built

The US built the most powerful army in the world. Now there are those who point out its Achilles heel: cyberwar

by

Few countries have a military mix comparable to that of the United States: ground, naval, air and space forces, industrial capacity and the means to operate far from their borders. However, recent conflicts have made it clear that the superiority no longer depends solely of airplanes, ships or battle tanks. In Ukraine, drones have acquired a prominence that forces us to review tactics and defenses. Meanwhile, Cyberattacks have established themselves as another tool of confrontation. And that’s where some experts believe the American structure is starting to show problems. A commission assembled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in collaboration with the Cyberspace Solarium Commission 2.0s project, has tried to answer this question and its diagnosis is not very reassuring. In a recently published reportits authors maintain that the current design of US cyber forces is insufficient to deter, compete and combat in this domain. They do not claim that the Pentagon lacks specialists, units or operational capacity. The problem, according to the study, is deeper: no organization concentrates the responsibility of consistently recruiting, training and equipping the personnel needed by the United States Cyber ​​Command. It is no secret that measuring military power requires more than counting soldiers, ships or planes. The most visible data comes from SIPRI: in 2025, the United States remained by far the biggest military spender in the worldwith 954 billion dollars and 33% of the global total, compared to the 336 billion estimated for China. This data does not measure military power on its own, but it fits with other analyses, like those of GAO and Brookingswhich continue to describe the US as a dominant force due to its combination of capabilities, deployment, logistics and alliances. The domain for which no branch of the United States Armed Forces was designed There appears the anomaly that focuses the report. The United States has created military services with central responsibilities associated with the large traditional domains of combat, including the space branch since 2019. Cyberspace, on the other hand, continues without its own branch. The commission maintains that, for this reason, there is also no single authority responsible for creating the necessary forces to operate in that area. Responsibilities are distributed among different services, all involved in the mission, but none obliged to place it ahead of their traditional tasks. This dispersion translates, according to the report, into different approaches among the Department’s five military services to recruit, train and develop those who make up the cyber forces. Each one applies their own criteria access, career plans, educational systems and compensation models, which, according to the commission, produce unequal and inefficient results. Katherine Sutton, civilian cyber policy officer and senior cyber advisor at the Pentagon, acknowledged before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 28, 2026 the “significant difficulties” in recruiting profiles with the appropriate skills, retaining the most experienced operators in the face of better-paid opportunities in the private sector and offering specialized training with sufficient agility. Now, the Pentagon has not stood still. The report acknowledges that it has attempted to correct part of the problem with CYBERCOM 2.0an initiative announced in 2025 to reinforce the role of Cyber ​​Command in talent, training and capacity development. But the commission considers that this type of reform does not resolve the underlying issue: the absence of a military branch dedicated to generating forces for cyberspace. In other words, it is not just discussing who commands the operations, but who stably builds the personnel, preparation and tools that those operations need. The United States Cyber ​​Command, known as USCYBERCOMhas the official mission of directing, synchronizing and coordinating operations in cyberspace to defend and promote national interests, according to its own institutional description. According to the commission, the problem is that in practice it also ends up carrying part of the “service-type” functions that it should provide. personnel, preparation and capabilities. The authors see there a design problem that is reminiscent of the model corrected by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986which reorganized the Pentagon and better delineated the difference between building the force and employing it in operations. And what do they suggest? Well, the study works on the hypothesis of creating a military branch dedicated to cyberspace and develops how it should be organized if Washington were to make that decision. This Cyber ​​Force would have a defined mission: organize, train and equip the personnel in charge of offensive and defensive operations, while USCYBERCOM would retain the responsibility of employing them. The proposal does not seek to absorb all of the Pentagon’s technology or take charge of each of its computer networks. The other branches would continue to manage the systems linked to their own missions, but they would stop separately generating a capability that requires common criteria, careers and priorities. The paradox is difficult to ignore. The United States retains the most powerful military force in the world, but the report warns that has not yet developed a structure specifically designed to generate its capabilities in cyberspace. Erica Lonergan, lead author of the study and professor at Columbia University, and Mark Montgomery, commissioner of the report, retired rear admiral and head of cyber and technology at the FDD, They later transferred that conclusion to a forum in Defense News: If the digital environment has already become a war domain, it should have a branch ready to fight in it. Images | US Army Cyber ​​Command | Wyoming National Guard In Xataka | For years Russia accustomed its citizens to a distant war. Thousands of gas stations have just broken that illusion

In Italy someone built a “fake” Roman amphitheater. It ended up with visitors paying €40 convinced that it was original

by

for a while Arcugnanoa small town in the province of Vicenza, could boast an exotic attraction within the reach of very few municipalities, not even in Italy: a spectacular Roman amphitheater with its stone steps, columns, statues and even a pond. The complex had supposedly been built before 393 AD and its surroundings hid Greek and Neolithic pieces. Behind such a discovery was an equally fascinating figure: a scholar known as Franz Von Rosenfranz in the artistic circuits. The problem is that this Rosenfranz was actually called Franco Malosso and the supposed amphitheater was a decoration built with plaster, concrete and blocks. Dating back to 2005. To understand what is perhaps the craziest story so far in 2026 in Italy, you have to go back two decades, to 2005when Malosso found a surprise in the garden of a villa in Arcugnano. Or so he supposedly claimed. That year a landslide exposed the remains of what looked like an ancient archaeological site. Suspecting that the underground was hiding something, good old Malosso began to excavate and recovered a Roman amphitheater. Or at least, we insist, that’s what counts a crazy story that has ended up falling under its own weight. The man who built this fake Roman theater and charged visitors up to €40 is now in prison. Franco Malosso constructed the 5,000-square-meter site near Vicenza, Italy, using modern stones artificially aged to appear ancient, concrete columns, plaster statues and an artificial… pic.twitter.com/YqWXr6vzRr — Architecture Hub (@archpng) July 25, 2026 A Roman amphitheater? Exact. To be more precise the “Anfiteatro marittimo berico Porto degli Angeli”, which is how was promoted years later the site for the pride of the neighbors and the enjoyment of those visited fascinated by the history of ancient Rome. His magnetism was more than understandable. The supposed amphitheater had wide stone steps, columns, statues and a pond. The story circulated that the complex had been built before 393 AD and that vestiges of Greek origin or that dated back to the Neolithic had been found in the surrounding area. In a double historical twist, it was even said that Julius Caesar had passed through that same area when he returned to Egypt. with Cleopatra or that Juliet Capulet lived there when she was a teenager. Great, right? Yes. Too much. In fact, it sounded so spectacular that it didn’t take long for suspicions to fly over the Arcugnano amphitheater. In 2016 The Carabineri investigated the site, archaeologists analyzed the supposed Roman structures and satellite images were also used to study how the area had changed from a bird’s eye view in recent years. The conclusion was clear: there was no Roman amphitheater, just a recent construction built with more will than skill. a decoration. The Roman steps had actually been built from modern stone blocks that someone had treated to give them an aged look. The statues were made of plaster and the columns were basically made of fiberglass and concrete. The pond was also somewhat old, having been excavated in recent years. In summary, the Berico Maritime Amphitheater was basically a decoration built without much historical criteria. A hoax that worked. That someone would build a (more or less exact) replica of a Roman amphitheater in the 21st century is curious, but if the history of the Berico site has aroused the interest of the world press, it is because Malosso managed to convince others that that construction was Roman. What’s more, it is said that he received up to 40 euros for visiting it and managed, it is not clear how, that the local authorities included the supposed amphitheater in a guide and a promotional app, according to reveals the newspaper Corriere della Sera. “Italy’s laughingstock.” The result is that what seemed like a tourist attraction has ended up becoming a source of ridicule for the municipality. Paolo Pellizzari, who was then mayor, recognize in Il Giornale di Vicenza that when the deception was uncovered “we became the laughingstock of Italy.” However, he also defends that Malosso acted with skill: “He had hidden the operation very well and the land was his property.” Much of the work was also done without permits or going through the municipal technical office. “It was presented in a captivating way and promised gold and gold,” he says. Why is it news? Because history has written a new chapter. And not exactly good for Malosso, who now He is 69 years old. The case has been in court for some time and in 2021 the Supreme Court of Cassation confirmed a sentence of two years and four months in prison for the alleged archaeologist for illegal construction, falsification of works of art and building in an environment with landscape protection. Now, once Malosso’s request for parole has been rejected, the sentence is now effective. In fact, has entered in Ventimiglia prison. What does he say? In 2016, shortly after the controversy broke out, La Stampa interviewed Malosso, who assured that in reality there was no deception or that that was never their intention. “That is not the amphitheater, it is a garden with elliptical shapes, a model of what was once there, probably below, described by several poets and writers as ‘the great amphitheater,’” he justified. The great mystery. The big question is how on earth his deception could escalate to the point of sneaking into an official travel guide or even attracting visitors willing to pay 40 euros. Beyond the concrete columns and plaster statues, experts remind that the context also lacks meaning. “An amphitheater in the countryside, far from an old urban center, is false,” explains to The Country Jacopo Bonetto, archaeologist. In fact, to be strict, we should not even talk about an amphitheater: the Acugnano structure, shaped like a crescent, fits much better with the characteristics of the Roman theater. Not to mention the nonsense of some of the temporal references supposedly shared by Malosso. For example, the press claims that he even told tourists … Read more

China has just launched its new heavy ion accelerator. He hasn’t built it just to study atoms

by

There are machines that are built to observe what we already know and others to push matter to places where we barely know what we are going to find. In Huizhou, China has raised a complex whose beam line runs two kilometers and which is capable of accelerating heavy ions and direct them against atomic nuclei with an intensity that is difficult to achieve in other laboratories. It looks like an infrastructure designed for nuclear physicists. That description, however, falls short. The decisive step came on Tuesday, July 21. The High Intensity Heavy Ion Accelerator Facility, known as HIAF, passed the acceptance reviewn that certifies the fulfillment of its construction objectives and entered into test operation for scientific research. The project, built by Institute of Modern Physics of the Chinese Academy of Scienceshad begun to rise in December 2018 and produced its first beam in October 2025. The work is finished; Now is the time to do science. Now, the HIAF does not function as a single track through which particles enter and exit at full speed. Its architecture distributes the work between three major systems: a superconducting linear accelerator that delivers intense beams in continuous or pulsed mode, a synchrotron that accumulates the ions and takes them to higher energies, and a storage ring that allows them to be preserved while researchers carry out precision measurements. It all starts with ions, atoms from which one or more electrons have been removed and which can be accelerated and guided by electric and magnetic fields. Those in charge of the project claim that it is the first advanced heavy ion research facility that brings together these three technologies. A facility designed to study much more than atoms We still don’t fully understand how many of the heavy elements we find around us formed in the universe. To reconstruct that history, researchers will use the HIAF to produce unstable nuclei, measure how they behave and explore the frontiers at which nuclear matter stops holding together. That work also opens the door to trying to create new superheavy elements. The goal is not only to expand what we know about the periodic table, but to better understand the cosmic processes that ended up forming elements such as uranium. The same beams that are used to investigate nuclei can also be used to subject chips, electronic components and materials to intense radiation. In space, the impact of an energetic particle can corrupt data, crash a circuit, or cause permanent damage to a component; Reproducing part of these effects on land allows them to be studied before incorporating the technology into a satellite or ship. The HIAF was also born with that function: to offer a controlled environment in which to check what resists and what fails when a device must operate under the radiation of space. When these ions reach tissues or materials, the experiment changes scale, but not principle. Its energy can be used in the medical sector and, at the same time, to accelerate the accumulation of radiation damage in materials intended for advanced nuclear systems or to future fusion environments. We are not facing a hospital or a reactor intended to produce electricity. What the HIAF offers is something prior and decisive: a place to verify, under controlled parameters, what works, what degrades and what needs to be redesigned. The start-up phase has already left some figures with which to measure its capacity. According to those responsible for the projectthe team completed beam commissioning along the two-kilometer line in 16 hours, a record among comparable facilities. It also maintains that the pulsed intensities of the oxygen and bismuth beams exceeded previous international references by factors of three and 7.5, respectively. During the tests, work has already been carried out on nuclear masses, production of radioactive beams, nuclear structure and irradiation of materials. These are initial results: the HIAF is still being tested and must now demonstrate to what extent it can transform that capacity into real discoveries and applications. Images | Institute of Modern Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences In Xataka | In the 70s, a Nobel Prize winner in physics mathematically solved the tourist’s great dilemma: which restaurant to choose

The US built a futuristic destroyer that did not turn out as expected. The rescue arrives at hypersonic speed

by

He USS Zumwalt was designed to represent what naval warfare of the future would be like, but its story ended up telling something quite different. The US Navy reduced the class from 32 planned units to just three, while costs grew and several of its original capacities were reduced. From the outside, the ship still seemed like a break from everything that had come before; In practice, it accumulated technical problems and systems that were difficult to sustain. That distance between what was promised and what was built is what the US is now trying to correct. The return of the Zumwalt. Of the three units of the class, the immediate novelty affects the first. The US Navy plans rejoin the USS Zumwalt into the fleet by September 2026, equipped with four tubes capable of holding three fast attack missiles each, up to 12 in total. It will be the first ship of the Navy prepared to fire hypersonic weapons. The other two units will receive the same configuration: work on the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson is already underway, while the modernization of the USS Michael Monsoor will arrive later.A destroyer for another war. The original bet was not limited to making it less visible to the radar. The Zumwalt was built around a hybrid electric system that powers both the propulsion and its equipment and can generate approximately 78 megawattsalmost the same as a nuclear aircraft carrier. Even at 20 knots, the Navy attributes 58 megawatts of reserve power. What promised scope for incorporating advanced capabilities also created a dependency on proprietary systems that were complex and expensive to maintain within such a short series. Two cannons without a clear mission. The problem was not only technical, but also operational: the Zumwalt had been surrounded by doubts about what role it could reasonably fulfill within the fleet. Its two 155-millimeter advanced weapons systems have been dismantled to free up space for hypersonic launchers, while other advanced capabilities of the class have already been reduced. Hence, questions about its possible tasks persisted over the years. The new weaponry does not simply add firepower: it attempts to give the ship a more concrete strategic mission. Speed ​​to break through. What the CPS attack system provides is not only speed, but a trajectory that is more difficult to anticipate. A multi-stage rocket propels an unpowered hypersonic glider vehicle to the necessary conditions and, after separation, it advances into the atmosphere while maneuvering towards its target. Compared to a traditional ballistic missile, this combination of speed, relatively straight trajectory and maneuverability poses more detection and interception problems. The design took its toll again. The modernization forced essential systems of the ship to be shut down and restarted for the first time since its delivery to the Navy, an operation during which failures appeared in its complex electrical network. Added to that was another problem:During the installation of the pipes, more wiring was removed than expected and it was necessary to add additional wiring to adapt the new configuration of the boat. In August 2025, the Navy added 230,000 hours of unplanned work to the $20 million contract. Three ships, same delay. What started as a delay in the first unit has spread to the entire program. The GAO estimates that the modernization of the three ships is 24 months behind schedule, despite the fact that the USS Zumwalt had reached 94% progress in January 2026. The first sea launch test has also been postponed, which moved from 2025 to 2027. The schedules of the USS Michael Monsoor and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson have not been left out either. The bottleneck is on land. The Department of Defense plans to invest more than $50 billion in the various programs necessary to develop, test, produce and deploy this capability, including destroyers, future Virginia-class submarines and the Army land system. However, the contractor’s facility can only produce between six and seven missiles per year, compared to the 12 per year that, according to data collected by the GAO, would be necessary to stabilize production. In April 2026, the estimated average cost per unit was around 67 million. A rescue with conditions. The USS Zumwalt will return with a more defined mission: attacking high-value, heavily defended targets at long range. That does not, however, make modernization a complete solution. What we have seen is a powerful capability, but limited by the scarcity of missiles, their high cost and the difficulties of sustaining such a unique class. The US has found a clearer use for the destroyer, although it has not yet resolved all the problems it has had since its origin. Images | National Museum of the United States Navy In Xataka | Germany wanted to armor its army with a volunteer military. He has encountered a boom of conscientious objectors

Due to the lack of steel, World War II ships began to be built with an unusual material: concrete

by

Close your eyes and think about the main material of a boat. Very possibly wood be first that comes to mind, and it’s normal: we have been sailing in wooden boats for millennia, and we continue to do so. But it is also logical that the steel that dominated the 19th and 20th century shipsand the current sea monstersideas haunt you. And most likely you have not thought about another material: the concrete. But yes, for 150 years we were creating concrete boats, and far from being crazy, it was the most logical idea. And they were even used in the First and Second World War. a french. One fine day in the mid-19th century, a French gentleman named Joseph-Louis Lambot It occurred to him to build a boat. Not just any one: a reinforced concrete one. There was one problem: in 1848, they had no idea what reinforced concrete was. This material, basically, is the mixture between concrete and steel. Both combine to create something with much greater structural resistance and have been the basis of the most imposing skyscrapers, dams and almost any construction of the last century since its invention. Well, it was Joseph-Louis who came up with the idea of ​​combining the two materials. At least, it attributes the invention of reinforced concrete to this man. As always, there is controversy over the dates, who patented reinforced concrete, who built the first slab, etc. But anyway: Lambot wanted to test his invention and built a small boat of less than four meters with the aim of exhibiting it at the Universal Exhibition in Paris in 1855. Quite a few advantages. Basically, the interior was wire mesh covered by cement and Lambot’s idea was to completely replace wood. The invention was liked, but it did not really attract the attention of boat manufacturers. Some barges were created for European canals, but little else. Everything changed when the Italian engineer Carlo Gabellini built the Liguria in 1896. It is what we consider to be the first reinforced concrete ship designed to sail on the high seas. And, really, it made sense to create reinforced concrete ships. It is a material that has great resistance to corrosion, so the marine environment does not damage the hull, reducing maintenance (which also has it) and extending its useful life. It offered good thermal insulation, so perishable resources could be transported in better conditions and there were no fire problems. The Namsenfjord In the absence of bread… A few years later, the construction of these concrete ships expanded and other countries began to build them, especially cargo ships. But of course, we are in 1914 and that means that something happened: the World War I. And beyond the advantages of concrete over other materials, the world was forced to create concrete boats for a very simple reason: there was no steel. The militarization and industrialization of the belligerent forces caused a situation of steel shortage. The ships were important, since the naval supremacy It has always been a determining factor in a conflict, but with the steel necessary for a destroyer many other things could be created. And the problem is that they had to continue building ships because there were resources to move worldwide. The First World War. The revolution came with Namsenfjorda Norwegian ship that, in 1917, demonstrated that self-propelled concrete boats could be made. It was 26 meters long and weighed a whopping 400 tons and most importantly: the United States saw that there was potential in these ships beyond serving as freighters powered by an auxiliary ship. Thus, they created the Emergency Fleet Corporation program with the objective of producing 24 concrete vessels. It was a failure: those that were completed were done after the war, so they had to be used for other things. One was the SS Faithwhich was going to serve in the war, but in the end it was left to be used in transportation work in the United States. It was launched in 1919, was in service until 1921 when it was sold to Cuba and had a length of 97.54 meters. A year after Faith, the SS Selmaan enormous mass of reinforced concrete measuring 129.54 meters in length that was launched just the day Germany signed the Treaty of Versaillesending the First World War. It ended up being used as an oil tanker in the Gulf of Mexico. With sails and a secondary support engine Devastating disadvantages. With the war over, interest in concrete shipbuilding waned. It still had advantages, since building them was much cheaper than making them in steel or iron, but if we mentioned a series of advantages before, it is important to now know the disadvantages (which outweigh them, and by far). To match the strength of a steel hull, a concrete hull is thicker, which has several limitations. On the one hand, it weighs more, so it also has a greater draft, the ship’s movement is slower and more fuel is needed. Being thicker means that there is less interior space for cargo, since the useful volume is reduced. This weight means that the engines must be more powerful and the fuel tanks must also be larger, so the investment in this part is greater. The dam to build it must also be monstrous because parts cannot be welded, as in a steel one, and then there is the impact resistance. Second World War. Metal breaks, yes, but it has greater elasticity than concrete. This material, however, is much more fragile when faced with impacts. A collision causes a crack in the hull, and this in a boat that weighs so much is a condemnation. That is why, after the Great War, the concrete ship project was abandoned, leaving its construction practically limited to cargo barges, but then the Second World War arrived, and the steel needs of the previous one were repeated. However, the US program was not as ambitious as the one they started … Read more

Ivar Kreuger, the Swedish millionaire who built a financial empire with matches and ended up burned by his debts

by

Paris, March 1932. The cover of The New York Times pick up the news of a man who has been found dead in his room, shot in the heart. Outside, no one still knows that that body hides the major financial fraud of his time. That man had lent money to governments and personalities across Europe, dined with Greta Garbo, and advised presidents. In Sweden they called him “the second king.” On Wall Street they treated him almost like a god of finance. However, as Frank Partnoy told in his biographical book ‘The Match King’behind that shining empire there was something much darker. That story begins, like so many other great falls, with a product so simple that no one suspected it: a match. An empire born of fire Ivar Kreuger was born in Kalmar, southeastern Sweden in 1880. His family already had a small match making business Therefore, her wealthy position allowed her to study engineering and travel around the United States, where she learned construction systems based on the use of reinforced concrete that were not yet used in Sweden. In 1908, he returned to Sweden and founded the construction company Kreuger & Toll along with Paul Toll with just $2,500 in capital. The main advantage of your company is that, when use concrete armed in their constructions, they managed to shorten construction deadlines without losing quality in the constructions. This allowed them to obtain projects as important as the construction of the Stockholm Olympic Stadiumwhich would be the venue for the 1912 Olympic Games. The founders of Kreuger & Toll: Paul Toll (standing), Henrik Kreuger (left) and Ivar Kreuger In his first business venture, Kreuger discovered something key: knew his way around finances almost as well as with concrete. With that mix of ambition, engineering and business acumen, Kreuger entered the family matchmaking business with the Swedish Match (that still exists) in 1917, uniting different dispersed factories into a single holding company. In a few years, the new company manufactured 75% of the matches on the entire planet. Trade matches for debt However, and despite the buoyant business of his factories, Kreuger’s great move was to exchange matches for debt. After the First World War, half of Europe needed money to rebuild. Kreuger saw the opportunity. It offered huge loans to governments in financial trouble and, in return, asked for match manufacturing monopoly in your country. He lent money to France, Germany, Poland, Greece and other nations, thus managing to monopolize the production of matches in half of Europe. It is estimated that the total loaned to the different countries was around 387 million dollars in 1930. It had factories in 43 countries and almost total control in 25 of them. The business was no longer selling matches, it was now lending money disguised as an industry and its empire extended to other industries. It came to dominate 50% of the iron market and became shareholders in banks, mining companies, railways, lumber, paper, film distribution, real estate and the pulp industry. In 1925, he even gained control of an important package of Ericsson shares and the other three largest companies in Sweden, as well as more than 200 companies and represented 60% of the Swedish stock market. Its 125-room Stockholm office earned the nickname “Match Palace.” To finance so much borrowing, Kreuger needed a constant flow of capital. To achieve this, it issued shares with very high dividends, up to 30% between 1919 and 1928. Investors, especially in the US, entered en masse due to the promise of obtaining a return well above the average. He managed to raise 750 million dollars with this system, according to collected The Economist. The trick he used to offer those succulent dividends was not new, although no one saw it at the time: he paid old investors with the money of new ones. That is, the same pyramid system that I was using Carlo Ponzi on the other side of the pond: a ponzi scheme with the appearance of an industrial multinational. Nobody audited Kreuger’s books and, as how I collected a chronicle of The New York Timeswhen an English executive proposed it to him, Kreuger responded with a phrase that today exudes fine irony: “Do you think I’m a swindler?” The answer is clear: Yes. A house of cards on fire The Wall Street crash of 1929 suddenly cut off the flow of capital that sustained Kreuger’s pyramid scheme, which, in desperation, went so far as to sell the same securities several times. counterfeit Italian bonds for 80 million without actually having that monopoly. In 1931 he requested a loan of 800 million crowns from the Swedish banks, the equivalent of 10% of the country’s GDP. It wasn’t enough. He Swedish Riksbank hesitatedhe government intervenedbut the hole was now impossible to cover. On March 12, 1932, Kreuger took his own life in his Parisian hotel room. A few weeks before, the telephone company ITT (International Telegraph & Telephone) had forced him to return 11 million dollars after discovering that the Swedish millionaire had deceived them making up Ericsson accounts. Subsequent audits uncovered the true extent of the pufo. Their companies accumulated credit debts of more than 1.2 billion dollarsin addition to a personal debt of 265 million dollars, compared to just 18 million dollars in assets that he had in his possession. All of this, we remember, in the 1930s, which represents a debt of unaffordable proportions even by today’s millionaires. Thousands of families lost their savings. Entire factories closed. And the man who one day lent money to half of Europe ended up being, himself, the biggest financial hole of his time. The United States Congress called him the biggest fraudster in history. A year later, the SEC was created to monitor the markets and ensure that Kreuger’s scam It did not repeat itself. In Xataka | The extreme stinginess of the first woman to become a millionaire by investing: she was known as the “Witch of … Read more

We have been believing for decades that the Great Pyramid was built at one time. The latest analysis places it more than 20,000 years earlier

by

(Fortunately) the world is full of monuments as ancient as they are impressive, but few, very few, are comparable to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Almost 140 meters high, thousands of years old and an immortal testimony to the power of Ancient Egypt. It has such magnetism that every year they visit it millions of people arrivals from all over the world. But… What if we have been wrong about its origins for decades? What if instead of becoming 2,500 BCas we have always believed, rose up ago more than 20,000 years? What if Pharaoh Cheops was not its true promoter, but simply renewed it? All those questions have been left by launching a new (and controversial) study. What has happened? That Egyptology has just been shaken by unusual news in modern archaeology: a study that has turned upside down the dating (and origins) of the Great Pyramid of Gizaone of the most iconic monuments not only in Egypt or Africa but on the entire planet. Until now, experts agreed that the monument was built in the time of Khufu, around 2589-2566 BCbecoming one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and the tallest structure in the world for 3,800 years. For Alberto Doninian Italian engineer from the University of Bologna, that estimate falls short. Very short. In fact, he has published a study in which he traces the origins of the pyramid back to more than 20,000 years. What dates do you handle? After analyzing several points of the pyramid, Donini has come to the conclusion that the reference date to talk about its origins should be another: 22941 BC That is, their calculations indicate that the structure is around 24,900 years old. Before continuing, it is important to clarify one detail: its analysis does not seek to set specific dates, but rather to establish a time frame for the construction of the monument. What does that mean? That, in reality, what Donini has done is calculate that there are 68.2% probability that the period of construction of the pyramid is framed in a window that extends between 38,903 and 10,979 years ago. The calculation of 24,941 years would therefore be a simple arithmetic mean that serves as a reference. If instead of talking about antiquity we talk about calendars, this means that, according to the estimates of the Italian engineer, the most famous structure in Giza was probably built between 36878 and 8954 BC What is it based on? Donini’s work is not controversial only because of its conclusions. It is also because of its methodology, the calculation system it has used. Its main tool is Relative Erosion Method (REM), a formula that dispenses with documentary sources to be based fundamentally on what the rocks say. Literally. What the REM does is analyze the erosion of the pyramid blocks to, based on their level of wear, date them. Said like this, it sounds simple, but what the engineer has done is somewhat more complex: he selected 12 different points spread across the base of the Great Pyramid and then compared their different levels of erosion, looking at aspects such as the holes and cavities opened in the rock by rain or the roots of plants and the natural wear and tear caused by wind, sand and the constant passage of people. And has that been of any use? Yes. The analysis has yielded a disparate range of dates. At one of those twelve points, the REM suggested an estimated age of 5,708 years. In others the estimate was 17,955, 30,375 or even more than 50,000 years. It may sound strange considering that we are talking about a single monument and it is logical to think that all its blocks have been there for the same amount of time, but many factors influence erosion: from the position of each stone, which determines its exposure to wind and rain, to its mineral composition. It’s still a strange thing, isn’t it? Yes. And no. It is true that the engineer obtained very different dates, but this is explained by another peculiarity of the Great Pyramid. The monument did not always have the appearance we see today. In it 1303 AD The area suffered an earthquake that affected the white limestone blocks that originally covered the structure. That material was later reused in buildings in Cairo. Although it may sound like an archaeological tragedy, it offers experts like Donini a real opportunity. The reason? They now have blocks that have been exposed to erosion almost since the construction of the Great Pyramid and others that have only been exposed to erosion for 675 years, when the earthquake left them bare. This contrast partly explains why when applying the REM method Donini obtained such a broad time frame, the same one that later led him to propose an antiquity of 24,941 years. Issue settled, then? No. The study has only served to stir up the debate. And it is more than understandable if we take into account several keys. First, the dating turns upside down everything we thought we knew about one of Egypt’s most famous monuments. Among other things, he questions whether Pharaoh Cheops was its main architect and slips that he could have limited himself to reforming it. Furthermore, Donini’s study has another handicap: it is preliminary and has not been peer-reviewed, which heats up the debate (even) more. He himself has admitted that REM calculations are influenced by factors that must be handled with caution, such as the variability of erosion processes or the wear and tear that mass tourism may have had on certain parts of the base of the pyramid, altering the calculations. Images | Wikipedia, Alessandro Zanini (Unsplash) and 2H Media (Unsplash) Via | 3D Games In Xataka | Egypt is creating a new tourist mega-destination. There are those who see it as a threat to the oldest monastery in the world

“Microsoft built the concept of office work because they wanted to sell more software”

by

For many, the office work and spending eight hours a day in front of a screen is little less than a unnatural torture for the human being. In fact, this type of “knowledge work” is a relatively recent inventionwhich has been evolving as an adaptation of technology to the world of work. Aravind SrinivasCEO of Perplexity has gone a little further by ensuring that office work is an invention by Bill Gates to carry out his plan to bring a PC to every desk. Srinivas developed his hypothesis during his interview at the Joe Rogan Podcast and even left the presenter confused. “Microsoft built the concept of office work because they wanted to sell more software.” Gates’ dream Srinivas links the creation of office jobs directly to the Microsoft founder’s historical obsession with putting a computer in every house and on every desk. “That idea of ​​putting a PC on every desk and making you glued to it was Bill Gates’ vision,” explained the Perplexity CEO. It’s no secret. Gates himself has repeated that same idea for decades: he wanted a computer in every house and on every desk. In fact, his vision of the future of computers was published in the specialized press of the time even before Microsoft sold its first BASIC. Rogan, in his direct style, summed up the merit of Gates’ plan with a powerful phrase: “Wow, genius. What an achievement, because they certainly nailed it.” The truth is that it is difficult to contradict him. Few business strategies have changed the daily routine of billions of people as much as the arrival of computers and office automation in the world of work. A masterstroke from Microsoft Srinivas’s thesis is that the 9 to 5 job in front of a screen was not a natural evolution of employment, but a Microsoft business plan so that people used computers all day. The more hours and more people worked in front of a screen, the more software licenses were sold. According to the manager, the office routine was designed to create a daily dependence on Word and Excel, starting in schools, so that companies would then pay for these licenses. The juiciest part of the interview is the contrast between the two founders. According to Srinivas, Microsoft’s goal was never design. “It was not about making computing beautiful, as Steve Jobs conceived it,” he said verbatim, marking the difference with Apple. Jobs was pursuing something else: machines almost obsessive in their aesthetic care, which he himself defined as ‘insanely great‘. Microsoft, on the other hand, sold hardware to put software on top of. The more time you spent in front of the screen, the more licenses you needed. Microsoft’s business was not about creating a beautiful product, it was about generating dependency of your tools to sell licenses. Microsoft invented Office, not the office Despite Srinivas’ shocking statements, Bill Gates did not invent the eight-hour day nor office work. Its history comes from long before, from workers’ struggles of the 19th century and laws like Fair Labor Standards 1938 in the United States. What is true is that, as Rogan pointed out, “this type of lifestyle is something very recent that we have come to accept as normal.” The scientific evidence testifies that, with the arrival of computers and technology, the productivity at work skyrocketed. That Microsoft won that game by contributing to the increase in that productivity It is undeniable. Word, Excel or PowerPoint have been training entire generations since school. When these students arrive at their first job, they already know how to use those tools and companies pay for the license without thinking twice. In Xataka | Companies have returned to the office to improve productivity: a McKinsey study is not so clear Image | Unsplash (Jan Baborak), Flickr (European Parliament), Xataka

At the age of 15, he built an ocean generator with a PVC pipe and 10 euros. A decade later, it continues to spark interest in the sector

by

It was 2015 when a high school student from Boca Raton, Florida, presented to a jury of scientists a prototype built with parts that anyone could find in a hardware store. Your project He was trying to solve how to generate electricity where power lines do not reach, taking advantage of the movement of the sea. There was no laboratory or company behind it, just 12 dollars in budget (about 10 euros at the current exchange rate). Interestingly, his idea is the principle on which an entire emerging marine energy industry is built. Who is he and what did he do?. Hannah Herbst was 15 years old when she devised BEACON (Bringing Electricity Access to Countries through Ocean Energy), a probe capable of transforming the movement of ocean currents into electricity. The device earned him the title of “America’s Top Young Scientist” and $25,000 in the 2015 Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge, after competing against eight other finalists at the 3M innovation center in Saint Paul, Minnesota. How it all started. As Herbst shared at the time, she maintained contact by postal mail with a nine-year-old girl in Ethiopia, who lived with almost no access to electricity. “I can’t even imagine a day without light,” came to declare Herbst herself told Business Insider when recalling their conversations. She wanted to build something that could bring energy to communities like her friend’s, without depending on expensive infrastructure or conventional electrical grids. This is how your invention works. The mechanism is easy to explain precisely because its beauty lies in its simplicity. A 3D-printed propeller is placed on one end of the device; When the water current makes it rotate, a system of pulleys transmits that movement to a Pelton wheel, a type of hydraulic turbine widely used in engineering, connected to a generator. All housed inside a PVC tube. This means that clean and continuous electricity can be obtained, without depending on the sun or the wind. Herbst tested the prototype on the Intracoastal Waterway of Boca Raton, where he managed to light LED bulbs. It is not that Herbst suddenly provided a new physical principle, but it is very interesting how his proposal took that physical principle to a much smaller and cheaper scale. It didn’t stop at a school fair model. With the help of Jeffrey Emslander, a 3M scientist who served as a mentor during the summer before the contest, Herbst wanted to take his idea to a larger scale version. According to picked up Business Insider’s calculations suggested that the expanded design could generate enough electricity to charge three car batteries in less than an hour, enough energy to power water desalination pumps, blood centrifuges in rural clinics, or coastal navigation beacons. Why does it matter? More than ten years later, this approach (small, autonomous and cheap devices for areas where installing a conventional electrical network does not pay off) is exactly the direction that the marine energy industry is taking. The United States Department of Energy estimates that the technical resource available in US waters equals approximately 57% of all the country’s current electricity generation, according to data from its Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office, although it warns that the technology is still in an early stage of development. Between the lines. Turbine technology for marine currents already existed and was being researched on an industrial scale long before Herbst put it into practice. Although what is striking is that the direction in which the sector is now moving, with smaller, modular devices designed for areas without an electrical grid, instead of gigantic and centralized turbines, coincides with the idea that that teenager intuitively applied in her garage. In this sense, several companies already operate under this same approach, although on a very different scale. ORPC (Ocean Renewable Power Company) has deployed a hydrokinetic device in Igiugig, Alaska, since 2019 to supply that remote community, and is preparing new projects in rivers in Louisiana, Canada and France. Ocean Motion Technologies develops small wave generators controlled by artificial intelligence to power ocean sensors. and Hydrokinetic Energy Corp. works in turbines that take advantage of the Gulf of Mexico current. On the other hand, it should be noted that Herbst has never intended to patent his invention or keep it exclusive. “When I finish developing it, I’m going to release it openly… everyone in the world will be able to have access to the bill of materials and the data that I got, everything necessary to make this device,” explained Herbst to Fast Company magazine in 2015. And now what. Herbst has continued to broaden his horizons ever since. He trained in information systems at Florida Atlantic University, years later developed an antibacterial bandage inspired by shark skin and, now in the field of medical technology, created AutoTQan automatic tourniquet designed to save lives in severe bleeding situations. In fact, she is currently listed as founder and CEO of this medical initiative. Cover image | Medill News Service In Xataka | Europe has found an energy vein for the next decade: North Africa

There is a flying saucer sailing down a river in Vietnam. A YouTuber built it in his yard with sand, scrap metal and fiberglass

by

Some time ago Thanh Cheaka ‘Mr. Ho’, a youtuber Vietnamese with more than 1.4 million subscribers, had a crazy idea: to sail the rivers of his country with a flying template. Literally. For anyone else, an idea like that would have remained just that: a crazy dream. It took Mr. Ho to get to work and build a kind of boat made with little more than sand, fiberglass and the propulsion system of a jet ski. However, the most curious thing is not the result, but the process. Mr. Ho Thanh Che. To ‘Mr. He’s up for challenges. Especially those that involve assembling (or repairing) motorized devices with materials that anyone could find without too many complications. In recent years this has led it to manufacture your own boatstart a car that had been rotting for years in the middle of the jungle, ride a vehicle with materials taken from a landfill or designing a jet ski shaped like a giant spider. A water UFO. As if all of the above were not enough, some time ago Mr. Ho decided to go one step further and create a flying saucer capable of crossing the rivers of Vietnam at full speed. It sounds crazy (and it is), but that’s just what the youtuber shows in a video of just one hour in which he documents the entire process: from the moment he imagines the design (in his dreams) to the moment he takes his ‘flying saucer boat’ into the water. The challenge is so fascinating that the video has more than 30 million views. And that’s just on Mr. Ho’s personal account. The piece has been shared on other channels in which it accumulates thousands and thousands of views. Nothing surprising if we take into account that the youtuber It does not have a large workshop, nor access to exclusive parts. In his projects (including the UFO project) he uses the resources he has at hand, even if sometimes they are little more than scrap metal. playing with sand. The most curious thing about the project is how it starts. For someone with access to industrial molds or modern milling machines, manufacturing the hull of the flying saucer wouldn’t have much substance. Mr. Ho had to settle for a solution more rudimentary: He traced the silhouette of the saucer on the ground of a patio, piled sand on top, and then shaped the mound with the help of a rotating arm made from scrap metal. The goal: create a symmetrical dome. That kind of sand shell served as his starting point. Then the youtuber He poured cement, consolidated the shape and used it as a framework to make the two halves of the hull (aka space saucer) with fiberglass. By hand. Step by step. With the same patience that would be used to make a piece of craftsmanship. With the helmet ready, he opened several hexagonal-shaped holes. Under way. To move the ‘flying saucer boat’, Mr. Ho opted for a solution similar to that of jet skis: a hydrojet systemjet propulsion, which is powered by an engine allows a turbine to absorb water and then expel it at high pressure. Among other things, this avoids external propellers. So that his particular flying saucer could be handled more easily, the youtuber used a deflector attached to a cable that in turn directs the water jet. The video shows how that solution allows you to direct the jet and make tight turns. As it is housed in a hollow cavity in the inner hull, the engine does not break the spaceship aesthetic that its creator wanted to give it. A carpeted flying saucer. On this occasion Mr. Ho was not satisfied with creating a boat in the shape of a flying jig. He also wanted to take care of the details of the design. Both external and internal. On the outside it included LEDs, solar panels and a dark gray color that gives the result an aesthetic that is partly (partly) reminiscent of the B-2 bombers of the USAF. Inside, Ho opted for the same philosophy: taking care of the details, including carpet, soundproofing and tinted acrylic windows. In a nod to his main platform as a creator, he gave the ship a yoke-type steering wheel with the YouTube logo. It is difficult to determine whether the pilot is traveling comfortably, but the video of the maiden voyage It shows that at least the ship is stable and fast. Images | Tech Freeze, Mr Ho Via | Passion Engine In Xataka | Engineers (and not aliens) have created a flying saucer that flies and is completely functional

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.