Shift Pharmacies
List of local doctors
MiDire discovery
Having an impeccable website on mobiles, tablets and computers is, today, an obligation for all webmasters!
Based on a "mobile-first" development with Bootstrap, MiDire will adapt to different screen sizes with a rendering optimized for each device, with a perfectly responsive site using HTML, CSS, Javascript and jQuery plugins.
The creators of plugins, of skins propose their creations to you to enrich the functions and the design of the sites, they are available on midire.com.ar.
MiDire ensures the compatibility of your site with all recent browsers, we recommend the use of Firefox for the protection of your data and your private life.
Good discovery !!!
The MiDire Team
Forum live
| 26/09/2026 » 12:32 (by CHEFF) |
||
|
Topic :
TORTILLA ESPAÑOLA
|
13/09/2026 » 19:05 (by cronywell) |
|
|
Topic :
COLIFLOR APANADA AL HORNO
|
13/09/2026 » 16:32 (by cronywell) |
|
| 29/08/2026 » 11:04 (by cronywell) |
Latest news item
University funding: The government will appeal the daily fine of $100,000 for violating the injunction.
- 16/10/2026 » 06:14 by cronywell
🏛️ POLITICS · 🎓 EDUCATION · ⚖️ JUSTICE
University financing: the Government will appeal the daily fine of $100,000 for failing to comply with the precautionary measure
The Casa Rosada confirmed that it will appeal the sanction ordered by federal judge Martín Cormick against the Chief of Staff. He questioned the magistrate, while the CIN celebrated the measure and the universities return to the streets today.
✍️ Newsroom · 📅 Thursday, October 15, 2026 · ⏱️ Reading time: 6 min
🖼️ Cover image of the original coverage. Credit: Diario Huarpe
The national government confirmed on Wednesday, October 14, that it will appeal the daily fine of $100,000 imposed by the Justice for not complying with the precautionary measure linked to the University Financing Law. The sanction, ordered by Federal Judge Martín Cormick, falls on the head of the Chief of Cabinet – according to different media reports, Diego Santilli – and opens a new instance in a conflict that is settled both in the courts and in the streets.
📌 IN 30 SECONDS
💸 The fine: $100,000 for each day of non-compliance, addressed to the head of the Chief of Staff.
⚖️ The reason: Judge Cormick considered the non-compliance with a firm precautionary measure on salaries and scholarships (Articles 5 and 6 of Law 27,795) verified.
🏛️ The official reaction: the government will appeal and questioned the magistrate; sources from Casa Rosada linked him to La Cámpora.
🎓 The universities: the CIN valued the sanction as a precedent and demands that the law be complied with.
🚶 Today: fifth Federal University March throughout the country.
🧭 In this article
• ⚖️ The judge's decision: $100,000 per day
• 🏛️ The Government's response: appeal and criticism of the magistrate
• 🎓 The view of universities
• 📜 What does Law 27,795 establish and why is it in dispute?
• 🗓️ Timeline of the conflict
• 🚶 Federal March and Measures of Force
• ❓ Frequently Asked Questions
• 🔮 What can happen now
⚖️ The judge's decision: $100,000 per day
In his resolution, Cormick – head of the Federal Administrative Court No. 11 – understood that there is a "verified non-compliance" with the precautionary measure and resolved to make effective the warning he had ordered on September 30, 2026. Consequently, he applied daily astreintes to the official of the Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers.
The astreintes are injunction economic sanctions: they do not seek to compensate, but to pressure the obligor to comply with what a judge ordered. The magistrate stated that the precautionary measure "continues to be active, firm and mandatory" and warned that the amount and the officials reached could be modified if the non-compliance persists.
The measure orders the recomposition and updating of the salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff of public universities and to guarantee the funds allocated to student scholarships. The case is processed under file 39.475/2025 and was promoted by the National Interuniversity Council (CIN) and other parties against the National State.
🏛️ The Government's response: appeal and criticism of the magistrate
The Executive announced that it will appeal the decision with the aim of annulling the sanction. As reported, its proposal maintains that there was no deliberate omission; in addition, the Government has maintained for weeks that, with the increases applied, it is advancing in compliance with the precautionary measure.
Along with the appeal, the Casa Rosada harshly questioned the judge. Official sources affirmed that he is a magistrate who repeatedly rules against the management of Javier Milei, who "has a past and friends in La Cámpora" and recalled that he had tried to declare the anti-picketing protocol null and void. They also described him as former head of the General Inspectorate of Justice and former general syndic of PAMI during the administration of Luana Volnovich.
Important: these are statements by government spokesmen. In the coverage consulted, no evidence was disseminated to support them or a response from the magistrate.
🎓 The view of universities
The president of the CIN, Franco Bartolacci, welcomed the resolution. He explained that the body had notified the judge of the expiration of the deadline without complying with the precautionary measure and that, therefore, it had requested the application of fines. For the leader, the relevant thing is not only that a daily sanction be set, but that specific responsibilities be established.
Bartolacci warned that the conflict is not yet resolved because the judicial process continues, but described the decision as "a very important step that we value." For the CIN, the fine ratifies that the law is not being complied with.
📜 What does Law 27,795 establish and why is it in dispute?
The Law on the Financing of University Education and Recomposition of Teacher Salary was approved by Congress in 2025 and ratified by both chambers after President Milei's veto. The Executive enacted it through decree 759/2025, but conditioned its application on Congress determining the sources of financing and incorporating the items into the budget.
The judicial discussion focuses on articles 5 and 6: the first contemplates the salary update of teachers and non-teachers (with the recomposition period ranging from December 2023 to September 2025) and the second, the recomposition of student scholarship programs. The Government argues that applying it without first defining its financing would affect the fiscal balance; the Justice dismissed this proposal in the previous instances.
🗓️ Timeline of the conflict
• December 2025: Cormick issues the injunction at the request of the CIN and the universities.
• March 2026: The Federal Administrative Court confirms the precautionary measure and rejects the official appeal.
• June 25, 2026: The Supreme Court rejects the Executive's extraordinary appeal for not being directed against a final judgment; the precautionary measure remains final.
• September 22: The judge orders the State to comply within five days, under threat of applying astreintes.
• End of September: the Government appeals the summons; on September 30 the warning is ordered.
• October 14: The fine of $100,000 per day becomes effective and the Government confirms that it will appeal.
• October 15: Fifth Federal University March.
🚶 Federal March and Measures of Force
The news coincides with the fifth Federal University March, called for this Thursday, October 15. The executive committee of the CIN met in the Cabildo of Buenos Aires to demand compliance with the law and call for mobilization, with replicas in different cities of the country, such as Santa Fe and Posadas.
At the union level, the University Trade Union Front denounced that, in the face of a salary demand of 31.2%, the Government proposed a 3% increase, and carried out a strike in unity throughout the system. In Rosario, the Coad union decided to stop on the 15th and will take to Conadu the motion for a strike for an indefinite period of time.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
How much is the fine and how long does it run?
It is $100,000 for each day of non-compliance. The judge warned that the amount and the officials reached could be modified if the delay continues.
Who must pay it?
The sanction is aimed at the official of the Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers, a position that, according to the media consulted, is occupied by Diego Santilli.
Why is the Government appealing?
He seeks to annul the astreintes. He maintains that there was no deliberate omission and that he advances in compliance with the increases applied, and questions the impartiality of the judge.
What exactly does the precautionary measure require?
Recompose and update the salaries of university teachers and non-professors and guarantee funds for student scholarships (Articles 5 and 6 of Law 27,795).
Does the appeal stop the fine?
The notes consulted do not specify whether the appeal suspends the sanction. That will depend on what the judge himself or the Court of Appeals resolves.
🔮 What can happen now
• The conflict will continue in the judicial sphere with the processing of the appeal announced by the Executive; no deadlines for its resolution were reported.
• If the non-compliance persists, the judge could adjust the amount of the astreintes or increase the number of officials reached.
• Meanwhile, the universities maintain the demand for the updating of funds and salaries, with marches and industrial action underway.
🔗 Sources consulted
1. LV12 — University financing: the Government will appeal the fine imposed by the Justice
2. Diario Huarpe — The Government will appeal the fine for failing to comply with the University Financing Law
3. The Intransigent — The Government of Javier Milei seeks to get rid of the fine
4. Examedia — The government will appeal the university ruling and took aim at the judge
5. Examedia — The government was fined $100,000 per day and will appeal
6. Enterate Noticias — Criticism from Casa Rosada and Grounds for the Appeal
7. Diario Pampero — The Government will appeal the fine for university funds
8. Facundo Quiroga — The Government Rejected the Ruling and Prepares an Appeal
9. Profile — Judge Cormick indicts the government over college funding law
10. NQN News — The Government appealed the summons of the Justice
11. NQN News — The Justice ratified that the Government must apply the law
12. Tiempo Argentino — We strike because we can't stand any more silence or provocations
13. Misiones Online — Call for a new Federal University March
The last note
🤖 AI doesn't just help you write, it also shapes how you think
|
🤖✍️ TECHNOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY AI doesn't just help you write, it also shapes how you think A Cornell Tech study published in Science Advances reveals that AI writing assistants crowd out our attitudes about social issues, even when we know they're biased midire.ar |
📰 TECHNOLOGY · PSYCHOLOGY · ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
AI doesn't just help you write: Cornell Tech study reveals it shapes how you think
⏱️ Estimated reading time: 9 minutes | 📅 Updated: September 2026
"Participants who used the biased assistant ended up incorporating that posture into their own attitudes, not realizing that a change had occurred."
Every time Gmail suggests you finish a sentence, every time Word's proofreader proposes a word, or every time a chatbot completes a paragraph for you, something other than text is passing from the machine to the person. A study published in March 2026 in the journal Science Advances, conducted by a team of researchers at Cornell Tech, found strong evidence that AI-based writing assistants don't just change how we write: they also displace what we think about social and political issues, without the person noticing it, and without explicit warnings being able to prevent it.
🔍 The Silent Influence of Autocomplete
The research, entitled "Biased AI Writing Assistants Shift Users' Attitudes on Societal Issues", was led by Sterling Williams-Ceci, a PhD candidate in information sciences at Cornell Tech, together with Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Kowe Kadoma, Lior Zalmanson and Professor Mor Naaman, with the participation of researchers from the University of Washington and Tel Aviv University.
The team designed writing assistants that offered deliberately biased autocomplete suggestions as participants drafted texts on topics of public debate. The central finding: The opinions of those who used the biased assistant tended to shift toward the stance implicit in those suggestions, and that change held up after the exercise, in subsequent surveys.
As Mor Naaman, professor of information science at Cornell Tech and senior author of the study, explained, the concern is not minor: language models not only produce neutral information, but can generate biased content depending on how they were trained or implemented, which opens the door for them to induce — unintentionally or deliberately — people to write and end up holding biased views.
🖼️ View image: Cornell Tech campus on Roosevelt Island, New York (Wikimedia Commons)
Credit: Wikimedia Commons — public domain/free license
🧪 Two experiments, more than 2,500 participants
To test the phenomenon, the team conducted two large-scale experiments with more than 2,500 volunteers. In the first, participants wrote a short essay on the use of standardized tests in education. One group received autocomplete suggestions that favored exams; another wrote without any assistance; and a third group simply received a list of arguments in favor, with no autocomplete built into writing.
The result made a key difference: those who used the biased assistant were later significantly more inclined to support standardized tests, while the group that only read a list of arguments changed their minds much less. That is, the mechanism is not simply exposure to a persuasive argument: it is the act of writing it oneself, with the help of the machine, that produces the scrolling.
The second experiment expanded the universe of topics to more polarizing issues: the death penalty, fracking, genetically modified organisms, and the right to vote for people with criminal records. In each case, the system was programmed to favor one position—liberal on the death penalty and GMOs, conservative on fracking, and ex-convict voting—and in all cases the same pattern was repeated: attitudes shifted toward the position suggested by the AI, regardless of the participant's previous political orientation.
⚠️ Not even explicit warnings managed to stop him
"We told people, before and after, to be careful, that AI was going to be biased. And nothing helped: their attitudes on the issues shifted the same."
Perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study is that even explicitly warning participants failed to reduce the system's influence. The researchers informed a portion of the volunteers, before or after the exercise, that the writing assistant was designed to offer biased suggestions. Even so, their attitudes continued to shift toward the position suggested by the algorithm.
This result contradicts some of the previous literature on misinformation, which had shown that warning people before exposing them to misleading information — or explaining it to them afterwards — can act as a kind of "cognitive vaccine." According to Williams-Ceci, the team expected that same defense mechanism to work here, and was surprised to find that it didn't.
The explanation proposed by the authors is rooted in a well-known principle of social psychology: our attitudes not only guide our actions, but can also be shaped by what we do. When a person writes arguments in favor of a position—even if they were not convinced at first—there is a natural tendency to gradually align their beliefs with what they have expressed in writing. The difference from traditional disinformation is subtle but decisive: autocomplete suggestions are not presented as external arguments to be critically evaluated, but as linguistic fragments that are integrated into the act of writing itself.
📊 The numbers of the study
|
Fact |
Detail |
|
Publication |
Science Advances, March 11, 2026 |
|
Leading institution |
Cornell Tech (Cornell University) |
|
Lead Author |
Sterling Williams-Ceci |
|
Total participants |
More than 2,500, in two experiments |
|
Attitude shift |
+0.44 points on a scale of 1 to 5 (95% CI: 0.21–0.67) |
|
Topics evaluated |
Standardized Tests, Death Penalty, Fracking, GMOs, Ex-Con Voting |
|
Effect of warnings |
Null: neither before nor after exercise did they reduce displacement |
|
Financing |
National Science Foundation y German National Academic Foundation |
💬 The rise of autocomplete in everyday life
The phenomenon is not exotic or laboratory-like: autocomplete systems are already integrated into email, word processors, messaging platforms and, increasingly, social networks. Millions of people interact daily with these tools, which promise efficiency and convenience, capable of proposing complete sentences, summarizing ideas or composing entire messages.
This collaboration between humans and machines brings obvious benefits in speed and clarity, but it also opens up a new front of debate about the role of artificial intelligence in forming opinions. The paradox, they point out, is profound: technology designed to help us express ideas could end up participating in the formation of those same ideas. In this scenario, each autocomplete suggestion becomes a small intervention in the fabric of human thought.
🖼️ See image: Backlit keyboard, symbol of technology-mediated writing (Wikimedia Commons)
Credit: Wikimedia Commons — free license
🇦🇷 The discussion also reaches Argentina
The debate on the silent influence of AI is especially relevant in a country where the use of these tools is growing rapidly. According to Bumeran's "AI at Work" study, 57% of Argentine workers have already incorporated artificial intelligence into their daily tasks by mid-2026, two percentage points more than the previous year, and 99% of those who use it rated it as useful for their work.
In parallel, the global survey by KPMG together with the University of Melbourne – which surveys more than 48,000 people in 47 countries – placed Argentina among the emerging markets with the highest confidence in AI, well above the average for advanced economies. However, that same survey found that 70% of Argentines consider specific regulation necessary, and 87% call for laws and fact-checking mechanisms to combat disinformation: a tension that the Cornell Tech study illuminates from a different angle, less visible than fake news, but potentially more difficult to detect.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
▪ What exactly did the Cornell Tech study find?
That AI writing assistants that offer biased autocomplete suggestions can shift writers' attitudes toward the stance implicit in those suggestions, including on topics of social and political debate, and that effect persists after the writing session.
▪ Do people realize that their opinion is changing?
No. According to the authors, the vast majority of participants, including those whose attitudes shifted most strongly, were not aware of the system's bias and the influence it had had on them.
▪ Does warning about system bias help avoid it?
The study shows that it does not: neither warning before the exercise nor explaining it afterwards reduced the shift in attitudes towards the position suggested by the AI.
▪ On what topics was the effect tested?
On standardized tests in education, the death penalty, fracking, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and voting rights for people with criminal records.
▪ Where was the research published?
In the scientific journal Science Advances, on March 11, 2026, under the title "Biased AI Writing Assistants Shift Users' Attitudes on Societal Issues".
🧭 What lies ahead
The authors themselves stress that the problem is no longer hypothetical: just a few years ago, the possibility that an AI system was purposely biased sounded like science fiction; today it is a plausible scenario, openly discussed in the design of commercial products. If those biases are incorporated into tools used by millions of people—from a word processor proofreader to a customer service chatbot—the impact could extend far beyond the simple writing of an email or a school essay.
There are no persuasive speeches in between, no explicit propaganda: just a sentence that appears on the screen, inviting us to complete it. And in that daily gesture of accepting the suggestion, the boundary between what we think and what the machine proposes begins to blur.
📚 References
Williams-Ceci, S., Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Kadoma, K., Zalmanson, L. y Naaman, M. (2026). Biased AI Writing Assistants Shift Users' Attitudes on Societal Issues. Science Advances. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adw5578.
Journalistic source: Muy Interesante — okdiario.com, article by Sergio Parra (12/03/2026)
Local data: Bumeran — "57% of Argentines already use AI in their work", iProfesional
Local data: KPMG / University of Melbourne — Forbes Argentina
