force

Thousands of CEOs admit that nothing is changing (yet). The productivity paradox of the 80s resurfaces with force

by

AI will make us more productive, the studies said and AI advocates. It is a discourse that is already well known and seemed reasonable: models allow us to automate routine tasks and use that time on other productive things, right? Well, the truth is, (at the moment) no. And what is happening is curiously the same thing that happened 40 years ago. The productivity paradox. In 1987 the economist and Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow realized of a singular paradox in the so-called “information age”. The transistors, microprocessors, and integrated circuits discovered in the 1960s were supposed to revolutionize businesses and dramatically increase productivity. What happened was just the opposite. Productivity growth did not accelerate, but rather slowed down: between 1948 and 1973 it was 2.9%, but since 1973 that growth was only 1.1%. So much chip for nothing? It seemed that way, at least those first few years. History repeats itself: AI is of little use. As they point out in Fortunethat paradox has resurfaced just now that we are suffering exactly the same thing with AI. A new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reveals a striking conclusion after surveying no less than 6,000 CEOs, CFOs and other managers from several countries: they see very little impact of AI on their real operations. AI is not changing anything. Although two-thirds of the managers surveyed indicated that they used AI in their processes, this use was very limited: about 1.5 hours per week. 25% of participants indicated that they did not use AI at all at work. Nearly 90% of the companies that participated highlighted that AI has not influenced their hiring or productivity in the last three years. But they are optimistic. The use of AI by these executives appears to be very limited at the moment, but those same companies are still waiting for a substantial impact. In fact, they expect productivity to increase by 1.4% in the next three years. Another paradox: these first years AI was supposed to cut hiring by 0.7%, but respondents revealed a 0.5% increase in those hiring. The data confirm that at the moment, little. The truth is that the vaunted AI revolution has still not become a reality, at least in terms of productivity and economic return. Economist Torsten Slok recently indicated that “AI is everywhere except in macroeconomic data: you don’t see it in employment, productivity or inflation data.” His thesis: the impact of AI is currently almost zero. In fact, except in the case of technology’s “Magnificent Seven,” there are no signs of profit margins or revenue expectations. But these revolutions take time. The revolution that semiconductors brought us took a while to crystallize, but it ended up doing so: in the 1990s and 2000s were produced productivity improvements such as an increase of 1.5% between 1995 and 2005. There are experts who they point because in fact this change in trend has already begun to occur: in the US, GDP in the fourth quarter grew by 3.7% despite the fact that there were job cuts. That points to an increase in productivity. Slok also pointed to this possibility, and theorized that the impact could end up having a “J” shape, first slowing down and then exploding. Let them tell the steam engine. Previous industrial revolutions, such as the one that produced the steam engine or, even more importantly, electricity, took their time. The initial delay disappeared over the course of subsequent decades because these technologies needed time to spread to the rest of the productive sectors. Excessive optimism does not help, of course, and at the moment what is reasonable seems to lie somewhere in between: neither “AI is useless” nor “AI will do everything for us.” Perhaps the only thing AI needs—in addition to improving—is for us to give time to time. It is not in vain that many describe it as “the new electricity.” Image | The Standing Desk In Xataka | Until now “software was eating the world.” Now AI is eating software

Elon Musk and Sam Altman predicted that AI will force the establishment of a universal basic income. The United Kingdom is already considering it

by

The main economic organizations in the world they don’t agree in their forecasts about what the real impact of the arrival of AI will be in the economic and labor sphere. A report The World Economic Forum estimated that AI will create 170 million new jobs. The problem is that until that happens, it will destroy about 92 million jobs. The US Senate consider that some 100 million jobs could be destroyed. Elon Musk and Sam Altman have repeated on several occasions that, to minimize this impact on society, it will be necessary to implement a universal basic income. In the United Kingdom, the government is debating measures to protect workers with the same idea. Millionaires ask for a basic income. Some of the top AI millionaires, such as Elon Musk, have predicted that universal basic income will be a reality in a future dominated by AI. While it is true that Musk’s vision is based on a vision more optimistic about the future in which “work will be optional” and it will not be necessary to save for retirement, the millionaire does not deny that universal income will be a necessary instrument to achieve it. Along the same lines, although with a more realistic vision, the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, has funded studies on the effects of universal basic income in a scenario of job destruction and how this income helps recipients return to work train for new jobs. Companies do not need human labor. In one your blog postDario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, warned that AI will have an “unusually painful” impact on the labor market. “AI is not a substitute for specific human jobs, but rather a general job substitute for humans,” the manager wrote. For this reason, this mechanism is increasingly seen as a transition instrument that allows employees laid off due to the arrival of AI to retrain to re-enter the labor market. A systematic review of the Department of Economics of the University of Huelva on more than 50 empirical casespoint out that universal basic income improves spending on basic needs without participants stopping looking for work, so it will be a way for employees to train for new jobs. jobs created by AI. The UK Government is debating it. In an interview for Financial TimesJason Stockwood, UK Investment Minister, has revealed that within the Government “it is definitely being talked about.” The minister noted that “without a doubt, we are going to have to think very carefully about how to smooth the process of disembarking those industries that disappear, through some type of UBI and some type of lifelong learning mechanism so that people can retrain.” According to published BloombergMorgan Stanley declared a net job loss of 8% in the UK in the last 12 months due to AI, the highest among large economies. Which explains the concern of the British executive to begin evaluating formulas that cushion this impact. A lifeline to keep them afloat. Unlike Musk’s “optimistic” vision, British representatives do not see the arrival of AI as a liberating element that makes work optional, but as a problem that will temporarily leave millions of workers who will need help unemployed. So declared it Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, concerned about the high rate of “white collar” unemployment that can cause the arrival of AI in a city like London. Liz Kendall, Secretary of Technology of the United Kingdom, spoke along the same lines, assuring that, although it is true that more jobs will be created than will be lost, there will be a transition period in which AI will be “a weapon of mass destruction of jobs. We will not leave people and communities to fend for themselves,” collected Guardian. The million-dollar question: who finances that income? It is easy to predict that universal basic income would be a solution for those who do not have a job to return to because AI has automated it. However, something more complicated will be determining who will finance that basic income. Bill Gates already gave some clues almost a decade agoensuring that they should be their own companies that use robots in their processes those that pay for that subsidy “if a robot replaces the work of a human, that robot must pay taxes like a human.” Ioana Marinescu, economist and associate professor of public policy at the University of Pennsylvania consider that taxing technology companies could slow down their implementation at the local level, so that this transformation process it would be more progressive increasing that transition period that would give time to the labor market to adapt. In Xataka | AI and its impact on the labor market: how the perception of its arrival varies by country, explained in a graph Image | Unsplash (Alexander Gray, enrico bet)

force the United States out of its comfort zone

by

If today we were asked which country is leading the race for artificial intelligence, the most immediate answer would probably still be the United States. And it wouldn’t be an occurrence. For decades, the country has set the pace for technological innovation and a good part of the digital tools that we use daily come from their large companies. However, that leadership is no longer as incontestable as it once was. The board begins to move and there is an actor who is closing distances at a speed that is difficult to ignore. That actor is China. The question is no longer whether China competes, but how it got here. How a country identified for years as the world’s factory, associated with mass production and cheap labor, has become a benchmark for innovation and technological vanguard. In a new video from Xataka’s YouTube channelour colleague Francisco Franconi analyzes this process in detail and puts figures, context and nuances to a phenomenon that we are seeing develop almost in real time and that can alter the balance of power in the global technology sector. China is no longer just the world’s factory: it is building its own path in AI “China should be years behind the United States in the development of AIs. It is a fact, since between 85 and 95% of the global market of chips used in this sector belong to Nvidia,” explains Franconi. The data is key, but it does not explain everything. The race for artificial intelligence is not only played in the field of semiconductors. There are other structural factors that are equally determining, and one of them is energy. The video delves into the enormous energy gap that separates both countries and why this aspect is crucial to understanding Chinese progress. As Franconi points out, energy “is necessary to build chip factories, supercomputers and processing centers. Without it there is no industrial growth.” To contextualize this statement, the analysis uses data from the International Energy Agency that helps to measure the real scope of this advantage and its direct impact on industrial and technological development. Another of the axes of the video is resilience. Specifically, China’s ability to adapt and continue moving forward despite the sanctions and restrictions imposed by the different US administrations. Franconi focuses on the repeated limitations that affect NVIDIA, but also examines the case of Huawei and the role that startups such as deepseek in this new scenario. Talent appears as another of the fundamental pillars of this career. “A relevant fact is that China has a greater number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, but the most shocking fact is that 50% of the world’s AI researchers are of Chinese origin“says Franconi. A figure that helps understand why the Asian country is gaining weight so quickly in development and research in artificial intelligence. The video also covers the current ecosystem of language models competing in the market and offers a clear snapshot of the position that China and the United States occupy in this technological race. An analysis that leads to our colleague’s conclusions about where this global pulse is heading and what implications it may have in the medium and long term. You can see now the full video on the Xataka YouTube channel. And, of course, we invite you to leave your comments both there and on this article. Images | Xataka In Xataka | Huawei is coming back. And not everyone is prepared for what is coming

Congress will force Renfe to return the money for delays of 15 minutes. Renfe’s response: we’ll see

by

Last year, Renfe expanded the strict criteria for returning money to its customers in case of delay. The measure came with controversy since these criteria had been applied since 1992 when the first AVE was launched. Almost 25 years later, the company relaxed these criteria to the point that two million passengers lost their money last year. Now, Congress forces Renfe to return to its previous criteria. But Renfe is not up to the task. When and how much money does Renfe return? Right now, to receive a partial payment for our ticket, the delay on the Spanish high-speed Renfe has to exceed 60 minutes. From 2024the company does not give half the money if the delay does not exceed one hour. In the event that we aspire to receive a full refund of the ticket, it will not arrive until we exceed 90 minutes. What has changed? Yesterday, November 13, The Congress of Deputies approved the Sustainable Mobility Law. It included an amendment from the Popular Party that returned the compensation that Renfe has to apply to those prior to the 2024 change. That is: Delays of more than 15 minutes: payment of 50% of the ticket Delays of more than 30 minutes: 100% payment of the ticket The change is substantial because this summer, four out of every 10 Renfe high-speed trains have arrived late. However, with the changes applied from 2024 they have been left without a refund around two million passengers. We’ll see. This is what the Ministry of Transport seems to say. And in statements to EFEsources from said ministry have described the amendment (which has been supported by Vox, Junts, ERC, Podemos and BNG) as “a demagogic operation and a toast to the populist sun.” Not only that, since The World They already state that Transport assures that they will look for “the legal formula to maintain the current system.” That is, the customer does not receive any refund for their ticket until after 60 minutes of delay. And that the total amount is not delivered until after 90 minutes. In the media they also report that Transport sources have indicated that the decision “only wants to penalize Renfe, a Spanish and public company, and not competing companies.” such as Ouigo and Iryo”, while highlighting that Renfe is a “public company that is fundamental to the structure of Spain”. In addition, Óscar Puente himself, Minister of Transport, has questioned the amendment. “Let’s see how it goes,” they say in The World who has responded about the new obligation. At a disadvantage? What Transport maintains is that the amendment promoted by the Popular Party puts Renfe at a clear disadvantage compared to Ouigo and Iryo. What the Government alludes to is that the reimbursement conditions by these companies are less favorable for the client, allowing them a competitive advantage. Ouigo compensates in the following cases: Delay of more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes: 50% refund of the ticket in a non-refundable purchase voucher. Delay of more than 60 minutes and less than 90 minutes: 50% refund of the ticket in a refundable purchase voucher. Delay of more than 90 minutes: 100% refund of the ticket in a refundable purchase voucher. Iryo partially or totally refunds the money in the following situations: Delay of more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes: refund of 50% of the ticket in purchase voucher or cash. Delay of more than 90 minutes: 100% refund of the ticket in purchase voucher or cash. Competence. What the Ministry of Transport points out is that this puts them at a disadvantage compared to the competition because Renfe adapted its compensation criteria to formulas similar or equal to those offered by its competition. However, the amendment introduced in the Sustainable Mobility Law only toughens the criteria for Renfe. It must be taken into account that the company has been around for more than a year experiencing a punctuality crisis. Although the Government points out that its punctuality is among the best in Europe, criticism has surfaced because trains that do not arrive on time have multiplied. Of course, when sharing roads with Ouigo and Iryo, it may be the case that a road blockade due to a breakdown of the latter ends up causing a delay in times when Renfe does have to return 100% of the ticket and its rivals will only deliver half of it. Photo | Carlos Teixador Cadenas in Wikimedia and Congress of Deputies In Xataka | If the summer has taught us anything, it is that Spain does not need more trains. You just need them to work.

Yes, next year I am going to carry the V-16 beacon because they force me to. It doesn’t even occur to me to throw away the triangles

by

January 1, 2026 we will say goodbye to the triangles. Or maybe I would have to say that “we should say goodbye to triangles.” Because that is what the DGT wants. Traffic has decided that in just over two months, the V-16 beacon will be the one that signals breakdowns or accidents that occur on the road. And by the way, it prohibits the use of triangles. And I will say that, when I need them, I will continue using them. It’s not a tantrum. It is not a question of simple rebellion because I have to spend 30, 40 or 50 euros on a new accessory for my car. It is as simple a question as deciding what is best for my safety, that of my passengers and that of my car. A good (but improvable) idea I am not one of those who rant about the V-16 light for the simple fact that the DGT forces us to spend money on a new accessory for our car. I think it has its good parts but I also think it has some things that could be very improved. And, above all, I don’t understand why both devices cannot be combined. According to the DGT, we are experiencing a kind of epidemic of abuses when it comes to put emergency triangles in our country. Well, there are reasons to be skeptical. Between the years 2018 and 2022 (that is, a period that includes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic), an annual average of between 18 and 26 people died in accidents “after getting off the vehicle” on high-capacity roads, as reflected in the document itself which explains why the regulations and technical requirements of this connected V-16 beacon are changed. The DGT highlights the year 2019, the year in which 58 pedestrians lost their lives on high-capacity roads, of which 18 people were run over “after getting off the vehicle” by a particular group. In those five years, there were 108 pedestrian deaths on our roads that can be classified in that particular group. According to data collected by Statista8,615 people died on our roads between 2018 and 2022. That is, 1.25% of those killed on Spanish roads died from a collision under these circumstances. But the most problematic thing about the matter is that these very particular circumstances do not reflect the abuses that occurred while a person placed a triangle. Are you looking for that number? The DGT does not offer it. It talks about accidents on high-capacity roads but does not pay attention to the number of accidents when putting the triangles. That is, the organization is putting a patch on a problem for which we do not have clear or verifiable data. Yet, I break a spear for of the connected V-16 beacon. It seems like a good idea to have a system in the car that warns of an obstacle on the road and that can be installed on the roof of our car without having to get out of the vehicle. And all this despite the fact that it is already mandatory to start the car flashing. It also doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me that the beacon connects with the DGT in its platform 3.0 and so from Traffic they can give notice through the road panels that there is an obstacle on the road. Of course, notifying the emergency services is the responsibility of the driver and passengers. It would be appreciated if, since there is connectivity with DGT 3.0, Traffic would study fluid communication with these emergency services. Not to mention that in all new cars sold there is already the function eCall to sound the first alarm. I will continue wearing the triangles That said, I will continue to carry emergency triangles in my car. And I threaten to use them! (Insert image of Abraham Simpson yelling at the clouds here) No jokes. I have already seen the V-16 beacon in operation connected to the DGT in operation and I am sorry to say that its visibility level during the day and in good light tends to zero. I fully agree with what A few days ago José Lagunar expressedroad safety expert Auto FMin the article in which we asked three voices to give us their opinion. In broad daylight, the differences between setting the DGT V-16 beacon and activating the car’s flashing are: none. In fact, it should give us a clue about this that Netun Solutions, the creators of the invention and the first beacon approved by the DGT, are already selling us “more powerful” lights than the minimum required by Traffic. Will I put the beacon on the roof of my car? Well yes, because it is of no use to me to buy it and carry it in the glove compartment. Furthermore, the connection with DGT 3.0 to alert by the lights is welcome. But I will also put the triangles. With great care and with all the caution in the world but I consider that it improves visibility in case of breakdown. And we’re talking about a highway in broad daylight. But, What happens on a secondary road with a sharp curve? And with a pronounced change in gradient? Not putting emergency triangles in those situations, especially during the day where the light beam from the V-16 beacon is diluted, seems at least dangerous to me. In those cases, it is essential for me to place the emergency triangles. I am firmly in favor of the fact that both systems can coexist. The connected V-16 light doesn’t seem like a bad invention to me. At night, for example, the visibility of the triangles improves and even in a secondary vehicle in the above conditions it is likely to alert the rest of the vehicles sooner than the triangles. But if you use a battery, you are only forced to run it for 30 minutes. What happens if I am left stranded with … Read more

They cannot force you to work on weekends even if your contract says “Monday to Sunday”

by

The Supreme Court has brought order to an area where many companies moved with ambiguity: the possibility of changing the working day at their convenience, by far that indicates it in the employment contract. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has unified its criteria and it is no longer enough for the contract to say that you can work “from Monday to Sunday” as a justification for change the work dayyou must negotiate it with employees before applying the change. What exactly has the Supreme Court defined?. The judgment responds to the request for unification of criteria requested by the CGT union in the face of previous contradictory rulings. The origin is a collective conflict raised by the unions after a company decided extend your day Monday through Sunday to serve the needs of its business clients. For more than five years, the staff of that company had worked only from Monday to Friday, so the unions understood that the change in hours represented a substantial modification of working conditions and, therefore, should be subject to negotiation, as established in the Article 41 of the Workers’ Statute. The Supreme Court agrees with the unions and annuls that decision, indicating that, although the contract allowed working “Monday to Sunday”, the change required a formal procedure. In the words of the ruling, “if workers have been providing services from Monday to Friday since 2017 and in 2022 the company informs them that they have to start doing so from Monday to Sunday, this represents a substantial modification of working conditions.” Why is it important. The Supreme Court makes it clear that the regular consolidated working day It cannot be altered unilaterally by the company. The court admits that the contract included the possibility of working from Monday to Sunday, but emphasizes that the practice sustained for years has more legal weight than the generic clause. That is to say, if from the beginning the day was configured from Monday to Sunday, that practice is consolidated, and any substantial change that is applied must be negotiated. According to the ruling, “the company could not decide unilaterally, and without following the procedure of article 41 ET, to start providing services from Monday to Sunday when since 2017 it had been providing services from Monday to Friday.” What it means for workers. The Supreme Court ruling strengthens the position of employees and gives them more tools against non-negotiated shift changes. If a staff has been working a specific schedule for years, that practice becomes part of their contract, even if it is not explicitly written. In practical terms, this means that workers can challenge any substantial alteration to their working hours or schedules if they have not been previously negotiated. This new ruling restores the staff to their previous schedule and declares the business decision void, urging them to negotiate the change in accordance with the provisions of article 41 of the Workers’ Statute. What changes for companies. With its unification of criteria, the Supreme Court places limits on the unilateral modification of the conditions and organization of work by companies, forcing them to reach agreements with employees as long as these changes are substantial and have a justification. The court points out that the company could have easily started the negotiation “claiming that the client company required the services to be provided from Monday to Sunday”, which in the court’s opinion is a more than justified reason, and not directly impose it. In Xataka | It seemed obvious, but the Supreme Court had to remind them: Ryanair cannot elect a union, the employees choose it Image | Flickr (Chris Arnold), Unsplash (Eduardo Alexandre)

the debate on gasoline additives returns with force

by

“That is the big lie. We buy the additive that Exolum recommends. But it is not worth anything, nor is it worth anything. We put the additive because people think that the additive is good” We don’t say that the additive is “worthless” at all. Of course, neither does “the best mechanic in Spain” say it, who firmly believes that gasoline low cost it is of worse quality. The person who speaks about the convenience or not of the additive is José Rodríguez de Arellano, “the king of cheap gasoline”they assure in The Country. In the Spanish newspaper they have interviewed Rodríguez de Arellano, CEO of Plenergya gas station company with 370 points of sale throughout Spain and which already sells about 1,700 million liters of fuel. Obviously, Rodríguez de Arelllano’s words hit home. Asked about the convenience of using additives to improve the useful life of the engine, the company’s CEO is very clear: “if it was worth something, the leaders would have already said so.” What do we know about additives Whether or not it is convenient to use additives for the car or refuel at a gas station that is supposed to be of “better quality” has some truth and a lot of hope. Because, really, if the fuel we refuel has the minimum quality standards that fuel in our country must meet, there should be no problem. What must be clear is that the gasoline we put in our tank at Plenergy or Ballenoil it is the same as if we do it at Repsol or BP. At least, it almost entirely is. As if it were a stew where everything comes from the same pot but then each cook ends up giving it their personal touch. The origin of all the fuel consumed in Spain is in Exolum, former CHL. The fuel comes to Exolum from the refineries that BP, Repsol or moeve They are spread throughout Spain. There it is verified that the fuel has the minimum quality for sale in our country and is distributed to the different companies. It is in this distribution where the differences begin. Exolum itself already sells fuel with and without additives. It is known as HQ300 and makes the product more expensive. “ANDIt’s the big lie. “We buy the additive that Exolum recommends.”. In his interview with The Countrythe CEO of Plenergy confirmed that they use this additive fuel and that, however, for him it made no sense and that it was a pure marketing exercise. And he continued: “The additive is not important for the engine. What happens is that we are in a dynamic in which everyone talks about the additive. If it was of any use, the leaders would have already said so. They would have done an independent study to demonstrate that their additive allows the car to go x kilometers longer. It is the same fantasy that still exists in the country, understanding that the fuel is different, but comes out of the same tank.” And this is where much of the secret lies. Once Exolum delivers its fuel with or without additive, it is the companies themselves that provide that chef’s touch that we were talking about. The most renowned firms (and cost for the customer) use their own additives that, they claim, improve the useful life of the engine or make the car travel more kilometers with the same amount of fuel. That is, consume less. However, there are so many conditions When it comes to demonstrating that this really influences it, it is not entirely clear that there is a real benefit. In fact, if you go to one of the websites where the operation of the additives is explained, they will always be accompanied by a small legal text at the bottom. Regarding longer engine life and better efficiency (BP assures that cars that use its fuels can travel 840 kilometers longer for every 13,000 kilometers traveled) On the BP website it reads the following: *Benefits are achieved over time and may vary depending on how and what vehicle you drive. **Claim based on continuous use over 13,000 km. Compared to basic fuels (fuels that only meet the minimum requirements established in Royal Decree 61/2006 of January 31). Benefits may vary depending on vehicle, driving style, road conditions and other factors. The problem is that it is almost impossible to carry out studies that can be translated into practice. Fuel consumption is closely linked to driving style but also to much simpler causes such as keep the tires at the correct pressure or simply perform proper maintenance of the vehicle, which can have much more impact on fuel consumption and avoiding possible breakdowns than on the use of one fuel or another. Everything indicates that so many kilometers would have to be traveled with so many different engines and for so long in laboratory conditions that the cost would be too high. That is why Rodríguez de Arellano assures that “the leaders” have not presented any independent study that validates the use of additives to improve the fuel that arrives from Exolum. This last perspective was the one validated by Carles Fité, professor of Chemical Engineering, and Rodrigo Soto, reading professor of Chemical Engineering, to The Confidential. Both experts pointed out that all the gasolines they had on display had the same base and that there were no substantial differences between them that could confirm that these supposed benefits exist. Photo | Plenergy In Xataka | Why can gas stations in large hypermarkets sell their product cheaper?

The connected glasses look like a lot of fun. Until they force you to wear them at work

by

amazon he doesn’t trust his workers. It has never done so, and this is demonstrated by the measures that have been filtered and that served the same purpose: to monitor them and prevent productivity from dropping. Some control is reasonable, without a doubt, but this company stopped being that a long time ago and became in a nonsense. We are talking about a company that patented a wristband to find out if employees relax and they start to work a little less. Which was discovered to have automated tracking systems to evaluate productivity rates of each worker. Which used AI cameras to monitor delivery vans and drivers during 100% of the journey. that ended receiving fines due to this strenuous monitoring and had to change the algorithm that penalized productivity data for going to the bathroom. A company in which some employees they had to urinate in bottles to avoid wasting time and others said that working at Amazon was like being in a prison. Augmented reality glasses to work better… Well, now Amazon is working on augmented reality glasses that will follow the line of the Meta Ray-Ban Display. They are likely working on a version for end users, but what the company has officially confirmed is that I was developing some glasses for your messengers. After delivery, the courier will take a photo by pressing a button… which apparently is not on the glasses themselves. With them, they indicate in the press release, couriers will be able to “identify dangers, reach the customer’s door without problems and improve deliveries.” The glasses make use of AI, artificial vision, cameras and sensors to offer all their options to couriers. Thus, when a courier arrives at a delivery location, the glasses are activated and the courier has information about the package to be delivered on the display (a monochrome HUD with information in green). This same HUD allows you to follow navigation instructions similar to those of GPS navigators – but with a much more schematic design – to find the client’s home. The courier will also take a photo to confirm the delivery and can share it as a demonstration of that delivery if there are problems. …and to monitor workers more than ever The company is testing a prototype with the help of hundreds of couriers in the US, and is collecting information and feedback from those “beta testers” in order to refine the product. On paper, these glasses may seem like a useful aid for drivers, but it is inevitable to think that they also They can be used for much more exhaustive monitoring and control of those drivers and messengers. Thanks to this device, Amazon will, for example, have absolute control over the location of the couriers and their productivity when delivering packages. Are they fast or slow? Do they make mistakes? Here the border between supporting technology and that which allows for labor control is blurred. It is true that it provides advantages in terms of efficiency and even security, but the amount and precision of the data collected by glasses like this raises questions about worker privacy and, once again, the degree to which Amazon can supervise its employees. And like her, of course, many other companies that may also end up making this type of device a mandatory element for employees. In the EU, however, it seems more complicated that this type of wearables can be used: there are legal precedents that years ago already posed a clear obstacle to this type of monitoring, but it remains to be seen if these measures are finally also adopted among EU workers. In Xataka | The temperature in an Amazon warehouse was too high to work. So the company faked the thermometers

That the US Air Force flies its three B-52 bombers is normal. That he does it against Venezuela not so much

by

At the beginning of September the southern Caribbean became in a hybrid war board where anti-drug operations, financial sanctions and military deployments mixed together. Then we learned that the United States had decided to open a base that had been closed for 20 years and had not been open since. F-35 have stopped arriving. Three have been added to the fighter jets monsters looking at Venezuela. The roar. In recent days, the Caribbean has once again been the scene of a military deployment reminiscent of the most tense years of the Cold War. Up to three strategic bombers American B-52 were spotted orbiting for hours off the coasts of Venezuelaescorted by F-35 fighters and supported by tankers and reconnaissance drones. The maneuver, carried out in international airspace, was all less discreet: a deliberate display of force a few kilometers from Caracas, in a context in which Washington intensifies the pressure against the regime of Nicolás Maduro and in which rumors about a possible direct action They begin to sound with increasing verisimilitude. Echo of the giants. The B-52s, based in Louisiana, sailed the Caribbean sky with the unequivocal purpose to be seen. His mere presence has a strategic meaning: each of these colossi can carry dozens of long range cruise missilescapable of hitting land or sea targets without having to fly over enemy territory. The United States assures that the patrols They are part of anti-drug operations, but the simultaneity with Trump’s threats and the recent attacks to vessels suspected of drug trafficking point to a clearer political message: warn Maduro that Washington’s reach extends from the air to the waters of the Caribbean and, if it deems necessary, beyond. The fence In just two months, the Pentagon has deployed in the region a naval and air device that includes three destroyers, a missile cruiser, a nuclear submarine and an amphibious group with more than 2,000 marines. TO they add up Reaper drones, C-17 transport planes and the feared AC-130J Ghostrider, specialized in interdiction operations and surgical strikes. The structure is more reminiscent of a preparation force for a limited campaign than a mere anti-drug operation. Washington has also confirmed the creation of a new force regional task force under the command of the II Marine Expeditionary Force, while reports of lethal attacks on suspicious boats in international waters accumulate: at least five in recent weeks, with 27 dead. Open threat. The turning point has arrived when Trump himself openly declared who studies “striking on Venezuelan land” after having “controlled the sea almost completely.” He said it with the naturalness of someone describing a logical extension of an operation in progress. He also acknowledged having authorized to the CIA to develop covert operations in Venezuelan territory, in a decision that marks a qualitative leap with respect to traditional diplomatic pressure. Although he avoided confirming whether this authorization includes the figure of Maduro, the hint was enough for him toturn on all alarms in the region. In Washington, sources from the Department of Defense maintain that these would be actions aimed at “disrupting drug trafficking networks,” but Trump himself has described the Venezuelan president as “head of a cartel,” blurring the line between anti-drug war and regime change operation. Venezuela on alert. From Caracas, the response It was immediate. Maduro accused the United States of preparing an invasion and denounced to the United Nations what qualified as “a very serious violation of international law.” His government maintains that the military movements seek to “legitimize a regime change operation to seize Venezuelan oil reserves.” In a televised speech, supported by his military leadership, evoked the blows sponsored by the CIA during the Cold War in Latin America and cried: “Down with coups d’état! Latin America neither wants nor needs them.” At the same time, he announced that 4.5 million civilian militiamen would be ready to defend the country, although the actual enlistment figures were far from his rhetoric. Meanwhile, the opposition, led by María Corina Machado (recently awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize), celebrated American support and dedicated his award “to Trump, for his decisive support of our cause.” Fuzzy red line. The situation has become a dangerous choreography of power. On the one hand, Washington insists that its mission is stop drug trafficking and irregular migration, on the other, their actions increasingly resemble the preparatory phase of a military operation. Trump’s rhetoric, direct and unfiltered, evokes the old ghosts of North American interventions in Latin America, while his deployment in the Caribbean resembles a modern reissue of the big stick politics. Venezuela, with a weakened armysuffocating sanctions and a perpetual internal crisis, thus becomes a board and excuse: the place where the United States’ ambition for regional control and the need for an external enemy to maintain the cohesion of Chavismo intersect. A prelude? He flight of the B-52 off the Venezuelan coast it was not a routine maneuver. It was a sign. A demonstration that pressure is no longer measured in sanctions or communications, but in long-range missions, combat escorts and submarines that silently patrol a few kilometers from the continental shelf of a sovereign State. Trump has found in Maduro the perfect antagonist: an isolated dictator, converted into a symbol of Latin American collapse and a justification of his new hemispheric doctrine. If you will, also a warning to sailors: it could become the first salvo of a selective intervention. Image | USAF In Xataka | The US can spend months attacking boats in the Caribbean. A base closed for 20 years has just opened and F-35s keep arriving In Xataka | Venezuela has found proof that the video of the US missile pulverizing a boat was made with AI: Google AI

How to force Gemini to create images of proportions and sizes you want instead of always making them square

by

We are going to explain how to get it Gemini make images with the sizes and proportions that you want. With other alternatives such as ChatGPT This is as easy as telling the horizontalxvertical pixels or telling you an image aspect ratio, but with Geminithe artificial intelligence from Google this seems to fail, and often just makes them all square no matter how much you ask otherwise This is a bug that will surely be corrected over time, but if you need to have control over the proportion of the image you are going to create, we will tell you a little trick with which to force it in an original way. Create images in the proportion you want The first thing you have to do is edit a blank image with the proportion you want using any image editor. You can simply make a blank image and crop it to use a specific size. It could also be a random photo, because in the end it’s just one size template which you will then use in Gemini. Now you have to go to Gemini. When writing the prompt you have to add blank image with size that you have chosen. It will be like putting the canvas on which to later create the image. Then, next to the image add a prompt with this formula: “Replace this image with one that shows (…)”. Here, in the prompt it is important to specify that you want replace that image with a new oneand then describe what you want to appear in the new drawing. By doing this, Gemini will not create the image entirely from scratchbut instead will take as reference the size from which you have uploaded. And then, since you have asked to replace the image, nothing from the previous one will appear, but to avoid problems it is best to have the image blank. This way, you can master one of Gemini’s biggest flaws when creating images, which is that it ignores your size instructions. And remember that you can have several templates of specific sizes. In Xataka Basics | Gemini Image Editor: 16 Ways and Tricks to Squeeze Nano-banana with Google’s AI

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.