dont

We thought that buying a yacht was a luxury. The real luxury that they don’t tell you is another: maintaining it

by

Owning a yacht is synonymous with luxury and opulence. It is not for less. Superyachts like the koru by Jeff Bezos or the Leviathan by Gabe Newell, they had a purchase price of 500 million dollars; he launchpad by Mark Zuckerberg about 300 million dollars. However, although buying a yacht seems the most difficultwho has been in the sector for some time knows that this initial disbursement will not be the only one, it is only the first. The true luxury (and what is really expensive) is what comes after and is repeated every year: the maintenance of that yacht. There is an unwritten rule that has been circulating around moorings and ports for decades to prepare future buyers for what awaits them. It is called the “10% rule“, and refers to the annual maintenance cost that a yacht requires: 10% of its price, each year. The inhabitants of the Caribbean island of Antigua they learned it the hard way. The price of a yacht does not come on the label When someone is going to buy a boat, it is usual to take into account whether they can afford its purchase price. That’s the easy part. You look at the price and compare it to your checking account. If it fits the budget, honey on flakes. However, there is a cost that not always taken into account in which the owner of a yacht (or any boat in general) should reserve approximately the 10% of the purchase price to cover all expenses annual operation and maintenance. Yes, 10% of the price each year. A 500,000 euro yacht will generate annual costs of around 50,000 euros; If the value amounts to one million euros, the figure rises to 100,000 euros per year. That 10% includes practically everything necessary to keep the boat sailing and in perfect condition: routine maintenance, regular repairs, average fuelannual insurance, mooring fees and, in the case of larger superyachts, crew salaries. Boat insurance alone already represents between 1.5% and 2% of the value of the yacht per year, which in a 500,000 euro boat translates into between 7,500 and 10,000 euros per year in premiums alone. At this point, it should be noted that these premiums are also calculated based on the location of the mooring. A yacht moored in the Mediterranean does not pay the same insurance as in areas like Florida where hurricane warnings and tropical storms are the order of the day. As the ship ages, the numbers change The 10% rule is stated as a reference guide for the entire life of the yacht. That is, it is an average in which some years the maintenance cost will be well below that 10%, while in other years it will far exceed it. However, above or below, the cost always remains close to that 10%: As and as they point out from WS Yatch Brokersone of the decisive factors, for example, is that this 10% varies as the age of the boat advances. When the yacht is new, the manufacturer’s warranties are in force, the mechanical systems are working well and maintenance costs can remain around 2% of the purchase price for the first few years. That 2% corresponds to fixed expenses such as insurance, mooring, or basic deck maintenance. As the years go by, parts wear out, warranties expire, and breakdowns become more and more frequent. For boats between 5 and 15 years old, the recommended percentage rises to 10%, with bad years that can reach (and exceed) 15% of the purchase value. The reason is that, as the market value of the boat goes down, its maintenance costs go up, so any calculation based on a fixed percentage loses reliability. That is to say, a 15-year-old yacht that has cost 100,000 euros second-hand will not (or at least not always) have expenses of 10% since its engine and hull begin to need major repairs due to years of use. That is, what the buyer has saved on the purchase price must then be invested in repairs anyway. Hence the 10% rule is a reference average applied to the entire life of the yacht (with its ups and downs), not a rule written in stone. The size, the crew and the place where you moor Size also determines the maintenance budget proportionally. From 25 meters in length, the yacht can now require professional crewand that 10% falls short to cover the cost of maintenance. A captain’s salary alone starts at around $50,000 per year, and a full crew for a large yacht easily exceeds $200,000 per year. On megayachts, managers usually plan 10% for operating expenses (which are included in the 10% rule), plus an additional 10% for onboard personnel, their maintenance, etc., which places the real maintenance cost closer to 20% of the acquisition price. This percentage does not apply to those yachts that, due to size, only require the services of a captain during the high season, thus reducing their annual cost. He port where it is moored It also has a decisive influence on the calculation of annual fixed expenses. It does not cost the same to moor in a small fishing town on the Catalan coast as in Puerto Banús or in the port of Monaco. In Spain, the monthly mooring fee for a boat between 12 and 14 meters ranges between 450 and 575 euros per month (about 6,900 euros per year), but it skyrockets in large tourist ports. to put a practical examplemooring in Marina Ibiza, the main recreational port on the island, for a yacht of about 15 meters in length costs between 25,000 and 30,000 euros per year, while if you opt for other secondary ports on the island, the price is reduced by half to between 10,000 and 15,000 euros per year. According to estimates of Ocean Independencea company specializing in superyacht management, the annual routine maintenance of a superyacht, which includes hull cleaning, fuel, engine inspection and electronic systems, ranges between … Read more

The Earth has had a traveling companion for millions of years and we don’t know where it came from, but there is a ship ready to give us answers

by

The Earth does not travel alone around the sun. And not only because of the Moon, which logically always accompanies it, orbiting around it. It also has several traveling companions: objects, called co-orbitals, that take exactly the same time as our planet to make a complete revolution around the star. These objects are well known, but their origin is quite mysterious. There are astronomers who bet that they escaped from the asteroid belt. However, their silicate content suggests that they could be fragments of the Moon that jumped from its surface after the impact of a meteorite. Now, a team of scientists has assigned probabilities to each option, although for definitive proof of its origin we will have to wait a little longer. (469219) Kamo’oalewa. This is the name of one of the best-known coorbitals on Earth. It measures between 24 and 107 meters in diameter and the spectral analyzes that have been able to be carried out Telescopes such as the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) and the Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT) indicate that it is very rich in silicates, so it is likely that it comes from the Moon. In fact, the most accepted hypothesis so far indicates that it could have been formed during the impact that gave rise to the Giordano Bruno crater on our satellite. However, this new study, published in the journal Icarus, suggests that it is more likely that it is an asteroid escaped of the belt between Mars and Jupiter. Very unlikely. For an asteroid or a piece of the Moon to become co-orbital, they must not only escape from their place. Also They must have enough energy to be located in what is known as a quasi-satellite orbit. This, for a body the size of Kamo’oalewa, is highly unlikely. Quasi-what? A quasi-satellite has certain similarities with a satellite, but it is not the same. When we look at one of them from the planet it accompanies, in the direction of the Sun, it appears that it is in orbit around the planet, but in reality it rotates around the Sun itself. This, among other reasons, is due to the fact that is outside the Hill sphere of the planet. That is, the environment dominated by its gravity. Being outside of said orbit, it is influenced by the planet’s gravity, but above all, in this case, it is influenced by that of the Sun. Be that as it may, falling and staying in that orbit is complicated, as we have already seen and, above all, as these scientists have demonstrated. Win the asteroid option. These scientists have created models that simulate the trajectory of 12,000 synthetic particles launched from the lunar surface at different speeds and angles, following their orbits for millions of years. The goal was to see how many stabilized at co-orbital points with the Earth. In total they found 70 objects with a diameter greater than 10 meters capable of doing so. 70 out of 12,000! Now, when they repeated the procedure by swapping lunar particles for objects from the asteroid belt, they found more candidates. 1,600 in total. Tianwen-2 will return samples to answer the mystery in 2027 Tianwen-2 will have the key. The origin of coorbitals is so intriguing that China already has sent a ship to analyze the surface of one of them. Specifically from Kamo’oalewa himself. The Tianwen-2 mission left in May 2025 towards this object, with the aim of collecting at least 100 grams of samples and return them to Earth for analysis. It is already known that there are silicates, or at least it is suspected, but a deeper idea of ​​the composition is needed to understand the origin of this object. Orbit insertion is expected to occur next June if all goes well. Then he will spend a few months collecting samples to put them in a capsule, which will land back on Earth. already in 2027. Two options. If the analyzes of Tianwen-2 conclude that Kamo’oalewa came from the Moon, the lunar impact mechanics would have to be rethought, since it would be very rare for one of these fragments to have been able to reach its final location with what we know so far. On the other hand, if it is proven that it comes from an asteroid, it would be necessary to study where these silicates come from, since they are very unconventional for an object of these characteristics. Whatever is concluded, there will be a lot of fabric to cut, that is clear. ç Image | NASA |China News Service In Xataka | The Earth has moons that we don’t know about: exploring them is key to revealing the secrets of our solar system

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

by

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

TikTok now has an answer for those who don’t want to see ads: check out

by

Consuming social networks for free and without any type of advertisement is something that has been disappearing for years. Bombarding with advertising to later launch a payment model is something that applications like Instagram learned very well, and now TikTok is beginning to follow in its footsteps. TikTok Ad-Free. TikTok began testing a payment model back in 2023 in the United Statesan idea that did not spread beyond American territory. The company now makes official TikTok Ad-Free in UKopening the ban to expand it to the rest of the regions. How it works. The company has announced that, “in the coming months”, users over 18 years of age will be able to gradually subscribe to the new advertising-free option, TikTok Ad-Free. Those who continue using the free version will see no changes, and will see personalized ads. The price is £3.99 per month, in exchange for not seeing a single ad on TikTok and our data not being used for advertising purposes. It’s something that sounds familiar to us. Instagram Vibes. In 2024, Meta gave his ultimatum: either it was checked out or our information would be used for advertising purposes to show us the relevant advertisements. On Instagram they went a step further, since paying users not only got rid of ads: they got a verification badge and got more “love” from Instagram in terms of the visibility of their own account if they were a content creator. Why is it important. TikTok is in the crosshairs of the European Commissionas you consider your ad library to be non-compliant the Digital Services Law. The social network will have to be especially careful when implementing measures related to ads and data collection, even more so if billing is involved. In the same way, the fact that TikTok has given free rein to its subscription monetization model (although its application is not immediate), closes a circle of services that we use on a daily basis and that, whether we like it or not, force us to checkout if we do not want to see ads. And if not, Tell them to the paid version of WhatsApp. The big question. If you’re wondering when TikTok Ad-Free will arrive in Europe, the answer is that we don’t know yet. What seems inevitable is that this ends up happening, after the test in the United States and its progressive implementation in the United Kingdom. In Xataka | TikTok’s infinite scroll has just entered the EU’s crosshairs: Brussels marks it as “addictive design” and demands change

The RAM memory crisis is complicating the task of upgrading a PC, but there are alternatives if you don’t want to spend a fortune

by

Straight to the point: if you want to upgrade or build a PC right now, you’re going to have to dig deep into your pocket. The price of RAM it’s shot right nowsomething that It is already being extended to storage as well.. But what if you have no choice and need to upgrade your PC or a new one in parts? Assuming that RAM is going to cost you more than it did a year ago, There are alternatives to spend less money. There are certain aspects to take into account that we will talk about a little further down, but in order not to spend a small fortune, the most economical option is to get some 32GB DDR4 RAM like these from Corsair: we have them available for 199.99 euros. CORSAIR VENGEANCE LPX DDR4 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) 3200MHz CL16-20-20-38 1.35V Intel AMD Desktop Computer Memory – Black (CMK32GX4M2E3200C16) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links An especially interesting option if your PC is already a few years old Let’s go in parts. The first thing to take into account is the price, obviously. The price history of this article tells us that these RAM memory modules They have been between 50 and 60 euros before the month of August last 2025. Obviously, if we compare those prices with what it costs now, it is obvious that the same product costs much more. But of course, it must be seen from the perspective of the current price crisis suffered by these components. It’s not all bad news. These same modules They cost more than 280 euros in February of this yearan absurdly high price. So are they worth buying right now? The situation with the RAM does not seem to be getting better in the short term, but it is 32 GB of DDR4 RAM, which means that you have to take some things into account before buying them. If you already have a PC at home and it is already a few years old, then DDR4 RAM is a very interesting option. It is much cheaper than DDR5 which, despite offering more performancehas an even more skyrocketing price. In addition, this DDR4 memory offers more than enough performance for simple tasks such as office automation, Internet browsing or even undemanding games. DDR5 RAM prices are still high, but not as high as a few months ago Now, imagine that you want to build a PC and you want the most current so that it lasts longer. Here the ideal would be to go for DDR5 RAM, but the problem is, as you can imagine, the price. Among everything that there is right now, we also have from Corsair these two 32 GB modules per 399.99 euros. Yes, they have a very high price (more so if we take into account that they cost around 120 euros last year), but they have reached over 500 euros. CORSAIR Vengeance DDR5 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) up to 6000MHz CL36 Intel XMP 3.0 Desktop Computer Memory – Black (CMK32GX5M2B6000C36) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links Keep in mind that your motherboard and processor must be compatible with this memory, so if your PC is a few years old, you will also have to update these components. Now, in return, we will have a longer PC and that will also allow us to upgrade to other components in the future without spending too much. Other Corsair RAM memories that may interest you CORSAIR Vengeance DDR5 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) 6000MHz CL36-44-44-96 1.35V AMD Expo & Intel XMP Desktop Computer Memory – White (CMK32GX5M2E6000Z36W) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB PRO DDR4 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) 3200MHz CL16-20-20-38 1.35V Intel AMD Desktop Computer Memory – Black (CMW16GX4M2C3200C16) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links CORSAIR Vengeance DDR5 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) up to 6000MHz CL30 AMD Expo Intel XMP 3.0 Desktop Computer Memory – Gray (CMK32GX5M2B6000Z30) The price could vary. We earn commission from these links Some of the links in this article are affiliated and may provide a benefit to Xataka. In case of non-availability, offers may vary. Images | corsair In Xataka | DDR4 or DDR5? What RAM to choose so as not to pay even more than necessary in the middle of the price crisis In Xataka | Buy and assemble your PC in parts: guide to choosing processor, SSD, RAM and graphics card

Anthropic was the “don’t be evil” of AI for developers. Now he’s squeezing them all

by

Claude Code and Claude Opus 4.6 sparked a golden era for developers, who found themselves with a fantastic AI agent and model for their work. Suddenly OpenAI was no longer the trendy company: Anthropic was, which users and developers fell in love and became in the pretty girl of AI. Months later we are seeing how Anthropic is making changes that are being highly criticized and that point to something that we have already seen repeatedly: platforms conquer you and inevitably then the platforms squeeze you. The trigger. On April 2, 2026, Stella Laurenzo, Senior Director in AMD’s AI group, published a text in Claude Code’s GitHub repository titled “Claude Code is useless for complex engineering tasks with February updates.” This directive included a meticulous analysis of almost 6,600 real Claude Code sessions with nearly 235,000 tool calls and about 18,000 reasoning blocks in four different projects. The conclusions were obvious to her: the performance of Claude Code and Claude Opus 4.6 had degraded. The numbers. In this analysis, two periods are shown according to Laurenzo. In the good period, from January to mid-February, the model read 6.6 files for every file it edited. In the theoretically degraded period, from March onwards, that rate had fallen to 2.0 files read. Code edits in files that Claude had not recently reviewed went from 6.2% to 33.7%: one in three changes to the code were being made “blindly.” In addition, the visibility of the reasoning was reduced, from 2,200 characters to only 600 on average, but there is something more. The costs of the process multiplied by 122 in the same period, although it is true that in that period they went from using 1-3 concurrent agents to using 5-10, which complicates the interpretation of the data. Anthropic tries to clarify what happened. Anthropic’s official response It was published by Boris Chernyresponsible for Claude Code. This engineer confirmed two actual product changes: On February 9, Opus 4.6 switched to using so-called “adaptive reasoning” by default. On March 3, the default effort level moved from high to medium, sitting at level 85, which Anthropic describes as “the best balance of intelligence, latency, and cost for most users.” Closed debate. Cherny also spoke of that suspicion that Claude was now hiding “how he thought.” He explained that the change in visible reasoning records is not a real degradation, and the detected header was simply a user interface modification that hid intermediate reasoning to reduce latency without affecting model performance. Laurenzo herself had already foreseen something like this and tried to implement solutions to avoid it, but her data confirmed this drop in performance. Cherny closed the debate as if the issue had been resolved, but it doesn’t seem like it really is. Computing capacity crisis. Thariq Shihipar of Claude Code’s team revealed in March that Anthropic was adjusting session limits to 5 hours during peak hours. That is to say: if there was a lot of demand, your Claude tokens would probably run out faster. He pointed out that the measure would actually only be noticed by 7% of users (the most intensive during those peak hours), and confessed “I know this is frustrating. We will continue to invest in scaling efficiency.” This is contradicted by a comment in the debate on Laurenzo’s post in which explained that “we do not degrade our models to better serve demand, I have said this many times before.” More degradations. They appeared other discoveries and criticismssuch as how Claude Code’s prompt cache had also been drastically reduced (from one hour to five minutes), triggering quota consumption in long programming sessions. Anthropic he indicated to VentureBeat that Team and Enterprise accounts are not affected by these session limits, but the pattern seems increasingly clear: computing is scarce and must be rationed… or at least that is what all these Anthropic measures seem to point to. What remains unclear is whether the quality of the model has actually been degraded, although there are Reddit “megathreads” that also point in that direction. “Nerfing”, nothing. When a company deliberately degrades its service, it is often called “nerfing.” on social networksand criticism in this sense was increasing in the case of Anthropic. Numerous publications of users in X and in media of technology have done reference to Laurenzo’s studio and accused Anthropic of this voluntary degradation of its models. Boris Cherny intervened in at least one case to flatly say that “That’s false” and to explain that they reported the changes and in fact gave users the option to disable it. But rationing exists. In The Wall Street Journal they confirmed that this rationing of computing is certainly occurring among AI platforms due to high demand. We have a good example of the consequences in David Hsu, founder and CEO of Retool. He explained in said newspaper that although he preferred Claude Opus 4.6 to power his AI agent, he recently had to switch to the OpenAI model because “Anthropic keeps crashing all the time.” Prices change (silently). The Information indicated yesterday that Anthropic is changing the way it bills users of Enterprise plans. Instead of a subscription of $200 per month with a “flat rate” for using their AI models, what they will do is charge a base rate of $20 per user per month and to that they will add the consumption of each user with the standard price of their API. Your own updated documentation points it out (“Use is not included in the per-seat rate”) and it is estimated that the change could double or even triple the cost of using Claude for heavy users. The discounts of 10 to 15% on the API that were included in the past and that allowed companies to scale this token consumption in a more affordable way also disappear. Prices per million tokens have not changed, but we went from a “flat rate” (with usage fees) to a pay-per-use model, much more expensive for heavy users. It’s not just Anthropic. … Read more

70% of the world’s salmon comes from farms and their meat should be gray. The industry has been making sure you don’t notice for decades

by

In the heart of Tjuvholmen, a small neighborhood located on an even smaller peninsula that runs from Aker Brygge towards the Oslo Fjord, lies The Salmon. It is a restaurant, yes; but above all, it is an interpretation center for Norwegian salmon. There, just before enjoying two dozen different preparations, facilitators explain in detail “the entire salmon process – from smoking to export” and explain to diners “the historical development of salmon farming.” And it is logical. 70% of the salmon consumed in the world comes from aquaculture. Only in the North Atlantic, farms produced more than three million of metric tons in 2025 and Norway is (by far) the main producer. They explain all this in The Salmon; What they don’t explain is the color. Le Salmon, 1866–1869, by Édouard Manet The color? Salmon, in the cultural imagination of the entire world, has a very specific color: a pinkish-orange which, in short, is what we have been calling salmon color. The curious thing is that, under normal conditions, the meat of farmed salmon would be pale gray or whitish. And the reason is very simple: the characteristic color of wild salmon depends on the diet. They are big fans of krill, shrimp and other crustaceans which, in turn, feed on microalgae that produce astaxanthin. That’s what gives them the color. Instead, farmed salmon are fed feed composed of fishmeal, oil, soy, corn gluten and other poultry by-products. None of them have astaxanthin naturally and, therefore, they could not acquire their iconic color. And that, of course, is a problem. Early farmed salmon producers realized that color was difficult to manage. It is true that there is a wild salmon native to Alaska that does not naturally fix astaxanthin in its meat and is sold as a gourmet product. But that is one thing and trying to convince millions of people that this farmed pale salmon is the same (or better) than the wild one is another. Since the 1980s, researchers and producers got to work, discovered the origin of the problem and introduced chemically synthesized astaxanthin into the food chain of farmed salmon. It’s not cheap: these additives represent between 6 and 20% of the cost total feed. But it is necessary. And, by the way, they “tint” them, like the Astaxanthin is a powerful antioxidantfish improve liver function, immune response, fertility and resistance to oxidative stress. And why should we care about all this? Spain is the second largest consumer of fish and seafood in the EU; Salmon, in fact, is one of the most consumed species. The color of salmon is something well known (and completely safe), but it is not something that is usually advertised: the fear of growing distrust towards farmed fish is always there. One of the great food paradoxes of our time. Producers, in fact, have been saying for years that they would lower the amount of astaxanthin if consumers agreed to buy paler salmon. But that doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen: as we’ve seen time and time again, food depends critically on fashions and trends. this pink is in fashion. Image | Katja Ano In Xataka | We are drugging the salmon with cocaine and anxiolytics. And that’s causing them to behave strangely.

If the question is why men don’t wear skirts, the answer lies in the 18th century: the Great Male Renunciation

by

We have it so internalized, so assimilated, that perhaps you have never thought about it, but here goes one of those questions that sound like a truism: Why do men and women dress differently? Why is it that when we go to a wedding, a gala or an elegant dinner, it is taken for granted that they will wear a more or less sober suit and discreet colors while they will wear dresses and heels? Why are ‘men’s’ clothes usually more functional than women’s clothes? And already, why don’t we wear skirts, like was wondering recently David Uclés? As is usually the case when we talk about fashion (social trends in general), none of the above is the result of chance or simple whim. Why do you dress the way you dress? Things as they are: if you are a man (at least in the Spain of 2026) and you go to a meeting in a dress and heels, it is quite likely that your colleagues will be surprised to see you cross the door. However, the same clothing on a woman would be considered very normal. Because? That same question was recently asked by the writer David Uclés. And it’s not the first. Before him, others had already slipped it, such as the designer and photographer Ana Locking, who in another recent interview on the SER network encouraged men to be much more risky when selecting their wardrobe. “If you want to feel sexy today, dress sexy. The boys’ legs are super sexy, the boys’ necklines are super sexy. Open your neckline, wear a skirt, some shorts, some ankle boots with a little heel,” encouraged Locking after lamenting that, as they mature, men “clip their wings” when they confront the closet. “What they will say comes into play a little bit, feeling vulnerable.” Is it just social pressure? It depends how you look at it. Fashion in itself is a social construct, but the tendency that leads us men to opt for sober clothing and banish skirts, heels and clothing that may be considered ‘extravagant’ from our wardrobes is explained by another reason: the story. In fact, it is not a guideline that has always been applied. Come take a walk through the Costume Museum or El Prado to prove that when it comes to men’s fashion, sobriety has not always been synonymous with good style or elegance. For example, this canvas of King Philip V with his family painted in 1743 by Louis Michel van Loo or this other work from the end of the 17th century, also preserved in El Prado, and in which Jacob-Ferdinand Voet shows us Luis Francisco de la Cerda, IX Duke of Medinaceli. Is there anything that catches your attention about them? Wigs, high heels and brilli brilli? Exact. If you look at both works you will see that the men wear wigs, heels, stockings, loose jackets that fall almost like skirts, and an abundance of bright colors, the kind of clothing that at that time (late 17th century, first half of the 18th century) denoted status. If you think about it it makes sense. What they show us Jacob-Ferdinand Voet and Louis Michel van Loo They are characters dressed in colorful outfits, although they are not what we would say ‘functional’. But… Why should they be? If anyone could afford that kind of clothing it was aristocrats who didn’t have to work. Who doesn’t like heels? William Kremer explained it well in 2013 on the BBC when reviewing The history of high heels and why men stopped wearing them. Again, it may sound like a far-fetched question, but it actually makes a lot of sense and reveals even more about our history. For centuries heels were worn in the Middle East as part of horse riding clothing. And not only for aesthetic reasons. With them Persian soldiers could stand on the styles, stabilize themselves and adopt a good posture to use the bow. When at the end of the 16th century sha Abbas I of Persia He sent a diplomatic mission to Europe to gather support. The nobles noticed the Persian-style shoe. They liked it so much that over time they began to wear high heels that highlighted their size… and their social rank. And all that with heels? That’s how it is. “One of the best ways to convey status is through the impractical,” commented in 2013 Elizabeth Semmelhack, of the Bata Footwear MuseumToronto. Perhaps heels were not very advisable for walking through the countryside and the paved and potholed streets of the 17th century cities, but did the same nobles who posed for chamber painters dressed in clothes as luxurious as they were cumbersome have to do so? “They don’t work in the fields nor do they have to walk a lot.” Why did they stop being used? Times have changed. And the way of thinking. When they review the history of fashion (especially men’s fashion) historians usually stop at the Enlightenment, between the mid-17th century and the beginning of the 19th century, a time in which intellectuals opted for a way of thinking in which what was rational and useful was prioritized. Also education about privileges. Status is no longer an inherited gift, but the result of training and work. As far as fashion is concerned, this translated into a new sensitivity that favored the use of garments comfortable and functional. In England, for example, even landowners ended up embracing a more practical style, better suited to managing their properties. At least that’s how it was among men. The rational aspect stood out among them; The emotional nature was highlighted in them. Did only the Enlightenment influence? No. The Enlightenment mentality played a crucial role, but historians usually point out an episode that (although inspired by the Enlightenment) is much more specific, both geographically and temporally: the french revolution. Against this backdrop, the way one dressed became more than a simple aesthetic choice or a mark of status. … Read more

The US is already considering withdrawing bases from some European countries. You don’t have to be a genius to know who he’s talking about.

by

More than 80,000 soldiers Americans are permanently deployed in Europe, spread across dozens of bases that function as key nodes for operations in the Middle East, Africa and the continent itself. In many cases, these facilities not only have military value, but also generate thousands of jobs and millions in investment local. Therefore, any change in its location usually says much more about global politics than about geography. Spain changes the theater. It we count weeks ago. Spain decided from the beginning of the conflict to mark a clear line: not participate in the war against Iran, nor facilitating the use of bases such as Rota and Morón nor allowing transit of American planes through its airspace. The position, defended by Pedro Sánchez under the argument of avoid escalation and respect international law, was not symbolic but operational, forcing the United States to redesign air routes and military logistics. At the same time, he placed Spain in a unique position within Europe, differentiating itself from other allies that did collaborate, even if in a limited way. That decision, apparently defensive, has ended up having much deeper strategic implications. Washington’s response. A few hours ago and through an exclusive from the Wall Street Journalit was known that Donald Trump’s administration has begun to outline a response that goes beyond rhetoric, with plans to punish allies who did not support the war, reorganizing military deployment American in Europe. The idea is clear: withdraw troops and possibly close bases in countries considered unreliable, while reinforcing the presence in those that did support the operation. In that list of “unfriendly” countries, Spain appears as one of the most obvious cases, not only because its operational refusal but for his open political position against intervention. The consequence is a change in logic in NATO, where support for specific conflicts begins to outweigh formal membership in the alliance. Spain in red. Within this new strategic map, Spain emerges as the clearest example of a break with Washington, having actively blocked military operations and publicly criticized the war. The tensions have not remained at the diplomatic level, with threats of a trade embargo and questions about its defense spending. But what is relevant is that the country goes from being a key logistics partner on the southern flank of Europe to becoming candidate to lose American military presence. In practice, this means that the foundations that for decades have been strategic nodes They could cease to be so or lose strength if the United States decides to prioritize loyalties more aligned with its foreign policy. A military redesign to the east. According to the Journal, the withdrawal in countries like Spain or Germany would be accompanied by a reinforcement in Eastern Europewith destinations such as Poland, Romania and Lithuania gaining weight due to their support for the operation in Iran and their greater commitment to defense. There is no doubt, this movement not only reconfigures the US military presence, but also brings Washington’s forces even closer to the Russian borderincreasing tension with Moscow. At the same time, it turns the war in Iran into a factor that redefines the European security balance, something that until now was dominated by the conflict in Ukraine. The implicit message is that political alignment has direct consequences on military architecture. The political clash. Not only that. After the ceasefire in the war, Sánchez’s statements criticizing the war They have intensified a clash that had already been brewing since the beginning of the conflict. “Ceasefires are always good news. Especially if they lead to a just and lasting peace. But momentary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction and lives lost. The Government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire because they show up with a bucket. What’s up now: diplomacy, international legality and PEACE”, has communicated through networks. Thus, while other European leaders chose to nuances or partial supportsSpain has adopted a frontal stance that has made people uncomfortable especially Washington. This confrontation reflects a broader fracture within the West over how to address conflicts like Iran, and highlights the lack of prior coordination between allies. The war has not only opened a front in the Middle East, but also a political rift in the transatlantic relationship. From sovereign decision to strategic cost. In short, what began as a sovereign decision to avoid getting involved in a war is becoming a possible strategic cost long term for Spain. The truth is that with Trump’s words you never know the actual scopeand although it seems difficult for Washington to want to get rid of such a key node Due to its geographical position, the eventual loss of bases, military investment and weight within the NATO structure could alter Spain’s position in the European security balance. At the same time, it shows how national decisions in global conflicts can have unexpected collateral effects on historical alliances. In this new scenario, Spain has not only said “no” to a warbut could face the consequences of having done so at a key moment for the international order. Image | US Navy In Xataka | The same day that the US threatened Spain and said it did not need the Rota base, the US invested 13 million in expanding the Rota base In Xataka | Spain’s ‘no’ to the use of its bases in the offensive against Iran already has an answer: Trump threatens to “cut off all trade”

A half-ton metal ring fell from the sky in Kenya. More than a year later we still don’t know where it came from

by

For years we have talked about the space debris as a distant problemalmost abstract, that occurs far above our heads. We know that, from time to time, some debris from launches or satellites re-enter the atmosphere, although we almost always perceive it as something remote. Until it isn’t. What happened at the end of 2024 In a Kenyan village it was precisely that: the moment when a technical discussion became a tangible fact. A metal object of large dimensions fell from the sky without warning. On December 30, 2024, in the rural area of ​​Mukuku, the object was left lying on the ground after the impact, with dimensions that soon caught the attention of technicians: around 2.5 meters in diameter and an estimated weight of about 500 kilograms. The intervention was quick. Police cordoned off the area and an inter-agency team, led by the Kenya Space Agency (KSA), recovered the remains for analysis. From that point, a complex question arose: what exactly was that piece and where did it come from? Open investigation, official promises and a mystery that remains unsolved Just 48 hours after collecting the remains, the Kenya Space Agency offered a first explanation. In its statement of January 1, 2025the agency indicated that, according to preliminary evaluations, the piece corresponded to a fragment of a space object, specifically a launch vehicle separation ring. It was a relevant conclusion, but partial. The agency did not link the object to any specific rocket and described the incident as isolated, while announcing the opening of an investigation under international legal frameworks that regulate activities in space. The statement from the Kenya Space Agency (click to see the original publication in X) As the days progressed, the case began to generate interpretations beyond the official statements. Some local media, including Nation Africa, They pointed out that the Government of Kenya would have initiated a compensation claim addressed to India, suggesting that the object could be linked to a specific mission. The reaction of the Kenya Space Agency was immediate. On January 3, 2025, The agency denied that information and he was clear in his message: “The alleged compensation claim presented by the Government of Kenya is false and should be ignored.” In that same update, he also stressed that the investigation was still ongoing. With the official investigation without a specific attribution, the case began to attract the attention of independent analysts. One of the most detailed was that of the astrodynamicist Marco Langbroek, from the Technical University of Delft, who explored the possibility that the fragment corresponded to an adapter SYLDA from an Ariane release 2008. Their analysis suggested that the location and timing of impact were compatible with re-entry of that particular object, but also made clear that this was not a conclusive identification. In fact, in a later update of its analysis, it included doubts attributed to Arianespace engineers about that hypothesis, considering that the dimensions did not fit. On paper, the case was not closed in those first days. The KSA assured on January 1, 2025 that its experts would analyze the piece, identify the owner and keep the public informed about next steps. Weeks later, Nation Africa collected Furthermore, the investigation was at an advanced stage and, once concluded, the case would be transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to hold the owner of the object accountable. However, when following the public trail of that promise, there is no new data. A subsequent resolution on Mukuku does not appear on the agency’s official communications page, so more than a year later there is no official and definitive attribution of the fragment. There is also no new information in local media. If we look at the case with perspective, Mukuku leaves us two clear readings. The first is that space debris is no longer just an orbital phenomenon, but also an issue that, under certain circumstances, can have an impact on the surface. The second has to do with the limits of this type of research. Even when an object of these characteristics reaches land and activates international mechanismsa clear public conclusion is not always reached. We know how the agency described the piece in its preliminary evaluations and we know the main hypotheses that attempted to identify it, but no origin has been officially confirmed. And that void, more than a year later, is still open. Images | KSA In Xataka | Artemis II has a toilet that evacuates the astronauts’ urine into space. The problem is that it has frozen

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.