lasted

Japan has attempted to power up the world’s largest nuclear power plant. It only lasted a few hours

by

The nuclear debate, which Japan thought closed, returns to the scene. The recent authorization to reactivate Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the largest atomic plant in the world, has set off alarms: citizen distrust, the shadow of Fukushima and doubts have surfaced about whether TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) is the right company to lead the country’s new energy stage. Fifteen years of waiting for a reboot that didn’t even last a day. In Niigata, reactor number 6 went from complete silence to emergency shutdown in less than 24 hours. The failure, located in critical safety systems, has turned the great revival energetic of Japan in a lesson in technical fragility. A slow giant. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa had not produced a single kilowatt since 2012. That closure was not an isolated event, but the shock wave of Fukushima in 2011, which put all reactors of similar design in the spotlight. But for TEPCO, this complex of seven units and more than 8,000 MW is much more than energy: it is its financial lifeline. According to Japan Forward estimatesthe electricity company needs these reactors to inject some 100,000 million yen annually into its coffers, essential oxygen to pay the endless bill for the dismantling of Fukushima Daiichi. The Japanese Government, under the command of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, has positioned this reopening as a strategic pillar. The objective is ambitious, in saying that nuclear energy represent 20% of the energy mix by 2040. This energy is needed to power new AI data centers and semiconductor factories, thus reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, made more expensive by the fall of the yen and current geopolitics. Chronicle of a fleeting reboot. The reactivation process of reactor No. 6 was marked by setbacks even before it began. The restart, initially scheduled for Tuesday, January 20, had to be postponed one day after it was detected that an alarm designed to warn of the accidental removal of control rods did not work during the tests, as reported by The Japan Times. After correcting this error, operations formally began on Wednesday at 7:02 pm. At 8:28 pm, the reactor reached the “critical state” (sustained nuclear fission). However, the celebration in TEPCO’s control rooms – where staff tensely monitored screens – was short-lived. At 12:28 a.m. Thursday, just 16 hours after the start, an alarm sounded again. This time it indicated a failure in the engine control panel that operates one of the reactor control rods (the devices that regulate or stop the nuclear reaction). TEPCO attempted to replace electrical components and inverters, but the anomaly persisted. Given the uncertainty, the company announced a “planned temporary shutdown” to reinsert the control rods and stop the fission, a process that concluded Friday morning. “We do not assume that the investigation will be resolved in one or two days; at this time we cannot say how many days it will take,” admitted Takeyuki Inagaki, director of the plant, at a press conference. Security under suspicion. Although TEPCO maintains that the reactor remains under control and without leaks to the outside, the incident has served to poke into a wound that was never closed. It is not just the present that is worrying, but a tarnished record: just five years ago, the Financial Times I already put the focus on the plant after a security scandal where an employee circumvented access controls using a foreign identification, revealing the fragility of its surveillance systems. However, distrust does not only fall on TEPCO. The Japanese nuclear sector is experiencing a systemic credibility crisis. Earlier this month, Chubu Electric admitted to manipulating seismic data to minimize the impact of potential earthquakes at its Hamaoka plant, leading the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) to describe the act as “scandalous” and to suspend its security review after a decade of paperwork. A divided society in Niigata. Outside the plant and at TEPCO headquarters, protesters like Yumiko Abe, 73, express their indignation: “Electricity is for Tokyo, but we in Kashiwazaki run the risk. It doesn’t make sense.” The figures support this discomfort. According to surveys cited by South China Morning Postabout 60% of Niigata residents oppose the restart. Furthermore, 70% of citizens fear that TEPCO will not be able to manage an emergency based on its history. On the other hand, prominent seismologists warn in the Financial Times that the plant is located near an area of ​​very high seismic risk where a large earthquake could cause billions of dollars in damage. The future of the atom in Japan. The path to full operation of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is once again up in the air. While TEPCO makes cost cuts of 3.1 trillion yen To fund the decommissioning of Fukushima, the NRA has promised strict on-site inspections to verify corrective actions following this latest failure. Experts like Dr. Florentine Koppenborg suggest that this “nuclear renaissance” It could be just a “drop in the ocean” as security costs have skyrocketed and public trust remains at rock bottom. Japan is at an energy crossroads: the urgency to decarbonize and feed its technology industry collides head-on with the memory of a disaster that, 15 years later, is still very present. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa giant has shown that, in nuclear energy, the distance between strategic success and technical failure is measured in the sound of a single alarm. Image | IAEA Imagebank Xataka | Here is news that will surely reassure you: Europe’s largest nuclear power plant is running on diesel generators

It lasted three hours and was aboard the Concorde

by

We could say that, at the end of the 80s, everything in technology it was field. Everything was yet to be done and the technological competition was in full swing. Larry Ellison, the founder and CEO of Oracle, decided to do something truly extraordinary to present a new product that would be what many today consider the first stone of the current Oracle: Oracle 6. As and as they remembered from LuxuryLaunchesin 1988, the millionaire founder wanted to give a theatrical coup to the presentation of the new version of his relational database management system and, without a doubt, he succeeded. He did it in the middle of the Atlantic flying with a group of journalists and analysts in a Concorde chartered for the occasion. As fast as a Concorde. Just as they collect the publications of the time, Ellison had the brilliant idea of ​​linking the speed of processing the databases of his new edition of Oracle 6 with his other passion: supersonic planes. Oracle rented a Concorde, the famous supersonic plane that linked New York and Europe in just over two hours because it flew at speeds of up to Mach 2 (2,469 km/h). The concept was clear: the new Oracle 6 was the computer equivalent of the Concorde. The idea was to show that its database worked at supersonic speed, compared to the competition from IBM. A quick dinner. The choice of Concorde was not accidental. Larry Ellison was known for his passion for fighter planes and speed, which made a trip at more than 2,400 km/h the ideal place to present a product that wanted to stand out for its speed. Mike Jacobs, veteran Oracle executive, stated in the book ‘The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: Inside Oracle Corporation’ by Mike Wilson about that presentation “We took the analysts and the press to dinner on a flight to nowhere, and it was quick.” The Concorde seats were not affordable for everyone, so the food that was served on board It wasn’t either. Passengers enjoyed Dom Pérignon champagne, followed by caviar and a complete selection of French classics such as lobster, duck or beef served on delicate porcelain tableware. All this while the company’s engineers were telling the benefits of the new features of Oracle 6. The after-dinner session did not last too long since the tjourney aboard the Concorde It barely lasted less than three hours. It wasn’t a cheap account either.. Each Concorde ticket cost an average of $7,500 (about $15,500 currently). Therefore, inviting the approximately 100 journalists and analysts who could fit on a Concorde to dinner today would cost Ellison $1.55 million. However, that was the price of a charter flight operated by British Airways or Air France. But, it should be remembered that Oracle chartered the Concorde exclusively for the presentation, so it was not a regular flight. Which adds some zeros to the final count. We guess the tip was on point too. The first stone for Oracle. That presentation, beyond the eccentricity of appearing aboard the fastest and most exclusive plane in the world, marked a before and after in the history of Oracle, laying the foundations of the company. what we know today. The new software served to change engineers’ perceptions of Oracle, as it was previously joked that “Oracle never breaks, it just gives you wrong results.” A recurring joke among computer scientists of the time about the reliability of Oracle software. This database solved previous problems and positioned the company as a great competitor in the data management software market. The use of Concorde as a stage for the launch was a coup that reinforced the image of innovation, speed and success that Ellison wanted to convey to his public and his rivals. In Xataka | Larry Ellison wanted to feed the world by growing lettuce on his private island: he irrigated it with 500 million dollars Image | Wikimedia Commons (Eduard Marmet), Flickr (Oracle)

After a love-hate relationship with cinemas that has lasted for years, Netflix has finally decided what it wants them for

by

Netflix finally seems to have assumed what its relationship with cinemas is: using theaters as promotion and as a way to create community with specific and very striking releases, which includes the theatrical release of the sumptuous ‘Frankenstein’ from Guillermo del Toro to the latest and highly anticipated episodes of ‘Stranger Things’. But although now there is complete calm, this relationship has gone through notable ups and downs: from the initial devotion and wanting to become a major of Hollywood to confront the old guard head-on, reaching this current middle ground that benefits both cinemas and the platform. Many moves. For more than a decade, Netflix has radically transformed the audiovisual industryfirst revolutionizing the home consumption model and then challenging traditional film distribution and exhibition systems. Currently, Netflix is ​​a giant available in more than 190 countries, with its own production that competes directly with the majors from Hollywood. And until reaching that point, Netflix has gone through very diverse stages: it tried to position itself as a conventional super-producer, there were controversies, triumphs at the Oscars, a certain cold phase of disagreement and, finally, a more pragmatic adoption of the theatrical space. Devotion and confrontation. In its first years of original production, Netflix wanted to play an important role within the conventional film industry. One of its first early milestones was the 2015 release of the film ‘Beasts of No Nation‘, both in selected rooms and on the platform itself. streaming. A bold move, since it involved challenging the traditional model of release windows that until then gave up an exclusive period of time in theaters before reaching other formats: Traditionally, this window could last between 90 and 180 days. The conflict begins. The powerful North American cinema chains and the most prestigious festivals began to openly reject Netflix moviessince they considered that the absence of a long theatrical window affected the overall profitability of the releases, and would end up damaging the theatrical experience. This situation led to public tensions given that Netflix excluded from some major film festivals for several years. Netflix he defended himself saying that their model prioritized the viewer’s experience at home and that they understood the theaters as a complement and not the core of their business. At the same time, it was generating more and more original production, of increasingly higher quality and budget. And COVID arrived. Netflix’s position backed by traveling companions like HBO (paradoxically, property of a majorWarner, which was beginning to see a clearer benefit in the streaming that in the rooms) had as its fruit a crisis of the film distribution model. The situation became particularly acute during the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the decline in viewers, completely settled the streaming experience and gave rise to decisions that were, in a certain sense, the final straw for classic distribution: majors traditional companies such as Disney and Warner releasing blockbusters of the caliber of ‘Mulan’, ‘Black Widow’ or ‘Kong vs. Godzilla’ at the same time on their newborn platforms. streaming and the cinemas. Have a mania Significantly, in May of this same yearTed Sarandos, executive director of the platform, criticized the theatrical experience, which he defined as “outdated” and “restricted.” He stated that the long-running theatrical window, traditionally defended by cinema chains, is not compatible with their business model. And although Netflix recognizes the cultural value of theatrical cinema, for many of its releases, “streaming first” is what drives success and the construction of fandoms. Already then he stated that each film has a “tailored” strategy regarding its relationship with theaters, and that is what we are seeing now. Of course, without passing up the opportunity to say that Netflix is ​​not destroying Hollywood, but “saving” it. Change of strategy. In recent years, Netflix has begun to show an evolution in its strategy regarding movie theaters, adopting a more pragmatic approach. One of the milestones that mark this change, and which was already mentioned in the aforementioned interview with Sarandos, is the decision to make outstanding theatrical premieres for productions with a high potential for cultural and popular impact. Significant example: the premiere of the final season of “Stranger Things” in select theaters, a move that combines the platform’s drawing power with the community and promotional effect of the theatrical experience. Netflix knows well that the theaters are remnants of the past, but they still have an indisputable communal power of attraction: there are films that appeal to specific audiences and very juicy areas of the fandom, as was the case with ‘The K-pop Warriors’. This film was a milestone: the first Netflix title to reach number one at the US box office, which makes clear the company’s ability to use theaters not only as a traditional distribution channel, but as a space to amplify platform phenomena. Hybrid model. Netflix’s current strategy is a hybrid model: it combines the strength of streaming with the cultural and promotional value of the cinema experience. Instead of seeing the rooms as a distribution channel, Netflix uses them as a speaker. Not as competition, but as strategic promotion allies. It is clear that Netflix has discovered what it can get out of traditional exhibition: Now it remains to be seen if the theaters understand what they can get out of a hypothetical (and much-needed) symbiotic relationship. In Xataka | 13 premiere movies and series to watch in November 2025 on Netflix, Prime Video, HBO Max and streaming

South Korea launched an AI textbook program for schools. It has lasted four months

by

The South Korean government bet heavily on artificial intelligence in classrooms with a million-dollar investment in digital textbooks. They promised more personalized learning, a reduction in teaching load and, generally speaking, fewer school dropouts. The reality It has been very different: after a single semester they stopped being mandatory and became complementary material, allowing each school to decide whether to use them or not. Few have continued using them. A experiment that does not has worked. In March of this year a special program started educational promoted by then-president Yoon Suk Yeol: textbooks with artificial intelligence for mathematics, English and computer science. The government invested more than 1.2 trillion won (726 million euros at the exchange rate) in equipment and teacher training, while the publishers allocated another 800,000 million won (484 million euros) to the development of the material. Barely four months later, in August, parliament stopped considering them official texts after an avalanche of criticism. They are now optional supplementary material. Problems that came from day one. Ko Ho-dam, a high school student on Jeju Island, explains it to Rest of World: “All of our classes were delayed due to technical problems. I didn’t know how to use them well either. Working only with my laptop, I had a hard time staying focused. The books didn’t offer lessons adapted to my level.” Complaints spread throughout the country. Students, teachers and families reported errors in the content, risks to data privacy, increased screen time and, paradoxically, a greater workload for both teachers and students, especially if at the beginning it was necessary to add time to adapt to the new system. In a hurry. Representative Kang Kyung-sook, an opponent of the program, he questioned deadlines in parliament: “Traditional textbooks take 18 months to develop, nine to revise and six to prepare. But AI books took only 12, three and three months respectively. Why the rush?” Lee Bohm, researcher at the University of Cambridge, points out “AI should be tested first in homework or practice before being carefully introduced in class. The focus should be on how to integrate it into the school curriculum.” Digitized classrooms and addiction. South Korea has been dealing with another technological problem for years: digital addiction among young people. According to psychiatrist Lee Hae-kook, professor at the Catholic University of Korea, “almost one in two young people is at risk of smartphone addiction,” a figure that, according to Le Monde, increased between 30% and 40% after the pandemic. The country has had digital detox centers since 2002 and will ban mobile phones in schools starting March 2026. In this context, introducing more screens in classrooms has generated greater rejection. Jang Ha-na of the Political Mamas organization, which advocates for the well-being of women and children, expressed to the medium that “textbooks (with AI) worsen the effectiveness of learning. Once digital devices become central in classrooms, exposure to screens increases, weakening literacy and communication skills.” Legal and political battle. According to the medium, even before the launch, teachers unions and civil groups They sued the then minister of education for abuse of authority, arguing that the program was “problematic” by making the use of AI mandatory, ignored risks to minors, and lacked data protection measures. The government moved from mandatory adoption to a voluntary test one year in January. Yoon was ousted in April following his attempt to impose martial law, and new President Lee Jae Myung, who promised to reverse the policy, kept his word. According to explains Rest of World, the publishers that developed the texts announced lawsuits for financial damages. Hwang Geun-sik, president of the committee that represents them, explains that “companies that trusted the government saw the market suddenly disappear. Our business is reduced and staff cuts are inevitable.” The figures say it all. The adoption rate collapsed from 37% in the first semester to 19% in the current one. Only 2,095 schools use them now, half of the number at the beginning of the school year. Among teachers, opinions are divided. Lee Hyun-joon, a mathematics teacher in Pyeongtaek, admits that “monitoring students’ progress was a challenge. The overall quality was poor.” In contrast, Kim Cha-myung, a primary school teacher near Seoul, recognize to the means that “they were convenient, helped save time and supported students with difficulties. But he also added that “the program failed because everything was rushed. It should have been implemented gradually after proving its effectiveness.” llearned action. Kim Jong-hee, digital director of Dong-A Publishing, one of the developer publishers, defend that books “did not cause addiction to screens” and that they can reduce educational inequalities. But he acknowledges that “a key reason for the setbacks is that the issue became overly politicized.” “We no longer trust the government, and that is the biggest problem,” he added. Cover image | Korea Times (Yonhap) In Xataka | There is a national symbol that Japan has kept unchanged for generations: a very expensive school backpack

trains lasted a century

by

Amazon has promised to invest 100,000 million dollars in AI data centers in 2025. Microsoft, 80,000. Google, 75,000. Goal, 65,000. The figures are absolutely dizzy, and are only part of the global investment that many other companies are carrying out in this area. The situation begins to be comparable to what occurred more than 140 years ago, when another investment fever conquered the United States. In that case it was the railroad. But there are crucial differences between one and the other. We are spending as if there were no tomorrow. Investor Paul Kedrosky did That interesting comparison Between spending on AI data centers and the one that was done on railroads more than a century ago. According to him, Capex’s figures (capital vessel, capital expenditure) for the United States in 2025 in the AI scope are absolutely fired and could represent according to their data between 1.2% and 2% of the Gross Domestic Product of the US. What is that? A lot. Lot. Source: Paul Kedrosky. More investment than with the Puntocom. The situation seems to overcome even the one that was lived with the investment in telecommunications companies both during the Puntocom bubble and during the era of the 5G networks, in which there was also a shotx fired. According to Kedrosky, the percentage of the US GDP on that occasion was 1%, but the capex for AI already round data centers (as little) 1.2%. A WSJ chart recently showed the situation: Capital spending (capex) quarterly of the Big Tech does not stop growing. And everything is for AI. Source: WSJ. Only the railroad attracted more investment. There has only been a situation that exceeds the current one. It occurred in the 1870-1880 decade, with the railway fever that made CAPEX shoot up to 6% of the US GDP at that time. The investment in AI data centers is still somewhat far from that figure, but it is still amazing, and above all, it does not seem to go less. Comparison between the capex dedicated to telecommunications and the one that is now being dedicated to data centers and IA. And 2025 will go further. Source: Paul Kedrosky. Money everywhere. As this analyst explains, the CAPEX set is not based only on the capex of the large technology companies that we mentioned at the beginning of this article. In addition to these gigantic investments there is a growing debt issuance to support these investments, private capital and new “Special investment vehicles“(SPVS) that are created precisely to support these massive capital flows. Even Xi Jinping is scared. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has warned of the danger of excessive investment in data centers. In your country there are More than 250 data centers Under construction, and last week he warned of the risk of betting without brake on AI and electric vehicles: “With regard to projects, there are some important aspects: artificial intelligence, computer power and new energy vehicles. Should all provinces in the country develop industries in these directions?” Do not invest in other things. That extraordinary investment in AI data centers – or talent, tell them to the finish line– It is making any other segment much more difficult to capture money to continue developing. According to Kedrosky, the situation is analogous to which it was lived with fever for telecommunications and investments in other types of infrastructure, something whose effects continue to place. Bubble danger. Faced with this unbalanced obsession with Big Tech to create more and more data centers there is a reality: AI, although useful for certain scenarios, still does not prove to be really revolutionary. Openai’s commitment, Google, Microsoft or goal is absolute, but it is almost more for the fear of getting too late to the market than by the fact that this market makes sense in itself. All this has made it talk for a long time AI bubblethat It could be comparable (or more worrying) than the bubble of the Puntocom. Better spend now than regret it later. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta CEO, He already reflected About the situation with a clear message: “It is very likely that many companies are oversizing (their investments in AI). But, on the other hand, I think that all the companies that are investing are making a rational decision, because the disadvantage of being left behind is that you could stay out with the most important technology of the next 10 to 15 years.” They are still spending little. While many think that companies are spending too much money on AI, some analysts think they are spending little. Jim Cramer, from CNBC, affirmed That “these companies are not spending more in AI, they are missing. Maybe they are not investing bad. The expert Noah Smith Analyze in your Newsletter Noahpinion The situation and remember important details: The telecos boom in the 90s and that overinversion led to the bubble of the Puntocom The railway boom led another gigantic crisis in 1873. In both cases, companies created too much infrastructure and bet more. The expectations were exaggerated, and the companies could not meet the loans they had asked. But be careful: in both cases something more important happened. Those who invested extraordinarily did not invest badly, but invested too soon. The railroads were disruptive, as were the telecommunications. There are those who defend that in fact Bubbles are good For innovation. But it is not the Railroad (for the moment). Kedrosky concludes with a comparison that serves as a warning: what is being built with these AI data centers are not railroads: The train tracks have lasted more than a century and their cost-benefit ratio It has not been reduced just after the passing of the decades (although there has been investment to renew them) Data centers are short -term facilities, and the expensive GPUS on which they are based have a much shorter life cycle. Your cost-benefit relationship is much more debatable Inflating the economy. This analyst has one more revealing data: without that … Read more

Vigo Airport has released a digital tower “at the forefront of efficiency.” Has lasted four days

by

Announced as “the avant -garde of efficiency and safety in the air sector”, Vigo airport has begun working with “the first digital tower of Spain.” Four days later, the work has stopped for a first problem. And, in the background, the doubts about its real effectiveness, the position of workers and the shadow of some layoffs. Vigo, now with Digital Tower. It was announced by Oscar Puente, Minister of Transportation, with the words we collected above. In a tweeton June 17, the politician pointed out that Vigo received a strong change in his way of working. The project started with a Vigo-Madrid flight and was qualified by bridge as “a technological milestone” that places the facilities of Vigo “at the forefront.” Four days later, the entire system has had to stop by a Error caused at 31 minutes to go into operation. What is a digital tower? A Digital Tower For air control, it comes to replace traditional control towers. In the latter, controllers work at great height to control by computer systems and their own view air traffic. In this way, it is always about choosing the best option to manage the entry and exit of flights into the maximum safety conditions. A digital tower uses all these computer systems but changes the “windows” of the screens control tower in which what the cameras see are recorded. In addition, it has a multitude of sensors and microphones to simulate with maximum precision the same sensations as an air controller has in a traditional tower. Is it better? According to the words of the Minister of Transportation, yes. AND According to Aenaalso. They ensure that the videoWall that forms 13 55 -inch monitors represent a 360º image of what is seen in the tower. This allows them to have visibility of areas that are covered in the traditional tower. The installation, as we say, has fixed cameras and two mobiles. As well as “speakers that reproduce the ambient sound of the microphones installed in the flight field.” In addition, AENA points out that “they provide a series of operational and security advantages” although it does not give examples of them. And emphasize, because it is important, “maintaining the same number of controllers.” War foot. That last part of the message is important. In social networks, numerous accounts that expose the feeling of aerial controllers have been radically opposed to the implementation of these “digital towers.” The well -known account @Controlerators in x He qualifies the digital tower of “basement with cameras designed to control several airports”. And that is the great reset that has raised among the workers. In the environment, the feeling that operations of the Airport of A Coruña can be replaced with the air management of the Viguesa Digital Tower. Alvedro (A Coruña) and Peinador (Vigo) share a company managing air control services (Saerco) so A reduction in the number of workers is feared For a remote control of both airports. In The voice of Galicia They even point out that AENA neither confirms or denies that A Coruña workers can be replaced by the new digital control tower. BNG and the Popular Party They are already working to paralyze the project. “Quite obvious defects”. In addition to the works that may be in the air, the Union of Air Controllers (USCA) ensures that Aena has rejected its request for include “high definition cameras” And they emphasize that the system does not improve the traditional because “They are not clearly appreciated Small aircraft. “They are, in the words of the” quite evident defects “union. They emphasize in words to Vigo lighthouse that the system presents operability restrictions in specific weather situations and that “would entail the imposition of time restrictions that would prevent the simultaneity of visual flights (VFR) and instrumental (IFR).” That is, for the union, a problem for “urgent health transport, customs surveillance, fire extinguishing services or maritime rescue, as well as schools or private flights.” Many doubts. Although Aena points out that “currently, more than 30 European airports have implanted that technology and is operating from a digital control tower. Outside Europe, initiatives are being developed in Australia, Canada and the United States airports,” the truth is that the operation of these digital towers raises doubts. In fact, tests in Spain are being carried out for years. In 2023 problems were already reported In the Vigo airport digital tower related to the imprecise detection of small aircraft. The project was approved in 2019, it was awarded in 2020 and until this year it has not been launched with the first flights. Something similar has happened in Menorca, where it is also being tested with a digital tower that At the end of 2022 he also reported problems security This air control system It should be underway in 2021 But for now he has not exceeded the evidence and has ended up being Vigo the city that has been awarded the first “digital control” of a flight in Spain. Joy, yes, has lasted four days. Photo | Enrique Dans and Aena In Xataka | We have been waiting for years at airports for years. Tiktok’s “airport theory” believes that it has been a mistake

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.