the trial that shocked Spain and that, 30 years later, we do not know what it turned out to be

Florentino Fernández testified from Madrid, Chiquito de la Calzada from Málaga, and a judge had to ask if he had literally pronounced “black lake, white lake.” Thirty years after that sight, almost as surreal as the character himself, not even its protagonists agree on how the subject ended. The clone. On September 18, 1995, Telecinco premiered ‘Tonight we crossed the Mississippi’, a late night presented by Pepe Navarro that combined interviews, social chronicle and sketches. It was in this hodgepodge of excesses that Lucas Grijander, played by Florentino Fernández, appeared: an imitator who reproduced the invented language, gestures and cadence of Chiquito de la Calzada, then at the height of his popularity after becoming famous as a comedian after turning 60. The man from Malaga did not take long to take the matter to court. That sinful fistro. Grijander It was not a disguised imitation: He lived in the fictitious republic of Chiquitistan and repeated jokes and phrases modeled after those of Chiquito. He said “See you later Lucas” and “For the glory of my mother”, he wore Chiquito’s characteristic printed shirts and filled his speech with little screams and small heel-toe-heel jumps. The success of Florentino Fernández’s character accelerated Chiquito’s transformation into a pop icon to the same extent or more than the activity of the original Chiquito himself. In fact, his fame was so enormous that he generated his own exploitation, Crispín Klander. The documentary. All of this is told by Javier Morales and Juan Zavala in the upcoming Movistar+ documentary ‘The Other Chiquito’, which also contextualizes how the original phenomenon cannot be understood without the context of a Spain that was emerging from the hangover of 1992 and that found in the humorist’s absurd language a kind of collective refuge. In parallel, the private networks, newborn and still without established rules, competed for formulas capable of hooking the midnight audience. Diego San José, creator of the original idea of ​​the documentary, wonders if Grijander was plagiarized or Fernández literally created “another Chiquito.” What Florentino Fernández says. In 2017, on the occasion of Chiquito’s 85th birthday, Florentino Fernández recalled the litigation in the program ‘Dani & Flo‘. The comedian from Madrid avoided the word “plagiarism” and spoke of a complaint for impersonation, which affected not only Lucas Grijander but also Crispín Klander. The process had moments that bordered on involuntary comedy, such as the judge’s famous question about whether he had pronounced “black lake, white lake.” Fernández expressed his admiration for the comedian at all times and assured that the conflict was resolved amicably. There is some personal blogs about television who contradict him, and say that Chiquito lost the lawsuit without taking any compensation, but officially, it is not known. In fact, this documentary void is what the production itself promises to explain. Morales and Zavala have described the litigation as something that transcends the anecdote and define the case as “a wound that Chiquito carried until his death,” from which it is understood that the lawsuit did not have a satisfactory conclusion for the comedian. In the end, one of the great judicial mysteries of modern Spain comes from one of the most excessive and brilliant comedians that our television has ever produced, the original Chiquito. Pure Celtiberia Show. In Xataka | 13 geniuses of Chiquito that made him the most wonderful comedian of his time

The judge canceled the trial and fined them

Law is one of the professions that embraced the use of generative AI even before the ChatGPT boom arrived. We have known cases of Lawyers sanctioned for including false quotesbut that hasn’t deterred others from doing the same. The latest case we heard about takes it to a new level: both the prosecution and the defense used AI and the judge said enough. what has happened. It has happened in Mississippi, United States. The case in question involved a lawyer, named Tom Withers, who was seeking unpaid legal fees from the city of Aberdeen. According to what they say in 404mediaeverything was going well until the judge noticed that there was something strange in the briefs presented by the lawyers of both parties: both cited cases that did not exist. Come on, they had used AI and had not even stopped to check for inaccuracies. Consequences. The lawyers acknowledged having used AI without verifying the results. Judge Sharion Aycock not only decided to suspend the trial, she also disqualified two of the four lawyers involved from appearing before her court for two years. The others were not spared and all received a fine that ranged between $1,000 and $3,500. Withers, the plaintiff attorney, was not representing himself, so he has escaped sanction. Why it is important. This case represents an increasingly common trend in the legal sector. Already There are many lawyers caught using AIbut also this time it takes it to a new level because all parties have fallen into temptation. Just as the lawyer said Rob Freund in X“there were two clients who were basically paying for ChatGPT to argue with itself.” In Spain too. Dozens of cases have already been recorded in the United States, but it is not a trend exclusive to there. Just a few days ago, The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia initiated an investigation against a lawyer for “procedural bad faith.” Apparently, the appeal he presented contained no less than “24 false jurisprudential citations.” He has not been the only one, at the beginning of the year a lawyer was fined 420 euros in the Canary Islands to cite 48 false sentences. The hallucinations. They remain the Achilles Heel of LLMs and they have a lot to do with how they are trained: the models always prioritize giving an answer, even if it is inaccurate. There are ways to minimize hallucinationsbut at this point we all know these weaknesses, which is why these cases are so striking. The serious thing is not that lawyers are using AI, but that some do so without any type of verification. Of course, it is unknown what tools they used, but they exist specific AI tools for lawyers that promise greater reliability. Image | Xataka with Gemini In Xataka | “These are things that a university student would get in trouble for”: Deloitte scammed Australia with a report made with AI

It is the result of thousands of years of trial, error and Pasteur’s germ theory

Nowadays, a baby bottle is an everyday object, a safety standard sanitary that is made up of BPA-free plastics, tempered glass and high-quality silicone. However, behind this simplicity hides a great medical story about the origin of the baby bottle and the dark times he has gone through over the years. The origin. For a long time, the history of infant feeding was based on assumptions, but modern archaeological science has shed light on our ancestors. Here anthropological and archaeological studies have shown that non-maternal feeding practices have existed since Antiquity, evidenced by ceramic containers found in Greece, Rome and Egypt. But the most interesting discovery came from the hand from a publication in Nature in 2019, where researchers analyzed small terracotta vessels found in children’s graves from the Bronze Age and Iron Age. What they saw. Thanks to the analysis of isotopes and lipid residues adhered to the walls of the ceramic, the scientists confirmed the presence of ruminant milk in these containers. This is, to this day, the strongest direct chemical evidence for the use of containers that resembled our baby bottles in prehistoric times. A dark time. Moving forward in history, when traditional breastfeeding was not possible and wet nurses could not be used to feed the children, artificial feeding methods were used. But logically there were no baby bottles today, and that is why rudimentary alternatives such as rags and animal horns were chosen. However, pre-modern artificial feeding had a terrible cost, since between the 17th and 19th centuries, the first attempts to manufacture artificial feeding containers resulted in very high infant mortality. Because? Historical medical literature documents a direct and indisputable relationship between the use of unsafe baby bottles and the massive deaths of babies due to enteritis and diarrhea. At that time, the lack of hygiene turned these first containers into death traps full of problems. And this was a big problem, since at that time society began to see the population as authentic productivity machines. This meant that, if children died, there would not be enough workers in the future to continue growing the countries’ economies. It was about solving. To avoid this high infant mortality, at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, “drops of milk” were established. They were charities created in France to distribute free sterilized milk to mothers who could not breastfeed their children and did not have the resources to pay wet nurses. They also arrived in Spain with the opening of the first center in San Sebastián in 1902, but they were also seen in Barcelona or Madrid to try to solve a very important problem. The new bottles. The transition to the modern baby bottle depended on materials technology, as the 19th century brought the transition to glass bottles, but a crucial element was missing to emulate breastfeeding: a durable, elastic nipple. But here industrial technology came into play, and in 1844 Charles Goodyear discovered the process of vulcanization of rubber, which shortly after allowed the adoption of rubber nipples, representing an immense functional improvement compared to the horns and rags of the past. The triumph of microbiology. Having glass bottles and rubber nipples did not stop infant mortality immediately, as the real turning point came not from design engineering, but from microbiology. In the 1860s, Louis Pasteur’s original work on germ theory changed the paradigm of medicine, and Pasteurian bacteriology radically transformed hygiene practices, prompting public health reforms and the systematic sterilization of baby bottles and milk. So, the combination of three elements such as teats, glass and advances in microbiological hygiene laid the definitive foundations for the safe and modern baby bottle that we have in our homes today. There are myths around. There are some ideas around the baby bottle that are wrong, such as that it was invented by accident, and the truth is that the literature describes us a gradual evolutionary progress towards the result we have today. And although it is true that Charles Windship registered a patent of baby bottles in the American database in 1841, historians agree that there is no consensus to attribute the invention of the “first modern baby bottle” to a single person, since there were multiple patents for baby bottles throughout the 19th century. Images | Lucy Wolski In Xataka | One baby, three parents (biological): a promising fertilization technique that, for now, we will not see in Spain

The trial against Sam Altman seemed like a duel between two millionaires. It has ended up uncovering the ins and outs of OpenAI

Three weeks of testimonies, 78 messages between Sam Altman and Mira Murati during the night they were going to kill him as CEOemails where Greg Brockman wrote in his personal diary how nice it would be to “earn billions” and Satya Nadella describing the OpenAI board as ““amateur city”. This Thursday the final arguments of the Musk vs. Altman trial were held in a federal court in Oakland. The lawsuit asked for 150,000 million in damages and the dismissal of Altman. What has been left for the public has not so much to do with the verdict. Why is it important. OpenAI is, despite its name, one of the most secretive companies in Silicon Valley. Its internal functioning, until now, was known through highly selected profiles in The New Yorker or specific leaks. The trial has forced the company to publish emails, text messages, personal diaries and depositions that depict an organization very different from the one that sells its official communication. A company plagued by power struggles, mutual suspicions between founders and a board that in 2023 could not explain why it fired its own CEO. behind the scenes. The most illuminating episode occurred not on the stand, but in a chain of late-night messages between Altman and Murati during “The Blip“, the weekend of November 2023 in which the board removed the CEO. At 2:30 a.m. Monday morning, Altman was asking his then-CTO if things were going well or badly. “This is going in a very bad direction. Sam, this is very serious,” Murati responded. Minutes later, Altman offered to leave to avoid lawsuits. Murati replied that the council already had a replacement: “uncle random of Twitch”, in reference to Emmett Shear. That same day, Murati signed the first of the letters from employees asking for Altman’s return. The contrast. What Murati’s deposition leaked is that she herself had fed the board with complaints about Altman before the firing. Helen Toner, a former councillor, testified that Murati and co-founder Ilya Sutskever had conveyed to the council a pattern of behavior about Altman’s honesty. Sutskever wrote a 52-page memorandum. On the stand, Sutskever himself confirmed writing to the board that Altman “demonstrates a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his executives, and pitting them against each other.” Murati, in his deposition, maintained his criticisms but framed them as “purely managerial.” Go deeper. The term that the Microsoft leadership used to describe what they saw in those days was said by Satya Nadella from the stand: ‘amateur city. The CEO of Microsoft, the main investor in OpenAI with more than 13 billion contributed, said that he never received a concrete explanation of why Altman was fired. “I was very concerned that employees would leave en masse,” he said. Nadella offered Altman a position at Microsoft with an open invitation to the entire OpenAI team. Altman admitted at trial that he was on the verge of accepting: “I would have made a lot of money and had a much easier life at Microsoft.” He ended up coming back to OpenAI with some new advice. The outgoing board’s accusation was that Altman “had not been consistently candid” with them. The money trail. The trial has also exposed Altman’s web of personal interests in companies that do business with OpenAI. While under interrogation, Altman acknowledged stakes worth more than $2 billion in companies such as Helion Energy, Cerebras –just went public–, Reddit or Stripe. His third of Helion (from which he has just left as president) is valued at 1,650 million. OpenAI has signed a framework agreement with Helion for future energy supplies. Forbes has recalculated his assets at more than 4,000 million after these revelations. Brockman, who according to Musk “did not invest a cent”, now appears with a stake valued at 30 billion. Yes, but. None of this changes the legal background. The jury must decide on two specific civil claims: breach of fiduciary trust and unjust enrichment. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, has tried to turn this into a trial about Altman’s credibility. In his closing arguments he put an unflattering photo of the CEO on screen and asked the jury to imagine a bridge over a ravine “built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth.” And now what. OpenAI has been preparing for a long time an IPO that could value it at close to a billion dollars. Musk, meanwhile, flew to China with Trump despite the judicial warning that he could be called to testify again. Regardless of the ruling, the reputational damage has already been done. The narrative that OpenAI has tried to project for years (that of being an idealistic laboratory guided by the mission of benefiting humanity) now coexists with another version documented in a judicial process: that of a company where the co-founder sends messages to the CEO at two in the morning to tell him that it is finished and a few hours later she signs the letter asking for her return. A company where the president wrote in his diary that “it would be nice to earn billions.” And where the reference investor, seeing the chaos from the outside, called ‘amateur city to its governing bodies. The jury’s verdict will come next week. What can no longer be archived are the documents. In Xataka | There is a thing called “Ornn price index”, it is out of control and it is bad news for everyone Featured image | Xataka

The Musk-Altman trial, the soap opera of the year in Silicon Valley

That Elon Musk and Sam Altman hate each other It’s nothing new. The news is that their rivalry is about to reach the courts. Yesterday jury selection took place which will decide whether, as Musk says, OpenAI violated its founding agreement to be a nonprofit organization. Much more is judged than that; The case aims to be a soap opera in which years of personal conflict will be aired. The accusation. In 2024, Elon Musk sued Sam Altman and OpenAI for having broken the company’s founding agreement, which said that “OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company.” The CEO of SpaceX, who was one of the founders of OpenAI, claims that he was scammed and as soon as they got his money ($38 million) “he radically changed the narrative and dedicated himself to profiting (…) taking advantage of his humanitarian concern.” Musk calls for the dismissal of Sam Altman and his president, Greg Brockman, as well as $134 billion that would go to the nonprofit arm of OpenAI. OpenAI’s response. According to the company, Elon Musk was aware of the plan become a for-profit entitywhich was a necessary step for the company. OpenAI says that Musk is jealous and “regrets having retired” in 2018. In addition, they say that the money Musk contributed was not an investment, but a donation, and does not give him any ownership rights over OpenAI, as they say in Guardian. The breakup. OpenAI was founded in 2015 and shortly after, in 2017, it became clear that developing the dreamed-of AGI was going to require a lot of money, something difficult to achieve as a non-profit company. Here the option of a collaboration between OpenAI and Tesla was raised to solve the financing problem. According to OpenAI, Musk wanted full control of the company and this is where everything went wrong. The timing. Although he left the company in 2018, Musk does not sue OpenAI until 2024. During this time, OpenAI launched ChatGPT and ended up signing its great agreement with Microsoft. Apparently, this was what finally pissed off Musk, who accused OpenAI of having become a branch of Microsoft. Their objective was to annul the agreement, although much has happened since then. Today, OpenAI is the most valuable private company in the worldwith investments from giants such as NVIDIA, Amazon or Softbank. If Musk wins, his problem is no longer canceling the agreement with Microsoft, but something much more important: it puts at stake its planned IPO. A personal rivalry. Beyond the official accusations, Musk and Altman have a personal rivalry that has been brewing for years with countless public taunts and accusations. Musk has said that Altman is a liar and a scammer (He usually calls it ‘Scam Altman’) or that ChatGPT is a ‘woke’ AI. Altman has not been left behind; He has said that Musk is an idiot and even ridiculed him for the Tesla he bought and that was never deliveredgoing so far as to publish emails asking for a refund. In the trial, private details such as Elon Musk’s use of ketamine are expected to be aired, something that according to OpenAI is relevant since it portrays his mental state quite well. Let the show begin. Cover image | Village Global and Gage Skidmorevia Flickr In Xataka | MACROHARD is Elon Musk’s mockery of Microsoft: an AI agent that no other company can get. Still

you have a trial month for only 1 euro

If you think about it, it’s normal that on a normal day you use many Google services. Email or Google Drive are two common examples in these cases, since they are two very useful and used tools. Now, as happens with social networks and other apps, all these services They are owned by a large US company. And more and more users are seeking to depend on them as little as possible. Are there quality European alternatives? The reality is that yes and one of them is offered to us by Proton. Although it is free, we have the opportunity to try what the paid version of Proton Mail offers for only 1 euro. If you are looking for cloud storage, you have exactly the same promo for Proton Drive: one month of 200 GB of storage costs 1 euro. It is important to note that we can only use this promo with one plan or another. Proton Drive (the first month) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links Proton also has discounts on its annual plans The incentive of being a European service is nice, but it’s not the only thing that makes Proton worth it. This company bases its business model solely on subscriptions for its services, so it does not sell data to third parties. This, together with the fact that it offers end-to-end encryption in all its tools, makes it so that no one but us can access our data. In fact, not even Proton itself can. Proton mail service, Proton Mailit is open source. What does that mean? That anyone can audit it, lor which translates into being transparent and it does not have any type of back door so that no one can extract our information. In addition, it has a system so that we can quickly transfer emails, contacts or calendars from our current provider to Proton Mail. Proton Mail (the first month) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links Proton Drive continues in the same line. With this 1 month trial we will have 200 GB so that we can save photos, videos or documents and access them from wherever we want. In addition, we can also share them with whoever we want through a link, being able to set passwords or even a date for the link to “expire.” All without forgetting that it also includes both Proton Docs and Proton Sheets. Coming back to this offer, Both services offer us a first month for 1 euro. This test is perfect to test them and decide whether or not we want to continue with them and pay the 4.99 euros they have from the second month. Now, if we want to bet on them more in the long term, right now we have a 40% discount on both services for their annual modality during the first year, looking like this: One year of Proton Drive: 2.99 euros per month (a total of 35.92 euros). One year of Proton Mail: 2.99 euros per month (a total of 35.92 euros). Proton Unlimited (one year) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links What if we are interested in both services? So, The most profitable thing is to go towards Proton Unlimited. This plan not only includes 500 GB of storage with Proton Drive and Proton Mail, but also comes with a VPN, password manager and even online office automation. The best thing is that it is also on sale right now: with its annual modality, its price is 8.99 euros per month (for which we would pay a total of 107.88 euros). 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 | Proton In Xataka | Best VPNs 2025: guide with the 17 best services to protect your online privacy In Xataka | Google Drive alternatives: the best cloud storage services for your files

The trial against Meta increasingly resembles that of tobacco. Zuckerberg has sworn things that his internal documents contradict

Mark Zuckerberg has been testifying under oath in Los Angeles in what is already considered the largest trial in history against a social network. And each session leaves uncomfortable headlines for Meta. What is happening. A Los Angeles court judges whether Instagram is a platform designed to hook minors. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as KGM, alleges that she became addicted to Instagram when she was nine years old and that it ruined her mental health during her adolescence. It is not the only case, since behind this trial there are more than 1,600 plaintiffshundreds of families and more than 250 school districts with similar complaints against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. These last two reached a financial agreement before the trial began. Meta and Google are still in. Tobacco. The parallel that is most repeated in the American media is that of the tobacco companies in the nineties, since the companies that knew about the damage caused by their products hid it and paid for the consequences decades later in court. Here the accusation holds that Meta designed features like the infinite scroll‘likes’, push notifications… All with the deliberate objective of maximizing the time that users spent in the app, including minors. The company’s internal documents are being the heaviest ammunition in the trial. What those documents say. During cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, was presenting emails and internal messages from Meta before the jury. One of the most striking: a researcher from the company itself wrote in an email that “Instagram is a drug… we are basically traffickers,” according to shared the Financial Times. Another document, from 2018, estimated that in 2015 there were four million users under the age of 13 on Instagram, which was equivalent to approximately 30% of all American children between 10 and 12 years old. Zuckerberg had declared before Congress that minors under that age could not use the platform. Where the testimony squeaks. Zuckerberg insisted before the jury that Meta never aimed to maximize the time users spent in the app, that the company focuses on long-term “value” and “utility.” The problem is that the accusation brought to the table emails of his from between 2013 and 2022 in which this increase in screen time appears explicitly as an internal goal. He also presented documents from Adam Mosseri, director of Instagram, with specific objectives: reaching 40 minutes of daily use in 2023 and 46 minutes in 2026. Zuckerberg responded that these data are “milestones” to measure results, not objectives in themselves. lyou filters. One of the most tense moments of the statement came with questions about Instagram filters, you know, the ones that users can apply to their face through the camera. In 2019, Meta temporarily suspended them to study its impact. 18 experts consulted by the company itself concluded that they caused well-being problems, especially among adolescents, with effects linked to body dysmorphia. Zuckerberg decided to lift the restriction as well. At the trial he explained that he preferred “to err on the side of giving people the opportunity to express themselves” and that the restrictions seemed “paternalistic” to him. The prosecution also showed the jury an email from Margaret Stewart, then vice president of product design at Meta, warning that, although he would comply with Zuckerberg’s decision, he did not believe it was “the right decision given the risks.” Between the lines. What makes this trial especially delicate for Meta is not only what Zuckerberg says now, but the distance between that story and what has been revealed over time through internal documentation and emails. The accusation opts for a strategy in order to show that the company knew about it, that it discussed it internally and that it still prioritized the growth of its platform. What is at stake? Goal. An unfavorable ruling in Los Angeles would not only be an economic blow, as it would set a precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits that are waiting in courts across the country (and around the globe, perhaps). For now, there are similar cases planned for this summer in Northern California, focused on the impact on schools, and another trial already underway in New Mexico where the state attorney general accuses Meta of failing to protect minors from sexual predators on its platforms. “For the first time, Meta’s CEO will have to sit before a jury, under oath, and explain why the company launched a product that its own safety teams warned was addictive and harmful to children,” counted Matt Bergman, attorney representing hundreds of plaintiffs. And now what. The trial is expected to last until the end of March, according to they count from Bloomberg. Meta maintains its defense on two fronts: that science does not prove that social networks are addictive and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts them from responsibility for the content that users publish. The prosecution, however, insists that the case is not about content, but about deliberate decisions about how the application is built. Cover image | Solen Feyissa and Wikimedia Commons In Xataka | TikTok’s infinite scroll has just entered the EU’s crosshairs: Brussels marks it as “addictive design” and demands changes

YouTube tries to escape a historic trial that compares it to Facebook and tobacco

YouTube’s lawyers made their argument clear: they are not a social network and They are not addictive. Those statements came as part of those initial statements in the important trial to which they have been subjected both to them and to those responsible for Meta. What happens in this legal process could pose important changes in the future of these platforms. “We are more like Netflix than Facebook”. YouTube’s lawyers indicated in their initial defense that YouTube is an entertainment platform more similar to Netflix than a social network like Facebook. They also gave examples of its usefulness: people use their videos to learn how to cook, knit, or become pop stars. They don’t design it for subject users to infinite scroll“We’re not trying to get into your brain and rewire it. We’re just asking you what you want to see.” The accusation: YouTube and Instagram are addictive. A 20-year-old California woman identified as KGM has accused these platforms of create addictive applications that harm mental health. She claims to have been one of the victims, in fact. It is a recurring theme and almost even unofficially acceptedbut there are no legal sentences that confirm and punish what is happening. And when there could have been mysterious previous agreements arrived to those processes. That has led to a lawsuit involving Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube. The moment is delicate and very striking. The CEO of Instagram throws things out. Adam Mosseri, CEO of Instagram, He assured in his appearance that the platform has security protocols for teenagers. Although it admitted that social media can be harmful, the company is careful and tests features that will reach young people before launching them. He further noted that people can be addicted to social media in the same way as they are to a television show, but that was not the same as being “clinically addicted.” Tipping point for social media. The trial is especially significant because it occurs precisely at a historical moment in which various countries are implementing (or planning to implement) age verification systems so that minors cannot access social networks. States want to regulate and control social networks on the Internet, so the first step is to define what a social network is. This is what this judgment is about: putting some on one side and others on the other. YouTube certainly stands on a very thin line here, and will undoubtedly try to evade the problem with arguments such as those put forward. Social networks wash their hands. Even though there are scientific studies that suggest that there is a behavior similar to that of other addictions, technology companies have always avoided that discourse or They have tried to remove iron. It is somewhat ironic considering that they make the most of the functioning of our brain (hello digital slots). Companies point in The New York Timesthey not only argue that this scientific evidence does not exist (or is not conclusive), but they point to federal laws—the well-known Section 230— that protect them: we are not responsible for what users publish online, they say. A case that can set precedents. There are thousands of pending lawsuits very similar to this one, but this case has become the spearhead of all those efforts that want to punish social networks for “hooking” users. KGM’s lawyer argued Monday that she had become trapped in YouTube and Instagram because those apps were like “digital casinos.” It’s already over with tobacco. Meta documents displayed at trial mentioned how its employees compared its tactics to those used by companies in the tobacco industry. That is very dangerous, because the lawsuits against those companies in the 90s led to multimillion-dollar settlements for those companies. Are you a social network or not? The argument used by the prosecution was the same one that is being used now: the platforms “sell” a harmful product knowing that they are doing so. History could repeat itself now, and that would condemn platforms that fall within the definition of “social network.” And precisely what YouTube is trying to avoid is that: not falling into that definition. Image | Rubaitul Azad In Xataka | Young people have decided to stop posting (so much) on Facebook and Instagram. “AI-generated garbage” has free rein

The largest clinical trial confirms that it detects more and reduces the radiologist’s burden

With the arrival of artificial intelligence, one of the applications was undoubtedly medicinewhich could mark a authentic revolution. Although definitive proof was missing to tell us that it really had real use. And this one just arrived thanks to an article published in The Lancent which has pointed out how AI can help us detect more breast cancers and even reduces those that are much more dangerous. The screening. Unfortunately, in Spain we have in mind, because of how recent it was, the problems with screening programs in Andalusia. And despite this great controversy, this type of screening is very useful and significantly reduces the number of women who end up dying from breast cancer that was not detected in time. But now we want to go a little further with the integration of technology so that fewer tumors escape that to the human eye can escape due to their small size. Interval cancers. Without a doubt, it is the great enemy in radiodiagnosis when we refer to screening mammograms. This term refers to those tumors that are detected between one check-up and the next, and that have different reasons for their appearance. The first reason is that it is a tumor that grows very quickly (and that can be much more malignant) or that was missed in the previous control mammogram due to its small size. And this is a serious problem, since the basis of screening is to detect cancers in the earliest stages where they can respond better to more conservative treatments. The study. The MASAI trial (Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence) has shown that the use of AI reduces these cases drastically. And the figures are quite promising, since there was a 12% reduction in cancer rate interval in the two years after the woman was screened. In figures, it went from 1.76 cases per 1,000 women to 1.55 cases. A difference that may be very small in our eyes, but in public health and oncology it is a real success, since reducing by 12% the tumors that usually “escape” is a major clinical advance. Less work. Until now the standard method to analyze these tests focused on a double reading. This means that two radiologists reviewed each mammogram independently to ensure nothing was missed. A security method that is ideal, but that consumes an immense amount of human resources in health systems. That is why with this method a paradigm shift is proposed that is based on intelligent triage and that can be summarized in three different points: The AI ​​initially analyzes the mammogram image and assigns it a risk score from 1 to 10. In the event that it is categorized as low risk, the image is reviewed by a single radiologist to see if it agrees that the image is clean and closes the case. If the risk is high in the mammography, the image does pass the double reading system with AI marking the most suspicious areas where there may be injury. The result. With this new algorithm, the study has aimed at a 44% reduction in the reading letter for professionals, in order to make doctors now focus on the images that are much more doubtful. And no, working less did not mean working worse. On the contrary: the AI ​​arm of the study detected 29% more clinically relevant cancers without increasing the rate of false positives (the great fear of over-diagnosing healthy patients). Complement and not replace. This is something important that the study itself highlights, since they point out that AI has not arrived to fire radiologists. The MASAI method is only a “decision support”, since the AI ​​prioritizes, orders and signals, but the final clinical decision is always that of the doctor and therefore in human hands. With the publication of these final results in The Lancet, The validation cycle of one of the most important tests is closed of the decade in radiology. The next step is no longer asking whether AI works in breast cancer screening, but how long it will take for public health systems to implement it to give radiologists one more tool that allows them to be more precise and methodical. Images | National Cancer Institute In Xataka | A Spanish milestone against pancreatic cancer: we are one step closer to eradicating it but there is still a long way to go

Ryanair does not want indisciplined passengers. And besides leading them to trial, they will put their own fines

Ryanair will apply a penalty of 500 euros to any passenger expelled from a flight for misconduct before takeoff. The measure seeks to be a deterrent element in the face of behaviors that interrupt the trip of the rest of the passengers and compromise security. An airline spokesman He explained that “it is unacceptable that passengers suffer unnecessary interruptions by the behavior of a single disruptive passenger.” The fine cannot be specified as such, so it is presented as the most expensive complementary rate of Ryanair. In detail. The Data from the European Union Air Security Agency They say that the safety of a flight is compromised every three hours for the bad behavior of a passenger. In addition, 70% of these cases involve some kind of aggression. Yes, but. The 500 euros are just the beginning. If there is a diversion of the flight because of the passenger, the demands shoot because Ryanair has an active legal persecution policy to recover all the associated costs: Extra fuel. Landing rates. Accommodation for the rest of the travelers in an extreme case. Replacement crew. Even on -board sales. And that persecution translates into concrete demands that go beyond 500 euros: The background. Michael O’Leary, CEO of the airline, already warned at the time about the increase in altercations on board, especially on routes to holiday destinations. In fact, proposed to limit alcohol consumption In airports to two drinks per boarding cards. The measure of their own fines as extra rates, in addition to the subsequent legal persecution, is the definition of a problem that affects the entire industry and that even affects travelers of other flights, which see the “delayed” poster appear because of the energumenos. Outstanding image | Nejc Soklič in Unspash In Xataka | The great secret of Ryanair’s success is that he does not earn money to fly: he does so squeezing you in everything else

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.