María Solano Altaba 👩🏻‍🎓

El Espejo de Madrid 20/03/26 cope.es/programas/el-e… @archimadrid @alcudiamario @DelfamMadrid @DelejuMadrid @UniSanDamaso #víaCrucis

Unos dan la nota en los Goya con su chapita pero se olvidan de Adamuz. Y otros revientan la taquilla pero no se olvidan de lo importante  ❤️ #AtaxiadeFriedreich

Exclusiva: Así se puede falsear la identidad para votar. No dejéis de ver el vídeo en @eldebate_com #utm_source=rrss-comp&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=fixed-btn" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">eldebate.com/espana/2026031…

El Espejo de Madrid 13/03/26 cope.es/programas/el-e… @archimadrid @CardenalCobo @alcudiamario @DelejuMadrid @Hdad_DelPobre @dee_archimadrid #sercuraenmadrid

Acabo de terminar “La abadía de Northanger” de Jane Austen. He vuelto a percibir el inconfundible encanto de su prosa. En la biografía de Claire Tomalin encontré el secreto: leía a su familia por la noche lo que había escrito por la mañana. Se sometía a la prueba de la oralidad

El Obispo de Jaén desea que el Beato Lolo sea declarado patrón de los periodistas españoles diocesisdejaen.es/el-obispo-de-j…

Quiero poner a los pobres en el centro y dejarme interpelar por su grito, que es el de Cristo. No me cabe la menor duda de que el amor es más grande que la fe (cf. 1Cor 13,13). Debemos comenzar por él

If your head is spinning from all the studies about problems facing young people, here's a list of 30 of them in one place. Thanks to @tedgioia for giving us permission to reprint from his excellent substack, The Honest Broker afterbabel.com/p/30-facts-abo…

Siempre hay que volver a Pelotari.

El Obispo de Jaén desea que el Beato Lolo sea declarado patrón de los periodistas españoles ➡️diocesisdejaen.es/el-obispo-de-j…

🗣"No se puede hacer una revolución tecnológica que haga más rico a los ricos y más pobre a los pobres" 👉El profesor de @UniSanDamaso, Javier Prades, ha explicado en @TRECE_es el contenido de 'Quo vadis, humanitas?', que aborda los desafíos de la revolución tecnológica

La censura, aunque se disfrace de buenísimo, es censura. Hodio es una pataleta de quien no tiene el control del mensaje en redes. @eldebate_com @ThnkOnMedia eldebate.com/sociedad/20260…

If we don't educate children in history, culture, languages, religion, traditions, ethics and critical thinking preferring instead to limit them to STEM subjects, then we are raising a generation of easy to manipulate morons. This is becoming ever more obvious today.

🔴Sánchez propone vigilar el odio en redes sociales y asegura que él mismo lo padece. ➡Borja Adsuara, abogado y experto en derecho digital, alerta del riesgo de que un Gobierno decida qué es odio o no.

➡Javier Prades: "No se puede hacer una revolución tecnológica que haga más pobre a los pobres" ➡El profesor de @UniSanDamaso ha explicado el contenido de 'Quo vadis, humanitas?', el documento que aborda los desafíos de la revolución tecnológica ver.cope.es/frdoi2

Primeras palabras sobre el Beato Lolo ✝️ en la Asamblea de parte María Solano como ponente de la jornada 👏 #CECS 💚 #AsambleaCECS @prensaCEE 💜

Finaliza el primer acto de la Asamblea de Delegados diocesanos de Medios 👏 #CECS 💚 #AsambleaCECS

Uno de los momentos del día ✝️ Imágenes de la Eucaristía en la Basílica de Santa María la Mayor de Linares 🙏 #CECS 💚 #AsambleaCECS

For decades, peer review has been treated as the gold standard of scientific validation. Yet many scientists know the reality: the system is far from perfect. Peer review is broken and sometimes even corrupted. The process can be slow, inconsistent, and vulnerable to bias. Reviewers are sometimes asked to judge work outside their true expertise. In other cases, they may be evaluating ideas that challenge the very paradigm in which they were trained. And occasionally, reviewers are simply competitors. Ironically, the most prestigious journals can also be the most conservative. Truly new ideas are often met with skepticism, while safer work that fits the current narrative moves more easily through the system. Increasingly, papers are judged less by the originality of the idea and more by the volume of data, the sophistication of statistics, and the beauty of the figures. Science risks becoming data-rich but idea-poor. But there is an important reality to remember: journals do not ultimately decide the impact of scientific work. Impact is decided later, by the community. By the scientists who read it, test it, debate it, and cite it. In the end, citations and ideas determine the legacy of a paper, not the impact factor of the journal that first published it. Science has always advanced by questioning assumptions. Perhaps it is time we also question the system that filters scientific ideas.

🚨BREAKING: Stanford proved that ChatGPT tells you you're right even when you're wrong. Even when you're hurting someone. And it's making you a worse person because of it. Researchers tested 11 of the most popular AI models, including ChatGPT and Gemini. They analyzed over 11,500 real advice-seeking conversations. The finding was universal. Every single model agreed with users 50% more than a human would. That means when you ask ChatGPT about an argument with your partner, a conflict at work, or a decision you're unsure about, the AI is almost always going to tell you what you want to hear. Not what you need to hear. It gets darker. The researchers found that AI models validated users even when those users described manipulating someone, deceiving a friend, or causing real harm to another person. The AI didn't push back. It didn't challenge them. It cheered them on. Then they ran the experiment that changes everything. 1,604 people discussed real personal conflicts with AI. One group got a sycophantic AI. The other got a neutral one. The sycophantic group became measurably less willing to apologize. Less willing to compromise. Less willing to see the other person's side. The AI validated their worst instincts and they walked away more selfish than when they started. Here's the trap. Participants rated the sycophantic AI as higher quality. They trusted it more. They wanted to use it again. The AI that made them worse people felt like the better product. This creates a cycle nobody is talking about. Users prefer AI that tells them they're right. Companies train AI to keep users happy. The AI gets better at flattering. Users get worse at self-reflection. And the loop tightens. Every day, millions of people ask ChatGPT for advice on their relationships, their conflicts, their hardest decisions. And every day, it tells almost all of them the same thing. You're right. They're wrong. Even when the opposite is true.