Big

The big question behind the US visit to Beijing is not Taiwan. They are two Chinese SUVs with roofs that have fired the imagination

by

The scene took place in 2018, during a military parade in Moscow. So several Western analysts spent hours trying to identify a strange russian truck covered by tarps and antennas of which no one offered explanations. Years later it was learned that it was part of one of the systems electronic warfare most advanced in the Kremlin. Since then, every rare vehicle that appears near a world leader has ceased to seem like a simple logistical eccentricity. Two SUVs and an uncomfortable question. For years, American presidential visits to Beijing revolved around the same topics: Taiwan, trade, sanctions or the military balance in Asia. However, they had TWZ analysts that in Donald Trump’s recent visit there was a detail that ended up attracting much more attention among military analysts and technological observers: two Chinese Hongqi SUVs with huge modified roofs that seemed to hide some kind of special system. They were not particularly elegant or discreet. In fact, they seemed heavy and strange. That is precisely why they attracted so much attention. The feeling they left is that China wanted teach something without showing it really. The big question after the trip was no longer just what Washington and Beijing had talked about, but what the hell exactly those vehicles were hiding. Modern warfare and protecting the sky. The most repeated theory links to something that we have been countingand these roofs could house electronic warfare systems, advanced communications or even anti-drone capabilities. The idea makes sense because the presidential caravans begin to face a relatively new problem: cheap drones capable of threatening even extremely protected world leaders. Ukraine, the Middle East and the Red Sea have shown that it no longer takes a sophisticated missile to create a huge security problem. That’s it forcing to transform VIP convoys in small fortresses mobile electronics. The Hongqi seen in Beijing fit perfectly in that trend: lots of interior space, extra weight and modifications probably designed to transport complex equipment rather than people. Caravan converted into a command center. The interesting thing is that those SUVs were not an isolated anomaly. The caravan also included Modified Suburbans, Lincoln Navigators, and Ford vans with antennas, sensors, and special roof structures. Everything suggested a mobile architecture of communications, surveillance and electronic interference much more sophisticated than usual. In practice, presidential convoys are beginning to look less like simple armored columns and more to command centers capable of operating in environments saturated with drones, electronic signals and autonomous threats. Not only that. Analysts recalled that China also used Hongqi vehicles, a brand very historically linked to Chinese political power, reinforces another important idea: Beijing wants to demonstrate that it can develop this type of strategic capabilities with its own national platforms. The new competition between powers. For a long time, the rivalry between China and the United States was measured with aircraft carriers, stealth fighters or hypersonic missiles. Now it’s starting to appear another competition quieter: who masters electronic and anti-drone protection in real scenarios. The recent wars have shown that nearby airspace has become extremely dangerous even far from the front. This requires protecting infrastructure, convoys and political leaders in completely new ways. In this context, a jamming system can be as important as traditional shielding. Beijing’s SUVs reflect precisely this change in mentality. Deliberately ambiguous message. Of course also, perhaps the most important thing is that no one really knows what those vehicles were transporting. And that uncertainty is probably part of the message. In today’s technological competition, projecting unknown capabilities is also a form of deterrence. The huge Hongqi roofs they seem designed to provoke questions rather than offer answers. Be that as it may, his appearance on a high-level presidential visit leaves a clear conclusion: while much of the world continues to look at Taiwan, Ukraine or Iran, China seems determined to teach discreetly something else. That the next great military revolution could not be in large visible platforms, but in mobile, discreet electronic systems prepared for a war dominated by drones. Now that Russia is about to fall in Beijing, it will be time to see if they show those SUVs again. Image | x In Xataka | Something is happening over the skies of Chile: the US and China are fighting their particular “cold war” in silence In Xataka | The US’s problem in the AI ​​and humanoid race is not China: it is all of Asia and it is greatly disadvantaged

Chinese Big Tech can now buy Nvidia GPUs. The problem for Nvidia is that they don’t need it now

by

The United States and China are immersed in a trade and technological war that has caught the line of fire to the AI ​​giant: Nvidia. The situation is that Nvidia must prioritize AI companies from the United States to guarantee the supremacy of this country, but as a company it would be interested in taking a bite out of the giant Chinese market. And the problem is twofold: it has not been able to do so for a long time due to trade vetoes, but now that it seems that it can sell its famous H200 to China, it turns out that China has turned the page. More or less. green light. Nvidia has gone from having a monopoly on AI GPUs in China to have a 0% quota. These are the words of the CEO, Jensen Huang, and the reason is the aforementioned trade restrictions between the powers that prevented Nvidia from selling its most powerful products to the Asian giant. Huang has spent months insisting on Donald Trump’s government to allow them to sell with a very clear logic: China is going to develop its alternatives and what better way to make a profit until then. The situation is gone relaxing at the end of last year and at the beginning of this to get to the point where we are now. According to Reutersthe US Department of Commerce already allows ten Chinese companies and distributors such as Foxconn and Lenovo acquire that long-awaited H200the company’s second most powerful AI chip. Good news for the company. Or they should be if it weren’t for the fact that the Chinese industry is going its own way looking home. Alibaba, ByteDance, JD.com and Tencent are the Chinese giants that can supposedly already buy H200. Up to 75,000 chips each, to be exact. However, it is noted that they have not yet made any shipments. Here there is a mix between very restrictive bureaucracy and, above all, that emphasis on national development. Tencent, for example, noted in September last year that they had no intention of producing AI chips, but that they were going to invest a lot of money in domestic partners. For example, they are in the process of adapting their infrastructure to be able to connect Huawei’s Ascend platform (particularly the Ascend 950 series) as the main training tool for large models. A few days ago, Tencent’s strategy director already pointed out that that strategy was still in place and that the company expects a significant increase in spending on AI GPUs designed in China. Manufacturing at home. Alibaba and Bytedance have a different approach. If Tencent is focusing on acquiring Huawei platforms, Alibaba and Bytedance are looking to create their own chips. Alibaba seeks to be the most powerful RISC-V chip created to date and it was reported that Bytedance wanted Samsung will manufacture its processor. In the end, whether buying from Huawei or developing the tool internally, the two approaches respond to the great national objective: that at least 50% of the data centers that belong to the State use at least 50% Chinese integrated circuits in their servers. That is one of the great Chinese technological impulses of recent years, one of the crucial points of the Five-Year Plan for the development of the country and, above all, the strategy that Nvidia had been warning the United States about for some time. The age of inference. Because this period of ostracism to which the US condemned China has served for the country to develop three very clear alternatives to Nvidia and encourage companies that are already working with models to develop their own hardware. This is important especially in the new AI framework we are entering, that of inference. Although the AI ​​will continue to train and GPUs will be needed for this, the next step is inference, the agentic era in which the processor or CPU is very important. AMD is moving there, same as Intel or ARMand precisely processors are something that Huawei is good at and in which the Chinese giants can shine as much as their American counterpart by developing chips tailored to their models and needs. Also, as pointed out in CNBChaving your own chips means you don’t have to fight with anyone else in a time when there is scarcity and, of course, if you don’t have to buy from an outsider, there is an improvement in the gross income margin. juicy cake. And this leaves Nvidia in that uncomfortable situation, one in which it wants to participate, but in which it seems that it is no longer needed as much as before. Because China is developing its chips for this new era of AI and Nvidia is running into a final boss called bureaucracy and the pressure groups of the ‘Make America Great Again‘. The first is due to the slowness of the export order processes, something that takes months when orders should be much more agile. The second are the aforementioned pressure groups that hold that any deals Nvidia makes with Chinese companies are less chips for American companies, something that should not be allowed. Meanwhile, Chinese companies are developing their alternatives and Huawei wants to flood the market with 750,000 chips this year, three times more than its shipments in 2025, and Nvidia is falling short of a $50 billion pie. In Xataka | The US has the best AI models. China has something else: AI too cheap to care about

The V60 has been an icon of specialty coffee for 20 years. Its first big update is coffee for coffee lovers

by

When you enter a specialty cafe and they have ‘V60’ on the menu, you automatically know that things have to be very bad for them to not make good coffee. The V60 is to filter coffee what the Bialetti is to italian coffee maker: a symbol, a declaration of intentions and a ‘gadget’ with a design so perfect that it has not had to be modified in its 20 years of life. Until now. Hario launched the original V60 around 2004 in a show of how a simple and functional design could be perfect for any level. Simply put, it is a cone with a 60 degree inclination (hence the name) that can be placed on top of your jug, any jug or even a cup. In that cone we place a paper filter, add the coffee, hot water and the coffee solution flows to the container. It is simple and came to solve the problem that Hario had detected in the percolation coffee makers that dominated in the 80s: those typical ones that many of our grandmothers have at home and that are the ones that appear in any American series in which the coffee remained there passively soaking until it came out under its own gravity and the jet black liquid was deposited in the jug. The classic V60 It was not what best extracted all the nuances of the coffee and Hario implemented three design ideas: The cone at 60 degrees so that the water tends to the center, lengthening the contact time without the need to create a long-lasting ‘pond’. A single exit hole which made it easy to make coffee for non-expert users, but also gave a lot of control possibilities to the expert user. By restricting the water channel, pouring speed, exposure time or grinding, different “recipes” can be created. Spiral striations on the cone. These “ribs” have a lot of technology behind them because they serve to release air between the filter and the wall, avoiding the suction effect of the paper and causing the filter to expand as the coffee releases the product. The translation is that Hario designed a coffee maker that combined simplicity, complication capacity for experts and that rib design that was very well thought out to facilitate a relatively quick extraction while being able to extract all the nuances of the coffee. It was so perfect that, over these 20 years, it really hasn’t changed beyond different sizes for the cone or the plastics and glass that came after the original Japanese porcelain version. There were some little problems and limitations and they released an accessory, the Hario Switch, but the most important thing of all is that the V60 was a good, versatile and very, very economical coffee maker that, as we say, there was no need to touch. And, then, Hario… touched her. The V60 Neo In what seems like a clear “find the differences” exercise, Hario presented the Hario V60 Neo. If you are not very involved in the coffee world and the new one seems the same as the old one, I have to tell you that the Neo was a tsunami that stirred up coffee content creators. It was the first time that Hario redesigned the conethe core of the V60, and has done so in two ways: design and material. The new V60 The material issue is the easiest to explain. The Neo is manufactured in a resin called ‘tritan’a plastic that retains great transparency, is resistant to both heat and impacts and has properties that make it very good in an essential issue for the most enthusiasts: very good thermal retention. This allows the temperature to remain stable during extraction so that the processes are more constant and it is easier to replicate a good coffee. The second change is the one that has drawn the most attention is a new geometry. From the larger “ribs,” Hario transitions to 72 microribs at the top that converge into nine channels at the base. The explanation is that these grooves will now guide the water much more uniformly, while the nine exit grooves ensure a clearer path towards the hole, minimizing the dreaded channeling. This channeling thing is interesting. because in any coffee maker, the water passes through the coffee and what it looks for is the least resistance in its path. If it encounters little resistance in one point, it will go that way, failing to go through other areas and, therefore, not extracting the solution that it could extract from the entire coffee. With the new design, what Hario suggests is that these channels will be minimized while we will be able to achieve a more uniform extraction. It seems like a lie, but there is a lot of technique in a cone that looks the same as the one from 20 years ago, but that makes sense if we look at the narrative of a brand that, it claims, has been working on prototypes and playing with fluid dynamics for two years. Is she a motorcycle dealer? Well… I don’t know. I have the original V60 and I am clear that my skills do not reach the point of thinking that those microribs are what I was missing to finish making the perfect coffee at home. I have not the slightest interest in this V60 Neo and, although it makes sense from the point of view of the very specific needs of a tiny niche of baristas, At home I don’t think it’s something different.. In fact, what interests me most about the new V60 is that they have kept the price very similar, so it remains one of the most affordable coffee makers with which to prepare a very good specialty coffee at home and, above all, it shows that a simple design, even if it can be intricate with micro-rib technology, triumphs if from the first moment it is a product that makes sense and that is … Read more

Big Tech spent $725 billion on AI. Then they ran out of money in their pockets.

by

This is non-stop. Big tech companies have already spent an irreverent amount of money in 2025 to not lose footing in the AI ​​race, but this year things are getting better. Together Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta have announced a capex of $725 billion, which represents an astonishing 77% growth over last year’s (also astonishing) figure of $410 billion. The numbers they are dizzyingbut they are having a worrying consequence. A lot of money saved. For years, Big Tech has been able to boast extraordinary accounting books in which revenues and profits have practically not stopped growing. They’ve built up exceptional cash flow, but now they’re taking advantage of all that money to fund an AI race that doesn’t seem to end at the moment. Cash flow plummets. The amount of investments is of such magnitude that all of these hyperscalers have encountered a problem: their cash flow—the available liquidity— has collapsedthey indicate in the Financial Times, and now it is at levels that we have not seen since 2014. Before, the average was to have 45,000 million dollars since the pandemic, but now that figure is expected to fall to 4,000 million in the third quarter of 2025. Source: Financial Times. Let’s see who spends more. Amazon leads this unique race for spend more than others. The company led by Andy Jassy foresees an investment of 200,000 million dollars in 2026, which will lead it to burn about 10,000 million of its cash flow this year. Meta will continue that same trend in the second half of the year, while Microsoft could enter negative territory in at least one quarter. Even Google, which remains positive, will post its lowest level of cash flow in a decade. Debt, new fuel for AI. To finance this deployment, both Alphabet and Meta have had to resort to massive debt issues and suspend their share buyback programs for the first time in almost a decade. Alphabet issued $48 billion in bonds recently (in February a partdoes some days other), while Meta sumo 55,000 million debt in just six months. Bet now to win later. This strategy marks a paradigm shift: it is no longer investing only with the income one has in cash, but Big Tech is mortgaging its future. The objective is what we have mentioned time and time again: not to lose step in a race where, as Zuckerberg said, staying behind is not an option. Disguising the beads. These companies fear Wall Street’s reaction to these movements, so they are moving billions of dollars in infrastructure but they are doing so outside of their conventional balance sheets. In the FT they explain how Big Tech are using special investment vehicles that allow them to attract external capital and hide debt. They are also more opaque about who will be impacted if the AI ​​does not meet expectations. The memory crisis is also having an impact: in such a way that Microsoft already has added 25 billion dollars to its investment needs this year just to be able to assume the increase in component prices. The danger of going with the flow. CEOs justify these moves by comparing them to what happened with cloud investment two decades ago, but analysts warn: investing when the competition invests is not always a strategic choice, but rather a forced response to staying out of the race. In Xataka | The chip crisis is leaving no stone unturned: motherboards seemed untouchable, but their time has come

The day a small dispute over the Tab key ended up revealing the big difference between IBM and Microsoft

by

There are companies that have lived so long that their story is no longer told only through big launches, acquisitions or business battles. It is also told in small details, in those seemingly minor scenes that, seen over time, end up explaining an era better than many official statements. Microsoft and IBM belong to that category. Their paths crossed when the personal computer It was still defining many of its rules, and some of those discussions, even the most minute ones, revealed something deeper than a technical difference. The scene has been recovered Raymond Chena veteran Microsoft engineer who has been linked to the evolution of Windows for more than three decades and who for years has gathered in The Old New Thing some of the most curious stories of the Windows and Microsoft ecosystem. Chen does not present the episode as his own experience, but as the memory of a colleague who was assigned to the IBM offices in Boca Raton, Florida, during the collaboration between both companies in OS/2. OS/2 was much more than just another name lost in software history. IBM and Microsoft presented it in 1987 as an operating system designed for the IBM PS/2 line and intended to take the PC beyond the limitations of DOS, with a more modern base and ambitions typical of computing that was beginning to look further afield. The collaboration came from a joint development agreement signed in 1985when the project was not yet called OS/2. In that context, any interface decision could have more weight than it seems today, because many conventions of the modern PC were still being established. Two very similar and also very different companies The problem is that that collaboration brought together two companies at very different times in their lives. Microsoft was still a young company, very attached to software and a more direct way of working, while IBM arrived with decades of history, a huge structure and the weight of a much more established corporate culture. Chen sums it up like a clash of perceptions: from Microsoft, IBM was seen as trapped in a meaningless bureaucracy, and from IBM, Microsoft was seen as undisciplined hackers. Its own nuance is important: there was probably something right in both readings. The specific anecdote begins in Boca Raton, where a colleague of Chen’s worked assigned to the IBM offices. At some point a discussion arose about which key should be used to move from one field to another within the dialog boxes. The Microsoft engineer made a decision that is almost invisible to us today because of how assumed it is: use Tab for that function. IBM was not convinced by the choice and asked that the matter will be escalated to the person responsible from that engineer in Redmond, a reaction that already hinted at the extent to which the discrepancy went beyond the key itself. In Redmond, the petition was not understood as an issue that deserved to be raised much higher. The engineer’s manager responded with a very clear idea: if Microsoft had sent someone to Boca Raton, it was so that they could resolve decisions like that there. Translated into a more institutional tone, the message that came back to IBM was that Microsoft supported the choice of the Tab key. IBM’s reaction was just the opposite. Instead of shutting down the discussion, the company elevated her up its own chain of command to a vice president, several levels above those who were programming. IBM had not only elevated the discussion, it also wanted a response to the same hierarchical height. If its vice president was against using Tab, Microsoft had to find someone equivalent to argue the opposite. Chen’s colleague then responded with a wonderful phrase, translated here into Spanish: “Bill Gates’ mother is not interested in the Tab key“It was a pretty nice way of saying that it wasn’t worth going up the corporate elevator anymore. It wasn’t necessary to go to the heights of Microsoft to decide how to move from one field to another in a dialog box. The phrase worked, at least according to Chen’s account: apparently, after that response, the discussion ended and Tab remained the key chosen to advance between fields. The detail is funny because today almost no one stops to think about it: we simply press Tab and wait for the cursor to jump to the next available space. But there was a time when that convention was not so closed. And what we see in this story is just that: a small interface decision turned into a clash between custom, hierarchy and technical criteria. The exact date, however, does not appear in Chen’s account. We know that the episode belongs to the years of collaboration between Microsoft and IBM around OS/2, whose joint development agreement dates back to 1985 and whose Public arrival occurred in 1987. This allows us to limit the context, but not to set the day or year of the discussion by Tab. There are many decisions behind the products and services we use every day. Some are huge and visible, but others fly under the radar: a key, a gesture, an interface convention that we learn once and repeat for years without wondering where it came from. Surely many have a story behind them, although most never transcend and others would not be particularly interesting. From time to time, however, an anecdote like this appears and allows us to peek into something we almost never see: how things are handled within the companies that build the technology we use. Images | Kaatvrtg (Wikimedia Commons) | In Xataka | In 1993 Microsoft created Encarta to revolutionize knowledge. Twenty years later it would be devastated by a tsunami

Big tech had ambitious climate goals. Then the AI ​​came and started devouring them

by

There was a time when technology seemed to have found a comfortable way to tell its climate future. The big companies talked about “clean energy”net zero emissions, increasingly efficient operations and commitments dated to 2030 or 2040. It was an attractive story because it coexisted with our daily use of the internet, services and applications. Generative AI, however, has complicated that picture: not only does it bring more smart services, it also requires more infrastructure, more electricity, and climate pressure that is much more difficult to square with the promises those same companies made just a few years ago. The most recent movement comes from Microsoft. Bloomberg has published that the company would be considering delaying or even abandoning one of its most ambitious energy goals, at a time when the race for AI requires increasingly more computing capacity. Tell OpenAI or Anthropic. This case does not appear in a vacuum: other large technology companies are also facing increasingly visible challenges to fit their climate commitments with the expansion of their data centers. The question is no longer just what they promised, but what happens when those promises collide with the actual scale of AI. The companies did not reach these commitments in a single way nor did they promise exactly the same thing. Some focused on the purchase of renewable energy, others on zero-carbon electricity, others on net-zero emissions, and others on eliminating more carbon than they generate. There were also different reasons for doing so: regulatory pressure, investor expectations, reputation and a fairly widespread conviction that digital infrastructure could grow. without triggering its climate impact. What interests us here is not to review all those promises, but to follow some of the most ambitious ones and see how they are holding up to the AI ​​race that is unfolding before our eyes. Climate promises in the face of expanding data centers As we say, the fundamental change is that many of these commitments were formulated before generative AI became an absolute priority for the industry. Until then, the growth of data centers was already a challenge, but it could be projected with a more gradual logic. The new race has altered that pace: training models, deploying them in massive products, and answering large-scale queries requires computing power that grows very quickly. What once seemed like a difficult but manageable roadmap now faces a different dynamic. Microsoft was one of the companies that formulated one of the most demanding goals. In July 2021 he announced his 100/100/0 commitment, a way of saying that by 2030 he wanted match 100% of your electricity consumption100% of the time, with zero-carbon energy purchases. The nuance matters: it was not just about offsetting annual consumption with renewables, but about getting closer to an hour-by-hour correspondence. Furthermore, the company proposed doing so in the same electrical networks from which it took that energy. Now that commitment is under obvious pressure. The aforementioned economic media indicated that the Redmond company is studying delaying or even abandoning it, according to anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter, while seeking to clear obstacles to powering its data centers. Microsoft has not confirmed that change and its director of sustainability, Melanie Nakagawa, maintained that the company remains committed to its environmental goals. He also left an insight that sets the tone for the official response: any adjustment would be part of a review of approach, not a change in long-term ambition. Google also set a powerful goal. In 2021, the Mountain View company set the goal to achieve net zero emissions across its operations and value chain by 2030, including its consumer hardware products. To achieve this, he proposed reduce 50% its absolute emissions compared to 2019, not only those generated directly by the company, but also those linked to its activity and its supply chain. What it could not reduce, according to its roadmap, it would compensate by removing carbon from the atmosphere through natural and technological solutions. The current situation shows how difficult it is to put this roadmap into practice. In its 2025 environmental reportGoogle points out that in 2024 its emissions were 11.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent. That is 11% more than the previous year and 51% above its 2019 base. The nuance is important: they did not increase 51% in one year, but rather compared to the starting point chosen by the company. The report itself also recognizes that integrating more AI into its products can complicate the reduction of emissions due to the greater demand for computing and technical infrastructure. Amazon also presented a high-ambition climate pledge. In September 2019the e-commerce giant announced together with Global Optimism The Climate Pledge, a commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040ten years before the horizon set by the Paris Agreement. The company founded by Jeff Bezos became the first signatory of that initiative, which called for measuring and reporting emissions on a regular basis, applying decarbonization strategies and neutralizing remaining emissions with additional, quantifiable, real, permanent and socially beneficial compensations. Amazon’s situation shows that these promises already had gray areas even before AI was at the center of the debate. In September 2023, Data Center Dynamics published that the Science Based Targets initiative had removed the Amazon commitment from its panel and placed it in the “expired commitment” category. The reason, according to the media, was that both parties were unable to agree on a sufficiently significant emissions target. Amazon responded that the requirements had changed and that it would continue to look for credible third-party validators. In this sense, general photography goes in the same direction. The US Department of Energy estimates that the Data centers consumed around 4.4% of the country’s electricity in 2023 and could be between 6.7% and 12% in 2028. The International Energy Agency also projects a relevant leap on a global scale: from about 415 TWh in 2024 to about 945 TWh in 2030. Not all of this growth can be attributed solely to AI, … Read more

DeepSeek V4 has given China the boost it needs against the US. Four chip makers are the big winners

by

DeepSeek V4 It is the catalyst China needed. This model of artificial intelligence (AI) developed by the quantitative hedge fund specialized in trading algorithmic High-Flyer has been designed natively to live with Chinese chips. This is exactly the strategy that the Chinese government supports in response to the pressure that the US is putting on China. The Administration led by Donald Trump prevents the most powerful GPUs from Nvidia, AMD or Cerebras from reaching this Asian country. And Beijing has decided to do without them. The challenge facing the Chinese government is that it is much easier to set this goal than to put it into practice. This is the scenario in which DeepSeek V4 has emerged as the asset that China needs. And its arrival has led, for the first time, to several Chinese AI chip designers achieving something that until now had only been within the reach of Nvidia: guaranteeing full compatibility with the latest High-Flyer AI model from day 0. A great opportunity for Huawei, Cambricon, Moore Threads and Hygon DeepSeek V4 has marked a turning point. Its adoption in China is likely to be very notable, which has caused AI chip designers to compete among themselves to ensure full compatibility with this model from the moment it arrives. None of them wants to miss the opportunity to grow in the largest market on the planet if we stick to the most relevant indicators, such as purchasing power parity or the volume of population with the capacity to consume. Huawei is one of the companies that benefited most from the arrival of DeepSeek V4 Huawei will surely be one of the companies that will benefit the most from the arrival of DeepSeek V4. And its entire portfolio of GPUs for AI is compatible with this model. Nevertheless, your Ascend 950PR chip has been established as the main inference solution. A note before moving forward: inference is broadly speaking the computational process carried out by language models with the purpose of generating responses that correspond to the requests they receive. China’s three largest internet groups (Alibaba, ByteDance and Tencent) have placed orders for several hundred thousand Ascend 950PR processors following the launch of DeepSeek V4, according to Reuters. However, Huawei is not the only Chinese company that has won the lottery with the arrival of this AI model. Cambricon Technologiesthe Chen brothers’ company, has already completed the adaptation to the framework open source vLLM inference framework and has published the code on GitHub. Besides, Moore Threads has worked closely with the Beijing Artificial Intelligence Academy to run DeepSeek V4 on its MTT S5000 card using the FlagOS software stack. And Hygon has carried out a deep optimization of this model in its DCU platform with the purpose of consolidating its hardware as an attractive option for industrial use. The competitiveness of DeepSeek V4 outside of China is unclear because is less capable than its more advanced American competitors, but its future within the borders of its home country appears to be guaranteed. Image | Huawei More information | SCMP In Xataka | The US’s problem in the AI ​​and humanoid race is not China: it is all of Asia and it is greatly disadvantaged

More and more people are looking at invasive species as the new big culinary goldmine. Science has something to say

by

Honolulu, Hawaii, is famous for its beaches and the kind of paradise landscapes you dream of when planning your vacation. A few weeks ago, however, one of its most picturesque beaches hosted a contest that sounded like anything but paradise: “Eat the Invaders” (“Eat the invaders”). Although the title may be shocking macabre, in reality it was a fishing tournament in which participants had to capture three invasive species. Then a chef was in charge of preparing them to demonstrate that, in addition to being a huge environmental problem, fish ta’ape, to‘ouch either roi They can be a delicacy. It seems like an anecdote, but that Honolulu tournament is just part of a much bigger problem: the ‘invasivorism‘. What the hell is ‘invasiveness’? The word is confusing, but it refers to a very easy concept to understand: the ‘invasiveness’ It consists of neither more nor less than consuming invasive species. Exactly what encouraged to do a few weeks ago in Honolulu: stop seeing ta’ape or roi as simple invasive species and understand them as something more, an ingredient for delicious dishes. In theory, this does not mean that we give up eradicating them or ignore the damage they cause to local ecosystems. It is simply encouraged to go further and turn the problem into an opportunity. Does it only happen in Hawaii? Not at all. Honolulu residents haven’t invented anything new. Not even the slogan of “Eat the Invaders”, which is actually the title of a series from the ABC network that explores precisely the culinary potential of Australia’s invasive species. In 2025 even the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) used that same hook (“Eat the invaders”) to launch a campaign that encouraged taking advantage of species introduced by man and that now threaten native diversity. “Consumption of invasive species can help protect native fauna and flora. By trapping, trapping and consuming them we can reduce their population and the damage they cause,” claims an article signed by Erin Huggins, from the FWS communications area, which details half a dozen species that represent a problem in the US and “should be considered”: Myocastor coypus, Channa argus, iguana iguanasilver carp and Sus scrofacreatures from other areas of America, Asia or Europe. Sounds good, right? That’s the crux of the matter. At first glance it seems like squaring the circle: an invasive species is combated and in the process a benefit is easily transferred to the entire population. The idea is so powerful that in 2013 even the FAO encouraged fighting jellyfish plagues with a similar slogan: “If you can’t fight them, eat them.” The problem is that there are experts who believe that invasiveness is actually a trap that is tantalizingly easy to fall into. At first it seems like the perfect solution, but it often ends up aggravating the invasions. The issue is of sufficient concern that a group of scientists from several countries, led by the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station, has published an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in which he questions the basic argument of invasiveness: that the consumption of invasive species is an intelligent strategy, especially if it ends up turning the capture and exploitation of those same species into a lucrative business. “Encouraging commercialization can create incentives to maintain them instead of eradicating them.” What do they say exactly? That what at first seems like a solution can end up becoming a problem. “Invasivorism is usually presented as a strategy win-win (mutual benefit) based on the idea that the consumption of an invasive species generates wealth while minimizing its impacts”, recognize Fran Officialdegui, researcher at the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station and main author of the article. “But the reality is much more complex, and in many situations, when the problem becomes a business, a resistance to ending it arises.” “What is not often said is that the objectives of commercial exploitation and management of invasive species are, in most cases, opposite,” affects the researcher before warning of the greatest risk: that a market will be generated around foreign species. When this happens to the interest in eradicating them, another that pulls in the opposite direction can be added: the interest in conserving them. Can that really happen? It has already happened, in fact. In their article, the researchers recall the case of the Kamchatka crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Although it is a species native to the North Pacific, about 60 years ago the USSR decided to introduce it to the Barents Sea, in the Arctic. There these crustaceans found a place where they could easily expand and ended up becoming a pest. Also in something else: the engine of a prosperous business that over time led to overexploitation. What did the authorities do when fishing threatened to eliminate the theoretically invasive species? Catch limits were set to guarantee the business that had been created. Why are they issuing the warning now? Because, as they remember from the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station, the discourse of invasiveness seems to be settling little by little. And in part this expansion is due to campaigns promoted by companies, administrations and even conservation organizations that are carried away by the motto of “If you can’t beat them, eat them!” that already used years ago the FAO. Officialdegui also warns that what happened in his day with the Kamchatka crab could be replicated in Spain with the Callinectes sapidusor blue crab, a invasive species whose goodness culinary now they start promoting themselves. In fact it is easy to find recipes that explain how to prepare it with rice. “It is very likely that scenarios similar to that of the Kamchatka crab will occur on the peninsula when, once the commercial exploitation of the blue crab is established (Callinectes sapidus), there are declines in its population”, keep it up Officialdegui. In his opinion, invasiveness can help raise social awareness about the risk of exotic species, but that cannot mislead us. “Addressing biological invasions requires long-term commitment, scientific knowledge and coordinated … Read more

Ibiza has evicted 200 people who lived in campers and caravans. Their big problem is that they are key workers for the island

by

If you enter Idealista and you are looking for a home For rent in Ibiza the cheapest option right now, a 32 m2 studio in Sant Joan de Labritja with the kitchen almost at the foot of the bed, is 799 euros. And that, the ad warns, is only the price of “the winter season.” Looking ahead to spring and summer, things change. The next option, a 35 m2 studio, already costs 1,000 euros. From there up. Especially if you are looking for near Eivissa. With similar prices to many workers who keep the island’s hospitality and construction industry afloat they have no other choice than staying in cabins, shanties, vans or (hopefully) caravans. The problem is that they are often installed in unauthorized settlements that end up dismantled by court order. What has happened? That Ibiza has just expanded its (increasingly large) list of evicted settlements. He April 21 About twenty police officers went to the Sa Joveria site, near the Ibiza fairgrounds, to clear what was probably the largest settlement of substandard housing on the entire island. When the agents arrived there were barely any tenants left (the date of the operation was announced days before), but it is estimated that in Sa Joveria they have come to live (badly) more than 130 people who spent their daily lives in caravans, shacks, tents or vans camperized. Just a few days later, the April 29another judicial delegation moved to Can Misses to dismantle another settlement made up of caravans, tents and shacks. The photo was similar: when the agents arrived at the lot there were hardly any people left, but not so long ago more than fifty people lived there (it is estimated that between 70 and 80), part of them bounced from a previous eviction in Can Rova. The eviction left no incidentsbut it is a new reminder of the housing challenge that Ibiza faces. Are these the first evictions? Not at all. a few days ago Ibiza Diary took stock and counted at least half a dozen similar operations since 2024, including the last two in Sa Joveria and Can Misses. The list starts with what was probably the most dramatic episode of all: the eviction of Can Rova in the summer of 2024, when agents from the Santa Eulària police and the Civil Guard dismantled a settlement in which they lived hundreds of peopleincluding children. The episode ended with detained. In March 2025, a similar (more peaceful) operation was carried out in Can Raspalls and in July of that same year the scene was repeated in the es Gorg and Can Rova industrial estate (again). Now the authorities have returned to act in Sa Joveria and Can Misses, among other reasons due to the fire and pest risk what the settlement entailed. “Ibiza city has a major housing problem, but the administration cannot tolerate this becoming a habit of life,” argues the mayor, Rafael Triguero. Why is it a problem? Ibiza is not the only territory in Spain (or Europe) that deals with illegal shanty settlements. The problem is that there is a peculiarity on the island that is explained by its residential market: a good part of those who are forced to survive aboard motorhomes or vans parked in lots like Can Misses or Sa Joveria are not people at risk of ‘social exclusion’, without jobs or fixed income. It comes with reading the local press and the interviews with evicted people to understand that construction, hospitality and tourism workers also live in the towns. People with stable jobs and payrolls that exceed 1,000 euros per month. The problem is simply that their salaries are not enough to find housing. Or what they find (rooms in shared apartments in exchange for exorbitant rents) is less attractive than the prospect of living alone in caravans or vans. Are there testimonies? Yes. Recently The Country chatted for example with Ahmed, a 35-year-old immigrant from Western Sahara who works in a five-star hotel on the island. At least until a few weeks ago, before the eviction of Sa Joveria, at the end of his shift he returned to the cabin built with wood and cardboard that served as his home. The newspaper claims that 80% Of those who lived on the plot were Sahrawis who worked as seasonal workers in the construction and tourism sectors. Another similar case was that of Mohamed, 38 years old, installed in a tent. Also interesting is the experience of Yamile Elisabeth, a Venezuelan who has resided in Spain since 2019. Until her eviction, explains to elDiariolived in a van in Can Misses for which he paid 550 euros a month. “When you look for a rental, they easily ask for 1,000 euros and three or four months’ deposit to share a small space with five other people,” the woman clarifieswho claims that he works several hours a day cleaning a bank branch, although in reality he has training as a physiotherapist and last summer he earned 1,600 euros by working six days. Is housing that expensive? Not only is housing becoming more expensive in Ibiza, but there are a number of factors that have put special strain on its market. The first is its status as an island, with limited space. The second, its enormous demand for tourist accommodation, which even leads some homeowners to abandon them in summer (they temporarily move into caravans) to rent to visitors. The result is prohibitive income for many workers, including civil servants. Three years ago, in fact, the case of a firefighter at Ibiza airport who was forced to settle in a caravan was reported. “The only solution to save some money”, recognized the man, of Andalusian origin, in an interview with laSexta. Is there more? Yes. The problem, as remember our colleagues Motorpassionthe thing is that living in a caravan on the island is not that simple either… or economical. Laws like the 5/2024 vehicle control or that of the Rustic Land of … Read more

We believed that the secret to rest was sleeping eight hours. A study has shown that we forget a big element

by

One of the mantras most repeated ad nauseum in the field of health is related to the need to sleep at least eight hours nightly. A goal that has been widely studied with the repercussions that failure to meet it may have. But now we have seen how the regularity in sleep is a much more powerful preacher of long-term health than mere duration. It’s when you sleep. Although we had very ‘glorified’ how much sleep we have to, trying to make up for lost hours on the weekendthe reality is that the important thing is to have good consistency, as is the case with many other processes. The regularity. The scientific consensus on this paradigm shift is gaining strength, and the last major proof is published by the National Sleep Foundation with an article that points to this regularity as one of the most forgotten components of our nocturnal habits. The key here lies in the internal clock, since we must remember that the time of waking up and early exposure to natural light is what activates our internal system with the cortisol release. In this way, by maintaining a constant reference, we ensure that critical biological processes, from hormonal secretion to body temperature, are regularized. When we don’t respect it. Just like when we travel to another country and we follow schedules very different from ours, the same thing happens here. We have the classic situation on the weekend, where we go to bed late and get up two or three hours later than usual, and surely the feeling when we get up is exhaustion. This is what is now known as ‘social jet lag’ or ‘Monday jet lag’, responsible for that mental fog, lack of alertness and low cognitive function with which we start the week. A shield. Unlike total sleep duration, regularity is a direct marker of the integrity of our circadian system, since when the internal clock and the demands of the environment become out of sync, known as chronodisruption, the body suffers. Just like when we travel between countries or experience time change. Here, a study published in Health Data Science HE dedicated analyzed more than 88,000 adults in the United Kingdom and found that irregular sleep patterns are associated with a greater predisposition to suffer from up to 172 different diseases. In fact, actigraphy studies have shown that intra-individual variability in our sleep hours is a direct marker of all-cause mortality, so trying to accumulate hours on Saturdays and Sundays not only does not save the furniture, but it puts us at risk. The impact of irregularity. In this sense, a linear relationship can be seen between sleep instability and the risk of suffering a cardiac event. But trying to “compensate” for tiredness on the weekend also results in worse insulin sensitivity and ends up altering glucose metabolism, which causes the bill to be quite expensive in the long run. Furthermore, the lack of a clear sleep routine causes a chronic pro-inflammatory state. This alteration compromises our immune response to pathogens, worsens the regulation of autoimmune diseases, and decreases the ability of our cells to repair themselves and eliminate metabolic waste. In summary, following set hours of sleep is essential if we really want to have optimal results in our daily lives. Images | diana.grytsku in Magnific In Xataka | We have accepted that “deep sleep” is the standard for sleep quality: science points in another direction

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.