safer

helps you work safer from wherever you are

by

Although it’s not for everyone, I love being what is now known as a digital nomad. I’m not tied to an office or a desk: I can work wherever I want (as long as I have an Internet connection, of course). That freedom makes it easy for you, although I think it is worth taking certain precautions in terms of security. Nothing too complicated: specifically, use a VPN like this one from Surfshark. It’s worth it cost-benefit: It barely costs 1.99 euros per month if you take their two-year plan. Surfshark Starter Subscription – monthly The price could vary. We earn commission from these links More security on your devices for less than the cost of a coffee a month We have spoken to you many times about VPNsa type of tool that is very easy to use and that gives us an extra layer of security while browsing the Internet. There are free options, yes, but you have to be careful with the vast majority of them: They are not as safe as they promise. It makes no sense to use something to gain security and have it work against you. In that sense, it is worth investing in one of the best VPNs. Because? It is easy to understand with a practical example. You are traveling with your laptop and need to work for a while. You choose a cafe or coworking with its WiFi network, since it provides you with both a network and a place to sit. Nothing has to happen, but the reality is that you will not know the security of that network nor if there is someone trying to intercept data in it. That’s where it comes into play a VPN like Surfshark. With a click (because really, using a VPN is not much more mysterious), you will pass your traffic through an encrypted tunnel that will prevent anyone from intercepting your data. This way, you are protecting your data and, probably, also those of your clients. For this reason, it is worth investing a little in one that provides you with good service, that is secure, fast, and has plenty of servers to connect to. Let’s now talk about price. Surfshark is one of the VPNs that has the best quality-price ratio with the offer it has active right now: it costs 1.99 euros per month if we choose its 24-month plan. The simple calculation tells us that we will pay 53.73 euros for having 2 years of VPN, although in reality it is more: the company gives us three extra months, so in reality it will be 27 months in total. Does that seem little to you? By choosing the 1 or 2 year plan, you also get a whole year of Calm free, one of the best medication and relaxation apps out there. A very attractive price for a tool that, if you work everywhere, can be great for you. Some of the links in this article are affiliated and may provide a benefit to Xataka. In case of non-availability, offers may vary. Images | Joseph Frank on UnsplashSurfshark In Xataka | Why it is dangerous to connect to public Wi-Fi and what you should do to protect yourself In Xataka | Antivirus in Windows 11: what they are, differences between free and paid and the best for your PC

They are safer without them

by

When an accident occurs as terrible as the one experienced this Sunday with the crash between two trains in Adamuz, CórdobaAfter the initial impact, the questions begin. How this could have happened is one of the first, but also how the damage could have been minimized. The normal thing is to apply the logic of everyday life and what we have closest at hand: the car security systems. And that’s where the question arises as to why trains don’t have seat belts. The answer is that the cure would be worse than the disease. what has happened. Occurred On the afternoon of January 18: an Iryo train that left Malaga heading to Madrid derailed near the Cordoba municipality of Adamuz. It happened on a straight line and the last cars of the train were scattered along the track. However, an Alvia was traveling in the opposite direction, which collided with those Iryo cars, causing the derailment of the second train. The victim count is not definitive, but according to emergency serviceswe are talking about 39 deaths, 173 slightly injured and 73 injured who required hospitalization. Click on the image to go to the original tweet Prevent, do not restrain. After the terrible event, a question that is easy to come to mind is why we have a seat belt in any vehicle except on the train. The first thing is that the security philosophy of the railway focuses on avoiding accidents. There are multiple active systems, such as signaling communicated with switchboards to automate some sections and control speed, but also passive ones. In the unlikely event of a collision due to the fact that they are vehicles that circulate on exclusive tracks, or in case they derail, high-speed trains incorporate crash energy management systems. It is a compendium of elements that are designed to minimize the impact force suffered inside the cabin: Highly deformable zones. Cabs and frames designed to absorb impact. Furthermore, since they are so heavy, even if a violent deceleration is caused, the emergency braking system is usually below 1 m/s², which minimizes the risk of being thrown. Theory. It is not all about trusting these prevention systems: studies have been done. A few years ago, the British Rail Safety & Standards Board concluded that, in a longitudinal collision, both two-point (airplane) and three-point (car) seat belts would increase the risk of injury to the passenger. Apart from the systems mentioned, high-speed trains have seats designed to deform. Again: it serves so that, in the event of a crash, the seat is that last line of defense so that the passenger does not absorb the impact. If a belt were fitted, the seat would have to be more rigid, transmitting energy to the passenger’s knees, head and back in the event of an accident. Practice. There is another question: If the carriage overturns or deforms, the passenger can be ‘tied’ with the belt, preventing them from seeking shelter or carrying out a quick evacuation. This aggravates the consequences of the accident and maximizes the difficulty at the time of extraction. But it’s not all theory. In the Rail Safety & Standards Board study, six real accidents were analyzed and the conclusion was terrifying: The belts would have saved 11 lives by preventing expulsions. However, 88 victims would have been claimed by trapping passengers in the crushed areas in the cabin. The conclusion was that it was a system that could do more harm than good. Also, due to the number of passengers who stand up during the journey, it would be difficult for everyone to wear it, aggravating the result in the event of a crash convert some in projectiles against others who are in their seats. In the British study also commented that those who do not use belts, when thrown and colliding with rigid seats that accommodate the belt system, would suffer more serious injuries than if they had collided with a standard deformable seat. And on airplanes? It’s different. It’s okay that they go much faster and that, due to the characteristics of the environment, a seat belt seems more like a placebo than a real safety measure. However, on an airplane the seat belt has more sense if we take into account the type of vehicle movements. In the event of strong turbulence or decompression, the belt would act as it should, holding the passenger in his seat and preventing him from being thrown off or from a ‘boat’, potentially harming himself or those around him. In the case of seat belts on the train, in the end it was a design decision between seat belts or deformable seats, since both are not compatible, relying on the low probability of an accident and the passive measures that the trains themselves incorporate. Unfortunately, there are always exceptions. Images | Robot8A, Daniel Schwen In Xataka | The collapse of the Seville AVE has shown something more serious: how difficult it is to protect copper in a 15,000 km network

We have been hearing for years that plastic is safer than wood. Jordi Cruz does not agree (and it seems he is right)

by

Science has spent decades studying what happens with E.colithe Salmonella and company when they touch the wooden, plastic or metal boards that we use in the kitchen. It is an old (and we thought unsolvable) fight, but the famous chef Jordi Cruz has spoken. He said it on TikTokbut since the ways of distributing content on the Internet are capricious, he has also said so in tens of websites. The question is whether what he said makes sense. What does Jordi Cruz defend? In essence, Cruz has commented your prints on three cutting board materials (plastic, metal and wood). Furthermore, it has gotten wet: for him, the best option is wood. As explainedwhile plastic is filled with grooves where bacteria accumulate and metal destroys the edge of the knife, wood has “natural antibacterial and antimicrobial” properties, where bacteria “get between the fibers and end up dying.” The controversy has been enormous, of course. A curious debate. That “clear” comes from the fact that for years it has been said that wood is the material that “accumulates the most bacteria”, in contrast to “non-porous” plastics that can be put in the dishwasher (and can be cleaned more easily). It is logical that seeing a famous chef say that wood is the best has made many put your hands on your head. However, Cruz is not as off track as we might think. What the evidence says. From the very beginning (the pioneering studies by Dean Cliver at the University of Wisconsin in the 90s), research they have been giving us back the same image: There is no evidence that plastic is inherently safer than wood. Appropriate (hard and closed-pore) and well-preserved wood creates a hostile environment for many bacteria. The problem is that. Wooden boards are not only more expensive, but require maintenance. And if we are not going to give it to them, plastic with all its problems is safer. Although not totally sure, of course. That is to say: the most dangerous boards are the old, scratched and poorly washed ones. The material does not matter, what is important is its state of conservation. And then? Some time ago, food safety experts stopped focusing on the material and began to look for strategies that would try to reduce the main risk derived from the tables: cross contamination. A good example of this are the recommendations of the North American USDA. For the Agency, both wood and other “non-porous” surfaces are acceptable for things like meat and chicken. Their main recommendation is another: use a table for raw meats and a different one for ready-to-eat foods (in addition to always cleaning them with hot water and soap; and subjecting them to periodic disinfection). In Europe the recommendation is similar and, in fact, he adds that although there may be more or less appropriate materials depending on the use, “in domestic kitchens the priority is hygiene and not the specific material.” What do the chefs say? What Jordi Cruz says (that a wooden board is best as a “main board”) is a general consensus between chefs and gastronomic influencers. However, it is common to restrict them to chopping cooked vegetables, fruit, bread and produce. On the other hand, also it is common to use plastic with meat and raw fish. Or what is the same, for “dirty uses.” Sometimes we get stuck in absurd debates. And this is a good example: the public debate has dedicated a lot of effort to establishing the idea of ​​”bad wood/good plastic”, when the important thing is to use several boards, assign them fixed uses and clean (and replace them) when necessary. Image | Garden House | The Anthill In Xataka | To the question of whether ultra-processed foods are as bad as we have been told, science still has no clear answer

The great debate about whether iOS is safer than Android, myths and realities of ‘Breaking Bad’ and much more in 1×09 crossover

by

Can anyone manufacture your own drugs How did it happen in ‘Breaking Bad’? To tell us about the myths and realities of that series and many other things, he has accompanied us In this 1×09 crossover A very special guest: Breaking Vlad. This well -known scientific disseminator is also an original content creator because of his way of talking about chemical experiments, and in the interview we have been able to do, he answers striking questions about the radiation of phones or about the future of hydrogen cars. Presented as sowing by Jaume Lahoz and Carlos Santa Engracia, in this episode the collaboration of Xataka serves to reactivate an old and controversial debate: If iOS is safer than Android. Both platforms have been really reliable for a long time, and perhaps the problem, as the interview reveals, is another. It is also necessary to separate that debate from another in which Apple does take advantage of Google. One thing is security – things are balanced – and another very different privacy, where Apple’s business model – which is not focused on advertising – allows the company to give more guarantees. In 1×09 crossover there is also a place to make a fun debate about false news that we have seen these days – a Chromecast with integrated Tinder? -, and as we always expect your comments and ideas to improve in upcoming episodes. Enjoy it! On YouTube | Crossover

It is safer, efficient and hard more

by

During the last five years the modular and compact fission reactorsknown as SMR for its English denomination (Small Modular Reactor), have monopolized all the prominence. These machines are called replace reactors of nuclear fission Conventional because, without investigating their peculiarities, they are smaller, clean, safe and cheap. However, it is currently innovating in this field beyond the reactors. Another area to which some research and companies are dedicating their resources is the fuel used in this form of electricity generation. As we explain in the article we publish after visiting The fuel bars factory That the Spanish public company enusa advanced industries in Salamanca, the fuel usually used in the fission reactors is made up of slightly enriched uranium oxide (never above 5%). This means that at most only 5% of the total mass of uranium is the Uranium-235 isotope (which is the “easily” fistable), while the rest is mostly Uranium-238. It may seem that there is very little uranium-235 in front of the total mass of uranium, but in reality this amount is sufficient to sustain the reaction of nuclear fission. On the other hand, this is the proportion set by international regulations for the production of fuel for nuclear power plants. An interesting note: nuclear weapons use high enrichment uranium, so more than 90% of the total mass is Uranium-235. Lightbridge Fuel is ready to replace the conventional fuel To manufacture the fuel bars used by most of the reactors in operation, it is necessary to subject the uranium to the mixing, pressed, sintering, rectified and inspection processes. These procedures are carried out in an area of ​​the factory known as the ceramic area, and the mechanical area takes over to manufacture the combustible elements that will finally go to nuclear power plants. What the American company Lightbridge Corporation proposes with its Lightbridge Fuel nuclear fuel is different. The main contribution of the Lightbridge Fuel fuel is that in its production a process known as coextrition is involved Its fuel has been designed to be used in light water reactors and existing heavy water pressurized, so it has been developed with the vocation of replace traditional fuel bars. The main contribution of the Lightbridge Fuel fuel is that in its production a process known as coextrition is involved. It consists of covering the cylindrical pills of impoverished uranium and zirconium with an alloy of zirconium and then subdue this structure at high pressure in a die with the purpose of shapeing a cylindrical rod of approximately 2.4 meters long. Circonium alloy used in the coating is crucial to confine radioactive fuel within the nuclear reactor. In any case, the really important thing is that according to its creators the Lightbridge fuel fuel Stop in several key parameters to the conventional fuel. “By integrating the uranium and zirconium alloy with a nuclear degree coating material we are improving the safety, efficiency and fuel performance,” Assures Scott HolcombeVice President of Engineering of Lightbridge Corporation. If this fuel finally exceeds all relevant security tests and is approved by the regulatory authorities in the future, it can also be used in modular and compact reactors (SMR). More information | Interesting Engineering In Xataka | China advances at a dizzying speed in nuclear fusion. It already has something ready that until now only had the Netherlands

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.