Building walls If I had to summarise the last decade with only one word I would use "wall". In the last century, after WW2, we tried to demolish as many walls as we could; I am not only referring to the famous Berlin Wall: the UN was formed, the EU was born and a series of political and economic deals were signed. We had the Cold War, sure, but even then there was a clear sense of unity: East vs West, not everybody against everybody else; furthermore, I am sure that no one ever thought the Cold War to be of any good. What about now, then? Why are we forgetting where divisions brought us? Does the proverb not say "Unity is strength"? Yet the UK is leaving EU, a choice that - at least for now - is clearly damaging its economy; the USA is losing interest in foreign politics and the president himself talks about building walls. My own people want to reject desperate refugees that are escaping from war, because they think they will steal their job. They, a group of extremely poor people that comes from absolute poverty and often does not even know the language. *They* will sit in our offices, sell to our costumers, treat our patients. As if. Others think they will increase the crime rate, and yet there is no statistical evidence of that other than the media igniting this belief for a couple of extra views. I know this is a controversial topic, but this is exactly the reason why I want to talk about it: we are normalising division, celebrating it, even. Will we only unite when, as always, time will bring us the bill to pay?

TEST: Implicit and explicit forms

About some Italian words in English... Languages have always borrowed words from each other, often adapting or restricting their meaning: as an example, in Italian we use "mail" to say "email" only, since it is shorter and we do have a word (posta) for actual mail. English makes no exception, so I thought I would write all the Italian words in English I can think of and explain how their meaning has been changed. 1) Bravo "Bravo/a" is an Italian qualitative adjective (I do not know whether the same classification is valid in English) which means "able to", "good at". This is why, when someone does something well, we exclaim "bravo!" to compliment them, and this is how the word is used in the English language. However, apparently, only the male form "bravo" is used, which makes it kind of awkward whenever someone says "bravo" to a woman (should be "brava") or to a group of people (should be "bravi" or "brave"). 2) Bimbo This is one I do not understand. "Bimbo", in Italian, is an affectionate way to say "baby", "child". No idea on how it became an insult. If you ever hear an Italian say "bimbo" to a little child remember that there is nothing strange! 3) Pepperoni "Peperoni" in Italian means "sweet pepper". However, I have seen people use it to refer to "salame" (often spelt as "salami", which is the plural form, in English), a type of processed meat. Also in the English version there is a double "p" that should not be there, which is strange, because double consonants usually get removed from Italian, not added. 4) Panini About the same meaning as its Italian counterpart, except that "panini" is the plural of "panino". 5) Ciao "Ciao" is an Italian informal greeting and farewell. Basically, whenever you meet/leave a friend or a person you have an informal relationship with, "ciao" is always the right thing to say. Apparently in English it has lost its greeting meaning and it is only used as an alternative to "bye". If you ever visit Italy, remember that it also means "hi". Those are, I think, some of the most common ones. Do you have other Italian words in English or English words in Italian you would like to discuss?

Why am I an atheist? This might be a hot topic depending on where you are, however I believe confrontation to be the best way to approach any divergency of opinion, so here I am. First, what even is an atheist. The answer is not as simple as one could imagine: many atheists define themselves in different ways, even without taking agnostics into consideration; my own definition, however, is that an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any god or other supernatural entity. "Does not believe in god", mind you, is slightly yet profoundly different from "believes god does not exist". An atheist is simply a sceptic, someone who, unless proven otherwise, sticks to the default position, which is in this case not believing. The reason why I think not believing is the default position (although not automatically the right one) is that no one is born theist. If we were, it would be unexplainable how a child form a christian family is way more likely to be a christian rather than a muslim (and vice versa). Faith is something that we inherit, exactly like language, culture and morals. Understood this it is rather easy to see why I think the only logical choice for me is to be an atheist: I yet have to see evidence for the existence of any god (which in the case of most gods is impossible by definition); without proof I will take a scientific approach and assume any claim to be false, simply because I have no reason to believe otherwise. I will happily change my mind as soon as I see convincing evidence of the existence of Allah, Yaweh, Zeus, ghosts, monsters or any other deity or supernatural entity. This is the approach we all take in everyday situation: if we receive a scam email we are most likely to ignore it, because there is no proof to back up its claims; if a friend of ours tells us an unbelievable story we demand evidence. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim: the stronger the claim, the stronger the proof. I am only applying the same method to this matter too.