Science

An economic science fiction text has sunk Visa and Mastercard in the stock market. The reason is more disturbing than the story itself

by

Citrini Research, a hedge fund American published this week a text written as if it were a macroeconomic memorandum from June 2028. It is not a prediction, its authors warn. It is a speculative exercise. A feasible scenario. It has achieved 24 million impressions, and counting. It is not an anecdotal tweet. The markets they have responded by sinking. Visa has fallen 4.4%. Mastercard, 6.3%. American Express, almost 8%. And Capital One, 8%. This deserves an explanation. And it’s not what it seems. Between the lines. The market reaction is not explained by the specific content of the Citrini Research report, which includes arguments as debatable as that AI agents will abandon cards to pay with stablecoins in Solana. Antonio Ortiz, technology analysts, has pointed it out precisely: part of the argument “it is from the first of Twitter AI-hype“. The idea that an agent will compare twenty food delivery apps vibecodeadas to find the cheapest one smells like a caricature of the future. But the panic is not irrational. It is precisely the panic of not knowing where the limit is. Why is it importantand. What has moved the market has not been so much the thesis about payments but the thesis about the destruction of value. And that is solid: many billions of dollars of market capitalization have been built on a single foundation: that humans are slow, impatient, forgetful and loyal out of inertia. That we do not compare prices. That we renew subscriptions that we do not use. And that we pay commissions that we do not negotiate. An AI agent has none of those weaknesses. And that changes everything. The backdrop. Citrini’s report comes at a time when the so-called “saaspocalypse“is no longer a metaphor. WSJ states that investors are terrified by the possibility that AI ends up doing the work that large software companies bill for today. ServiceNow, Salesforce, business management platforms… all built on the premise that companies need software for their employees to do their jobs. But… what happens when employees disappear? What if the software itself can be replicated in weeks with agentic coding tools? Citrini’s fiction begins exactly there, in early 2026, when a competent developer can reproduce the core functionality of a mid-market SaaS in a few weeks, and constructs a scenario of systemic collapse. The big question. The report’s most disturbing argument is that in every previous technological cycle, job destruction created new jobs that only humans could do. This time, AI is already occupying those new positions as well. If that’s true—if AI improves faster than workers can reorient themselves—the self-correcting mechanism that has always kept creative destruction from turning into outright destruction wouldn’t work. That is the scenario that the markets have discounted this week, even if only partially and speculatively thanks to a creepypasta financial. Yes, but. The scenario requires assuming a speed of adoption that is not guaranteed, a completely absent political response and a total absence of new economic sectors. None of the three conditions are set in stone. Furthermore, as Antonio points out, there is some collective hysteria in the reaction: each announcement or “scary story catches attention and moves investors.” Markets are trading in panic over the unknown. But there’s an important difference between saying “this scenario won’t happen” and saying “this scenario is impossible.” And that difference is exactly what has the market nervous. The alarm signal. The most striking thing this week is that a speculative text, written in economic science fiction format, has been enough to move billions in market capitalization. That says a lot about the state of certainty in the markets regarding AI: it is practically non-existent. Nobody really knows how much a company whose moat It is human friction in a world where that friction is disappearing. The canary is still alive. But investors have stopped trusting the canary. In Xataka | AI promised to revolutionize all sectors. It has only revolutionized programming while the rest is still waiting Featured image | Avery Evans

The US has cut programs for research and science. Europe and Spain are recruiting their scientists

by

The Trump Administration has cut substantially the funds allocated to finance universities and, with them, the research projects that were being carried out, as as they point out from Nature. So American scientists have had no choice but to look for solutions to the draconian cuts in their country. Europe in general, and Spain in particular, they have become a magnet unexpected for all that talent, with programs that promise stability and million-dollar resources. Talent drain. According to information from the Ministry of Science, the call for the ATRAE program, aimed at incorporating researchers of international prestige with experience abroad in Spanish R&D centers, received 254 applications for the 2025 call. This implies an increase of 32% in applications, marking a historical record, because in 2023 no applications arrived from that country and in 2024 they only accounted for 16% of the total. 33.5% of them came from scientists from the US, which represents more than double that of previous editions. Finally, the scholarship program has selected 37 researchers in a program that allocates 38.9 million euros. Of the selected researchers, 56.7% come from American institutions and universities. Scientists who choose Spain. The Country collected the reasons why some of these researchers had decided to leave the US to continue their work in Spain. Vincenzo Calvanese, a 43-year-old Italian researcher who works at the Josep Carreras Institute in Barcelona after a decade in the United States, says that “many of my colleagues are having a very difficult time because of the political and economic events that affect science.” He encourages other colleagues to follow in his footsteps in Spain or other countries in Europesince the program represents “one of the few opportunities to ensure the future of research and some professional security.” ​Audrey Sawyer, a 43-year-old American hydrogeologist who has joined the research team at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, expresses a similar concern: “I have never seen a situation like this in the US. I feel very bad for the researchers and students, they are very talented and are facing serious challenges.” Although she applied before the most recent cuts, she clearly sees how federal funding affects areas like biomedicine and climate change. Europe: a troubled river gains fishermen. According to a survey made by Nature Among the US scientific community, 75% of researchers have seriously contemplated emigrating due to the cuts and layoffs promoted by Trump. In this scenario of uncertainty, Europe fights back taking out the nets to try to attract a good part of that talent dissatisfied with cuts in US research. The EU has doubled the funding of the European Research Council (ERC) with 500 million euros to provide it with more resources for these new researchers under the umbrella of the program Europe horizon. Spain distributes the incorporation of these new researchers in a balanced way: Catalonia receives 35.1% of the funding provided by these new scholarships, Madrid receives 29.7%, and entities such as the CSIC host 29.7% of the researchers. In this way, local research is reinforced with international talent, new students are trained and more funds are attracted from international competitions. The exodus is not only about science. The desire to leave the US does not only occur in the scientific field, some EU countries have doubled the number of residency applications and citizenship of US citizens. It is the case of Irelandwhich went from receiving 31,825 in all of 2024, to 3,692 applications during the month of February 2025 alone. Europe’s response to those requests has been different, tightening requirements to obtain residency or, as in the case of Spain, eliminating the “Golden Visa“which granted a residence permit in exchange of an economic investment. In Xataka | Of course digital nomads love Oviedo. It’s not because of the way of life: it’s because they charge 90,000 euros Image | Wikipedia, Unsplash (National Cancer Institute)

The cell phone on the nightstand is not “frying” your brain, but science is beginning to understand why it prevents you from resting

by

It is practically a ritual today: connect your phone to the charger, set the alarm and leave it on the nightstand just 30 centimeters from the pillow to sleep. According to the data, for 95% of adultssleeping with your phone within reach is a logistical necessity; For a growing stream of longevity experts, It’s a biological miscalculation. because we rest less. To do this, we have analyzed the bibliography to know exactly the effect of having your cell phone next to you. The culprit confirmed. Before entering the swampy terrain of the possible problems that radiation can generate when it is around us, we must point out the “elephant in the room.” The most solid evidence we have today does not blame antennas for having a bad sleep, but to the screens and what we do with them. To give us an idea, a meta-analysis over 36,000 participants concluded that excessive use of smartphone increases the risk of having poor quality sleep by 228%. The double responsible. The first is the suppression of melatonin, since the blue light emitted by the LED panels of mobile phones tricks our brain making him believe that it is still day. This delays the release of melatonin and fragments the architecture of sleep. But not only the blue light is information, since responding to a WhatsApp or doing doomscrolling on TikTok before bed keeps the brain alert. A study of medical students suggested that nighttime cell phone use corresponded to poorer sleep. The radiation debate. It has always been a mantra for many: having your cell phone nearby is having a large source of radiation that causes many health problems. In this case, organizations such as the WHO or ARPANSA have traditionally maintained that evidence of damage from low-level electromagnetic fields is “insufficient.” However, it does not mean that it is non-existent. The most recent studies They are beginning to see the non-thermal effects that mobile phones have. One of the most interesting was done with baby monitors that have a frequency of 2.45 GHz, similar to Bluetooth or Wifi, to simulate environmental exposure. The result was that the exposed group, compared to the placebo, showed a worse subjective quality of sleep and alterations in heart rate variability, suggesting that sensitive people do notice the invisible “presence” of the electronic device nearby. Brain wave modulation. Other research on 5G signals found that exposure to 3.6 GHz waves affected sleep spindles during N2 phasethat is, light sleep that accounts for 50% of the total rest time. The curious thing about this study is that the effect depended on genetics: only carriers of certain variants of the CACNA1C gene showed alterations in the electroencephalogram. This qualifies the warnings of some experts, since radiation may not affect us all equally, but for a genetically predisposed subgroup, sleeping next to a continuous emission source could be fragmenting their N2 phase, crucial for memory consolidation. The habit factor. It is often cited Sinha’s studio to demonize radiation, but what this study really measured were habits in a sample of 566 participants. In this case, it was seen that those people with high mobile phone use took longer to fall asleep, their sleep was less efficient, and 22.6% reported worse quality of sleep. In this way, the conclusion was not that the waves prevented them from sleeping, but that the habit of having their cell phone nearby inevitably leads to using. If it’s on the table, you look at it. If you look at it, you become active. It is a behavioral rather than a radiological vicious circle. Hygiene protocol. The question in this case is inevitable: should we wrap the room in aluminum foil? It’s not necessary. In this case, physics works in our favor thanks to the inverse square law: the intensity of the radiation falls drastically with distance. That is why the most important thing is to move the device at least one meter away from the bed, since at this distance the exposure falls to negligible basal levels, making Sleeping with your cell phone under your pillow is the worst possible decision. If we want to go a little further, we can put it in airplane mode, although the best advice, as the Spanish Society of Neurology points out, is to have a sacred hour, where the recommendation is to leave the screens an hour before going to sleep. Images | Nubelson Fernandes In Xataka | We thought insomnia was just not being able to sleep. Now we know that there are five different disorders

We have been believing for years that intermittent fasting is the definitive weapon to lose weight. Science has another idea

by

During the last years, the intermittent fasting has gone from being something exceptional to becoming a nutritional strategy that there is more and more talk and that it has more followers behind it. And it is no wonder, since the promise is quite seductive as it does not focus on what you eat, but on when you eat, activating different metabolic switches to accelerate fat burning. Although there are also detractors behind. New data. The Cochrane library, considered a great world reference, published a few days ago a great review about intermittent fasting that acts as a bucket of cold water, since it suggests that this diet does not offer superior benefits to conventional weight loss diets. The backup. We are not talking about a small study whose validity can be questioned, but in this case the Cochrane researchers analyzed 22 randomized controlled trials that added up to a total of 1,995 participants. overweight or obesity. The objective here was to compare different fasting modalities, such as going 16 hours without being able to eat with eight hours of eating, fasting on alternate days or 5:2 diet compared to classic calorie restriction or inaction. What they found is that, when pitting intermittent fasting against regular dietary advice, the difference in weight loss is virtually zero. The data. Getting into the matter, when intermittent fasting was compared With standard calorie-restricted diets, the mean difference in weight change was a minuscule -0.33%. This difference can translate into that intermittent fasting may result in little to no difference in weight loss with the traditional method. Regarding quality of life, such as the feeling of energy, no difference was seen and, regarding the levels of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, fasting did not prove to be a panacea either, yielding results of “little or no difference” compared to the control diets. The small print. One of the most critical points of the Cochrane review is the certainty of the evidence, which they rated mostly as “low” or “very low.” This does not mean that the studies are poorly done, but rather that there are important limitations, such as risk bias, inconsistency in results, and lack of precision. But there is one fact that should worry anyone who decides to opt for this diet independently, without medical advice, since, although the evidence is uncertain, some studies pointed to associated side effects specifically to fasting. These include headaches, nausea, cold intolerance or even insomnia and lack of concentration. What is not yet known. Perhaps it is the most revealing thing about this scientific study, since there are still many unknowns surrounding intermittent fasting that invite further research. In this case, none of the 22 studies included data on “patient satisfaction,” which is important because we don’t know if people prefer to go hungry for a few hours in exchange for eating more later, or if they hate the process. And being comfortable with a diet is essential so that you don’t abandon it halfway through. In addition to this, none of the studies pointed to the relationship that may exist in chronic diseases that require significant dietary control, such as diabetes, and which is very common in the population. But one of the big problems in science today is duration, since most studies lasted less than 12 months. We don’t know if fasting is sustainable or safe beyond a year. It is not a miracle diet. What we do know is that intermittent fasting works, but the key point is that It is not superior to the tools we already had as a calorie restriction accompanied by a balanced diet and exercise. For the average patient, this is actually good news: it means that the The best diet is the one you can stick to. If someone finds it easier to skip breakfast with a 16:8 fast than to count calories at each meal, fasting is a valid tool. But if fasting causes headaches, you’re not missing out on any “magic” metabolic benefits from eating three times a day. Although in this process the most important thing is always to be advised by personnel who are qualified in nutrition to be able to have the best dietary plan, to have real objectives and, above all, not to get frustrated along the way. Images | VD Photography In Xataka | We believed that a vegetarian diet guaranteed longevity. In extreme old age, the data says just the opposite

Science had been looking for an alternative to laboratory mice for years without success. Until he found the moths

by

In the world of science, the mouse has been for decades the undisputed king of the laboratory. However, it is an expensive, slow and, above all, ethically complex reign. That is why we have been looking for alternatives for years, and the answer may not be in a silicon chipbut an insect that you have probably seen eating the wax of a beehive. The advance. This is what researchers at the University of Exeter have arrived at, who have achieved a milestone that promises to change the rules of the game in the fight against superbacteria: They have genetically “hacked” dinner moth larvae to function as real-time biological indicators. The most impressive thing is that they even have a very visual indicator: they shine when you get sick and go off when the medicine is working correctly. The biological traffic light. The study, published this week in Naturedetails how the research team has achieved what seemed impossible: applying tools of genetic editing advanced these moths with unprecedented precision. And I know this is very important, since using insects to model human diseases had limitations, but this team has combined two key techniques. The techniques. The first of them is the system PiggyBac to be able to insert genes that produce fluorescent proteins into these moths, so they have basically gone from having larvae to biological “neon lights.” In this way, if bacteria or fungi are injected, fluorescence makes it possible to monitor the infection in vivo under the microscope. In addition, the famous technique was also included CRISPR-Cas9 to deactivate specific genes in the insect’s body. This is a tremendously positive thing, as it allows scientists to manipulate the larva’s immune system to see how it reacts to different pathogens, mimicking complex human conditions. The key data. The bottom line is that the modified larvae allow us to see if an antibiotic is working in real time. The indicator we have is fluorescence, which if it decreases indicates that the bacteria is dying from the antibiotic and the larva is surviving. All this in a visual, fast and cheap way. Why the moth. It may sound strange to compare a moth with a mammal such as the mouse, which may be more like us, but the Galleria mellonella He has an ace up his sleeve: your body temperature. Unlike the fruit fly, these larvae can breed and survive comfortably at 37°C, the average human body temperature, which is crucial because many human pathogens only activate their virulence genes at that temperature. Furthermore, their innate immune system is surprisingly similar to that of mammals in terms of structure and function of phagocytes, the cells that literally ‘eat’ pathogens that enter the body. Furthermore, with this animal model the use of 10,000 mice per year in the United Kingdom alone can be avoided. Against the clock of the resistance. The context of this advance is not trivial, since we are facing a race against the resistance of bacteria to our antibiotics. We need at this moment test thousands of new compounds fastand doing it in mice is a brutal bottleneck both because of the time it takes and the ethical questions that arise. On the other hand, these transgenic larvae allow for massive screening. Instead of waiting weeks to see results in mice, scientists here can test hundreds of compounds in larvae and get immediate visual readings on toxicity and efficacy. Images | Wikipedia Kalyan Sak In Xataka | Researchers removed Instagram and TikTok from 300 young people to see if their anxiety decreased. The results speak for themselves

science has already achieved it

by

The idea of ​​controlling what we dream or using downtime to solve complex problems may sound like science fiction in fairly iconic movies like Inception. However, the “dream engineering“has ceased to be a fantasy since science confirms that not only can we influence the content of our dreams, but doing so can improve our mental health and cognitive ability. The device that whispers. The technique is called Directed Dream Incubation (TDI) and the most recent results, published in 2025, suggest it could be the key to treat chronic nightmares and increase our sense of control over the subconscious. The key is that, unlike spontaneous lucid dreams, this technique uses technology to detect specific phases of sleep and send auditory stimuli. A recent study published in Sleep Advancesput this system to the test with surprising results. And using a device called Dormiothe researchers monitored the sleep phase N1that is, the transition stage between when we are awake and asleep and which lasts approximately between 1 and 7 minutes. How it was done. The experiment was simple but effective, since the participants only had to lie down and take a nap. At that moment, upon detecting the onset of sleep, the device the instruction whispered “Think of a tree,” and then the subject had to be awakened briefly to ask for a verbal report and then he was allowed to sleep. The result was overwhelming: 92% of the participants incorporated the “tree” theme in their dreams. Subjects reported everything from visions of forests and roots to more abstract transformations related to vegetation. Control as therapy. What was truly revolutionary about the 2025 study wasn’t just getting people to dream about trees, but what happened afterward. The researchers here discovered a significant increase in Dream Self-Efficacy (DSE), which is nothing more than an individual’s belief in their own ability to control or influence their dreams. Having this sense of being able to control your sleep is crucial for treating disorders such as trauma-related nightmares that are common in post-traumatic stress disorder. Solving problems. Although the study of Sleep Advances focuses on mental health, other parallel investigations explore the productive aspect. In these experiments, puzzles were used that are difficult for anyone to solve, and that is why while people were sleeping they were induced to dream about this puzzle. The result was that 42% of participants Those who were induced to dream about the puzzle managed to solve it when they woke up, compared to only 17% of those who did not dream about the problem. This suggests that the brain, when given the right stimulus, can continue to process logical and creative information in the background, a phenomenon that technology now allows us to systematize. Sleep therapy. Although the aforementioned study had a preliminary sample of 25 people (almost half of whom suffered from frequent nightmares), the data point to a paradigm shift. Until now, we slept “blind”, but tools like Dormio and protocols like TDI suggest a future where sleep is not a passive period, but an active state that we can program. Whether it is to overcome trauma, as they suggest, or to find the solution to a creative problem, technology is beginning to illuminate the darkness of our dreams. Images | iam_os In Xataka | If you fall asleep in less than five minutes, you don’t have a “superpower”: it’s a warning signal from your brain

Science and longevity experts are clear about what time you should wake up

by

For years, the culture of effort and extreme productivity has sold us the “five o’clock club“like him Holy Grail of successtaking as examples to CEOs, influencers or personal development gurus who point out the need to wake up at five in the morning. However, science focused on aging has a very different message: waking up too early is not only not productive, but it can shave years off our life. The experts. Sebastian La Rosaa doctor specializing in longevity, already pointed out that the optimal time to wake up is in a very specific window: between 6:45 and 7:00 in the morning. And the reality is that the scientific literature supports its claims based on clinical experience quite well. Without going any further, an analysis that lasted for 20 years in large groups of people revealed that the lowest point of mortality risk is exactly around seven in the morning. From this point on, extremes (as often happens in biology) are quite expensive. The extremes. Get up constantly after 8 in the morning raises the risk of mortality from all causes by a staggering 39%. But being a night owl and waking up super early every day isn’t good for your health either. This is what they saw from the data extracted from the UK Biobankwith a sample of more than 433,000 people, showing that the evening chronotype (going to bed late and getting up late) has a 10% higher risk of mortality total compared to early risers, impacting more harshly on people over 63 years of age. More tests. On the other hand, a massive study from the University of Exeter found that people who wake up naturally between five and seven in the morning reduce their risk of premature mortality by between 20 and 25%. This fits perfectly with the recommendation to go to sleep between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to achieve 7 or 8 hours of restful sleep and protect, in the process, cardiovascular health. The golden rule. While 7:00 a.m. seems like the evolutionary magic hour, researchers at Harvard and other pioneering institutions have reached an even more important conclusion: consistency is the most important factor. In this way, having irregular sleep schedules, such as going to bed and getting up at very different times each day, increases the risk of mortality between 20 and 48%. In fact, the regularity of the sleep-wake cycle has been shown to be a stronger predictor of mortality than the total number of hours slept. This forces the scientific consensus to establish that sleeping between 6 and 8 hours is ideal, with exactly 7 hours being the figure linked to greater survival in large population cohorts. But if we choose to sleep less than seven hours or more than eight hours, the body can become unbalanced and increase the risk of death. Hacking the internal clock. Behind all these statistics there are pure cellular mechanics. In animal models, it has been proven that having “high amplitude” circadian rhythms, with very marked differences between daytime alertness and nighttime rest, directly correlates with greater longevity. When this biological clock is altered by living behind sunlight, we alter metabolic pathways critical for aging such as via mTOR, sirtuins or IGF-1. Exposing yourself to natural light as soon as you wake up around seven in the morning is the signal that the brain needs to set this complex hormonal mechanism in motion, mitigating oxidative damage and preventing cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Images | muntazar mansory In Xataka | If you fall asleep in less than five minutes, you don’t have a “superpower”: it’s a warning signal from your brain

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

Science knows that rain is ruining our health

by

We carry a great spell of rain and overcast skies in much of Spain, and this also translates into a strange sensation in our body when we feel stuck in the chair, depressed and even taciturn. And it’s not that we’ve suddenly become lazier or sadderbut it is pure and simple biology that has humidity, microbiology and brain chemistry as triggers. Our ideal humidity. To understand why we can feel so bad, we have to understand what our body needs. Here science already pointed out many years ago that our body is designed to ‘function’ in a narrow range in terms of relative humidity.: between 40 and 60%. In this case, when we are outside this range for a long time, which is typical with these rains where the humidity shoots above 70%, it is when everything changes. And above all it affects those people who are not used to so much humidity and who have not adapted to it, such as those who live in areas that are traditionally very dry. What happens. In these cases, when we are in a situation of very high humidity, science suggests that the defenses let their guard down. Above all, it affects the mucous membranes, which are our body’s first defense barrier, which is compromised. In this case, while very dry air can crack the mucous membranes that require a certain humidity, when you have air with a lot of accumulated humidity, a ‘party’ is organized for the pathogens. The scientific reviews point here that excessive humidity favors the survival of bacteria and viruses, increasing the environmental viral load. The effects at home. If we suddenly feel short of breath or that the asthma that had been controlled has returned, the fault lies precisely in what we do not see. The WHO itself and the CDC have established direct links, since they suggest that structural and environmental humidity turns the house into an incubator. The attack of mold and mites. One of the most important points is in the miteswhich are microscopic organisms that do not drink water, but rather absorb moisture from the air. In cases where humidity exceeds 70%, their population explodes and, according to evidence, this can trigger allergic exacerbations in those more sensitive people. Mold is also one of the main protagonists in these cases, and you just have to see how easily it can appear in bathrooms without ventilation. And even if black spots are not seen, the spores can be in the rooms of the house. The science here is clear: exposure to moisture and mold in the home increases the risk of developing asthma by 30-50%. The effect on the brain. But what we notice most every day is that feeling of being “moody” or “stuck.” And here the person responsible is the lack of light due to being cloudy all day. The neurochemistry here is quite important, since without bright light to tell your brain “it’s daytime”, your body continues to produce melatonin, which is the sleep hormone, during the day. The result here is in fatigue throughout the day and apathy that makes us not want to leave the couch. There are also deficits. But in addition to melatonin, the lack of sunlight in those areas where it is not usual produces a decrease in the production of serotonin, which is one of the neurotransmitters responsible for mood. Less light equals less “fuel” to feel good. AND We must not forget about vitamin D either.which depends on sunlight to maintain optimal levels. Although supplementation has mixed results, observational studies are clear: there is a direct correlation between rainy months, low vitamin D and irritability or depressive symptomsknown as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). What can we do? Although it may seem counterintuitive, the European Lung Foundation point because you always have to ventilate the house a little even if it is raining. The accumulation of internal humidity from our own activities such as cooking, breathing or showering, added to the external humidity, creates a toxic environment. That is why maintaining air circulation and, if possible, using dehumidifiers to try to return your home to that sacred 40-60% range, is the only way to mitigate the impact on some part. Images | Adrian Swancar In Xataka | We say we are “depressed” beyond our means: where does the illness end and where does the illness begin?

This Star Trek movie was canceled in 1977 because science fiction had no future. Two weeks later Star Wars premiered

by

In the mid-1970s, ‘Star Trek‘ was experiencing a unique phenomenon in the entertainment industry. The original series, canceled in 1969 after three seasons of discreet audiences, had found an unexpected second life. Continuous reruns and fan enthusiasm (the first phenomenon of its kind to develop pop culture) encouraged Paramount to extend the original mythology. In 1976, a full-page advertisement appeared in ‘The New York Times’ proclaiming the imminent production of a Star Trek film: ‘Planet of the Titans’, and which aspired to take the franchise into uncharted cinematic territories. The origin. Producer Gerald Isenberg assumed executive control of the project in July 1976, intending to transform ‘Star Trek’ into a first-rate cinematic event. To direct, Paramount hired Philip Kaufman, a filmmaker whose profile was unconventional for a franchise. Kaufman would direct acclaimed works such as ‘Chosen for Glory’ and would delve into a science fiction very different from ‘Star Trek’ in the remake of ‘Invasion of the Ultracorps’ in 1978. But by 1976 he had already directed the western ‘No Law or Hope’ and the arctic adventures of ‘The White Dawn’. Chris Bryant and Allan Scott, British writers of the superb and extremely rare ‘Shadow Menace’, were chosen as scriptwriters. The conceptual basis of the project was nourished by ambitious sources: Kaufman and Isenberg structured the narrative inspired by the novel ‘The Last and the First Humanity’ by Olaf Stapledon, which traces human evolution over billions of years. As a scientific advisor, Paramount hired Jesco von Puttkamer, a NASA engineer. Ralph McQuarriewhose conceptual work for ‘Star Wars’ was then in full development, would do the designs. The conflicts. Creative tensions quickly emerged. Kaufman aspired to create a cinematographic work that would dialogue with ‘2001: A Space Odyssey‘ in visual and philosophical complexity. Gene Roddenberry, creator of the original series, defended its essence. Bryant and Scott they were trapped between these two incompatible visions, trying to balance the artistic ambitions of one and the fidelity of the other. The budget, initially set at three million dollars, rose to 10 million. What was it about? Captain James T. Kirk has disappeared three years ago, during a rescue mission near a black hole. The Enterprise remains operational, but Spock has returned to Vulcan. When Starfleet detects anomalous energetic emissions coming from the same black hole where Kirk was lost, Spock rejoins. They discover a planet trapped inside the black hole, the mythical home of the Titans, an ancient civilization possessing technology superior to that of humans. The planet is being inexorably sucked into the black hole. Spock locates Kirk, scarred by years of isolation and transformed by cosmic forces. The planned outcome was the most radical bet: to escape collapse, the Enterprise deliberately enters the black hole, emerging not in its time, but in our prehistory. The crew discovers that they themselves are the Titans of mythology. Kirk is Prometheus, the bringer of fire to early humanity. The script does not clarify whether the crew would finally manage to return to their time or would be trapped observing the slow development of human history that they themselves had started. Kirk is dead. But… why make a movie in which the legendary Kirk is practically absent? William Shatner’s contract with Paramount had expired, leading Bryant and Scott to develop a first draft that eliminated Kirk. After several weeks of work, the studio informed them that an agreement had been reached and that Kirk should be reinstated as the lead. This twist forced a substantial rewrite of the material. And the situation with Leonard Nimoy was even more complex: the actor withdrew from the project due to a conflict over the unauthorized use of his image as Spock in a Heineken advertisement, but an agreement was finally reached. The cancellation. Bryant and Scott submitted their first completed draft on March 1, 1977, after months of intense creative negotiations, but ultimately walked away from the project. Kaufman personally took on the rewrite of the script. His version intensified the role of Spock and developed the dynamic with a Klingon played by none other than the legendary Toshiro Mifune. Just when he was convinced he had found the definitive story, he was told that Paramount had canceled the project. This happened in May 1977, just seventeen days before the premiere of ‘Star Wars’. Kaufman would always remember the phrase that a studio executive told him as justification for the cancellation: “there is no future in science fiction.” Why was it cancelled? They converged different factors: the increase in costs, the fear that ‘Star Wars’ would saturate the science fiction market and the belief that they had distanced themselves too much from the original series. When ‘Star Wars’ grossed more than $775 million worldwide, Paramount pitched ‘Star Trek: Phase II,’ a television series planned as the flagship of a new company television network. It would also be cancelled, although one of its scripts would eventually become the basis for ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’, released in December 1979. The legacy. ‘‘Planet of the Titans’ was not the first failed attempt to bring ‘Star Trek’ to the cinema, but rather one more link in a chain of frustrated projects that reflected Paramount’s uncertainty about how to capitalize on the franchise: there are cases as popular as the legendary and disturbing film ‘The God Thing’, written by Roddenberry himself in 1975, or the many attempts to recruit science fiction authors to contribute ideas for films, as happened with Harlan Ellison in the late seventies. And although something remained from the film in the future after the cancellation of ‘Planet of the Titans’ (for example, the concept designs They were reused in 2017 in ‘Star Trek: Discovery’), this cursed movie is the perfect example of what ‘Star Trek’ has always been. A sign that there are more ways to do science fiction outside of spectacle pulp of Star Wars and, at the same time, the confirmation that it is very complicated to do so. In Xataka | More and more … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

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

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

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