Xavier Bertels

A friend once told me that many people seem to be exhibitionist masochistic thrill seekers. Daily ice baths, climbing Mount Everest, ultramarathons. It seems like there’s no end to the list of extreme things we put ourselves through.

But there is a subtle difference between masochism and working through adversity. It’s how you come out on the other side of it. There’s no growth to be found in masochism. It’s an act. Combined with an exhibitionist streak it might lead to Instagram likes or a short lived dopamine fuelled ego boost. The effect wanes and we soon need another hit. It’s a loser’s game.

But that should not be an excuse to avoid doing something difficult. Perhaps something that seems like it’s doomed to fail. It can lead to some of the most lasting growth. Our most remarkable achievements lie on the other side of very difficult things.

I’ve been playing around with Windsurf, but it hadn’t really clicked until today.

It was kind of daunting. First I had to understand the UI. Then I had to find a good size project. Fortunately, I’ve been playing with an idea at work that the developers simply don’t have the time for.

Then, four hours of vibe coding later, I suddenly had a working prototype. Of an API product. Something that’s basically only a backend application. Including API specification and deployment to Hetzner Cloud. Written in a language I don’t understand. For the record: I can’t code a backend application like this on my own.

But now, I can? Cool. And wow. This is impressive.

The best tools create a state of flow and that’s exactly what it does. No need to read long blog posts and extract what’s relevant for my use case. On top of that I’m learning more about coding than ever. So not only can I build fully working apps, I can also learn about coding in an immersive environment that encourages exploration and making mistakes that lead to more learning moments.

What a wonderful time for kids who will have access to this tech when they’re young now. What a great way to learn coding.

When new tools become available for us to play with, we can get caught up in our enthusiasm. Creativity starts to flow. Ideas pop up. The environment feels energetic and we start to sketch, design, execute.

This is an important part of building products. An equally important part is to scrutinise and edit our outcomes in the second phase. Perhaps a solution looks good on the surface but it doesn’t really solve a problem and it’s therefore ugly. Or maybe we don’t really need to make millions of energy consuming API calls to OpenAI when the same problem can be solved elegantly by filling a blank in a template text.

This is the difference between building, and building with care.

It’s been a while since I wrote anything here. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been busy? More likely it’s because I haven’t made the time to write. Or maybe I just didn’t feel like I had anything to say?

Anyway, just writing this, I feel better already. I’ve been meaning to write more. I have no idea if anyone still reads blogs in 2025. Maybe it’s just LLM scrapers. Whatever the case may be, I still want to write, because I enjoy it. And because I want to continue to be good at writing. I want to hone this skill and get better at it. I want to be better than the en-dashed uninspired AI goop we find in our digital surroundings every day.

I’ve always admired Seth Godin, who has been writing every single day, non stop, for over a decade. I’m sure he’s become a sharper thinker because of it. So maybe I want to write because I want to think more. I enjoy thinking a lot. Even if there isn’t always a conclusion.

Voilà.

The best antidote to a totalitarian “this is the decision, we have guns” is a transparent “this is the decision, this is why we made it”. I’ve seen far too little of that recently in Belgium, in Europe, and it scares me.

You cannot expect people who live in a world where information is instant, constant and without context to simply believe you because you were elected. You have to build trust 🤝

The way to build trust is to:

1. be authentic;
2. be empathetic;
3. and follow rigorous logic.

We’ve all been in situations where one of these wasn’t present. It doesn’t feel right when someone follows rigorous logic that leads to the marginalisation of a group of people, does it? Or when someone is empathetic and authentic but adapts their logic to the situation that’s presented to them in the moment.

Plenty of leaders are stripped of authenticity. Most of their communication is half-empathetic at best. And there is definitely no more rigorous logic. Liberals vote pro privacy-reducing changes. Conservatives push for progressive legislation. And socialists are, apparently, racist but only when they’re drunk.

Solving the authenticity and empathy problems, seems hard. Most leaders are either authentic, or empathetic. And they are rarely both. Good examples of leaders who do cover both? Jacinda Ardern. Nelson Mandela. Sanna Marin.

The empathy/authenticity problems are getting more complex. Gen Z is all about authenticity. And they are growing up in some of the most turbulent times in recent history, so a healthy dose of empathy will help as well.

My point: this problem isn’t going anywhere.

Solutions? I’m not sure. Maybe we have become too sensitive to do the “bring your whole self to work” thing. Maybe the inspiring leaders of the next 100 years will be authentic and empathetic in a specific (avatar) version of themselves, in a specific context. Authenticity doesn’t necessarily mean that you have no filter. Empathy doesn’t necessarily mean that you zig-zag based on the case in front of you.

The political party affiliation seems an ancient relic that makes it harder to think this way. In Belgium, for example, I have no idea who to vote for anymore. There is no progressive+green+liberal-social view. It’s always either-or in a false dichotomy. Vote for anyone, and you always lose. I like your view on energy, but not on immigration. Help?

Then, the rigorous logic problem. Logic improves with critique. Science! In order to do that, the Belgian government could try to open source the logic behind their decisions. Expose us the backroom debate.

How? Write and comment. Don’t put experts and politicions in the same backroom. It renders the decision making process opaque. If you must, discuss it over video and record the discussion. What do I imagine it looks like? Maybe something like this.

That video is interesting for a couple of reasons, but mainly: it demystifies a process, it demystifies people and it opens up ideas for further debate.

People will say we already have this; we don’t. The only thing we see is the play-acting part of politics. And it is precisely this – with the risk of projecting my own views as truth – that I think people have had enough of. Everyone knows it’s a charade. Trust is at all-time lows. Elections are 51-49. Why perpetuate such a preposterous waste of human resources?

Without hyperbole, I believe that liberal democracies will take a nosedive if they fail to rebuild trust in the next 8 years. China already exports their model to more and more places, and it has me wondering… We can do better!

Yes. We can do better. Authenticity, empathy and rigorous logic will be key ingredients. And to get there, we might need to take a radically different, radically transparent road. Something only a liberal democracy can do. And then, we may just have a chance. 🤞🕊️