China has been boasting about its driverless robotaxis for years. Until more than 100 have stood at once in Wuhan

The screen inside said: “Driving system failure. Staff will arrive in five minutes.” But no one came. The passenger pressed the SOS button and was told they were on their way, but it took 30 minutes just to get someone to pick up the phone. Meanwhile, the robotaxi was still stopped in the middle of a lane in Wuhan, with traffic passing on both sides. That is what happened on the night of Tuesday, April 1, in the Chinese city of Wuhan: More than a hundred autonomous cars from Apollo Go, Baidu’s robotaxis subsidiary, have stopped working at the same time due to a system failure. It is the first time that a collective robotaxis blackout has occurred in China, and it has exposed a concern that the sector has been avoiding for some time. Why is it important. Baidu is not a minor player. Apollo Go operates more than 1,000 robotaxis in Wuhan alone, its largest deployment, and has already accumulated more than 20 million trips in its history. The company just started in Abu Dhabi and Dubaithe two large cities of the United Arab Emirates; It is negotiating its entry into the United Kingdom and Switzerland, and has an agreement with Uber to operate through its app. An incident of this magnitude doesn’t come at any time: it comes when the company, like its entire sector, is trying to convince the world that it is ready to scale. Between the lines. Technically, the incident could be explained in many ways. Some Chinese media cited anonymous sources who pointed to the security self-verification systems, which would have detected some abnormal condition and stopped the vehicles preventively. If this were the case, the system would have worked exactly as designed, but the result has been chaotic: cars stopped in the center lanes of expressways, some passengers trapped for more than 90 minutes, collisions caused by vehicles that suddenly braked on highways… That no one has been injured is almost a matter of luck. The contrast. It is not the only precedent. In December 2025, A power outage in San Francisco left Waymo robotaxis immobilized throughout the cityforcing Waymo to send software updates for its entire fleet. Months before, in August, An Apollo Go fell into a ditch in Chongqing; in may, a Pony.ai car caught fire in Beijingwithout causing injuries. It’s easy to see a certain pattern: large-scale autonomous driving has not yet achieved the reliability it needs to justify the trust that is being asked of the public. And now what. Cars stopping is a problem, but an even bigger problem is that no one knows why. Baidu has not explained what caused the failure or how long it took to resolve it. Wuhan police have confirmed the incident but without giving further details about the cause. This opacity weighs as much or more than the incident, especially if we talk about a sector that has been arguing for years that its cars are safer than those driven by humans. We assume that is very true, but block failures like this do not invite optimism without questions. Featured image | Baidu-Apollo In Xataka | Waymo’s self-driving cars have started honking at each other. At 4 in the morning

Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have been boasting independence from the EU for decades. Global chaos is about to change everything

The war between the United States, Israel and Iran is shaking the foundations of the historic independence of the nations that make up the European Free Trade Association (EFTA or EFTA). Faced with an increasingly volatile geopolitical panorama, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland find themselves at a crossroads and look, each at their own pace, towards the European Union in search of refuge. The question that now haunts European parliaments is no longer just political, but purely industrial: are they willing to sacrifice parts of their sovereignty in exchange for the protection and stability that Brussels offers? As explained to the newspaper Five Days Sophie Altermatt, economist at Julius Baer, ​​these countries face external pressures from increasingly interventionist superpowers. The United States has become a much less predictable ally on trade and security, while China’s growing ambitions endanger European industrial competitiveness and create vulnerabilities in supply chains. The rhetoric of US President Donald Trump, who has even suggested his intention to annex Greenland, has acted as a powerful catalyst for this change in mentality. As the magazine warns The Spectatorquoting a maxim from Mark Carney: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” The return of hard power politics is forcing middle powers to reevaluate their place in the world. From the European side, the door is open. As detailed by the Icelandic public broadcaster RÚVEU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos has stressed that the current geopolitical context is fundamentally different from the past and that EU membership offers “an anchor in a bloc based on values, prosperity and security.” Are we facing a real approach? Moving towards greater integration implies sitting at the table where decisions are made, but also assuming a clash of sovereignties. Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide, leader of the Norwegian Conservative Party, acknowledged in a parliamentary debate collected by Five Days that remaining outside the Union generates enormous vulnerabilities, since their country remains “on the margins of everything we want to enter into.” However, the price of admission is high. Political analyst Thomas Vermes explains in the Norwegian middle ABC Nyheter that the EU is transforming towards a federation where supranational organizations assume more and more authority. Entering means submitting to decisions by qualified majority – where large countries have more demographic weight – and growing pressure to eliminate the right to veto on key issues. In addition, it would imply assuming joint economic burdens, such as the common debt of 90 billion euros contracted to help Ukraine. In fact, the possible entry of Ukraine would radically transform the bloc’s economy. According to the same Norwegian mediathe incorporation of the 41 million hectares of Ukrainian agricultural land would flood the markets and force rural aid to be restructured. Three countries, three different rhythms The answer to this dilemma varies drastically depending on the resources each nation brings to the table. Iceland: The direct path and the referendum in sight The Icelandic government has stepped on the accelerator and passed a resolution to hold a referendum on August 29, 2026 on resuming EU membership, a measure supported by 57% of the population. Iceland would provide the EU with a vital logistics position in the emerging Arctic trade routes and strategic supply: already is the fourth largest supplier of aluminum of the block, material that accounts for more than half of its exports to Europe. Nevertheless, as reported RÚVthe Minister of Foreign Affairs, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, has drawn a non-negotiable red line: she will not sign any agreement that involves ceding control over the island’s precious natural resources to the EU. Norway: The fractured debate Although the country rejected joining the EU in 1972 and 1994, the debate has been resurrected. According to The Spectatorthe conservative party (Høyre), now led by the determinedly pro-European Ine Eriksen Søreide, is “clearly a yes party.” Polls show an increase in support for accession, rising from 27% in 2023 to 41% in 2025. However, the current Labor government of Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre is strongly opposed. Despite not being a member, Norway is Europe’s absolute energy guarantor after the invasion of Ukraine: it supplies 51.8% of the pipeline gas and 14.6% of the crude oil consumed by the EU. Precisely for this, the internal opposition is fierce. Columnist Hans Christian Hansen warns in the financial journal Finansavisen that the EU is losing technological ground to the US and Asia. According to Hansen, while the US uses energy to attract industry, the EU uses it to “self-regulate with increasing rigor” and promote projects of uncertain profitability such as offshore wind. The question he asks his compatriots is brutal: “Do we want to link our energy policy, our industry and our future to a team that is already losing?” Switzerland: The pragmatic path and bilateral agreements Unlike the Nordics, Switzerland does not contemplate full accession so as not to compromise its historical neutrality, but it is making progress in its economic and technological integration. President Ursula von der Leyen and Swiss President Guy Parmelin They signed the “Bilateral III” package. This framework modernizes agreements on transport and free movement, and adds crucial pacts on health, food security and Swiss participation in the European space agency and the Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes. In addition, it will allow it to fully enter the internal electricity market in the EU. The objective of the Federal Council is “stabilize and future-proof the proven bilateral track“. The Federal Council approved the sending of this package to the Parliamentor, proposing to subject it to an optional referendum to guarantee its democratic legitimacy on sensitive issues such as salary protection. Switzerland’s weight is undeniable: in 2023, bilateral trade in services reached €245 billion, representing almost 9% of the EU’s total services trade. Forecasts in sight? The geopolitical board will continue to move. If Iceland eventually joins the EU, the pressure on Norway will be immense. As conservative leader Søreide arguesNorway would be in a “completely different situation” if its EFTA partner makes the leap. For its part, Switzerland … Read more

Some investors are already boasting about the fortunes they lost

The digital age has given us few genuinely pure pleasures, but one of the indisputable ones has been watching that train wreck in slow motion (well, not very slow) that was the fall from grace of NFTs. First, international cryptobrokers They tried to convince us that paying millions for a certified jpg was a safe investment. Just a few months later, those images were worth just a few dollars. The fall has been so precipitous that now, many of those same investors laugh at their own financial misfortune. It is the definitive death certificate of NFTs. What happened then? The NFT phenomenon began with early experiments as early as 2012 with the so-called Colored Coinsbut the real boom started in 2017 with CryptoKitties on Ethereumwhich showed the potential of NFTs: basically, they are unique digital assets that “represent” the ownership of a digital or physical object, certified using blockchain technology to guarantee its authenticity and uniqueness. Unlike cryptocurrencies, which are interchangeable with each other, each NFT is unrepeatable and cannot be replaced by another identical one, functioning as a digital certificate of ownership and authenticity.​ In 2021, NFTs reached their peak of popularity with multi-million dollar sales such as Beeple’s “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” at Christie’s for 69 million dollarsand iconic collections like Bored Ape Yacht Club They generated great attention and million-dollar valuations. However, after a spectacular boom, the market began to decline in 2022 due to oversupply, extreme speculation and concerns about scams, resulting in an abrupt drop in sales. Eat the rich. After the collapse of 2022a certain tendency was generated on the internet to mock the speculative bubble that enveloped NFTs in 2021 and the enormous losses suffered by many investors: around 95% of NFTs had lost all value. Already then the practice of sharing screenshots of NFTs at a loss became fashionable. In part it was a recurring joke from the very origin of the phenomenon, in which people shared the capture of an NFT, showing that there was no essential difference between an NFT and the copy of an NFT, beyond a document that certified which was the “original” and which was the copy. Famous people in disgrace. The internet likes nothing more than laughing at a celebrity or a millionaire, and even more so when they fall into the clutches of a pyramid scheme with planetary reach. For example, much was said about Justin Bieber, who bought a Bored Ape NFT for $1.3 million in 2022 and fell 95% in value in 2023. Another classic example: the NFT that was a screenshot of the first tweet of Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter. It was sold in 2021 for $2.9 million and less than a year later its owner tried to resell it, reaching an offer of a few thousand dollars, that is, a loss of value of more than 99%. In July 2023, it was worth $3.77. In general, NFTs and their physical volatility gave rise to a good amount of scandals and scams in which celebrities such as Seth Green, Jay Choy and Melania Trump were involved. From lost to the river. Curiously, many of those who lost millionaire amounts with NFTs are showing their shame on social networks, and describing how much they spent and how much their investment is now worth: a mix of collective warning and taking misfortunes with humor (because they can) which, of course, is spread to the derision of the influencers who tried to sell the motorcycle to their followers. A tweeter He bought this monster for 17,000 and now it’s worth ten dollars. The user @NFTsAreNice (lol) bought this for 31,000 and now it’s worthless. Another investor spent three fucking million in thiswhich is now worth 25,000. It has gone even worse for this other one, who invested 1.8 million and now it’s worth 450. They all use the formula “I bought this NFT in 2022 for…”, and the curious thing is that many of them are still in the cryptocurrency or NFT business, and have profiles as supposedly reliable investors. Significantly, some of them have received in response to their laments messages of “You don’t cry in the casino”, a typical phrase that cryptobrokers utter when they fall into heavy losses after heavy investments. Come on, the “who wants a bag” of a lifetime. In Xataka | The first trial on NFTs and copyright in Spain confirms it: everything always revolved around profits

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.