, air conditioning, heating, alarm clocks, maybe even water temperature. The ultimate smart home will mimic nature.

Tomorrow I’ll be flying to Munich for three meetings. I’ll be meeting a partner of me, the seller of a very exciting business, and a potential business partner.

In theory, all of this could be done through a video call. In reality not so much.

While video calls are great for efficiently working through some relevant points, they are awful for building human relationships.

Video and phone calls often work great for the initial contact. They also work to efficiently discuss through relevant points to get some work done. But to build relationships, video calls simply don’t work.

Shaking hands, sharing a laughter, having a coffee or beer, meeting for dinner, hugging each other after a long time one has not seen each other. This is what life is about and what Zoom cannot offer you.

Over my life, the only lasting and true relationships were built in person. Often a few intense hours spent together with another person will build such a strong relationship that even if you don’t see this person for 5 years, as soon you meet this person again the 5 years passed will feel like 5 days.

It is not so much about the time you simply see someone in person but the quality of time you spend together. For example: I think for business meetings it mostly doesn’t matter whether they are in person or virtual. Why? Because the magic happens before and afterward. While getting a coffee together or while ending the day in a nice Italian restaurant and a wine. You might forget about the business meeting – but the bonding that takes place in the after hours are priceless.

That’s why I think every amount of money spend on meeting relevant and important people in person is worth it a hundredfold.

Not only because it builds deeper relationships, but because it makes life worth living.

For at least two decades, we have not seen any real progress. Not in science, not in business, not in our real world.

In order to unlock the secrets that lie beyond Einstein’s theory, delve into the mysteries of UFOs, explore the feasibility of space travel, harness free abundant energy, and achieve global peace, we must explore alternative approaches.

I believe this approach does not start with science but with consciousness.

I believe that we can solve our world’s greatest challenges and solve the universe biggest enigmas by using, accessing, and expanding our human consciousness.

When we collectively expand our consciousness, we will achieve a quantum leap as a human species.

The way to progress is through consciousness.

Apple announced their first Augmented Reality (AR) product, the Apple Vision Pro. I believe that AR and Virtual Reality (VR) represent the next step in how we interact with technology. Currently, our interaction with digital software and communication relies on screens, keyboards, and devices that are separate from our reality. However, AR and VR have the potential to make our interactions with software immersive and integrate the digital realm into our everyday lives.

That said, the Apple Vision Pro’s $3,500 price tag, bulky headset design, and mere 2-hour battery life were quite unexpected. I had envisioned Apple Glasses resembling stylish Ray-Bans, weighing less than 100 grams, boasting a 7-day battery life, and offering practical real-world applications.

As an AR enthusiast since 2016, I founded an AR startup and worked as a salesman for the Oculus Rift. My experiences have convinced me that AR and VR will revolutionize various fields, including:

• Gaming and entertainment
• Collaboration and communication (remote work)
• Healthcare
• Education and training

In each of these categories, new multi-billion-dollar markets for AR-first and VR-first software will emerge.

I am particularly excited about healthcare applications, especially in the realm of psychotherapy.

One thing is clear: once AR and VR become affordable and accessible to the masses, they will dramatically change how we interact with software and, consequently, alter the way our world functions.

In the diverse tapestry of human experiences, a fascinating group stands out: childless men over 30. These individuals navigate a reality markedly different from fathers, revealing a striking contrast between the two worlds. As a new father, I’ve gained invaluable insights into these disparities, which have shaped my understanding of life’s unique challenges.

As a new father, I’ve observed that childless men enjoy an abundance of time to pursue their interests. Unencumbered by the demands of parenting, they explore “free time,” a concept that has become increasingly elusive for me since embracing fatherhood.

The priorities of childless men diverge significantly from my own. While I now adapt to the responsibilities accompanying a child, these individuals grapple with life’s intriguing puzzles, such as determining the optimal temperature for brewing coffee or uncovering the ideal workout routine. This divergence in priorities highlights the profound difference between our worlds.

Moreover, I’ve noticed that childless men engage with society and their communities from a unique perspective, unbound by the constraints of parenthood. This alternate world, shaped by their priorities, often lacks the warmth and love that comes with raising children and may even give rise to more negativity. In their quest for meaning, childless men embark on singular endeavors, while fathers find profound meaning in the very existence of their children. This disparity in purpose contributes to the collective wisdom in ways that I, as a conventional father, might find challenging to decipher.

As I reflect on the insights of these intriguing childless men over 30, I recognize that their wisdom originates from a reality far removed from my own as a father. Frankly, I’m not particularly interested in life advice from childless men over 30. It’s not about harboring animosity towards them; it’s just that their life advice often doesn’t resonate with my situation as a father. Their perspectives are so far removed from my reality that they lose relevance for me, which is why I choose to scrutinize their advice through the lens of my own experience. After all, true understanding arises from harmoniously assimilating diverse viewpoints and embracing life’s abundant mysteries. It is prudent to heed the wisdom of those who share similar experiences while also recognizing the value of diverse perspectives.

In the quest for longevity, Rapamycin has emerged as a potential contender. Originally developed as an organ transplant drug, this intriguing compound has captured the attention of researchers and biohackers alike. As the debate around its promise unfolds, questions about risk, benefit, and uncertainty take center stage.

Rapamycin has been tested on multiple species with seemingly promising results in extending lifespan. However, these findings tell only part of the story. While evidence supports its potential benefits, the unknown side effects cast a shadow over the drug’s viability as a longevity treatment.

When considering any medical intervention, it’s crucial to weigh the risks against the benefits. In the case of Rapamycin, this analysis is fraught with challenges due to the unpredictable nature of life. Asserting that there’s a risk-benefit analysis in this context is fallacious since the risk component cannot be accurately measured or predicted.

While emphasizing caution is necessary, it’s also essential to acknowledge the positive aspects of Rapamycin research and the potential breakthroughs it may bring. Striking a balance between optimism and skepticism is crucial when examining novel interventions.

For instance, ongoing research on Rapamycin has shed light on the molecular pathways involved in aging, providing valuable insights that could pave the way for future treatments.

As we venture into the realm of longevity research, it’s vital to remember that uncertainty demands careful consideration. The pursuit of extended life should be guided by a healthy dose of skepticism and prudence, without stifling curiosity and innovation.

We should not take risks with young, healthy and vital people. No proof of harm is required to assert that a drug or an unnatural intervention carries danger. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.