Article
Visiting my sister Kristína after some time, I was struck by how many more paintings she had than I remembered. Her space felt transformed, almost like an art gallery. Her paintings were everywhere—not hung on the walls as you might expect, but leaning against furniture and arranged in small clusters. It was clear that painting had become a significant part of her life. This made me want to understand more about her journey with painting and the role it plays in her life.
A Canvas for Emotions
When I asked her about her paintings, she shared that her inspiration often comes from moments of deep emotion. She said:
“I mostly feel like painting when I’m feeling melancholic or when nostalgia hits me. I think about experiences that left a strong emotional impact on me and those I wish I could relive. Usually, I look at photos to remind myself of these moments, and I try to paint what I love about them. At the same time, it helps me deal with overwhelming emotions.”
Experimenting with Creativity
My sister does not consider herself an experienced painter, but that has not stopped her from experimenting and growing as an artist. She explained:
“Painting, for me, is an experiment. Since I’m not skilled in it, I get excited about every small improvement I make. For a long time, I was afraid to paint specific things on canvas because I felt I didn’t have the technique or skills for it. I used to enjoy just playing with shading and mixing colors to create minimalist pieces.”
The Process Over the Result
One thing she emphasised was that for her, painting is not about the final product but about the act of painting itself. She told me:
Continue reading
Enter your email to unlock this article and join the newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Summary
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
More articles
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement — knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing — the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.