productivity

It took 15 years for computers to improve the productivity of companies. AI may take longer for one reason: sabotage

by

We keep hearing that AI is going to replace employees in their jobs and that this will mean an apocalypse in the labor market. While it is true that a paradigm shift is coming, even the most ominous voices they have toned down their speech by slowing down the real impact about employment. Four decades ago something similar happened with the personal computer. The offices were filled with computers that did the work of various accountants, but the companies’ balance sheets they didn’t notice its benefits nothing for years. Just like collect Fortunea Goldman Sachs economist has just reviewed that history with a magnifying glass and her conclusion is that AI could take even longer than computers to begin to work. demonstrate its benefits. The J-curve of PCs. Elsie Peng, economist at Goldman Sachs, has analyzed What happened after the arrival of the PC in 1981. The data suggests that in the first four years of the implementation of computers, productivity fell a little. Then, that productivity stagnated another four. Only in the eighth year did the first signs of growth in productivity attributable to the use of these new technologies begin to be noticed. Its peak came twelve years after its release. The trend that the implementation of computers in companies registered is known as J curve and, before computers, it was already experienced by other disruptive technologies in the labor market, such as the steam engine and the arrival of electricity. If AI is “the new PC”, that curve would place the first signs of impact around 2030, and its peak performance would not arrive until 2034. It’s not AI, it’s teleworking. From Goldman Sachs They admit that much of the impact of current AI is still not noticeable in official figures. This happens despite the huge investment figures that companies are making in AI systems. In the eighties with the PC it happened exactly the same: Chips and hardware were expensive and applications that brought real value, like the Internet, took years to have a large enough critical mass of users to have an impact on real productivity. In fact, according to the investigations conducted by Stanford expert Nick Bloom, the recent increase in productivity that has been recorded would not respond to the arrival of AI, but to the massive implementation of teleworking after the Covid-19 pandemic. You don’t invest in technology, you invest in processes. According to the data it collects Fortune According to the Goldman Satch report, for every dollar spent on hardware by companies in the 1990s, another dollar and seventy cents was needed for something that is not always taken into account: redesigning how people worked. In other words, it was not enough to fill office tables with computers, but all processes had to be redesigned and staff trained to make the technology have a visible impact. This expense in reorganizing did not take off until a decade after the arrival of the PC to the offices. The companies that changed their way of working won, not those that bought the hardware first. Investment in data centers for AI is growing faster than then. But the expense of reorganizing work with AI it goes slower than in the nineties with PCs. A survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated at about 280 billion dollars in intangible spending linked to AI in 2026. When the employee says no. However, the Goldman Satch analyst highlights a big difference between the implementation scenario of computers and that of AI: computers did not have workers against them. This scenario may still delay that peak productivity expected for 2034. Work reorganization is not done on its own, but depends on the employees. If a large part of the workforce resists, the implementation becomes complicated. A study of Writer and Workplace Intelligence to 2,400 workers found that 29% of employees sabotage in some way your company’s AI strategy. Among young people, the figure rises to 44%. Other survey of WalkMe points in the same direction. 54% of workers consciously avoided using AI tools at least once in the last 30 days. They preferred to do the work themselves. Harvard researchers they have named it. They call it self-disruptive technology. Employees do not reject AI because it fails, but because they feel that threatens your job. The study revealed that at least 30% of generative AI projects will end up abandoned due to this employee rejection. In Xataka | We thought that AI was going to take our position. The reality is that it is making us work more and rest less Image | Unsplash (Flipsnack)

“Cyclical” productivity sounds great as a way to organize work according to the rule. The problem is that it’s a bluff

by

Patricia Gosálvez told that for some time now talks about how to organize the work agenda according to the phase of the menstrual cycle have been the order of the day. There are different approaches and different discourses, but the general idea is the same: “do social tasks when you are ovulating and reserve planning and solitude tasks for your period days.” We knew that ‘cyclical productivity’ swept TikTokWhat we didn’t realize was that he was already proselytizing among the management class throughout the country. And we shouldn’t be surprised. A priori, the idea sounds like empowerment and militant feminism. The question, however, is whether it makes any sense. But… what exactly are we talking about? In general terms, we can see it as a work adaptation of something that has been talked about for quite some time: the cycle syncing. A self-care practice in which things like diet, exercise routines, or lifestyle habits are adjusted to match the hormonal fluctuations of the menstrual cycle. Applied to the workplace, the month is divided into four phases and tasks are distributed: planning is reserved for bleeding, during the follicular phase work is brought forward, ovulation are “ideal days to negotiate, ask for a raise and everything that needs power and security” and the luteal phase is fantastic for detailed work. It sounds good, but it’s a bluff. Especially since the model assumes a hormonal cycle that most women don’t really have. In general, cycle syncing is right that there is an infradian hormonal cycle (that is, with a period longer than one day), but it jumps to the idea that it is a closed scheme that is easy to program without a break in continuity. In fact, there are two large systematic reviews on this sort of thing that do not support the ideas of cyclical productivity. According to the latest meta-analysis from 2025there is no robust evidence that cognitive performance (neither attention, nor memory, nor executive function, nor spatial ability) changes over the cycle. On the other hand, the most robust studies of physical performance also find that the cycle effect is “trivial”. This does not mean that menstruation does not have an impact very significant in the lives of women and that pain in many cases is a huge problem. It doesn’t even mean that PMS doesn’t exist. What this means is that the hormonal cycle does not seem to serve to schedule tasks with that level of detail in the general population. But it does have a problem. And behind the façade of ’empowerment’, the truth is that there is a very problematic message that “women’s competence fluctuates with hormones.” It is something that reinforces stereotypes and, as we have seen, is a lie. As the endocrinologist Carme Valls said to Gosálvezis an idea that “makes women too biological, too animal.” And he does it without contributing too much. Above all, because as Valls continues, in a normal cycle the variability is minimal: “40% of women hardly feel anything.” That is to say, although from an individual point of view knowing the cycle is very useful, from a population point of view it introduces noise. The problem is not the initial intuition, nor the idea that talking about the rule is good. The problem is the promise of productivity associated with it. A promise that, as we see, in general terms has no relationship with reality. Image | Annika Gordon In Xataka | Period pain in adolescence is not “normal”: massive study links it to increased risk of chronic pain in adulthood

Tim Ferriss has been selling productivity tips for years that ChatGPT now gives away for free

by

sell books it was already difficult before AI. Now it is starting to get almost impossible. This is exactly what Tim Ferriss, productivity guru and author of historical bestsellers such as ‘The 4-Hour Work Week’ or ‘The Perfect Body in 4 Hours’, is confessing. This writer has made a analysis of sales evolution of his catalog and his conclusions are shocking. 80% drop in sales. Relying on official data from BookScan and Publishers Weekly By the start of 2026, Ferris has confirmed that sales of self-help and personal development books have taken a nosedive: Sales are 80% lower than before the explosion of generative AI. The reason is simple. I already have ChatGPT. For millions of people, the best format to learn how to optimize their time is no longer a 400-page book. Instead, they talk with a free chatbot that is in fact capable of condensing all that wisdom in just 20 seconds and that never stops encouraging us and adapting that knowledge to each of us. The data. According to Ferriss’ study, the first quarter of 2026 already points to worrying data, because it has detected a global decline of 9% in the adult non-fiction category. Things are even more serious for the self-help books and instruction books segment, which plummeted 26.3%. This writer’s conclusion is disturbing: in his opinion, the most powerful literary franchises on the market could be suffering a contraction of between 40 and 60% so far this year. Ferriss’ bestsellers aren’t such bestsellers anymore. Your own catalog It is a clear example of what is happening. Following the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, its sales saw a slight decline of 5% in 2023 and 13% in 2024. The real problem came in 2025: sales of its books plummeted 46%, and the projected decline for 2026 is even greater and Ferriss estimates it will be 57%. If the current trend continues, this author’s books will sell 80% fewer physical copies this year than four years ago. Books 0 – ChatGPT 1. Ferriss pragmatically analyzes what is happening: works such as ‘The Perfect Body in 4 Hours’ or ‘Weapons of the Titans’ essentially function as decision trees. Until a few years ago, books of this type were a perfect way to package knowledge and advice, but in 2024, 2025 and 2026 users prefer a conversational, often free, interface that AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini provide transparently. Not only that: they adjust to our needs instantly, we can ask questions and the advice is more personalized than ever, something that a self-help book cannot achieve. YouTube videos, the next to fall. Literature dedicated to self-help therefore seems condemned according to Ferriss, who assures that there will also be an imminent collapse for YouTube video tutorials: there the AI ​​will filter the 40 useful seconds of a 20-minute video. In his opinion, something similar will happen with podcasts based on practical advice, online courses, newsletters and productivity and self-help blogs. Original content will not disappear, he says, but it will become increasingly difficult for the average user to access it directly. The trap of paywalls. Ferriss does not foresee a very encouraging future for the media either. “What happens when 99% of the fact-checking media is behind a paywall? The short answer: people bypass them and ask the AI.” Pew Research Statistics reveal that 83% of users have not paid for information in the last year, and only 1% end up paying when they hit a paywall. Readers who want to be informed are turning massively to social networks and increasingly to AI chatbots to bypass restrictions and offer them a summary of the protected article. Nuances are lost, immediacy and freeness are gained. The 1,000 real fans. For Ferriss, the situation has some salvation. In his opinion, the publishing sector will return to its origins and will be an increasingly smaller space in which the authors will search its “1,000 true fans” who seek the personal voice and tone of certain authors. The connection with those fans will theoretically sustain these businesses. Image | Shiromani Kant In Xataka | In Oslo there is a library where books are being written with one condition: that they not be read for 90 years.

He wrote several bestsellers on productivity. Eight years later he denies it: “Our definition is broken”

by

Cal Newport He has been obsessed with productivity for decades. And yes, ‘obsessed’ is the word: a Georgetown computer science professor does not publish three books in less than five years if he does not have an almost unhealthy fixation with the subject. In a very short time, he became one of the most recognized ‘gurus’ in the field and his works (‘Deep Work‘, ‘Digital Minimalism‘ either ‘A world without email‘) could be found in airports around the world. Then one day, suddenly, saw the light. What if it’s all a huge joke? Newport doesn’t say it exactly like that, of course. But, as you will see immediately, It’s in the subtext of everything he says. in recent times. Because under the idea that it is only moving from ‘individual advice’ to ‘structural diagnosis’, there is something else: a basic problem. What really is productivity? As Newport explainsin the factory or in the field, productivity was measurable and easily comparable. Henry Ford, to give the most obvious example for an American, was able to justify the enormous investments that his continuous assembly lines required because they had figures and data. The problem is that the world doesn’t work like that anymore. In the mid-20th century, knowledge workers began to become the most powerful workforce and measuring their productivity is much more elusive. And, to solve it, organizations resorted to a shortcut: If I see you working, I assume you are being productive. Or, to use Newport’s wordswe have used a definition of productivity that is no longer “the use of visible activity as a rough approximation to useful effort.” And then the pandemic arrived. For our expert, COVID was the turning point. life anxiety, the exhausted workerschained zoom calls, silent resignation…the world had been focused on ‘perform being busy‘ and suddenly there was no one looking at you. Suddenly, nothing we did made sense. But as behavioral psychology has taught us, when something we usually do stops working, our first reaction is not to stop doing it. It means doing it harder, more often, with more insistence. These six years have shown us that it was a dead end. And what do we do? For Newport, the answer is clear and is based on three principles: do less things, work at a more natural pace and obsess over quality, value and excellence. If what we do has become a malicious proxy that only ends up burning us, we have to stop doing it. Newport calls it ‘slow productivity’ because, as he said, he is obsessed with productivity; but also because, deep down, it is still in the same scheme. Because, after all, who can decide to work less? As Vivian Song denounced“Newport barely holds those who design the culture of overwhelm accountable.” EITHER, in the words of Joshua Kim“‘slow productivity’ is less a work strategy than a marker of privilege.” The interesting thing about all this is the diagnosis, the recognition (from the very heart of the management publishing industry) that what we do does not work. Now we have to take the problem seriously and find a solution that really works for everyone. Image | Andreas Klassen In Xataka | “Doing nothing” is a great technique to improve your productivity. Neuroscience is clear

call it productivity and brag about the system

by

three years ago I wrote here that spending years trying productivity apps, running like a headless chicken from Todoist to Things and from Craft to Notion, had been a rather unproductive search. I maintain it, but at that moment I had not seen version 2.0 of the problem yet. The one that no longer has to do with apps. There is a scene that is repeated in the spaces where we addicts to productivity (or the false sense of productivity) go. YouTube channels, newslettersX accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers: someone shows their “system”. It can be a Notion very well structured with relational databases, or a Obsidian with interconnected knowledge graphs. The morning routine with a weekly, monthly and quarterly review block. The labels, the priorities with their little flags, the active and latent projects, the someday / maybe. Everything documented, everything perfect. And when you see that you think “this person doesn’t have time to do anything.” It is not a joke but an observation. The most sophisticated productivity system is, in most cases, the most reliable proof that its owner has stopped producing.. I’m guilty too. Because building and maintaining that system requires exactly the kind of sustained attention, cognitive energy, and hours on screen that the system is supposed to free up to do important things. Here’s the catch GTDhe second brain and the entire philosophy of personal productivity have tended unintentionally, or perhaps wanting to: They have made managing work look like work. And looking like work, it gives the satisfaction of work done. Dopamine from task completion without having completed any actual task. Rearranging Obsidian notes for two hours feels like work. It is not. The phenomenon has a technical name that no one uses because it sounds too honest: structured procrastination. Doing things that are legitimate and even useful, but that are not the right thing to do. In its most innocent version, it is tidying up your desk before you start writing. In its 2026 version, it’s spending the afternoon building the perfect idea capture flow instead of having none. AI has multiplied this tenfold. Now the system can be more complex, more automated, more impressive. You can have one agent that classifies your notes, another that summarizes your readings, another that generates the weekly report of everything you have captured. He second brain It has become something like a brain of its own, with its own processes, its own maintenance needs, its own technical debt. And you, meanwhile, feeding it. In the end this shows us an uncomfortable truth: that most of us prefer preparing to do things rather than doing them. The perfect system is a permanent promise of future performance that indefinitely postpones the demands of the present. There is always a reason not to start yet: the system is not ready, a field is missing in the database, the capture flow needs to be revised. Let’s see if there is a better icon for this page. This is not new, of course. Seneca wrote 2,000 years ago that busyness and living are different things. But before procrastination had a bad conscience. You knew you were avoiding something. Now you can avoid it with impeccable productivity, with a label system and weekly review, without anyone, starting with yourself, being able to point the finger at you. Are you working. It is seen. I have a Notion to prove it. Real work, the one that matters, the one that costs, has a characteristic that productivity systems cannot simulate: produces something that did not exist before. Not a neater database or a more refined capture flow. Something that, when finished, justifies the time you have not dedicated to organizing yourself. That something is getting rarer and rarer. And our systems, increasingly more perfect and aesthetic. In Xataka | I’ve tried the Plaud NotePin S: the wearable AI recorder that’s not for everyone, but it’s perfect for some Featured image | Isaac Smith

a focus on productivity for the sub-€500 tablet range

by

We are already fully in the Mobile World Congress 2026 and that means one thing: Xiaomi has returned with a well-loaded backpack. As is customary in the company, we have news, but also global launches of products that were only available in China. And the Xiaomi Pad 8 is one of the latter. Next, let’s see all the features of the three Xiaomi Pad 8, their prices for Spain and everything that has to do with one tablet who wants to stand up to iPad. And now more than ever thanks to a batch of accessories that provide more versatility. Technical sheet of the Xiaomi Pad 8 and Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro Xiaomi pad 8 xiaomi pad 8 pro Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro Mate SCREEN 11.2 inch panel Resolution of 3,200 x 2,136 px 144Hz refresh 800 nits peak Supports Dolby Vision Aspect 3:2 11.2 inch panel Resolution of 3,200 x 2,136 px 144Hz refresh 800 nits peak Supports Dolby Vision Aspect 3:2 11.2 inch panel Resolution of 3,200 x 2,136 px 144Hz refresh 800 nits peak Supports Dolby Vision Aspect 3:2 matte panel DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT 251.2 x 173.4 x 5.75mm 485 grams 251.2 x 173.4 x 5.75mm 485 grams 251.2 x 173.4 x 5.8mm 494 grams PROCESSOR Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 Snapdragon 8 Elite Snapdragon 8 Elite RAM 8GB LPPDR5X 12GB LPDDR5T 8GB LPPDR5X 12GB LPDDR5T 12GB LPDDR5T STORAGE 128GB UFS 3.1 256GB UFS 4.1 128GB UFS 3.1 256 or 512 GB UFS 4.1 512GB UFS 4.1 FRONT CAMERA 8 Mpx f/2.28 32 Mpx f/2.2 32 Mpx f/2.2 REAR CAMERAS 13 Mpx f/3.06 50 Mpx f/1.8 50 Mpx f/1.8 BATTERY 9,200 mAh 45W charging 9,200 mAh 67W charging 9,200 mAh 67W charging OPERATING SYSTEM Xiaomi HyperOS 3 Xiaomi HyperOS 3 Xiaomi HyperOS 3 CONNECTIVITY Wi-Fi 7 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Bluetooth 6.0 Wi-Fi 7 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Bluetooth 6.0 Wi-Fi 7 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Bluetooth 6.0 OTHERS Xiaomi Focus Pen Pro Xiaomi Focus Keyboard Four speakers Xiaomi Focus Pen Pro Xiaomi Focus Keyboard Four speakers Xiaomi Focus Pen Pro Xiaomi Focus Keyboard Four speakers PRICE From 449.99 euros From 599.99 euros 699.99 euros Screens, the common point… except in the most Pro In terms of design, the Xiaomi Pad 8 is very similar to the previous generation. That comparison with the Apple tablet is not coincidental: they look very similar. The bezels are very similar, as are the front or flat sides. If something works, it suits everyone, ultimately. It is not a very large tablet, but it makes good use of that front to fit an 11.2-inch panel with 3.2K resolution. That translates into 3,200 x 2,136 pixels and a 144 Hz refresh rate. To complete the screen data, the aspect ratio is 3:2 and something interesting: there are two versions. The Xiaomi Pad 8 and the Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro share a panel and design, but there is a variant: the Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro Mate Glass Version. Its name is quite revealing: same panel characteristics, but with nanotextured glass. Qualcomm heart in two flavors If we go inside, we have some differences that seem minor, but which must be commented on. The Xiaomi Pad 8 has the Snapdragon 8s Gen 4a processor built in 4 nanometers with a CPU made up of four cores at 3.2 GHz, two at 2.8 GHz and another two at 2 GHz. It is accompanied by 8 or 12 GB of memory and versions of 128 and 256. The memory speed of 256 is faster than that of 128, something that must be taken into account. On the other hand, the two versions of Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro They have the 3 nanometer Snapdragon 8 Elite. It has two cores at 4.32 GHz and six at 3.53 GHz and is accompanied by the same memory configuration: 8 or 12 GB. It is a more capable processor, especially thanks to its GPU, but the Xiaomi Pad 8 does not go barefoot in comparison. The battery also promises: 9,200 mAh in both models with 45 W charging for the Xiaomi Pad 8 and 67 W for the Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro. And, inside, we have Android with its own system HyperOS 3. Xiaomi has worked on a new interface that is better suited to the tablet format thanks to a more pronounced focus on the productivity and multitasking. It is something that will have to be checked when we can analyze them, but linked to that multitasking we have both a keyboard case that already existed and a new Xiaomi Focus Pen Pro. It is a stylus that has pressure sensitivity control, gestures such as double tap and pinch, and is magnetized so it can be left on one of the sides. The combination of the nanotextured panel with the Pen should be very interesting. Versions and price of the Xiaomi Pad 8, Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro and their accessories Given the characteristics of the Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro, let’s go with the price: Xiaomi Pad 8: 8GB+128GB: 449.99 euros. 8GB+256GB: 499.99 euros. Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro 8GB+256GB: 599.99 euros. 12GB+512GB: 679.99 euros. Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro Matte Glass Version 12 GB + 512 GB: 699.99 euros. The price of accessories is as follows: Xiaomi Pad 8 Series Touchpad Keyboard: 129.99 euros. Xiaomi Focus Pen: 99.99 euros. Xiaomi Pad 8 Series Cover: 49.99 euros. Images | Xiaomi In Xataka | Buying guide for tablets for children: what to look for and 9 recommended models

making mistakes as an antidote to the cult of productivity

by

They say we live in a secular country, but whoever says that has not encountered the productivity gurus or the stationery YouTubers. bullet journal, intermittent fasting, hobonichi roof, cold showers at five in the morning“atomic habits“, journaling until you end up with blisters on your hands… let’s be clear: productivity and growth aspire to function as civil religions. Therefore, perhaps it is time to look for an old-fashioned way out, one inspired by Saint Augustine. The cult of productivity I know that talking about ‘civil religion’ may seem exaggerated, but the truth is that a very specific aspirational narrative has been normalized: one based on self-optimization. And it’s not all those things that I described above (getting up early, diet, metrics, discipline, etc…), it’s that not achieving it has become a ‘moral failure’. If you make a mistake, if you don’t arrive, if you don’t achieve it… it’s because you didn’t make the effort, you didn’t organize yourself, you’re not good enough. An example much discussed in recent days are all those readers who, given the evidence that they are not going to reach their “reading challenge” of the year, decide to discard books that they would like to read and prioritize short books in order to reach the numbers that had been marked. Error has become something we cannot afford. But Augustine did not agree. Louis Comfort Tiffany But, of course, St. Augustine had its moments. One of the most brilliant people of the late Roman Empire, Augustine of Hippo was a ‘pearl‘ in his youth and early maturity. But it quickly became one of Christianity’s sharpest swords. That, translated, means that he did not agree with many. He has not only written some of the greatest works of universal literaturebut he worked to destroy (theologically, philosophically and literally) Manichaeans, Donatists and Pelagians. That war changed Western thinking, but I don’t think anyone imagined it would be essential to defending ourselves from the productivity gurus. Saint Augustine vs productivity gurus “If I’m wrong, I exist” (“If I fail, add“), wrote the saint of Hippo in book That is, the idea that a mistake is not only a stigma: it is a piece of information, a learning, a reminder that we are human, but we are on the way. We could say that error is also productive (and there are people who defend it); but that’s not the point. The point is that, against what Byung-Chul calls the “performance society” (compared to the self-demand that is sold as freedom, but leads to self-exploitation), compared to the spiritual turn of your trusted technobro, there is an even deeper dimension: the right to be and be without the chains that bind us to the productive system. In a world that asks for “performance” and “utility” to have personal value, Augustine exposes that ancient Christian tradition that says that the ontological value of the person does not depend on anything; that even in the worst of failure, we are worth exactly the same. Because, pay attention to the fact, when Agustín talks about existing he is not just talking about existing. It talks about doing it, about knowing that you exist and about loving those two realities as a non-productivist theory of self. Image | Xataka In Xataka | The Catholic Church changed the psychology of Europe. Unintentionally, it sparked an era of technological innovation

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

Productivity science says it’s not just inches that matter

by

It has happened to me and it may happen to you too: you have a monitor and you notice that it is no longer enough. You could take a leap and swap it for something a little larger, but just adding inches to the equation isn’t going to change things too much. To change our experience, we need something different, like opting for an ultrawide monitor or adding one more monitor to our setup. What is the best option for you? Both are great, but both may not suit your needs in the same way. For this reason, we are going to take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of these two configurations so that you know what to choose according to your priorities. Choosing an ultrawide monitor An ultrawide monitor is larger than a conventional one, but we cannot stop at that alone. These monitors usually have a 21:9 format, which means they are wider. This means that we have a longer horizontal space, which is a wonder for productivity. And not only that: being a single screen, there is no type of barrier or frame that cuts off the visual experiencesomething ideal for working with long lines of code or spreadsheets with countless columns. Also three windows with documents or applications open at the same time. Your entire workspace, without interruptions. And for gaming, they are the best because you have a larger field of vision and the immersion they provide is not comparable to that of a normal monitor. To this elongated screen we must add another factor, which is the curvature. There are options for flat ultrawide monitors, although if you dare to take the leap, I would recommend opting for a curved one. The reason is very easy to understand: the small curve of the monitor helps you see the entire thing at a glance. What does this imply? You don’t have to turn your headsomething you will appreciate when you finish your day. In addition, the ultrawide allows you to work centered and with a straight spine. With two monitors, your “center” will be the frames of both. Therefore, more neck movements. Another element that works in favor of the ultrawide: Fitts’ Law. This, in short, predicts that the time needed to move to a target depends on its distance and size. And how does this apply to monitors? With two of them, we will have the frames as a “barrier” separating them both. that the brain will understand as an interruption. That does not happen with the ultrawide, since the mouse and everything will move fluidly across the screen. Without constantly jumping from one monitor to another, the cognitive load is reduced and that is great for less fatigue. It is not the main reason to choose one of these monitors, but I have friends who have opted for an ultrawide because they prefer a more minimalist and tidy space. In the end, it is a continuous visual experience that you place on your desktop, which, of course, also has its downside: you need a large desktop background. I will leave for last two more cons that, without being a drama, I would value a lot before opting for this option. Since it is a screen, if one day you start the computer and the monitor does not turn on, you will be left with nothing (having two monitors clearly wins there). In addition, by having many more pixels than a traditional widescreen monitor, you are going to need a medium powerful graphics card if you don’t want your games to drop below 60 FPS. Choose two monitors The other side of the coin: two monitors, side by side. If I had to define this setting in one word, it would be versatility. To build a setup with two screens, we can go ahead and buy them both or simply purchase one and add it to the one we already have, whether identical or of a different size and characteristics. And not only that: we can also change its height as we wish or rotate one of them to make it vertical. The latter is great for reading long documents or taking a look at social networks while, at the same time, you have another horizontal screen for a normal experience. I have been working with two monitors for years and it is my choice because it offers the feeling of having two separate spaces. For example, I usually have a document open on one screen where I write and email or Slack on the other. In return, there is one thing in which the ultrawides win by a landslide: you are going to find a frame in the middle and you are going to have to move your neck more. I’m going to stop at this last point for a moment. It is very necessary that the two monitors are well placedsomething that is not as simple as it sounds. If they are identical it is easier, but it can be an odyssey as they are different sizes or manufacturers. If possible, I would pull a monitor standalthough that adds to the bill. And it is better not to skimp there, since they will have to support the weight of the monitors all the time. The good and the bad of both options, face to face ultrawide monitor two monitors THE GOOD 🟢 You work without frames in between. It is ideal for editing video (infinite timeline) or having 3 legible columns of text, and it helps you avoid straining your neck. Allows you to have two separate workspaces THE BAD 🔴 They are not for all desktops: you need a robust stand, table background and a good graphics card They involve more neck movement and there are black frames in the middle Ideal for: Have all your documents or apps on the same screen to see them at a glance More versatility: you can put one vertically (ideal for … Read more

painful rules cost billions in productivity

by

Although in Asian countries like Japan, South Korea or Taiwan the cancellations due to painful rules They have been around for a few yearsthey are still rare bird. Without going any further, Spain is a pioneer in the EU (Italy tried it in 2017but it did not come to fruition) and the measure came not without controversy before and after approval. Because periods and pain are managed privately, but they have a profound impact on people’s health… and also on the economy. How much does a period cost at work?. A recent study published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues How the rule affects Australia’s economy makes its importance clear: 14 billion Australian dollars a year alone in lost productivity (about 8.54 billion euros at the exchange rate). And the calculations are conservative in that they do not include health or treatment costs. The rule, in figures. The first menstruation arrives at approximately 12 years of age and since then it occurs more or less regularly every 21 – 34 days until menopause arrives, around the age of 45 – 55. We are talking about between 400 and 600 periods throughout life (except interruptions in the form of hormonal contraceptives or pregnancy). The rule, in discomfort. And if we leave the quantitative and go to the qualitative, for the majority it means a period of discomfort in the form of menstrual pain and bleeding. in the studio They speak of 90% of women under 25 years of age with dysmenorrhea, more intense pain during the first two days. Likewise, it is also quite common to experience fatigue, dizziness, lower back pain and headaches. He heavy menstrual bleeding It results in blood loss that causes a feeling of tiredness or fatigue (among other things, due to loss of iron). The study quantifies between 20 and 25% of those surveyed. The study. To carry out the research, they interviewed 1,796 Australian women with paid jobs of different age ranges (from 18 years old) to find out how common menstrual pain and other symptoms are and what the impact was on their work productivity in terms of presenteeism and absenteeism. Or what is the same: go to work but be at half speed or directly miss work. It hurts me. They came to a conclusion: those with periods between the ages of 35 and 44 suffered a noticeably greater loss of productivity than the younger ones. However, 97% had suffered menstrual pain in the last three months and 1 in 4 said they always had pain. Worldwide, menstrual pain is around 71% and only in Spainthe Spanish Contraception Society reports that almost half have to take medication for pain. From here, they calculated the range of economic impact: 7,176 Australian dollars per person per year, for a total of 14,005 million dollars. Why is it important. Because it provides economic data that is sufficiently impactful so that the management of menstrual symptoms at work is not managed individually and in isolation, falling on those affected, but rather from a collective and institutional level. As resume The research team itself “highlights the strong economic case for governments and companies to adopt policies that help people manage menstrual symptoms.” That is, with laws and policies that standardize and regulate to homogenize and streamline individual procedures in companies, but also with dialogues within the company to introduce changes in working conditions aimed at improving the productivity, health and well-being of the workforce. Among the measures proposed by the team, the modalities of teleworking or hybrid work or the schedule flexibility. In Xataka | The majority of medical discharges that are investigated are fraud. The nuance is that they are only investigated if there are signs of fraud In Xataka | Period pain in adolescence is not “normal”: massive study links it to increased risk of chronic pain in adulthood Cover | Annika Gordon

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.