charge

The Government says Palantir is a risk to national security. NATO, of which Spain is a member, has put it in charge of its own

by

Moncloa has begun to ask public companies not to sign new contracts with Palantir, according to Agustín Marco has advanced in The Confidential. The order is not official nor is it in writing, but an agreement has already been reached with the Civil Guard and another with Navantia. The panoramic. Spain joins France, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands in distrust towards the company of Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. The unofficial argument is the usual one: not to risk sensitive information in the hands of an American company with close ties to the Trump White House. The veto affects Telefónica, Indra, Correos and Navantia, all of them under the umbrella of SEPI. There is no statement, no press conference, no official note. They are indications transferred internally to boards of directors. In detail. The contract that really matters still stands. Defense signed with Palantir in 2023 a 16.5 million euro agreement for the Armed Forces Intelligence Center, and that contract expires in November of this year. According to The Confidentialthe chiefs of the General Staff have pressured Margarita Robles to renew it because there is no comparable alternative. Either Palantir or nobody. The decision remains unmade. The contrast. While Moncloa slides the veto inside, NATO announced this week that Palantir’s Maven Smart System becomes its operating system for military data management. Spain is a partner of the Alliance and has had to approve this decision, like all allies. So he voted yes in Brussels but has chosen the opposite direction behind closed doors. Why is it important. The veto does not touch the only thing that really counts: the Defense contract. Everything else (the Civil Guard and Navantia) were negotiations in progress, but not consolidated relationships. Cutting them costs little. Touching the CIFAS contract (Intelligence Center of the Armed Forces), on the other hand, would require replacing a tool that, according to sources in the military sector itself, has no rival in the market. Again: either Palantir or nobody. Yes, but. The gesture has a clear recipient: the US government. Pedro Sánchez has not received the US ambassador in Madrid, Benjamín León Jr., for months and Its Executive has invested 115 million euros in Openchip and another 5,000 million in a chip gigafactory as a commitment to European technological sovereignty. The Palantir veto fits that narrative. What doesn’t fit so well is that this same story coexists with a Defense contract that no one dares to cancel. And now what. The end of the current contract in November will test whether this was signaling or conviction: If the CIFAS contract is renewed without making much noise, the veto will have been a diplomatic gesture. If it is dropped without an equivalent replacement, Spain will be left without the tool its own military considers irreplaceable. The middle way, replacing it with European or national technology, does not yet exist. In Xataka | AI is crucial for the US military. So he’s naming OpenAI and Palantir leaders as lieutenant generals Featured image | Palantir, Wikimedia Commons

Ferrari wants your car to charge itself in the sun while parked. One of his patents explains how

by

A few weeks ago, Ferrari dropped a time bomb with its first electric car, Luce. the car has given to talk at lengthand has generated all kinds of opinions. It is also a vehicle that gives us clues about the direction the brand wants to take in this stage of transition that we are going through. But it is not the only one, because if we delve into the intricate world of patents, Ferrari has registered accounts that would raise some eyebrows. One of his last patents registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is share the CarBuzz medium, which describes a system of photovoltaic panels that deploy from the roof of the vehicle when it is parked. It is not a typical solar roof and has peculiarities that are worth commenting on. What’s in the patent. The document describe a rollable photovoltaic panel housed in a cavity inside the roof of the car. When the vehicle is stopped and turned off, the panel can be removed through a slot to cover it. According to the technical drawings of the patent, there are two possible positions: one of the panels deploys forward, over the windshield, generating shadow in the cabin; another does it from the rear, under the rear window, oriented at an angle to better capture sunlight. The mechanism uses a U-shaped element and two support rods to extend the panel from its roller. Why do you do it this way and not any other way? The solution may seem complicated (and it is) compared to simply integrating solar cells into the roof, as some manufacturers already do. But Ferrari seems to have its reasons. First, a roll-up panel that is only activated when parking allows the use of a larger photovoltaic surface than would fit on the fixed roof. Furthermore, the patent explicitly mentions the dual purpose of the system, which is to charge the battery and reduce the interior temperature of the cabin when the car is in the sun. Along with this, in the patent is pointed out The system includes sensors and weather data to automate when it is deployed or picked up. Limitations. A solar panel that only works when the car is stationary and in the sun has a very limited range in real life. In the end, the efficiency of these systems depends greatly on weather conditions, the orientation of the vehicle and the exposure time. It is not a fixed place with a large space that allows these losses of efficiency to be counteracted, as is the case in a photovoltaic installation that we can integrate into a house. CarBuzz mention the case of Hyundai, which has been studying this technology for years and that it integrates into some of its test vehicles. The firm stated that its solar roof can replenish between 30% and 60% of the battery per day in ideal conditions, which for a car with more than 300 kilometers of autonomy could cover the average trip to work. But those “ideal conditions” are the exception, not the norm. What it says about Ferrari. As we have mentioned before, the patent appears at a very specific time, as Ferrari has just launched the Luce, its first fully electric car, conceived as a vehicle for everyday use and not just as a sports car for occasional use. It makes sense for the brand to start exploring ways to manage autonomy and charging in different ways than conventional ones. On the other hand, just as points out CarBuzz, adding weight and complexity to the roof goes against Ferrari’s historic philosophy, focused on pure handling and clean design. These are ideas that the brand will have to play with to clarify its priorities in the coming years. However, it should be noted that, at the moment, it is only a patent, not a product announcement. Ferrari, like many other companies, registers technical ideas without necessarily implying that they will reach a production car. Cover image | Matt Antonioli and Ferrari In Xataka | “Solid-state batteries are not the Holy Grail”: the head of CATL explains why it will take us a while to see them in cars

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

by

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

Microsoft put the head of its AI department in charge of Xbox. Now it’s dismantling all of Xbox’s AI

by

Asha Sharman is the new CEO of Xbox and has arrived with a mission: to blow up Xbox. At least, that is what he is proposing in the first three months of his mandate in which he took the reins of the company in one of the worst moments in its history, with a diffuse identity and with the responsibility of filling the shoes of a Phil Spencer who had been with the company for 40 years. The most curious thing is that Sharma came from presiding over CoreAI, one of Microsoft’s most important AI divisions, and is doing the opposite of what many of us expected. Dismantle AI from within. Distrust. The Xbox brand is not going through its best moment. Since the disastrous E3 in 2013 where the Xbox boss said that if someone didn’t want an always-connected console (Xbox One) they could stick with their old Xbox 360, things have gone downhill. That someone was a Don Mattrick who was replaced by Phil Spencer and with whom things began to change. Game Pass, studio purchases to feed the ecosystem and strategy changes such as launching games on PC and PlayStation. The accounts seemed to come out in services, but not in hardware or games. After all this time, Phil retired and a totally different profile arrived: that of Asha Sharman. The directive I wasn’t a gamer like Phil, he also had no gaming experience. He came from leading CoreAI, a Microsoft team focused on accelerating the development of AI software for internal and external customers to build and run AI applications and agents. Out with the AI. When it was announced that she would be in charge of replacing Phil, in the midst of the ‘Microslop’ meme, many of us feared the worst for the division. Even one of the fathers of Xbox He pointed out that Sharma was going to bury Xbox. However, through Twitter, the CEO has just launched a release quite interesting: “Xbox needs to move faster, deepen our connection to the community, and address friction for both players and developers.” It would seem like just another message, that typical ‘CEO language’ that so many managers use, but it has gone one step further by committing to something interesting: “Today we promoted leaders who helped build Xbox while bringing in new voices to help us move forward. This balance is important as we get the business back on track. As part of this change, we will begin removing features that do not align with our intentions and plans for the future. “We will begin scaling back Copilot on mobile devices and will stop development of Copilot on consoles.” CoreAI Avalanche. This implies a shift in the strategy of a Microsoft that, like others like Meta, they had become an AI company. They have pushed Copilot to its limits, putting it on capon even on televisions thanks to commercial agreements or by renaming its office suite so that, now, its most important services were Copilot and, therefore, artificial intelligence. These statements, therefore, represent an interesting change, as interesting as seeing who are those who now manage Xbox. Sharma talks about “new voices” and what contrasts with this plan to dismantle Copilot in some of the products is that many of them come from… CoreAI. As they point our colleagues from 3DJuegos, The Verge raises a list of four very important members of that AI division who, now, come to Xbox to work with Sharma when defining the future strategy and the new machine: Project Helix. Return to fan. It is not Sharma’s only turn in this short period at the helm of Xbox. From the “everything is an Xbox” campaign, tremendously controversial because if everything is an Xbox, nothing is, we move on to a “we are xbox“, a return to those origins in which an Xbox is an Xbox, and that’s it. Well, also the PC, which is receiving its ‘Xbox mode‘ to improve the video game experience. There is rumors that they are considering returning to exclusives (PC and Xbox) abandoning launches on platforms such as PlayStation 5 and They have lowered the price of Game Pass Ultimatethat it was shot a few months ago. Of course, although they lowered the price, they also left ‘Call of Duty’ out of the subscription, so that reduction is misleading. I want to believe. Now, you have to be careful with all this. Although they are already taking some actions (that “reduction” of Game Pass or stopping the development of Copilot on Xbox), the return to exclusives and the roots of Xbox are issues that remain to be seen. Until they start taking more forceful action, we won’t be able to assess how far Sharma has gone to do things differently. Furthermore, and it is not to look for spins on Sharma’s statements, the board has pointed out that they stop Copilot on consoles. And that word, “consoles,” is very important because we don’t know what Project Helix will be. Your new machine definitely cannot be classified as a console because the machine itself Microsoft is positioning it as a PCone in which the crisis of components will impact strongly both in availability and price and it remains to be seen if they miss that opportunity to bring AI to the living rooms. But well, it is evident that the new CEO has arrived at Xbox wanting to wage war and we can think “ok, but above it is someone with more power: Satya Nadella.” And yes, Nadella has been one of the great drivers of converting Microsoft into an AI company, but just yesterday the company’s CEO sent a powerful message: clean Windows of so much garbage to win back the fans. Only time will tell, but it is evident that Microsoft’s image is not going through its best moment. In Xataka | France wants to “become independent” from Windows and embrace Linux: Extremadura has a lesson to transmit

In November, Spain is supposed to force stores to charge an amount for each bottle and can sold. It is supposed

by

Something ticks inside every yellow recycling bin and the noise perfectly reaches newsrooms across the country. Hence the articles, pieces and reports that They say that “starting in November the stores will charge” for each plastic bottle. The good news is that yes, the law says that. The bad news is that where the ticking does not reach is the power centers of Madrid capital. What’s happening? Indeed, the Waste Law of 2022 obliges Spain to have a Deposit, Return and Return System (SDDR) for plastic bottles, cans and beverage bricks operational as of November 22, 2026. And the reason is simple: the country had to recycle 70% of everything introduced into the market by 2023 and we did not achieve it. Faced with this possibility, the legislator was clear: the current system had to be abandoned and the packaging return system adopted (the one that charges a deposit for each container and returns it later). Portugal found itself in a similar situation and just introduced the European system. So? What is the problem? The truth is that we have no shortage of problems. To begin with, measuring how we really recycle. For years, stakeholders claimed that recycling rates were close to 80%; However, in 2024, the General Subdirectorate of Waste prepared a report relating to the calculation of the separate collection of SUP bottles for beverages that lowered that figure to 41.3% (well below the 70% required). The second problem is regulation. Following the Law, in May 2025, four organizations (Ecoembes, AECOC, Procircular and CorePET) They asked the Community of Madrid that authorized them as Collective Systems of Extended Producer Responsibility in charge of managing the SDDR. The Community is the competent one since the organizations have their headquarters there. And then? Then nothing. Madrid legally had six months to resolve the request; but it granted itself an extension of another six months that would end next month. However, the Ministry of the Environment has already explained that they have no intention of doing anything because of the “legal uncertainty (that it entails), since adequate and sufficient regulations have not been developed at the state level.” MITECO, for its part, responds that there is no insecurity and that they are not going to do anything more. Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking. Nobody knows anything. While the CAM runs out of its extension, there are less than seven months left before we begin to break the Law and all scenarios are on the table: from a quick solution to a blockade that delayed everything two or three more years (most likely). What is out of the question is that there is no political will to implement this and nothing suggests that this will change. If you had to bet and taking into account that Spain is the country with the most cases of infractions for not transposing community regulationsit would be surprising if the SDDR started in November of this year. Image | James Lo In Xataka | Europe decided to regulate how garbage should be disposed of. We will pay it with a new mandatory rate in 2025

Volotea begins to charge extra due to the rise in oil prices on its flights. 97% of passengers have agreed to pay it

by

More and more airlines are already taking measures to contain the energy chaos that has arisen as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. Although many of them have chosen to cancel a good number of flightsothers have chosen to make their tickets more expensive. One of them has been Volotea. And the Spanish airline has launched a price adjustment policy linked at the cost of fuel which can make the ticket already purchased more expensive up to a week before flying. Crisis in the Middle East. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuzthrough which it passes about 40% of oil consumed by European airlines, has skyrocketed the price of fuel and forced the sector to look for ways to avoid absorbing the blow on their own. Volotea has been the first Spanish airline to transfer this cost to the passenger explicitly and with its own mechanism. What exactly has he done. Since March 16, Volotea has applied what it calls the Fair Travel Promise: seven days before the departure of each flight, the airline consults the market price of fuel in public sources and, if it has increased compared to the time of the reservation, charges the passenger a supplement of up to 14 euros per person per trip. According to they count From 20 Minutes, most surcharges are between 7 and 10 euros. And the adjustment can also work the other way around: if the price of fuel drops, the company returns the difference. What options does the passenger have? The traveler who receives the surcharge notice has a period of 48 hours to decide what to do. You can pay the supplement and continue with your plans, request a full refund of the ticket, or take advantage of the time offered by the airline to modify or cancel the reservation for free up to four hours before takeoff. The company ensures that its customers are aware of this policy before booking, since they must accept it at the time of purchase. The numbers that Volotea manages. According to data from the airline itself, 97% of affected passengers have chosen to pay and keep their trip. The company interprets that percentage as a sign that the measure “is aligned with customer expectations,” in its own words. In addition, it has canceled a small percentage of flights due to higher fuel prices, although it assures that it affects less than 1% of its total schedule. Countermeasures. Not all airlines are acting the same. According to Expansioncompanies such as Air France-KLM, Qantas or Cathay Pacific already apply fuel supplements, while IAG (the group that owns Iberia and British Airways) or Ryanair do not do so at the moment. Groups such as Lufthansa or Ryanair itself have asked the European Union to study a joint purchasing model for kerosene, similar to the one that was launched with gas after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why can it go further? If the Strait of Hormuz blockade is prolonged, pressure on fuel prices could intensify. The Airports Council International (ACI Europe) and Ryanair already have warned that the problem of cancellations in the industry could worsen if supply suffers. Spain has some margin thanks to its national refining capacity (almost 9.9 million tons of kerosene per year, according to share El Mundo), but it is not a structural solution. Volotea has moved in a different way, and now we wonder if more airlines will join this strategy. Cover image | Dylan Agbagni (Wikipedia) In Xataka | Airlines are becoming more imaginative to save costs: Lufthansa is going to clean economy class less

NASA has put a Spaniard in charge of the project for its future lunar base: Carlos García-Galán from Malaga

by

Dressed in a jacket, light blue shirt and gold tie, Carlos García-Galán He did not occupy another chair at the NASA conference held in Washington. Escorted by the administrator Jared Isaacman and other top-level officials, the engineer from Malaga spoke before the press in the middle of the presentation of the agency’s new lunar turn. His presence at that time placed him at the forefront of a roadmap that redefines NASA’s priorities on the Moon. The context of that scene helps understand its relevance. Hours before,Isaacman had presented a roadmap that changes the focus of the agency. It is no longer just about returning to the Moon, but about establishing a sustained presence on its surface. The proposal involves deploying in three phases the initial elements of a permanent lunar base, with stable infrastructure and a logic that is more industrial than experimental. The man from Malaga who now pilots the Moon Base program This change of course also redefines the role of those who must execute it. In this context appears García-Galán, whose official position within NASA is “executive program” at the lunar base. This is a high-level management position, responsible for coordinate and guide program development, not an operational role on the ground. His role will be to lead the project from the agency structure, not to direct a facility on the lunar surface. García-Galán, remember, is not a newcomer, but an engineer who has developed his career within NASA and has been assuming responsibilities for years to get to this point. His presence in the announcement is linked to that trajectory, which now places him in one of the great bets of the US space agency at this stage. His career within NASA helps to understand why he has come this far. Before this appointment, García-Galán, according to LinkedInheld the position of “deputy manager” of the Gateway program, until now a relevant piece in the agency’s lunar architecture. With more than 27 years of experience In manned space flights, he has worked on the design, integration and operation of complex systems, participating in programs such as the International Space Station and the Orion spacecraft. His experience at Gateway also helps explain this appointment. In that program, García-Galán was involved in integration and management tasks within an environment with multiple partners and components. The new approach towards a lunar base requires precisely this ability to order diverse pieces, from missions to infrastructure, something that fits with the profile that has been developed within the agency in recent years. The program that he will now supervise is divided into several phases with a common objective: establishing a sustained presence on the lunar surface. NASA proposes a sequence of missions that will go deploying infrastructurefrom mobility and energy systems to communications networks and habitats. The idea is to advance progressively towards a base capable of sustaining longer-term human stays. Images | NASA (1, 2, 3) In Xataka | Elon Musk knows that TSMC is overwhelmed: Terafab is his idea to completely change the global chip industry

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 .

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.