Raul Ignacio
6.8K posts




Belle epoque





Sam Altman ha pasado de decir que la IA “probablemente sustituirá la mayoría de los trabajos que hace hoy la gente” y que categorías laborales enteras “desaparecerán por completo” a... ... que ahora parece haber cambiado de opinión, al afirmar que está “encantado de haberse equivocado” dado que “No creo que vayamos a tener el tipo de apocalipsis laboral que algunas de las empresas de nuestro sector defienden o del que hablan”. Yo tiendo a estar de acuerdo con el Altman del presente, aunque este hombre resulta poco creíble. La razón que da es algo que hemos discutido a veces por aquí. Sam Altman reconoce que esperaba un impacto mucho mayor en los empleos administrativos junior del que realmente se ha producido hasta ahora. Según él, subestimó la "parte humana" del trabajo: la gente valora interactuar con otras personas en su entorno laboral, y eso es algo que la IA no puede sustituir fácilmente. Admite que sus intuiciones "estaban equivocadas". Yo añadiría que de fondo de este razonamiento está los tecnólogos y directos de empresas tech no son especialmente buenos para pronosticar los efectos laborales, sociales y económicos de sus producciones. Pasa con Altman y pasa con todos. time.com/article/2026/0…



Las hijas de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero cobraron más de 100.000 euros, a través de su agencia Whathefav, de Venqis, una empresa panameña vinculada al brasileño André Golabek, operador de propaganda de la tiranía venezolana, granjas de trols y campañas digitales para candidatos chavistas en América Latina. Venqis estuvo además detrás de VenApp, la aplicación impulsada por el chavismo para vigilar, clasificar y delatar ciudadanos dentro de Venezuela. La misma herramienta que formó parte del terrorismo de Estado desatado tras el 28 de julio de 2024, cuando miles de venezolanos fueron perseguidos por ser opositores, testigos electorales o simplemente por reclamar libertad. Muchos fueron denunciados a través de esa aplicación y luego secuestrados mediante la “operación tun-tun”, ese crimen de lesa humanidad tan celebrado en los programas de los miércoles. Por lo visto, lo de cobrar con una mano y colaborar con la maquinaria represiva con la otra… también terminó siendo un negocio familiar en la casa de Rodríguez Zapatero.

🇲🇽 A threat actor is advertising an alleged breach involving Mexico’s CONACYT platform (conacyt.gob.mx), claiming exposure of approximately 384,000 researcher and academic-related records. According to the listing, the dataset allegedly includes: • researcher and reviewer contact information • institutional affiliations • email addresses and phone numbers • reviewer assignment and committee data • review cycle and project participation details • profile metadata and activity timestamps • user credential-related information The exposure of academic and research-sector data can create significant risks beyond simple spam campaigns. Research institutions and government science organizations are frequent targets for: • intellectual property theft • academic espionage • targeted phishing against researchers and reviewers • credential stuffing attacks • social engineering operations targeting grant and review processes The mention of reviewer assignments, committee roles, and conflict-of-interest flags could also raise concerns around confidentiality and integrity within scientific review workflows. At this stage, the authenticity and scope of the alleged dataset remain unverified. #DDW #Intelligence #CONACYT #DarkWeb



Wao qué increíble lo de Zapatero. Quién iba a imaginar que alguien que se la pasaba metido en Venezuela trabajando con EL CHAVISMO todos los años iba a estar involucrado en una trama millonaria de corrupción y mafia.

A mathematician at Bell Labs noticed that the scientists who won Nobel Prizes and the ones who never amounted to anything were equally smart, equally hardworking, and equally credentialed, and the only thing that separated them was a single question almost nobody is brave enough to ask themselves before they die. His name was Richard Hamming. He spent 30 years at Bell Labs, in the same building as John Tukey, Walter Brattain, and a long list of physicists who took home Nobel prizes for work they did down the hall from his office, including the legendary Claude Shannon. His invention of error-correcting codes made modern computing possible. He has won the Turing Award. And all the while he was creating his own legacy he was secretly doing a study on the people around him. The study was straightforward. 2 Teams. The legends and the lost. Same I.Q.s. Degrees same. Same desk hours. Same access to the world’s best resources. And yet, at the end of 40 years in their careers, one group had changed entire fields, and the other group could not be remembered by their own colleagues five years after retirement. He wanted to discover what the actual difference was. In March 1986, he stood before 200 researchers in a Bellcore auditorium and told them what he had seen. He said it all came down to one question. And hardly anyone he ever met was willing to ask it directly. He called it the Friday-afternoon ritual. He spent years blocking out his Friday afternoons and not doing anything productive with them every week. No experiments. No meetings. No deliverables. He called it Great Thoughts Time. He sat down with a notebook and asked himself a couple of questions in order. What are the most relevant problems in my discipline? And why I am not working on either of them.” Most weeks, the answer was the same, he said. For a week now he had marched confidently in a direction he did not think was the most important direction. He was a goer. He worked a bit. He was getting clean results that would publish in respected journals. ( And for five days straight he'd been lying to himself about whether any of it mattered. The reason almost nobody does this ritual is because the honest answer is unbearable. The thing is that if you sit down on a Friday afternoon and say out loud that you are not working on the most important problem in your field, now you have to do something about it. You have an immediate change in direction, or you have to keep lying to yourself every week from that point on. Most people choose the lie. In the short term it’s cheaper, but over a career it’s more expensive. Hamming took the ritual a step further in the Bell Labs cafeteria. He began approaching scientists he barely knew, asking them what they thought the most important problems in their field were. A week later he would ask them why they had not worked on these problems. Eventually people wouldn't have lunch with him. “I had to keep finding new tables,” he said. Nobody had a good answer for that, and being around someone who kept asking it made every meal feel like a performance review. The line that broke me is the line that most people skim over in the transcript. His words: If you do not work on an important problem you are unlikely to do important work. That’s not motivational line. It is a rational one. You cannot make a great result from a problem that does not matter. Input restricts the output. The choice of the problem is the ceiling of the career. The transcript has been freely available on the internet for almost 40 years. Stripe Press published the complete lectures as a book. Naval Ravikant quotes it all the time. It’s still given out to new hires at every serious engineering lab in Silicon Valley. Most people will not run the ritual this Friday. They will be busy. They always are.








