Year

Jesus was not born in the year 1 or on December 25. Here’s what we know about his actual and exact date of birth

by

With Jesus of Nazareth something curious happens. Few characters have been more celebrated, discussed and reviewed throughout the centuries. Today historians they usually coincide in which (although there is no material evidence of its existence) was a historical figure that can be framed in the Galilee of 2,000 years ago. However, despite all the attention he has received over the last 20 centuries, there are certain key details of his biography that remain shrouded in shadows. For example the date of your birth. And by “date” we don’t just mean the day, but also the year. When discussing, we could even question where was he born. The usual thing is to think that Jesus came into the world on December 25 in Bethlehem of Judea and that six days later humanity (at least the West or the West of Christian influence) entered into a new eraone in which history was dislocated into two stages that we still use today in the 21st century, whether we are Christians or not: the one before and the one after the birth of Christ (Anno Domini). Totally normal, right? That is, why else would we celebrate Christmas every December 25th, a word that comes from the Latin “https://www.xataka.com/magnet/nativitas” (“birth”)? And why do we talk about years BC and AD if it is not for the birth of Christ? Reality is more complicated and has some chiaroscuros. What do we know about the birth of Jesus? The answer to the previous question is very simple: little. Historians usually agree that there are basically two sources to address the topic of the birth of Jesus and both are reflected in the same work: the New Testament of the Bible. The evangelist gives us a clue Matthew. The other, Luke. The problem is not only the scarcity of information, but that both texts were written many decades after the events they narrate. To be more precise, around 80 and 90 AD, half a century after the crucifixion. Of course in the New Testament there are older texts (such as the letters of Paul or even the gospel of Mark, written around 70 AD), but they are of little use if what interests us is the childhood (and especially the birth) of Jesus. Taking into account the few references there are and the importance of the topic (we are talking about the birth of the central character of one of the most influential religions in history), it would be logical that Matthew and Luke coincide in their stories. It’s not like that. In their texts both offer us what experts call “chronological anchors”references that help us date the birth of Jesus, but those clues are scarce and do not quite fit together. What exactly do they tell us? Let’s see. “And when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, behold, wise men came from the east to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is the King of the Jews who has been born? For we have seen his star in the east, and we have come to worship him. When Herod heard this, he was troubled, and Jerusalem with him.’ Matthew 2:2-4 “And it came to pass in those days that an edict went out from Augustus Caesar, that all the land should be enumerated. This first enumeration was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And they all went to be enumerated, each one to his city. Then Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be registered with Mary, his wife, who was betrothed to him, who was with child. And it came to pass that while they were there, the days were fulfilled in which she was to give birth.” Luke 2:2-7 Although it may not seem like it a priori, both passages hide a small discrepancy, as explains in Wake up Ferro Professor Javier Alonso, philologist, historian and biblical scholar. The evangelist Matthew (and Luke) tells us that Jesus was born in the time of King Herod, but then Luke specifies that Mary was counted while she and Joseph were traveling to fulfill the census ordered in the time of Augustus. If we review history we see that both “anchors” they collide with each other. Herod the Greatruler under the orders of Rome, ruled Judea more or less between 40 and 4 BCyear of his death. As for the census that Luke tells us about, historians believe that it coincided with the census carried out by Quirinus in the time of Augustus, a fact mentioned by Flavius ​​Josephus. The problem, remember Alonsois that Quirinus ruled around 6 AD the region that covers Judea, years after the death of Herod. Conclusion? Both evangelists are actually drawing a fairly broad time frame, of a decade, that could be set between the years prior to the king’s death and 6 AD “There is a difference of at least 10 years between Matthew and Luke,” explains Alonso. Why do we say that Jesus was born when he was born? At this point that is the most reasonable question. If the evangelists point to a time horizon that begins several years before our era (Anno Domini), because devils Do we say that Jesus was born a few days before the 1st AD? Who and how set that date? To answer these questions we must go back a few centuries, although without reaching the era of Herod. Our attention will focus on beginning of the 5th ADwhen at the request of the Pope the Scythian monk Dionysus ‘the Exiguous’ He launched into a difficult task: calculating the date of Christ’s birth. It may sound strange that so many centuries later the followers of Jesus would worry about this question, but at stake there was a primary issue: clarifying when Easter should be celebrated (Computus paschalis), the main celebration of Christianity. Its date … Read more

Marc Murtra has been at the helm of Telefónica for a year and has done something that his predecessor did not achieve in a decade: slimming down the company

by

Marc Murtra wears just over a year at the head of Telefónica and the 2025 numbers begin to validate its thesis: concentrate on four markets (Spain, Brazil, Germany and the United Kingdom) and avoid the rest. Group income have grown by 1.5%, up to 35,120 million eurosand the adjusted profit reaches 2,122 million. On paper, it works. Why is it important. Telefónica has done in two years what it was not able to do in a decade: get rid of Latin American ballasts (Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, Ecuador…) and redraw its perimeter. The result is a smaller, but more predictable company. And in Spain, where it has not grown since 2008, it has once again shown signs of life: +1.7% in revenue, up to 13,012 million. The backdrop. The Álvarez-Pallete stage cut the debt of the Alierta stage by halfbut it was still a brutal debt and the company had a geographical dispersion that consumed a lot of management energy without a return that was far from proportional. Murtra has opted for surgery: sell assets, continue reducing debt (337 million less in 2025, it is already at 26,824 million) and bet on markets where Telefónica has real muscle. The logic is clear. And the execution, reasonably clean. Between the lines. Brazil is now the financial heart of the group, and that has implications that go beyond quarterly results. Vivo, Telefónica’s local brand in the country, has earned more than 1,000 million euros net in 2025, 11.2% morewith an Ebitda of 41.7% that would make any European telecom company blush. Its 5G network already covers two-thirds of the Brazilian population and leads the market by number of customers. Brazil should no longer be considered an emerging market with potential: right now it is the most mature and profitable asset that Telefónica has. There is also a background reading that the results do not make explicit but that the context does suggest: the demand for data in Latin America is accelerating precisely now due to the pull of AI: more consumption in the cloud, more traffic, more need for infrastructure. Telefónica has sold its Latin American subsidiaries just when that market may be entering a new phase of growth. It is the big question that presumably no one at Telefónica wants to answer openly. Main winner? Brazil, without a doubt, but also Spain. The domestic business has broken a curse of almost two decades and is beginning to generate cash in a stable manner. That debt goes down, albeit slowly, while income goes up, is the combination that the market has been waiting for for years. Main loser? The United Kingdom. Virgin Media O2 (VMO2), the joint venture in which Telefónica has 50%, has registered net losses of 1,852 million euros in 2025 (up from £19m the previous year) following a goodwill impairment charge of more than £1bn. Its income has fallen 5.3%. And by 2026, the company itself expects service revenue to drop between 3% and 5% more, dragged down by integration with Daisy Group in May 2025. The British telecommunications market is in a price war that has no easy winners, and VMO2 has been sailing against the tide for some time. The big question. Murtra has shown the ability to clean up the balance and simplify the map. What has not yet been demonstrated is that Telefónica can grow organically and sustainably in its four key markets. Spain and Brazil are making progress, but Germany continues to be a story of pending consolidation and the United Kingdom is getting complicated. The plan is well designed. Now it’s time to execute it. In Xataka | We need more and more data centers. And Telefónica is building them in its old telephone exchanges Featured image | Telephone

Video games have grown a lot this year. But the money goes to China, Roblox and the owners of mobile platforms

by

The global video game industry had a turnover of around $185 billion in 2024 and continues to grow. But there is a catch: this growth does not reach the studios or the area that traditional players look at, those of the console wars and the old PC Master Race. Matthew Ball’s usual annual report leaves a less complacent diagnosis: revenue is concentrated in China, on platforms like Roblox and on the owners of mobile operating systems. The rest survive as best they can. The Old Times (2021): There is still talk about how great the year 2021 was for video games. It seems like it was yesterday when the pandemic (insert meme of Grandpa Simpson telling stories to the kids here) confined hundreds of millions of people to their homes, and games (mobile, console, PC, free, subscription) absorbed the benefits of that confinement. As Ball, CEO of Epyllion, analyzes in The State of Video Gaming in 2025the factors that drove that peak were an extraordinary sum of factors: mobile platforms, free-to-play models, games as a service, the cross play and new genres like battle royale and social play. Downhill. The flip side of that was a much bigger recession than expected: global spending on video games fell 3.5% in 2022 and barely recovered a few percentage points towards the end of 2024. According to the consulting firm MIDiA Research, the sector had enjoyed growth of 26.3% in 2020 and 9.8% in 2021, and the rebound was inevitable. According to Ball, the engines that had driven the industry between 2011 and 2021 stopped all at once: the smartphones They were no longer surprising with each interaction, social networks were paralyzed, the free-to-play was normalized. 6.5% of total gaming time in 2023 corresponded to new video games, says Ball, and only four titles shared half of that percentage. Layoffs in full force. He report also speaks how the sector’s layoffs since 2022 illustrate this adjustment: more than 44,000 jobs, 61% of them concentrated in North America. This does not mean that it is the end of the industry or that the same pattern is being repeated. crash 1983, as has been said (the industry is too diversified and globalized to repeat a systemic collapse of that magnitude). What we are paying is the cost of having built a structure designed for an industry in continuous growth during the pandemic. The Chinese monster. Ball puts on the table that global spending on video games grew by approximately $10 billion between 2021 and 2025. But… where did that money go? The report assures that to Beijing: about 4,000 million of that growth is from the Chinese market, and another 1,500 million are from titles developed in China sold in international markets. In total, Chinese publishers have racked up about half of global growth since 2019. And there are more data: Gamer spending in China reached $49.2 billion in 2024, with a base of 722 million active gamers, more than double the total population of the United States. China is already the first market in the world by income. Not foreigners. Very significantlythat market remains almost closed to foreign games. 84% of Chinese gamers’ spending goes on titles produced in China, and that percentage has increased, as unusual as it may seem: 20% of Chinese domestic spending goes on imported titles (a figure that also registered a decrease of 5% between 2023 and 2024). It is comparable to what happens with cinemawith local films devouring foreign ones at the box office. A situation favored by a combination of factors: First, the Chinese regulatory framework favors national titles through a licensing system; second, development costs are substantially lower than in the West; Finally, the work culture of the country’s studios allows for more intensive production cycles. You don’t have to dig far to find examples of great Chinese international successes: ‘Genshin Impact‘, from miHoYo, raised more than $3.5 billion in its first year70% outside China with a character design rooted in anime. ‘Honor of Kings‘, from Tencent, dominated the Chinese mobile market for years before making the international leap with adaptations of character names. AND ‘Black Myth: Wukong‘, developed with support from Tencent, sold ten million copies in its first three days launching in August 2024, betting on the opposite of assimilation: an unequivocally Chinese mythology without thematic concessions to Western taste. Roblox sweeps. The numbers sing: 70% of the growth of the video game market outside of China in 2025 was absorbed by ‘Roblox‘. Which is an infrastructure on which millions of creators build interactive experiences using the platform’s own tools. Players access it for free and spend real money on cosmetic items and access within these worlds, transactions that are carried out in Robux, the ecosystem’s virtual currency. Of every dollar spent,’Roblox’ historically retained around 70% leaving the creator with approximately 25 or 30 cents. In September 2024, ‘Roblox’ announced a new delivery model for paid games that increases the creator’s commission up to 70% on titles that sell for $49.99. What does this translate into? In 2024, ‘Roblox’ paid around $923 million to its creators (an increase of 25% compared to 2023), while its total revenue grew by 29% until reaching 3.6 billion dollars. Its intentions are colossal: CEO David Baszucki stated that the company’s goal is to capture 10% of the global video game content market. Some more questions. Just to finish outlining the portrait: ‘Roblox’ registers sustained net losses (a accumulated deficit of 3.5 billion) with the logic of the platform in the expansion phase, sacrificing immediate profitability. Some observers they point because ‘Roblox’ has become the video game equivalent of YouTube, a platform that extracts value from the work of its creators in the form of data, advertising and infrastructure. And one last thing: two titles on the platform (‘Blox Fruits’ and ‘Brookhaven RP’) each accumulate 60% of the monthly gaming hours of all of Electronic Arts. 30%. If the global video game market reached an all-time high in … Read more

Samsung confirms the date of its next Unpacked in a year full of challenges

by

The Samsung Galaxy S26 They are just around the corner. We could intuit that, but now it is official. And Samsung just confirmed the date of your next Galaxy Unpackedan event that will take place at the gates of the Mobile World Congress (although much further away) and in which AI will once again be the main protagonist. when and where. Galaxy Unpacked will take place on February 25 in the city of San Francisco, United States. The conference will be at 7:00 p.m., Spanish peninsular time, and can be followed through the usual channels. Among them, of course, the live one we will do from Xataka. What do we expect? Unless there are surprises, it is most likely that we will know the new Samsung Galaxy S26. If nothing changes, it should be a family of three devices, with the Ultra model being the flagship. Even though AI PCs have not finished taking shapeSamsung has already started talking about “AI Phone” and assures that its new smartphones represent “a new stage in the era of artificial intelligence, where technology becomes truly personal and adaptable.” We’ll see what this means. A year of challenges. Samsung has a tough year ahead. The Galaxy S are no longer the only exponents of the most premium high-end and Chinese firms are pushing hard. There they are OPPO, Xiaomi, Motorola and Honorto give just a few examples. In terms of pure and simple specifications, the entire high-end range plays more or less in the same league, although Samsung starts with a clear advantage: brand positioning and ecosystem. As far as the technical specifications are concerned, last year we missed a more notable leap in photography and battery. Seeing how Chinese brands are spending money on silicon-carbon batteries and the 200 megapixel telephotosthis year these two sections aim to become even more important. Without forgetting the component crisis. Another important aspect that will be interesting to see how Samsung has resolved is that of the components, courtesy of AI. We are immersed in a RAM and storage crisis, to the point that we are seeing mobile phones again with four gigabytes of RAM and not so ambitious configurations. And it is important, because RAM goes far beyond keeping more apps in the background. On the other hand, and everything must be said, there is no evil that does not come with good. Samsung is one of the largest manufacturers of RAM and that branch of the business is scary. The results for the fourth quarter of 2025 speak for themselves: a year-on-year profit increase of 208% and shares completely skyrocketing. Cover image | Xataka In Xataka | With the consumer segment drowning, Samsung is the first to manufacture HBM4 memory. And it will be for NVIDIA, of course

The US spent $600 billion building its highway network. It’s less than what big tech companies are going to spend on AI this year

by

The irruption of ChatGPT in the technological panorama in 2022 marked the starting signal in the AI ​​race; a race in which, year after year, large technology companies continue to increase their spending without stopping. 2026 has just begun and, far from letting it go, the big tech They have put their foot even further on the accelerator. All but one. walk or bust. We already know the planned capex for 2026 of the main technology companies, that is, what they plan to invest in capital expenditures. amazon: 200,000 million Alphabet: 175-185 billion Goal: 115-135 billion Microsoft: 140,000 million Apple: 13,000 million If we add it up taking the highest figures they have given, it is 673,000 million dollars, if we take the lowest figures it would be 643,000 million. In any case it is outrageous. In 2025 the figures were already dizzying and we are talking about an increase of around 60%. There has come a point where we have to stop and ask ourselves: How many zeros does that have? (yes twelve). Context of this madness. Here are a few comparisons to put this figure in context. It is superior to Sweden GDP in 2025 (662,000 million), that of Israel (610,000 million) and that of Singapore (574,000 million). As pointed out this user in Xexceeds what it cost to build the entire US interstate highway system (about 634,000 million) and is a quarter of the entire global military spending in a whole year. It’s like spending $1.2 million per minute for an entire year. It doesn’t make any sense. The market response. The fear of a bubble was noted after the announcements of the different companies, causing sharp falls in the stock market despite the fact that all of them have made profits (some breaking records). amazon fell 12% after announcing a capex of 200,000 millionmuch higher than forecasts Alphabet (Google) achieved record revenues, but it was not enough to convince the markets and its shares fell 10% in the following days Goal also announced record revenue and they had a 10% increase. However, days later things changed and they fell 8%. Microsoft fit the strongest blow, with a drop of 18%. Additionally, they revealed that 45% of their cloud business contracts are for OpenAI and the market does not reward dependency. Apple was the winner, with an increase of more than 7% since they announced results. The declines have been corrected in recent days and all companies have seen their value stabilize, but the message was clear: investors fear that this level of capex is far ahead of the ability of AI to generate profits in the short term. Where are they going to get the money from? It’s the big question. As stated in Financial Timescompanies must choose between reducing shareholder returns, using their cash reserves, or borrowing more money. In the case of Amazon, estimates point to a cash flow of 180 billion, Alphabet 195 billion and Meta 130 billion. The threat of free cash flow falling into negative territory is there, so we can expect them to issue more debt and stop share buybacks. Think different. Then we have Apple, which announced revenues of 144 billion in the last quarter, boosted by sales of the iPhone 17 during the Christmas campaign. Its capex is a fraction of what other companies have spent because Apple doesn’t build data centers, it outsources them. He agreement with Google to use Gemini can be interpreted as They have lost the AI ​​racebut in the context of a possible bubble it is a masterstroke: Google is the one who assumes the brutal spending on infrastructure and who is exposed to the bubble, while they benefit from their technology and see how the market rewards them for spending less. In Xataka | What have Apple and Google agreed on for the new Siri? Nobody knows because Google doesn’t even want to mention it. Image | Photo of Adam Nir in Unsplashedited

This year more will be invested in data centers than what the US spent to reach the Moon

by

We are witnessing live a technological race that is no longer measured only in announcements or demonstrations, but in tangible investments that grow at a speed that is difficult to ignore. In the United States, and also in other regions, large companies are allocating increasing amounts of money to build and expand the infrastructure that supports the current deployment of artificial intelligence services and the expansion of computing capacity that these companies pursue. Some speak of excessive enthusiasm and even a possible bubblebut the money already invested is part of the economic reality of the sector, while the projected figures point to an even larger scale. The question, therefore, is not whether the bet exists, but how big it really is. The numbers. If the first step is to assume that the investment exists, the second is to quantify it precisely. Data collected by The Wall Street Journal They suggest that Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) could concentrate a joint expenditure of up to $670 billion in 2026 aimed at artificial intelligence infrastructure. We are talking about capital outlays associated with data centers, hardware and capacity expansion, not just “brick”. When a single annuity reaches that order of magnitude, the conversation shifts from expectations to measurable economic consequences. Dollars are not compared. What the analysis proposes is not a direct equivalence between amounts spent in different times, but rather a way of measuring the economic weight of each effort in its own historical context. Instead of adjusting old figures to current prices for inflation, the article uses the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) as a common reference for separate projects over time. That shift in focus shifts the conversation from absolute money to relative magnitude within the U.S. economy. And it is precisely there where the investment associated with artificial intelligence acquires a historical dimension that is difficult to ignore. The investments. Among the great economic milestones that are often used as historical references in the United States, there are episodes as different as the Louisiana Purchase, the railroad expansion of the 19th century or the construction of the interstate highway system, all of them with different relative weights within the economy of their time. Using that same metric, this effort has been estimated around the following magnitudes: Louisiana Purchase: 3% of GDP Railway expansion: 2% of GDP Interstate highways: 0.4% of GDP Apollo Program: 0.2% of GDP As we can see, the planned investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure is around 2.1% of GDP. It’s not the same, but. Historical parallelism functions as a scaling tool, not as institutional equivalence. The large projects with which the current moment is compared were, in many cases, public initiatives financed directly or indirectly by the federal State, while investment in AI infrastructure corresponds mainly to corporate spending. That distinction is important, however, from a strictly economic perspective, the relative size of the effort remains comparable. The State does not pay the main bill. That the bulk of investment is private does not mean that the public sector remains on the sidelines. It’s no secret that the U.S. government influences the pace and shape of deployment through regulatory decisions, permitting, energy planning, and federal land use for new data center infrastructure. This set of levers is not a substitute for corporate capital, and at the same time it fits with a broader strategy aimed at preserving American leadership in the global race for AI. Historical comparison. This ends up pointing out something deeper than a simple number: it indicates the type of priority that a society decides to give to certain technologies at a specific time. When investment in AI infrastructure reaches a relative weight comparable to that of major American economic milestones, reading transcends the technology sector and enters the strategic realm. Images | POT | freepik In Xataka | Daniela Amodei, co-founder of Anthropic: “studying humanities will be more important than ever”

NVIDIA will not launch new graphics this year, according to The Information

by

Being a PC gamer today is more like a test of patience than a simple hobby. After years marked by skyrocketing prices and shortages, the rise of artificial intelligence has added a new layer of tension to the hardware market. Memory has become a particularly disputed resource and its effects are no longer limited to data centers or large companies: they are beginning to be felt directly in the game ecosystem, right where users expected at least some stability. what’s happening. The current doubts stem from a chain of information that must be located precisely. The Information points out that NVIDIA does not plan to launch new GeForce graphics cards for gaming in 2026, a decision that this source links to the memory shortage that the industry is experiencing. This is not, in any case, a public confirmation from the company, but it comes from two people with knowledge of the matter who spoke to the aforementioned media on condition of anonymity. What NVIDIA says. The American manufacturer has not remained completely silent. In fact, speaking to Tom’s Hardwarehas revealed part of the problem: “Demand for GeForce RTX GPUs is high and memory supply is limited. We continue to ship all GeForce SKUs and work closely with our suppliers to maximize memory availability.” Understanding pitches. NVIDIA’s historical cadence combines two different rhythms that should be separated. On the one hand there are architectural changes, spaced over time and associated with clear leaps in performance or functions. On the other hand, the intermediate versions that refine what exists through memory, consumption or frequency adjustments, keeping the range alive. This hybrid strategy explains why we see a constant annual presence of new cards even when the technological base remains intact. The best way to understand this cadence is to look at what has happened in recent years, with architectural changes every 2-3 years and refreshes or expansions the rest of the time. Under this pattern, what was expected for 2026 was precisely another intermediate refresh of the RTX 50 series, the one that is now in doubt. The component that really sets the pace. The discussion about new cards usually focuses on the power of the graphics chip, but the current bottleneck seems to be located elsewhere in the chain. NVIDIA usually provides its partners with a complete set that combines GPU and memory, so the lack of sufficient GDDR7 modules prevents closing that package and, therefore, distributing new units. Under this industrial logic, memory shortage stops being a secondary problem and becomes a determining factor. Memory for data centers. The aforementioned material limitation does not appear in a vacuum, but at a time when the technology industry is rearranging priorities around artificial intelligence. Data centers dedicated to training and running advanced models demand huge volumes of memory and largely share the same supply chains as consumer hardware. When that pressure increases, available resources tend to shift toward the business segment. Searching for normality. With the present conditioned by available memory, the great unknown becomes when the true generational change will arrive. According to the information collected by Tom’s Hardwarethe internal roadmap would place mass production of the RTX 60 beyond 2027, which could shift its effective arrival to the market towards 2028. There is no direct confirmation from NVIDIA on these dates, so it is best to treat them as estimates from sources familiar with the planning. Images | Xataka In Xataka | The CEOs of NVIDIA and TSMC sat down for dinner and dessert was a request: the world needs wafers and RAM memory

The world is amazed by Moltbot (formerly Clawdbot). It turns out that China had already invented it almost a year ago

by

The phenomenon of the end of January has been Molbotformerly known as Clawdbot. It is one of the AI agents most powerful of the moment, to the point that it warns of its own risks even before being installed. An agent who seemed to have no competitor and to be one of a kind. We were wrong. TARS-1.5. Although it has not made as much noise, in April 2025 it was launched UI-TARS-1.5an open source multimodal agent capable of performing all types of tasks within desktop environments. UI-TARS-1.5 is a multimodal agent designed to interact with the digital world through graphical interfaces, using the screen, mouse and keyboard. It came into the hands of Bytedance, a company behind giants like TikTok and one of the main players in the development of artificial intelligence in China. The difference. 1.5 is an AI agent designed to use a computer as a person would do. See the screen, identify visual elements and act using mouse and keyboard. Unlike Moltbot, it does not execute code or commands directly on the system, but rather interacts with the PC from the outside, at the interface level. It’s safer by design, because you can’t break the system by running arbitrary code. In addition, it reasons before each action, which reduces errors accumulated in long tasks. UI-TARS does not control your computer. He uses it. Moltbot does not use your computer. He controls it. What can you do? UI-TARS interacts “talking” with your computer. It is capable of executing tasks in our interface by analyzing what is in it. Serves as a programming assistant. It can behave like a human to test apps. It works as a tutor to perform complex tasks. You can manage desktop tasks and PC management. Why is it important. The new war for AI will not focus exclusively on models like Gemini, ChatGPT or Claude: the next step is to achieve a local AI capable of acting like a human, but with certain security guarantees. Moltbot, UI-TARS, Kimmi K2.5 (also Chinese)… Although agentic AI sounds distant, the war to make it part of our daily lives has been brewing for years. Image | Xataka In Xataka | Studying with AI without thinking teaches nothing: these tips can help you take advantage of it and really learn

“We are not going to launch a flagship a year just for the sake of it”

by

If there is an immovable rule in the technological world, it is that every year a new generation of any product must be launched. If not more. The RAM market may explodebut what is certain is that every year we will have a new samsung galaxy and a new iPhone. And to the question of whether it is necessary to have a new high end mobile Every year, someone has answered that, perhaps, it is not necessary. It has been Nothing, and curiously it could do with a high-end. But… it makes sense. In short. Carl Pei is not only one of the founders of OnePlus: is the mind behind the launch of the Nothing brand. After landing in 2022the British company has relied on different marketing, but also on a CEO who is very active in networks, as well as open about the future of the company. Faced with the opacity of colleagues/rivals, Pei has always been quite ‘playful’ with the opinions of both the industry and his brand and the segment in general. In a recent self interview published on his YouTube channel, he has given an interesting key. “We’re not going to launch a new flagship every year just for the sake of it.” There are two melons here: one is that we won’t have the Nothing Phone (4) in 2026. The other is that you are quite right considering how things are. Rampant crisis in the background. Although companies like Micron, Samsung either NVIDIA It is coming in handy, we have been immersed in a -new- components crisis for weeks. RAM was the first product whose price turned this basic component into a luxury one, but the graphics cards and SSDs have followed the same path. And things do not look like they will improve in the short and medium term. This RAM crisis has already resonated in the smartphone segment. There are two options: either -much- more expensive mobile phones or mobile phones with -much- less RAM. Goodbye to the crazy 24 GB of memory on a mobile, welcome 4 GB. Pei himself already commented: if things continued like this, and they have remained the same, the user will have to choose between pay 30% more for a new mobile or settle for a new mobile phone at the same price as the previous one, but with less RAM (and the storage we would see). Come on, Pei has said, without saying it directly, what the decision would be with a Nothing Phone (4). Software > Hardware. Now, as they point out from Xataka Mobilethe fact that there is no new Nothing ‘flagship’ for 2026 does not mean that they are not going to launch a mobile phone. It is estimated that they are working on a mid-range Phone (4a) that will take up the baton of the notable Nothing Phone (3a) at the same time they keep the components short so that the price does not go down. And, furthermore, it gives meaning to an industry strategy, one in which the greatest advances that we have seen in recent generations have more to do with cloud services, artificial intelligence and everything that software encompasses… more than hardware. Yes, more powerful, faster and capable hardware is important to perform tasks within the device, but the cloud is also a pillar in this software. Qualcomm pushes another narrative. On the other hand, there is the strategy of some hardware companies that are obliged to keep the wheel turning. NVIDIA and Qualcomm are two examples, with more capable graphics cards not so much in terms of raw power performance, but rather better processing of artificial intelligence tasks such as DLSS. And also Qualcomm, which every year-end presents its new chips for mobile devicesand those are the ones we see in the new launches of the most premium range. Because each new generation is more powerful than the previous one and -may- have better cameras and more generous batteriesbut it is also true that from year to year we are not seeing considerable jumps between devices from the same brand. And that is when it makes complete sense for a company like Nothing to point out that, perhaps, this annualization of the ‘flagship’ is not necessary. It would be necessary to see what would happen in a context other than a component crisis, of course, but Pei himself has said on occasion that software is the future. Image | Xataka In Xataka | I had no idea what the future of the smartphone is. Until I spoke to Carl Pei

You are more likely to die on your birthday than the other 364 days of the year.

by

Every year we blow out the candles to celebrate that we have circled the sun again; that we are still alive. For most, it is an early and joyful date, but the statistic hides a disturbing reality: the probability of dying is significantly higher on our birthday. The birthday effect. This is the name of this curious statistical phenomenon. It has been observed that mortality increases on the date of the birthday and also in the days close to it, both before and after. Although there are no figures at a global level, numerous studies have been carried out in different populations and in all of them an increase in deaths has been seen on these dates. Because? Studies. The birthday effect has been studied in different populations such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the United States, Ukraine, Russia and Japan. With more than 40 years of data, Switzerland has one of the largest studios about this phenomenon and the conclusion is devastating: there is an excess of deaths of 13.8% on birthdays. In the United States, data on more than 25 million deaths were verified and an excess mortality of 6.8% was detected on birthdays and nearby days. The most striking case is that of kyivwith an excess of deaths of 44.4%, although the sample was smaller (just over 100,000 deaths in a ten-year period). Differences by gender. One of the first studies that was done on this phenomenon was in California in 1992 and detected a curious difference between genders: men died more in the week before their birthday and women in the week after. Other studies, such as the one we mentioned from kyiv, have also seen a difference between genders, but focused on quantity: 44.4% of male deaths and 36.2% of female deaths. Age and seasonality. Other relevant patterns have been identified. In the United Statesexcess mortality exceeded 25% in the 20 to 29 year old group. Another revealing fact is the peak deaths on 21st birthdaywhich is just the legal drinking age. There are also times of the year where this effect is clearermainly the month of January. The causes. The main cause is related to typical risk activities in celebrations, mainly the consumption of alcohol and drugs that leads to overdoses or traffic accidents. It is also common for this date to generate an effect known as “birthday depression”a state associated with loneliness, trauma or fear of finitude, which increases suicide rates. In Japan, The risk of suicide increases by 50% on the birthday. Also has been studied in Hungarywhere the risk is 40% higher. Physiological and psychological theories. There are studies that have attempted to relate this excess mortality to physiological causessuggesting the existence of annual biological rhythms that could modulate the risk of death throughout the year. Others point to psychological or psychosomatic reasons: from seriously ill people who “hold on” until their birthday or deaths generated by their own awareness of mortality and the stress that this causes. Image | Imants Kaziļuns in Unsplash In Xataka | The great statistical hoax of life expectancy: it does not mean that in the past we lived less

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.