📌 TOPINDIATOURS Hot ai: Scientists Investigating 2,000-Year-Old Artifact That Appe

A 2,000 year old battery, or just a very interesting pot?

This is the debate that’s been swirling over the fragments of a puzzling artifact discovered in Iraq nearly a century ago. Dubbed the “Baghdad battery,” it’s believed to have originally been a clay jar housing a copper vessel, at the center of which was an iron rod. This arrangement, either by coincidence or design, could’ve allowed it to function as a primitive galvanic cell, some archaeologists argue — a primitive energy storage device pioneered in the Western world by Alessandro Volta, after whom the “volt” was named.

These are tough claims to bear out, not least of all because the original artifact has been lost since the US’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. As such, archaeologists have had to rely on reconstructing the strange vessel based on records to try to tease out its origins.

Now a new study highlighted by Chemistry World purports that the Baghdad battery wasn’t just a battery, but one that was capable of outputting much more power than once believed.

“If this artefact were truly a battery — and I could be wrong of course — then my experiment shows the most effective and convenient way it could have been used as one,” the author, independent researcher Alexander Bazes, told the outlet.

Skeptics argue that the artifact, in its suspected arrangement, would’ve outputted too puny an amount of power to have intentionally been a battery. 

Bazes’s reconstruction argues otherwise. His experiments suggests that the clay jar’s porous exterior acted like a separator between an electrolyte, perhaps lye, and air, which connected with the copper vessel to create an outer cell. Meanwhile, the iron rod inside the copper vessel acted as an inner cell, creating an electrical series that could’ve produced 1.4 volts of electricity — approximately the same voltage of a modern AA battery.

Still, Bazes doesn’t buy the argument purported by some fringe archaeologists that the battery’s copper vessel would’ve been used to electroplate jewelry, or coat them in a thin layer of metal. Instead, he argues the Baghdad battery may have been used to “ritually corrode” prayers written on paper, as witnessing the corrosion would’ve been seen as “visual evidence of an energetic influence having passed through their prayer,” Bazes wrote in the study.

Or maybe it wasn’t a battery at all, counters University of Pennsylvania archaeologist William Hafford, who has extensively researched the artifact. In reality, it was likely a sacred jar for storing prayers, he told Chemistry World, noting that other magic items like it have been found buried nearby, including a similar clay jar with ten copper vessels, which is obviously too many to form a battery. The iron rod that supposedly acted as an electrode for the inner battery cell were really just iron nails that were part of the magical ritual.

“You would drop the prayer through the neck of the jar, seal it with bitumen and then bury it with a ritual,” Hafford told the outlet. “They were usually buried in the ground because you were giving them to the chthonic deities.”

More on archaeology: Divers Intrigued by Huge Underwater Structure

The post Scientists Investigating 2,000-Year-Old Artifact That Appears to Be a Battery appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com

📌 TOPINDIATOURS Update ai: Claude Code costs up to $200 a month. Goose does the sa

The artificial intelligence coding revolution comes with a catch: it's expensive.

Claude Code, Anthropic's terminal-based AI agent that can write, debug, and deploy code autonomously, has captured the imagination of software developers worldwide. But its pricing — ranging from $20 to $200 per month depending on usage — has sparked a growing rebellion among the very programmers it aims to serve.

Now, a free alternative is gaining traction. Goose, an open-source AI agent developed by Block (the financial technology company formerly known as Square), offers nearly identical functionality to Claude Code but runs entirely on a user's local machine. No subscription fees. No cloud dependency. No rate limits that reset every five hours.

"Your data stays with you, period," said Parth Sareen, a software engineer who demonstrated the tool during a recent livestream. The comment captures the core appeal: Goose gives developers complete control over their AI-powered workflow, including the ability to work offline — even on an airplane.

The project has exploded in popularity. Goose now boasts more than 26,100 stars on GitHub, the code-sharing platform, with 362 contributors and 102 releases since its launch. The latest version, 1.20.1, shipped on January 19, 2026, reflecting a development pace that rivals commercial products.

For developers frustrated by Claude Code's pricing structure and usage caps, Goose represents something increasingly rare in the AI industry: a genuinely free, no-strings-attached option for serious work.

Anthropic's new rate limits spark a developer revolt

To understand why Goose matters, you need to understand the Claude Code pricing controversy.

Anthropic, the San Francisco artificial intelligence company founded by former OpenAI executives, offers Claude Code as part of its subscription tiers. The free plan provides no access whatsoever. The Pro plan, at $17 per month with annual billing (or $20 monthly), limits users to just 10 to 40 prompts every five hours — a constraint that serious developers exhaust within minutes of intensive work.

The Max plans, at $100 and $200 per month, offer more headroom: 50 to 200 prompts and 200 to 800 prompts respectively, plus access to Anthropic's most powerful model, Claude 4.5 Opus. But even these premium tiers come with restrictions that have inflamed the developer community.

In late July, Anthropic announced new weekly rate limits. Under the system, Pro users receive 40 to 80 hours of Sonnet 4 usage per week. Max users at the $200 tier get 240 to 480 hours of Sonnet 4, plus 24 to 40 hours of Opus 4. Nearly five months later, the frustration has not subsided.

The problem? Those "hours" are not actual hours. They represent token-based limits that vary wildly depending on codebase size, conversation length, and the complexity of the code being processed. Independent analysis suggests the actual per-session limits translate to roughly 44,000 tokens for Pro users and 220,000 tokens for the $200 Max plan.

"It's confusing and vague," one developer wrote in a widely shared analysis. "When they say '24-40 hours of Opus 4,' that doesn't really tell you anything useful about what you're actually getting."

The backlash on Reddit and developer forums has been fierce. Some users report hitting their daily limits within 30 minutes of intensive coding. Others have canceled their subscriptions entirely, calling the new restrictions "a joke" and "unusable for real work."

Anthropic has defended the changes, stating that the limits affect fewer than five percent of users and target people running Claude Code "continuously in the background, 24/7." But the company has not clarified whether that figure refers to five percent of Max subscribers or five percent of all users — a distinction that matters enormously.

How Block built a free AI coding agent that works offline

Goose takes a radically different approach to the same problem.

Built by Block, the payments company led by Jack Dorsey, Goose is what engineers call an "on-machine AI agent." Unlike Claude Code, which sends your queries to Anthropic's servers for processing, Goose can run entirely on your local computer using open-source language models that you download and control yourself.

The project's documentation describes it as going "beyond code suggestions" to "install, execute, edit, and test with any LLM." That last phrase — "any LLM" — is the key differentiator. Goose is model-agnostic by design.

You can connect Goose to Anthropic's Claude models if you have API access. You can use OpenAI's GPT-5 or Google's Gemini. You can route it through services like Groq or OpenRouter. Or — and this is where things get interesting — you can run it entirely locally using tools like Ollama, which let you download and execute open-source models on your own hardware.

The practical implications are significant. With a local setup, there are no subscription fees, no usage caps, no rate limits, and no concerns about your code being sent to external servers. Your conversations with the AI never leave your machine.

"I use Ollama all the time on planes — it's a lot of fun!" Sareen noted during a demonstration, highlighting how local models free developers from the constraints of internet connectivity.

What Goose can do that traditional code assistants can't

Goose operates as a command-line tool or desktop application that can autonomously perform complex development tasks. It can build entire projects from scratch, write and execute code, debug failures, orchestrate workflows across multiple files, and interact with external APIs — all without constant human oversight.

The architecture relies on what the AI industry calls "tool calling" or "<a href="https://platform.openai…

Konten dipersingkat otomatis.

🔗 Sumber: venturebeat.com