answer

While half the world wonders how to integrate AI into schools, Norway has found the answer: by not doing it

by

The artificial intelligence has arrived like a meteorite, impacting practically all sensors and not only destroying the consumer technology segmentbut causing governments work against the clock to implement it in all possible places. Education is something that has not been left outimpacting from primary school to university studiescausing a search for ways to both regulate and coexist with technology. The one who is clear is Norway, which has just slammed the door on artificial intelligence in primary schools. The goal? That generative AI does not affect the early education of its young people. Back to school. This past Friday, the Nordic country advertisement a practically total ban on generative AI tools in schools. This is one of the first countries to impose such severe restrictions on young people and the Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has detailed a little how the matter will be addressed, alluding that the measure is necessary because they are observing a decrease in grades. Starting with the new course, which will begin at the end of August, AI in the classroom will go at two speeds: Students from first to seventh (ages 6 to 13) will not be able to use AI. Those in lower secondary school (between 14 and 16 years old) can adopt these tools under the supervision of teachers. With nuances. There we talk about primary and the first years of secondary school, but if the question is how young people are going to emerge from their studies “isolated” from this technology, the answer is that at home it will depend on each family and that, in the regulated educational environment, upper secondary students (from 17 to 19 years old) will be guided to learn to use AI appropriately in order to be prepared for higher education and the world of work. Protect children. Støre argues that they have made the decision due to fears that the use of AI will cause children to skip crucial stages in their education. “The most important thing in school is that our children learn to read, write and do mathematics,” commented the prime minister, arguing that “research shows that the disproportionate and uncritical use of generative AI in schools increases the danger of skipping important steps in learning.” At Xataka we have already echoed several studies that put on the table how the use of AI for everything increases the boiled frog syndrome and they can even lead us to a state of cognitive surrender. In fact, the decision seems based on a recent report that revealed that AI tools were being used by three in four primary schools and more than 90% of upper secondary schools. Not just AI. Despite everything, Støre did not present the measures as a frontal opposition to technology, but as something focused on promoting traditional education without an easy search for answers, so that young people do not skip these stages of cognitive evolution. In other areas, the prime minister pointed out that they have “great ambitions regarding the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence”, but that in terms of primary and secondary education, there are other priorities. But, in the end, this frontal opposition to AI in early education is a measure that is in the same bag as the one taken in 2024 when the Government banned phones in schools and, in April of this year, they already commented that they were thinking about plans to prevent those under 16 years of age from accessing social networks. This is something that are studying other countries following the steps of Australia and, most recently, United Kingdom. Other approaches. On the other hand we have China. The Asian giant aims to become the first world power in the short term and, within those plans and the Five-Year Plan roadmap, They consider AI a pillar of the future of education. Instead of banning technology in the classroom, teachers will be trained to find ways to teach children to use language models to solve problems and think critically. The idea is that they know how to question whether the answers are correct, as well as verify information through multiple sources to achieve “AI literacy” from primary school. It is evident that it is another approach, of course, and one that comes not without controversy because the main criticisms focus on the fact that it is a position that will increase the social gap between families with different purchasing power. Image | Jessica Lewis (edited) In Xataka | AI is helping us solve problems. And it’s also reducing our ability to solve them alone.

If the question is whether your neighbors can prohibit you from having a dog, the answer is not in the Animal Welfare Law: it is in Vigo

by

Can the community of owners of your building prohibit you from having a pet? The answer, as is usual when it comes to legislation and clash of rights, is a huge ‘it depends’. The Horizontal Property Law (LHP) says little about it and the animal welfare standard It even remembers that owners are obliged to keep their dogs, cats and other animals “integrated into the family nucleus.” Now, a sentence dictated in Galicia reminds us that the subject is much more complex and has chiaroscuros. There, in fact, a man has lost the legal battle to live with his poodle. Legal pulse in Galicia. Coexistence in neighborhood communities is not always easy. even less when a dog, cat or any other pet that can cause noise or dirty common areas is added to the equation. In a building in Nigrán (province of Pontevedra) these frictions have led to a legal pulse between the owner of a flat and the rest of his neighbors that has had an unexpected outcome: justice has endorsed that the latter (the board of owners) have the right to prohibit the former from living with their dog. It matters when and how. The sentence Galician, yes, responds to a case with very specific particularities. To understand it, we have to go back to 2010, when the residents of the property unanimously approved, in an ordinary general meeting, to prohibit the presence of any animal on the floors and common areas of the building. They only left one exception: guide dogs. In 2011, that decision was ratified as an internal rule that was incorporated into the community’s statutes, where it remains today. In theory, the pet ban didn’t cause any more problems until a few years ago, when one of the families in the building acquired a poodle. This led to the rest of the neighbors holding an extraordinary general meeting at the end of 2023 to revalidate the 2010 rule and reiterate the veto on pets. The dog’s owner did not like the decision, who went to court in March 2024 for what he considered an “abusive” rule and contrary to the Animal Welfare Law. Crossover of arguments. The Nigrán lawsuit is interesting because it demonstrates the legal intricacies that these types of disputes can have, but it is equally important to understand that the ruling responds to a very specific case. To begin with, there is a key fact that is responsible for highlighting the magistrate herself in her order: the neighbor in disagreement knew “the existence, content and purpose” of the community rule long before acquiring the poodle. What’s more, if the pet ban was approved in 2010, it was partly at the request of his father, who already lived in the property. In short: the affected party was informed of the ban. What did he then claim before the judge? That, in his opinion, the legal context of 2010 is not the same as that of 2024, when he presented his complaint. And it is not, he insists, because in September 2023 The Animal Welfare Law (LBA) came into force, a rule that recognizes pets as “sentient” beings. Did you convince the magistrate? No. Perhaps the legislation on pets is different today than in 2010, but the Vigo judge in charge of the lawsuit has seen it clearly: The LBA does not overthrow the board’s agreement. “It does not establish an absolute and unlimited right to own pets nor does it automatically repeal any community provision that regulates or limits said tendency.” “It does not eliminate the possibility of establishing legitimate limitations when they respond to reasons of coexistence, health or general interest,” he emphasizes. What exactly does the LBA say? The rule, which came into force three years ago, points out that owners of pets must “keep them integrated into the family nucleus, whenever possible due to their species, in good health and hygiene”, although it also specifies that when this is not feasible (due to their size or species) their caregivers must find them “appropriate accommodation”. He same article of the LBA makes it clear in any case that pet owners are obliged to adopt “the necessary measures” so that they do not cause “annoyance, danger, threats or damage” to other people, animals or property, which includes, among other things, preventing them from soiling public spaces. And the Horizontal Property Law? When it comes to coexistence and blocks of neighbors, the reference Bible is another norm, something older: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). It does not address the issue of pets directly, but it does provide a series of important guidelines. The main one appears in article 7.2, which reminds that neither the owner of an apartment nor its tenants, if any, can carry out “activities prohibited in the statutes, harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities.” In cases like this it can end in trial. The value of the statutes. The ruling of the Vigo court recalls the weight of the decisions adopted in neighborhood associations, the statutes and the importance of the rules of coexistence being duly registered in the Property Registry. Also the nuance of whether the veto on pets is before or after a neighbor gets one and whether or not he knows this in advance. In any case the Galician magistrate slide An important fact: the LBA “does not establish an unrestricted right to the presence of animals anywhere.” Images | Charles Puaud (Unsplash) and Zhen Yao (Unsplash) In Xataka | Your cat asks you to cuddle and then bites you. It’s not evil, it’s that you don’t understand its signs

The world has been searching for the formula against the housing crisis for decades. There are those who believe that the answer is in Vancouver

by

When you think about the residential market, price escalation and affordability of housing, more and more cities are looking up. The idea is very simple: build taller buildings and make more use of limited land, especially in the most sought-after neighborhoods. That philosophy is catching on, for example in Basque Countrywhere new apartments are proposed on buildings that already exist, or in Madrid, which aspire too to expedite procedures. In Vancouver (Canada) they have decided to go one step further and create a kind of ‘XL laboratory’ to answer a key question: Would the residential crisis be alleviated if we reduced bureaucracy and were more flexible with buildability? An impossible market. Living in Vancouver is not easy. Not at least if you don’t have a generous salary and you aspire to stay in a (more or less) well-located and (more or less) comfortable home. a study disclosed by Frontier Center shows that the British Columbia city deals with one of the least affordable markets on the planet. Canadian families who want to purchase a property need, on average, to invest the equivalent of 10.8 full years of gross income. And that for a ‘normal’ cost house. Globally, it is only surpassed by Hong Kong, Sydney, San Jose and Adelaide. The situation in Vancouver is actually worse than in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York or any other large conurbation in North America. The rental market does not offer much comfort either. According to Zillow Rentalsthe average income is close to 2,900 dollars and last year it was above 3,000. Against this backdrop, the authorities have set the goal of injecting into the market 83,000 new homes in the coming years. You will find more infographics at Statista And what is the reason? Beyond the imbalance between supply and demand or the arrival of immigrants with an investment mentality, a few days ago, in a column published in The New York TimesBinyamin Appelbaum mentioned another key factor: excessive bureaucratic rigidity and regulatory blockage, a problem that is not exclusive to Canada. “Cities have largely lost the power to approve projects. To prevent officials from acting against the public interest, we have taken away the power to act in its favor,” regrets Appelbaumveteran reporter The New York Times and specialist in economics and business. “We are so committed to justice that we have lost sight of the injustice of inaction.” “Restore affordability”. In his analysis, the expert recalls the construction limitations imposed in coastal cities like Vancouver in the 1960s, the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, the structural housing deficit (in 2023 it was estimated that Canada needed 3.5 million of extra homes by 2031 to “restore affordability”) and tension in the rental market. In the specific case of Vancouver, the geographical limitations of the city are added, constrained between mountains to the north, the ocean to the west and the border with the United States to the south. Also the characteristics of its urban planning, with a large weight of small properties. Houses, gardens… and skyrocketing prices. “The biggest problem is that Vancouver is a city of single-family homes. It has an imposing skyline in the center, but, if we see it from the air, the vast majority of the land is occupied by houses surrounded by grass,” comment Appelbaum. He is not the only one who highlights this peculiarity of the Canadian metropolis. In his chronicle he cites another expert, Alex Hemingway, senior economist at BC Policy Solutions, who questions this use of land in a city with residential m2 skyrocketing and rents through the roof. Appelbaum even cites specific cases in which apartment towers have given way to mansions, which further reduces the housing stock. A laboratory called Senakw. Despite this context, for a few years Vancouver has hosted a special project: in the heart of the city, near English Baythere is a wide strip of land 10.48 acres (just over four hectares) in which large apartment towers are being built. What’s more, the objective is to build one of the residential neighborhoods there with greater density from all over Canada: around 6,000 homes spread across 11 towers. His name is Sen̓áḵw and it is much more than theory or a plan drawn up on paper. The first building of the initial phase (which will encompass 1,049 homes spread over three towers of 27, 32 and 40 floors) is almost ready and the idea was for its first tenants to move in at the end of May. The Realist precise that the promoters want to finish the second block in the summer and the third before 2027. How is it possible? Very easy. Because Senakw is not just another real estate development. In fact (and this is the key) the 4.4 hectares it covers enjoy a special status that free it from the regulatory straitjacket that limits construction in other neighborhoods in Canada. The reason: that land does not depend on the Vancouver authorities, but on the Squamishan indigenous people who occupied the land long before the first Western settlers arrived. The land, located on the south bank of False Creek, was home to one of the 23 ancestral populations of Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Stélmexw, but in 1913 the natives residing there were evicted “by force”. Although the British initially recognized the area as a native reserve, the value of the land led the provincial government to pressure their families to leave in the early 20th century. Their offer was very simple: either accept the payments offered or risk be left with nothing. Then the Government burned their homes. That episode gave rise to a decades-long lawsuit that ended in 2003when justice returned 4.4 hectares to the Squamish Nation. “More than buildings”. A decade and a half after that historic ruling, in 2019, the Squamish Nation voted in favor of developing a residential project on the land and thus creating “a legacy” for the next generations of natives. The result is Senakw, an ambitious project of 6,000 homes spread … Read more

The biggest mystery of the World Cup is why all the boots are pink: the answer is very simple to understand

by

When the referee started a Spain-Curaçao match that should have been a mere formality, nine of Spain’s eleven players were wearing pink boots. Yesterday, as Harry Kane appeared to skate across the Dallas turf, ten of England’s eleven players were wearing pink boots. Shortly after, whoever had the courage to stay to watch the Ghana-Panama game at dawn will have seen that eleven of the eleven Panama players were wearing pink boots. The original and striking become the most standard decision possible. When Mateo Kovacic jumped onto the field to try to build a retaining wall for Kane’s England, a short shot was enough to catch our attention: the boots were black. Complete. What was once the norm has become a countercultural exercise. The feeling of “here we have someone who knows everything.” Without expecting it, Mateo Kovacic became the player who stood out the most on the entire field. In Xataka "It’s a golden cage, the World Cup is being hijacked": Hydration breaks have turned football into a new sport From original to irrelevance The issue of boots in this 2026 World Cup reminds me of wooden bow ties. For some reason still unknown, there was a day when the wooden bow tie became fashionable. At a wedding, a friend showed up with one. Evidently, it was the center of attention at that time when one seems to be facing a fashion show before the first beers begin to flow. At the next wedding the scene was repeated with another protagonist. A couple of years later, up to four people coincided at the event with one of these wooden bow ties. It’s not that the percentage was very high but it was clear that something had broken. The one who thought looked in the mirror before leaving the house to reaffirm that today he was the different one, he had fallen into the trap. He was no longer unique. Not at all. You could almost read the sarcasm in those of us who were witnessing the collapse of a fashion that should never have achieved that status. When Alfonso Pérez Muñoz appeared with white bootsin the late 90s, caused a stir. It was Joma, a Spanish brand, that dared. In a few years, the world’s greatest figures were already combining the classic black with red or blue touches in the mythical and precious Zinedine Zidane’s Adidas Predator. The norm was blown up with the Nike Total 90. The silver and blue of Luis Figo, the white and gold of Wayne Ronney and even the silver and dark gray of Lionel Messi who debuted at FC Barcelona, ​​before moving to Adidas. In the 2000s, almost all schemes regarding the use of color in boots were broken. All that was left was to wear one boot of each color. Spoiler: was also done. In Xataka In Spain-Cape Verde, a small town in Galicia had its heart broken in half: Burela That is why it has attracted so much attention that almost all the World Cup players wear pink boots. Alejandro Mendo, specialist in soccer fashion and creator of the substack Pieces of Fabriccollects the premises of why pink has become the new black. In this thread of X realize that Nike, Adidas or Puma (and even the Skechers that Harry Kane wears) are pink because the marketing message suggests that footballers feel more encouraged and confident in themselves if they wear bright colors that reinforce their personality. But, above all, point to the simple: studies show that the color that looks best on the screen over the green of the grass is pink. Simply put, the companies that dress the players have realized which color stands out the most. And along the way, fashion has become the standard. The pink boot is the new wooden bow tie. Click on the image to go to the original tweet In BBC They point out that it is a mixture of what Alejandro Mendo commented and market studies. They explain that sports brands, like any fashion company, request reports up to two seasons in advance from their trusted consultants to know “what will be worn” in a specific season. And they have all fallen into a pink with a similar tone. Brands like Puma have played to add nuancesas gradients with other colors such as yellow or blue that, in addition, They are independent for each boot (Puma was the first to propose this). Adidas has also played with similar formulas, adding touches of white on the rear. In both cases, from afar the feeling is that we are looking at the same old pink boots. The most curious thing is that this standardization around pink has helped define the campaign of the most special boots since some players stand out from the others for the simple fact of wearing footwear that should be less striking on camera. Click on the image to go to the original tweet We have already talked about Mateo Kovacic but a much rarer case is that of Michael Olise. The France striker has built a story very far from the stereotype of a footballer. A free verse that, in fact, He doesn’t even have a signed sponsorship contract.simply choose boots based on your personal preferences for comfort and your team’s attire. At the moment, we have been able to see him wearing pristine black Nikes. Wear black bootsIn this case, it helps create an image of a differential player that the brands themselves continue to promote. Lionel Messi wears Adidas Último Tango that are reserved exclusively for hima tribute from the German firm to which, we assume, will be the Argentine’s last presence in a World Cup. Of course, Messi doesn’t wear pink boots either and his combination of white and blue shines especially brightly in a tide of bright colors. In Xataka Sneakers have become delicate luxury products, so they have generated a new business: laundry laundries. "sneakers" It is an old strategy among these companies. … Read more

If the question is how much money is necessary to be happy, we already have the answer for Spain: double

by

We have all thought at some point that with a little more salary we would be happier. We wouldn’t have to worry about unforeseen events, vacations would have more “extras” and shopping wouldn’t be a constant search for the best price on meat or eggs. But to what extent is that true? How much money would it take to be happy? That’s precisely what they asked themselves. in a studio from Purdue University. Now, a report from Remitly has crossed the data obtained in that report with the real cost of living data and we can put concrete figures to happiness in Spain. Money doesn’t make you happy, does it? The Purdue University research analyzed data from more than one and a half million people in 164 countries and the conclusion they reached is similar to the one they reached other investigations: that happiness increases proportionally to the level of income. However, it only does so up to a certain income level. From this ceiling of happiness, what the authors of the study call “income satiation” occurs. That is, earning more money from a certain ceiling no longer improves how you evaluate the happiness in your life nor in your day-to-day emotions. However, the most interesting thing, and the part in which the Remitly payment platform has intervened, is that this economic ceiling for happiness is not the same everywhere. It depends on the cost of living, the culture and the purchasing power of each place. The key to understanding the figures: salaries adjusted to purchasing power. Before continuing, there is an important nuance. One of the key data in the study is the average salaries that people receive in different countries. That is why the income figures you are going to read do not correspond to real salaries as someone would see them on their payroll. These are adjusted figures for each country. according to your purchasing power (PPA). This means that a conversion has been made to compare very different economies with each other to more realistically represent each person’s ability to purchase products. A salary of 40,000 euros in Spain don’t buy the same than one of $40,000 in the United States, so these data seek to balance that difference. The Remitly team took the satiety points calculated by Purdue and adjusted them according to local purchasing powerusing International Monetary Fund ratios and updated inflation data. The result is a map that allows you to compare the “price of happiness” between countries in a realistic way. The global data: Iceland up, Ethiopia down. With this methodology, the country where it is most difficult to reach that happiness ceiling is Iceland, with $163,579 per year. However, their high salaries and the quality of life provided by the State position them as the second happiest country in 2025. Slovenia, with adjusted salaries of $42,800 per year, is the only country in the world in which, on average, the salary that its citizens would consider sufficient to be happy ($36,800) would be 16.3% higher. Luxembourg’s salaries ($109,900 per year) would cover 92.8% of that “happiness figure”, followed by Estonia and Singapore, whose salaries come close to covering 92.8% and 90.5% respectively of that happiness threshold. At the opposite extreme is Ecuador, whose adjusted annual salary of $6,500 per year would only cover 32.9% of the $19,700 per year that Ecuadorians consider an adequate figure to be happy. Spain: we need double. If we focus on Spain, the average salary adjusted for purchasing power is around $42,500 annually. However, the price of happiness is set at about $87,900 a year. That is, the salary would only cover 48.4% and it would be necessary to double salaries to reach the desirable threshold for money to bring happiness. Spain remains, once again, in the area where work does not translate into the economic tranquility that many seek and the concern to make ends meet It continues to be a brake on achieving full happiness. Happiness also depends on the zip code. The Remitly report goes a little further and analyzes the impact of salary on happiness even within each country, and has discovered that in Spain there are important differences between cities when establishing the amount of money they would be happy with. Madrid tops the list with a price of happiness of 89,759 euros per year, slightly above the happiness threshold established for the country as a whole. Barcelona (88,562 euros) and Palma de Mallorca (88,263 euros) follow very closely, three cities that also coincide among the cities with the most expensive housing prices in the country. At the opposite extreme we find Granada, with 73,153 euros per year. It is 18.5% less than in Madrid. The climate, architecture and a lower cost of living help lower the economic bar. That doesn’t mean that life is easier in Granada, but less money is needed to reach that ceiling of well-being and happiness that the study indicates. And now what? Beyond the numbers, what this report shows is that, in the majority of the planet, salaries are below what would be needed to feel fully satisfied. However, the authors of the Purdue study themselves warn that even if someone reaches that economic threshold for happiness, that does not mean they will suddenly be much happier. The researchers highlight that there is what they call “hedonic adaptation“, the tendency to always return to a similar level of spirit, readjusting our demand for well-being, no matter what happens and no matter what salary is earned. Money helps, a lot, to a certain point. But from there, it seems that happiness begins to also depend on other things. In Xataka | If the question is whether money brings happiness, a Harvard expert answers: it’s not having money, it’s what you do with it Image | Unsplash (Christian Dubovan), Remitly

If the question is what is the worst job in history, the answer is in 18th century England: the “sin eaters”

by

Have you had a sinful life, full of vices and excesses, but you don’t want that to condemn you to eternal fire? No problem. You just have to make sure that, once you die, your family hires a ‘sin-eater’, a freelance that a small feast will be given on your coffin on the day of your funeral. A term will take with it all the faults you committed in life, no matter how serious or reprehensible they may have been. The ‘sin-eater’ charged for his services, of course, but… How much would you (or your family) pay for eternal life? It sounds strange, but the job of sin-eater It existed centuries ago in some regions of Great Britain. In fact, the newspaper archive allows follow his trail until the 19th. Sin Eaters? Exact. And it’s not a metaphor. Natalie Zarrelli, from Atlas Obscura, calls him “worst freelance job ever” and you’re probably right. The no eater (‘comesins’ or sin-eaters) were just what the word indicates: people who fed on the faults of other people who had died suddenly, without time to expire their guilt. They did not do it out of hobby or because they followed an elaborate (and dismal) medieval diet based on sacrilege, but because that was their job. He no eater He arrived at the wakes, participated in a ritual to free the deceased from his sins, and then left silently with a few coins in his pocket. Where did it exist? There is not much information about them, although references can be found in works such as ‘Brand’s Faiths and Folklore’ either ‘Hill and Valley’an essay published by Catherine Sinclair in the 19th century. In recent years, media articles such as Atlas Obscurathe platform specialized in religion Aleteia or (more recently) the magazine National Geographic. The writer and teacher Megan Campisi He also researched it for his novel The Sin Eater. Thanks to them we can obtain some glimpses of this ancient craft, which took shape centuries ago in Great Britain. And when did they exist? The ‘sin eaters’ worked mainly in certain regions of England, Scotland or Wales and their trade continued with ups and downs since at least the 17th century (some they go back even furtherassociating it with a heritage from the Middle Ages) until the end of the 19th century. In fact there is some reference to a no eater who died already at the beginning of the 20th century and his grave can still be visited today. His figure was based on a mixture of superstitions, paganism and Christianity, all against the backdrop of the religious changes that England experienced starting in the 16th century. In fact there is who slides that its role may have arisen in an attempt to recover popular traditions after the Anglican Reformation. What exactly were they doing? The ‘sin-eaters’ were the central figure of a relatively simple ritual that sought to erase the guilt of the deceased. The family of the deceased placed a piece of bread and a bowl of beer or milk on the chest of the corpse and then called the no eaterwho only had to do one thing: sit before the corpse and eat and drink the food that was supposed to have absorbed the sins of the deceased. A simple gesture with which they made other people’s stains their own. How did they do it? “He would sit facing the door. They would give him a fourpence piece, which he would put in his pocket; a crust of bread, which he would eat; and a bowl full of beer, which he would drink in one gulp. After this, rising from his stool, he would pronounce, with a serene gesture: ‘the peace and rest of the departed soul’, for which he would pawn his own soul.” relates a work published in the 19th century. After the mediation of the ‘sin-eater’, the deceased was supposed to be free of reproaches that could condemn him to hell. Of course, the opposite happened to him: those faults of others ended up weighing on his spiritual record. Was it bad business? It is assumed that the majority of the sin-eaters were humble people, with few resources, for whom a new day of hunger represented a much worse prospect than a supposed eternity of damnation in the flames. Although they only received a few coins in exchange for their work, the job was quite painful. And not only for religious reasons. Some versions They maintain that, by ‘devouring’ the sins of others, the no eater went on to become an outcastsomeone who blurred his soul. Was it that serious? Yes. A ‘sin-eater’ who is not very religious, atheist or even ‘infidel’ might not care too much about participating in the ritual in exchange for a couple of coins, a loaf of bread and a bowl of beer, but he knew that his work would entail an extra sacrifice: the “manifest contempt” from his neighbors, for whom he became a kind of pest, someone to avoid. The families requested his services, invited him to their homes, paid for his service and sometimes the no eater He even listened to the confessions of mourning relatives, but once the ritual was over, no one wanted to have him around. What was its origin? Difficult to specify. In her article, Natalie Zarelli remember that some theories relate the figure of the no eater with pagan traditions, others connect it with the medieval custom of nobles paying the poor to pray for their dead and the salvation of their souls. In a way, the ‘sin eaters’ are also related to other deep-rooted traditionssuch as the belief that living relatives can intercede for their dead, the figure of purgatory or the symbolic value of food. When did they disappear? In the 19th century, when Sinclair wrote his book, ‘sin-eaters’ were already on the decline in England, but that does not mean that they had disappeared. His trail can be followed until … Read more

They have asked a Galician judge if Raynair and Vueling can charge for hand luggage. The answer could not be more Galician

by

Two years later, it will be Europe that contributes its point of view. The answer will be key to deciding whether Ryanair, Vueling or Volotea can charge for hand luggage. The decision falls on a court in A Coruña, after the Public Prosecutor’s Office sued these three companies. Those involved will have to wait to know what the High Court of Justice of the European Union says. The demand. Ryanair, Vueling and Volotea are three companies that have been operating at A Coruña Airport. All of them are low cost and are known for applying very strict measures when it comes to hand luggage. So strict that passengers have been allowed for years only with a small backpack if they do not want to face an extra cost on their flight. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, however, considers these practices to be abusive. It is the same line that the Government has followed, which even sanctioned the three for this luggage policy. In that fineRyanair with more than 100 million euros in punishment was the one that had the worst stoppageBut the legality of that fine is in doubt. And what has happened? That the A Coruña court handling the matter has referred the matter to the Superior Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as explained in The Mediterranean Newspaper. Now, the CJEU must give a reasoned response to the matter and with this response the magistrate will decide. For now, the procedure is suspended. This occurs because the magistrate handling the matter requires the involvement of Brussels in two questions. The first is whether the European Union’s freedom of pricing regulations go against Spanish regulations that require airlines to allow free travel with hand luggage. And, second, if this extra price on the ticket is an abuse of consumers. There is nothing clear. It is not the first time that a Spanish magistrate asks the CJEU for help. The question raised refers to a similar decision taken in 2014 in favor of Vueling, but according to the judge, that victory for the airline is not enough to now settle this new confrontation. And justice itself in Spain has taken decisions that may seem contradictory. In fact, there are two very clear examples: The airline wins: last year, in SevilleRyanair won a trial in which it was accused of a position of power by charging for hand luggage. The passenger wins: also last year, in SalamancaRyanair lost a trial in which 147 euros were claimed for charging a passenger for a carry-on suitcase on different routes between 2019 and 2024. Why does it happen? The problem is that the rules that regulate air traffic do not clearly specify what is or is not carry-on luggage. And they do not specify minimum measurements either. This has caused tension in Spain that is repeated. For the Government, the measures used by low-cost companies They are clearly insufficient to carry the essential luggage. On the contrary, these companies defend that they do allow a backpack to pass under the terms offered and that the law protects them when they decide to price larger packages. Furthermore, they point out that on their planes there are no spaces for all travelers to carry their luggage in a suitcase, but the Government defends that if the luggage fits under the seat, this cannot be an excuse. And Europe has already positioned itself. The problem is that Europe has already taken a position repeatedly on this issue. First, we know that the European Union has worked on a new regulation in which it will specify what minimum measures are required… and the problem for Spain is that These measures coincide with those requested by Ryanair on its trips. Furthermore, the Transport Commissioner of the European Commission seems to have positioned itself clearly in favor of companies. In fact, a file has already been opened against Spain for the fine imposed on Ryanair and the rest of the low-cost companies in relation to the charge for hand luggage. With everything and until there is a clear ruleit seems that the conflict can be repeated over time. Photo | Dimitri Karastelev and Ray Freimanis In Xataka | When Ryanair CEO went to a restaurant he was charged for two extras: “priority seating” and “legroom”

If you’ve ever wondered how much a massive black hole weighs, the answer is that the Sun next to it looks like a marble.

by

“What am I going to have for breakfast today?” when will this heat pass” and “how much does a black hole“are those three questions that you will surely ask yourself every day when you wake up. For the first two the answer is uncertain, but for the third a group of researchers from Carnegie Science in California has the answer. Because they have just measured, for the first time, the mass of an inactive black hole that dates back to the early universe and they do not give the answer in tons because it is a figure that escapes human understanding. But they do give the mass compared to the Sun and… well, it’s still not something we can assume. The weight of a black hole. The results HE they published this past Thursday in Science magazine and they are clear: a black hole located in the center of the galaxy MRG-M0138 has about 6,000 million times the mass of the Sun. The mass of our star is 2 × 10^30 kg, equivalent to 332,946 times the mass of the Earth. Does this leave you calmer? Surely not because it is like when they tell us that one company buys another for 75 billion dollars: These are such absurd quantities that it is very difficult to get the idea of ​​what it entails, but this thing about weighing bodies around the universe makes sense. Fascinatingly, MRG-M0138 is a massive galaxy whose light has traveled to our sensors from a time when the universe was only about 3 billion years old. This galaxy is no longer forming stars and the central black hole is “quiet.” The scale spacel. To achieve the measurement, the team at the Californian center used the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to track the movement of stars around the cosmic giant. It is not the first time that the mass of a black hole has been calculated, but it is the first time that it has been done with one that is so far away (10,000 million light years from Earth, 15 times further than the previous measurement record) and, in addition, it is the first time that an inactive black hole in a galaxy of the early universe. This speaks very well of the benefits of the JWST, which with its sensors allows a very defined image of extremely distant bodies, opening up a huge range when it comes to studying what surrounds us. The problem with sleeping black holes is that they are invisible. It does not emit light, so it cannot be observed directly. So, to “weigh it,” the researchers used a technique that had already been used before: stellar dynamics. Basically, they look at the speed at which stars move near the galactic center and compare that speed to that of more distant stars. In this way, they infer the mass of the black hole. So that. To continue knowing what surrounds us, basically. Because it is not just about measuring the mass of something so distant, but about understanding the formation around it. Thus, this discovery offers new clues to researchers about black holes and galaxies that were born in the early universe. A look at the future by looking at the past. Because, until not long ago, it had been difficult to prove whether there was a close relationship between the central black holes of these very old galaxies. Recent findings suggest that those denser galaxies were sites of rapid black hole growth early in the history of the cosmos. Furthermore, this research will be the basis for future work that will delve into this relationship and, above all, it will also be the basis for analyzing the data collected by the JWST in other similar galaxies. In fact, although the JWST is a good cosmic “magnifying glass”, in Chile the observatory is being expandedThe Bells‘ which is supported by Carnegie Science and will allow studying stellar movements in distant galaxies in much more detail than what JWST offers. In the end, it is about continuing to understand the universe and studies like this allow us to test theoretical methods to understand how massive black holes formed, grew, shaped the evolution of galaxies and, ultimately, became silent giants. Image | Navid Marvi/Carnegie Science In Xataka | We had always believed that galaxies preceded black holes. James Webb has discovered something else

Someone has created the website “is AI profitable anymore?” to answer the question of our time in real time

by

There is a website called “Is AI Profitable Yet?” whose sole mission is to answer one of the most important—and most uncomfortable—questions of today’s technology industry: does artificial intelligence make money anymore? The visual response It is absolutely forceful: The short answer is a priori a big NO, but be careful, because that answer is in a certain sense misleading. The graph effectively shows how the companies that are building frontier models are burning money like there’s no tomorrowand they all spend much more than they earn. The four that appear with long red bars (expenses) and very short green bars (income) are precisely the companies that are betting almost everything on the future of AI. Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta They have not stopped increasing their capex (capital expenditures) in recent years, and that logically means that their accounts are in the red. In fact, the announcements of these “hyperscalers” in their latest financial results have not only failed to soften that capex, but have driven it even further. The combined capex of these technology companies by 2026 is expected to amount to $725 billion, 25% of all world military spending. But the message of “everyone is losing money” is dangerous, because what all these companies are doing is investing in your future although when doing so they are running out of cash flow. There are two clear examples that can alert us. Companies are spending so much on AI infrastructure that they are running out of cash flow. It’s a dangerous bet. Source: Financial Times. The first is Amazon, which did not stop losing (investing) money for years and then became the giant it is today. The second, Uber, a company to which the same thing happened: it lost (invested) money for a decade, and although it does not have the size or success of Amazon, today it is an absolute world leader in its segment. That leaves us with a clear message: Not being profitable by investing in your future is not the same as not being clear about the economic model.. And all these companies are very clear about the economic model of AI: it is to invest today to earn (a lot) tomorrow. Nvidia is the big winner, but not the only one The great irony of AI is that for now the big business does not seem to be in AI, but in selling infrastructure to those who try to do business with it. It is the same thing that happened during the gold rush in the mid-19th century in California: Those who amassed stable fortunes were not the miners who searched for goldbut those who provided them with services and tools. There are several well-known examples: Levi Strauss saw the need of tough clothing, Samuel Brannan bought all the shovels, picks and pans he could in the area, and Henry Wells and William Fargo founded the famous postal and financial services company that allowed money and supplies to be sent safely to gold seekers. Nvidia is basically doing that: (making and) selling shovels. This has caused absolutely extraordinary growth in the stock market, and in the last three years it has become the most valuable company in the world and has not stopped breaking market capitalization records. Here it must be clarified that the estimates on that website are striking, but they do not mean that these companies are in any way bankrupt. Google/Alphabet continues to make billions of dollars every quarter, and the same goes for its rivals. All those red bars don’t mean that AI is smoke: just that we’re footing the bill for the experiment. One that could go wrong, of course, but one that could also go really, really right. The phrase that best sums up this “AI fever” is what Mark Zuckerberg said a few months ago: “We’re going to invest aggressively. Even if we lost a couple hundred billion dollars it would be a bummer, but it’s better than being left behind in the race for superintelligence.” Neither Zuckerberg nor his rivals seem upset about losing $200 billion right off the bat. They certainly do not seem to wrinkle despite the fact that at the moment there is a reality on the market: AI already works technically, but What it doesn’t do is function economically. for those who invest in frontier models. Here, however, there are a couple of notable notes. The first, the fact of Anthropic apparently expects to end the quarter making moneysomething unusual and promising. The second, that this website only shows Nvidia as the winner of this AI race, but that company is by no means the only one that has managed to make gold with this technological fever. The growth of stock market memory manufacturers is extraordinary. In just one year they have multiplied their market capitalizations by up to 11. Source: Reuters. In fact, we are seeing how a large number of technology companies have grown extraordinary in recent months thanks to the demand for hardware and components such as memories. Micron. SK Hynix and Samsung are the big beneficiaries of this situation, but they are not the only ones either. These days we have seen how PC manufacturers barely grow in income from those PCs, but they are doing it with the servers. There are more winners. There are photolithography equipment manufacturers such as ASML or Applied Materials, but also electrical, liquid cooling, networking, storage companies, and of course companies specialized in data center construction. This website answers the question in a very limited way, because the AI ​​segment is not only the one in which OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, xAI or Google operate. What is happening is simply that the big business of AI is currently not where everyone thinks. AI is being very profitable. The problem is that perhaps we are looking in the wrong place. In Xataka | The problem is not spending a lot of tokens, it’s that most of them are being wasted

‘solo-maxxing’ is Gen Z’s answer to the stifling dating industry

by

It’s Friday night. A decade ago, the routine for a person in their early 20s would have been predictable: choose clothes in front of the mirror, reserve a table at a trendy restaurant and go out in the hope of meeting someone. Today, that same scene is interrupted by a lethal crossroads of notifications on the mobile screen: the notice of rent collection, the status of the bank account and, in the background, the endless catalog of faces on a dating application. By adding up the expenses, the user does the math and reaches a clear conclusion: falling in love is an unaffordable luxury. He cancels the plan, closes the app and stays home. Love is not dead, but its business model has gone bankrupt. Generation Z faces a perfect storm where inflation, the housing crisis, job insecurity and psychological exhaustion after years of digital overexposure have turned traditional romance into a risky sport. Faced with a scenario where a date can cost hundreds of euros and rejection seems more public than ever, dating applications are facing a structural problem: their users are discovering that singleness is not only cheaper, but also much less exhausting. The data paints an uncomfortable picture for the entire romance industry. According to a report by Bank of Montreal collected by Fortunethe total cost of a date in the United States—including dinner, transportation, drinks, and preparations—now reaches $189. Among Generation Z the figure climbs to $205 per meeting, while millennials are close to $252 after experiencing a 32% cost increase. Faced with this emotional inflation, the response has been simple: spend less or not spend at all. A report from Bank of America reveals that 53% of young people from Generation Z He doesn’t spend a single dollar a month on dating. Among those who do, most try to stay below $100 a month. Inflation is not only making the shopping basket more expensive or making it difficult to access housing. It is also transforming the way an entire generation relates to each other. The phenomenon already has visible consequences. a study cited by Newsweek points out that 46% of members of Generation Z do not have any romantic relationship, compared to 28% of millennials and 26% of Generation X. Even large technology platforms are noticing the change. Spencer Rascoff, CEO of Match Group, recently recognized that applications like Tinder can be “intimidating” for those under 30 years of age, in a context marked by the drop in active users and the growing exhaustion towards the traditional model of dating apps. The Spanish case: when rent eats up social life Although many of these trends were first detected in the United States, the Spanish context adds additional pressure: housing. According to the latest data of the Emancipation Observatory of the Youth Council of Spainthe average rental price absorbs 98.7% of a young person’s salary. The risk of poverty among young people who live in rent increases drastically once the cost of housing is taken into account. The problem goes beyond economic figures. For decades, romantic relationships followed a relatively clear sequence: meet someone, become independent, live together and, eventually, start a family. Today that chain has been broken. Spain registers some of the highest ages of emancipation in Europe. Millions of young people continue to live with their parents much longer than they would like, not by choice but by economic necessity. In this context, the problem is no longer just paying for a dinner or a drink. It is also having your own space where you can build intimacy, coexistence or a shared life project. Precariousness not only delays the purchase of a home. It also delays relationships. As Holly O’Neill summarizedBank of America executive, Generation Z is discovering that adulthood has a much higher price than they imagined. However, money explains only part of the phenomenon. The call “paradox of preparation” describes an increasingly common contradiction among young people: they want stable emotional ties, but they feel less and less prepared to initiate them. After years of living much of their relationships through screens, many members of Generation Z perceive dating as an emotionally demanding experience. The fear of rejection still exists, but it is now combined with a constant feeling of public exposure. Social networks have turned every relationship into a small media event. Make a couple official on Instagram using a hard launch or hint at her through a soft launch It can feel like a public statement that is difficult to reverse if the relationship fails. As a result, the first step becomes increasingly complicated. An appointment is no longer requested. Instagram is requested. Then come weeks of messages, reactions to stories, and intermittent conversations that often never lead to a real meeting. The potential connection exists, but the action is suspended indefinitely. The rise of solo-maxxing In this context, a new philosophy has emerged, baptized in social networks as solo-maxxing. Far from presenting singleness as a transitory situation or a waiting stage, this trend redefines it as a conscious choice. Being alone is no longer necessarily interpreted as a sentimental failure, but as a strategy to protect time, money and emotional stability. A MyIQ survey reveals that almost half of young people between 18 and 34 years old consider that being single is more peaceful than being in a relationship. A third say they actively avoid dating to preserve their mental well-being. Behind this trend there is a logic that is difficult to ignore. If each romantic interaction involves increasing economic costs, emotional uncertainty, and a high risk of disappointment, singleness ceases to be a provisional state and becomes a rational decision. For many young people, peace of mind has become an asset too valuable to risk. The crisis is also forcing us to rethink the way people get to know each other. For years, dating apps promised that an infinite number of options would make it easier to find a partner. The result, however, has often been … Read more

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.