enter

enter Iran to remove a buried “treasure” of 441 kg that gives meaning to the war

by

Since 1921 when the Italian general Giulio Douhet argued that bombers could win wars by destroying the “vital centers” of a country, air power has fascinated strategists and politicians. However, more than a century of conflict has left a lingering paradox: even the most devastating bombing campaigns in history have, sooner or later, required something much riskier than airplanes to truly decide a war. Especially if, as in almost all wars, one seeks to give meaning to the nonsense. The historical limit. They told it this morning in a special report from the Wall Street Journal. The war started with intense bombing campaign on Iran has once again put on the table an uncomfortable lesson from military history: planes, missiles and bombs can destroy infrastructure, armies and arsenals, but they rarely bring down a regime on their own. Despite the wishes expressed in Washington to bring about political change in Tehran, the military commanders themselves have lowered expectations and they have insisted that the real objective of the campaign is to degrade Iranian offensive capabilities, whether missiles, drones or naval forces, and to wear down its nuclear program. The reason is simple. Even after weeks of attacks, the power structures of the Iranian state they are still intactbacked by military and paramilitary forces that number hundreds of thousands of troops and whose main interest is to maintain the system as it is. Nor does historical precedent help support the idea that strategic bombing alone can decide a war: neither World War II, nor Kosovo, nor Libya. they managed to change governments only from the air. In all cases there were forces on the ground, local insurgencies or invasions that ended up tipping the balance. Members of the US Army using nuclear material detection tools during an exercise No main objective. That air power limit has a immediate strategic consequence: Although the bombings may reduce Iran’s military capacity, they do not guarantee that what gave rise to the conflict will disappear, if there ever was something tangible. The central official concern remains nuclear material that the country has accumulated for years and that represents a latent option to manufacture atomic weapons in a short time. The air campaign can destroy facilities, seal access or delay the program, but it cannot guarantee anything much more complicated: locate, control and neutralize fissile material that already exists. The dilemma is especially serious if the regime survives the conflict or if the Iranian State enters a phase of internal chaos, because that scenario would open the door for some of that material to end up in the hands of regional militias, non-state actors or even black market networks. In other words, war can weaken the adversary without solving the problem that caused it. U.S. Army Soldiers with the 128th Chemical Company, 337th Engineer Battalion conduct reconnaissance in an underground tunnel during an exercise in Lithuania in 2025 The buried “treasure” that gives meaning to war. At the center of this dilemma is a specific piece of information that summarizes all the strategic tension: some 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, enough to produce material for various nuclear weapons if taken to levels of military purity. This material, stored mainly in underground facilities deeply protected, is the true objective that explains the military campaign. As long as it exists and remains out of control, any aerial victory will be incomplete. The paradox is that this nuclear “treasure” is designed precisely to withstand the type of war that the United States and Israel have been fighting: buried facilities, protected by layers of concrete and rock, designed to survive bombings. Destroying buildings is relatively easy, but destroying or capture nuclear material stored underground is another story entirely. The last mission: enter Iran. Thus we come to a stage which is closer than ever to the rhetoric that the United States has tried to inoculate the planet through a species trailer hollywood. Because an idea has begun to appear that until recently seemed extreme: the possibility of a ground raid of special forces to physically seize Iranian nuclear material or neutralize it in situ. The reasoning is brutally simple. If bombing cannot guarantee control of the enriched uranium, someone will have to go looking for it. They counted the TWZ analysts that, in American strategic circles, there is talk of operations in which elite commandos would penetrate facilities underground, they would secure the material and decide on the spot whether to transport it out of the country or reduce its purity to make it unusable. There is no doubt, it would be a extremely complex operationalmost movie makerwhich would combine special forces, nuclear experts and possibly specialized technical personnel, with the aim of securing material that cannot simply be destroyed with explosives without causing radiological risks. Possible, but almost suicidal. The problem is that such a mission would be one of the military operations riskiest imaginable. The material weighs hundreds of kilos and it is probably stored in armored containers, which would greatly complicate its transportation. The facilities are buried, protected and defended by forces that consider these facilities one of the country’s most important strategic assets. To access them it may be necessary open tunnels or remove tons of earth and concrete as the Iranian army tries to react. The longer the assault force remains on the ground, the more likely the Iranian forces will organize a counterattack with artillery, missiles or ground units. Added to this is the difficulty of infiltrating and extracting a relatively large contingent of operators loaded with specialized equipment in the middle of an open conflict. The logic that moves it. Despite everything, strategic logic pushes towards that direction. If nuclear material is dispersed, hidden, or moved to multiple locations, the problem will multiply and any attempt to neutralize it will be even more difficult. Furthermore, bombing convoys or depots from the air could disperse radioactive material without eliminating the threat. In that context, physically securing uranium becomes the solution to … Read more

There is a paradise island that you only enter armed. And the United Kingdom wants to “liberate” it from the United States

by

Prima facie, chagos It’s just a handful of perfect islands lost in the middle of the Indian Ocean, too small and remote to matter to anyone. But precisely that distance, that silence and that almost total absence of glances, have turned the archipelago into one of the most uncomfortable places of the map, one where paradise and power have been coexisting for decades without giving explanations. A paradise taken by force. part of history we tell it a few months ago. In the middle of the Indian Ocean, the Chagos Archipelago was for centuries a forgotten place, inhabited by a community that developed your own culture far from the great powers, until in the middle of the Cold War the United Kingdom decided to turn it into a global strategic piece. To make this possible, London separated the islands of Mauritius and, in agreement with the United Statessystematically expelled the entire local population between the late 1960s and early 1970s, emptying Diego Garcia to build a joint military base that has since operated outside of public scrutiny. We are talking about a territory where civil life disappeared completely. No one enters here without a weapon. For more than half a century, Diego Garcia is a geopolitical anomaly: a tropical island with perfect beaches and intact reefs that cannot be accessed without military authorization and where the armed presence it’s the norm. Officially administered by the United Kingdom and rented to the United States, the base has been key in operations in the Middle East and Central Asiaand has been surrounded by persistent accusations about secret flights, clandestine detentions and activities that have never been fully clarified. What happens inside remains, to a large extent, a state secret shared. Diego Garcia Island Invisible expelled. As the base grew, the Chagossians were trapped in exile, many of them scattered between Mauritius and Seychellesdeprived of their land, of adequate compensation and for decades even of the right to return. Their towns were swallowed up by the jungle, abandoned churches and cemeteries, and their history was minimized by official documents that described them as temporary workers, not as a community with deep roots. To this day, many continue to die without having seen the place where they were born, while decisions about their future are made. systematically without them. The transfer in small print. Thus, after years of international pressure and a strong opinion of the International Court of Justice, a few days ago London announced its intention to return sovereignty from Chagos to Mauritius, a gesture presented as the closing of a colonial wound with an important “but” in the background. It happens that the agreement includes a key condition: the Diego García base would remain operational for decades (99 years), thus shielding Anglo-American military interests. For many Chagossians, devolution without the island of Diego García is not a real liberation, but a repetition of the same pattern under another name. The clash between allies. The latest twist has come when the United States stopped the processwary of any change that could affect one of its most sensitive military installations, and provoking open tensions with the United Kingdom while returning the negotiations to the starting box in the already closed offices. Thus, Chagos it is again the scene of a dispute where the discourse of international law and decolonization collides with the logic of global security, confirming the central idea that has run through its entire history: on this paradisiacal island, neither the landscape nor its former inhabitants rule, but rather an armed silence of which, still todayyou can’t really know what the hell is going on inside. Image | Anne Sheppard, POT In Xataka | A Finnish couple found an uninhabited island on Google Maps. Today they rent it for 2,400 euros per night In Xataka | One of the most remote islands was taken 60 years ago by the United Kingdom and the United States. Since then, what happens there has been a secret.

The US has had a grain for “Iran”. The United Kingdom does not allow its bombers to enter a secret island that is key to the attack

by

Since the Cold War, many of the great powers have understood that modern wars do not begin when the first plane takes off, but when secures access to the bases from which it will take off. Sometimes the deciding factor is not so much firepower, but the key that opens or closes a key clue at the exact location on the map. That is happening right now on a lost atoll. A problem with name and surname. The United States has had a major problem for “the Iran thing” and it is not in Tehran, but in the Indian Ocean. United Kingdom refuses to authorize the use of Diego García Island and the RAF Fairford base for a possible air campaign against the Islamic Republic, alleging that it could violate international law if it is a preventive attack. Without that permission, Washington loses two key platforms to project its long-range air power, just when the president has given an ultimatum to Iran and has hinted that in a matter of days he could decide between an agreement or a military operation. The secret island that sustains long wars. It we count some time ago. Located halfway between the east coast of Africa and the west coast of Indonesia, The island was part of the Chagos Archipelago. During the 18th century, it was colonized by the French as an agricultural settlement. So they took the Chagossians, descendants of slaves from Africa and India, to the islands to work on growing coconut trees for the production of copra (dried coconut meat). Over time, the locals developed their own culture and dialect, known as Chagossian Creole. By 1814, after Napoleon’s defeat, The island came under British control as part of the Treaty of Parisintegrating into the colony of Mauritius. Throughout the 19th century, life on the island continued with a small population dedicated to agriculture and fishing, but things were about to change with the beginning of the new century. The agreement. During the Cold War, The United States and the United Kingdom sealed an agreement. Both nations saw the island as a strategic location for a secret military base in the Indian Ocean. In 1965, the British separated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius, thus forming the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which also includes the other 57 islands of the Chagos Archipelago. By 1966, he signed a secret agreement with the United States, allowing the construction of the “secret” military base. Key node. Since then, Diego García is anything but any base, because he is one of the more strategic enclaves of the Pentagon in the Indian Ocean. Its central runway, its port capable of hosting nuclear submarines and its logistics infrastructure allow strategic bombers to be deployed, maintained and rearmed in sustained cycles. Without going too far, last year it already served as a pressure platform when several B-2s arrived in a clear message to Iran, and precisely that type of deployment is what is now conspicuous by its absence. That there are no visible bomber movements towards the island reinforces the idea that the british veto is conditioning military planning. Without bases there are no prolonged campaigns. The geographical difference is abysmal and explains the tension. From Diego García to Iran there are around 2,300 kilometers, from the United States more than 6,000. That distance sets the pace of departuresthe wear and tear of the crews and the intensity of the offensive. For a one-night operation you can fly round trip from Missouri, as was the case in previous attacks, but for a campaign a week or more against nuclear installations, military commands and missile launchers, advanced bases are needed that allow constant sorties to be generated. In other words, without access to the island and Fairford, the role of the B-2, B-1 or B-52 is greatly reduced and the plan loses volume. A clash between allies. The disagreement is not only technical, it is deeply political. London maintains that supporting an attack could implicate it legally if it knows the circumstances of an action considered unlawful, and the prime minister has marked distances with the White House. Washington, for its part, has responded hardening the tone and linking the refusal to the dispute over the future of Diego García within the Chagos Archipelago, whose status and possible transfer to Mauritius have opened a diplomatic rift. Thus, what began as a legal debate has led to a strategic struggle between historical allies. The war that is amplified without the key piece. Meanwhile, the United States continues to accumulate fighters, electronic warfare aircraft and resuppliers in the region, preparing the board as if the military option was still alive and imminent. It turns out that the heart of a prolonged air campaign is not the F-22s in transit, but those strategic bombers operating from a secure and nearby base. Yes UK maintains the vetoWashington will have more distant and less efficient alternatives, which would force the scope and intensity of the blow to be redesigned. In short, in full escalation with Iranthe piece that could do it all more simple For Washington it is precisely the one that blocks the movement today. Image | Department of DefenseRoyal Air Force, US Air Force In Xataka | One of the most remote islands was taken 60 years ago by the United Kingdom and the United States. Since then, what happens there has been a secret. In Xataka | If the most advanced US nuclear aircraft carrier maintains its speed, it will reach its destination on Sunday. Not good news for a nation

The great battle of the internet of the future is fought against anonymity. And Discord has taken a step requiring ID to enter

by

Discord announced yesterday that will launch an age verification system on its platform globally starting next month. This will be when you default to setting all accounts as “appropriate for teens” (“teen-appropriate“) unless the user proves that they are an adult with a partially automatic process that may require the system to scan our face or our identification document. This has reopened the debate about privacy and privacy not only on social networks, but throughout the internet. How it will work. Savannah Badalich, Product Manager at Discord, explained in The Verge that “Discord does not use private messages or any message content in the age verification process”, and clarifies that in many cases this verification will be transparent and the user will not have to do anything: “For most adults, age verification will not be necessary, as Discord’s age inference model uses account information such as account age, device and activity data, and aggregated high-level patterns in Discord communities. But if you need to verify yourself, be careful. Those users who do not obtain this automatic verification will not be able to access channels and servers that have age restrictions, will not be able to participate by speaking on live channels and will have sensitive or graphic content filters activated. They will also receive notifications of friend requests from suspicious users, and even direct messages from unknown users will be automatically filtered to a separate mailbox. The protection that Discord proposes is analogous to that already proposed by the Government of Spain with the beta Digital Wallet, popularly known as the “pajaporte”. Your face or your ID to validate your age. If Discord’s inference model fails to automatically determine your age, the global rollout will require users to present identification to prove they are of legal age to have an adult account. According to Discord, removing those limitations from teen accounts will force users to “choose to use facial age estimation or offer a form of identification to Discord partners.” So, there will be two great options: your face– The user will need to appear in a selfie video during the verification process and a Discord AI system will analyze that image in real time. According to Discord, that selfie will not leave our device. Your ID– If the selfie process fails, users can appeal or verify their age with a photo of their ID. These documents will be verified by third parties, but on Discord they assure that these images of the document “are quickly deleted — in most cases immediately after confirmation of age.” Discord already had a scandal with this. This is actually not the first time Discord has tried something like this. Last year it already deployed an age verification system in the UK and Australiaand the curious thing is that some users exceeded that measure using the ‘Death Stranding’ photo mode. Mass data theft. In October one of those Discord partners suffered a massive data theft in which users’ age verification data, including the government identification documents of said users, were leaked. Badalich states that they stopped working with that company and now use another. “We do not do biometric scanning or facial recognition, but rather facial estimation. The DNI is deleted immediately. We do not store information about you,” said the directive. Anonymity in danger. For decades, anonymity has been considered an acquired right and a pillar of Internet freedom. It is something that allows exploration and criticism without fear of retaliation, but at the same time that has facilitated a toxic public discourse that has turned many platforms—starting with social networks—into “digital dumps” in which harassment and abuse are difficult to stop. Content moderation on social networks has been so problematic that X and Facebook have ended up eliminating their moderation teams—or reducing them to a minimum—so that let the community itself warn of misuse of these networks. Government pressure. Discord’s announcement follows an increasingly recurring trend on the internet. The pressure from governments around the world is notable and wants to eliminate anonymity with the argument of protecting teenagers. Bills are being promoted that force platforms to monitor who enters and how old they are. Eliminating anonymity would certainly have advantages in mitigating toxic speech and instances of harassment or abuse, but it would also have enormous disadvantages. From protecting minors to spying on us all. Among these disadvantages is the risk that these social networks become a massive system of citizen espionage in which the violation of privacy is real. By forcing users to go through these filters, massive databases can be created that are not only targets for cybercriminals, but also potential tools for state surveillance. Is the cure worse than the disease? This government battle against anonymity is justified as a fight against hate and abuse, but the collateral damage is extraordinary. We would lose that structural privacy that the Internet has always offered. If to prevent a stalker or scammer from acting we must identify each individual on the network, we end up turning the Internet into a gigantic registry in which freedom of expression is conditioned by government blessing. Total paradox. The most ironic thing is that Europe, which has traditionally been a defender of privacy, is now totally in favor of those age verification measures that precisely put her in danger. The old continent, which has always criticized Big Tech for aggregating personal data of European citizens, now supports measures that will precisely help build these gigantic databases. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. It has been more than a decade since we reflected on that typical phrase of those who did not seem to care that the NSA PRISM program I would have spied on them because they “had nothing to hide.” It’s easy to dismantle that theoryand it is a fallacy that Giving up privacy means greater security. Open debate. The Discord announcement has generated a huge debate in all types of networks, but we found a good … Read more

enter the United States in three years despite 100% tariffs

by

The Chinese automotive industry has set out to conquer the West, and Europe is too small for them. The great objective is to take a bite of the cake that is the United States, a risky bet if we take into account the tariff wall to the chinese electric car. And there is already a firm proposal: Geely is preparing its assault on the United States with two aces up its sleeve. Volvo… and Canada. The plan. Does a few daysthe Autoline Network media public an interview with Ash Sutcliffe. He is the head of global communications at Geely Holding Group, a Chinese giant that has its own brands such as Zeekr either Lynk&Cobut which also controls the Western Lotus, PolestarSmart and… Volvo. The interview was published within the framework of CES, the technology fair in Las Vegasand it was strange because, if there are 100% tariffs on Chinese electric cars, what was Geely doing there? The answer is simple: they are going to assault the US market. Sutcliffe commented that they are studying all the global markets in which they can expand and there is an internal question: when and where they will land in the United States. He did not share the roadmap, but did comment that they will have “an announcement on this in the next 24 to 36 months.” Trojan horse. There are many questions here and none of them were clearly answered in the interview. For example, what will happen to US tariffs or regulations on the Chinese software in cars? Sutcliffe simply said that Geely is an international group used to following the data protection and trade regulations of various countries, so they will do “whatever is necessary to follow those regulations when the time comes.” He gave the example of the European GDPRand although the interview does not connect the dots, the fact that they have taken advantage of such a framework to firmly assure that they will be in a market as complicated and hostile as the American one in the short term is a sign that they have given the matter more than one turn. Geely has an advantage here with Volvo, Polestar and Lotus. They are brands under their umbrella and already operate in the United States, but specifically, what Sutcliffe stated was that they want to land with Lynk & Co and Zeekr. North American Gate. There are two important questions. One is the tariff wall: 100% on electric vehicles from China. In practice, it would make it unfeasible for Geely to start selling cars because users would have to pay a premium that would make the brand simply unable to compete on price. But there are two safe passages. On the one hand, Geely build factories on American soil, a door opened by the Trump Administration if, with this, local employment is created. The Volvo factory South Carolina It would be an interesting and organic option for that local production. On the other hand, use brokers that export to US soil. There Canada can be the ace up your sleeve for the Chinese company. If they decide not to assemble the Zeekr/Lyn & Co in South Carolina, they can always import the vehicles from Canada and take them to the United States through that northern gate. Canada has recently moved from a 100% tariff Chinese electric vehicles at 6.1%. It is a very limited movement, since the initial quota will be 49,000 units per year. It’s a ridiculous number, but a start, and it could be a test bed for Geely to bring its 100% electric brands to the US from Canada. But hey, the United States is very aware of this and in fact, they have already saying that Canada “is going to regret it.” Feet of lead. With this management of brands like Volvo, Geely has an easier time than other Chinese competitors to get its foot in the US market, but there is an important nuance in all this. Geely has not said “in three years we will be selling thousands of cars,” but rather “in three years we will detail our plan to enter the United States.” However, although as we said, there is no specific public plan, it is evident that a statement like this implies that they are oiling the machinery to try do the same as in Europe. Now, taking into account the political climate and government maneuvers on issues such as trade or tariffs, things could change a lot in 36 months. Images | Zeekr, BYD In Xataka | Chinese cars are no longer just cheap: they are the world’s largest product experiment

This is South Korea’s bet to enter the Western market

by

There are military contracts that are won based on specifications. And there are others that play in the field of story. South Korea is betting on the latter in its offensive to place attack submarines in Canada: it not only talks about platforms, capabilities or industry, but about how to live within them. In the center of the speech appears a phrase that seeks to stay in the head of the reader and, above all, of the political decision-maker: building submarines as “five-star hotels.” Kang Hoon-sik, chief of staff of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, said this: in a message posted on Facebookintroducing Seoul’s diplomatic and industrial campaign. Industrial size offer. The proposal that South Korea is moving in Canada points to a program of around 12 diesel attack submarines whose investment is estimated at 10 billion euros. It is not only a military issue, it is also a candidacy with a strong industrial component, with a front that brings together the Government and large private actors. Names such as Hanwha, HD Hyundai and Hyundai Motor Group appear in that package, which are vying for a contract and, at the same time, a letter of introduction to Western buyers. Strategic agreement. South Korea’s interest in this contract is not explained only by the size of the project. In The Korea PostKang frames the objective as a big entry into the Western market and as a step to move towards the NATO environment, always in its formulation. That same ambition is presented as an attempt to consolidate defense partnerships with Western countries. It should be noted that South Korean and Canadian companies have already signed six cooperation agreements ranging from steel to artificial intelligence, rare earths, satellites and sensors. The recipient of that speech is not coincidental.. Canada has been suffering the wear and tear of an aging submarine fleet for years, and its replacement program is based on a specific fact: replacing some vessels that, as IE points out, were acquired in the 1990s. Therefore, what is at stake is not a simple replacement of material, but a decision that will condition the Royal Canadian Navy for decades, with enormous industrial, operational and budgetary implications. In this context, any candidate who wants to compete cannot limit himself to offering a platform, he also has to present a framework of reliability and long-term continuity. Germany also wants that contract. South Korea does not compete alone. In the race for the Canadian program the German Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) appearswhich is one of the world’s leading providers of integrated solutions in maritime defense technology. The bidding, therefore, is not reduced to choosing a submarine model, but to deciding which industrial partner best fits a long-term program. In this context, each candidate tries to gain ground not only with benefits, but also with the type of relationship it promises to build with the purchasing country and the ecosystem it trails behind. The battle for the Canadian program leaves a clear idea. The Western defense market is in full competition, and South Korea wants to play on the front line. Your proposal has been presented as more than just a product. On the other side appears a European rival with experience and a name of its own. For now, the only certainty is that there is an intense political and industrial effort to position itself. What is missing, precisely, is what decides these processes: the fine print, the guarantees and Ottawa’s final decision. Images | Royal Canadian Navy | Kang Hoon-sik In Xataka | Germany was a sleeping military giant: now it has been awakened and it is already surpassing the US in bullets produced per year

Until now, Mexican children under 14 years of age did not have to pass an interview to enter the United States. That’s over

by

Mexico is preparing for an image that is difficult to see in recent years. With the changes in immigration policy and of access to the United States As a backdrop, the Trump administration has decided that both Mexicans under 14 and those over 79 will no longer be exempt to pass an interview with a consular officer to obtain their “non-immigrant” visas. In practice, this will affect children and the elderly who want to travel to the neighboring country to spend their holidays, for studies, business or for medical reasons. What has happened? That the US State Department has changed slightly the guidelines that Mexicans who want to apply for a nonimmigrant visawhich is used for tourism or business trips. And it has done so in an aspect that has generated some expectation in the country. From now on (from a few months ago actually) and as a general rule, Mexicans under 14 years of age and those over 79 must undergo a consular interview in person to obtain the document, just like the rest of the population. So far both (children and elderly) They used to be exempt. What does the US say exactly? The guideline collected in the official website of the US Embassy and Consulates in Mexico is quite clear: “All applicants for non-immigrant visas to the US, including those under 14 years of age and those over 79, will generally be required to appear for an in-person interview with a consular officer.” There are some exceptions, although for specific cases and as long as those involved meet “certain requirements”, such as presenting the petition in their country and not having been rejected before. For example, applicants for diplomatic visas or those who want to renew their B-1, B-2, B1/B2 permits or Border Crossing Card or Folio are exempt from the obligation. Of course, your passes cannot be expired for more than 12 months. This is also new, as remember The Country. Before they could take advantage of Dropbox process (visa interview waiver program) for 48 months following the expiration date of the document. Screenshot of the official website of the US Embassy and Consulates in Mexico. Why is it important? For several reasons. The first, as has been responsible for highlighting part of the Mexican press, is that in practice the change will mean that children and octogenarians will have to meet in person with a consular officer if they want to obtain their visa. In the case of minors under 14 years of age, it is no longer useful for their parents to come alone with all the documentation. The second reason is that the concept of “nonimmigrant visas” is broad. The list published by the US Department of State shows that its vast range includes those people who want to cross the Mexican border for business, tourism, to receive medical treatment, as athletes, to study or work as seasonal agricultural workers, among other cases. What do you recommend doing? The range is so wide that there are those who advises plan the procedures well in advance, especially at the busiest consulates, and starting from the base that the applicant will most likely have to pass the interview. The US administration itself remember That, if necessary, the consulate can request this procedure even from those who are exempt. Is it something exceptional? No. The US has tightened the access conditions for citizens of other countries (not just Mexico) and has become stricter with the requirements required of applicants for family-based immigrant visas. At the end of 2025 even transcended a proposal from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that proposes that foreign travelers who want to cross the border in the United States must reveal up to five years of their network history. In the case of consular interviews for Mexican visa applicants, the change in criteria has come up against another handicap: a confusion in the dates. As remember The ImpartialIn July 2025, a guide was published that advanced the changes and stated that these would come into force as of September 2. According to a later update, the change was activated later: in October. Images | Global Residence Index (Unsplash) and Francesca Albert (Unsplash) In Xataka | More and more Americans want to live outside the US but they have a problem: Europe is closing its doors

The director of the DGT says that in the future cars will not enter cities. It’s more of a wish than a reality

by

Today is January 14, 2026 but, really, it doesn’t matter when you read this: Pere Navarro, director of the DGT, is once again in the news for some controversial statements. We could have titled this article that way, in fact, because the truth is that every time the Director of Traffic speaks at an event broadcast by the media there is something to scratch. This time it was at an event organized by Europa Press where Navarro showed off this particular superpower. There, he has assured the following: “We are all day with emissions, yes emissions, no such and such. Don’t look, you don’t go to the city center with electric, diesel or gasoline. Let’s not make a mistake. You go with public transportation and if you’re in a hurry, taxi, Uber or Cabify” They are literal words. There is no possible misinterpretation or audio cuts to take the message out of context. You can check it yourself in the tweet that accompanies this article. Click on the image to go to the original tweet The words clearly point to an ambition: to get the car out of the city center. It doesn’t matter if it’s gasoline, diesel or electric. There is a goal and that goal is vehicle sharing and public transportation. We could put our hands on our heads. We could say that they want to prohibit us from moving where the elites want. Of course, there will be those who relate this to 15 minute cities. However, we have been hearing similar messages for so long and the measures to be taken have been so lukewarm that, without fear of being wrong, I say: calm down. Once again, the same old thing This is not the first time, far from it, that we have heard this type of message from the director of the DGT. For two years, news and articles have been recurring that point to supposed prohibitions on using our cars if they are only occupied by one person. One of the most repeated formulas is found in these words from Navarro himself at an event called Global Mobility Call held in Madrid in 2024: “The future of traffic will be shared or it will not be (…) we must make a collective change in mentality that allows us to encourage high vehicle occupancy, because we cannot afford to move 1,500 kg every day to move a single person. Increasing vehicle occupancy is a challenge and a necessity” Navarro too has come to be described as “luxury” moving a single person in a vehicle. And in November he insisted again in that it doesn’t matter if the car is electric or not because the future of cities depends on public transport. However, the DGT has not taken any action that points in this direction nor is there anything on the table to debate it. The closest thing is the creation of a Bus-HOV lane at the entrance to Madrid where cars with two or more people traveling inside are rewarded. And that in 2019 it was also advocated from the DGT magazine for a city “with more pedestrians and fewer cars.” The statements have also been used to fill the network with articles pointing out that we will not be able to enter the center of our cities by car, linking them with the creation of low-emission zones. But the truth is that these low-emission zones have a very limited scope. In some of them, such as Madrid or Barcelonavehicles without a label are prevented from entering, but either there are exceptions or they allow all cars with a label to enter the very center of the city. It is true that sometimes you are forced to park in a parking lot but the passage, if our car has at least label Bit is open. Despite many statements by the DGT, the truth is that the efforts to reduce or not reduce traffic in cities go through the municipal corporations of each place. A context that has led to turning the issue of urban mobility into a political weapon. To the point of defending that traffic jams can be “a hallmark” of a city. The comparison between Madrid and Barcelona are two good examples. In the capital, the Popular Party won an election by ensuring that it was going to lift all circulation restrictions, something he didn’t do and that, in fact, he maintained to eliminate all unmarked cars (regardless of whether the driver lives in Madrid or not) from the city. Barcelona en Comú promoted a completely different way of understanding the city in Barcelona, ​​betting on pedestrianization, reduction of lanes in the city center and the creation of what are known as Superilles. It has also been promoted to be more aggressive and fence off the entrance to the city from the most polluting vehicles. Two different approaches that, however, have given a very similar result. And the measures against the car have been very lukewarm. In both cities, if the vehicle has an environmental label it can circulate inside, just taking into account a series of obligations that, in practice, barely change our daily lives. In Madrid, the idea of ​​preventing unlabeled cars from being banned was finally scrapped (as long as they are registered in Madrid). And prohibiting entry to city centers with cars is not something that is catching on in Europe either. Yes, the main cities have restrictions and barriers that discourage its use, but in all of them you can continue to travel to the city center by car. In London you want reduce traffic with tollsin Paris punishing street parking and in Berlin you are also forced to drive with certain modern vehicles. Be that as it may, the only certainty is that total prohibitions do not come and if citizens end up leaving their cars aside in the cities it is because they have been transversal jobs in different areas and sustained over timewith investments … Read more

What is it and how to enter to use AI as if it were Google Translate

by

Let’s explain to you how to use ChatGPT translator. No, it’s not about use ChatGPT as a translator as you have been able to do for years. This is a page that is not very well known on its own. artificial intelligence in which you are shown a translator interface. For now, the translator of ChatGPT It is a fairly simple page with two writing fields, one where you write and another where the translation comes out. You can choose between several languagesalthough you do not have Google Translator or DeepL functions such as real-time conversations or translating by voice messages. It is something quite minimal but simple. How to use ChatGPT Translate To access the ChatGPT translator you have to enter the page chatgpt.com/translateCome on, it’s like the normal AI website, but then you have to add the /translate. The translator interface is very simple. In the left box you write what you want to translate, and in the right box the translation will be shown. You can have the language detected automatically or choose by hand the one from which you want to do the translation and to which you are going to translate the text. When you make a translation, in the results field you will have a button to copy the resulting text, and another to listen to how it sounds spoken the translated message. And that’s how easy it is to use. Below the translator you have several options to alter text and rewrite it. These functions are not from the translator, but when you click on them they take you to ChatGPT with the prompt necessary to do that task. In Xataka Basics | How to create a character in ChatGPT and Gemini to use it in all the images you make with artificial intelligence

To enter the best “mental gym” in the world you don’t need a ticket: just language

by

Learning languages ​​is something that For many it is essential with the aim of opening up new job opportunities or being able to travel without problems. But beyond practical usefulness, in everyday life it can also be good insurance for our brain in the long term by acting as a barrier against cognitive decline. Analyzing data from more than 86,000 people in 27 European countries, a study published in Nature Aging has put figures on something that neuroscience has been suspecting for many years: speaking several languages ​​not only broadens our mind or allows us to watch series in their original version, but also the brain stays younger. An AI model. Behind the study is an artificial intelligence model designed to estimate the so-called “biobehavioral age.” This means that a patient’s real age will be compared with what their body reflects with the results of their analysis, how their brain works or whether they have diabetes or hypertension. This is not an algorithm that has been created by chance, but has been developed by a European consortium of neuroscientists and measures this gap and classifies those who age slower or faster with a higher biological age. When applying this model, the results were clear: multilingualism acts as a powerful protective factor against the deterioration associated with the passage of time. The more language, the better. For researchers, we are facing a phenomenon that is ‘dose-dependent’, and it is something that has been seen after removing different variables such as socioeconomic context, years of education or migratory patterns. In fact, multilingualism emerged as a “cognitive reserve” factor comparable to regular physical exercise or a healthy diet, both considered pillars of brain health. The bilingual brain: a gym that never closes. Jason Rothman, a neuroscientist at Lancaster University and an expert on bilingualism, describes it as a form of permanent training: “Every time the brain selects one language and suppresses another, attention, memory and executive control networks are activated, the same ones that tend to deteriorate with age.” These networks, which are located in specific areas of the brain, are ultimately responsible for cognitive flexibility and decision making. The more they train, such as alternating languages, the more resilient they will become. There are discrepancies. If we look at other studies carried out in the past, the truth is that people do not always think alike. Numerous large-scale analyzes point to the existence of publication biases such as lack of replicability and, especially, that many advantages attributed to bilingualism are diluted or disappear once other factors such as education or socioeconomic status are carefully controlled. An illustrative example is Lehtonen’s work in 2018which reviewed more than 150 studies and concluded that the benefits in memory, inhibitory control or cognitive flexibility are not systematic or universally replicable, and usually depend on the type of cognitive tasks used, cultural and contextual differences or the profile of bilingual speakers. It’s not a miracle. The message that predominates today among the majority of specialists is one of caution and nuance. Learning several languages ​​can be positive for cognitive development, enhance mental flexibility in certain circumstances or delay symptoms of deterioration in certain profiles, but it is not a “universal vaccine” against brain aging. Education, continued intellectual activity, socioeconomic level, physical exercise and a healthy diet maintain a much higher weight, and often, the benefits attributed to bilingualism reflect these concomitant factors more than a direct effect of speaking several languages. Images | zhendong wang Robina Weermeijer In Xataka | That a teenager begins to ‘hate’ his parents is something that is in his brain, and science has already found the pattern

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.