doesnt

Greenland doesn’t want Denmark

by

“We don’t want to be Danes. We don’t want to be Americans.” The phrase It is from the former Prime Minister of Greenland, Mute B. Egede. And although the leader lost his position during the elections of 2025 captures well the feelings of a large part of the population of the Arctic island, an autonomous region that in practice remains linked to the Kingdom of Denmark. Polls reveal that Greenlanders they don’t like it Donald Trump’s idea of ​​becoming part of the United States, but it is that many (many) They also dream of saying goodbye to Copenhagen. The reason (as usual) must be found in history books. One figure: 85%. Polls are just that, polls, but they help us better understand how societies think. With Trump insisting in his aspirations for Greenland to remain under US control, in recent days he has dusted himself off a poll made a year ago, when the Republican (recently arrived at the White House) hinted at his interest in the Arctic island. The study, published by Berlingske and Sermitsiaqshows that 85% of Greenlanders reject the idea of ​​being part of the US. Another 9% have doubts about it and only 6% are in favor of raising the stars and stripes flag. Even Trump’s interest in Greenland divides opinion: 45% of those surveyed see it “a threat”, 43% “an opportunity”. Better with Denmark? That is one of the conclusions that could be drawn from the survey. Although Greenland is located in North America and its capital, Nuuk, is closer to New York than to Copenhagen, the island is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. If Greenlanders refuse to integrate into the US, does that mean they are comfortable with their current status? Do you like your relationship with Denmark? Another surveysomewhat older, from 2019, reveals that the answer is “no.” The study, carried out by academics from the University of Copenhagen, revealed that 67.7% of adults of Greenland hope that at some point the island will cut its ties with Denmark. A part of those interviewed would in fact support independence within a ten-year horizon and another, larger percentage, see it as feasible in the middle of the next decade. Maybe 2019 is behind us in time, but that feeling seems to be still very much alive on the island. “The shackles of colonialism”. Just a year ago the former prime minister, Mute Egede, made headlines with a speech New Year’s Day in which he floated the idea of ​​Greenland becoming independent. “History and current conditions have shown that our cooperation with the Kingdom has not managed to create full equality,” claimed the leader of the People’s Community party. “The time has come for our country to take the next step. Like other nations around the world, we must work to remove obstacles to cooperation, which we can describe as the shackles of colonialism, and move forward,” he emphasized. Egede did not manage to retain his position, but his successor, Jens-Frederick Nielsen, also represents an independence party, although from the more moderate sector. Its strategy for the moment involves strengthening ties with Copenhagen, although making it clear that as a “closest partner”. And why that feeling? Nationalist issues aside, the desire of a large part of Greenlanders to distance themselves from Denmark is explained by a very simple reason: the relationship between both territories has not always been simple. Quite the opposite. The recent past has been marred by tragic chapters which have forced the Danish authorities to apologize publicly in an attempt to heal wounds and strengthen the bond. Reviewing history. The current relationship between the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland dates back to the 18th centurywhen the Danes they began to colonize the island, inhabited for centuries by the Inuit. In 1814 the territory officially became a Danish colony, a relationship that was redefined first in 1953 and later in 1979, when the island achieved autonomy. However, it would take several decades for Copenhagen to transfer powers to it. As recognize The Danish Executive itself, that milestone was not achieved until well into the 21st century, although the Kingdom continues to hold some key functions, such as foreign affairs, security and financial policy responsibilities. Since 2009 the island has had a autonomy statute renovated (endorsed by a vast majority of its population) that gives it the possibility of self-determination In practice, much of the island’s economy is based on the so-called “block grant”contributions from the Danish Government. Some actually believe that the Nordic welfare system supported in Denmark and the Danish contribution to island finances are crucial to keeping their link alive. The US knows it and that is probably why it considers paying between 10,000 and 100,000 dollars to every Greenlander to encourage them to ‘divorce’ Denmark, according to Reuters. Two episodes to forget. In the recent relationship between Denmark and Greenland there are two chapters that weigh especially heavily and have even eroded the image of “benign colonizers” that the Danes have had of themselves for generations. One of these episodes involves thousands of indigenous women. A 2022 research revealed that for decades, between the 60s and almost the early 90s, thousands of Inuit women were forced to use contraceptive methods, resorting to intrauterine devices that were sometimes implanted without the patients’ permission or knowledge. Some sources indicate that this Danish birth plan affected around 4,500 women (and girls) Greenlanders between 1966 and 1976. The objective: to control the growth of the Inuit population. The revelations are so alarming that a few months ago the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, participated in an event in Nuuk during which she apologized for “injustice and pain” caused. Closing wounds. It was not the only time that the Danish authorities have had to apologize. Years ago they did it for another turbulent chapter in the relationship between both territories: a social experiment started in the 1950s that consisted of removing Greenlandic children from their homes (sometimes under pressure) to leave them in … Read more

China is winning the humanoid robot race. The problem is that this race doesn’t really exist.

by

Fritz Lang wanted to imagine the future and painted it for us with humanoid robots integrated into society. That maschinenmensch of ‘Metrópolis’ (1927) was a preview of what they now pursue with more ambition than anyone Chinese manufacturers, who They have not stopped developing more and more of these robots. They are winning the race by far, but the problem is that the race is non-existent. (Almost) nobody buys humanoid robots. These Chinese manufacturers were by far the most responsible for the sales of humanoid robots, which in 2025 amounted to the figure of… 13,000 units. The data reflects a forceful reality: in the world of domestic humanoid robots there is a lot (a lot) of noise, but few (very few) nuts. More than in 2024 = very little. Humanoid robots from Chinese manufacturers sold much more than those from American companies like Tesla or Figure AI according to data from the consulting firm Omdia. The company that has sold the most according to that report is the Chinese startup Shanghai AgiBot Innovation Technology Co., which distributed a total of 5,168 robots in 2025. It was followed by Unitree Robotics and UBTech Robotics Corp. Although total sales were five times those of 2024, the final figure reflects that the market is in its infancy. Huge expectations. Despite this, Citigroup esteem that in 2050 there will be 648 million humanoid robots. The great hope is that the promising evolution of AI models will serve to overcome current limitations and have multiple practical applications, once integrated into robots. There are already promising developments in this regard, and robots and AIs separately have already demonstrated their capacity in limited environments. like the manufacturing, logistics or customer service. China and “affordable” robotics. Although there are notable companies in this field in the US, their humanoid robots are much more expensive. Elon Musk indicated by the end of 2025 that “once production reaches one million units annually, Optimus will likely be priced between $20,000 and $25,000.” Meanwhile, Unitree already offers “affordable” robots (but not humanoid) for $6,000, and AgiBot asks for $14,000 for his. This company was in fact named by Jensen Huang during his talk at the NVIDIA event at CES 2026. The Chinese government helps. As in other industrial areas, there is strong support from the Chinese government in this area, and according to Bloomberg Favorable policies are combined with aid for the construction of training centers. The number of companies and startups developing this type of solutions already exceeds 150, and that even points to a potential “robotic bubble.” The challenge of robotic hands. One of the great challenges of this segment is to ensure that the dexterity of machines is comparable to that of humans. For now this is not the case especially with the example of robotic hands, which mostly They are very unskilledwhich limits its application to real home environments. The battery life of these robots is another obstacle that can hinder their application in our daily lives. Future implications. If these challenges are overcome, we will once again find ourselves with a disturbing panorama in which geopolitical tensions could make access to these robots difficult. There is also the problem of employment: if robots achieve the ability to perform manual tasks, the threat to virtually any human worker will be notable. How will governments react to this situation? Image | Agibot In Xataka | China prepares its next technological assault. Huawei and UBTech have just teamed up to bring humanoid robots to homes

The CEO of Ryanair is clear about how he would govern a country. We are lucky that it doesn’t.

by

Michael O’Leary has spent decades building a reputation based on provocation and irreverence. The CEO of Ryanair has not only built Europe’s largest low-cost airline based on surcharges on your services and open confrontation with clients, unions and regulators. He has also turned each interview into a showcase of extreme opinions that rarely leave anyone indifferent. The last of them, granted to the Financial Timesis especially revealing. In it, O’Leary explains bluntly how he would run a country if he had the chance. To no one’s surprise, his approach is not too far from what has been applying for years at Ryanair: treat everything as a balance of results, eliminate what is considered “inefficient” and assume political wear and tear as inevitable collateral damage. Govern a country as if it were Ryanair. O’Leary doesn’t hesitate when asked about his vision of power. As he explains, if he had to govern a country he would do it exactly the same as his airline. Aggressively cutting public spending and, especially, social benefits. “I would run it like Ryanair, I would cut it big… I would cut benefits big. Get a job!” he says without nuance in the interview. Even when he recognizes that there are people who cannot work, his conclusion remains the same and he would not hesitate to reduce this aid. “Are there people who cannot work at all? Yes, but it would also cut their benefits,” said the controversial manager, who maintains an extreme vision of the minimum State, where the social protection network is perceived more as a cost than as a collective investment. Millionaire politicians to attract talent. The most striking part of the interview comes when O’Leary addresses salary of the politicians. There are no cuts on the horizon. For the Irish manager, one of the big problems in current politics is the lack of talent, and the solution is to pay politicians as if they were senior managers. His idea is that “If you are prime minister or a minister, you should earn at least one million pounds a year”, which is equivalent to 1,152,900 euros at the exchange rate. Very far from the 93,145.20 euros that are assigned as salary to the President of the Government in Spain, or 182,400 euros gross per year who receives the President of the Republic in France. “Politicians must be paid much better, although saying so is political suicide,” giving Singapore as an example, where senior public officials receive very high salaries to attract the most talented profiles in the private sector to politics and reduce incentives for corruption. Zero personal affinity with Trump. O’Leary’s interview Financial Times It also leaves room for his relationship with Donald Trump. O’Leary recounts a direct call from the then-candidate in 2016, in which Trump insisted for almost an hour on increase flights from Ryanair to airports close to its golf courses in Scotland and Ireland. The current president of the United States even offered him accommodation in one of his hotels. O’Leary’s response to Trump’s offer was to avoid at all costs approaching any politician. “No, no way. It’s not my style,” the executive concluded, making it clear that personal harmony with Trump never existed, although both share a very similar vision of the world as a place where everything is negotiated. The same approach you apply to your passengers. O’Leary’s ideas on how to govern are consistent with the decisions he has made at Ryanair during the years who runs Ryanair. From defending the charge for using the bathroom on board to imposing increasingly complex surcharges for luggage or boarding passes. Everything responds to one income maximization logic and reduce costs, even if that means a more hostile experience for the customer. Their inflexibility with refunds is another example. In the interview he remembers the case of a passenger stabbed in an attack on a train in the United Kingdom who tried to cancel a flightbut did not obtain a refund for the ticket. “If the company had offered him one, the doors would have been opened to other demands for reimbursement,” said O’Leary, for whom the company’s efficiency and profitability always come before empathy. An old idea with dubious results. The proposal to manage a country as if it were a company is neither new nor exclusive to O’Leary. Elon Musk already defended openly that approach from the DOGE who led in the first months of the Trump administration. The result was especially negative for the cooperation policy and the operation of the US administration. Trump himself has applied this logic of business negotiation to international and economic policy with the imposition of tariffs as a negotiation weapon. The results, at least so far, do not seem to be giving the best fruits for the United States economy. In Xataka | When Ryanair CEO went to a restaurant he was charged for two extras: “priority seating” and “legroom” Image | Flickr (Polish presidency of the Council of the EU 2025)

The fifth season of ‘Stranger Things’ is the worst of the series by far. Netflix doesn’t care

by

Few series better illustrate the dissociation between popularity and prestige than the fifth season of ‘Stranger Things’. The numbers are overwhelming: the closing of the saga accumulated 105.7 million views on Netflixconsolidating itself as the ninth most viewed English series in the entire history of the platform. However, the critical reception and even some increasingly disappointed fans With the conclusion they leave the franchise in an uncomfortable no man’s land that, for the moment, refuses (very much) to die. Audience bomb. The numbers are impressive: the conclusion of the last season propelled Netflix to its best viewership on a New Year’s Day. Furthermore, in an unprecedented experiment, the platform released the final two-hour episode in theaters and raised $25 million at the box office in just 48 hours. It was a very limited distribution of only 600 rooms, in a period of 36 hours and without traditional ticket sales (20 dollars in food and drink were purchased that gave the right to a seat), due to the actors’ royalty contracts: the collection was entirely for the theaters of the chain that had exclusive distribution, AMC. And critical disappointment. On Rotten TomatoesFor example, the audience score has suffered an unprecedented drop in the franchise: from 96% for the first season in 2016 to the current 54% for the fifth, after 90% for the second, 86% for the third and 89% for the fourth. It’s a forty-point drop that reflects more than just viewer fatigue. TIME He explained it in an article about the phenomenon: in 2016 the series was an irresistible nostalgic toy. Nine years later, it’s a content factory. Nine years ago it redefined streaming and entertainment; Now he is another victim of Hollywood franchise machinery. Why didn’t you like it? The criticism of the fifth season is not limited to the disappointment of the fans. It has been said that the series has failed to delve into its characters as they grew. In the technical sectionit has been commented that it is a sloppy production, in the worst Netflix style: excessive lighting, abuse of background blur, obvious color schemes… The aforementioned TIME article also alluded to its pace, with an excess of exposition and verbalization, since this season is the conclusion of a decadent trend for the series that started in season 4. Critical point. The episode in which all these tensions crystallized It was the penultimate of the series, whose IMDb score plummeted to 5.4 out of 10, becoming the lowest rated episode of the entire franchise, and the only one below 7.8, when most episodes range between 8.6 and 9.2. The episode accumulated more than 96,000 ratings, double that of the rest of the season’s episodes, which is why it is suspected of a campaign of review bombing due to its central scene; In any case, some of the criticism pointed to legitimate writing and pacing problems. The unstoppable franchise. If the quality has dropped, why does Netflix insist on milking the series? The answer lies in analysis as this parrot which speaks of more than a billion dollars in revenue since 2020, that is, not counting the first three seasons. To this we must add more than two million new subscribers directly attributable to the franchise. And above all, something intangible: the series consolidated the current model of streaming and gave Netflix executives confidence that they could launch franchises capable of competing with rivals like Marvel. What does it grow with? The company has designed an expansion plan that will keep the Hawkins universe alive for years. The first major spin-off was a play (‘Stranger Things: The First Shadow’), which premiered in London’s West End in 2023 and jumped to Broadway in 2025, exploring the origins of Vecna ​​and the first experiments of Project Indigo. ‘Tales from ’85’, an animated series set in the winter between the second and third seasons, is planned for 2026. The main characters (Once, Hopper, Mike, Dustin, Lucas, Will, Max) will return in an animated version, which will allow you to touch with your fingertips that impossible treasure that is that children never age. Beyond animation, Netflix is ​​developing an as yet untitled live-action spin-off that will rethink the series from scratch: new characters, probably another decade, and without directly entering the Upside Down. It will work more as an anthology connected to the mythology and tone of the original than as a typical sequel. To this we must add the comics, which Norma Editorial has published in Spain since 2018, immersive experiences in Abu Dhabi and Mexico City, collaborations with Fortnite and extensive merchandising. And although the Duffers have an exclusive contract with Paramount, they will maintain creative supervision of everything related to the series. The underlying problem. With the conclusion of ‘Stranger Things’, Netflix is at a strategic crossroads. There is currently no original production on the platform that is so attractive and, above all, so generationally transversal, something in which ‘The Squid Game’, ‘Wednesday’ or ‘The Bridgertons’ fail. As El País points out, one of the reasons why Netflix has shown interest in acquiring Warner It is precisely because of the need to access a catalog of expandable properties in the style of DC, Harry Potter or ‘Game of Thrones’. The machine does not stop or wait for anyone. In Xataka | The best Netflix series that you can currently watch on the platform

everything that changes (and what doesn’t) in transfers with this system

by

There has been a lot of talk about the possible changes that were going to be introduced in payments with Bizum, especially due to the important changes in tax regulations of digital payments. Therefore, we are going to take the opportunity to clarify what are the changes for 2026 in payments on this platform. What we are going to do is give you a list of keys to take into account when using Bizum during 2026. We will confirm something important that does not change, but also everything that is going to change. The changes are to combat fraud in economic activity, but not to control. Changes in Bizum in 2026 Let’s go with the list of news to take into account about Bizum, with what changes but also some things that don’t change although there have been rumors about it. We start with what remains the same, and then we continue with the things that do change. Payments to friends and family are not monitored: Let’s start with the biggest concern. The Treasury has confirmed that it will not monitor payments between friends and family. Come on, without changes between movements between individuals (C2C). Come on, if you use Bizum to pay for a dinner, send a small amount of money or pay for birthday gifts, NOTHING CHANGES. Limit of 10,000 euros. Although not all changes will be monitored, there is a limit to take into account. If you pay more than 10,000 euros per year with Bizum, then you will have to declare them. We could say that it is the spending ceiling. If you do not exceed this amount, you do not have to declare anything. If you exceed 10,000 euros: Whether you exceed 10,000 euros per year with Bizum or if you move more than 25,000 euros with your card, then your bank will have the obligation to report the movements to the Treasury to prevent money laundering. Changes for companies and self-employed workers: From now on, if you use Bizum as a tool for professional collections, entities must report your movements monthly. The limit of 3,000 euros has been eliminated, and is now reported from the first euro. Be careful if you are an individual and receive recurring payments for undeclared work, you could be caught. Bizum to other European countries: Thanks to the alliance with EuroPA and EPI Companyit is expected that in the summer of 2026, starting in the summer you could start sending Bizums to other European countries such as Germany, France or Italy. Payments in dataphones: Bizum wants to allow you to pay with ATMs without needing a physical card or NFC, just with your phone number. There is no date for this yet. In Xataka Basics | Free immediate transfers from banks: what has changed and differences with Bizum

AI doesn’t just live on chips, it also requires massive energy, so Google has bought an energy company

by

The AI needs a lot of energy and technology companies are already planning how to power their huge data centers. On the table there are such creative ideas as take them to space either submerge them in the sea to reduce its consumption. Google has opted for a more immediate solution: it has purchased an electricity company for data centers. The agreement. Google has purchased Intersect Powera company dedicated to developing energy infrastructure, including renewable energy sources, for data centers. Google has paid $4.75 billion for the San Francisco-based company, in addition to assuming its debt. According to Sundar Pichai: “Intersect will help us expand our capacity, operate with greater agility in the construction of new power generation facilities in line with the new load of data centers, and reinvent energy solutions to drive innovation and American leadership” Why it is important. The agreements of AI companies are usually focused on computing capacity, not energy. This agreement underscores the importance of energy in AI infrastructure, putting it on the same level as the very chips it powers. Data centers are being developed at a brutal pace and energy is presenting itself as a bottleneck. Satya Nadella already said it: there is no power for so many chips. It’s Google ensuring enough “food” for its chips. Yontersec. Google’s relationship with Intersect began just a year ago, when big tech acquired a minority stake in the company. Under this collaboration, several projects have come to light in their data centers. Both these projects and all Intersect personnel are part of the agreement. What the agreement does not include are other company assets, mainly located in Texas and California, worth 15 billion. These will continue to operate under the Intersect brand. Energy. In 2023, data centers already accounted for 4% of the energy consumption of the entire United States, and at the rate at which they are being built, the figure will continue to increase (there is talk of 12% by 2028). The problem is that US electrical infrastructure cannot support that pace and is having consequences for consumers through price increases in electricity. Google assures that with this agreement it will be able to guarantee “an abundant, reliable and affordable energy supply that allows the construction of data center infrastructures without passing on costs to network customers.” Image | Wikipedia, Intersect In Xataka | Talking about artificial intelligence is talking about energy, and the fashionable term is ‘bragawatts’

Jensen Huang managed to convince Trump to sell his H200 chips in China. Now China doesn’t want to buy them

by

When something gets into Jensen Huang’s head, he goes after it and often succeeds. This is what happened in July of this year when managed to convince Trump to let him sell his H20 chip in China. History has just repeated itself and has managed to the president lifts the veto on H200 chips (although keeping a part). The problem is China, which does not see it very clearly. what has happened. China is preparing restrictions aimed at limiting access to NVIDIA’s H200 chips, according to Financial Times. If these restrictions end up being implemented, it will mean that the chips will not be available to any company that wants to buy them; They will first go through a pre-approval process, which includes explaining why chips from domestic companies do not meet their needs. In addition, there is another fact that adds up: for the first time, China has put national chips from companies like Huawei and Cambricon in its official procurement list. This list is a kind of purchasing guide for public institutions and large state groups that move billions a year in contracts. Why is it important. It is further proof that the Chinese government’s priority is not to depend on American technology for the development of its AI. Their bet is to favor the use of national chips even though they are not technologically at the level of NVIDIA chips. It’s not the same. China has already responded with distrust when NVIDIA obtained permission to sell H20 chips months ago and it seems that now they want to follow the same path, but there is a big difference: the H20 chips were the most basic, the H200 GPUs are much more advanced and represent a greater technological advantage, especially in more demanding tasks such as training large language models. What Chinese companies say. According to South China Morning PostAI companies in China such as ByteDance, Alibaba or Tencent continue to prefer to use H200s because they are much more powerful than the national alternatives offered by Huawei or Cambricon. Additionally, much of these companies’ code is based on NVIDIA’s Hopper microarchitecture, allowing them to use the chips without having to rewrite the code. On the other hand, developers who do not need maximum performance are wary of using American chips given the instability of the situation. The energy. NVIDIA’s CEO has been around for a while pressing for the US to lift these restrictions. Their pitch is that if China does not have access to NVIDIA chips, then they will improve their domestic chips and win the AI ​​race, but there is more. He has also warned that China has a huge energy advantagelargely thanks to government subsidies. He has already managed to convince Trump to sell chips and now the most difficult thing remains. Image | Wikipedia In Xataka | China is very clear about what it must do to win the chip war against the US: resort to its technological geniuses

There are dozens of influencers obsessed with helping us choose the perfect can of tuna. The problem is that what they say doesn’t make much sense.

by

There is a fine line that connects volcanic eruptions, oil combustion, and waste incineration with our kitchens: mercury. A mercury that is produced in dozens of activities (mostly human), which ends up deposited in the waters, transformed into methylmercury by millions of microorganisms, stored in fish and, finally, in our stomach. It was only a matter of time before it became the huge food scandal it is today. Methylmercury also reaches social networks. The problem is so big that there is no shortage of experts and influencers that defend messages such as choosing cans of “tuna” over cans of “light tuna.” The music is that of institutions such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that recommends avoiding large fish; The lyrics hide many problems. At the end of the day, the viral message mixes correct intuitions, with more than debatable scientific evidence (it uses, to begin with, commercial classifications that do not have direct Spanish correspondence). This is not the first time that an idea that sounds good ends up giving us headaches. And why is that a problem? Because, like it or not, fish is a centerpiece of many diets. Not only for its protein contribution, but as a priority source of certain fats that are very difficult to replace by any other means (e.g. omega-3). The thing is, with all that, comes methylmercury. And exposure to methylmercury is a tricky thing: it can harm brain development and be toxic to the nervous system. In fact, it can cause symptoms such as tremors, memory loss, and cognitive dysfunctions. The most vulnerable groups are pregnant women, nursing mothers, babies and young children. Do all fish have the same amount of mercury? No, it doesn’t. According to the Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutritionthere are four really dangerous species: the swordfish or emperor, the bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), the shark (dogfish, mako shark, dogfish, dogfish and blue shark) and pike. These are problematic in women who are pregnant or planning to be pregnant, nursing mothers and children under 10 years of age. In fact, AESAN recommends directly avoid its consumption. The rest of the species are not problematic for the effects of mercury: they are safe and healthy. And the AESAN recommends between three and four servings a week even in the at-risk population. And aren’t there more differences according to levels? That is, are there only dangerous and non-dangerous species? No no. It is true that each species contains a different amount of mercury. In fact, each copy has different levels. That’s where the problem comes from: we need simple ‘rules’ to help us deal with uncertainty. On a practical level, according to the available studies, we can only define species with low mercury content as those on this list: Pollock, Anchovy, Herring, Cod, Bacaladilla, Cockle, Mackerel, Squid, Shrimp, Crab, Cane, Coquina, Carp, Squid, Clam, Choco/Cuttlefish, Lobster, Coquina, Sea bream, Sprat, Prawn, Horse mackerel, Lobster, Prawn, European sole, Dab, Sea bass, Mussel, Merlan, Hake, Razor clam, Oyster, Pomfret, Flounder, Squid, Octopus, Shrimp, Atlantic salmon, Pacific salmon, Sardine, Sardinella, Sardinopa, Plaice, and Trout. Everything else has medium levels and making distinctions between them is impossible on a practical level. So it doesn’t make sense to follow these types of recommendations? In general, any attention we pay to food is good. The system is configured in such a way that, if we let ourselves goour diet gets worse. However, we know that Obsessing over diet is also full of problems.. Using heuristics that complicate the purchase without substantial improvements is not as good an idea as it seems. Image | Tobias Tullius In Xataka | The scientific reason why miracle diets don’t work is you

Brendan Foody, one of the new AI billionaires, has not had a single day off for three years: he doesn’t need it either

by

Mark Zuckerberg has been for years the benchmark of success precocious in Silicon Valley for having become the youngest self-made billionaire at just over 23 years old. Now the baton is being taken by new startup founders of artificial intelligence. In this new scenario there is Mercor, an AI recruiting platform founded by three 22-year-old friends who met on the high school debate team and are today listed as the world’s youngest self-made billionaires. Brendan Foody, Adarsh ​​Hiremath and Surya Midha have made it to the Forbes list with an estimated fortune of 2.2 billion dollars. However, all that money has not been enough for them to take a single day of vacation in the last three years. The startup that breaks records. As and as highlighted Fortunein less than nine months the founders of Mercor turned an initial idea into a company with a revenue rate of one million dollars, that meteoric growth places the Foody employment platform among the startups that have climbed the fastest in the current wave of AI. The definitive leap that has put Foody and its partners on the Forbes list came with a financing round of $350 million led by Felicis Ventures, with participation from Benchmark, General Catalyst and Robinhood Ventures, which it granted to Mercor an assessment of 10 billion dollars. Forbes estimates that each of the three partners control around 22% of the company, which places their fortunes in billions at just 22 years old, surpassing Mark Zuckerberg himself, who reached that figure at 23 years old. Generation Z and the 996 days. Paradoxically, this success comes from partners belonging to generation Z, which is usually associated with a greater concern for conciliation and balance between personal and work life. However, according to what was published by Fortune, Foody’s work style is more similar to the famous culture “996” (day from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and six days a week) that is is imposing among the new Silicon Valley startups, which in the image of relaxed schedules and teleworking which is often attributed to the youngest. Three years without a single day off. Foody acknowledges that he has opted to follow an extreme work discipline since he dropped out of Georgetown University to focus entirely on Mercor. In his own words: “We work a lot, I have worked every day for the last three years,” he told Fortunebefore clarifying that, in his opinion, “people generally become exhausted, not only by working hard, but by working hard on something that is not as satisfying or enriching for them.” With this idea, Foody is located near the logic of culture 996but reinterpreted from the passion for his own project, where the long days they are experienced as an investment in a personal vision rather than an external imposition. It stops being an obligation and becomes a passion. Foody did not always experience work in this intense and voluntary way. Before creating his own company, he describes his relationship with work as something closer to disciplinary obligation than to deep motivation. “Often they were things I didn’t enjoy doing,” he recalled when talking about his previous stage. The turn came with the creation of Mercor, when the daily task began to be perceived almost as a creative obsession linked to one’s own project and a clear vision of the impact one wanted to achieve. “Compared to when we started Mercor, it became an obsession where I can’t stop thinking about, even if I’m having dinner with my parents or whatever, it’s spinning in my head,” Foody explained, stressing that this constant mental involvement means that he doesn’t even feel the need to take a vacation. Curiously, this feeling is not new. Bill Gates described a similar feeling in the early years of Microsoft. Then he understood that rest is necessary and even productive. Seeing results motivates you to continue. One of the keys to sustaining this pace that the young founder of Mercor highlights is to verify that the hours invested generate a clear return on the project. “I think the most important thing is to always make sure I see the impact of what I do, the return on investment (ROI) of the huge amount of time I put into it,” Foody added. In short, it confirms the old saying “find a job you like and you will never work again.” However, the origin of this motivation has a scientific explanationthe short-term rewards produced by the so-called “lens gradient effect“. Obtaining quantifiable results in the short term motivates you to continue working on the project. Especially if that impact is accompanied by a fortune of 2.2 billion dollars. ‘Genzers’ demolishing clichés. Foody’s story questions the clichés about Generation Z that portray them as reluctant to do the slightest sacrifice and rejects the excessive hours at work. However, it shows that when there is a strong connection between personal purposeperceived impact and financial rewards, some young people are willing to embrace extreme models of dedication. Faced with this narrative, the implicit question remains open for the new founders who They openly embrace the culture of “996”: if they demand the same from their teams level of delivery and commitment They, perhaps, should also ask themselves why these employees are not entering the Forbes list along with the creators of the company. In Xataka | “They are much more daring”: Gen Z is overturning all labor consensus in its massive entry into work Image | Pexels, Brendan Foody

finally an AI gadget that doesn’t make me wonder why it’s not just an app

by

When in Xataka They offered me to try the Plaud Note Promy reaction was predictable: “another AI gadget that can be an app.” For a couple of years we have been seeing technological gadgets that promise to change our lives thanks to AI, sometimes with terrible resultand in general being solutions in search of a problem. But the Note Pro surprised me. Not because he does magic, but precisely because he doesn’t try to do it. This design only makes sense when you have it in your hand The product photos are very deceiving with this device. On the screen it looks like any other piece of junk, just another aluminum rectangle. When you take it out of the box, the reaction is to say “how cool is this.” It is literally the size of a credit card and just 3 millimeters thick.. We are not talking about “fine to be an engraver”, but fine, period. It’s ridiculously fine. Here, next to the AirPods Pro case to size it better. Image: Xataka. The first thing you do is try to fold it, because your brain doesn’t process that something so thin can have four microphones, 64 GB of storage and battery for 30 hours of continuous recording. The brushed aluminum finish is impeccable, with the kind of quality that makes you think of Apple. And I say this as criticism and as a compliment: They are clear about who they are copying, and they do it extraordinarily well. Well, that’s ridiculously fine. And well finished. Image: Xataka. The less than one-inch AMOLED screen is a detail that seems superfluous until you use it. It is not to watch videos, but to confirm at a glance that you are recording, how much battery you have left, and if you have marked any highlight. Nothing more, nothing less. It is design with purpose, not ornamentation. The screen has its purpose beyond being an indicator of the remaining battery. Image: Xataka. The uncomfortable question: why not just use an app? This is where it gets interesting. Because yes, you have options like Otter.ai or the native recorder on your mobile with automatic transcription. They are free, or almost. They already live in your pocket. Why on earth would you want to spend $179 on a separate thing, plus a subscription that ranges from $20 a month to $250 a year? The honest answer is that for most people, it doesn’t make sense. If you record one meeting a month, use your mobile. If you need to transcribe from time to time, Otter is more than enough for you. But if you live in meetings, briefingsinterviews, calls with clients, presentations… the equation begins to change. The Note Pro frees you from cell phone dependenceand that is more valuable than it seems a priori. When you record with your cell phone, that cell phone is busy. On many occasions you cannot consult documents, take notes in parallel or respond to an urgent message. And above all, you can’t let it run out of battery just when you need it most. The Note Pro is a single function deviceand that specialization is its strength. It charges via magnetic pogo-pin connector. Image: Xataka. 🔌 Image: Xataka. The recording quality also makes a difference. The four MEMS microphones pick up voices up to five meters away with remarkable clarity, and the AI ​​processing to separate speakers works surprisingly well. In tests in meeting rooms with six people, it correctly identified each voice without the need for anyone to speak in ordered turns. Otter.ai on my mobile usually works great, but tends to mix voices if two people are talking at similar volumes. But let’s be clear: the gap is not abysmal. Modern apps also work well. The advantage of the Note Pro is cumulative, not punctual: better battery, better audio capture, a device that you can leave on the table without worrying about interrupting notifications, without anxiety in case someone calls in the middle of recording. And also, if you have an iPhone with MagSafe, there is a wallet with which you can stick the Plaud to it and even be able to record calls. The Plaud Note Pro inside your MagSafe wallet. Image: Xataka. Also here. Image: Xataka. The button highlight: small detail, big difference There is a feature that sounds trivial on paper but that in use I have found to be extraordinarily useful: the highlight. During a recording, if someone says something important, you press briefly and the system marks that moment. Not only to locate the fragment later, but for the AI ​​to prioritize that information in the summaries. Bright. I’ve tried this on long presentations and the difference is brutal. Without highlightsthe summary gives you a medley where what is important can be diluted between ramblings. With highlights strategic, the summary goes directly to the decisions, commitments, critical points. It’s an elegant way to guide AI without having to write prompts after. Kudos to whoever had this idea. The AI ​​behind it: powerful but expensive Hardware is only half of the equation. The magic happens in the Plaud app, which processes the recordings using models from Google, OpenAI or Anthropic. You can choose which model to use for each transcriptionwhich is a level of control I wasn’t expecting. When starting a transcription we can choose between automatic and personalized transcription. If we choose the second, we can even choose the model to use. And it already includes the recently released Gemini 3 (although in beta). Image: Xataka. The different views of a transcript: summary, geolocation and recognition of who the key person is (if introduced at the beginning), key points, thematic index and complete transcript. Image: Xataka. The transcription is excellent. Comparatively better than Google Meet or Zoom in my experience, although that may depend on accent and environment. What is really interesting are the summary templates: you have everything from meeting minutes to Q&A format for interviews, to class notes or … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.