CEO DIARY 1

Over the years, we have faced numerous attempts to steal our technology. Rivals have tried to replicate our innovations, while others have sought to tarnish our reputation through degrading news articles and videos. Sometimes, these efforts have been combined, driven by those who oppose what they see as technocracy and a move away from natural life. We've labeled these opponents the "opposition," a group consisting of both critics of technology's impact on nature and competing tech firms eager to capture our market share.

Recently, the opposition gathered a group of physically similar individuals and extracted their chips. These chips were immersed in a solution designed to replicate the organ environment where they had been embedded, ensuring consistency for all participants. Among them was a former employee of Life, the very company responsible for the chips. This individual aimed to prove there was bias in our formula's execution. He believed that given the same input data, the results should be consistent for very similar individuals. When he worked at Life, jokes circulated about potential biases in the calculations, influenced by factors like marital status or IQ.

Their test revealed that the former employee received significantly better products in both quality and quantity from our shop compared to the other participants. Quality, defined by product taste, was somewhat subjective, but the quantitative difference was undeniable.

When the story was broadcast on national television, we were inundated with questions about the test results. We issued multiple statements, asserting that each member's product allocation is personalized according to their biological needs and medical history. We argued that simplistic experiments like the one conducted were insufficient to draw valid conclusions. We emphasized that physical appearance and body parameters alone are not enough to determine the correct diet.

To defend our position, we explained our renowned 13-page patented formula for food product recommendations. I outlined, in broad terms, how the formula is calculated, the constants used (which are trade secrets), and the data input sources. We described how complex calculations are performed on a remote supercomputer, and how the chips, sensors, and supercomputer communicate with each other and with the product packages in our shop.

A mass follow-up from dietitians, many of whom have contractual jobs with Life, began criticizing the study in the news, in their offices, and on social media, highlighting its deficiencies. The government, a major stakeholder in our operations, had to step in and review the study as well. They presented a comprehensive 50-page report detailing the study's flaws. This investigation, known as the O'Donnell Report, noted that while the study had valid concepts and conclusions, they were not built on scientific facts but more on result randomness. The report also noted that the study cost Life a staggering 1.3 billion dollars in lost share value, reduced membership, lost product suppliers, and an overall tarnished public image.

Following this, the government conducted an independent investigation into potential biases in our formula. This seven-year, multimillion-dollar inquiry concluded that factors such as social status, IQ, or skin color did not influence how products were selected for each individual.