building

China is building a megastructure for deep-sea research. For whatever reason, resist nuclear bombs

by

China is building a mega thing. It doesn’t matter when you read this: the Asian giant always has a mega dam underwayhe highest bridge in the world either an impossible road in the bag. However, one of the country’s latest projects is not a mega-construction, but a floating artificial “island,” which can navigate and designed to be self-sufficient. Oh, and most importantly: prepared for the end of the world. The “island”. Waiting for it to receive a somewhat more “commercial” name, in a report by South China Morning Post They refer to the facility as the “Deep-Sea All-Wather Resident Floating Research Facility.” It is a name that is equivalent to “what do you want this station to do” and the answer is “yes,” and it is basically a mix between a research center, command center and nuclear bunker. It will be a semi-submersible platform with a 78,000 ton twin hull design and considerable dimensions: 138 meters long. 85 meters wide. Main deck 45 meters from the waterline. Long duration missions. The project specifications show that the platform is projected to house almost 240 people for four months without the need for any replenishment. In addition, it can sail at a speed of up to 15 knots and something that gives us a clue to its colossal ambition is that the engines allow a displacement comparable to that of the Fujian, the brand new Chinese aircraft carrier of 80,000 tons. Bomb proof (nuclear). If you’re thinking about a fortress that could be worthy of a Marvel movie, here’s the shot. The structure will resist waves up to nine meters high and category 17 typhoons, the highest for this type of cyclone. But the most striking thing is that it will have special armor to resist nuclear explosions. Instead of conventional steel armorthe walls of the complex will be built with a design that converts the powerful shock waves of a nuclear explosion into ones that the structure can assimilate. As a “dissipator” of the power of the wave, wow. To do this, they have resorted to a metamaterial which, when subjected to pressure, compresses, creating a denser and stronger structure than much thicker steel panels. According to simulations, its walls resist more pressure than those of a submarine and four times more than those of a conventional ship, but with a plate thickness of only 60 mm. Back.To withstand these long periods at sea, and as describe from Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in an article in which they talk about the superstructure, the installation contains critical compartments that guarantee emergency power, but also backup for communications and a navigation center equally protected against nuclear explosions. China is taking leaps and bounds in its fleet Strategy. The SJTU describes it as a research center and, although the project has been described as “civilian”, its specifications make it comply with the Chinese military standard GJB 1060.1-1991 against nuclear explosions. Therefore, although it can be used for deep-sea research, it could also operate in areas where warships could not be accessed (such as waters near diplomatically sensitive countries or territories). This is something that does not frighten a China that does not hesitate to deploy its ships in disputed territoriesand from SCMP they point out that the installation could function as a resilient command center, a logistics center or a surveillance station that, in addition, is less invasive than a fixed structure built on land. It’s not that far away. Although we now know of its existence, this station has been on the drawing board for a decade and is expected to reach operational status in 2028. Once completed, we will be able to see what it is capable of and, above all, what use it is given. Because therein lies its importance as a research center to support the “blue economy” (extraction of deep sea resources, renewable energies and marine research), but also its military component. The photo, by the way, is not of a real structure, but of an interpretation of the SJTU. Images | SJTU, 中国新闻社 In Xataka | China is immersed in a nuclear revolution and needs industrial quantities of uranium. His solution: “fish” it in the sea

There are those who think that the housing crisis can be solved by building. At the Polytechnic University of Catalonia they believe they are wrong

by

Spain has a problem with housing. That is an (almost) objective fact. The CIS says so, which places it as the great concern of the Spanish, but a quick review of the newspaper archive arrives to confirm it. During the last months few topics have generated more political debate or have taken out so many people on the street such as difficulties in accessing a home. What is no longer so clear is how to solve this “crisis” residential area recognized by the Government itself. Should we build more houses? Does Spain suffer from a housing deficit? Do we need more land to build? Usually the answer to those three questions is a strong ‘yes’. Now a new study signed by two professors of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC) and published in a magazine linked to the Ministry of Housing points out that perhaps we were wrong. What has happened? That two professors from the Higher Technical School of Architecture of Barcelona (ETSAB), Blanca Arellano-Ramos and Josep Roca-Cladera, have published a study about the problems that Spain is facing in terms of housing. The report in question is titled ‘Five theses about housing policy in Spain’ and is included in a monograph of CyTETa magazine published by the Ministry of Housing. So far nothing exceptional. The curious thing is that the text questions many of the ideas rooted in the real estate sector, such as that our country suffers from a housing deficit or needs more land to build. While the Bank of Spain (BE) estimates 700,000 homes the mismatch between supply and demand, the study questions whether there really is a ‘hole’ in the market or that prices will go down if we build more. Is there a housing deficit? As already indicated in its title, the article is structured around five theses. And the first addresses precisely that point: Does Spain suffer from a housing deficit? The question is interesting because it is one of the most deeply rooted ideas in the sector. The Bank of Spain itself has calculated that it would be necessary 700,000 houses to meet residential demand. For Arellano-Ramos and Roca-Cladera the reality is quite different. In his opinion, one cannot talk about a deficit without first taking into account the excess of housing accumulated between 2011 and 2021 and the stock of vacant properties. The researchers remember that between 2011 and 2021 the housing stock exceeded the growth in the number of homes by 959,554 units, generating a considerable pocket. In fact, they assure that in 2021 the “accumulated excess” was close to 8.1 million properties, a “‘cushion’ more than enough to absorb temporary housing deficits such as the one produced during the 2021-2024 period,” recalls the UPC in the statement in which he reports the study. What does that mean? That for researchers it is not so obvious that Spain suffers from a shortage of new housing. In their analysis they also remember that a good part of the excess of houses and apartments corresponds to second homes and empty homes. The INE itself estimates that at least in 2021 there were 3.84 million of uninhabited properties, 14.4% of the real estate stock. That percentage far exceeds what most experts consider “desirable” (5%), but at least in the statement The UPC does not address another fundamental aspect: the distribution of these wasted properties, if they are located in stressed markets, such as Madrid, Barcelona or Malaga, or in centers where demand is minimal or even non-existent, in the case of emptied Spain. What if we build more? That is the second question the researchers address. What if we build more homes? Would prices be reduced? Their response is once again skeptical to say the least: increasing buildings will not lead to greater social equity nor will it serve to soften prices. “On the contrary”, slide the UPC note. “According to the authors of the study, the solution is not to build more new homes so that the laws of the market balance prices. In addition to having serious environmental effects, what favors is the real estate bubble like the one that occurred around 2000.” What happens in other neighboring countries? Among other arguments, Arellano-Ramos and Roca-Cladera recall that the rise in prices is not a problem exclusive to the Spanish market, but rather something widespread on the continent. So the question is obvious: if the increase in prices is due to the imbalance between supply and demand, do the majority of EU countries share that same problem? “Is there simultaneously a restriction of supply in relation to demand occurring throughout Europe in relation to demand that explains the increase in residential prices? It does not seem that this is plausible. Therefore it is not reasonable, prima facieturn to the scarce construction of new housing as the main cause of the price of housing”, they reflect the authors before remembering that Spain has invested a higher percentage of GDP in construction than the European average. Do we need more land? The researchers also question whether in Spain the problem of lack of accessibility to housing can be explained by the scarcity of land. And to prove it, they go to the newspaper archive: between the late 90s and the early 2000s, buildable land was made available in the country, which allowed for “massive construction” of residential housing. This boom was not accompanied, however, by a reduction in the price of the square meter. Quite the opposite: residential prices increased, as in other parts of Europe. If Spain saw housing prices rise between 1996 and 2008, it was not because there was no land on which to build or build new homes. “Spain became more urbanized than ever and the result did not represent a reduction in prices, on the contrary,” underlines the UPC in your statementwhich recalls that between 2000 and 2012 Spain was the European country with the greatest “consumption” of land: more than 2,400 square kilometers (km2), almost as … Read more

the Stadler plant will be responsible for building 200 hybrid locomotives

by

Stadler, a well-known Swiss manufacturer responsible for producing railway equipment, has announced a historic contract with the Luxembourg locomotive rental company Nexrail. The idea is to build up to 200 hybrid locomotives EURO9000. Although the company has not revealed official figures, according to According to Expansión, the order could reach 1.4 billion euros, taking into account that previous similar contracts have been around 7 million per unit. And why is all this important? Precisely because all production will be carried out at Stadler’s plant in Albuixech, Valencia. A boost for the Valencian industry. This mega order represents a fairly important injection of work for Stadler’s Valencian factory and consolidates its position as a strategic production center within the Swiss group. The Albuixech plant will be responsible for manufacturing the most powerful locomotive which is currently produced in Europe, a great recognition of the technical and industrial capacity that the Valencian factory provides. Hybrid technology. The EURO9000 hybrid It combines pantograph and batteries on a six-axis platform already proven on the market. With its multi-system design it allows it to operate without problems between borders of Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Italy. In addition, it can transport goods completely emission-free from terminal to terminal, which leaves aside diesel, a fuel that still predominates in many European corridors. Power. According to Stadler, these locomotives can operate alone even on the most demanding routes, such as transalpine corridors, without the need for an additional thrust locomotive. In direct current networks, the battery system provides extra power that improves performance and allows more load to be transported. It also offers an intelligent battery management system that optimizes regenerative braking, which reduces costs during peak electrical consumption and allows energy to be purchased at times of lowest price. The client and the first operator. The first user of these locomotives will be Hamburger Rail Service (HRS), according to has confirmed Stadler. “The EURO9000 with pantograph and batteries offers HRS a unique combination of flexible traction on lines with or without catenary, high traction capacity for our heavy loads and zero-emission operations,” explained Adem Gülaz, CEO of HRS. Decarbonization. Iñigo Parra, president of Stadler Valencia, has underlined that the order “reveals our joint commitment to sustainable innovation in rail freight transport.” For his part, Luuk von Meijenfeldt, CEO of Nexrail, highlighted that the company is “excited to lead the European locomotive market towards a zero-emissions future” and that this order marks “an important step in that transition.” Europe’s goals. The rail freight sector is immersed in a transformation process to meet European climate objectives, similar to what’s happening right now in the automotive world on the continent. Complete electrification of all lines is still economically unfeasible, so hybrid locomotives with batteries are now emerging as the most realistic solution for decarbonize the sector without giving up the operational flexibility that diesel locomotives still offer on non-electrified sections. Cover image | Stadler and Ivan Arlandis In Xataka | The lack of generational change has opened a job opportunity for thousands of young people in Spain: bus driver

The Star Destroyer is the terror of Star Wars. But as one fan has calculated, building it in real life wouldn’t be cheap.

by

‘Star Wars’ is full of iconic ships. From the Millennium Falcon and its Kessel Corridor in just 12 parsecs to silhouettes identifiable at a glance such as the X-Wing or the TIE Fighter. We associate ‘Star Wars‘ with frenetic combats in space, but we also have iconic mastodons, authentic galactic monsters like the unmistakable Imperial Star Destroyer. Well: now we not only know how much it impresses us, but also how much it would cost us. What is a Star Destroyer. This 1.6 kilometer long, wedge-shaped beauty exhibits measurements and characteristics that make it a mini space station of considerable power. Let’s see: Approximate mass: 40 million metric tons Engines: Three KDY Destroyer-I ion engines and Cygnus Spaceworks Gemnon-4 units Maximum speed in atmosphere: 975 km/h Hyperlight Capability: Yes, with a class 2 impeller Heavy and medium turbolasers located in batteries throughout the ship Ion cannons to disable enemy systems 30 torpedo launchers or missile slots Ability to deploy 72 TIE fighters, as well as AT-AT and AT-ST ground vehicles Estimated total crew: between 37,000 and 60,000 people It functions as a small floating city, with areas for operations, daily life, maintenance and storage So the money what. Although less monumental than the Death Star, Star Destroyers require immense resources to construct. Estimates based on scientific analysis and data from the saga and collected on the website Gamestar They suggest that building, maintaining, and even disposing of when the time comes for a single Star Destroyer could cost a fortune. Used as a basis for comparison the price it costs to build a real aircraft carrier: between 13,000 and 17,000 million dollars each. And that’s just the beginning. We’re not just talking about construction itself. Resources and construction time skyrocket when considering mass production, as the Empire deploys dozens of destroyers to maintain its dominance. In addition, training and supplying personnel generate recurring costs. And maintenance, of course: refueling, repairing war damage, technological updates and replacing parts, which requires the construction of strategic space bases. We are going in parts, breaking down this authentic black hole of pasta. The initial transport. Transporting 40 million tons of construction material to space is logistically complex and expensive. With an extremely optimistic price of 10,000 euros per ton, the initial cost would be around 400 billion euros. In the long term, the cost could be reduced to about 200 euros per kilo, equivalent to about 8 billion euros. If we talk about current technologies (that is, no teleportation or similar), the realistic cost for this volume would be around 40 billion euros. What the material costs. The construction of the Star Destroyer would likely use high-strength, low-alloy steels, the cost of which is estimated at around €90 billion. More advanced systems such as propulsion, weapons and other high-performance components would require more expensive special alloys, adding at least an additional 110 billion euros. Altogether, conservative estimated costs for materials would be around €200 billion in total. To ride. The Star Destroyer is significantly more expensive to manufacture than mere materials, as labor and countless tests can cost five to fifteen times as much. The construction cost is estimated at around 2 billion euros. Furthermore, adding the costs of research, testing, infrastructure and development, especially in new energy and propulsion systems, could conservatively add another 5 billion euros to the total budget. The invoice. In short, these gentlemen will have to go and digest: the total expense to build and maintain the imperial Star Destroyer is estimated at around 15.2 billion euros, assuming transportation costs. Without including development expenses, the cost would be around 14 billion euros. But we can go up: if additional elements such as technical reserves, energy systems, lifetime maintenance and scrapping are considered, the joke can approach 40 billion euros. To put it in perspective, the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier cost around 12 billion euros, so a Star Destroyer would cost almost four thousand times that amount.​ In Xataka | Adam Driver launched a Star Wars movie project about Kylo Ren. Disney rejected it because they didn’t understand it.

If when you think of a farm you visualize a red building with white corners, it’s the Swedes’ fault.

by

5040-Y80R. That is the approximate designation according to the Natural Color System chart for color ‘red falu‘. It is a registered trademark and It goes beyond being a simple color: implies that a very specific pigment comes into play in its production that gives it that reddish tone and has transcended to the point of being part of the identity of an entire country thanks to its properties. That country is Sweden, and it all started as a waste product from a copper mine. By-product. Dalarna is a region located in the heart of Sweden, and it is home to the Falun Great Copper Mountain. The Vikings They were already exploiting this mine in 850, but the history of color dates back to the 16th century. It was then that they discovered that one of the mining byproducts could be turned into a useful pigment. Leaf From the production of copper they obtained what they called Falu rödfärgor “red mulch,” and was basically a unique mixture of over 20 different minerals. The reddish color was thanks to iron oxide, silica, zinc and copper itself. They started to mix it up with water, but also with other elements such as oils, tar or rye flour, and they discovered that they could obtain a paint with very interesting properties. better than paint. This red mulch mixed with the appropriate ingredients not only gave color to the wood, primary raw material in Sweden for both ships and infrastructure, but also acted especially well as a material protector. It was like an insulating layer, a shield that protected against the elementsprolonging its useful life, making repairs less frequent and, in addition, it was cheaper than importing wood treatments from other countries. The industry soon exploded. HE esteem that, by mid-1760, production was about 25 tons, but by 1930, that annual production exceeded 2,000 tons. Status. Now, it wasn’t cheap. Everyone wanted to paint their house that copper red color, but it turns out that it was a luxury reserved for the highest classes. When the pigment was discovered, and perhaps motivated only by its color, King John III ordered paint the ceilings of his palace with ‘falu red’, imitating the copper of the ceilings of other European palaces. Since then, those with the most power who could get hold of the pigment began to paint their houses. However, as production began to scale and gain traction, the product became cheaper and more people were able to access it, painting, if not all of their houses, the façade that faced the roads (which was what everyone passing by could see). Swedish edges of the 19th century contributed to popularize the image of the red houses of Sweden, immortalizing the idea of ​​rural life in red houses with white corners. One of Carl Larsson’s works The color of a nation. The color 5040-Y80R became the symbol of Sweden to the point that migrants who sought better luck in North America after the dissolution of the norwegian swedish union In 1905 they began to build their farms using this color. The image that many of us have of the red farm was created there. And it became so important to Swedish popular culture that there is a saying that symbolizes that simple life and harmonious in contact with the earth: den röda stugan och potatislandet (the red house and the potato garden). Today, the ‘Falu rödfärg’ is not as vital as it was years ago if we talk about production. The same has descended a lot because there is greater competition and synthetic products for paint the facadesbut it is still an example of “banal nationalism”, a symbol that exists without the need for flags and anthems, since its mere presence evokes belonging. Images| Xauxa Håkan Svensson, FrDr, HCa, Wigulf~commonswiki In Xataka | The world’s technology industry practically depends on a single road: the one that leads to the Spruce Prine mine

Building data centers in space was the new hot business. Elon Musk just broke it with a tweet

by

The debate over the feasibility of building gigantic data centers in orbit had been heating up for months. It is Silicon Valley’s new big idea to solve the insatiable energy appetite of artificial intelligence. Until, as usual, Elon Musk has entered the conversation with the subtlety of a hammer. Elon Musk has joined the chat. After weeks of debate about the feasibility of building servers in space, Eric Berger, editor of Ars Technica, argued that will end up being a more plausible option when the technology exists to assemble satellites in orbit autonomously. It was the moment chosen by Elon Musk to enter the conversation. “It will be enough to scale the Starlink V3 satellites, which have high-speed laser links,” wrote the CEO of SpaceX. “SpaceX is going to do it,” he said. A phrase that has probably fallen like a blow on startups that are taking advantage of the momentum of AI to go out in search of financing. Why the hell do we want servers in space? The idea of ​​moving computing to Earth orbit responds to a very real crisis: AI is an energy monster, and Demand for data centers continues to grow. Given this panorama, space offers two advantages that are impossible on Earth: Almost unlimited energy: In a sun-synchronous orbit, solar panels receive sunlight almost continuously (more than 95% of the time). Free Cooling: Land-based data centers consume millions of liters of fresh water to cool. With a large enough radiator, the gap can be “an infinite heatsink at -270°C.” The heat would be radiated into the vacuum without wasting a single drop of water. The new titans of space AI. Musk is not the first to see the business. In fact, he arrives at a party where the first contracts are already being distributed. Jeff Bezos predicted during the Italian Tech Week that we will see “giant training clusters” of AI in orbit in the next 10 or 20 years. Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, bought rocket company Relativity Space precisely for this purpose. And Nvidia, the undisputed king of AI hardware, has actively backed startup Starcloud, which plans to launch the first NVIDIA H100 GPU into space this November, with the goal of eventually building a monster 5-gigawatt orbital data center. Why Musk would win. The vision of Bezos, Schmidt and Starcloud faces two colossal obstacles: the cost of launch and the construction of the servers themselves. Calculations for a 1 GW data center would require more than 150 launches with current technology. And Starcloud’s plan for a 4 kilometer wide array is a logistical nightmare. Elon Musk has Starship, the giant rocket on which all of his competitors’ business models depend to be profitable. And you don’t need build a new orbital data center. Just adapt and scale the one you already have. 10,000 satellites and counting. SpaceX’s Starlink constellation no longer competes against satellite internet, goes for terrestrial fiber. Musk’s company has already launched 10,000 satellites and is preparing the deployment of the new V3 satellites, designed for Starship with high-speed laser links. According to SpaceX itself, each Starship launch will add 60 terabits per second of capacity to a network that is already, in practice, a global computing and data mesh. While Starcloud needs to hire a rocket and assemble 4km-wide solar and cooling panels, Musk simply needs Starship to finish development to continue launching satellites. In Xataka | Starlink stopped competing with satellite Internet companies a long time ago: now it is going for something much bigger

that building nuclear power plants becomes increasingly cheaper

by

While Western countries debated for or against nuclear energy, with the construction of new plants weighed down by decades of delays and cost overruns, China has not only continued building: He has done it against the trend of the sector. For the first time in more than 50 years, a country has made building nuclear reactors increasingly cheaper, faster and scalable. The difference is overwhelming. The only two reactors built in the United States this century (at the Vogtle plant in Georgia) took 11 years to complete and cost a whopping $35 billion, equivalent to about $15 per watt of capacity. According to a analysis published in NatureChina is building its new nuclear power plants for just $2 a watt. It is not an anomaly, but a trend. Construction costs in the United States have increased tenfold since the 1960s, and in France they have almost doubled. In China they halved during the 2000s and have remained stable since then. The big question is how they have achieved it, and whether the rest of the world can imitate them. The Chinese nuclear recipe. Building a nuclear power plant remains one of the most complex engineering projects on the planet. If China has managed to do this in an increasingly efficient way, it is thanks to a mix of standardization and unwavering state support. The three state nuclear giants receive low-interest loans, which greatly reduces the cost of financing. Unlike the West, where each project has been a new experiment with unique designs, China has often focused on building a handful of models, scaling its nuclear capability rapidly. But these are just the last steps of the recipe. To get here, Beijing had to invest in mastering each link in the supply chain. Made in China. As detailed in a extensive New York Times reportthe country has developed a robust national industry capable of forging everything from reactor vessels to the most critical components of each nuclear power plant. Components made in China, such as cargo pumps or ring cranes, cost half as much as their imported equivalents. A perfect example is the American-designed AP1000 reactor. Both the United States and China faced enormous challenges building this model. But as problems led to delays and skyrocketing costs that nearly buried the American industry, China paused, studied every flaw, and ended up developing an improved, nationalized version of the reactor: the CAP1000. It is now building nine reactors of this model within just five years, and at a drastically lower cost. The winning strategy. “China demonstrates that the construction and operation costs of nuclear power do not have to increase unabated,” explains Dan Kammenprofessor at Johns Hopkins University. Breaking the curse of cost overruns requires “more than technology: it requires an intelligent and strategic approach,” says Kammen. The result of this approach is that China is on track to overtake the United States as the largest nuclear power in the world in 2030. Today it has almost as many reactors under construction as the rest of the world combined. It is not a simple bet, but a State policy that does not end at its borders. China has already put two Hualong One reactors into operation in Pakistan, and has plans to continue expanding throughout Asia, Africa and South America. Waiting for the SMR. While China perfects the construction of large already proven reactors, Western countries follow a radically different path: betting on innovation through the private sector. Dozens of startups are working on a new generation of small modular reactors (SMR), theoretically cheaper and faster to build. Tech giants like Google, Amazon and Microsoft They have invested billions in them to power their energy-hungry data centers. The problem is not only that This technological advance will take years to maturebut China does not live apart from it. The country is already taking giant steps in future technologies, such as fourth-generation gas-cooled reactors or research into thorium reactors. And he could repeat the same strategies that have worked with traditional reactors. Image | CNNC In Xataka | China has turned the energy sector upside down: the first fusion-proof nuclear power plant is already a success

It’s not that Apple is going to broadcast F1. He is building the “iTunes of sports”

by

Apple has closed the rights to Formula 1 in the United States for five years and 750 million dollars. But looking only at the price is missing the pattern: it is building a vertical sports platform where it controls broadcasting, statistics, context and extra content. An ecosystem. The inventory. In less than three years, Apple has accumulated: Exclusive MLS Rights worldwide ($2.5 billion until 2033). F1 rights in the United StatesApple is accumulating broadcasting rights, launching its own apps and structuring a closed ecosystem against the traditional broadcast model from 2026 (150 million annually). AppleSportsfree app launched in February 2024 with real-time statistics. Sports integration in Apple News, Apple Maps, Apple Music and Fitness+. The model. Unlike MLS, where matches require a separate subscription, F1 will be included on Apple TV ($12.99 per month in the United States). The playoffs of the MLS have also become free for subscribers. Apple is keeping it simple: one payment, sports content included. F1 TV Premium, the competition’s own service that costs $16.99 per month, will be included at no extra cost for those who already pay for Apple TV. Between the lines. Apple is not seeking immediate profitability with sports rights. Seeks to anchor users to the ecosystem. Each broadcast supports Apple’s association with sport and can be an opportunity to sell more subscriptions to Fitness+ (there is F1 content that will be integrated there) or Apple One, or more Apple Watches ultimately. The strategy is the same as with Apple Music, TV+ (now ‘AppleTV‘) or iCloud: the content is the hook, the ecosystem is the business. Telefónica, DAZN and traditional broadcast companies now have to compete against those who can afford to lose money on rights because they earn elsewhere. The same thing that happened to Netflix when Amazon or Apple itself entered its business. He timing. The F1 movie, starring Brad Pitt and produced by Apple, has raised $629 million and has become the highest-grossing sports film in history. Apple has been working with F1 for three years. The rights agreement is not coincidental: it is the next phase of an already consolidated relationship. F1 has grown exponentially in the United States thanks to ‘Drive to Survive‘ from Netflix. Apple has detected the exact moment to enter: when the public is built but before the market becomes saturated. With Brad Pitt’s movie, Apple launched a huge marketing campaign disguised as a movie and validated its own products as suitable for the film industry. Yes, but. This model only works with great financial muscle. ESPN paid 85 million annually for F1. Apple has doubled the figure without blinking. Netflix has not shown great interest in live sports. Amazon bought the rights to the NFL and Ligue 1 at the time, but has not gone further. Apple is creating something different: a layer that wraps sports in its technology. The Apple Sports app does not currently include any of streamingbut it is a hub that will be able to direct traffic to Apple TV. The threat. If it works, Apple can bid for European rights: Premier, Champions, LaLiga… They have money, technology, brand and 2 billion active devices. The problem for traditional TVs is not just that Apple enters their market. It’s that you can afford not to make money from it for years while you build your platform. In Xataka | The new Apple M5 is a potentially monstrous chip, but the surprise is where it makes the real leap: in the execution of AI models Featured image | Apple

OpenAI is building the biggest house of cards in history. Its “circular financing” aggravates the threat of the AI ​​bubble

by

Yesterday OpenAI and Broadcom announced a collaboration agreement that will see both companies design and deploy 10 GW of custom AI chips over the course of four years. It’s a new episode of that unusual strategy that OpenAI has carried out and which is summarized in an increasingly disturbing concept: that of circular financing. Multimillion-dollar agreements. In recent weeks we have seen how OpenAI has reached new agreements worth billions of dollars with large companies in the semiconductor sector. Thus, we have: Circular financing. All these advertisements respond to a unique circular financing strategy in which chip companies (the suppliers) not only sell their products to an AI startup (customer), but also invest capital in that startup, which in turn uses that capital to buy more products from its investor. In reality, the supplier “does not invest” as such, because that money ends up going back into purchases of its products and services. It is in fact something similar to what OpenAI did with Microsoft when the latter invested $13 billion in it. Rather than investing them, it allowed him to use a kind of subscription for that amount to use his cloud, Azure, and its computing resources. It’s a win-win for some and for others. OpenAI wins. These agreements allow OpenAI to have guaranteed access to computing, something you need like eating. The startup spends billions a year and still not profitablebut thanks to this strategy he obtains a massive flow of capital. In the case of Broadcom, it also manages to collaborate in the design of customized chips for minimize future dependence on other partners (such as NVIDIA or AMD) and thus enjoy a lower total cost of ownership in the long term. And by signing with three different semiconductor suppliers, it encourages competition and improves its bargaining power. Bright. Suppliers win. The circular strategy also benefits NVIDIA, AMD and Broadcom. All of them gain a customer with almost unlimited demand, and can register immediate income from the sale of chips while the cost of the investment is amortized over time. NVIDIA also manages to maintain its dominant position, while AMD and Broadcom manage to expand in this market. If there are also actions involved, all of them are revalued and participating in each other is another element of interest in these financial operations. They reinforce and grow larger among themselves, and while they weaken all the others. A gigantic house of cards. But compared to that strategy, reality. And the reality is that this circular flow of capital is creating artificial demand in which the supplier pays itself. The systemic risk is enormous: if OpenAI fails or AI growth slows, the domino effect can significantly affect these vendors and their investors. We are facing a huge (and fragile) house of cards that, if it collapses, will have equally enormous consequences. The AI ​​bubbleif it really exists, continues to grow and grow. Total uncertainty. There is also absolute uncertainty about the promise of AI: will we really use it as much as these companies think we will? Will OpenAI be able to deliver on its promise and turn a profit in 2030? It is impossible to know. Finally, another problem: these circular agreements make these companies larger, but they make the entry of new competitors in both markets increasingly complicated. There are winners, but also losers. While all this is happening and the shares of these companies are skyrocketing, the reality is that there are also losers. The retail investor is blind to these events—and suspicions about cases of insider trading They are inevitable. And of course when talking about competition we are not talking about new competitors, but also current ones. Anthropic or Perplexity, with already established businesses, now finds it more difficult to compete. Google, Microsoft or Meta have plenty of infrastructure and economic resources, but they are still seeing how OpenAI is getting bigger and bigger without being able to prevent it. If successful, OpenAI may end up being above all of them, because it seeks the same thing that every company seeks even if it does not admit it: become a monopoly. Image | Xataka with Freepik – Gemini In Xataka | You thought you had an amazing connection on Tinder, but you were actually chatting with ChatGPT

China is building more electric cars than you can sell and that announces something dramatic: a manufacturers bleeding

by

For years, China has cooked its assault on the electric car. As in other sectors, the country has put a cooked pot and has been done with all the ingredients. Little by little, it has been heating the water, browning the sauce and, with everything ready, the fire has risen. The time has come to get the dishes. And it doesn’t matter if someone stays along the way. A huge market. China is the largest electric car market. Not only that, by volume, it is the country in which more cars are bought if we add all kinds of technologies. His market is gigantic. To the point that In it, 23.5 million cars were sold In 2024. To get an idea, in the United States 16 million cars were sold and around 12 million cars. Why does an electric car have less autonomy than the announcing According to data from Carnewschinasales were slightly lower (22.9 million) but the International Energy Agency (IEA, for its acronym in English) and the specialized medium in the Chinese market agree that the barrier of more than 11 million vehicles of new energy sold (category in which plug -in and electric hybrids are included) was broken). Over low heat. Until last year, European manufacturers had been leaders in the Chinese market. Little by little, local manufacturers have gained ground … until Byd rolled Volkswagen. Among new energy vehicles, more than 60% of sales They are electric cars. And there, Chinese manufacturers have passed over Westerners. They have achieved it with a determined policy. European manufacturers were offered land and labor at balance prices. Of course, they had to associate with local manufacturers. These manufacturers have learned from the West and, in addition, They have received subsidies from the Chinese governmenteither with the creation of state companies (or partial participation in them), almost free land and facilities and soft loans. And, at the same time, the State has been taking strategic positions. China controls the supply chain of semiconductors But also the production of Rare earth and of batteries. All this has caused that the cost of producing in China for the Chinese market is much cheaper for its local producers, which has resulted in a better product at a better price than foreign competitors. Fearless. Once the State has been done with the ingredients and has put the cooker, it has not been afraid to climb the fire with the intention that their marks will eat the western ones in the country. The purchase subsidies have been focused on maintaining a constant sales yield of electric cars and new energy, where China has managed to get ahead. At the same time, a wave of nationalism well aimed from the State (for the interests of its manufacturers) has moved the purchase interests of consumers. They already see Western brands as a thing of the past. Companies that previously positioned themselves as a luxury product today are obsolete in a market that bets on a type of car without barriers. A car that is the object of mobility but is also karaoke or interactive center where to take a while surrounded by screens. Overcapacy. Or overproduction, so that we all understand each other. According to data from the Chinese Association of Automobile Manufacturers, In 2024 there were 31,282 million vehicles and 31,436 million were sold. Keep in mind that much of that production, obviously, was sent outside the borders. In fact, already in 2023 The country beat Japan as the largest car exporter in the world. The problem is that the formula has begun to give symptoms of exhaustion in this 2025. O, as little, of a certain stagnation. Last August, Byd confirmed that he had to redirect your sales prospects. The company I planned to produce 5.5 million of vehicles but its new objective is on the border of the 5 million. With 80% of its sales in China, which by the brake begins to give an idea of ​​the difficulty finding the market to absorb all the cars that are producing. An unexpected war. That difficulty in putting cars in the market has been the manufacturer himself in his meats. They explain in Reuters That in the Chinese city of Chengdu it is easy to find cars with discounts of 50%. Some of them, the Audi that are manufactured in collaboration with FAW, are sold with up to 60% discount. That war is dilapidating the margin of benefits of brands such as byd that have more muscle than rivals to lower prices and reduce stock. Because that is another of the obvious symptoms that point to a slowdown in the Chinese market. A few months ago, The concessionaires themselves asked that manufacturers stop sending cars because they were having problems selling them despite the attractive discount. In fact, The State itself has brought together manufacturers To deal with the topic of kilometers 0, which add up as a sale but then are forgotten in stores in the absence of a buyer. A private market. When China lived its previous price war, we already commented that it was a fire test for some companies. The problem of this wild competition is that manufacturers enter a downward price wheel where cars are ended up without taking out enough benefit to it. So, Tesla and Byd They were the ones that had the entire muscle to destroy the rivals. But, in addition, two peculiarities in the Chinese market must be taken into account. The first is that the launch rhythm is very high. That makes the companies themselves leave the cars they have launched just a few months or a year ago with their own innovations. This is the case of byd And the announcement that His eye of God would reach all his cars From now on. The client observes that the models and prices are renewed with each launch. Conclusion: delays the purchase, the stock accumulates and the cars are outdated. But, in addition, manufacturers … Read more

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.