Month: July 2026

Buying cheap RAM seemed like a matter of waiting. Lenovo just dismantled that hope

by

Buying memory seemed, until not so long ago, a question of patience. If prices rose, many users and companies could wait a while before expanding a computer, renewing storage or closing a large server purchase. The idea was simple: endure the blow, watch the market and hope that the pressure would go down. But that hope begins to collide with a different reality, because memory no longer only powers our computers: it also supports a growing part of the infrastructure that drives AI. The latest news comes to us from ISC 2026in Hamburg, one of those events where the debate on servers and infrastructure allows us to see where the market is moving rather than in domestic consumption. According to ComputerBaseLenovo showed there a slide titled “Five-step survival guide for RAMageddon” and accompanied the idea with a phrase that summarizes the change in tone well: “It will never be like last yearThe aforementioned media clarifies that this “never” should not be read completely literally, but the warning is still relevant: trusting in a quick return to the levels of 2024 and the beginning of 2025 may be too optimistic. ComputerBase may not be a well-known outlet outside of Germany, but its coverage of ISC 2026 has been replicated by specialized publications like Tom’s Hardware and TweakTown. In the latter’s information, Martin Hiegl, a Lenovo executive linked to Enterprise AI & HPC, is identified as the author of the statements. Before the event, Hiegl announced on LinkedIn that he would participate again in the “Vendor Showdown” session with the theme “RAMageddon”. The problem is not just that the RAM is expensive In its presentation, Lenovo is not just talking about a temporary tension, but about a change in the economics of DRAM and NAND. The company maintains that even when new relevant manufacturing capacity begins to be noticed, something that it places from 2028, a good part of that additional production could be absorbed by AI infrastructure. In other words: more memory being manufactured does not necessarily mean that we will return to the low prices of 2024 and early 2025. The industry is also moving in that direction. Tom’s Hardware points to SK hynix’s plans to triple its memory production capacity by 2034 as a background signal: if manufacturers were expecting a quick return to minimal margins and oversupply, they would hardly accelerate investments of that magnitude. Lenovo’s reading is that the incentive has changed. With sustained demand for AI and increased pressure on DRAM, NAND and HBM, expanding factories may ease the market, but not automatically rebuild the cheap scenario that many buyers remember. Now, the Chinese manufacturer is not alone in this diagnosis. As we pointed out days agoMicron recently told its investors that it expects limited supply until at least 2027, with a gradual improvement starting in 2028. SK hynix has also warned that shortages could last until around 2030 whether the AI ​​infrastructure continues to absorb wafer capacity. These are forecasts that should be read with caution, because they come from companies that benefit from high prices, but they also show that the sector is planning as if the pressure is not going to disappear anytime soon. The consumer also remains within the chain. It is no secret that “RAMageddon”, as Lenovo called it, is reaching PCs, mobile phones, consoles and SSDs, precisely the products where we usually notice first if an increase in components reaches the final price. There are the Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 5 and 5 Pro and more expensive Nintendo Switch 2. Also mobile phones that come at higher prices and computers like Macs being harder to reach. Does that mean we should take Lenovo’s scenario for granted? Not necessarily. No one can predict with certainty how the market will evolve.. His analysis carries weight because it comes from one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, but even in a sector like this, forecasts can fall short… or not be met. The most reasonable reading is another: if Lenovo is right, memory is no longer that component that we could postpone almost by inertia until we find a better offer. In a market where AI competes for DRAM, NAND and HBM, waiting is still an option, but no longer a guarantee. Images | Xataka with Nano Banana In Xataka | Memory experts see no relief: “Potential price increases are higher than expected due to shortages”

We believed that sleeping with our dog or cat was a comforting and healthy idea. Science shows that it destroys your night’s rest

by

More than ten years ago it was carried out a survey of 23,000 pet owners. There were curious data: a quarter of them admitted treating their pet as if they were small children and a little less than 75% admitted keeping photos of them. But perhaps the most striking thing is that half admitted sleeping with their pets. There is no memory of a sociological division of this magnitude since the potato omelet. So we’ve been wondering what science said about sleeping with your dog or cat. Do people really sleep with their pets? The truth is that sleep researchers haven’t paid much attention to the topic. We have a lot of pseudo-theories about ‘dominance’ or ‘doggy soul’ that are very successful on reality television, but the research in the ‘human-animal co-sleeping‘was a relatively forgotten area that in recent years has experienced a boom. As we have spoken on other occasions, sleep is a more cultural phenomenon than it seems and changes a lot between regions and times (Blunden, Thompson and Dawson; Worthman and Melby; Munroe, Munroe and Whiting). In the same way that it was relatively recently that Western societies separated resting places by age (children and adults), it was only relatively recently that spaces between humans and animals were completely separated. In fact, there are many cultures in which these coexistence practices are maintained naturally. And the most solid studies (Albert and Bulcroft; Westgarth et al.; Overgaauw) coincide with the survey in that there is a 50% split in co-sleeping with dogs and cats – which are the most common nocturnal companions (Albert and Bulcroft). And it’s curious because Since 2018 we know that dogs are less annoying than cats. In this sense, it cannot be said that the results of the survey are surprising. Research maintains that humans continue to show a strong attachment to their pets and are often considered important members of the family (Archer). As it says Smiththis is not free: animals are a source of support, affection, comfort, security and stability which can have important health benefits. It is true that the size of the pet has a lot to do with it and if we look in more detail (for example, in dogs) we see that 76.85% of Yorkshire Terriers or 62.96% of Chihuahuas sleep with their owners compared to 18.18% of Saint Bernards or 30.27% of Labradors. Even so, the percentage of Saint Bernards is a very high percentage. In addition to what Eckstein already pointed out, other factors that intervene are the number of children in the family (more likely where there are no children – Albert and Bulcroft) or gender (more likely with women). Some problems of sharing a bed with pets Research suggests there are some potential problems with sharing bedding with animals. Health risks. These include some immune responses, allergies, asthma or hypersensitivity pneumonitis; Bites and scratches can also occur through which infectious diseases associated with domestic animals can be contracted (Plaut, Zimmerman and Goldstein). Those most susceptible to these types of problems are young children, pregnant women and immunocompromised patients (Smith). However, the overall health risks are very low; almost insignificant if the animals receive medical care and maintain proper hygiene. Sleep problems. In general, the main problems related to sleep quality involve companions (kicking, snoring, etc.) and children, but pets also play an important role. Without going any further, a study from the Mayo Clinic found that fifty-three percent of pet owners who slept with their pets had problems resulting from it. Nevertheless, it is difficult to know the real impact of these interruptions because they are very short interruptions that by themselves explain little: however, it seems that Yes, there is a difference between sleeping in the bedroom or in the bed.. This is because interruptions can be related to temperature imbalances between humans and pets; as well as differences in sleep and wake cycles (Campbell and Tobler). If they only sleep in the bedroom, everything becomes easier. Behavior problems in animals. Jagoe and Serpell found that dogs that are allowed to sleep with their owners may experience an increase in aggression and separation-related problems. Effect on interpersonal relationships. Finally, animals can be an important source of conflict and stress in relationships. Coming to generate intimacy problems (Jagoe and Serpell) Should we sleep with our pets? Smith and his research team found that sleeping with pets in the bed had a small impact on sleep quality in the time taken to fall asleep or feeling tired when waking up. However, the authors maintain that the continued practice of co-sleeping with pets indicates benefits of social support, social interaction and personal safetydespite the disadvantages. In general, it seems that science agrees with common sense. Sleeping accompanied by animals can have some problems but always related to previous problems at a health and behavioral level. And, on the other hand, if our pet is healthy, has proper hygiene and a ‘good education’, not only are there no problems, but it can have very positive effects. The evidence has been divided in recent yearsbut remains unanimous in this regard Images | Faith Goble, John Liu, Tony Alter, Jon-Eric Melsæter. Xataka | We have been looking at Noah’s syndrome as a minority and controlled problem for years. we were wrong *An earlier version of this article was published in January 2016

Why giant rockets could become a flop

by

SpaceX, Blue Origin, NASA… There are many companies, public and private, that want to build the largest rocket in history. Currently, the largest is SpaceX’s Starshipwhich together with its propellant, the Super Heavy, is 121 meters high. However, this has not yet passed the testing phases. The highest one in operation is the SLS that NASA has used to advance the Artemis missions, 98 meters high. The goal is to build bigger and bigger rockets. However, a new report warns that there may actually be a limit beyond which larger rockets become too expensive to be profitable. A fuzzy limit. The reportpublished on June 29, was carried out by The Aerospace Corp. It points out that it is true that, in principle, larger and heavier rockets can initially be more economical in the sense that they maximize the payload that can be carried into orbit for the same price. However, starting from a specific size, these savings would be offset by manufacturing and operating costs. We might think that the problem is solved with the use of reusable rockets, like those manufactured by SpaceX, but the operating costs are still there. In the report they do not indicate exactly what that size would be, but they explain that, by exceeding it, it would go from a decreasing launch price per kilogram to an increasing one. An example to understand it better. In the report they cite the case of the Airbus A380, a superjumbo aircraft that at the time was considered a technical success, but a commercial failure due to the high costs of a flight compared to those of smaller planes. When they are necessary. In the future there will be increasingly larger payloads, which will depend on large rockets for their launch. For these cases, the increase in cost would be justified. These would be, for example, satellites for broadband constellations or orbital data centers. The problem is that it is not clear that demand will be high enough to justify so many companies wanting to have their own large rocket. Those who are and those who will come. In this report, large rockets are considered those that are capable of releasing payloads of 50 metric tons into low Earth orbit. Today there are only two rockets in operation that meet these criteria: the Falcon Heavy from SpaceX and NASA’s SLS. There are others that are not yet fully operational, such as SpaceX’s Starship, the New Glenn from Blue Origin or the Long March 9 and 10 from China. Starship would currently be the largest rocket It should be noted that the Falcon Heavy has only made 12 flights since it was inaugurated in 2018. This could justify that, effectively, there is no demand for such large rockets. Although perhaps there will be one in the future. We’ll have to see it. For now, what is clear is that companies should take all factors into account, instead of jumping en masse to see who has the biggest rocket. That doesn’t always turn out well. Images | NASA | SpaceX In Xataka | Blue Origin now has a golden opportunity to overtake SpaceX on trips to the Moon. And he is taking advantage of it

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.