century

In 1970, a zoologist released a species of rodent into the Caucasus to repopulate it. A century later the destruction is gigantic

by

In the 1970s a story occurred, one of many, where the man tried to modify the ecosystem of an island and it went completely wrong, so much so that It took them half a century to solve it.. However, among the stories with the sending of a “solution” to an enclave as the protagonist, good to annihilate, good for repopulatingfew like the one that occurred 70 years ago in an area of ​​the Caucasus. Unlike the story from Japan, here there is still no way to solve it. Introduction: Soviet ecological ambition. About the 1920s, the Soviet zoologist Nikolai Vereshchagin undertook an ambitious project to “reanimate” and repopulate the fauna of the Caucasus. The idea seemed simple: introduce non-native species. Inspired by the desire to restore ecosystems and provide economic benefits through hunting and the fur trade, Vereshchagin brought animals from different parts of the worldconfident that they would thrive in the mountains and wetlands of Azerbaijan. Apparently, through his investigations and his book “The Mammals of the Caucasus”Vereshchagin documented the constant change in the region and argued in favor of what would become known as “acclimatization”: a species adaptation strategy that sought to enrich local biodiversity, even if over time it proved to have… let’s say, unintended effects. The coypu: from Soviet experiment to invader. And of all Vereshchagin’s most notable experiments, one is written in capital letters with the introduction of the coypualso known as otter or river rat, a species of giant rodent native to South America. Were 213 copies brought to the region, which quickly adapted and thrived in the wetlands of Azerbaijan. Because? Originally, the coypus They were brought for the quality of their skins, used in the making of luxury coats and hats. However, what began as a resource exploitation project soon became an ecological problem. The reason? Coypus demonstrated a high reproductive capacity and adaptability that allowed them to survive and multiply as if there were no tomorrow without the natural predators of their original habitat. This rat is a danger. To give us an idea, currently the coypu is considered one of the 100 most dangerous invasive species worldwide. In Azerbaijan, their populations are ubiquitous in wetlands, causing significant environmental damage by destroying native vegetation and competing with native species for space and resources. Additionally, their presence threatens the habitats of endangered birds, such as the cotton-headed duck and Siberian crane, as both depend on these wetlands for their survival. We are talking about a species whose adults measure approximately 60 cm long and have a 30 cm tail. When fully grown, they weigh as much or more than a Jack Russell terrier. Although they look similar to the capybara (the largest rodent in the world), coypu tend to have fewer “followers.” One fact gives an idea: its most notable feature is its protruding teeth, a pair of long, orange incisors that they never stop growing. Impact on biodiversity. The ecological impact of coypu in Azerbaijan was tremendous over the years, and especially significant due to the natural wealth of the Caucasusa region considered as one of the 25 hotspots of global biodiversity. The creature not only devastated the vegetation in humid areas, but its destructive behavior also affected bird nesting areas. In fact, studies carried out in Italy show that these giant rodents can reach crush nests by resting on themincreasing the risk for local species. Not only that. The species continued to spread to this day, and from the Caucasus it passed to neighboring countries, which has made its management even more complicated. The lack of a detailed study on the size and distribution of their populations in Azerbaijan poses all kinds of additional obstacles for environmentalists, who do not have a solid basis for developing mitigation strategies. Management and reward programs. Today, and in response to the uncontrolled expansion of the species, some experts suggest implementing reward programs for capture, an idea similar to those that have been effective in enclaves of the United States such as Louisiana, where it is offered a payment for each coypu queue delivered. However, others warn that these programs, while temporarily reducing populations, can result in commercial hunts that do not completely eradicate the species. In this regard, the proposal to reestablish a reward system, in force in Soviet times, is viewed favorably by organizations such as WWF Azerbaijan. However, the current system of fees and penalties in the country, which even requires hunters to pay additional payments for “environmental damage,” discourages coypus hunting. Therefore, there is a clear contrast with other countries where the reduction of invasive populations is actively encouraged. Lessons learned and future. Like so many other similar stories with the “hand” of man throughthe story of coypu in Azerbaijan is a reminder of the risks of introducing foreign species without very careful planning and long-term impact assessment. Although no one doubts that the projects of Vereshchagin and his contemporaries were based on good intentions, the collateral effects of their decisions have been tremendous for the region’s biodiversity. Today, environmentalists like Zulfu Farajli told the BBC who advocate for greater public awareness of the impact of coypus on local ecosystems, as well as more effective management policies. Ultimately, the case of this creature in Azerbaijan highlights the importance of developing a conservation approach based on science and sustainability, ensuring that ecosystems can recover and thrive without the threat of invasive species. Hopefully, the solution will never be a giant rat, please. Image | Peter Trimming, Khagani Hasanov1988 In Xataka | Japan sent the wrong creature to eradicate snakes from an island. The disaster was so big that it took half a century to solve it In Xataka | We have just found a surprising remedy against Argentine ant infestations: a dose of caffeine

In Castilla y León, a baby of an eagle that became extinct in the 19th century has been born. What is not clear is that it is good news

by

The skies of Castilla y León have left a historical imagesomething that had not been seen for a long time in our country: a native baby eagle flying over the territory. The specimen of this bird of prey was born on Spanish soil a few months ago, early mayand has already taken flight, as has just been said reveal The Confidential. Something like this hadn’t happened in a long time. That a species that was supposed to be extinct in the Iberian Peninsula since the 19th century manages to recover ground is usually positive news, but in the case of the eagle it comes clouded by something else: controversy. There are those who believe that its reintroduction in Spain is a “historical milestone”. And who thinks it is a blunder. First of all, what is the eagle? A bird of prey that stands out for its enormous size. With its wings extended it can reach 2.4m wingspan and usually measures between 80 and 90 cm long. His name appeared in a list published years ago by the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MITECO) with extinct species susceptible to be reintroduced. After all, there are those who consider that the eagle, which continues to live in Scandinavian countries, it disappeared from the peninsula among the 19th and 20th centuries due to the degradation of their environment. How did you return to Spain? Thanks to Proyecto Pigargo, a plan released in 2021 with the approval of the Principality of Asturias, the Cantabrian Government and above all the support of MITECO, which invested more than 300,000 euros in the recovery of the species. In August of that same year was announced the arrival of almost a dozen young specimens born in Norway that were introduced in Pimiango, in the municipality of Ribadedeva (Asturias). As time went by, more birds were released until add 25. Of them survived about 17almost all (12) paired. And have they bred yet? Yes. The news I advanced it on September 18 GREFA, the group that has promoted the reintroduction of the species on the peninsula. In a statement The group explains that the calf was born in May in the north of Castilla y León, in an area that had been identified as “optimal for the species”, although GREFA has not specified the exact location “to avoid any disturbance.” “The birth of the first European eagle chick in Spain represents a historic moment for nature conservation in our country,” celebrate the association before highlighting the collaboration of the Junta de Castilla y León and the “technical support” of both MITECO and agents of the autonomous community. Perfect, right? It depends on who you ask. If we listen GREFA is “a historic milestone for biodiversity in Spain and Europe”, the result of a well-studied plan, which accumulates hours of work and has achieved the support of IUCNthe International Union for Conservation of Nature. The group insists that it is the first breeding after “the extinction” of the species in Spain and highlights “the success” of having achieved a chick in a few years with 25 specimens released. “An exciting and motivating result that allows us to hope for more views next season,” celebrate. Don’t everyone think that way? No. The launch of the Pigargo Project may have generated expectations at the time, but it certainly did not achieve something equally or even more important: scientific consensus. Already in 2021 there were voices that warned that releasing copies in Spain meant “a bad idea”. In fact, that was the key message of an article published in The Conversation by three experts from the University of Oviedo in which they pointed out the weak points of the program and questioned whether the eagle is really a native and extinct species. The controversy escalated to such a point that the central government and the autonomies that had initially endorsed the project they decided to back out after just two years. What arguments do they use? GREFA recalls that the releases of eagles that began four years ago in Asturias had the endorsement of the IUCN and the species was included in the list of extinct fauna prepared with the endorsement of the committee of scientists that advises the ministry. Not only that. The group defends that the birth of the first baby in the wild in Castilla y León a few months ago proves the adaptation to the environment of a bird of prey that, argues“contributes to keeping under control” other species that can damage ecosystems, such as carp. “Thanks to its scavenging habits, the European sea eagle plays an important role as a ‘health police’, helping to control the spread of diseases by effectively removing animal corpses from the environment,” they point out from the entity. In fact, GREFA trusts that the birth of the first chick marks a turning point in the program and will allow it to recover the institutional support that it has been losing in recent years. “We hope that this historic event encourages strengthening or resuming support for the project, especially in the case of the Principality of Asturias and the Government of Cantabria, whose initial collaboration was fundamental although they later withdrew it,” Ernesto Álvarez slidesits president. And what do the critics say? They go to the root of the approach and question its most basic premise: that it has really been proven that the eagle is a species native to the peninsula. “To consider a species as extinct, the evidence must be irrefutable. In the case of the eagle that does not happen. The documentation that has been used for its classification as an extinct species is reduced to some reports on archaeological remains, several citations of solitary specimens and dubious signs of breeding,” he points out. the article published in The Conversation. One of them, Germán Orizaola, Ramón y Cajal researcher in Zoology, warned in 2023 in statements to The Country of the risk that the initiative may pose … Read more

More than a century ago they took the Mona Lisa in an accident

by

He Louvre Museumthe most visited in the world, was robbery victim in which thieves, in just seven minutes, made off with eight pieces of the imperial collection described as “priceless”. However, it is not the first time it has happened. The Louvre has been a victim of audacious robberies and controversial since the beginning of the last century, which puts on the table, above all, a question that goes beyond some missing jewels: is the security of one of the most important museums deficient? What happened. A group of between three and four hooded individuals, presumably dressed as workers, took advantage of the rehabilitation works on the façade of the museum that overlooks the Seine River. Using a forklift they directly accessed a first floor window. Once in the Apollo Gallery, where the Crown Jewels are displayed, they used heavy tools, such as a chainsaw or a radial saw, to destroy two high-security display cases. Among the eight pieces that were stolen were tiaras, necklaces and brooches of Empress Eugenia de Montijo and Queen María Amelia, as well as other historical pieces of the French Crown. The assailants fled quickly on large motorcycles. One of the pieces, the empress’s crown, was found damaged near the museum, lost in the frantic flight. The robbery, with visitors in the room, generated panic, since the thieves used the same radios to threaten the security guards. Among other measures that failed are those of the alarms that “were not heard by the agents or did not sound in the Gallery“. Previous robberies: La Gioconda (1911). As we say, this is not the first time something like this has happened at the Louvre. The most notorious robbery occurred on August 21, 1911, with ‘The Mona Lisa‘ by Leonardo Da Vinci. This incident did not involve spectacular devicesMission: Impossible‘, but the simple negligence of the security system of the time. The author was Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian worker who had been an employee of the Louvre and had participated in the construction of the painting’s glass display case. Peruggia hid in a closet on Sunday night (partial closure of the museum), came out on Monday morning, took down the portrait from the Salon Carré, and left with the work under his work coat. He said his motivation was patriotic, seeking to return Leonardo da Vinci’s work to Italy, as he mistakenly believed it had been stolen by Napoleon. Security at the Louvre was weak in 1911: the museum, with more than a thousand rooms, was protected by fewer than 150 guards for more than 250,000 objects, which meant that statues and paintings were often damaged without being immediately detected. It was 26 hours before anyone noticed the painting was missing. The news caused a media frenzy, and even the poet Guillaume Apollinaire and Pablo Picasso were briefly arrested as suspects. The painting was recovered two years later, in 1913, when Peruggia tried to sell it to an antique dealer in Florence. Heists previous: Burgundy breastplate and helmet (1983). On May 1, 1983 this took place another robbery: The pieces were a valuable cuirass and a burgundy-type helmet from the 16th century, both with gold and silver inlays. The pieces had been donated to the museum in 1922 by Baroness Salomon Rothschild, and the display case containing the pieces appeared vandalized: the fact that historical military pieces could be stolen from a display case in what was presumed to be a guarded environment revealed that the vulnerabilities went beyond the paintings. The pieces did not reappear for almost forty years, and all thanks to an investigation initiated by an expert in military antiquities in the 2020s, who detected them in a private collection in Bordeaux. Heists previous: Streak of quick robberies in 1995. That year a series of thefts and acts of vandalism revealed the vulnerability of the Louvre. In January, a visitor used a box cutter to cut and damage a painting by Lancelot Théodore Turpin de Crissé, ‘Deer in a Landscape’. Just a week later, a 17-kilogram battle ax belonging to a monument sculpted by Martin Desjardins was stolen. In July, a valuable painting made with Robert de Nanteuil’s pastel technique finally disappeared. This series of incidents made it clear that, although security had been reinforced around the most iconic works, the pieces displayed in large and less traveled areas became easy targets. A vulnerable building. The recent robbery has revealed a series of tactics that reveal different vulnerabilities: taking advantage of areas on site (that is, a blind spot or one with less surveillance), entering the building using a forklift, carrying it out in broad daylight and with visitors inside, and the use of heavy tools without an immediate and effective security response. Although the 1911 robbery already demonstrated that personnel are key to preventing these robberies, in June 2025 there were workers protests over the lack of troops to control the large numbers of visitors. This theft has made it evident that there is a clear vulnerability in the museum, and this has been noted by those responsible for security: the Minister of Culture, Rachida Dati, has declared that “The issue of the vulnerability of our museums is not new. It has been 40 years since we took care of their security.” The minister has also said that two years ago the then president of the Louvre had asked the Prefect of Police to review and carry out an audit on security. Dati has also commented that “museums must be adapted to the new forms of crime, which are organized, they are professionals who enter calmly, in four minutes take the loot and leave without any violence.” Photo of Thomas Eidsvold in Unsplash In Xataka | We have visited the first Video Game Museum in Madrid: between the tourist attraction and the archaeological spectacle

has bought more missiles from the US in just two years than in the entire last century

by

For months, Washington made Spain his example of disobedience within NATO. Trump came to threaten with punishment trade due to the “low” military spending, while Brussels and La Moncloa they defended their own pace of investment and warned that public accounts could not sustain an uncontrolled escalation. But behind that diplomatic struggle and there was something more to the reproaches exchanged. A “bill” that belittles both, and that reveals a very different story about how far Spain went to appease its most powerful ally. The tariff threat. It all started with an angry warning from the White House: Donald Trump, irritated for the rejection of Pedro Sánchez to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, publicly stated “punish” Spain with tariffs. The threat, which occurred after a summit with Javier Milei in Washington, marked a new level of political pressure on a historic ally. The American president accused Madrid of “taking advantage” of NATO protection without contributing enough and, in a mix of bravado and electoral calculation, he hinted that he could turn the budget dispute into a commercial front. Behind the rhetoric there was an intention deeper: force Europe to finance the containment of Russia with its own resources and, in the process, prop up the military industry United States. The answer. Neither the European Commission nor the Spanish Government took long to respond. Brussels remembered that trade policy is the exclusive competence of the Union and that any attempt to penalize a Member State would have consequences. Madrid, for its part, took pains to emphasize that its military spending had grown more than double in just seven years (from 0.98% of GDP in 2017 to 2% in 2025) and that the debate was not about spending more as a slogan, but about doing it with a strategic sense and within the real capabilities of the country. At the same time, Spain insisted that it contributes to collective deterrence and that its budget increase, although more gradual than that desired by Washington, is part of a structural modernization of its Armed Forces. However, between the lines, the tension reflected something further: the fear that North American demands would end up conditioning the industrial and technological orientation of European defense. The silent turn. And neither one thing nor the other. The diary El País has published figures that confirm what until recently was just intuition: Spain has purchased more American weapons in the last two years than in almost a century. Between 2023 and 2024, the Spanish Government ordered military material for more than 4,500 millions of euros to the United States, a quarter of everything acquired since 1950. The contracts include Patriot systems, MH-60R helicopters and auxiliary equipment that represents the largest volume of expenditure with a single supplier in the recent history of Spanish defense. According to the DSCA (Defense Security Cooperation Agency), sales to Spain reached 2,907 million of dollars in 2024 and 1,682 million the previous year. In other words: while Washington was publicly denouncing the lack of commitment, Madrid was carrying out one of the largest purchasing operations in its history, channeling billions into the US military industry. The geopolitical context. The rebound coincides with the new cycle of European rearmament after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the same one has shot the military budgets of all of NATO. In this context, Spain has accelerated the modernization of its forces with additional spending of 10,471 million of euros in 2025, advancing the goal of 2% of GDP by four years. To finance it, the Executive has resorted to zero interest loans, industrial modernization programs and R&D items, a financial framework that allows keep spending without reform general budgets. However, this expansion has a reverse: the strengthening of technological dependence on the United States, which is consolidating itself as the main supplier of critical systems and reducing the room for maneuver to advance European strategic autonomy. Budget pragmatism. If you also want, the contrast between the Trump threats and the flow contract record with American companies illustrates the balance that Spain has tried to maintain: resisting the public discourse of punishment while, in practice, meeting Washington’s strategic demands and covering its own operational shortcomings. The result could not be more paradoxical. In the eyes of NATO, Madrid meets faster than expected, and in the eyes of its European partners, it risks weakening efforts to consolidate a common industrial base. The movement also redefines the bilateral relationship with Washington, which goes from rhetoric of reproach to the pragmatism of the transaction: while the North American president shows political muscleyour industry reaps the benefits. A lesson. The truth is that the history of these two years reveals how defense decisions, beyond percentages and headlines, are a geopolitical currency. Spain has demonstrated the ability to respond to external pressures without breaking its internal narrative, but the long-term cost (dependency, industrial coherence and technological autonomy) has yet to be measured. Thus, in essence, the question is once again the same as always: whether Europe can rearm itself without falling back into the old pattern of industrial subordination that for decades fueled the transatlantic divide. Spain, with its purchasing record to the American “friend” and his sovereignty speechembodies that contradiction today: that of a continent that seeks independence, but keep buying their safety on the other side of the Atlantic. Image | Kelly Michaels, BORN In Xataka | The US no longer has to worry about Spain or the rearmament bill in Europe. Germany had a plan B In Xataka | Spain committed to investing 2% of GDP in Defense but is not looking for soldiers: it needs 96,000 qualified employees

In the 19th century they were not particularly sad, but no one smiled in the photos. Although they had reasons for it

by

It’s strange to come across a current photo in which no one is smiling. If we see her, we assume that something is happening: either she wants to give a serious image, or something happens that we don’t know about, or the intention is precisely to go against it, not to smile. However, there was a time in which the usual thing was not to do it, not to show the slightest emotion in the photographs. What is the reason for this attitude? Were they so sad in the victorian englandSpain at the beginning of the century and so on? Actually, there is a very simple explanation. The exhibition. We all know that in the early days of photography, that is, between about 1840 and 1880, cameras required people to remain completely still for several seconds, or even, in the most primitive photos, minutes. Maintaining a natural smile for so long was uncomfortable, and fatigue ended up turning a natural smile into a stiff grimace. Furthermore, any movement resulted in a blurry image, which ran the risk of the model appearing in the photo with a blur on his face like a specter from beyond the grave. Hence the much simpler and more accessible custom of remaining with a relaxed gesture. Decent photographs. But there came a time when photographs did not require more than a moment of exposure, and there were still models with long faces. What was it due to? In reality it was not a technical question, but rather a question of how photography was understood. Perhaps with a vision inherited from when a portrait was a canvas that took days to create, required effort for the painter and model, cost money and could not be reproduced, but rather remained a unique piece. For all this, the portrait was clothed with a certain solemnity. It didn’t matter that these new portraits were much simpler and faster to do: They preserved the aura of dignity and special occasion of the oil paintings. Example: the dead. The legendary photos of the deceased or post-mortem photography They are a perfect example to understand how the medium was perceived for a time. They were a surprisingly common practice during the 19th and early 20th centuries and had a very clear purpose: being still a medium that was not widespread, photography was the only opportunity that many families had to preserve a portrait of the deceased, since they had not been able to do it while they were alive (and with the high infant mortality rate of other times, even more so). Furthermore, with this aura of dignity and pomp that the photograph had, it was incorporated into the elaborate mourning process. Victorian. Smile bad. In the 19th century, smiling openly in public or in portraits was often associated with frivolity, lack of seriousness, or even drunkenness. Educated and respectable people maintained a serious composure. If you have ever seen material from the tone period, let’s say, libertineyou will see what contagious smiles. It’s not that in the 19th and early 20th centuries people didn’t know how to smile: it was the circumstance in which photos were taken. That is why photos have been found taken in more familiar settings, at parties with very close relatives or close friends, where some of this rigidity is lost and people smile widely. Smiling badly, part two. And if we started with a reason as prosaic as “it’s easier not to smile than to smile,” we ended up with another equally practical reason: smiles one hundred and fifty years ago were terrible. The dental hygiene It was much worse than today and the dentures were full of holes, at best. When it came to passing on to posterity, it was normal for the models to decide not to show their teeth. Photo of Lia Den in Unsplash In Xataka | A tractor engine and three floors: this is the Victorian steampunk house that is touring the United States

We are becoming the Japan of the 21st century

by

Let’s start with the facts: Europe ages faster than any other developed regionespecially in the south. middle age is over 44 years oldand going up. The big technology companies that define our era are American or Chinese, with permission for South Korean or Taiwanese exceptions. Our industrial glories (Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, Alcatel…) are today B2B suppliers or corporate zombies, invisible to the consumers who once loved them. We host two of the most important technology events in the world (MWC and IFA) but we are spectators of a spectacle that others dominate. And in the meantime, we regulate: GDPR, AI ActDMA, DSA. We legislate about innovations we don’t lead and impose rules on games we don’t play. There is an uncomfortable but quite precise parallel: post-bubble Japan. In the 1980s, Japan seemed destined to dominate the 21st century. Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Nintendo… Japan defined some of the technologies that dominated the world at the end of the 20th century: The game boy and the desktop Nintendo. The walkman and the discman. The Trinitron teles. The VHS that won the format war. The Canons and Nikons that captured our memories. The iconic Casio watches. The Toyotas and Hondas that redefined the word “reliability.” Even the word kaizen (continuous improvement) became a mantra for companies around the world. Japan, in addition to manufacturing great products, exported methodologieswork philosophies and visions of the technological future. Then came the bust, the stagnation, the deflation. And the worst: institutional nostalgia. Japan did not collapse, but began to stop creating the future. And it became a museum of how things were done, of when we were relevant. Europe is taking that same path, but faster. What is worrying is not so much the absence of large European technology companies with honorable exceptions, is the response to that absence: instead of creating conditions for them to emerge, we focus on aggressively regulating those that exist.. We act as if power resides in controlling other people’s platforms, not in building our own. It’s the mentality of someone who no longer plays: if I can’t win, at least I set the rules. But setting rules without the ability to enforce them is simply irrelevance disguised as principles. Japan took solace in its culture, its refined aesthetics, its exceptionalism. In Europe we console ourselves with our “values”. Data protection, sustainability, digital rights. Everything correct, everything noble. But insufficient. Because in the meantime, the technological architecture of the 21st century—the one that defines what is possible to do, think, create—is being built in California and Shenzhen. We set limits on systems that others design. The underlying problem is that Europe has internalized a narrative of managed decline. We no longer aspire to lead, but to “preserve our model.” Translation: manage decay with dignity. It took decades for Japan to accept its new role. Europe seems to have accepted it on the fast track. In Xataka | I increasingly like technology that doesn’t want anything from me: the one that has a purpose and leaves you alone Featured image | Tianshu Liu, Il Vagabiondo

In the nineteenth century, Spain made the strange decision to build its ways in Iberian width. Now they will be a gift for Renfe in Galicia

by

Renfe can breathe calm. The company has a huge business in the Galician corridor. The volume of travelers Between Madrid and Galicia he has shot to the point that airlines are retreating. Time savings since high speed arrives is such that many are choosing to pass to the train due to pure comfort or time flexibility. The Galician corridor is part of the next package of liberalization of the roads, next to the trains with destination Asturias, Cantabria, Cádiz and Huelva. It will not be, at least, until 2028 when the competition is palpable on the tracks because Adif is not complying with the deadlines planned. But Madrid-Galicia has another peculiarity. It is very likely that in 2028 we will see competition on their ways. To find the reason we have to travel to the nineteenth century. The particular Spanish railroad Each new technology arrives with a good rosary of standards of all kinds. It has happened with electric cars and passed with electricity itself. Also with measurement standards or, as in this case, train tracks. The railroad had started in the early nineteenth century. Although the steam machine was already born in the 18th century, it was not until 1804 when Richard Trevithick built A prototype in which the concept applied to transport. The steam locomotive was born. That one of those huge irons with wheels will pull a kind of drawers and could move the goods faster than they had done seemed like a great idea. So great that it soon caught and in 1830 the first train line was opened with passengers. They were the famous 50 kilometers that separated Liverpool from Manchester whose first trip headed George Stephensonwho was the ideologist of the construction of those first route. Those first trains circulated through some roads of 1,422 millimeters, 4 feet and 8 inches. Shortly after, those same ways widen half inch until reaching the famous 1,435 mm. Then they did not know but they had just adopted the “international width”, which is mounted in most trains in the world. Those measures also served to establish Two categories: narrow path (below those 1,435 mm) and wide via (above). The good results of the first trains made the railroad make the leap to continental Europe and the United States. But, like everything in this life, there were those who thought the system could be improved and that it was worth trying. That person was Isambard Kingdom Brunelan excellent British engineer who would create the Great Railroad of the West, joining London with the southwest, western England and much of Wales. Brunel thought that the higher the width of roads, faster speed could reach a train because the greater the stability achieved. Thus, it extended the track width up to 2,140 mm. Then a war of standards began that ended up resolving the Commission of Railroad Widths in favor of Stenphenson and its width of 1,435 mm. It was 1845. In Spain, at that time, we were engaged in the same fight. Railroad yes, but … how? That doubt was the one that set fire in the middle of the 19th century. Observing the good results that were being achieved outside our borders, the Government began to receive requests for the granting of licenses that allowed them to exploit the roads. Aware that it was necessary to harmonize the matter, they consulted a commission of engineers led by Juan Subercase, number one in the Corps of Engineers, acting president of the Advisory Board and director of the School of Engineers since 1837. He was helped Calixto Santa Cruz, number one of his promotion of 1839, and José Subercase, who in addition to his son was also the number one in his promotion the following year, 1840. Together they drafted the report 17.10.1844, on the Madrid Railroad to Cádiz, which recommended to reject a concession to build a railroad from Madrid to Cádiz. This concession was requested by the French engineer Juqueau Galbrun, which was certainly ironic over the years. Explains J. Moreno Fernández in a document in which the whole story of that controversial decision tells that none of the mentioned engineers had left the country and known firsthand how the railroads were abroad. That, perhaps, was one of the reasons why it was omitted that France had opted for international road width. And it is that Subercase was a firm defender of a width of six feet Castilians. The 1,672 millimeters that would end up receiving the name of “Iberian Width”. The defense is that a higher track width forced to use more powerful locomotives. In those days they thought they could increase vaporization with a wider boiler and that this was essential to, in a mountainous country like Spain, to have sufficient power to move the train. They also defended that a higher track width allowed a more stable step per curve but the truth is that time showed that neither one thing nor the other were key. The international width has been versed enough to be used in mountainous areas and the largest boilers in the trains had the problem of increasing the weight so the gain was diluted. In the government they thought that Subarcase motivations They were correct and they didn’t care that in the neighboring country they bet on a narrower track width. To import, they did not care that our other neighbor, Portugal, also promoted their railroads with the international width. In 1844, it was finally decided that the Spanish measure of the six Spanish feet was the one that should be protagonist for its orographic peculiarities. However, that did not condition the government that gave the approval to two routes built on that international width that was quickly imposing. Portugal pressed to have a railway exit to France that Spain ignored. And that created an urban legend that remains until today First in a line between Barcelona and Mataró, projected from the beginning with that exceptional width for the Spaniards … Read more

France has tried by all means that CAF does not take “the contract of the century” of the Belgian trains. There is good news

by

The contract continues. That is what the Belgian responsible for one of the country’s greatest tenders have said. The so -called “Century Contract” will therefore fall on CAF, the great Spanish rail giant. The Spanish company will be in charge of providing trains to the “Belgian Renfe”. Refused. The State Council of Belgium has spoken. And what has decided is that it rejects the last resort that Alstom had presented in the award contest to provide the CNS (the Belgian Renfe) of a huge battery of trains to modernize much of the fleet. In The mail They detail that the Belgian State Council had already rejected a resource for Siemens last week and now has been dismissed that of Alstom. The process has been especially long and complex with numerous resources presented, comings and goings and reconfirmations. “The contract of the century”. Given the enormous volume of money that will move this contract, it does not seem that the famous denomination of “the contract of the century” is left great. To start, the investment will be 1,695 million euros but if the deadlines and volume of deliveries are met, CAF could receive up to 3.4 billion euros. The amount will be paid for The supply of 500 trains Automotores including three car models with battery hybrid propulsion that will have the task of replacing the old diesel locomotives in those roads that have not yet been electrified. With the rejection of the latest resources, it only remains to negotiate the last details and sign the greatest contract in the history of CAF. Long and complex. Getting with this contract has not been simple for the Spanish company. At the beginning of the year, Alstom and Siemens resorted to the award of CAF to CAF, claiming that the motivations for it were not transparent enough. In April, a Belgian court recommended suspending the contest. During that time, Alstom took the opportunity to press by pointing out that his proposal was better because they have a plant on Belgian soil, emphasizing that the decision to take out this contract would harm the citizens themselves because they were not betting on local employment as a decisive factor. The process, however, continued. However, CAF has had to wait for the Belgian authorities to definitely reject the resource of Siemens and a second resource by emergency presented by Alstom, who insisted again on a supposed lack of transparency. Israel. During the last bars of all this bureaucratic framework, various voices rose to question the award of CAF. They defended that a company that was associated with the Israeli Shapir could not be hired to build and expand the red and green lines of the Light Jerusalem Rail. The project is problematic because it will be built on illegal Israeli settlements. That has caused the Basque company to have been indicated in an official UN report as one of the companies that take revenues from the country’s antipalestine policy. They specify that with this type of works these illegal settlements are helped. 500 million euros. That is what is estimated to take coffee If the Israeli project goes ahead. This is valued at 1.8 billion euros to lift 27 kilometers of roads and 50 new stations. With them we want to connect the West Bank settlements with those of West Jerusalem. The business for CAF does not remain alone in the construction of this light meter. It is also about to decide when it will participate in the management of the lines. At the moment, it is being assessed that its involvement is maintained between 15 and 25 years once between operation. CAF shields that the award of the contract is prior to the Israeli invasion of Palestine. Do not get into. At least that is what they say from SCNB. Appealed by up to four associations that rejected that CAF received this contest for its involvement with the project in the West Bank and Jerusalem, the Belgian operator has responded that it cannot “determine the foreign or commercial policy of the companies involved,” they collect in The mail. Its position is contrary to other companies in the sector. The Norwegian sovereign fund, for example, has retired its investments in Shapir (the partner of CAF in the Israeli project) for the genocide committed in Gaza and the Manager Storeband also took CA from its portfolio for its involvement. The Catalan company Comsa was also part of the consortium that had gained the award of the blue line of the tram to Jerusalem but In 2024 he retired from the project and The Basque Siner announced that it will not serve steel to Israeli companies. Photo | CAF and ABODI VESAKARAN In Xataka | Renfe wanted to renew his fleet in Cantabria and Asturias. Until he was wrong with the width of his trains

“Circular financing” between Nvidia and Openai can be the genius of the century … or collapse

by

Nvidia has announced A “strategic investment” of up to 100,000 million dollars in Openai. But it is an investment with trap: Openai will use that money to buy Nvidia chips. The semiconductor manufacturer thus becomes the financier of its own most important client. Why is it important. This maneuver dangerously reminds the “circular financing” schemes that characterized the end of the 2000 Puntocom bubble. Companies like Lucent, Nortel and Cisco financed operators as Global Crossing to buy them equipment. We are not the first to see this simile At this stage of AI. When the bubble exploded, both suppliers and customers sank into a spiral of debts and overcapacity. The agreement will allow OpenAI to build data centers with a joint capacity of 10 gigawatts, equivalent to about 10 nuclear reactors. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, has acknowledged that this represents between 4 and 5 million GPUS: “double those we distributed last year.” Brutal scale In figures. The numbers are astronomical. According to Huang himself in August, creating a 1 Gigavatio data center costs between 50,000 and 60,000 million dollars, of which about 35,000 million are destined for Nvidia chips. With that logic, the 10 projected gigawatts would cost more than 500,000 million dollars. The bags have reacted with euphoria: Nvidia shares rose almost 4%, adding 170,000 million dollars to their stock market capitalization. Jensen Huang Broza’s company is already 4.5 billion dollars of valuation. Yes, but. Parallelism with the ‘Puntocom’ bubble is disturbing. These same schemes of ‘Financing vendor‘We already saw them in the final stage of the 2000 technological bubble. They did not end well for any of the parties. The difference is that current numbers are much larger, even adjusting for inflation. The key is whether the productivity profits of the generative AI will compensate for the spent money. Between bambalins. The agreement explains the current situation in the AI ​​ecosystem: OpenAi desperately needs computing capacity to maintain its competitive advantage over the 700 million weekly users of their products. But infrastructure costs are so high that it needs constant external financing. Nvidia, on the other hand, seeks to ensure the future demand of its most advanced chips. The agreement guarantees mass orders while consolidating its dominant position against competitors such as AMD and Intel. “It is a closed cycle: Nvidia gives OpenAi money, and OpenAi uses it to buy Nvidia products,” Summary Summary Javier Pastor. The threat. Anti -Ponopoopoly experts are already arched eyebrows. Andre Barlow, a lawyer specialized in competition, explained to Reuters that “the agreement could change the economic incentives of NVIDIA and OpenAI, potentially blocking the Nvidia chips monopoly with OpenAi software leadership.” The structure creates extra barriers so that competitors such as AMD in OpenAi chips or rivals in AI models can climb their operations. They paint basts. In perspective. The story is full of similar schemes that ended badly. Global Crossing, the telecommunications operator that broke in 2002it was funded precisely by the same suppliers that sold equipment. When it was discovered that the real demand was much lower than the projected, both Global Crossing and its financiers lost thousands. The key question is whether the demand for AI services will be sufficient to justify this billionaire investment, or if we are faced with the recreation of the same speculative pattern with even more exorbitant figures. As Stacy Rasgon concludesBernstein analyst: “On the one hand, Openai helps meet very ambitious infrastructure objectives. On the other hand, it will further feed concerns about ‘circular’ financing.” Outstanding image | In Xataka | Openai estimates that it will enter 200,000 million dollars in 2030. The figure, like everything in OpenAi, is extremely ambitious

Farmers expect one of the worst harvest of what is going on the century

by

Pessimism is making its way in the grape sector. As the vintage season progresses in the different wine regions of our environment, the problems do not stop growing. The first was the price, with the farmers on a war for some prices that consider “ruinous”now, to this is added pessimism regarding the volume of the harvest. 34 million hectoliters. The 2025 harvest It is on its way to becoming In one of the worst views in recent years as the union of small farmers and livestock (UPA) recently stressed. Your concern is based on Estimates of the agro-food cooperative sector organization of Spain that indicate that this year’s wine production will be about 34 million hectoliters. As a contrast, The UPA points outan average season the wine production would be around 40-43 million hectoliters. From optimism to pessimism. The new estimate implies a remarkable cut with respect to the initial calculations, which trusted them to produce this year about 37.5 million hectoliters of wine and must. This fall is a reflection of an important change in the perception of what this harvest would be: of a optimism marked by the end of drought We have moved to a context in which pessimism predominates. Meteorology not so favorable. Meteorology has played an important role. The arrival of the rains seemed to bring new hopes to an agricultural sector punished by drought. However, hail storms, numerous this year, have taken its toll. He has also left his imprint in the harvest an extremely warm and drier summer than usual: the high temperatures of last month (in which we saw an intense heat wave) and the lack of rainfall have made a dent in the harvest, according to the UPA. More perhaps than meteorology, the sector also worries the climate: the UPA He also stood out The vulnerability of the sector to climate change, whose negative impact estimated at about 439,788 hectoliters, 1.4% of the harvest. The impact of the Mildiu. Another factor mentioned by the sector is that of Mildiu. This plants’ disease is a disease caused by fungi that infect plants and causes problems that end up being reflected in the productivity of the field. This Andalusia year, La Rioja, and Castilla y León have been the most affected communities according to the organization. A cGlobal RISIS. The volume of the harvest is just one of the problems that concern farmers. In its statement, the UPA also speaks of the uncertainty posed by the new US tariff policy, as well as the controversial reform of the common agricultural policy, the PAC. Although perhaps this year the great source of controversies has been economical. There have been several occasions in which farmers have protested because they consider that the prices offered by the wineries are not fair and that they focus on the crisis to their sector. To this we must add a structural problem in the sector, and that is that changes in consumption patterns have significantly punished the consumption of wine and many other alcoholic beverages. In Xataka | The Canary Islands banana is dead and does not know: Spain is an agricultural giant with mud feet Image | Mali Maeder

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.