Once the disciples approached Jesus and asked him why he spoke in parables to which he replied:
“For to you has been given the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. For to the one who has, even more will be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even the little will be taken away. That’s why I speak to them in parables: because looking they don’t see, and hearing they don’t hear or understand.” 
A possible update in honor of this biblical wisdom, for our days, could be called the law of Matheus. It prays that while we can never understand the designs of our algorithms, they will still determine the fate of people, businesses and nations.
The digital world speaks through parables, that is, it demands interpretations, which can lead any youtuber to the mystical experience of madness trying to understand what this Other wants from me.
There are indeed exegetes, Pharisees, hermeneutics and specialists in the interpretation of the semi-divine code. There are also people who can personally and directly interfere in the elaboration, visibility and transparency of these codes.
But how will the selection process be to enter the group of chosen ones who will not be content with just parables and algorithms?
We know that in Jesus’ time selection was not easy. Changes of address followed, tense dinners with bread and wine, collaboration in the business design of the fishing miracle, the resurrection of the health sector, not to mention the paradigmatic case study of the entertainment sector, known as Bodas de Caná.
The career is high risk, always beset by compliance with Roman law and violent persecution from foreign competition.
It took a lot of talent and persistence, sometimes years as an expatriate, in Rome or Corinth, to gain direct access to the board. They say that in the beginning only twelve made it. And one of them left because he wanted to start his own startup, but ended up hanging himself, like so many who try to start their own company.
a turnover  really low, if we compare with the demand of the stakeholders  e com o branding  Reached.
A version 1.0 of Matheus’ law would say that: “for those who have much, more will be given; for those who have little, even this little will be taken away”.
The parable seems to lead us into a paradox. But parables like algorithms need to be deciphered. What is it, after all, that the more we have, the more we will have and the less we have, the less we will receive?
A classic answer, still in force for many today is: faith.
But there are alternative readings.
Others say it’s fame, competition says it’s power, but the most comprehensive hypothesis, which seems to combine all of the above, is: capital.
This brings us to the strange case of Mr Elon Musk, a South African billionaire, born into a difficult family, with a life path that recapitulates the great inventors and tycoons of the 19th century and later people like Henry Ford and Jack Welch,
Musk invests in going to space, in the electric car, in ecological causes and now buys Twitter. The route is not new. Great ideas, implemented by a very powerful person, willing to change the world, but also childishly compete with his hateful fifth grade classmate who has more cars than he does, in the case of Jeff Bezos.
People with a lot of money start looking for new frontiers to colonize, like the 19th century Shackleton, Scott, or Amundsen-type geographical expeditions to the South Pole, or Stanley and Livingstone to the mouth of the Zambesi River.
They also seek to acquire goods whose value is difficult to tangible, such as Paul Guetty, Guggenheim, Paul Allen and François Pinauld (owner of Christie’s auction house) and many other collectors of works of art.
In the end, being a billionaire is not simple because it becomes a daily task to subjectively justify your wealth and heritage. Hence both the beneficial practices of philanthropy, but also the search for signs that add solidity and fairness to the value of the personality of its owner, making recognition even more real and true.
That’s why the world became apprehensive about the statements surrounding Musk’s takeover of Twitter:
“Freedom of expression is the basis for the functioning of democracy, and Twitter is the digital discussion square, where vital issues for the future of humanity are debated.”
Many of those who belong to the select club of the 12 greatest fortunes in the world experience what we can call the paradox of power, that is, they imagine that their path of acquisition and conquest gives them complete control over all parts of the process.
But this is not quite true.
The richest of mortals will have to wait for the subway or bus to arrive (if he wants to ride the bus or subway on that day and time), will face decay in health or be thwarted in love. Of course, the next day he can buy the train company, the hospital with the best doctors or form an international chain of brothels, he can even buy an island to abuse serial teenagers like Jeffrey Epstein.
When power heats up, according to Matheus’ law, it also creates more impotence and intolerance with the processes that, by the way, produced power itself.
The time of the world, things and people becomes intolerable. Every second lost becomes a terrifying experience of annoyance and produces a bitter feeling that the more power, the less power.
This is the Elon Musk case. Like that president-master-major who is seized by a tantrum because he can’t run the coffee service properly and buys a coffee farm.
This happens because small power resists, but also because the chain of command must not be broken, because there are hierarchies of authority, there are legal limitations, there are moral limitations. All this opposes Matheus’ law to the paradox of Musk’s theorem, where the increase in real power also generates greater psychic impotence.
Thus, we arrived at the idea that democracy as a process dependent on the time of speech, freedom of expression and the means by which it is conveyed.
So it seems obvious that those who have a lot of power want to exercise more power by controlling the rules of the game.
Our dissatisfaction with the practical application of the concept of democracy is that it is slow, confusing, full of limiting rules and opaque institutionalities.
This is how the temptation arises that if power were more transparent, like embodied in a person, all this would be solved, in such a way that problems would be solved directly and personally through the concentration of power in someone very powerful: freedom is lacking. , open the faucets of freedom (but if I change my mind I close them again).
This leads us to the curious fact that the mere announcement of the purchase of Twitter generated a worldwide effect of growth of the accounts, so called “right”, gained around 50 thousand subscribers, while the “left” accounts, such as Barack Obama, lost something around 15,000 subscribers.
The more, the more; the less, the less. Even if this is due to bot inflation, the very intervention of this device helps us understand how the concept of democracy can be affected by business-style practices.
That is, our representation of democracy affects our engagement in “democratic” processes and practices, which in turn can effectively make them less democratic.
The concept of democracy, as represented by very rich or powerful individuals, can be translated into practices that, in the name of expanding democracy, customize and retract it, in such a way that Matheus’ law (the more, the more) can be contradicted. by Musk’s theorem (the more the less).
As old Isaiah would say:
“Ye shall hear, and understand nothing. Ye shall look, and see nothing. For the heart of this people has become callous. understand with the heart, so that they convert and I heal them.” 
 Matthew, 13, 10-17
 Turnover is the employee turnover rate, which measures the number of employees leaving an organization during a specified period of time (typically one year).
 A concept created in the 1980s by the American philosopher Robert Edward Freeman, a stakeholder is any individual or organization that, in some way, is impacted by the actions of a particular company. In a free translation into Portuguese, the term means interested party.
 Work on building and strengthening brands in the market.
 Isaiah 6:10.