charge

pay you more than what they charge

by

Here where you see me, with my 52 years behind me, I am one of those who can tell—young people, don’t be scared—that I lived in a time when we children returned “the helmets.” My parents bought glass bottles (beer, wine, soda) for which they paid a “deposit” for those containers. When they consumed them, our parents sent us children to return them. You would go down to the neighborhood “bodega” – that’s what they called it in my house – and that man, I still remember his face, would take the bottles, place them in plastic boxes (clinc, clink) and give you a few pesetas for them that you would then give to your parents. They paid you to recycle. And that idea is coming back strongly now. Recycling what is a gerund. The problem of packaging recycling is not technological. The solutions have been around for decades. The problem is human behavior. Getting millions of people to change a shopping routine as ingrained as ours requires more than just an advertisement on TV that encourages us to recycle because it’s good for the environment. BonÀrea has been testing a solution to the problem for two years in Tarragona and Guissonaand data from their pilot project suggests that they may have found the key to solving the problem. The 50 cent margin trick. He ReturnA system It works in a really simple way: the customer pays 0.45 euros as a deposit when purchasing a meat tray, and receives 0.50 euros when returning it. Five cents difference in favor of the consumer. It’s a small detail, but not accidental, because you don’t get back exactly what you put in, but rather you get a reward for returning that container. There is a big psychological difference between “getting yours back” and “making money by returning it”, and the data confirms this: the return rate is 60% and more than 72,000 single-use trays have been returned in this pilot phase. Reusable trays. The objective is to completely change the economic equation. A single-use container has a production, transportation and waste management cost that must be amortized in a single use. A tray like those from BonÀrea and its RetornA program, which aims to be reused 50 times, distributes that cost over fifty cycles, which in theory (in theory, hopefully in practice) allows the final price of the product to be adjusted. It is the difference between the traditional “make, use, throw away” model and a more “circular” one in which the packaging has a residual value. A great idea, but not for everyone.. The problem with packaging return and recycling systems like this is logistical. Someone has to collect the containers, clean them with sanitary guarantees and then reintroduce them into the company’s operating cycle. BonÀrea can do it because it controls the entire chain, from production to sale, without intermediaries. You can apply traceability to each tray, guarantee its cleanliness and manage that recycling without depending on third parties. In a conventional distribution chain in which external suppliers intervene, things become significantly complicated if one wants to achieve the same efficiency. The debate over SDDR systems. In Spain we take time living with a problem in the Deposit, Return and Return Systems (SDDRwhich would be something like “incentivized recycling”) for beverage containers, for example. In countries like Germany or Nordic countries They have been applying these systems for decades with return rates greater than 90%. The beverage industry has been resisting the implementation of something like this for years because they would be the ones who would have to finance the system and bottlers have been investing in these “one-way” distribution chains for decades. The solution adopted in Spain has been to opt for recycling in containers as an alternative, but the results in terms of a real circular economy are significantly worse. The BonÀrea experiment shows that when there is a clear economic incentive and a controlled logistics chain, things work. RetornA is going to expand. The pilot project has gone so well that starting in the second quarter of 2026, RetornA will be extended to all 460 BonÀrea stores in Catalonia. The total investment will exceed 10 million euros, and has the support of the Waste Agency of Catalonia. The company is in fact expanding the products that use the system, starting with chicken fillet and gradually adding other references. The next step will be to extend it to the rest of its stores throughout Spain, where it has more than 600 establishments. But. There is a question that remains unanswered. What BonÀrea has demonstrated with its pilot is that the system works when the consumer has a direct economic incentive, the logistics platform is integrated and controlled by the company and that operating cycle is relatively short. What’s not clear is whether that 60% rate will be maintained when the system scales to 460 stores and millions of transactions, or whether it will eventually erode with day-to-day friction. We will see if those five cents manage to win the battle that recycling has been losing for decades. Image | Joana Costa | BonÀrea In Xataka | We have been recycling the garbage we produce for decades. Experts say it has been of no use.

In 2003, NASA suffered a serious accident that killed seven people. The person in charge: a PowerPoint

by

On January 16, 2003, NASA’s STS-107 mission was underway. The space shuttle Columbia was launched with its seven crew members into low orbit to test the effects of microgravity on the human body. Those seven people never returned to Earth. The tragedy could have been avoided, but years later the analysis of everything that happened those days has left a terrible conclusion: a presentation of PowerPoint He killed those seven people. The launch, as said James Thomasseemed to be perfect. The crew began to carry out their task, and were expected to spend 16 days in space performing 80 experiments. Just one day after the mission began, NASA officials realized that something had not gone right. NASA has a protocol for reviewing the launch with external cameras. After 82 seconds, a piece of spray foam insulation (SOFI) fell off one of the ramps that attached the shuttle to its external fuel tank. As the crew rose at 28,968 kilometers per hour, the piece of foam collided with one of the tiles on the outer edge of the ship’s left wing. The insulating foam coming off was nothing new: it had happened on the four previous missions and was the reason the cameras were deployed to analyze the launch. The problem is that the blow had occurred in the layer that protected the ship during its re-entry to Earth. The slides of yore What did NASA do? Study the possibilities and conclude that there were three: First, the astronauts could have done a spacewalk to check the helmet. Second, NASA could have sent another shuttle to pick up the crew. Third, they could risk simply re-entry. Those responsible for the mission analyzed the situation with Boeing engineers and created a report in the form of a PowerPoint presentation with 28 slides. The conclusions revealed something important: it was assumed that the wing tiles could tolerate foam impacts, but that assumption had been made under very particular conditions. The pieces of foam in the tests were 600 times smaller than those that had hit the Columbia. To reflect those details, the engineers created this slide: At NASA they listened to the explanation, and the engineers believed they had conveyed the risks well. However, NASA believed that the engineers, even without being certain, suggested that there was no damage that would put the lives of the crew in danger. The option they chose was the third. Columbia would re-enter on February 1, 2003, at 9:16 AM (EST). At 9 that day, Dallas residents saw how the ferry had disintegrated into pieces. The entire crew died. The investigation into the tragedy revealed that NASA and engineers had had the right information, but had made a bad decision. Edward Tufte, a Yale professor, explained that the problem had been with that damn slide and the way it had been presented. The title already seemed to indicate that the risk was not particularly high, but the slide also had four cascading points with no detailed explanation of what they meant: interpretation was left to the reader’s discretion. It was not clear whether the first point (1) was the main one, or if the rest of the points had the same relevance. The different font sizes, strange hierarchy, and text density didn’t help. There were over 100 vague words and adjectives (“sufficient,” “meaningful”), making the slide too open to audience interpretation. The biggest problem is in the last two points, where it was indicated that what they had tested in the preliminary tests was very different from what had happened. NASA itself indicated in your report after the investigation that they had relied too much on PowerPoint. The expression ‘death by PowerPoint’ has been used for years to indicate how there are presentations that induce boredom or fatigue due to their information overload. A bad design and the overuse of points to order each data are common problems in this and other similar applications. Unfortunately, in this case that expression became tragically true. In Xataka | A new “solar system” has just been discovered. There’s just one problem: it shouldn’t exist. In Xataka | Boeing was trying to put the Starliner fiasco behind it: NASA has just classified the 2024 incident at its highest level

Sam Altman has had another great idea to finally charge the user all the money he needs: a receipt at the end of the month

by

We are used to pay the electricity bill or water because they have become basic and totally universal goods. Well, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is clear that artificial intelligence will be exactly that: a commoditya basic and totally universal good. This implies, of course, that there will come a time when, just as we pay the electricity or water bill, we will pay the monthly AI bill. Paying for AI will be an everyday thing. Altman recently participated in an event in Washington DC and there raised an idea that has been around for a long time but is certainly gaining more and more strength: that AI will offer like electricity or water, on demand: as soon as you need it, it will be there for you. That, of course, will mean that just as we now pay for our electricity or water use, we will also pay for the AI ​​supply that we use. And we will do it at the end of the month with the traditional method: an invoice from our supplier. In Xataka The most powerful AI agent in the world has just arrived: the first thing it does is warn you that it is dangerous From consuming kW to consuming tokens. Thus, instead of paying fixed subscriptions as we usually do now when contracting ChatGPT Plus or Claude Pro, for example, what we will do is pay that monthly bill. The amount we will pay will be based on how many “tokens“(processing units) we have consumed to solve all types of tasks. We have power plants, we will have data centers. To Altman this speech fits like a glovebecause it justifies its AI data center megaprojects —and those of the rest of the industry—. If AI is to become that universal basic resource, we will have to have the infrastructure (the “AI power plants”) to sustain it. Without such infrastructure, Altman warns, the price of “intelligence” will skyrocket, turning it into an exclusive privilege for the richest or a resource rationed by governments. Compute Yottaflops. That race for infrastructure has already begun, and big technology companies are fueling it. The reason is simple: either they enter that maelstrom or they risk being left out if the AI ​​revolution actually becomes a reality. Lisa Su, CEO of AMD, explained in her opening talk at CES 2026 that the world will need more than “10 yottaflops” of computing – 10,000 times more than the existing AI capacity in 2022 – in the next five years to be able to meet the demand posed by this massive use of AI. Chips missing… and a lot of energy. The real obstacle to achieving such computing capacity not only lies in the chips – the memory crisis is a side effect of this – but also in energy. data centers they consume a lotwhich makes national electrical networks can finish not having sufficient capacity to supply said energy. OpenAI will not stop spending. Greg Brockman, president of OpenAI, explained in December that their projects, no matter how gigantic they may seem, will go further. Although the company has already committed to investing $1.4 trillion with its partners in data centers over the next eight years, OpenAI wants to “get ahead of the future, but I don’t think we can be, no matter how ambitious we want to dream of being right now.” That is to say, he believes that all his estimates and projects may end up being dwarfed by the true scale to which AI can reach. {“videoId”:”xa1wtpm”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Perplexity, Personal Computer”, “tag”:””, “duration”:”88″} Big Tech wants to bill you at the end of the month. Turn AI into a commodity For it to reach all homes would be an absolute triumph for the companies that are investing in it. The tech industry has not managed to direct its costs to the user other than in things like our internet connection or, at most, in our spending on streaming services —similar to current AI plans—. If it achieves that bill at the end of the month that hundreds (perhaps thousands) of millions of people would also pay, AI would become an extraordinary income machine. In Xataka | OpenClaw changed the rules of the AI ​​race. Technology companies already have their answer: copy it (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news Sam Altman has had another great idea to finally charge the user all the money he needs: a receipt at the end of the month was originally published in Xataka by Javier Pastor .

A company has filled a neighborhood with sidewalk outlets to charge electric cars. Their results are contradictory

by

In 2022, a German company called Rheinmetall proposed a new charging solution: put outlets on the sidewalks. Trying to find solutions for those who wanted to jump to an electric or plug-in hybrid car but did not have a garage, the company proposed a system to charge on the same street, without having to go to an electric station. Three years later: we have the results. A pilot test. After receiving approval from the authorities, the company began a pilot in 2024 in central Cologne and Lindenthala residential neighborhood of the city characterized by its low and individual houses. Neighborhood where, by the way, you will find the status of the local soccer team. The idea is simple, you park on the sidewalk and on the ground, on the curb, you find a plug hidden in a cover. You scan a code printed on it and connect the car with your own charging cable for AC use. As if it were any other charging point, both ends are joined and when the payment is completed, it is passed through the use of a mobile application. The results. In general terms, the results have been good. According to the company, a total of 2,800 charging cycles were carried out in the pilot test in one year. On average, the cars recharged 18 kWh, which in the city means more than 100 kilometers of autonomy for an electric car and between 80 and 100 kilometers on the highway (depending on its efficiency). They point out that each day the plug has been used an average of twice a day and that its availability has been 99%, so there have hardly been any breakdowns. The figure is good if we compare it with the European and Spanish average. In our country, public outlets They are only used 1.5 times a day and, on average, each charger is only busy between 30 and 120 minutes a day in Europe. Customer opinion. The company has conducted a survey of users who have offered their point of view to the system. It included the score given by the drivers (five points maximum) and some notes, complaints or recommendations made by customers. In total, the system has obtained 4.38 points out of five. But, above all, they have received very positive evaluations among customers over 60 years old, who value the simplicity of the system. In addition, they highlight that the plugs have not been damaged by water and that vandalism or uncivil acts (such as not picking up pet excrement) have not been found to have been a problem when recharging. A curious solution is that the cover that hides the plug has been designed to open with a small push of the charging cable, allowing the customer to lift said cover without having to touch it with their hand. Good idea, with some cracks. They point out in forumelectriccars that one of the main problems with this type of charging points is the cost of the plug. Each one of them, which has refrigeration and air conditioning to improve charging, costs 5,000 euros, so it is a bad idea compared to a traditional home charger. Furthermore, if you want to get the most out of the system, it would be necessary to reserve space for these charging points on the street, so there is no difference with any other public charging point unless the street is filled with plugs. That is, as happens with public outlets that are not located at a gas station, the parking space is reduced to reserve spaces that are not always occupied. Other proposals. Public charging is one of the great challenges that the electric car represents. One of its advantages is to leave the house with a charged car or, at least, take advantage of its parking lot to fill its batteries since alternating current is slow and most of the time a car is stopped. The most obvious proposal is the electric stations, with a huge number of high-power plugs available. another is fill shopping and leisure centers with chargerssince a visit to fully recharge the battery can take days or weeks (depending on daily trips) without plugging in our car. With an average of 50 kilometers per day, a car that drives 500 kilometers of autonomy in the city has 10 days to go without plugging the car back in, just three days a month. But if we want to bring public charging to the city streets, Portugal, United Kingdom either Netherlands have been experimenting with public outlets on streetlights. The system is as simple as including sockets on the curbs but with the difference that the socket comes from a street lamp and does not require installation on the ground. The paradox of slow recharging. The problem with this type of recharge is that slow charging takes hours and hours with the car plugged in. If a socket charges our car at 7.4 kW of power, it will be necessary to spend about 10 hours to completely fill the battery of a 60 kWh vehicle, a small size that is on the border between those who want the car for an urban environment and those who want to dare to travel with him. Those refills They are interesting if the price is low But they require that, to get the most out of it, we have to leave the car parked there for an entire working day or an entire night. The system, therefore, is certainly inefficient in terms of servicing more than one car. To charge at this power, the data says that most electric car drivers charge at home. Outside of it, the customer usually chooses to recharge at higher powers. For example, a 50 kW plug can now fully charge a car in less than three hours, which is the time we spend watching a movie at the cinema. And on a trip, the most practical thing is usually to look for … Read more

sport has been disguised as therapy to charge you more money

by

There was a time when gyms smelled of liniment and rusty iron. Success was measured in guttural screams and soaked T-shirts under the military motto of the no pain, no gain. That era is dead. If you walk into a fashion studio today, you will smell like incense and see pastel colors. The industry has understood that to capture the masses it had to stop selling exhaustion and start selling “connection.” As explained by trend magazinesWe have entered the era of strong Elegance. This new concept, far from being a brand, is defined as a natural evolution of training “better, not more.” The goal is no longer to destroy muscle, but to “connect with your body” through softness and technique. It is the birth of Cozy Fitness or gentle training. However, behind this facade of Zen calm, the economic projections are dizzying. It is estimated that the global market for Pilates and Yoga studios will reach 520.61 billion dollars by 2035driven by a population that values ​​mental health over gross physical appearance. Redefining effort The paradigm shift is not accidental; responds to a post-pandemic demand for mental health. According to a report by Les Mills99% of respondents say they feel “happier” after training, and 42% prioritize exercise specifically to improve their mental well-being. This has caused low-impact disciplines, such as Pilates, to be the most booked class for the second year in a row. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that “soft” means “easy.” Specialized media They warn that disciplines like sweep (a fusion of ballet, pilates and yoga) generate a real metabolic and mechanical overload. By working with isometry and bringing the muscle to fatigue without heavy weights, strength and postural improvement are achieved. This is where the narrative turns perverse. Under the promise of “liberation” and “self-care,” the industry has commodified the management of the self. An in-depth academic analysis on the philosophical dimensions of medical sciences suggests that modern fitness It is a byproduct of neoliberal ideology. We are instilled with the notion of the “entrepreneurial self”: health and aesthetics become an individual responsibility for success or failure. Wellbeing is sold as a commodity, and the individual is forced into constant “self-optimization.” If you are not healthy and radiant, it is because you are not managing your body “company” well. This pressure manifests itself in new obsessions such as Protein Chic. We have gone from eating out of necessity to consuming protein-enriched products (even popcorn or water) as a status symbol. The protein shake has become in a religious ritual, a tool to feel that we have “fulfilled” the mandate of physical productivity. Furthermore, sport has become a class filter. Fashion competitions like Hyroxwhich combine running and functional exercises, have become at an exhibition of lifestyle where you pay a high registration fee (about 70 euros) to show that you can afford to suffer in a way cool and gamified. The drivers of change: loneliness, identity and fashion To understand how we got to this point, you have to look at who is filling the rooms. Generation Z has turned the gym into its new bar, desperately seeking a tribe instead of cold machines. A report from 2025 reveals that 36% of young people regularly go to these centers, not only for the physical, but to combat loneliness and find community. Their priority is belonging, which explains the mass exodus toward group classes versus solitary training. The large chains have read this emotional need perfectly and have changed their business model: they no longer sell an hour of exercise, they sell identity. The success of brands like Brooklyn Fitboxing, which expects to invoice 50 million eurosis based on gamifying that community. In the same way, Pilates Club has skyrocketed his income 60% in Spain by focusing on “operational quality” and selling the feeling of belonging to a select and exclusive club. This aesthetic obsession has permeated everything, even technology, which has abandoned crude plastic to disguise itself as high jewelry or become invisible. “Technological minimalism” is the new norm: bracelets like the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 They are now launched with ceramic straps to be worn as fashion necklaces, while devices such as smart rings or heart rate sensors Whoop they bet on “silent monitoring”. It is the triumph of constant but discreet data: the obsession with measuring the body 24/7 without looking like a cyborg. Where are we going: From aesthetics to biology The immediate future of the industry delves into this sophistication. Trends for 2026 point to ‘Body Literacy’: according to elleusers no longer want generic recipes, but rather understand their own biology, hormones and stress response. We move from aggressive “bio-hacking” to personalized and clinical understanding. In Spain, the market is entering a consolidation phase. According to reports from consulting firms such as BDOlarge operators will stop opening centers indiscriminately to focus on increasing the average income per customer (upselling) and offer comprehensive family services. The gym wants to be the center of the social life of the entire family. However, there are cracks in this perfect pastel world. While the sector premium talks about connecting the soul, the segment low cost go on being a battle of prices and efficiency, reminding us that “spiritual well-being” remains, in large part, an affordable luxury. Even technology is showing signs of exhaustion. Technology analysts They point out which devices like him Apple Watch They seem to have reached their ceiling in sports. They have become excellent “entertainers” of well-being (Wellness), but they lack the technical depth of a real coach, remaining on the surface of motivation with synthetic voices that congratulate you for closing rings. As Ale Llosa, founder of one of these new success methods, summarizes, in Vogue: “Soft is fashionable, but without strength there is no resilience.” The question we have left, as we close the locker room locker, is whether this new era of fitness is really making us freer and stronger, or if it has simply built us a prettier, … Read more

Iberia is going to charge up to 140 euros extra for checking in irregular luggage. Now we just need to know what “irregular luggage” is.

by

Since January 28, Iberia has already an additional charge applies for checking in irregularly shaped luggage. What do you mean by irregular luggage? It’s a good question. From Iberia they assure that everything that is soft bags, plastic packages, round or oval packages and any non-rigid packaging that could interfere with the airport’s automatic systems, are susceptible to a surcharge. But it is worth qualifying. Irregular luggage. The airline define Irregular baggage is any package whose shape, material or dimensions may create problems in airport baggage handling systems, as indicated in its official statement. This includes duffel bags, oversized soft backpacks, plastic-wrapped packages, or any object that is not the typical rectangular shape of a hard suitcase. The company assures that this type of luggage blocks automated conveyor belts and complicates stacking in aircraft holds. Just like share In La Voz de Galicia, airlines argue that the handling of non-regular packages represents one of their biggest logistical problems, since the automated systems are designed specifically for rectangular suitcases and these objects can get caught in the sensors or prevent the passage of the rest of the checked luggage. Route Domestic flights (except Canary Islands) Canary Islands / Europe / Africa America/Asia By route (origin-destination) €35/$45/£35 €60 / $75 / £55 €125 / $150 / £110 Connecting flights €40/$50/£35 €70 / $80 / £65 €140/$165/£125 How much does the new rate cost? The amount varies depending on the route and whether the flight includes connections. On domestic flights within the peninsula and the Balearic Islands, the charge is 35 euros each way. For destinations such as the Canary Islands, Europe or Africa, it amounts to 60 euros. On intercontinental routes to America or Asia, the rate reaches 125 euros. If the trip includes connections, these amounts rise to 40, 70 and 140 euros respectively. Iberia clarifies that this charge is added to the price of the luggage, although if the ticket already includes a checked bag, only the additional amount will be paid. Fees apply regardless of whether the passenger has already paid for checked baggage. How it works in practice. According to they count From Iberia, the airline staff will assess each case at the special baggage check-in counter and decide whether or not to accept the bag. Furthermore, it warns that in exceptional situations the luggage may not travel on the same flight as the passenger and may be transported in a special hold or on a later flight. The airline recommends using rectangular or proportioned rigid suitcases to avoid these extra charges and incidents. Differences with special luggage. This new rate is independent of the charges that Iberia already applied for special luggage such as musical instruments, sports equipment or bicycles, which have their own rates. Golf equipment, skis, fishing rods, skates or rackets cost between 30 and 40 euros if booked online, and between 60 and 66 euros if purchased at the airport. Bicycles cost between 65 and 72 euros on domestic flights, while surfboards range from 70 to 77 euros. Musical instruments are the most expensive, with rates ranging between 150 and 330 euros depending on the duration of the flight, and can only be arranged directly at the airports. Cover image | Miguel Angel Sanz In Xataka | Flying in “Business” class is the new trend among low-cost airlines. In all except one: Ryanair

charge double for more speed

by

Anthropic just launched Fast Mode for Claude Opus 4.6a configuration that allows you to obtain model responses up to 2.5 times faster. Of course, it will also affect our pocket, since the price also multiplies. Although right now this is an experiment aimed at professionals who need speed in critical tasks, it is also a move that we are starting to see more and more: monetizing AI tools with incremental improvements with what is already in place. And of course, if this reduces that margin between expenses and income of its operations, better and better. What Anthropic has announced. Fast Mode is neither a new model nor a trimmed version of Opus 4.6. It is the same intelligence, with the same reasoning capacity, but configured to prioritize speed of response over cost efficiency. According to the companyoffers 2.5 times faster responses while maintaining the same model accuracy. At the moment it is available in the testing phase for Claude Code users who have the additional use activated, and also on platforms such as Cursor, GitHub CopilotFigma or v0. The hit to the pocket. While Opus 4.6’s Standard Mode charges $15 per million input tokens and $75 per million output tokens, Fast Mode multiplies those fees: $30 input and $150 output for contexts under 200,000 tokens. In longer contexts, the output rises to $225 per million tokens. Anthropic is offering a 50% discount until February 16, but we’re still talking about a significant increase. The bill especially skyrockets if you activate Quick Mode mid-conversation, as it charges full price for all the previous context. Who does it make sense to? Anthropic says that Fast Mode is designed for interactive work where latency matters more than cost. Real-time debugging, fast code iteration, urgent fixes before a deadline. Situations where waiting breaks the workflow. According to the official documentationit doesn’t make sense for long standalone tasks, batch processing, or jobs where the budget is tight. If Claude is going to spend 30 minutes refactoring code in the background, paying more for speed doesn’t add anything. The signal that sends the market. Fast Mode is not just a premium option. It’s Anthropic testing how far its professional clients are willing to go to achieve fluency. And by the way, sending a message: improvements in speed and user experience are going to cost more and more. The company needs to close the gap between what it spends on computing and what it makes, and it’s doing it faster than its customer base needs to be faster on computing. Fast Mode is billed directly as additional usage, completely skipping the fees included in subscription plans. Between the lines. Anthropic’s move fits into a broader trend. AI models are reaching a level of capability where “revolutionary” improvements are increasingly rare. What remains are incremental adjustments: a little faster, a little more context, slightly more precise responses. But those settings require massive infrastructure and face. So companies in the sector are trying new ways to monetize what they already have. In this case, charge much more to do the same thing, only faster. It is making performance profitable as a premium service. The speed trap. “Speed ​​is addictive”, counted Civil Learning in his Medium article. Once you experience a model that responds instantly without losing reasoning ability, going back is frustrating. Anthropic knows this. Fast Mode doesn’t just sell speed, it sells the ability to maintain flow during intense programming or debugging sessions. And once you get used to it, it’s hard to give it up. And now what. Fast Mode is a research preview, meaning both features and pricing are subject to change. Anthropic plans to expand access to more API clients, but for now it keeps it under control. The key will be to see how many professionals are willing to pay that extra price on a sustained basis. Cover image | Anthropic In Xataka | ChatGPT is increasingly turning to a source that supplants Wikipedia: Elon Musk’s Grokipedia

charge to see the Trevi Fountain

by

Since the mass tourism was consolidated, many historic enclaves and emblematic landscapes have gone from being lived spaces to become scenes Subjected to constant pressure, first by the popularization of travel and then by the amplification of social networks. Over time, this accumulation of visitors has forced cities and towns around the world to test solutions every time more diverse (taxes, quotas, access restrictions or changes in the uses of space) in an attempt to preserve places designed to last centuries in the face of an increasingly intense form of tourist consumption. The selfie as a payment entry. And it is precisely at this point where the latest movement of the authorities in Rome appears, who have begun to put a price not on the contemplation of their monuments, but on the concrete act of standing in front of them and producing content, turning the selfie into a checkout experience. The most symbolic case is that of the Trevi Fountain, where viewing the monument is still free from the square, but going down to its level, occupying the iconic frame, throwing the coin and taking a photo now requires pay two euros. In other words, the fee does not buy history or heritage, but rather time, space and proximity in a saturated scenario, explicitly assuming that the true tourist value is no longer in looking, but in appearing in the image. La Fontana as a permanent filming set. For years, the Trevi Fountain had become a human funnel where thousands of daily visitors competed for a few seconds in front of the marble, the water and the cell phone camera, until the experience became an almost impracticable horror. If you like, the new limited access system works as if it were a set locker: Whoever pays can go down, pose, repeat the photo and stay as long as they want, while gestures that break the illusion of the stage, such as eating or drinking, are prohibited. Rome thus assumes that the contemporary ritual is no longer tossing the coin to return to the city, but rather certifying on networks that one has been there, and that this gesture has an economic and management cost. Between normalization and controversy. There is no doubt, such a measure has divided visitorsbetween those who see it as reasonable to pay “what a coffee costs” for an orderly experience, and those who consider inadmissible put economic barriers to a historical symbol. However, the debate hides a broader reality: paid access does not arise so much from the need to collect money as from filter flows, reduce masses and monetize a pressure that already exists, or so they say in the administration. With more than ten million people a year coming to the Fontana, the payment acts as a regulator of the desire for proximity, not of cultural interest. Throwing coins, new risky sport. CNN counted that on the first day of the new system, not everyone was convinced. Apparently, a group of Spanish tourists, reluctant to pay, stood outside the barriers and threw coins into the fountain from above. In fact, several failed completely and did not reach the water, while below, paying visitors ducked as the coins they were raining from above. A municipal official said that in the coming days they would introduce patrols to prevent injuries from incorrect throws. Same problem, different solution. Also in Italy, in the small alpine village of Santa Maddalena, at the foot of the Dolomitesthe response has been different, but part of the same diagnosis: the express selfie is emptying the places that it makes viral of meaning. In his case, the enclave church. There is no charge for downloading a photo, but rather directly limits access For those who do not stay overnight, parking becomes more expensive and they are forced to walk a long way to get to the church that has become an Instagram icon. The objective: to discourage the visitor who arrives, takes the photo and leaves, leaving saturation, but little value for the community. From seeing to consuming the frame. In short, both in Rome as in the Dolomitesthe underlying message is the same: mass tourism no longer revolves around discovering places, but rather consuming images, and administrations are beginning to manage this phenomenon as a product with limits. From this perspective, the Trevi Fountain symbolizes the definitive step, by clearly separating free contemplation from access to the “filming set”, while Santa Maddalena is committed to brake directly to the passing tourist. Two different approaches to the same contemporary problem: when the trip is reduced to a selfie, heritage ends up becoming a stage and access, inevitably, a regulated good. Image | Benson Kua In Xataka | In its fight against mass tourism, Italy has entered uncharted territory: a tax on tourist dogs In Xataka | Italy has had an idea so that mass tourism does not choke it: higher rates and in more places for travelers

OpenAI is very clear that ads on ChatGPT are going to work. So much so that they are going to charge more than TV for them, according to The Information

by

A few days ago we knew that OpenAI was going to draw up a plan to insert advertising in ChatGPT. Now, according to they point Sources from The Information, the company is already establishing the rates that it is going to start charging advertisers, and the truth is that they are going to give something to talk about. The media shares that OpenAI asks for approximately $60 per 1,000 impressions (CPM), a very high figure when compared to other media, including television. The problem is that OpenAI does not yet offer anywhere near the same measurement tools as Google or Meta. The price thing. The figure of 60 dollars is at NFL levels, according to reflects Gennaro Cuofano, founder of The Business Enquineer. OpenAI has not yet specified what data it will provide to advertisers, only that it will be “high level”, so there is some skepticism if we take into account that companies like Meta and Google allow us to track very specific and detailed metrics when we see an ad through their platforms. Vender access, without results. The company is betting for capitalizing on its audience of more than 400 million users before building the necessary infrastructure to offer this type of service. As Cuofano details, it’s about “selling reach now, building attribution later,” similar to what Facebook did in 2010, when it had a massive, fast-growing audience and opted for ads without yet an advanced metrics infrastructure. Time has ended up proving Zuckerberg’s platform right, but we will have to wait to see if the move is worth the same to OpenAI. Nfinancial need. The strategy can also be seen as an attempt by OpenAI to reverse the economic situation through which it passes. And as we knew through internal documents, the company projects operating losses of $74 billion by 2028, driven largely by AI operational costs. The idea is that the ads appear in the coming weeks only for free and download users. Go plan in the United States, while Plus, Pro, Business and Enterprise subscriptions will be free of advertising. OpenAI affirms that the ads will not influence the chatbot’s responses and that it will never sell conversation data to advertisers, in addition to avoiding sensitive topics such as mental health or politics. And now what. OpenAI will now have to demonstrate that it can scale this model beyond experimental budgets. And to scale a platform towards revenues that exceed tens of billions of dollars in advertising, it will be necessary to build a very solid measurement infrastructure and establish relationships with advertising agencies that it does not have now. It remains to be seen if the same promises that feed your ecosystem of products also allow them to build an advertising ecosystem as large as Google, Meta or Amazon have demonstrated in recent years. Cover image | OpenAI In Xataka | “The assemblies are not going to be done by AI”: we talk to the kids who have become carpenters, truck drivers and tinkerers

charge a lot to Big Tech that uses it for AI

by

The world’s largest free encyclopedia is celebrating. Wikipedia turns 25, and to commemorate this event they have prepared content and activities for all its users that give context to the beginnings of this non-profit project. However, perhaps the most striking thing about your statement It has to do with the new vision that the Wikimedia Foundation will take from now on: a Wikipedia in the age of AI. For this reason, those responsible for managing this digital library have also revealed that Microsoft, Meta and Amazon joined other Big Tech companies such as Google to be able to use Wikipedia content to train their language models. To do this, companies pay good money to the foundation for having premium access to that content. What is happening. The Wikimedia Foundation has confirmed that Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Perplexity and Mistral AI have joined Google as paying customers of Wikimedia Enterprise, a commercial platform launched in 2021. According to Lane Becker, senior director of revenue at the foundation, this initiative offers a version of the Wikipedia API “optimized” for commercial use and AI companies, with functionalities customized according to the needs of each company. Why are they paying? Tech companies rely massively on Wikipedia to train their AI models. 65 million articles in more than 300 languages ​​are essential for chatbots like ChatGPT or virtual assistants. However, Wikipedia says that this use has also increased the maintenance and server costs of the library, whose traditional financing comes from small donations from the public. “Wikipedia is a critical component of the work of these tech companies that need to figure out how to support it financially,” explained Lane Becker told Reuters. In detail. Wikimedia Enterprise is not simply downloading Wikipedia. The platform allows these companies to access content at a volume and speed specifically designed to train large-scale AI models, with structured data formats and custom functionality requests. Microsoft, Perplexity and Mistral AI joined forces over the last year, while Meta and Amazon were already partners although their participation had not been publicly announced until now. Between the lines. It is a financing model with which the Wikimedia Foundation would benefit more, in addition to individual donations. It’s also a change in how Wikipedia sustains its nonprofit mission. For years, the platform has relied on individual donations while large corporations benefited from its knowledge for free. Now, the foundation has found a balance: keeping access free for the general public while monetizing heavy commercial use. “Reaching a new sustainable balance with these new companies is critical for our continued existence, but also for yours,” pointed out Becker to The Verge. Wikipedia in the age of AI. Just like account Foundation, Wikipedia continues to be created and maintained by approximately 250,000 volunteer editors around the world who write, edit and fact-check information for free. Tim Frank, corporate vice president of Microsoft, counted that “together, we are helping to create a sustainable content ecosystem for the AI ​​internet, where contributors are valued.” On the other hand, Selena Deckelmann, Director of Product and Technology at Wikimedia, assured that “Wikipedia proves that knowledge is human and knowledge needs humans. Especially now, in the age of AI, we need Wikipedia’s human-powered knowledge more than ever.” Cover image | Oberon Copeland In Xataka | The Apple Intelligence and Siri disaster has caused something unusual: Apple gives the keys to its kingdom to Google

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.