usatoday24

The world’s leading expert on the Gulf Stream has bad news about the heart of the Atlantic

by

To the south of Greenland, for years, there have been an area that suffers, against all odds, a persistent cooling. In the middle of a world that is increasingly warming, that blue spot (that ‘cold bubble’) has posed a challenge for models, experts and administrations: after all, it is the only region of the global ocean that is cooling. What the hell is going on there? Now Stefan Rahmstorfthe world’s leading expert on the collapse of the Gulf Stream, has had an idea. A mystery in the heart of the North Atlantic? Yes and no. Indeed, to the extent that we do not know why it is there, or what mechanisms govern it, the ‘cold bubble’ is one of the great mysteries of current climate science. However, that does not mean that we have not studied it. On the contrary, we have done it to the point of satiety. This oceanic anomaly is, almost certainly, one of the most studied in the last decade. The novelty is not in the phenomenon itself: we have known about it since the mid-90s. The novelty is in the explanation. Do we already know why it happens? We now have a new explanation that makes sense and is plausible; but it is still controversial. Rahmstorf’s team has carried out an analysis of the heat balance in that region of the Atlantic. And their conclusions are that the decrease in heat of the entire water column is not explained by surface flows. In fact, the area that loses the most heat does not coincide with the area that loses the most surface heat. With this in mind, they begin to raise hypotheses and discard them. This is how they arrive at the idea that the cooling comes from a reduction in oceanic heat transport to the region. That is, of a weakening of the AMOC. We have been talking about the death of the AMOC for years, has no one thought of this? Yes, indeed, this was one of the main working hypotheses. But until now everything was worked with indirect models. It is now that Rahmstorf’s team has been able to draw the complete scheme and detect a link that, it seems, is due to the multidecadal evolution of the Current with the Ocean. Why do I say it is controversial? To begin with, because like any scientific study it is subject to reanalysis, discussions and counterarguments. But, above all, because Rahmstorf and his team are specialists in exactly what they have found. For many climatologists there is a certain risk that this work falls short of the popular saying that “for those who have hammers, everything is nails.” Rahmstorf has linked his intellectual figure to the collapse of the AMOC and that, inevitably, raises suspicions. However, today (and with the data we have) it may be one of the best explanations we have. not the only onebut in these topics we almost never have a single (almost) satisfactory explanation. So, is the AMOC going to collapse? Let us remember that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is the North Atlantic branch of the thermohaline circulation. Since the sun does not heat the sea equally everywhere and freshwater flows reach the ocean at very specific points, this is the basic mechanism by which the oceans balance differences in temperature and salinity. The AMOC is a fundamental mechanism for Europe’s climate and economy. “Without it, Western Europe and eastern North America would cool significantly, with a host of potential adverse effects,” said Sánchez Laulhé. However, scientists cannot agree on what will happen. In 2021, the IPCC said the AMOC was “unlikely” to collapse. In 2023, the Ditlevsens not only said that it was a probable scenario, but that they set the first date for the collapse. In 2024, 44 signatories They asked to take the problem seriously. But in January 2025 Terhaar, Vogt and Foukal said which, in short, had not weakened since 1063. The reasonable thing to say is that yes, climate drift seems to suggest that at some point the AMOC will collapse. It has already happened other times. The impossible is to say when, how and why. Image | In Xataka |

We have been thinking for decades that plastic recycling was worth something. Maybe we were wrong

by

That the plastic recycling system is broken is an open secret. But it is only little by little that we are realizing the dimension of the problem. The American association Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) published the year 2024 a report on plastic recycling. In it, they attacked the plastics industry, which they accused of having promoted the recycling of these materials even while knowing of the poor technical and economic feasibility. A difficult task. Recycling plastics is not an easy task. In our daily lives we use a wide variety of materials of this type, each one with certain functional and chemical characteristics. They all end up in the same container, the packaging, but from there it is necessary to separate each type of plastic to proceed to recycling when possible. It is not always possible. Disparate data. According to Ecoembes data, in 2024, 589,885 tons of plastic packaging were recycled in Spain, although NGOs such as Greenpeace cast doubt. According to GreenpeaceIn other years, the difference between the plastic recycling rate declared by Ecoembes (89.2%) and that estimated by the NGO itself (34.8%) is notable. It should be noted that it is still higher than the world average of 9% estimated by the OECD. According to the reportfigures like these are just a reflection of an impossibility: effectively recycling plastics is out of our reach. Not only from an economic perspective but also from a technological point of view. Single use. However, the report emphasizes an accusation: even knowing this impossibility, the industry promoted the idea that recycling was possible and viable to pave the way for single-use plastics like the ones we use in packaging. “They knew that if they focused on single-use (plastics) people would buy and buy,” explained to Guardian Davis Allen, CCI researcher and co-author of the report. Another point of view. The reaction of the industry did not take long to arrive. The American Chemistry Council, in a statementnoted that “American plastic manufacturers are investing billions of dollars in better, innovative products and technologies that separate, capture and recycle larger quantities and more types of plastics.” They allege that the “erroneous report” made reference to obsolete technologies and that it represents a misleading characterization of the industry and the present capacities for recycling plastics. “As is typical, instead of working together toward real solutions to plastic waste, groups like CCI choose political attacks over constructive solutions,” protested Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, in a statement also collected by Guardian. Be that as it may, California took legal action in the matter. Will we make it? We may never achieve an efficient system of recycling that we can apply to the plastics of our daily life. In fact, the UN Global Plastics Treaty has failed again and again. But perhaps one day we will be able to treat this waste so that its waste does not contaminate our environment. One of the big bets In this sense, it is the discovery of enzymes capable of decomposing plastic polymers, breaking these chains to convert them into harmless molecules. It is undoubtedly a great promise that is getting closer and closer, but it is still far from being able to solve the problem. Although time is not what is left over. Pollution caused by microplastics is already a reality. These wastes have appeared in the most remote places on Earth, a sign of the great reach of these contaminants. Furthermore, we know very little about the potential impacts on health and the environment of this waste. In Xataka | I’ve always been curious about what they did with the yellow containers: so I followed one In Xataka | “In 200 years, archaeologists will search through our trash and find a terrible image of ourselves”: the dirty reality of what we throw away Image | Krizjohn Rosales *An earlier version of this article was published in February 2025

Today at Lidl this ice making machine that will save you from buying bags in supermarkets or gas stations this summer

by

Although there are still a few days until summer officially begins, it is already hot almost everywhere. Whether we are alone at home or when a visitor comes, having ice cubes in the freezer becomes almost essential to have cool drinks. But this one ends and the molds that we all have in the freezer are not always enough (plus they take a long time to do their job). We have an alternative to avoid this with the ice cube machine that Lidl has: it is from the Silvercrest brand and costs 62.99 euros. Ice cube machine 105W The price could vary. We earn commission from these links If you are not convinced or you simply do not arrive on time, we leave you below two alternatives that you can buy on Amazon: Cecotec Ice Maker Machine by 89.80 eurosan alternative with more power and self-wash function. Songmics Cube Machine by 79.99 eurosthe best-selling machine of this type on Amazon right now. A machine to produce cubes in less than 10 minutes These appliances are a great ally in summer. They allow us to have different shapes of ice cubes without having to resort to the refrigerator freezer. This Silvercrest machine is capable of making 9 large ice cubes in less than 9 minutes, although we can choose to make 9 smaller ice cubes, thus reducing the time to 7 minutes. This is ideal for making batches and keeping them in bags in case we go to the beach, for example. Furthermore, this machine has its own built-in tank, so it does not need a water intake. In fact, since it is quite compact, you can take it to the patio or terrace if you have a plug on hand. It comes with a shovel to handle the ice comfortably and its control panel is quite intuitive, so it is not difficult to handle at all. ⚡ IN BRIEF: silvercrest ice cube offer ✅ THE BEST It is very fast making ice: Being able to have ice cubes in less than 10 minutes is great and saves you having to buy bags at the supermarket. You can move it to the garden or patio: Being compact and only needing a plug, you can move it around your house depending on what you need. ❌ THE WORST The basket is not a freezer: The basket where the ice that is generated is stored is not designed to store the cubes for hours. You have to take them out so they don’t melt. 💡 BUY IT IF… You usually consume a lot of ice in the summer and you want to avoid having to buy bags at the supermarket or gas station. ⛔ DON’T BUY IT IF… You don’t want another appliance for your kitchen or you have enough with the freezer at home. You may also be interested KeeGone Stainless Steel Ice Cube Machine with LED Display Cleaning Function 2 Liter Water Tank Includes Shovel and Basket 2 Sizes for Kitchen The price could vary. We earn commission from these links HOMCOM Ice Machine, Self-Cleaning Ice Cube Machine, 12kg/24H, 9 Cubes Ready in 7 Minutes, 2 Ice Sizes, 1.5L Tank, for Home, Kitchen, Office, Bar, Blue The price could vary. We earn commission from these links Some of the links in this article are affiliated and may provide a benefit to Xataka. In case of non-availability, offers may vary. Images | Lidl In Xataka | American refrigerator or 70 cm Combi? Be careful with making mistakes when buying liters that you may not be able to use In Xataka | Which home theater projector to buy, which is better?

the problem was never the nuclear bomb

by

In October 1973, during the first great oil crisisgas stations in the United States posted signs “Sorry, last car in this line” to cut kilometer-long queues and ration fuel. That image became the symbol of an uncomfortable truth that remains valid half a century later: when energy is what gets stuck, even the great powers change their priorities. The end of a war with another truth. For more than a hundred days, Donald Trump sold the war against Iran as a crusade to prevent Tehran from crossing the nuclear line. The rhetoric was clear: unconditional surrender, dismantling of the atomic program and maximum military pressure. But the agreement that now it just closed with the Iranians reveals another, much more uncomfortable reality: the priority was never really the bomb. In fact, if it had been, Washington would not have accepted a pact that leaves the regime intact, postpones nuclear negotiations and turns the issue of enriched uranium into an issue. for later. What was urgent, what was truly unbearable for the White House and the markets, was something else: reopen Hormuz. The neck of the world. we have been counting these months. The Strait of Hormuz became in the royal center of war because about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes through there. When Iran closed it de facto, it not only paralyzed regional exports, but turned the conflict into a systemic threat for the global economy. Oil skyrocketed, gas followed suit, and markets began to discount something much more dangerous than a regional war: a global energy crisis. Trump could continue bombing and wasting ammunition (maybe too much), but each day that Hormuz remained blocked it more damage to Washington than to Tehran. The weapon that Iran did have. For years there was discussion about the hypothetical iranian bombbut in the end Tehran’s real pressure capacity was not underground in those missile cities in Fordow or Natanzbut floating over the Gulf. Tehran demonstrated that it could cut off the planet’s energy artery and keep it closed long enough to bend American strategic logic. Therein lies possibly the great lesson: because it did not need to manufacture a nuclear weapon to acquire deterrent power. It was enough for him control a chokepoint vital and show punitive capacity against US bases and regional allies. That changed the entire balance of the negotiation. The economy and its cracks. While the war continued, the world began to consume strategic reserves at a worrying speed. The United States drained its so-called Strategic Petroleum Reserve to levels not seen since 1983, Japan and South Korea saw reduce your inventories and Europe was beginning to strain its refined fuel supply chains. It is true that there was no collapse yet, but there were clear signs of fragility and that we were approaching red lines. In other words, the market continued to function thanks to these “shock absorbers”, but everyone knew that they were finite. Because the war could continue, but the energy cheap No. The agreement that reveals priority. And then it has arrived the unthinkable pact when the United States launched its bombing campaign. Sixty days of ceasefire, gradual reopening of Hormuz, withdrawal of the US naval blockade and temporary permission for Iran sell oil again. The sequence is revealing: before resolving the nuclear program, Washington has resolved first the flow energetic. Next will come talks on uranium, if there are any, oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency and possible sanctions relief phases. That is to say: the nuclear issue is still important on paper, but it was no longer the strategic urgency dictated by the clock. An imperfect peace, but necessary. There is no doubt, the agreement It doesn’t close the wound. Benjamin Netanyahu keep hitting to Hezbollah day in and day out, and the Lebanese front can vturn everything back on. Iran maintains its regime, its regional influence and much of its negotiating capacity. But the war has made one conclusion brutally clear: When the stability of the global energy system began to falter, Washington downgraded its maximums to minimums. In the end, the “bomb” was the political argument, oil was the real problem. And when crude oil began to run out, peace stopped being an option and became an imperative necessity. Image | Google Earth, US Navy In Xataka | We have been fearing the Apocalypse for 100 days due to the closure of Hormuz. The blow is going to be given to us by a heat wave in China In Xataka | Ukraine turned drones into hunters. A helicopter shot down in Hormuz has transformed them into a Spielberg film

We thought the MacBook Neo was the perfect affordable computer. AMD claims it has a big problem: games

by

He MacBook Neo has been everything a missile on the waterline of the “affordable” Windows laptop market. Our analysis confirmed our expectations and we were able to verify that we are facing a more than solvent team with a outstanding price/performance ratio. However, it is not perfect, and its Achilles heel is in a specific area: video games. AMD strikes back. The company has launched an aggressive advertising campaign with a strong message: “The competition makes sacrifices. You don’t have to make them”, and then focus on how the Apple team falters in a section that is important for a notable sector of users: “While 15 of the top 20 PC games don’t run natively on the MacBook Neo, AMD systems give you access to a massive library of games across Steam, Epic Games Store, and PC Game Pass.” The hateful comparisons. In that campaign AMD compares the HP Omnibook X Flip with an AMD Ryzen 5 220 with Apple’s MacBook Neo. It boasts of its 512 GB SSD (256 GB in the Apple model indicated, although there is a 512 GB version), its touch screen and its greater connectivity options. Beware of AMD’s message. As noted in Tom’s Hardware, this AMD chip is not new, but rather a version derived from the 8540U that is accompanied by an integrated Radeon 740M GPU. It’s a modest chip that can run titles like GTA V at 100 FPS in low quality, but Hellblade 2 runs at 8 FPS and Alan Wake 2 runs at 11 FPS. So it may indeed be able to run those video games, but it’s not clear that they are actually “playable.” One thing is certain: the MacBook Neo is not for gaming. In reality, Apple does not focus its MacBook Neo on gamers, because it knows that although the A18 Pro is a truly remarkable SoCis not designed for that sector. The company has its Metal API to be able to run games and it is even possible to enjoy some native ones with some joy, but if what you want is to play (especially with top PC titles), the MacBook Neo is not your device. The laptop war for students. This counterattack from AMD is to be expected: the company has undoubtedly been affected by the enormous success of the MacBook Neo, and is trying to demonstrate that its proposals are just as valid or even better. The juicy niche of student laptops is at play here: if you convince a young person to opt for a MacBook Neo, they will likely end up trapped in the Apple ecosystem (if they weren’t already). Intel also reacts. Intel’s response to the MacBook Neo has not been an advertising campaign, but something much more tangible. The company has announced its platform Wildcat Lakechips made with 18A photolithography that are a priori up to 21% more powerful than the A18 Pro. Equipment like the Chuwi Unibook (from $449) are better at least with the specifications sheet in hand, but its real performance is for now an unknown and we will have to wait for independent analyzes. More options are coming. The Computex fair that took place two weeks ago also made it clear that other manufacturers they are going to try to take advantage this moment of uncertainty to sneak in their proposals. Qualcomm launched its Snapdragon C and Nvidia made something similar with their RTX Spark (we will see the prices). What is clear is that the launch of the MacBook Neo has awakened a segment that had become comfortable, and that is good: there will be a lot of competition and, above all, many options. In Xataka | Apple is selling so many MacBook Neos that it runs the risk of not being able to make more

that of technological sovereignty

by

The latest Anthropic model, Fables 5it’s amazing. That is, at least, what we know thanks to the evidence we have been able to see. Because one thing happens: Anthropic has deactivated Fable 5. In response to a order of the United States that dictated that Anthropic must suspend access to these models for any foreign citizen inside and outside the country, the AI ​​company turned off Fable 5 and Mythos 5 completely last June 12. Europe has not been slow to respond, but it is really great for keep pushing your message. That of technological sovereignty. In short. That Anthropic and the United States are not on a honeymoon is evident from the mess with the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, but what happened in these last few hours goes one step further. Citing national security concerns, the United States issued an export control directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 to any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States. This is already serious, but in addition, the company states that it is something that includes Anthropic’s national employees. In response, the company disabled the two models to ensure that that order is met. The United States’ motivation for giving the order was that they had discovered (or that Amazon had informed them about it) a bug in Fable 5 that allowed ‘jailbreaking’ the model, a vulnerability that Anthropic reviewed and which they believe is also in other publicly available models. Europe responds. Beyond the repercussion for the company, it is something more serious: once again, the United States dictating what a citizen of another country who pays (or who does not pay, because right now it is in the free trial phase) can and cannot do a product from a private technology company. And this has been great for Europe to continue strengthening its position on technological sovereignty. The European Commission has not been slow to position itself, stating that it is evaluating the practical implications of the export control directive implemented on Anthropic, pointing out that the measures should not be discriminatory against partner countries. Commission spokesperson Thromas Regnier points out that, while the new generation of AI models offers advantages for cyber defense, it also raises cybersecurity concerns. “This episode is another example of why Europe needs to strengthen its technological sovereignty” – Thomas Regnier, spokesperson for the European Commission However, he considers that contingency measures should not be discriminatory against partners and takes the opportunity to remember the European position of recent months. In the statement, Regnier states that the Commission is “closely examining the practical consequences of this measure for European users” and concludes by reinforcing the message of technological autonomy: “this episode is one more example of why Europe needs to strengthen its technological sovereignty.” Sovereignty. This term will be one of the star words of this year because recent events are leading several countries to strengthen their own ecosystems. The United States has the big technology companies, but China has already put its plan to become the leading world power on the table. And Europe has arrived later in the race, but has gotten fully into it. With the threats of the United States of leave NATOhe Donald Trump’s aggressive language against allied countries and the dependence on American technology like SpaceX In the war between Ukraine and Russia, Europe has realized that it must change the chip, betting again on technological infrastructure. That includes from chip development to its own AI models, through the rearmament announced last year and the boost to the aerospace arm. Slow independence. Beyond the message from the European Commission, other parliamentarians have pronounced about it. Aura Salla, MEP for Finland, pointed out that “Europe cannot continue to increase its technical potential by relying on access that can be cut off by a foreign government overnight”, reinforcing that European message. own The New York Times A few days ago, he echoed the European plan to reduce dependence on American technology, alluding to the tense relationship with the Trump administration and mentioning that 80% of the digital products, services, infrastructure and intellectual property of the countries of the Union depend on companies such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft. Now, these changes, unlike turning off a model like Fable 5, cannot be made overnight. They are slow and require a complex resilience process that, however, can be accelerated driven by actions such as those taken last Friday by the United States. In Xataka | The technological basis of quantum computers was developed in Europe: what happened so that we lost the race in the long term

NASA has a plan to solve one of the biggest mysteries in the cosmos and only one thing is missing: money

by

Since the first confirmed discovery of an exoplanet in 1992, there have already been discovered more than 6,000 planets beyond the Solar System. Although there are many of them, and they have very specific characteristics, there is something that unites them all. Which can have a radius smaller or larger than 1.8 times the radius of the Earth, but never that. It is like a border that can be crossed or not, but that is never stepped on. The exoplanets that are below that limit are the super earths and those who are above subneptunes. It is not known what causes this gap, but there are two hypotheses. To confirm which of them is the good one, NASA has designed a mission. The problem is that he still hasn’t gotten funding for it. In search of young planets. The two hypotheses that exist about the origin of this gap are related to the origin of exoplanets. Therefore, the best way to unravel the mystery is to analyze young planets. The problem is that this is not easy. Of the 6,000 exoplanets that have been discovered to date, only 20 were younger than 50 million years. The objective of the Early eVolution Explorer (EVE) mission is to launch a ship loaded with probes specialized in detecting exoplanets around young stars. If the star is young, the planets around it must be young too, since the planet always forms after its star. Very different exoplanets. Super-Earths are rocky planets, with a radius less than 1.8 times that of Earth. They are closer to their star than the sub-Neptunes, which are also larger, with dimensions above the prohibited radius. On the other hand, sub-Neptunes have a less rocky, more spongy appearance. The first hypothesis. As we have anticipated, there are two hypotheses about the forbidden radius of exoplanets. The first points to the same origin. Supposedly, all exoplanets were born with a rocky core that dragged clouds of hydrogen and helium around it for millions of years. The difference between them would be that the super-Earths, being closer to their star, would receive more radiation, so the gas layer would end up being destroyed. The sub-Neptunes could preserve it, hence that spongy appearance. The second. As for the second hypothesis, it points to the possibility of planets clinging to water during their formation or not. Super-Earths are located between their star and what is known as the snow line. This is a line above which water can freeze. In this case, not only does it not freeze, but the water receives so much heat from its star that it ends up evaporating. If water is in the form of vapor, it cannot join the “pieces of the nascent planet.” That leaves them only made of dry rock. On the other hand, the sub-Neptunes are further from the snow line. Water can freeze, so it becomes bricks that can be incorporated into the planet in formation. It is bigger, because it not only has rock, it also has water. Furthermore, that water condensed around it gives it the cottony appearance that makes it different from a rocky planet. Artist’s concept of an aquatic world The handicap of young stars. We have already seen that to unravel the mystery of the forbidden radium we must study young planets. We have also understood that the best way to do this is to look around at young stars. The problem is that these have such intense activity that fluctuations in their brightness can occur. associated with flaresnot an exoplanet orbiting it. In short, many false positives can occur. Three sensors. To solve this problem, EVE would be equipped with three sensors. The first analyzes light in the near ultraviolet, the second in the visible light range and the third in the near infrared. The first is used to detect bursts from the star itself, since these emit great radiation at that frequency of the spectrum. Regarding the second, it is the type of light that is normally used to detect transiting planets, the most used tool for the detection of exoplanets. Finally, young stars emit a lot of light in the near infrared. For all this, if a peak is detected in the near ultraviolet we will know that it is due to the activity of the star itself. If we see fluctuations in visible light we will understand that there may be a planet orbiting the star; But, to be sure, we must compare the data with the light emitted at all times by the star itself. That’s what near infrared is for. The forbidden radio. By studying young exoplanets, we can know how their formation was and understand which of the two hypotheses is the good one. With this, in passing, we will understand why the radius of 1.8 radii of the Earth is prohibited. 30 star cluster fields, 30 days. The EVE project has been planned to analyze 30 fields of young star clusters for 30 days each. Thus, more than 20,000 young stars could be analyzed and, with them, possible exoplanets of recent formation could be found. At the moment, it cannot be done, because the project does not have financing, much less a launch date. But NASA has everything tied up. You just need that little push to unravel the mystery. Image| Superearth on the cover and aquatic world in the text. Credit: NASA In Xataka | Hubble made us believe that this exoplanet was impossible. James Webb just explained why we were wrong

so that the software still fits on a floppy disk

by

We have become accustomed to software weighing more and more. We see it in applications that take time to download, in simple tools that come with too many layers and in services that promise convenience in exchange for take up more spaceconsume more resources and depend on more invisible parts. That is why it is striking that, in 2026, when much of the technological conversation revolves around AI and increasingly ambitious systems, there are those who claim an idea that seems to have come from another era. The initiative is called Fits on a Floppy and part of a manifesto published by developer Matt Sephton. Its rule is as simple as it is striking: an application that wants to show off its badge must have a total download size of less than 1.44 MB, the capacity of a classic 3.5-inch floppy disk. The text itself summarizes it with a direct phrase, “the software has lost its way”, but its proposal is not to miss the physical support, but to recover the discipline that was imposed by working within very narrow limits. For a long time, making software was also about giving up. If something was not necessary, was left outbecause memory, storage and user patience had a very visible limit. Then came a different stage: the teams they began to have more margindownloads stopped feeling like an adventure, and the size of an app stopped being a central concern. There a dangerous door began to open. The software has not gained weight by accident Not all of that growth came from adding visible features. Much of it came underneath, in the form of layers that the user does not always see: libraries, engines, update systems, components designed to support more than one version of the same product and dependencies that allow progress to be made faster without solving each problem from scratch. That way of building makes sense in many cases, especially when you want to maintain the same product in several systems. But the scale also changes. This is where the real value of Sephton’s proposal comes in. Fits on a Floppy is not trying to show that everything should be compressed to fit into 1.44 MB, but rather that an artificial restriction can serve to prioritize. If an app is born to solve a specific task, the manifesto asks that it download quickly, start without waiting, consume few resources, be native and avoid unnecessary dependencies. The underlying idea is simple: the less baggage a tool carries, the easier it is to understand what it does, why it does it, and how much it costs to maintain it. The question, then, is whether this discipline can once again have a journey outside the manifesto. In some software, probably yes. We are not talking about browsers, video editors or services with integrated artificial intelligence, but rather small utilities, single-function tools and native applications that often do not need to carry a huge architecture. There Sephton’s argument is stronger: if the objective is limited, the size should also be limited. Not out of nostalgia, but because a simple tool has fewer excuses to behave like a full platform. The other side of the story is that much of the software is not going to get smaller. Many current applications are no longer just a window with a specific function: they integrate accounts, synchronize data, offer real-time collaboration, work on multiple systems and they accumulate functions that were not part of a desktop application years ago. All of this may be justified, but it weighs. That’s why the promise of returning to lightweight software has clear limits. For many products, the real question will not be whether they can fit on a floppy disk, but whether they are growing out of necessity or accumulation. The beauty of the floppy disk, in fact, is that it no longer seems reasonable. Precisely for this reason it forces us to look at the software from another place and ask ourselves if all that weight responds to a real need or to an accumulation that no one dared to review. Fits on a Floppy is not about stopping the evolution of modern tools or denying that many need to be big. Its usefulness lies elsewhere: reminding us that efficiency is also a design decision, and that the size of an application says something about how it was intended. Images | Fernando Lavin In Xataka | iOS 27 doesn’t leave any iPhone behind, but WatchOS 27 can’t say the same with Apple Watches

apps that don’t sell anything

by

There are few guilty pleasures as satisfying as online shopping: that exciting moment of searching until you find what suits you best and then put it in the cart. You’ll enjoy it later, when it reaches your hands. Or not, because in reality the process itself is almost more enjoyable than the product in question. Not to mention something obvious: to buy you need to have money in your account and not need it for other purposes, such as paying rent or eating. If you can’t afford the real experience, South Korea’s youth has found a way of tricking the brain into releasing that dopamine from shopping: apps that sell nothing. Fake it until you make it. What is happening. He Korean Times collects the phenomenon of dopamine sites and its operation in two types of apps: those for food delivery and those for smoking breaks, in which you have a virtual cigarette with other people with that banal conversation typical of the occasion. Thus, you can consult menus, select items to add to the cart and know delivery times or restaurant ratings without closing the transaction. And you can also say, if you prefer, something like “Tuesday, you’re sick of shit” in a virtual room. Kim Heon-sik, a professor at Jungwon University, connects these apps that do not sell anything with the culture of Muk Bangin which people watch other people eating tremendous amounts of food. Curiosity, voyeurism and satisfying the gluttony of whoever is on the other side of the screen without having to put anything in their mouth. The vicarious satisfaction at its finest. Tap to go to the post Why is it important. On the one hand, these dopamine sites function as a snitch on the mental health of a generation: in South Korea, digital exhaustion and smartphone dependence are already public health problems. documented with a star risk factor: anxiety. On the other hand, they reveal a disconnection between two worlds: the economic and the neurological. Delivery and ecommerce apps have been refining their interfaces and experience for years to enhance the impulse to buy: infinite scrolls, exclusive offers for a limited time (spoiler: they never end), incessant dripping of notifications… the “technology of persuasion” that coined Tristan Harrisformer Google designer. The result is that according to neurosciencedopamine is released in anticipation, not upon receiving the order. Dopamine sites do exactly the same thing, but at zero cost, something ideal for a generation that cannot afford that expense. Context. That deliberate design of apps and the release of dopamine can lead to a shopping addiction… if you have the money. The point is that Korean youth do not have it: a recent report from Bank of Korea portrays their dangerous situation. Every year that a young person spends without work reduces their future salary by 6.7%, their debt has increased and the proportion of them living in precarious housing went from 5.6% in 2010 to 11.5% in 2023. OECD confirms that the Korean youth employment rate is below average and that they practically wait in line to access large companies or the public sector. This structural problem already has a name: Sampo generationwhich refers to the three renunciations of this youth, love, marriage and being a father or mother, caused by unstable jobs and high educational debts. In detail. The psychological mechanism behind those apps that sell nothing It is well documented: The brain does not distinguish well between the process of asking for food and the simulation of asking for it, so dopamine acts mainly in that search and anticipation phase, not when receiving the reward. That’s why the fake app works: it gives the reward system what activates the process without having to swipe the card. Regarding smoking break apps, more of the same: this study on loneliness in Korean adults found that those young people most exposed to the digital environment reported significantly higher levels of loneliness than previous generations. Seeing that there are more people online at the same time, even if they are complete strangers and you don’t talk to them, activates the feeling of social presence, which reduces anxiety. Yes, but. The Korean Times report echoes few testimonies about this phenomenon, but there is no data on how many people use these apps or how frequently. Even if it were a trend, the million-dollar question is what effect these apps that sell nothing have: it is true that they have no impact on the wallets of those who use them and that they occasionally provide relief, but also that they do not help solve the problem behind: anxiety, loneliness and dependency linked to a precariousness of their life expectations. In Xataka | A Ferrari ‘on the go’: the trick of Generation Z in Japan to have a supercar In Xataka | The new fashion trend among Gen Z comes from South Korea and is called “Acubi”: a subversive minimalism Cover | Fish Huang and Gemini

“If you’re still awake twenty minutes after going to bed, get up.”

by

Going to bed and starting to toss and turn while watching all the early morning hours pass by on the clock is something that may be familiar to more than one person. Right now, the truth is that the simple act of closing your eyes tightly and thinking about falling asleep doesn’t work too muchbut it further increases anxiety and frustration due to not being able to be rested the next day. But here the experts suggest that it is better to get up. A simple rule. Beyond breathing techniques and treating a blank mind, we have a good ally with us: the “20 minute rule.” A practice that, far from being viral advice on social networks, the truth is that it has scientific support behind it that indicates that the best strategy against the inability to fall asleep is to get up. Its operation. To understand it, we must first descend to the substrate of associative learning, where the human brain is, above all, an optimizer of environmental patterns. In this way, when a healthy person goes to bed, the central nervous system interprets the physical stimulus of the mattress, pillow and darkness as a signal to initiate a transition to sleep. However, if we spend long periods awake in bed experiencing anxiety or having the same idea running through our minds all the time, the pattern becomes corrupted. Here the brain already associates the bed with frustration, and the bedroom stops being a parasympathetic sanctuary and becomes a way to activate our body. Your defender He is currently Dr. Matthew Walker, professor of neuroscience and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Center for Human Sleep Science. And it is so important that he includes it as another piece of advice in one of his published books titled ‘why we sleep’ that says the following: Don’t stay awake in bed. If you’re still awake twenty minutes after going to bed, or if you start to feel anxious or worried, get up and do some relaxing activity until you feel sleepy. The anxiety of not being able to sleep can make it harder to fall asleep. What must be done. To follow the rule, it is important to get up and, logically, not turn on all the lights in the house, but rather use dim lights and, under no circumstances, look at screens such as television since it can activate us more. The ideal here would be to read a somewhat monotonous book (or in the case of students, notes), do breathing exercises or mechanical hobbies. From here you should return to bed only and exclusively when you feel sleepy again to try to sleep again. The guides say it too and, more specifically, the Clinical Practice Guide on Insomnia in Primary Care which specifically points to the following advice for patients: If it’s been 30 minutes since you went to bed and you’re still not sleeping, get out of bed, go to another room, and do something that doesn’t activate you too much, like reading a magazine or watching TV, for example. When you feel sleepy again, go back to your bedroom. The goal is for you to associate your bed with falling asleep as quickly as possible. Images | Magnificent In Xataka | We thought insomnia was just not being able to sleep. Now we know that there are five different disorders

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.