Questões para Concursos

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

It’s like a 21st century version of Frankenstein’s monster. Switzerland-based startup FinalSpark claims to have built a unique computer processor made from 16 mini brains developed out of human brain tissue — and they are positioning this “living computer” as an alternative to silicon-based computing. And now, other researchers can remotely access the startup’s biocomputer, the Neuroplatform, to conduct studies on, let’s say, artificial intelligence, which typically requires enormous resources. “One of the biggest advantages of biological computing is that neurons compute information with much less energy than digital computers,” a scientist and strategic advisor wrote in a company blog post. It is estimated that living neurons can use over 1 million times less energy than the current digital processors we use. The startup takes brain organoids, small samples of human brain tissue derived from neural stem cells, and places them in a special environment that keeps these organoids alive. They then hook up these mini brains to specialized electrodes to perform computer processing and digital analog conversions to transform neural activity into digital information. The concept of living computers has been around for quite some time now. Last year, for instance, scientists hooked up neurons to electrical circuits, resulting in a device that could perform voice recognition. These unusual machines have some noteworthy advantages over their silicon-based counterparts, including a significantly smaller carbon footprint. “This is one of the reasons why using living neurons for computations is such a compelling opportunity. Apart from possible improvements in AI model generalization, we could also reduce greenhouse emissions without sacrificing technological progress,” she said. FinalSpark hopes other institutions will tap its Neuroplatform in order to advance biocomputer research, while positioning this tool as the next step in AI computing. As AI companies clamor for resources for data centers, with concerns growing over carbon emissions and water, it’s a novel approach that may just pay off in the long run. Internet: (adapted).

It’s like a 21st century version of Frankenstein’s monster. Switzerland-based startup FinalSpark claims to have built a unique computer processor made from 16 mini brains developed out of human brain tissue — and they are positioning this “living computer” as an alternative to silicon-based computing. And now, other researchers can remotely access the startup’s biocomputer, the Neuroplatform, to conduct studies on, let’s say, artificial intelligence, which typically requires enormous resources. “One of the biggest advantages of biological computing is that neurons compute information with much less energy than digital computers,” a scientist and strategic advisor wrote in a company blog post. It is estimated that living neurons can use over 1 million times less energy than the current digital processors we use. The startup takes brain organoids, small samples of human brain tissue derived from neural stem cells, and places them in a special environment that keeps these organoids alive. They then hook up these mini brains to specialized electrodes to perform computer processing and digital analog conversions to transform neural activity into digital information. The concept of living computers has been around for quite some time now. Last year, for instance, scientists hooked up neurons to electrical circuits, resulting in a device that could perform voice recognition. These unusual machines have some noteworthy advantages over their silicon-based counterparts, including a significantly smaller carbon footprint. “This is one of the reasons why using living neurons for computations is such a compelling opportunity. Apart from possible improvements in AI model generalization, we could also reduce greenhouse emissions without sacrificing technological progress,” she said. FinalSpark hopes other institutions will tap its Neuroplatform in order to advance biocomputer research, while positioning this tool as the next step in AI computing. As AI companies clamor for resources for data centers, with concerns growing over carbon emissions and water, it’s a novel approach that may just pay off in the long run. Internet: (adapted).

It’s like a 21st century version of Frankenstein’s monster. Switzerland-based startup FinalSpark claims to have built a unique computer processor made from 16 mini brains developed out of human brain tissue — and they are positioning this “living computer” as an alternative to silicon-based computing. And now, other researchers can remotely access the startup’s biocomputer, the Neuroplatform, to conduct studies on, let’s say, artificial intelligence, which typically requires enormous resources. “One of the biggest advantages of biological computing is that neurons compute information with much less energy than digital computers,” a scientist and strategic advisor wrote in a company blog post. It is estimated that living neurons can use over 1 million times less energy than the current digital processors we use. The startup takes brain organoids, small samples of human brain tissue derived from neural stem cells, and places them in a special environment that keeps these organoids alive. They then hook up these mini brains to specialized electrodes to perform computer processing and digital analog conversions to transform neural activity into digital information. The concept of living computers has been around for quite some time now. Last year, for instance, scientists hooked up neurons to electrical circuits, resulting in a device that could perform voice recognition. These unusual machines have some noteworthy advantages over their silicon-based counterparts, including a significantly smaller carbon footprint. “This is one of the reasons why using living neurons for computations is such a compelling opportunity. Apart from possible improvements in AI model generalization, we could also reduce greenhouse emissions without sacrificing technological progress,” she said. FinalSpark hopes other institutions will tap its Neuroplatform in order to advance biocomputer research, while positioning this tool as the next step in AI computing. As AI companies clamor for resources for data centers, with concerns growing over carbon emissions and water, it’s a novel approach that may just pay off in the long run. Internet: (adapted).

For the first time, 2025 will see quantum computers leave labs and research institutions and actually deploy into the networks and data centers of real-world customers. For quantum computing companies, this will be a real test of steel. It’s one thing to have a groundbreaking, powerful quantum computer that only works on its very best day — when the lab conditions are perfect and when the team of PhDs operating it are at the top of their game. But the reality is that quantum computers need to work on their worst days too — in the real world, in real organizations. The quantum computing companies that land on top will be the ones that have built for this challenge since day one. People tend to hear the words “quantum computing” and jump straight to science fiction or the multiverse. And while it seems daunting, we’ve actually reached a point where the “quantum” part of quantum computing is the easiest bit — it’s the “computing” that is inherently complex. For those on the front lines of building powerful quantum computers, this means it’s no longer a physics challenge — it’s an engineering one. Companies won’t need to know the ins and outs of quantum computers in order to leverage its unprecedented power — they’ll simply benefit from its ability to solve the problems that could never be solved on classical computers. Internet: (adapted).

For the first time, 2025 will see quantum computers leave labs and research institutions and actually deploy into the networks and data centers of real-world customers. For quantum computing companies, this will be a real test of steel. It’s one thing to have a groundbreaking, powerful quantum computer that only works on its very best day — when the lab conditions are perfect and when the team of PhDs operating it are at the top of their game. But the reality is that quantum computers need to work on their worst days too — in the real world, in real organizations. The quantum computing companies that land on top will be the ones that have built for this challenge since day one. People tend to hear the words “quantum computing” and jump straight to science fiction or the multiverse. And while it seems daunting, we’ve actually reached a point where the “quantum” part of quantum computing is the easiest bit — it’s the “computing” that is inherently complex. For those on the front lines of building powerful quantum computers, this means it’s no longer a physics challenge — it’s an engineering one. Companies won’t need to know the ins and outs of quantum computers in order to leverage its unprecedented power — they’ll simply benefit from its ability to solve the problems that could never be solved on classical computers. Internet: (adapted).