danger

In January a SpaceX rocket exploded. Today we know the danger that an Iberia plane was in with 450 passengers in the air

by

On January 16, while air traffic in the Caribbean continued its usual routine, three commercial airliners were thrust into a situation that until recently belonged more to science fiction than civil aviation: passing through a possible cloud of rocket debris in mid-flight. Iberia under a space rain. It was a JetBlue plane heading to San Juan, another Iberia plane and a private jet that ended up declaring fuel emergencies and crossing a temporary exclusion zone hastily activated after the Starship explosion from SpaceX a few minutes after taking off. Altogether, about 450 people were traveling on those planes, which ultimately landed without incident, but internal documents of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reveal that the real risk was much higher than what was publicly known at that time. When the protocol is behind. The Starship explosion caused almost 50 minutes a rain of incandescent fragments over large areas of the Caribbean, a scenario in which the impact of a single piece of debris against an airplane could have had catastrophic consequences. However, the warning chain did not work as planned: SpaceX did not immediately report the failure through the official hotline, and some controllers learned of the incident because the pilots themselves they started reporting “intense fire and fragments” visible from the cabin. The exclusion zones were activated late and, furthermore, only covered US airspace with radar, leaving out pockets of international space where, in theory, flying could continue despite the risk. The result was a extreme workload for controllers and situations of added danger, such as excessive proximity between aircraft that forced intervention to avoid a collision. Impossible decisions at 10,000 meters. In the air, theory became a practical dilemma. The pilots were raised a choice that no manual comfortably contemplates: deviate and take risks to run out of fuel over the ocean or continue through an area where space debris could fall. In at least two cases, the only way out was declare emergency to be able to land. Iberia later maintained that its plane crossed the area when debris was no longer falling, and JetBlue assured that its flights avoided the points where debris was detected, but FAA records describe a tense situation in which decisions were made with incomplete information and under extreme pressure. A structural problem. The incident set off alarms both in the airline industry and in the US Government itself, not only because of what happened in January, but because of what comes next. The FAA plans to go from a historical average of about two dozen launches and reentries annually to managing between 200 and 400 every year for the foreseeable future. A good part of this increase goes through Starship, the most powerful system ever developed, with more than 120 meters high and trajectories that, in future missions, will fly over busy air routes in the North Atlantic, Florida or Mexico. The industry’s own history reminds us that the development of new rockets involves failures: approximately one third of launchers active since 2000 failed on their first flight. Half review. After the explosion January, the FAA convened a panel of experts to review protocols for failed launch debris, an initiative that took on even more urgency after another Starship that exploded in March. That second incident was managed better from the aerial point of view, closing loopholes in exclusion zones and avoiding fuel emergencies, and the panel came to identify high risks for aviation safety, such as forced diversions or overloading of controllers. However, in August the agency suspended unexpectedly that internal review, claiming that many recommendations were already being implemented and that the issue would be addressed at another regulatory level, a decision that surprised even some group participants. The defense of SpaceX. SpaceX responded calling the published information misleading and reiterating that public safety is always its priority, ensuring that no plane was really in danger. Your address insist in which the collaboration with the FAA is close and proposes solutions such as real-time monitoring of vehicles and possible debris, so that a problematic launch can be managed almost like a meteorological phenomenon. Meanwhile, the company has moved forward with new evidence of Starship, some longer before disintegrating and others staying within the planned profile, and preparing an even more powerful version for next year. As recognized Its CEO, Elon Musk, is a radical design that will likely have “growing pains.” A warning from heaven. What happened in January was not only a specific scarebut an early warning of a problem that is barely starts to take shape: the increasingly closer coexistence between commercial aviation and a rapidly accelerating space industry. The night when pilots tthey had to choose between the fuel and a rain of space debris showed that current protocols are not fully prepared for this new scenario. The challenge is no longer just to launch bigger rockets more often, but to ensure that the price of that progress is not paid at 10,000 meters above sea level, with hundreds of passengers trapped between the sky and the sea. Image | Adam Moreira (AEMoreira042281), NARA In Xataka | China is launching more rockets into space than ever before. And the reason is very simple: not to depend on Starlink In Xataka | Google doesn’t have rockets, but it is going to install data centers in space. SpaceX and Blue Origin rub their hands

In 2013 London announced its most impressive skyscraper. Back then, no one could imagine the danger that their crystals had.

by

There are many stories of skyscrapers with very different endings than those on the plans, some terriblebut in the city of London one is still remembered for its closeness and chaos generated. The history of the so-called like walkie talkie (20 Fenchurch Street) is that of a building that was born wrapped in promises of modernity and ended up exhibiting one of the most unusual and dangerous design flaws in contemporary architecture. An experiment turned into risk. In the summer of 2013, when its glass façade was almost finished, London discovered to its shock that the skyscraper it had so much promoted had a big problem: acted like a gigantic parabolic lens, concentrating sunlight on a narrow strip of Eastcheap capable of melting plastic, deform metal and produce temperatures higher than those of a domestic oven. It was no joke. Parked cars, like the story that went viral Martin Lindsay’s Jaguarsuffered palpable damage, everyday objects began to melt, passersby spoke of softened shoe soles or feeling burns on their skin. You have to give it a name. The phenomenon was such that it ended up being baptized like death rayand it was not an exaggeration: the reflections generated up to 72 degrees Celsius on the street, creating a real danger for anyone passing by. The press documented the episode with fascination and alarmimmediately turning it into a media attraction that placed the building at the center of unprecedented scrutiny. The Walkie-Talkie (20 Fenchurch Street) A failure announced. Far from being an unforeseeable accident, Walkie Talkie It had been conceived with a concave curvature that any student of elementary physics would have pointed out as capable of concentrating light. Its architect, Rafael Viñoly, recognized shortly after the building had initially been designed with horizontal slats to avoid precisely that effect, but they were removed for budgetary reasons. Viñoly admitted also that the team did not have the appropriate tools to model the phenomenon accurately, limiting itself to approximate calculations who predicted a lower risk. The reality was very different, aggravated by the increase in solar radiation in London in recent years. In fact, the problem It was not unprecedented for the architect: already in Las Vegas his Vdara hotel had been accused to concentrate light until they burn the bathers. The skyscraper under construction And more. But in London the error acquired a incomparable public dimensionbecause it affected not a private complex but one of the busiest streets in the City. The urgent installation of a temporary mesh and the subsequent placement of slats on the facade They solved the problem, but they did not avoid the perception that it was a systemic failure, the result of a design process that had privileged aesthetics and costs over urban safety. The Sky Garden Emblem of a city in transformation. Even before the death ray episode, the Walkie Talkie was subject of criticism. Its silhouette, disproportionate and widened upward to maximize profitable views, stood like a sort of “sore thumb” outside the financial cluster, generating a visual impact that the own urban report had described as “significant damage.” However, the real controversy came after its famous Sky Garden: presented as a public contribution comparable to a vertical park. open to all, it ended up being more of a panoramic restaurant complex with controlled access and mandatory reservations. For many Londoners, it represented a symbol of the privatization drift of urban spaces: a supposed “public garden” that responded more to the logic of corporate luxury than to that of the common good. The complaints were so intense that the City even raised a structural reform of space to bring it closer to what was initially promised. A razzie. In 2015, amidst the accumulation of controversies, the building received the Carbuncle Cup for ugliest building of the year in the United Kingdom, a satirical recognition that underlined the extent to which it had become object of rejection collective. Even Sky News tried to fry an egg under his facade and his name mutated into a meme: Scorchie walkie. Over time, its image became associated not only with an aesthetic problem, but with a chain of opaque decisions and urban planning concessions that many consider a paradigmatic example of how not to manage the integration of a skyscraper into the historical fabric of London. The work of the Imperial The rebirth. Despite its rugged origins, Walkie Talkie has undergone a surprising public rehabilitation. In 2025, twelve years after the incident, visitors are lining up to enjoy from the Sky Gardennow fully integrated into the city’s tourist circuit. But beneath that normalization lies a story that could have been tragic. Later studies from Imperial College showed that, in a different meteorological scenario, the death ray could have cause serious injuryfires in nearby homes and even permanent damage to the skin and eyes. Only the chance combination of clouds and the orientation of the beam (which did not fall at its maximum point at street level) prevented major consequences. A reminder. The architecture was a warning about the critical role of climate modeling, professional responsibility, and the need to subject bolder architectural forms to much more rigorous evaluations. If today the majority of tourists who sgo to the Sky Garden They ignore that the building was about to become an icon of the disaster, it is because the city acted quickly and because luck intervened at the right time. In any case, the technical memory persists: Walkie Talkie remains a reminder that, in a dense, vertical metropolis, a miscalculation can become a massive riskand that contemporary architecture (when its interaction with the environment is neglected) can produce both wonders and invisible dangers. An uncomfortable legacy. In retrospect, the Walkie Talkie has ended up occupying a peculiar place in London’s recent history: it is simultaneously a tourist success, a design failurea case study in urban security and an example of the tensions between public interest and the imperatives of the real estate market. Its trajectory shows that a … Read more

The danger is not when, it is the Arctic

by

The recent crossing of threats between Putin and Trump has revived a tension that seemed buried from the hardest years of the cold war. The Russian president ordered his senior commanders to prepare plans to resume nuclear tests after Trump’s statements on social networks, in which he announced that the United States would resume its tests “immediately.” If so, nuclear weapons experts are clear about how long it would take for Russia to carry out a “real” test. The nuclear ghost. Although the intention of the North American president seemed more political than technical (referring to tests of launch systems and not to real detonations), in Moscow the interpretation it was another: The Ministry of Defense assumed that Washington seeks to reopen the nuclear race and recommended Putin to be ready for “full tests” in the Arctic field of Novaya Zemlya. It we count: that gesture, accompanied by recent demonstrations of the Russian arsenal (since the Burevestnik missile nuclear propulsion to intercontinental torpedo Poseidon), symbolizes the disappearance of the last brakes in the atomic dialectic between the two powers. The end of the agreements. The current climate is the result of years of system erosion of gun control. Russia suspended its participation in the New START treaty in 2023, while the historic INF agreement, which banned intermediate-range missiles, had already been abandoned by both countries in 2019. Despite maintaining some technical respect for launch limits, the absence of verification and transparency has turned the arsenals of Washington and Moscow (5,177 and 5,459 warheads, respectively) in a field of permanent suspicion. The Putin’s orderMore than a technical step, it represents a political message: that Russia will not allow the United States to monopolize the symbolic gesture of resuming tests that, if carried out, would break the taboo in force since 1990 and the spirit of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Kremlin itself seems to have assumed that the return to “eye for an eye” logic It is part of the new post-Ukraine order, where shows of force count as much as victories on the battlefield. Satellite image showing tunnel construction at the Novaya Zemlya nuclear weapons test site in Russia. Russian viability: the Arctic. To the big question, nuclear security experts agree that Russia could carry out a real test within a margin of weeks or monthsdepending on the degree of instrumentation and preparation desired. Hans Kristensenof the Federation of American Scientistsestimates that an improvised detonation (without complex data collection) could be carried out quickly, although without significant scientific or military value. On the contrary, a complete, “real” test, with sealed tunnels, sensors and wiring, would require at least half a year of jobs in Novaya Zemlyawhere underground works have continued discreetly for years. Jon Wolfsthalfrom the American Federation of Scientists, gives the key: seasonal limitations, since the extreme arctic weather would allow trials of this caliber only in summer or early fall. However, both he and other analysts agree that the purpose would be mainly political (show parity with Washington) more than scientific. The great uncertainty. Most experts consulted on TWZ He stressed that neither Russia nor the United States have a technical or military need to resume nuclear testing. Both have extensive arsenals and advanced simulation programs that guarantee the reliability of their weapons without resorting to detonations. Daryl Kimballof the Arms Control Associationremember that Washington has made 1,030 historical tests and Moscow 715and that any new trial would be “purely for show,” an irresponsible act with no tangible benefit. Stephen Schwartz added that the United States maintains a structural advantage thanks to its arsenal maintenance program, valued in 345,000 million of dollars, and that Russia, although it could act with fewer environmental or political obstacles, would gain nothing beyond fueling the spiral of distrust. Still, Russian infrastructure on Novaya Zemlya, modernized in recent years, demonstrates a capacity to respond quickly if tension turns into action. A new deterrent. Beyond of personal confrontation between Putin and Trump, the real risk lies in precedent. A single test (even if it is underground and of low power) would be enough to break three decades of tacit consensus and open the door to new tests by, for example, China, North Korea or other actors seeking to legitimize themselves as nuclear powers. The gesture would have a huge symbolic power: demonstrate that powers can rewrite the rules of nuclear balance when they consider it necessary. In that sense, the experts’ warnings are clear: what is a rhetorical escalation today could become a tangible competition tomorrow, with unforeseeable global consequences. As Wolfsthal pointed out“this is what an arms race looks like: action, reaction, and a slope that costs much more to go down than to go up.” Echoes of the Cold War. The exchange between Moscow and Washington Not only does it resurrect the shadow of the nuclear confrontation, but it redefines its scenario: it is no longer fought in secret offices or under the logic of the balance of terror, but in televised broadcasts and social media posts. The threat of detonating atomic bombs again in the 21st century reveals a dangerous mix of geopolitical nostalgia and spectacle politics. Deep down, both know that no country can “win” a nuclear race. And yet, the temptation to show power, to regain influence and to project invulnerability to their respective audiences could be enough to reignite the powder keg. most feared on the planet. The silence of thirty years underground could be broken by a simple click on a social network. Image | Ministry of Defense of Russia In Xataka | The US and Russia have agreed on nuclear weapons: the time has come to take them out and see if they work In Xataka | In 1950 two scientists wondered if a 10 gigaton nuclear bomb was possible. Your results are hidden under lock and key

Science says the real danger is in how we do it

by

A very typical gesture in our daily lives is to reuse the bottles we use to drink water or any other beverage. Something that is usually done to reduce the carbon footprint that can be caused by using a bottle only once and throwing it away. But at a time when microplastics are the order of the day, the truth is that it makes us think If reusing a bottle is harmful to us. But we are not only talking about the plastic bottles that we buy in the supermarket with water or any other liquid such as a soft drink, but also the classic bottles that we are used to seeing in many places that They promise to keep you warm or cold inside.. Its plastic construction can set off alarm bells after seeing how microplastics have been found in the testiclesthe breast milk and other parts of the bodyit is logical to think that if we use the same bottle twenty or thirty times in the end we are consuming this type of substance. The fear of microplastics. Little by little they get to know each other details about the effect that the consumption of microplastics has about our health, especially fertility. This means that we basically have to question the containers from which we consume food in order to ‘protect ourselves’ from its bad effects, as can occur in these bottles in container containers. The problem. Popular belief states that reusing bottles could pose a significant risk due to the alleged accumulation of bisphenol A (BPA) and the proliferation of dangerous bacteria if they are not cleaned daily. However, current scientific evidence intensely qualifies these statements, distinguishing between real risk factors and unfounded precautions. The release of bisphenols. Several studies have evaluated the migration of BPA and phthalates from reused bottles. under real use conditions. A recent experiment from 2021 simulating daily use in more than 20 types of bottles concluded that no migration of bisphenol A was detected in the stored water, even after several weeks of reasonable reuse. And the most interesting thing is that the classic aluminum bottles used as thermoses were also included. Other scientific articles agree: the release of BPA depends fundamentally on the type of material, exposure to high temperatures and extreme wear, not on the mere fact of filling them with tap or refrigerator water. Bottles suitable for food use, well maintained and not subjected to excessive heatdo not dangerously increase exposure to BPA. This logically changes radically if liquids are poured at high temperatures, which can cause more microplastics to be released. This is why you must always take into account the temperature of the liquids that are stored, so that it is the same as the original liquid that was stored. But there are also different opinions. In this case, food technologist Luis Ribera, director of the Saia food safety consultancy, has warned of the risk of reusing bottles manufactured for single use, as reported by El Confidencial. ​Although he goes further by stating that the real danger lies in the microorganisms that can appear in these bottles. Bacteria and bottles. Precisely, it is also a recurring theme, since logically on the surface of the bottle you can accumulate different common microorganisms like for example Escherichia coli either Staphylococcus. This is something that can be common, especially when a sugary drink has been stored, which leaves a substrate on the plastic walls, as if it were a Petri dish. But the key in this case to avoid the accumulation of bacteria logically lies in hygiene. Recent studies show that regular cleaning Soap and water is enough to keep the bottles safe. In cases in which high levels of bacteria have been reported, the analyzes always point to the lack of frequent washing or the use of cracked containers, rather than the rational reuse for drinking water as many of us do at home to avoid having to buy more bottles. Is it dangerous to reuse bottles? With this evidence, we can have several clear conclusions. The first of them is that there is no health prohibition when it comes to using bottles that are reusable and that have been manufactured to contain water. The second is that the associated health risks are almost exclusively due to poor hygiene habits or extreme wear and tear of the packaging. And the third is that if a bottle has not been manufactured to give it more than one use, Yes, we must be careful with its reuse.. In this way, neither the migration of bisphenol A nor the “bacteriological danger” justify throwing away your bottle after a single use, as long as it is used sensibly and basic hygiene is maintained. Science supports responsible use and regular cleaning, debunking some of the alarmist discourse around reusing plastic bottles for tap water. Images | charlesdeluvio Nigel Msipa In Xataka | The true size of the microplastics that populate our lives, exposed in this disturbing graph ​

This is the “danger zone” we enter after the massive death of corals

by

The Earth has officially entered a grim new era. climate reality. According to a shocking new reportthe incessant increase in heat in the oceans has pushed the corals from around the world beyond its limit, causing a unprecedented large reef mortality because of this climate change. Something that is not good news at all. This event, according to scientists, marks the first climate tipping point we have passed as a planet, directly threatening the livelihoods of nearly a billion people. The report. This data has been collected in the “Global Tipping Points Report 2025”, prepared by an international consortium of more than 200 researchers. And the truth is that they are not at all positive, since they suggest that even in the most optimistic scenario, where global warming does not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, practically all warm-water coral reefs will exceed a point of no return. This makes their loss “one of the most pressing ecological losses facing humanity,” although the disappearance of corals is only the tip of the iceberg. Experts point out that since 2023 we have witnessed how the temperature has increased more than 1.5 °C compared to the pre-industrial average. In this way, exceeding the 1.5 °C limit now seems quite inevitable and could occur around 2030, something that puts our planet on the brink of an abyss. What are ‘turning points’. These points are nothing more than critical thresholds. Once crossed, the climate system is pushed into a new paradigm, triggering effects that will go on in a chain. Specifically, we talk about events such as widespread death of the Amazon rainforestthe collapse of the Greenland ice sheets or the collapse of the circulation of Atlantic southern overturn (AMOC). The Amazon, in particular, is in a critical situation. The report warns that not only warming threatens the forest, but also the combination of this with deforestation. With 1.5°C warming, only 22% deforestation would be enough to reach its point of no return. The current figure is already at an alarming 17%. All is not lost. Despite the bleak outlook, the report identifies a silver lining, which is nothing more than a paradigm shift that, unlike the negative ones, triggers a cascade of beneficial changes. Since 2023, the world has seen very rapid progress in the adoption of clean technologies, especially in two key areas: velectric vehicles and photovoltaic solar energy. Accompanied by a drastic drop in battery prices, these factors are beginning to reinforce each other, accelerating the energy transition in a way that few anticipated. The problem. According to the report’s authors, it lies in governance systems. From national policies to multinational agreements, such as the from Pariswere not designed to address turning points. They are designed to manage gradual, linear changes, not abrupt, cascading collapses on multiple fronts at once. But these turning points are really threatening, so they point to a series of immediate actions to be taken in all countries to avoid a catastrophic situation. In this case they point to the following: Reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants such as methane and black carbon. Accelerate efforts to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Making global supply chains sustainable. Develop mitigation strategies for climate impacts. The message is clear and forceful: what we have done so far is not enough. Researchers urge not to look away. As Milkoreit concludes, “even having a reader have the courage to stay with the problem is work, and I want to recognize that work.” Images | quinguyen Chris LeBoutillier In Xataka | In the fight against climate change, we have developed the air conditioning revolution: ionocaloric cooling

The eruption of a volcano was synonymous with danger 100 years ago. Today has made Iceland a theme park

by

Exactly one year ago, Iceland took a unexplored path In his fight against mass tourism: in essence, tell the truth to the visitor. Thus began a marked campaign For a slogan: “No one will save you if you fall”, which unequivocally came to confirm the hordes of the dangers of getting too close to an erupting volcano. Today, Iceland wonders if it was worth “opening” both the world. The awakening that changed everything. In 2010, when Eyjafjalajökull volcano interrupted air traffic European with an ash cloud that paralyzed the continent, Iceland went from being a remote island and evoked in Nordic sagas to become a global stage. The images of glaciers, black beaches and hot springs spread by international chains aroused the curiosity of the world in a country that had just suffered the blow of The financial crisis. With the campaign Inspired by Icelandthe government and tourism industry They took the moment. From then on, the landing of low -cost airlines and Viral phenomena In social networks (including a Justin Bieber video clip between waterfalls and aircraft remains) they catapulted the island to essential destination. Mass tourism. In just fifteen years, the number of visitors went from less than half a million to More than 2.3 million annuallymultiplying the local population several times during the high season. Tourism revitalized villages, generated employment and transformed the economyto the point of becoming the Main motor of the country. Locations Like Vikonce agricultural, they saw how the stables gave way to guest houses, improvised coffees in school bus and attractions of adventure. Immigration accompanied This boom: in some municipalities, foreigners are already a majority, and the arrival of new residents has even caused an unexpected “baby boom”. For many mayors and local businessmen, current problems are preferable to the decline of peoples that previously seemed condemned to abandonment. The identity dilemma. However, obviously not everything is good news. Tourism has contributed economic vitality, employment and infrastructure, but also tensions. Farmers complain about visitors who enter their lands or feed horses without permission, even causing deaths of animals. In Vikthe massive arrival of foreign workers has altered the social and urban fabric, with prefabricated homes that change traditional aesthetics. Even in schools they have had to Put posters to prevent tourists from photographing children. In the environmental plane, basic systems as the sewer They have been overwhelmed. Many Icelanders recognize the prosperity that tourism has given them, but they wonder how much local culture can resist without diluting. Iceland as theme park. More than a decade later that Eyjafjalajökull Cover the European sky with ashes and put the country on the global map, many critics argue that the island has run the risk of becoming in a “volcanoes theme park.” The geysers, glaciers and mountains of fire are today part of an itinerary Almost prefabricated, driven by low -cost airlines and Instagram selfies, which concentrates crowds in a handful of iconic landscapes while other regions remain outside. What was previously perceived as an indomitable and mysterious territory has become a tourist decoration subject to the logic of rapid consumption, where the eruption that attracted the world was transformed In advertising claim permanent. For many Icelandic, the paradox is evident: the volcano that saved the economy now threatens to devour the essence of their country. The future. Thus, academics and analysts propose Diversify the routes and offer deepest experiences linked to the history and culture of the country, to prevent tourism from reduced to a handful of “postcard places.” Regions such as Western Fjords or Fisheries North are still relatively on the sidelines, although the opening of direct flights could change the situation. The issue, according to many Icelanders, is not to close the door to visitors, but rethink the model: Attract those who want a longer and more conscious experience, instead of fast visits dictated by social networks. The national phrase Þetta Reddast (“Everything will work out”) reflects the resilient optimism of the country, although now faces the most uncomfortable question: Can Iceland continue to receive the entire world without sacrificing what made it unique? Image | Pexels, Berserkur In Xataka | “No one will save you if you fall into the volcano”: Iceland reopens one of its greatest claims with the best anti -tourism slogan In Xataka | In Barcelona, ​​the anti-tourism movement is adopting a radical tactic: harass tourists down the street

The danger of using AI chatbots for everything is real: MIT has discovered the “cognitive debt”

by

A MIT study He has shown that chatgpt and similar tools generate what they call “cognitive debt”: students who resort to them for total use end up writing better, but thinking worse. Why is it important. The study contradicts the belief that AI is like a calculator: a simple support that frees us for more complex reasoning. Actually, these tools can atrophy the brain connections that build critical thinking. The facts. 54 university students have spent months writing essays, divided into three groups: Grupo LLM, which used Chatgpt. Search motor group, which used Google. And group Solo-Cerebro, without external tools. The researchers measured their neuronal activity with electroencephalograms and the results have been overwhelming: those who used a neuronal connectivity systematically lower in all frequency bands. Compared to the group that only used its brain, there was a lower activation in key networks that connect parietal, temporal and frontal regions, fundamental for attention, memory and semantic processing. In Xataka 81% of interviewers suspected the traps with AI in interviews: 31% have confirmed it without a doubt and they have put a brake The contrast. The essays generated with AI received better notes, both from teachers and evaluating algorithms. But their authors remembered worse what they had written minutes before and felt a minor authorship about their texts. When they forced the usual users to write without help, their brain patterns showed that dependence on external support. They had lost ability to reactivate the necessary neural networks to write independently. How to walk without support after years doing it with crutches. Yes, but. The students who learned to write without ia and then used it for the first time maintained their engagement neuronal They even showed better memory and reactivation of broad brain areas. The key difference: You need to know how to think before you can think with machines. In perspective. This pattern replicates what we see in other professions: The subway driver who feels alienated because the train drives alone. Translators turned into machine editors. 3D creatives that only retouch what the AI ​​generates. {“Videid”: “X9R6K72”, “Autoplay”: False, “Title”: “Chatgpt Pulse”, “Tag”: “Technology”, “Duration”: “67”} The threat. The study also analyzed university students who already had developed writing skills. The effects could be more severe in adolescents who are still building these cognitive abilities. As a Dartmouth teacher said: we run the risk of creating “an educated generation with AI shortcuts” that lacks independent thinking skills. And now what. The sequence matters more than technology. First, you learn to think. Then, you learn to think with machines. The brain needs to build those Neuronal highways before being able to delegate selectively in AI. The study concludes that educational interventions should “combine the assistance of AI tools with learning phases without tools” to optimize both immediate skill and long -term neuronal development. Outstanding image | Xataka In Xataka |What happens if the software doesn’t matter when you are the largest company in the software world (Function () {Window._js_modules = Window._js_modules || {}; var headelement = document.getelegsbytagname (‘head’) (0); if (_js_modules.instagram) {var instagramscript = Document.Createlement (‘script’); }}) (); – The news The danger of using AI chatbots for everything is real: MIT has discovered the “cognitive debt” It was originally posted in Xataka by Javier Lacort .

Nano Banana is not just a great creator of images with AI. It is the greatest danger to Photoshop and company

by

Google has been playing hiding place with what is a great threat to Photoshop, at least in its photo editor facet. For weeks, a mysterious tool called “Nano Banana“He has been appearing anonymously into test platforms, leaving amazed professional users. Google finally confirmed that this experimental model is yours and is integrating it into Gemini. Why is it important. We are facing the beginning of the end of the layers, masks and tools that have defined digital design for 30 years. You change the color of a shirt without distorting the face. You add elements without reinventing the background. In 2 seconds, no 15. For professional uses it is not ready. For first sketches or for domestic use, it is perfect. 10 Google applications that could have triumphed The difference is persistence. Other models generate from scratch with each Promptbut Nano Banana remembers. You can strain about the same image dozens of times. Some examples. Let’s see what can be done with Nano Banana (if you want to know how to try it, We have prepared a guide). Everything has been done are the Prompts that we attach, without more. Original photo: “Create an image with this man but in a Valencian people of the 50s, with clothes, appearance, hairstyle, environment, etc. that are credible for the time.” “Now in the 2050 futuristic Shanghai.” “Now he returns to the original photo and adds this man by his side, posing together for the photo.” “Now back them as two Roman gladiators in the amphitheater.” Let’s go with something else. This Apple announcement in Las Vegas, deployed a few years ago. “Modifies the announcement text to say ‘2×1 in all iPhone models until the end of stock’”. Another different. We give you these two images. “Put this man the red shirt that attached to you.” “Now place him in Mestalla.” “Put a black cap and remove the clock.” All at the blow of Prompt And very fast, more than chatgpt. The money trail. Nano Banana has a cost of $ 0.039 per image of 1024 x 1024 pixels. Adobe has already announced that he will integrate the model in Firefly and Express, as reported Business Insider. His argument (“we offer all the models in one place”) makes sense, although something defensive also sounds. Those who pay dozens of dollars a month for a license to make editions will begin to be renewed. Now it is possible to generate Mockups In minutes, not in days. Some Ecommerce They will stop needing so many photographic sessions. A teacher can create a better adapted diagram than that of publishers. Everything with Prompts of text. In Xataka | Browsers prepare for the most radical transformation in their history. One in which the IA will be Outstanding image | Xataka

Deepseek put China on the AI ​​map. The danger is that this revolution stays in a day flower

by

Deepseek R1 was eating the world At the beginning of the year. This Chinese model, apparently out of nowhere, caused A true shock In the AI ​​industry, but since then there has been movement. Actually there has been one, but the disturbing thing is precisely what that movement has been. Hi, Deepseek v3.1. The startup advertisement Last week the launch of Deepseek V3.1, a new version that stood out for being an improved hybrid of Deepseek V3 (fast response) and Deepseek R1 (reasoning). There was also good news in terms of their performance: according to the Benchmarks published by those responsible, it was significantly higher than their predecessors. Visible (but non -dramatic) improvements. In the “model card” (model card) that those responsible offers In Hugging FaceDeepseek v3.1 (in reasoning mode) proved to behave slightly better than Deepseek R1-0528, —Your previous version, more powerful-in areas such as programming or in mathematical tests, but some users who have tried it there comment That except in those areas, the model is worse and “it behaves poorly when following instructions or prompts provided by users.” Others confirm it and They assure which is useful for programmers, but not for other areas. It also has limitations on its multimodal support, and focuses on the text instead of providing more options for another type of interaction, for example from voice, image, video or audio messages. A Chinese model for Chinese chips. But even more interesting it was that Deepseek V3.1 has been designed and launched with a clear objective: avoiding the dependence of foreign chips. The FP8 precision used makes this model behave very well In the next -generation Chinese chips. The strategy seems very interesting for the startup, which could thus have a very aligned model with the priorities of the Chinese government. This is: use local models for local chips as much as possible. And R1, what? From there some doubts arise. The first, which affects Deepseek R1, the model with which the startup “broke” the market at the beginning of the year. The company has eliminated all references to this model in the characteristic of “deep thought”, which has generated doubts about the potential appearance of its expected successor, a hypothetical Deepseek R2. Loses users. But while that theoretical model comes – if it does – the company faces a more immediate threat. As they point out In SCMPDeepseek is losing users (or at least relevance) in recent months. In the first quarter of the year its market share within the scope of the IA Open Source models used on the PPIO cloud platform was a spectacular 99%. However, in the second quarter that percentage has dropped to 80%. Fierce competition. That fall relevance has an obvious reason: its local competitors are squeezing. And a lot. Among them is the family of models Qwen from Alibaba, but Also others like Kimi-K2-Instructof the startup Mosohot AI – in which Alibaba has also invested – which is becoming one of the most popular models of recent weeks. Delays and deceleration. Precisely the focus on being able to make the most of future Chinese chips seems to be the reason that this hypothetical Deepseek R2 is being delayed. At least that is the hypothesis that consider In Financial Timeswhere they revealed that the startup has failed when trying to train with Huawei chips. The situation has made them Training with Nvidia chipsand that are using the Huawei Asce for the inference stage, that is, the interaction with the model via web or API by users. But this attitude is “very Chinese”. We may in Western countries we are accustomed to a much more frantic pace and that we expect constant updates and improvements with an eye on the short term. In China, philosophy is usually the opposite, and companies adopt A long -term strategy even if immediate benefits are lost. Maintaining a low profile is also usual among those companies, which try not to make much noise … until they do, as Depseek has already demonstrated. Thus, we will have to remain very attentive to the activity of this startup, because surely he will be working to continue being one of the protagonists of the AI ​​panorama. Image | Tim Reckmann In Xataka | Deepseek has suggested that Nvidia chips no longer needs. We believe to know who is buying them

Nvidia has to deal with the absolute distrust of several US legislators. His plan in China is in danger

by

The dispute that Eeuu and China hold It is deeply conditioning the business of many Chinese companies, such as Huawei, SMIC or Hua Hong semiconductor, but is also affecting a very important way To some western companies. The Dutch ASML and the American Nvidia They are in all likelihood that are facing the greatest challenges as a result of the pulse maintained by the American and China administrations. The Chinese market is essential for both, but the sanctions that have approved US governments and the Netherlands They prevent them from selling their customers led by Xi Jinping a good part of their product porpholio. Even so, both companies are doing what is in their hand to defend their economic and commercial interests, and dispense with the Chinese market is not one of its options. In fact, Nvidia has officialized His intention to put a specialized installation in the design of integrated circuits in Shanghai (China). Some legislators consider that Nvidia’s plan is a threat to the US The newspaper The Wall Street Journal It has been made with a letter in which the Republican senator by Indiana Jim Banks and the Democratic Senator for Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren are directed directly to Jensen Huang, the general director of Nvidia. In this text these legislators argue that the installation that Nvidia plans to open in Shanghai represents a direct threat to US national security due to the possibility that China acquires the ability to design avant -garde GPU for artificial intelligence (AI). “No American company should be helping the Chinese Communist Party to close the gap in artificial intelligence,” Nvidia has responded immediately. There is too much at stake to take this light attention call. A spokesman for this company has expressed that its purpose “It is simply to rent a new space that the company’s employees can use after the return to work after the Coronavirus pandemic. The scope of work will not change“However, Nvidia’s official justification does not seem convincing for Warren and Banks. In fact, this last legislator has declared that “no American company should be helping the Chinese communist party to close the gap in artificial intelligence.” It is evident that this is an accusation of full -fledged Nvidia. A very serious accusation that complicates the future plans of the company led by Jensen Huang in China if we are in mind that the manifesto is backed at least by a senator of the Republican party and a senator of the Democratic Party. In addition, this claim comes at a very important moment for Nvidia. The engineers of this company have just concluded The development of a GPU With Blackwell microarchitecture aimed at replacing to the H20 chip whose sale in China has been prohibited by the last sanctions package of the Department of Commerce. The Nvidia Plan is that TSMC starts the manufacture of this GPU expressly intended for the Chinese market in June, but at the current situation it would not be surprising at all that the Department of Commerce prevents its delivery to Chinese clients in Nvidia. We will see what happens finally, but the panorama does not paint anything well for the company led by Jensen Huang. Image | Nvidia More information | The Wall Street Journal In Xataka | The US gives Huawei a great opportunity: to get its new chip for AI with the Nvidia market in China

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.