companies

Companies that made “boring” chips are riding the dollar

by

In any sports team there are starters and substitutes. The headlines are usually the big stars, who capture all the attention. The substitutes are the ones who go out to do the job when it’s time, without making so much noise. That same universe of ‘Zidanes and Pavones‘is in the world of computer components and, if the chips of Intel, Nvidia, amd either TSMC They are the Zidanes, the Pavones are, indisputably, the chips of Texas Instruments. And the accounts are coming out. Texas Instruments. It is one of the most evident cases of how profitable it is to live outside the hype. Texas Instruments is the ‘Paco Bearings’ of technology, a company that has been manufacturing chips for decades that we have in a multitude of devices, but that do not make noise with specifications. Are very specific chips to carry out very specific tasks, and if in February we already said that They were dropping their wallets to acquire companies like Silicon Labs (an American company that also makes ‘boring chips’), now we have to echo the accounts. Revenue for the first quarter of the year they reached 4.8 billion dollars, 19% more year-on-year and exceeding expectations. And, precisely, what has increased the most year after year has been the number of chips for data centers. Boring chips in AI. Think about the chips in your washing machine, but also in the refrigerator, in a smart speaker or even in wireless headphones. It also makes other types of chips: those that control power, isolate signals and manage faults. And those are the ones who are making gold in the age of AI. GPUs and CPUs are the star chips of a data center, but others are needed to do the most basic work: power, control, interfaces and protection. Texas Instruments manufactures and sells these chips, and they are what allow a GPU or CPU to run stably in racks. Putting it down, if Nvidia or AMD put the ‘brains’ in the data centers, Texas Instruments provides the nervous system. And this is tremendously profitable since, in the breakdown by segments, although Texas Instruments’ industrial chip segment increased by 30% year-on-year, that of data centers grew 90%, representing approximately 11% of the company’s income. The ARM case. Another interesting case is what processors are experiencing. AI needs are shifting from GPU power for training to CPU efficiency for efficiency. In the era of Agentic AIit is estimated that more CPUs will be needed in data centers in what has already been dubbed the ‘CPU renaissance’. Intel is adapting to it and the market is rewarding a historic processor: Arm Holdings. On March 24, presented AGI CPU, ARM’s first proprietary processor for data centers. It is optimized to precisely run large inference workloads, such as the aforementioned agentic artificial intelligence. Manufactured in a 3-nanometer TSCM process, it has 136 cores per chip and a performance that promises to be double that of conventional x86 processors. AND co-developed with Meta, one of the most interested in stopping depending on Nvidia. Market confidence is at its highest and share prices have shot up to all-time highs. In fact, the graph of ARM and Texas Instruments is extremely similar over the last five years. Those of memory, to their ball. In parallel, there are other companies that do not create the processors to ‘move’ the AI, but rather the memory for the most powerful GPUs on the market. They are invisible chips, but unlike Texas Instruments, their presence in data centers is notable for a very simple reason: they are those same memory companies that have stopped making memory for consumers, focusing almost all of their production on data centers. SK Hynix record a 405% growth in its operating profit in the first quarter of the year, something driven by HBM memories and DRAM for AI. Samsung, more of the same, earning more in three months than during all of last year. The question is the same as in recent months: how long will this growth last and whether investment in data center equipment has a ceiling. And what will happen when that ceiling is reached. Images | Victorgrigas, Raimond Spekking In Xataka | NVIDIA has so much money that it is becoming something different: the largest startup incubator in the world

forcing the same companies to comply with incompatible laws

by

The Chinese State Council has published two decrees which do not leave much room for interpretation: One on security of industrial supply chains, signed on March 31. And another on improper extraterritorial jurisdiction, published April 13. Together they form the most explicit legal arsenal the Chinese government has yet built to combat Western sanctions, and to warn foreign companies that choosing sides has consequences. Good or bad. Why is it important. For years, China has responded to pressures from across the Pacific with tools ad hoc and implicit signals. Now it does so by decree of the Council of State, the supreme executive body. It’s actually the same written strategy as before, but now black on white. The context. The first of the documents, known internally as Decree 834, is linked to the Chinese national security law and obliges ministries and local governments to identify, optimize and protect industrial supply chains considered strategic. The immediate trigger has been the war in Iran, which has interrupted the flow of sulfuric acidurea and other chemical inputs that China needs for its industry and agricultural sector. But the document comes from further afield: it is the culmination of decades of policy of self-sufficiency in resources, from rare earths to lithium. Between the lines. The most striking thing about Decree 834 is not what it regulates, but what it threatens. It includes explicit language about China’s right to investigate and take countermeasures against any foreign actor that “disrupts the normal functioning of markets” or imposes “discriminatory restrictions” on Chinese supply chains. The definition is broad on purpose. A Western company that pressures its government to sanction a Chinese competitor could find itself in the spotlight, as It already happened with Micron in 2023. The question. The second decree is even more direct. Their Regulations on Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Foreign Countries They say that if China considers foreign regulations that affect Chinese interests illegitimate, companies that comply with them are exposed to Chinese sanctions. Put another way: If the United States prohibits you from selling to China and China considers that prohibition “improper,” you will have to choose who you disobey. Possible sanctions include fines, bans on entry and exit from the territory, and export and import restrictions. The decree establishes a formal review mechanism: companies can ask the Chinese government for an exemption if they demonstrate that compliance with the foreign standard is unavoidable. This exemption can be granted or denied, which will turn the companies themselves into negotiating leverage between governments. Like Huawei in 2018. Yes, but. If a foreign government imposes a regulation that China does not want to abide by, it can announce that it is “improper,” wait for the affected companies to ask for an exemption, and use them as bargaining chips in diplomatic negotiations. It will happen because it is predictable and because that is where the incentives fit. The background. Since the 2018 trade war and semiconductor export controls, China has built a legal repertoire of response that includes Antitrust Lawthe List of Untrustworthy Entities and the Anti-Sanctions Law. These two new decrees do not open doors that no longer existed, but they do mark them with a neon sign. The message for foreign companies that do lobbying in the United States against Chinese competitors is crystal clear. Featured image | Xataka In Xataka | China has banned another AI startup from exporting talent and research: little by little, it is “nationalizing” AI

US companies continue to pursue larger and larger AI models. Those from China continue to demonstrate that it is not necessary

by

Until now, Alibaba had a great open model for programming. It is based on Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, but the problem is that it was gigantic with its 397 billion parameters and 807 GB of disk (and memory) size. The Chinese company has done something surprising and has announced these days the Qwen3.6-27B modelwhich in its quantized version weighs less than 17 GB. You would think that at that size he would be much worse than his older brother. But you would be wrong. It is proof that it is possible to give for much less. A dense model. Most large weight models open in 2026 use Mixture-of-Experts architecture (MoE): They have many parameters in total, but only activate a fraction of them when we use them. For example, the Qwen3.5-397B-A17B model precisely indicated that in its name: of the 397,000 million parameters, it only activated 17,000 million (hence the A17B) when using it. With Qwen3.6-27B we have what is called a dense model: the 27 billion parameters are activated in each inference. Although it is somewhat less efficient, it has clear practical advantages. For example, there is no need to configure an expert router, and quantization is more predictable and compact. The idea has worked, and the results prove it. The performance of this “small” AI model is even higher than a much larger previous version. Benchmarks don’t lie (too much). In SWE-bench Verifiedthe most popular benchmark for real programming tasks, Qwen3.6-27B achieves 77.2% score compared to 76.2% for the 397B model. In Terminal-Bench 2.0, which measures how well the model executes tasks in the command console, it achieved 59.3% compared to 2.5% for its rival. But in this test it achieves exactly the same score as Claude Opus 4.5, one of the best recent Anthropic models. That an “Open Source” model that can be easily used locally achieves something like this is unusual, but we must be cautious: the benchmarks are from Alibaba itself, and there is currently no independent verification, although who are wearing they seem be really satisfied with the. Even Alibaba is surprised. What is striking about this launch is that the company that launched it is promoting it above its most ambitious model until recently. Let them compare both versions themselves and recognize that the “small” is the most powerful It is significant. It’s like saying from the rooftops that the largest AI models have no competition, when they have just proven that this is not the case and that models like Qwen3.6-27B can be truly remarkable in behavior. 24 GB of VRAM is “enough”. Thanks to its small size, it is possible to use this model on relatively accessible machines. Thus, the 24 GB of video memory of the RTX 3090 makes these graphics cards a perfect alternative to install and use Qwen3.6-27B with excellent performance. Dense models do not do so well on MacBook or Mac mini with unified memory, and although logically not everyone has access to graphics cards with 24 GB of RAM, access to really capable local models continues to improve. The best essences, in small bottles. Alibaba is a steamroller of “small” AI models, and it demonstrated this in early March when launched several that ranged from 0.8B to 9B. Fortunately there are varied alternatives in that segment of “Small Language Models” (SLMs) and here we have reference examples like Gemma 4just released by Google. Microsoft with Phi-4 (which needs an update, like gpt-oss-20b/120b) or Mistral with Devstral 2 They are examples that Western companies are also making moves in this interesting field. But. According to benchmarks, Qwen3.6-27b is comparable in some benchmarks to Claude Opus 4.5, Anthropic’s most advanced model when it was launched in November 2025. That is surprising and confirms that open weight models from Chinese companies are, as Demis Hassabis saidbetween 6 and 12 months behind the most advanced models from Anthropic, OpenAI or Google. But to execute them a significant investment is still necessary, and although local AI models are very interesting in terms of privacy, if today one wants maximum speed and performance it still depends on commercial models in the cloud. In Xataka | Google will invest up to $40 billion in Anthropic because the new normal for AI is investing in your enemy

They believed they had found jobs in large companies. In reality they were being deceived: this is how the trap works

by

Looking for a job is already hard enough without having to be suspicious of every message that arrives in your inbox. And yet, that is exactly what the campaign that has warned about proposes. NordVPN: a trap set up to look like a real opportunity. We are not talking about a clumsy email or a sloppy website, but rather something much more refined, with names like Meta, Disney, Coca-Cola or Spotify as a claim. That’s the key to everything: they play with the illusion of those who believe they may be on the verge of an interview or a new job, when in reality they are entering into a fraud. The investigation alerts of a campaign of phishing specifically aimed at job seekers. The attackers have set up an attack chain in several phases that impersonates large brands and seeks to take the victim to a very specific point: a false login screen with which they intend to keep their Facebook credentials. Let’s see in detail the strategy of these cybercriminals. The mechanics behind fraud that imitates real selection processes It all starts with cold recruitment emails, carefully written and with a professional tone that seeks to resemble real human resources communications. It is not a minor detail that some of these shipments are made through legitimate services such as Google AppSheetbecause not only can that help you avoid spam filters, it also helps make the scene more believable to the person on the other end. The trap, at least at the beginning, is not presented in a crude way, but with a very careful appearance. From there, one of the most peculiar pieces of the entire chain appears: the so-called “HUB” domains. According to the investigation, these are pages that do not show their most sensitive content to anyone who enters directly. If a security analyst or an automated system visits that domain without coming from the specific link included in the email, what they find is a generic website, with hardly any visible activity. The truly important part is only activated when the visit arrives from that specific reference, which acts as a key and reveals the next step of the deception. The next move of the campaign is to give the victim exactly what they expect to see after a convincing recruitment email: a website that looks like a job portal. The research explains that, after that first access, the user lands on a intermediate domain which simulates a legitimate job offer portal and where you can consult positions that seem real and associated with the company whose identity they are impersonating. The more the scene resembles a normal job search, the easier it is for the person to interpret everything that comes after as a logical part of the same process. Campaign replicates legitimate job pages and uses Facebook login as hook The decisive moment comes when the victim clicks on “Request” or “Send request”. That click does not open a job form or a next phase of the supposed selection process, but rather a phishing page that asks you to log in with Facebook to continue. That’s where the trap stops insinuating itself and begins to execute its true purpose. All of the above was designed to lead to that exact point, one in which the request may seem like another simple verification within the application, when in reality what is being delivered are the account credentials. The supposed job opportunity was nothing more than the decoration of an operation with a much more specific purpose. According to the research, the final objective is steal Facebook credentials and thus obtain access to the victim’s account, with the possibility of also compromising other services connected to it. That’s why it’s a good idea to stick with a practical idea: before entering any credential, you should check the URL carefully, check that you are on the official domain, and be wary of any strange login. Images | Xataka with Grok | NordVPN In Xataka | AI is crucial for the US military. So he’s naming OpenAI and Palantir leaders as lieutenant generals

Mythos will be the most dangerous AI model, but companies are already taking note of its security tips

by

Top AI companies are in the race to create the best artificial intelligence model. That race has been won by Anthropic with Mythos. At least, That’s what they claim (of course)with phrases like it is so powerful that they cannot make it public. There is reasons to take Anthropic’s words with a grain of salt, but what is evident is that Mythos is already working. Although the company has not released it, has already given access to certain technology partners. The decision is based on the company’s fear that the model will be used maliciously. They themselves have described as a threat to cybersecurity based on the number of zero-day vulnerabilities that Mythos would have found in both the main operating systems on the market and in browsers. And, just when the model is arousing opinions from some and others, Mozilla arrives to affirm that the latest version of Firefox 150 It has security fixes for 271 vulnerabilities that have been discovered thanks to this preliminary version of Claude Mythos. For its part, OpenAI does not believe anything at all. “Just as capable as a human” Mozilla it details in one of the latest posts on his blog. The company had been collaborating with Anthropic for some time and using the Claude Opus 4.6 model to find errors. In January, it found 22 vulnerabilities in a couple of weeks, 14 of them rated very serious. Of those 22 found by Opos 4.6, which is already a powerful model, we move on to the 271 discovered by Mythos. It is a huge leap and Mozilla wanted to continue investigating to see to what extent the new model surpasses Opus. Analyzing Firefox 147, Mythos generated 181 functional exploits. Opus 4.6? Just two. 90 times less. Those results have led Mozilla to write that Mythos Preview is “just as capable as the best human cybersecurity researchers”adding that they have not found any categories that humans can detect that Mythos cannot. This has another reading since, as the company itself states, seeing that the model is capable of finding so many errors in such a short time makes them wonder if it is possible to stay up to date in cybersecurity work when alternatives to Mythos are developed that do fall into hands not controlled by those responsible. There is always the fact that Mythos has not found any errors that Mozilla’s human ‘watchmen’ have not detected and that a tool like this will help to have a more secure system. All of this, in the end, pushing that narrative that Mythos is practically a technological miracle. a nuclear bomb The other side of the coin is that Sam Altman, head of OpenAI, doesn’t believe anything. Taking advantage of his recent participation in a podcast, he has qualified The entire Anthropic movement as a fear-based marketing ploy. He accuses Dario Amodei’s company (Altman’s public enemy) of wanting to restrict AI to a small number of people in a strategy that he has compared to having an atomic bomb, threatening to release it and making a living by selling bunkers to protect themselves from that same bomb. “It is evident that this is an extraordinarily powerful marketing strategy. We have created a bomb and we are going to drop it. You can buy a bunker from us for 100 million dollars” It is one more point in that historical rivalry in which both companies (and managers) have been involved for some time, but it comes just when Anthropic is having a greater role and OpenAI is being forced to release ballast in the form of services like Sora. Altman is not the only one who thinks that Anthropic is repeatedly using this discourse of “We have something so powerful that we cannot make it public” because it is a good strategy to obtain financing. There are already voices that they point that Mythos is not that big of a deal and, in fact, other models have proven to be able to do the same, finding the same errors and problems detected by Anthropic. But, above all, we must remember that, in 2019, someone already said that a model was too dangerous for public release. Who? OpenAI itself with GPT-2. Obviously, it wasn’t that dangerous. In Xataka | OpenAI and Anthropic have proposed the impossible: lose $85 billion in one year and survive

They have kidnapped agents from Anthropic, Google and Microsoft for the sake of science. The three companies ended up paying

by

In some development teams it is already becoming common to rely on artificial intelligence agents to review incidents, analyze code changes and move through tasks that were previously left in human hands. The problem appears when these systems not only read information that may come from outside, but also operate in spaces where they coexist. sensitive keys, tokens and permissions. That is what recent research puts on the table: we are not simply facing a useful tool that can make mistakes, but rather an architecture that can also become dangerous if it is deployed without very clear limits. The alarm has been turned on Aonan Guan and Johns Hopkins researchers Zhengyu Liu and Gavin Zhong after demonstrating attacks against three agents deployed on the aforementioned platform: Claude Code Security Review, from Anthropic, Gemini CLI Action, from Google, and GitHub Copilot Agent, a GitHub tool under Microsoft. According to your documentation, The failures were communicated in a coordinated manner and ended in financial rewards paid by the companies, but what is relevant is that they point to a broader problem. This is how they managed to twist the agents from within The name that Guan gives to the discovery helps a lot to understand what this is all about: “Comment and Control.” The idea is simple to explain, although the substance is not so simple. Instead of setting up an external infrastructure to direct the attack, GitHub itself acts as an entry and exit channel: the attacker leave the instruction in a titlean incident or a comment, the agent processes it as if it were part of normal work and the result ends up reappearing within that same environment. Everything stays at home, and that is precisely the key to the problem. And that “everything stays at home” is not a minor detail, but the basis of what the research describes. The three agents share a very similar logic: they read normal content from GitHub, incorporate it as a work context, and from there, execute actions within automated flows. The clash appears because that same space not only contains text sent by third parties, but also tools, permissions and secrets that the agent needs to operate. The first case Guan details concerns Claude Code Security Review, an Anthropic GitHub action designed to review code changes and look for possible security flaws. Up to this point, everything is within what was expected. The problem, as the researcher explains, is that it was enough to introduce malicious instructions in the title of a pull requestwhich is the request that someone sends to propose changes to a project, so that the agent will execute commands and return the result as if it were part of your review. The team then managed to go a step further and demonstrate that it could also extract credentials from the environment. The interesting thing is that the same scheme also appeared in the other two services, although with nuances. At Google, Gemini CLI Action could be pushed to reveal the GEMINI_API_KEY from instructions snuck into an issue and its comments; In GitHub Copilot Agent, the variant was even more worrying, because the attack was hidden in an HTML comment that a person did not see on the screen, but the agent did process when another person assigned it to the case. In both scenarios, the background was the same again: apparently normal content that ended up twisting the behavior of the system until exposing credentials or sensitive information within GitHub itself. Guan assures that the pattern made it possible to leak API keys, GitHub tokens and other secrets exposed in the environment where the agent ran, that is, just the credentials that can later open the door to much more delicate actions. Who does this affect? Especially to repositories that run agents in GitHub Actions on content sent by untrustworthy collaborators and, in addition, give them access to secrets or powerful tools. The researcher himself clarifies that the risk depends a lot on the configuration: by default GitHub does not expose secrets to pull requests from forksbut there are deployments that open that door. And here another layer of the matter appears, less technical but just as important. As published by The RegisterAnthropic, Google, and GitHub ended up paying bounties for the findings, but none of the three had published public notices or assigned CVE at the time of that information. Guan was quite clear about this: he said he knew “for certain” that some users were still stuck on vulnerable versions and warned that, without visible communication, many may never know that they were exposed or even being attacked. So although there were mitigations and changes in documentation or in the internal treatment of reports, there was no equivalent public notice for all those potentially affected. Anthropic settled the case on November 25, 2025 and paid $100 Google rewarded the discovery on January 20, 2026 with $1,337 GitHub closed the case on March 9, 2026 with a payment of $500 What makes this case especially delicate is that GitHub does not seem like the end of the road, but rather the first visible showcase. Guan argues that the same pattern can probably be reproduced in other agents who work with tools and secrets within automatic flows, and there he mentions from Slack-connected bots to Jira agentsmail or deployment automation. The logic is the same again: if the system has to read external content to do its job and also has enough access to act, the field is fertile for someone to try to twist it from within. The conclusion that Guan reaches is not about selling a magic solution, but about returning to a fairly classic idea in security: giving each system only what is essential to do its job. If an agent reviews code, they shouldn’t have access to tools or secrets they don’t need; If you’re just summarizing issues, it wouldn’t make sense for you to write to GitHub or touch sensitive credentials. That … Read more

Europe thinks that it is the one who wants to become independent from US technology companies. It’s actually the other way around.

by

We are going to have to make a dictionary when we talk about artificial intelligence. Yes generative artificial intelligence, general artificial intelligence, AI agents and Google has its Personal Intelligence. This service has been available for a few months in the United States and is now expanding to the rest of the world for users of the company’s suite. To all? Well no, not everyone, and Google leaves out the entire European economic area, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. What does this do. First of all, Gemini Personal Intelligence is like an ‘entity’ that has an eye on all the Google applications that we use with our account. It is a connection between the entire ecosystem which has access to all the information from YouTube, Maps, Calendar, Drive, Gmail, Docs or Photos. The idea is that they know everything about you to help you with day-to-day requests. Google itself gives an example: Since I connected my apps through Personal Intelligence, my daily life has become easier. For example, two weeks ago we needed new tires for our 2019 Honda minivan. While waiting at the store, I realized I didn’t know the size of the tires, so I asked Gemini. Nowadays, any chatbot can find these tire specifications, but Gemini went further. He suggested two options: one for daily driving and one for all-weather conditions, with references to our family road trips to Oklahoma that I found on Google Photos. Then, he neatly extracted the ratings and prices of each one. When I got to the counter, they asked me for my license plate. Instead of looking for it or losing my spot in line to get back to the parking lot, I asked Gemini. It extracted the seven-digit number from an image in Photos and also helped me identify the specific model of the truck by searching Gmail. Just like that, we had everything ready. Everyone can appreciate how useful this is, of course. Because, furthermore, it is not free: you need to be on an AI Pro or Ultra payment plan. Europe, you are excluded, beautiful. But if you think that life can be solved for you like the person in the example and you live in Europe, you should know that you cannot access it. Google has made it very clear that the feature is not available in the European Union, the United Kingdom and Switzerland due to the strict privacy regulations that are found within the General Data Protection Regulation. It is one more service that does not reach European users due to these stricter privacy conditions and, in addition, they have not detailed any deadline so that we Europeans know more or less when it will be available in the region. If you read us from a Latin American country and you are interested in this software, good news, is available. Privacy. Regarding privacy, being something that we should take very seriously, it is curious how in the age of AI that privacy is eroded because the models have more and more data. We give a lot to this software and we don’t really know who’s watchingand Google wanted comment What is the privacy approach of your Personal Intelligence. According to the company, we can link and unlink applications from the ecosystem according to our preferences, but once we connect Photos, for example, you will have access to everything. They say that the photos in the gallery will not be used to train the model (here it is extremely sensitive because we each have personal photos on our mobile) and they take “measures to filter or hide personal data from the conversation.” They point out that “we do not train our systems to learn your license plate number, but to understand that, when you ask for it, we can find it.” Regarding health, a sensitive topic that is topical due to what El Salvador has done, they assure that “Gemini tries to avoid making proactive assumptions about sensitive data such as your health, although it will analyze that data if you ask it.” ¿Pressure? In any case, and what Google’s Personal Intelligence has to offer draws more or less attention, it is evident that carrying out a global launch of this magnitude without waiting to ‘sort the papers’ to launch it in Europe is also a declaration of intent. Europe is at a time when it is seeking its military sovereignty, aerospace and technologicalareas in which depends largely on the United States. We are building our infrastructure and systems, and not launching something like this in Europe is one more way of putting pressure on the organizations that, very actively, sand have positioned about the treatment of our data by these large companies. Image | Google (edited) In Xataka | Sometimes erotic AIs are AIs. And sometimes, they are a man from Kenya who charges two dollars an hour

Chinese companies are designing their AI for an audience the West is ignoring: retirees

by

We can adapt the title of that great Cohen film to AI: there is no AI for old people. The majority of AI chatbot users are young and the older ones usually have technical knowledge. The AI ​​boom, like other technological booms, is leaving out the older onesexcept in China. Hello, grandmother. They tell it in Nikkei Asia. Large Chinese technology companies such as ByteDance and Tencent are designing chatbots and apps with AI with older users in mind. Doubao, the most popular chatbot in China, has launched advertising campaigns targeting retirees, highlighting its accessible features; It allows you to converse by voice, understands dialects and even addresses users as grandfather or grandmother. According to data from China Internet Network Information Centerthe number of AI users between 50 and 59 years old represent 10% of the total and those over 60 years old only 5%. They are still a minority, but there is a curious fact and that is that, although the adoption rate in this group is much lower, the users who start using it are more loyal and use it frequently. Everyday help. In Nikkei they tell the story of Chen Bing, a 63-year-old woman who has made AI her personal assistant. He used it to organize an event with alumni of his school, from sharing expenses to generating a video that he used in the background of a poetry workshop. It also helps you identify flowers and read fine print. According to Chen, AI gives him independence and prevents him from having to constantly ask his children for help. And health. There are other AI proposals aimed at the elderly, such as Ant Afu, a health chatbot with which users can get advice and access health services. However, it has generated criticism, first of all due to possible conflicts of interest. In the past, there was a scandal because Baidu recommended hospitals and treatments based on paid advertisements and there are doubts that this system has similar influences. On the other hand, there is the question that AI continues to fail a lot in diagnosis. The silver economy. It is what the market for products and services aimed at older people is called in China. China already has 323 million retirees and the government is promoting these types of initiatives since it sees great potential for consumption by the elderly, something they need to encourage in the midst of an economic recession. It is estimated that by 2035, the silver economy will account for 10% of the country’s entire gross domestic product Aging population. It is one of the problems facing China today. The government is trying literally everything for stimulate birth (without much successby the way) and have also raised raise the retirement age. However, the aging of the population is not something exclusive to China, it is also a problem that Europe and more countries in the northern hemisphere We have been dragging on for a long time. In the European Union there are some initiatives such as digital literacy courses for seniorsbut at the private company level, the proposals are very niche. In Xataka | China knows that its population is going to collapse but it already has a long-term plan to solve it. Of course, thanks to AI

LaLiga’s massive IP blocks are making life impossible for users, companies and developers. So you can claim

by

LittleCranky67, which is the alias of our protagonist, didn’t know what was happening with his computer this weekend. This developer was doing something that never gave him any trouble: working with the GitLab platform to download a Docker software package. That process kept giving him strange errors, and LittleCranky67 ended up realizing what had caused it all: LaLiga’s indiscriminate IP blocking. After share your frustration on HackerNewshundreds of comments confirmed other similar cases, and in them we also discovered something interesting: how to officially claim LaLiga. Or at least, how to try. A sad old story. LaLiga he shields himself in the Judgment of December 18, 2024 issued by the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona. This allows you to demand from operators such as Movistar, Vodafone, Orange or Digi to block at the IP level any address that is identified as a source of illegal IPTV broadcasts during LaLiga football matches. Many of those IPs are Cloudflare shared IPs, so when the IPTV service IP is blocked, all domains associated with that shared IP are blocked, which can be hundreds or even thousands. And in those domains there are web pages of private usersfrom companies that they stop being able to sell and also critical services for developers such as Docker, GitHub or GitLab. The irony is that lockdowns don’t work. While many users complain about these blocks and how are affecting websites and services that usemany others continue to remember on social networks that in reality the blocks to view these IPTV broadcasts can be easily circumvented in many ways. The most popular, use VPN services. In LaLiga they know that this method is widely used, so for months They are also working on blocking those services. It doesn’t seem to be serving a lotand whoever really wants to watch the football game without paying has many relatively simple ways to achieve it. If you are affected, you can claim. In that thread, several users remember that one way to try to change things is for users to protest, complain and complain en masse. There are several ways to do it: Telecommunications User Service Office. It is the official body in Spain for these cases. A formal claim can be filed for arbitrary loss of service or censorship, and even claim financial losses if the blockade prevents you from working. Those who have a digital certificate or Cl@ve can do so directly online. Complain to your internet provider. It is also important to open a support ticket with your operator. It is true that they are obliged to follow court orders, but they must know that the blockade is causing collateral damage to services that have nothing to do with football. Common Electronic Registry (SARA network). This portal It also allows you to send formal complaints to management if other methods fail. Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD). Those responsible for RootedCON have been fighting this situation for some time, and offer another recommendation: report LaLiga to the AEPD. This template allows you to complete that complaint in a simple way Demagive to Telecommunications Operators. At RootedCON they also suggest filing a complaint against ISPs, and explain the process in a small thread on Twitter. Again, just download a request and file it individually. Complaint to the European Commission. It is also possible to enter the European Commission complaints website to send a claim to the entity. We explained it in Xataka and the process is another way of trying to stop this situation with the help of European bodies. The BOE serves as a defensive argument. In these complaints it is advisable to cite the BOE-A-2022-10757 as a legal reference. It corresponds to Law 11/2022, of June 28, General Telecommunications (LGTel) and is the fundamental rule that regulates your rights as an internet user in Spain. The message that we can write is the following: “Under the protection of Law 11/2022, of June 28, General Telecommunications (BOE-A-2022-10757), specifically regarding the rights of end users (Chapter IV) and the principles of continuity and quality of service, I present this claim for the blocking of access to legitimate IP addresses (specify which ones, e.g. Cloudflare/Docker) unrelated to any illicit activity. This blockade constitutes a violation of my right to communication and the contracted service, causing harm (professional/personal) by preventing the operation of work/security tools. “I request the immediate cessation of said technical restriction in compliance with the provisions of the aforementioned Law.” The nightmare continues. The debate in HackerNews is nothing more than confirmation of what internet users in Spain have been suffering for more than a year. A private organization has the power to order ISPs in a country to indiscriminately block IPs without judicial review in real time, during regular hours, causing documented harm to third parties that have nothing to do with the original violation. In that thread some users compare the situation with that of the Great Firewall of Chinanot so much in intensity as in its logic. We are faced with an infrastructure of selective censorship that seems to be able to be applied to any content that an actor with sufficient judicial power wants to block. From football to tennis or golf. In fact, things could go further, because what began as an attack against illegal broadcasts of football matches could now be seen in other sports such as tennis or golf. Telefónica —which follows in the footsteps of LaLiga— wants to extend indiscriminate blockades to the Champions League, tennis or golf. This threatens to suffer these side effects for many more days and for many more hours, and can mean that for a good part of the week, users like LittleCranky67 find themselves unable to download Docker packages or access thousands of legitimate websites that end up being knocked down by these blocks. Images | Wirestock | LaLiga In Xataka | LaLiga has been at war with Cloudflare for years over piracy. It has just joined forces with its main competitor

with seven Dutch companies together

by

These American companies control 60% of the global cloud infrastructure market: Microsoft and its Azure, Google Cloud and Amazon AWS, a providential sector in the globalized and permanently connected world in which we live. And very lucrative: in 2025 revenues exceeded $400 billion, according to Synergy Researchthis is nine times more than in 2017. There are no corporations capable of overshadowing these three, so seven Dutch cloud services companies they have made a decision: unite to be a real alternative to American big tech. The movement is more important than it seems: it is an organized response to such dependency that it is already considered a strategic risk. The project: Open Cloud Alliance. The answer is Open Cloud Alliantie, a conglomerate formed by Centric, KPN, Info Support, Intermax, Nebul, Previder and Uniserver, with a joint turnover of 2.5 billion euros annually. In their manifesto they explain that they are creating jobs in the Netherlands and that both companies and those who work in them pay taxes there. As explains Ludo BaauwCEO of the Intermax Group to NRC, separately they are competitive and their reason for being is not to set prices, but to bid for public contracts: “I would prefer a competitor from the Netherlands to win rather than a large American technology company.” There was a trigger to join: the possible sale of Solvinity, provider of cloud services for the Dutch government’s Digid digital identity system, to the American company Kyndryl. The agreement is pending approval by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, but it has already had consequences. A strategic vulnerability. The first consequence was to put on the table a vulnerability of the Dutch system that can be extrapolated to all the states of the old continent. According to an analysis carried out by NOS, 67% of the domains of Dutch public organizations, hospitals and schools depend on at least one American cloud service. Why is it important. The project has three compelling reasons for existing: Be real competition from North American big tech. The CEO of the Dutch competition body (ACM) has made it clear: “Overall, alliances like this can boost market forces by creating new players that are better positioned to compete with large American suppliers.” Boost to the national economy. The companies are clear in their manifesto: jobs and taxes for the Netherlands. In a phrase: “it is not an expense, it is an investment.” Data sovereignty. That such critical state services as health, education or digital identity depend on foreign companies subject to foreign legislation and corporate decisions outside of European control. Context. This movement arises within the European debate on digital sovereignty and reducing technological dependence on the United States. The trend is not new, but Trump’s policies have accelerated that conversation. Europe has the legal framework in the form of GDPRthe Digital Markets Lawthe Digital Services Law wave Chips Actwhich make up a solid regulatory arsenal aimed at reducing foreign technological dependence. The problem is that having the laws is not equivalent to having the industry. Local European suppliers are individually solvent, but they do not have the capacity to absorb complex projects or compete with the scale of the big three that dominate the market. Not even GAIA-Xthe large Franco-German sovereign cloud project, has been able to so far. Europe regulates well but scales poorly and that is the void that the Open Cloud Alliantie is going to try to fill. How are they going to work?. He operating model It will be based on three pillars: Common technical standards, which will allow data to be moved between providers without friction by adopting the same technical specifications. Collaboration yes, cartel no. They will share standard infrastructure and may bid together for large contracts, but they are still competing with each other when it comes to winning customers. Sovereignty clause. If one of the seven is acquired by a non-European company, the others automatically absorb its role. The data always remains in Dutch hands, regardless of what happens in the mergers and acquisitions market. Towards technological sovereignty of the cloud. The Open Cloud Alliantie is a relevant experiment on which other member states and corporations will set their sights as long as it is perfectly replicable. Medium-sized companies that otherwise could not compete with large companies in the United States, but that, grouped under common standards and clear collaboration rules, can offer a credible alternative to the public sector. The question is whether other European countries will take note before the dependency becomes too deep to reverse. In Xataka | Europe is looking for a place to put its AI gigafactory. Spain and Portugal are showing all their renewable plumage In Xataka | Europe has proposed to become technologically independent from the US: And it has started with the most difficult thing: chips Cover | İsmail Enes Ayhan and François Genon

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.