expensive

We sensed that the peace agreement had been expensive for the US. What we did not imagine is the crazy amount that is going to be paid to Iran

by

Exactly 10 years ago, the image of an airplane downloading 400 million of dollars in cash in Iran became one of the most controversial symbols of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. In fact, Trump spent years using that episode as proof that Washington had “paid” for peace. Ten years later, history repeats itself… but with many more zeros. The peace bill. The truth is that it was sensed from the first moment that the cease-fire between the United States and Iran was not exactly going to come free for Washington. What no one imagined was the magnitude of the price: up to 300,000 million of dollars in the form of a reconstruction and investment fund to relaunch the Iranian economy. The figure is so enormous that it completely transforms the narrative of the war. What began as a campaign of maximum pressure and bombings on nuclear facilities has ended up mutating into something much more uncomfortable for the White House: an agreement where the supposedly punished person can leave with a historic financial injection if it complies. Kharg Island From punishing to financing. The paradox could not be more brutal for Donald Trump. For years he built a good part of his speech attacking the Barack Obama nuclear pactdenouncing that he had filled Tehran with “pallets of money.” Now his administration is promoting something that potentially multiplies that concession on another scale. The argument is that the money will not come directly from the US Government, but from Western and Asian companies that would enter Iran if sanctions are lifted. But the geopolitical effect is the same: Iran’s economic survival becomes guaranteed by a deal that Washington desperately needed to close. Hormuz, the key. It we were counting yesterday. The real trigger for the turn was not nuclear, but economic. When Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, it left more than a fifth of the world’s oil and gas trade up in the air. The market held out for a few days, but the pressure began to be unbearable. More than 500 ships were trapped, maritime traffic plummeted and the world’s largest shipping companies began to warn that reopening the route would not be immediate. Everything changed there. The war ceased to be a regional issue and became a direct threat to the global economy and, above all, to the pockets of the American consumer. Washington chose oil. That’s where the interests of Washington and Israel diverged. While Benjamin Netanyahu wanted keep pressing To further weaken the Iranian regime and even force a change in regional balance, Trump saw the domestic political cost of prolonging the energy crisis. With elections approaching and the price of oil as a threat, the priority stopped being to subdue Iran and became reopening Hormuz as soon as possible. In practice, this meant accepting a much more limited agreementfocused on navigation, ceasefire and future nuclear negotiations. Israel doesn’t see it. I was counting this morning the wall street journal that in Jerusalem the reading is almost opposite. The fear is not just that Iran will receive billions, but that it will do so without immediately handing over all of its enriched uranium or completely giving up rebuilding its nuclear program. For many Israeli strategists, this means that Tehran gains oxygentime and resources to rearm. Furthermore, they see profound damage to American credibility: after months of military and economic pressure, the end result looks more like a purchased pause than a strategic victory. A peace that strengthens some. The agreement, therefore, leaves an uncomfortable and quite surreal image: the United States bombed, pressured and isolated Iran to end up offering the conditions for its reconstruction. The Iranian regime comes out beaten, yes, but alive, with the Strait as a negotiating weapon and with the possibility of receiving an avalanche of foreign investment. Of course, Trump could possibly sell it as stability and containment nuclear. But seen from the outside, the feeling is very different: peace has not only cost Washington dearly, but it may end up financing the very actor it tried to corner and overthrow. Image | US Navy, Google Earth In Xataka | We have been fearing the Apocalypse for 100 days due to the closure of Hormuz. The blow is going to be given to us by a heat wave in China In Xataka | Ukraine turned drones into hunters. A helicopter shot down in Hormuz has transformed them into a Spielberg film

Nothing’s CEO explains why your next phone is going to be more expensive

by

At this point I don’t think it will catch you by surprise, but if so, to summarize: we are living a DRAM memory crisis unprecedented and that, together with the active war conflicts and the situation with AI and data centersare factors that are turning the smartphone industry into a really complicated scenario. The most expensive component of a mobile. Carl Pei, co-founder and CEO of Nothing, has been warning about this for months, and his latest words summarize very well how the situation currently stands. And just as affirms In one of his latest tweets, “memory is now the most expensive component of a smartphone. More than the processor, more than the screen, and can represent more than 50% of the total hardware cost.” pei ya I had anticipated this situation Last January, a few months after we began to see how some manufacturers were modifying the prices of their memory offering, rising up to 300% in some segments. Data center hunger. The large data centers of Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Meta need the same type of memory that phones have (DRAM and NAND Flash) to power their artificial intelligence models. The difference is that hyperscalers (basically Big Tech) pay more, they buy more and reserve production capacity years in advance. According to IDCthe three largest memory manufacturers in the world (Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron) have redirected their production capacity towards the high-performance memory (HBM) demanded by Nvidia GPUs, leaving less supply available for mobile phones. And as the technology analysis firm points out, each wafer destined for an HBM stack for an AI chip is a wafer that will not go to an LPDDR5X module for a mid-range smartphone. By the end of 2025, SK Hynix was already directing 30% of its wafers to HBM; Micron went further and last December said goodbye to Cruciala brand aimed at the final consumer, redirecting all its production to the business market. What the numbers say. The shortage has a direct reflection on prices. Gartner calculate that the combined cost of DRAM and SSD will rise by 130% before the end of 2026, making smartphones 13% more expensive on average compared to 2025. TrendForce situates Global phone production around 1,135 million units this year, a 10% drop compared to 2025. IDC comes to estimate a decline of almost 13% in global smartphone shipments, which would be the largest in more than a decade. And if that were not enough, the average price of a smartphone has already reached $550 in 2026, a hundred dollars more than the previous year, according to share from Memeburn. Who pays the price? Omdia esteem that phones under $100 will drop 31% in sales this year. The entry and mid-range segments, where brands such as Xiaomi, Oppo and others usually operate, they are the hardest hitbecause their margins are very narrow and they cannot absorb cost increases without passing them on to the consumer. Nabila Popal, research director at IDC, claimed that “the era of the ultra-cheap smartphone is over.” The Nothing case as a thermometer. Pei illustrates it with your own product. The memory costs of the Nothing Phone (4a) doubled between the time the company decided to manufacture it and the day it went on sale. And they have doubled again since then. In the life cycle of a single product, the cost of memory has multiplied by four, and it is an example that more brands are living in silence. What changes for the buyer. Pei warns that this year’s sales season, like Black Friday, will not have the discounts to which the consumer was accustomed. Since February, new phones have been on the market with prices up to $100 more expensive than their predecessors. In fact, according to Pei, in India, models above 30,000 rupees (about 272 euros at the exchange rate) have risen more than 7,000 rupees compared to the previous generation. And the forecast is that prices will continue to rise, at least until 2027. For Nothing, it is an opportunity. Pei has been defending for years that design and user experience matter more than specifications on paper, and now the market is proving them right the hard way. “2026 is the year the spec race ends,” he said in January. It is a delicate topic, because if we think about it coldly, we get less for the same price or more than what we already paid, so it can be very easily interpreted as a way of making the user not take into account the technical specifications sheet and let themselves be carried away by what the brand puts in front of their eyes. And now what. The relief in prices will not come until manufacturers have greater production capacity, something that analysts They don’t wait before 2028. Until then, we have two options: either buy now, before prices rise further, or hold on with the device we have. And it seems that update cycles are going to lengthen, and in that context, the second-hand and reconditioned market may gain appeal. In Xataka | The great novelty of Siri is to use the iPhone without touching it. I’ve been doing the same thing on my Android for months.

The Raspberry Pi 5 are so expensive that buying two with 16 GB of RAM costs the same as a MacBook Neo

by

If today you decide to buy a Raspberry Pi 5 with 16 GB of RAM, we have bad news: its price in the Adafruit store is 350 dollars. In Spanish stores like Raspipc.es the price with VAT is 313.03 euros. It is an absolutely absurd price for a miniPC with these characteristics, but the memory crisis has made us live in a world of crazy prices and absolutely strange situations. For example, what we propose here: For the price of two Raspberry Pi 5 with 16 GB of RAM you can buy a MacBook Neo. Or almost. In Spain, the price of the MacBook Neo is 699 euros. In the US it is $599 without taxes, so that comparison certainly holds true there, because although it depends on the state in which you buy it, the final price is around $650. Less than two of those Adafruit Raspberry Pi 5s cost. What is happening is amazing but very real: Raspberry Pi 5 are really striking miniPCs that anyone can use even as a desktop PC and offer surprising possibilities. But in the comparison with the MacBook Neo (or even with 700 euro Windows laptops) they lose by a landslide. And in the MacBook Neo we have a much more “rounded” laptop as a product for the vast majority of users. Not only because it has a laptop with an enviable construction with its screen, keyboard and trackpad. It is true that the unified memory is 8 GB (the RPi 5 with 8 GB costs $200), but we are looking at a much more capable computer in terms of performance. Source: GeekBench. In GeekBench 6 the 16 GB RPi 5 gets 899 points in single-core and 2,144 points in multi-core. The Apple A18 Pro from the MacBook Neo gets 3,566 points in single-core and 8,646 in multi-core: It is four times more powerful in this synthetic benchmark. It’s all a reality check. What happened to the $25 computer promise? Just two months ago Eben Upton, creator of the Raspberry Pi, announced the launch of a new Raspberry Pi 4 with 3 GB of RAM. Under other circumstances this launch would have been strange, especially considering that the Raspberry Pi 5 is available for almost two years and the original Raspberry Pi 4 were launched, attention, in 2019. Pre-pandemic. That announcement, however, made a lot of sense because the memory crisis has caused the prices of all types of devices to increase extraordinary. Upton himself revealed that the price of the LPDDR4 RAM memory modules used in the Raspberry Pi 4 and 5 had multiplied by seven. Hence the launch of an “affordable” version that at the time had a price tag of $83.75. The rest of the Raspberry Pi models, however, were impacted by the memory crisis and the creator of these devices announced significant price increases for all of them. Everything has meant that the company has had to betray its original objective more than ever. That $25 computer that was going to conquer the world soon made it clear that it was going to do so, but with many sacrifices: its original performance was poor, and you actually had to spend more money to use it with a monitor, mouse and keyboard (in addition to the SD/microSD, the necessary cables and the power adapter). Over time we saw how the Raspberry Pi became a much more rounded and capable product both in its original version and in others such as the fantastic RPi 400/500. But in doing so inevitably the price also increased: in November 2022 we complained about the lack of stock and that its price It was no longer 35 euros like the original, but triple. The firm, however, has always tried to maintain that spirit with which it was born, and in August 2024 it launched its Raspberry Pi 5 with 2 GB for $50. Today this model can be found at about 70 euros in Spanish stores, but of course, those 2 GB are not enough for that price. The memory crisis has harmed the entire market, but it has hit especially hard with these small miniPCs. The Raspberry Pi cannot compete in price/performance with more complete devices, but They continue and will continue to be a fantastic alternative in educational environments and, of course, in the industrial field in which the RPi in its Compute Module format have managed to become in all a reference. In Xataka | Raspberry Pi has risen like a rocket in the stock market for a simple reason: to use AI you don’t need a machine

FIFA has turned the 2026 World Cup into the most expensive cultural event in history because it has become a new Ticketmaster

by

For almost a century, FIFA has not cared about selling cheap tickets: the money in football was in television. But as has happened with the musiccinema and other cultural events, spectacularization is the order of the day, and for the 2026 World Cup the business model is closer to Ticketmaster. Direct consequence: two US attorneys general have already asked him for explanations through judicial means. Pocho record. The World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada starts this Thursday, becoming the most expensive cultural event in history. The cheapest ticket to the group stage cost an average of $200 and the most affordable ticket to the final started at $2,030. Adjusted for inflation, the price is double that of Qatar 2022 and quadruple that of the United States 1994. Because. The reason is more than obvious: for the first time, FIFA controls ticket sales directly, without delegating it to local organizers, and has launched dynamic prices. Between October and April made at least one category more expensive in 95 of the 104 gameswith an average increase of 35%. The Category 1 ticket for the final went from $6,730 to $10,990. Other niceties. Another novelty this year that is not going down well with fans is that the buyer does not choose a seat either. You pay for a category that corresponds to an area of ​​the stadium and FIFA assigns you a row and seat months later. For example, in April many fans who had paid for Category 1 discovered that their seats were in areas previously marked as Category 2, because FIFA had modified the maps and reserved the best seats for a new “Front Category 1”. More expensive, of course. The law. The attorneys general of New York and New Jersey have judicially summoned to FIFA to investigate your sales practices; The one in New Jersey accuses the agency of turning the purchase into a labyrinth of “false scarcity.” California had previously sent its own letter of request. Justice accuses FIFA of setting up its own secondary market without price caps in the United States and Canada: as explained your own support pagecharges a commission of 15% to the seller and another 15% to the buyer. Only in Mexico does it limit resale to the original price, and by legal requirement. On that platform there have been tickets for the final listed by more than two million dollars. The opacity does the rest. FIFA has almost never reported how many tickets were left per match or per phase, and before publishing any price it sold tens of thousands of “Right to Buy” tokens through its crypto collectibles platform: hundreds of dollars for the right to buy a ticket whose final cost was not known until much later. More opacity: in February, FIFA president Gianni Infantino stated that all matches were sold out. His own organization had to correct himand in April acknowledged that about five of the planned 6.7 million tickets had been sold and that the rest were being held for “continued sales.” Different ticketing experts identify this retention as a classic tactic to create a sensation of demand. Although it is not clear if the play has given the expected results: the United States’ debut against Paraguay accumulated 10,000 entries listed on resale platformsa, many below the original price. The accounts come out. Wow, they come out: in Qatar 2022 the box office contributed about 950 million dollars; for 2026 FIFA budget up to 3,000 million for tickets and VIP packages (premium entry plus experience). The organization foresees earn 8.9 billion with the tournament within a four-year cycle of 13,000 (which is how FIFA organizes its accounts) in the most optimistic calculations. There are those who consider that this calculation even falls short: an academic analysis It projects that the box office and VIP experiences alone will exceed 7.4 billion, and to that would be added TV rights, sponsorships and other income. One but. The Economist It points, however, to a very specific problem this year: the public in the fields is part of the television product that FIFA sells around the world for more than 4 billion dollars. It must be remembered that in the Club World Cup, spectators had to be relocated in front of the cameras in half-empty matches to keep up appearances. All of this underlines the idea that FIFA is torn between a couple of businesses in which it wants to be the leader: squeezing in-person spectators and protecting the image of the spectacle that the rest of the planet sees. For now the eyes with the dollar sign are watching intently at the first one. In Xataka | How to configure your Smart TV to watch the 2026 World Cup in the best possible way

Claude Fable 5 is the most powerful public AI model in history. Also the most expensive, exclusive and frustrating

by

When Anthropic presented Claude Mythos Preview two months ago, he did it with a singular message: it is so powerful that you will not be able to use it. That, of course, caused everyone to want access to it. Well: Anthropic has just introduce Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5its new AI models directly derived from that. There is good news, but also bad news. Like Mythos, but capped as a precaution. Anthropic already warned that Claude Mythos Preview was a spectacular tool for finding security vulnerabilities. That made it especially juicy for cybercriminals, so the company decided that only a few trusted entities (under its Project Glasswing) would have access to the model. That learning has now been applied, because in this announcement we have two different (and layered) versions of the model: Claude Fable 5: a model with all the capabilities of Mythos Preview, but with notable security measures that prevent it from being used for malicious purposes. As soon as the model detects that we are asking something “dangerous”, it avoids the question and even forces the use of an inferior model, Claude Opus 4.8. Clear examples: questions about cybersecurity or the development of biological weapons, for example. Claude Mythos 5: This version is somewhat less capable than Fable 5 in terms of cybersecurity, but will only be available to “a small group of cyber defenders and infrastructure providers.” It is the natural heir to Mythos Preview, and according to its creators it is even better than the original version. Claude Fable 5 / Mythos 5 simply sweeps the most demanding benchmarks on the planet. There have never been more powerful models. Anthropic’s internal testing shows that we are facing the most powerful AI models in history. In all benchmarks – including the new FrontierCode programming, much more demanding than SWE Bench Pro – the scores of Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 are simply spectacular, well above those of their rivals. The jump from Claude Opus 4.8 is really surprising, but it leaves GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro far behind (they don’t compare with the recent 3.5 Flash). This is a brutal blow to Anthropic’s table, and we will see how both OpenAI and Google respond. Claude Fable 5 is amazing. Ethan Mollick, well-known AI popularizer, has had access to Fable 5 for a few days and is amazed by the experience. With this model he has managed to complete projects such as east of the isochronic map that previous models had never solved, and it has done it almost “the first time”. In one of the cases Fable 5 worked for 9 and a half hours straight to produce a code called Concord of data analysis. Their conclusions are compelling: Last year (when working with GPT-5 Pro) I called him “work with a magician”: you recite the spell and something happens. With Fable, the spell has become so powerful that I’m no longer sure I’m the wizard. I feel more like a patron. I describe what I want, pay for it and evaluate the result. The conspiracy takes place somewhere I can’t see, in hundreds of small decisions over which I never have a say. Work has gone from being a process to being a result. I no longer direct; charge. The criticism is unanimous. Andrej Karpathy, who recently signed by Anthropic, commented on X how this is a qualitative leap that for him is of the same relevance as the one that Claude 4.5 represented in November. That model began the overtaking of OpenAI: this puts it even further away (at least, for now). Other tweetersemployees or not from Anthropic, make it clear that this is an important leap in the capabilities of AI models. It’s only been a few hours since the launch, but everything points because we are indeed facing a notable leap in quality. Consume tokens like there’s no tomorrow. But in the face of that fascination, the criticism. Discussions on Reddit reveal how users who have started using it have quickly detected the problems associated with this release. The first of them: Claude Fable 5 burns tokens like there is no tomorrow. Its consumption is enormous, and the quotas for Pro and even Max accounts run out in minutes if we use the model intensively. If it already seemed to us that we were exhausting the limits of the free or quick payment accounts, with Claude Fable 5 that feeling worsens: Fable 5 is fantastic, but we can barely use it often with the Pro or Max plans because those dreaded messages about waiting X hours to continue using it quickly appear. Extremely cautious. Anthropic has been very serious about avoiding misuse of Fable 5, and as soon as it detects anything suspicious it “brakes” and “downgrades” the model so that at that moment the one that is activated is Claude Opus 4.8 (which is not bad at all). The problem is that users are detecting that the model takes completely harmless prompts as dangerous. Although in Anthropic indicate Although these security measures are activated in less than 5% of sessions, what users are detecting is that they are activated much more. Fable 5 can get silly. Not only that: Fable 5’s own design means that if it encounters a prompt that it detects as dangerous, the model tries to avoid the response and automatically reduces your capabilities (‘nerfing’) without you knowing. It gets a little sillier on purpose, so to speak. As Anthropic itself explains on the system card, We have implemented new measures that limit Claude’s effectiveness in requests related to the development of cutting-edge large-scale language models (LLMs) (for example, in creating pre-training pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or designing machine learning accelerators). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our security measures prevents giving an advantage to those users most willing to violate those terms. Unlike our cybersecurity, biology and chemistry interventions, and distillation attempts, … Read more

“Investing in the development of full electric cars would be an expensive hobby”

by

something like It happened to Luca Cordero di Montezemolo It has happened to Stephan Winkelmann, CEO of Lamborghini. He did not want to say but he said when asked about the new Ferrari Luce and all the controversy that has surrounded the Italian company’s first all-electric launch. And Lamborghini, unlike those from Maranello, canceled its all-electric project a long time ago. And both positions have their reason for being. “The right way”. It is the one they have taken at Lamborghini, according to Stephan Winkelmann. Those three words are part of the answers he has given to CNBC in relation to the new Ferrari Luce. Although Winkelmann assures that “each brand, each company has to decide for itself,” he has not hesitated to defend his position. And the head of Lamborghini considers that canceling its first fully electric car has been “the right path.” According to their internal reports, they claim that interest in a completely electric car from Lamborghini had slowed down and that is why they decided to stay with plug-in hybridization. “An expensive hobby”. This is how resounding Winkelmann himself was a few months ago when he confirmed that the project for Lamborghini’s first electric car had been cancelled: Investing heavily in the development of full electric vehicles when the market and customer base are not ready would be an expensive and financially irresponsible hobby towards shareholders, customers and towards our employees and their families. The words were collected by media such as Motorpassion and they emphasize the purchase intentions of Lamborghini customers, who They still prefer the company’s V8 and V12 engines. The company, however, has used its research on the electric car to carry out the Lamborghini Revueltoits first plug-in hybrid. Because?. As we told you during our introduction to the Lamborghini Revueltothe company was always very clear that electricity had to be a means to increase the sensations on board and improve dynamics, not aiming for a more language ecofriendly. This decision, like that of canceling its first electric car, has its own internal logic within a company like Lamborghini, which clearly opts for hypermuscular and hypermasculine cars where sportiness is almost its only reason for being. The only concession they have made is the Lamborghini Urus and its creation falls within the Volkswagen Group’s logic of cost utilization. a lot of sense. If the approach proposed by Lamborghini was that of an electric supercar, the truth is that there does not seem to be a market for this type of car. Mate Rimac, CEO of Rimac and creator of, perhaps, the sportiest electric car in the world, complained that political pressures to jump to electric cars They were precisely slowing down the potential sales of their electric cars. Beyond the fact that the customer may miss the sound of a V12 engine and the feel of a gearbox, the truth is that if the average driver is forced to skip the electric car, driving a combustion supercar will be even more elitist. It is very likely that more electric supercars will arrive but right now the context is against them. The public for this type of car seems to be revolting against the regulations that, supposedly, force them to jump to electric cars. By pure physics, the electric car needs to be much heavier than a combustion car right now. And finally, obviously lacks that sensory part which can only be associated with the sound and smell of a combustion engine. And the Ferrari Luce? It is logical that Lamborghini defends its position and claims that its customers are not looking for an electric car, but the public profile is different between Lamborghini and Ferrari. Or, what is certain, Ferrari is trying to catch a different audience. The Ferrari Luce is not an electric supercar, it is not an aggressive and aerodynamic sculpture on wheels as has been the norm in its history. It is a car designed to send the message that whoever has it is up to date and embraces innovation and groundbreaking products. Since we saw the interior of the car it is something that seems more than evident. The fact that the car was shown in a light blue color and without a trace of moving videos underlines that we are looking at the launch of a car as a fashion accessory for walking comfortably through the center of any city without the discomforts typical of a supercar. Click on the image to go to the original tweet A little pull. Although Stephan Winkelmann says he does not mean to say, the truth is that he says a lot with his response. Despite not wanting to get into controversy, his defense that Lamborghini customers do not opt ​​for this type of car is a way to distinguish the two types of customers. A reaffirmation of Lamborghini’s identity. It adds up Lamborghini’s social media post coinciding with the launch of the Luce, which reads “proud to keep you dreaming” or “proud to keep your dreams” and four attached images of a Lamborghini Revuelto in a tone of blue very similar to that used by Ferrari for the presentation of its Luce. Photos | Lamborghini In Xataka | If the Ferrari Luce breaks with the entire history of Ferrari it is for a very simple reason: new rich

why understanding these acronyms is the difference between buying an air purifier or an expensive fan

by

At first glance buy a purifier air can be a simple task, but as soon as we start reading the specifications… we can easily get involved, especially with some of them such as the type of filter. Here we must be especially careful because it is possible that we find HEPA filters or HEPA type filters, and they are not the same. In fact, with each of them we will have a totally different experience. How a HEPA filter works HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Airor air with high efficiency particles) is a quality standard for filters, so if we see it in a purifier we can know that it meets rigorous tests to guarantee efficiency in retaining particles such as dust, pollen, mold and even bacteria or viruses. If we get a little more technical, bacteria measure between 0.5 and 5 microns while viruses measure between 0.02 and 0.3 microns. HEPA filters must be capable of retain at least 99.97% of particles having a size of 0.3 microns (particle size most difficult to physically filter). If it is not capable of this, it is not a HEPA filter. However, you have to be careful because this is where HEPA type filters come into play. What is a HEPA type filter If we see that a purifier has a HEPA type filter, we may think that it meets the standard we have discussed. But this is not the case, and they can be much less efficient. The expression “HEPA type filter” is usually used as a claim for some purifiers, generally inexpensive, although it is more normal to see them in other devices such as robot vacuum cleaner. These filters They are not as effective because they have not been tested with the tests that HEPA filters are subjected to, and it is possible that they do not even comply with the European standard that defines the different kinds of HEPA filters that we can find. Can they retain bacteria? Yes, but they do not have certified efficiency. How purifiers work The purifiers have a fairly simple structure: Inside there is a motor, a fan and a box where the filter is located.. Its operation is summarized in that the motor makes the fan move to attract particles and deposit them in the filter. However, it is worth mentioning that the filtering process is more complex. Inertial impact: affects large, heavy particles that travel at high speed. The particles cannot change direction quickly, so they continue straight until they collide with the fibers until they become stuck. Direct interception: some medium particles that follow the air flow pass very close to the fibers until they come into contact with them and remain adhered, which is known as direct interception. Brownian diffusion: on the contrary, small particles do not follow the air current in a straight line, so they continually collide with the gas molecules in the air. This movement increases the probability that the particle ends up hitting a fiber and becoming stuck. HEPA-type filters can retain certain particles, but they do not have certified efficiency. It’s not that they are useless, but they simply may not be as effective as HEPA filters. The good and the bad of both options, face to face hepa filters hepa type filters THE GOOD 🟢 They are capable of better filtering dust particles, bacteria or viruses. They are usually found in cheap purifiers, being interesting for devices whose purification function is secondary. THE BAD 🔴 They are found in more expensive purifiers, so they are aimed at devices whose purification function is the main one. They are less efficient than HEPA filters. Ideal for: People looking to improve the air quality in their home. Economical devices whose purification function is secondary. What purifier should I buy then? At this point you may have wondered whether or not it is worth buying a purifier with a HEPA type filter, and the truth is that it is, although it depends on what we are looking for. 👉 Choose a purifier with a HEPA filter if: You want to retain large and small particles for a cleaner home, from dust to viruses and bacteria. 👉 Choose a purifier with a HEPA type filter if: You only want to retain large particles such as pet hair, dust or lint. Recommended models Philips 2200 Series He Philips 2200 Series It is an air purifier with a HEPA filter that has a fairly small format. It incorporates a three-layer system composed of a prefilter, a HEPA NanoProtect and active carbon to capture 99.97% of particles up to 0.003 microns (3 nanometers) through NanoProtect technology, a technology that allows even smaller particles to be captured thanks to electrocharging. It can be controlled from your mobile phone to program routines and is capable of capturing odors, bacteria, viruses and larger particles. Philips 2200 Series Air Purifier The price could vary. We earn commission from these links Dyson Purifier Hot+Cool HP1 Dyson purifiers are quite well known for the format that many of their models have, such as the Dyson Purifier Hot+Cool HP1. This purifier with a HEPA filter is capable of capturing particles down to 0.1 microns thanks to its H13 filter and can also be controlled from a smartphone. In addition, it also has a function to heat the air in winter or cool it in summer. Dyson Purifier Hot+Cool HP1 The price could vary. We earn commission from these links If neither of these two models convinces you and you want to explore other options, you can take a look at our air purifier guide. 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 | Philips, Dyson In Xataka | The best way to heat the house: we analyze the expense and energy efficiency of heat pumps and heaters In Xataka | Which heater to buy: the best models based on power, use cases … Read more

If you thought the blue zone in your city was expensive, wait until you see what it costs to moor a yacht at the Formula 1 GP in Monaco

by

The Monaco Grand Prix is, by far, the most glamorous career of the Formula 1 World Championship. Not so much because of the fact that each of its curves keeps a memory of the most successful drivers, but because of the enormous showcase of luxury and opulence when celebrating with one of the most exclusive ports in the world. Not everyone can access the most exclusive spaces at the Monaco GP. Beyond the VIP stands, the real epicenter of luxury It is on the yachts moored in front of the circuit. The mooring of a superyacht during that weekend costs a real fortune, only affordable for the richest in the world. In fact, not even the world’s great fortunes, such as Jeff Bezos, They have a guaranteed position among the privileged few who can afford to watch the race of Formula 1 from the deck of your superyacht. Three million for a front row seat During the week of the Grand Prix, Port Hercule stops being a normal port and becomes a meeting point for the greatest fortunes on the planet and their yachts. Whether you like Formula 1 or not is secondary. The week before the Grand Prix, the parade of enormous superyachts begins, such as the Symphony by Bernard Arnault, founder of LVMH, who take positions highlighted in the Monegasque port. The specialized medium Yacht Harbor estimated that the 2017 test brought together yachts valued at more than 2,000 million euros in Port Hercule. Kismet superyacht, 122 meters long However, not having your own yacht is no excuse for not enjoying a front row seat at sea to enjoy the only Championship race that can be seen from the deck of a luxurious superyacht. Yacht rentals during the race test week skyrocket. The portal of boat rental luxury Cecil Wright offers those types of services and allows you to rent the Kismeta true floating mansion for the modest price of three million euros for one week. While on the streets of Monte Carlo the single-seater engines make the most of their performance, inside the Kismet Up to 12 guests can be accommodated in eight suites. The yacht is equipped with every detail so that guests only have to relax in its Balinese-inspired spa, which includes a hammam, sauna and cryotherapy chamber, waterfall shower and chromotherapy bathtub, gym and yoga studio. One of the covers of Kismet In addition, it allows you to experience all the excitement of the race from any of the jacuzzis on its luxurious decks, and all of this is attended by a crew of 36 people. “Parking” at a Monaco GP Once you have rented the right superyacht to blend in with billionaires and royalty, all that remains is to find a mooring for the yacht. Kismet. Port Hercule is the only port with adequate depth for mooring superyachts of that category. This port offers about 700 berths, but the most sought-after place is the so-called Trackside Zone, where the boats are located next to Quai des États-Unis, Quai Jarlan and the first two positions of Quai U. That is, in the mooring line closest to the circuitwhere the single-seaters pass just a few meters from these yachts. According to the table of Port of Monaco ratesthe price of the mooring is calculated based on how close it is to the runway and the length of the superyacht. Docking a yacht in the port of Monaco during the race ranges from 5,668 euros for a yacht of less than 19 meters in the Port of Fontvieille area, the furthest and without vision of the track, to tripling its price as we get closer to the track, with a mooring price of 16,087 euros for the same 19-meter yacht. Mooring Zone 1 is at the end of the tunnel straight, just when the cars must brake. Passing mooring zone 2, from which you can see the chicane of the Pool areato the Trackside Zone (zone 1) implies a price increase of 25.7%. During the Monaco Grand Prix, mooring a superyacht like the Kismet122 meters long, in the Trackside Zone (zone 1) It can cost around 160,000 euros only for docking during Grand Prix week. Its high price is justified because its proximity turns the Trackside Zone into a kind of floating stand. The yachts are in front of one of the most recognizable parts of the track, right where the cars leave the tunnel and launch towards the Nouvelle Chicane area, one of the classic images of the Monaco Grand Prix. It is a point where the drivers must reduce their speed to follow the curve and face the Pool section, so the millionaires see them pass at a slower speed and the single-seaters can be seen in more detail. Without a doubt, the most millionaire form of watch a formula 1 race. In Xataka | Madrid has been fighting for its F1 Grand Prix for years. Ozempic’s rich heirs also want a Grand Prix in their town Image | Flickr (CaterhamF1)

They promised us Rapunzel’s hair with very expensive cosmetics. Science says the real secret has been in your kitchen for millennia

by

Mythical representations of women, whether Botticelli’s Venus, the Hindu goddess Lakshmi or the maidens of Arthurian legends, often share an unmistakable trait: long, flowing and seemingly unattainable hair. It’s easy to think that such lengths are confined to the realm of mythology, untouched by the harsh reality of split ends and frizz. However, just swipe through TikTok or Instagram to find content creators sporting hair that would rival Rapunzel herself. Many of these influencers They promise that your hair has grown at a dizzying rate thanks to a specific technique: hair oiling or hair oiling. But, faced with shelves full of exotic formulas and luxury serums, an inevitable question arises: do we really need expensive products or has the ancient secret always been hidden in our kitchen in the form of olive oil? The resurgence of an ancient ritual. Although the term hair oiling It may sound like a modern invention packaged for Generation Z, the reality is very different. This practice was not born yesterday under the ring of light of a smartphone. Hair oiling is a technique deeply rooted in ayurvedic medicine from India, with Sanskrit texts from more than 5,000 years ago that already recommended infusing hair with natural oils to restore its shine and relax the mind. Likewise, in ancient Egypt also ointments were used based on animal fat or castor oil for similar purposes. What has changed then? The showcase. He hair oiling In a few months it has gone from being a “legacy trick” to an essential aesthetic ritual. Social media has choreographed it into a highly recognizable scene that includes a slow massage, meticulous application of oils before washing, a warm towel, and blow-drying to an incredibly shiny finish (glossy). Among the avalanche of coconut, argan and jojoba oils, olive oil has begun to reclaim its throne, not only because of its accessibility, but because it has historically been the cornerstone of Mediterranean cosmetics and the basis for extracting the properties of countless medicinal plants. The science behind the shine. Beyond visual aesthetics, the big question is whether slathering your hair in oil really works. The answer from science is a resounding yes, although with important nuances. Rocío Lajarín, doctor in Pharmacy and CEO of Alma Secret, explains in GQ that hair is made up of 90% proteins, mainly keratin. “When we use oils with structural affinity, we manage to reduce protein loss and reinforce the resistance of the hair shaft,” he says. The portal Healthline adds that regular oiling reduces “hygral fatigue” (the repetitive swelling and drying of the hair fiber when wet), acting as a cement that protects the cuticles. If we focus on “liquid gold”, clinical studies support its many benefits: Deep hydration and elasticity: An investigation of the Journal of Cosmetic Science demonstrates how olive oil It penetrates the hair fiber thanks to its high content of essential fatty acids, significantly improving hydration and resistance to breakage. A cocktail of vitamins: Virgin olive oil rejuvenates hair because it contains vitamin E, vitamin C (which stimulates collagen formation) and vitamin A (enhancers cell regeneration). Shield against damage and the sun: The International Journal of Trichology emphasizes that extra virgin olive oil contains hydroxytyrosol, a polyphenol that fights free radicals and cellular damage induced by UV-A rays. In addition, it is highly effective in reducing damage after subjecting hair to chemical processes such as dyes. Antifungal action: The same International Journal of Trichology points out that olive oil has an inhibitory influence on fungi that attack hair, such as Microsporum gypseum. The great debate: Does it make hair grow? This is where dermatology collides with internet myths. Dermatologist Andrea Combalia warns in Telva that at hair oiling “Many benefits are being attributed to it that are not real, such as hair growing faster or increasing its density.” Doctors consulted in Cleveland Clinic They agree that growth rate and thickness are predetermined by genetics, age and hormones. Oils prevent breakage (allowing length to be retained), but do not accelerate the growth phase from the follicle. However, dermatologist Ana Molina contributes in Trends a fascinating fact. It has been observed that the phytoestrogens present in olive oil can have an antiandrogenic effect by inhibiting the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase (which converts testosterone into DHT). Since DHT causes miniaturization of follicles in androgenetic alopecia, “phytoestrogens may help prevent or slow its progression.” Roots or just tips? This is the point of greatest controversy. Oiling the scalp before washing protects the lipid barrier of the skin against the aggressive surfactants in the shampoo. However, hairdresser Daniel Gil in Marie Claire and Dr. Steven Walker in GQ They are blunt: if you have an oily scalp or suffer from seborrheic dermatitis, you should avoid applying oils directly to the roots. Dr. Shilpi Khetarpal of the Cleveland Clinic confirms this: if you are prone to dandruff, applying oil can worsen the problem by feeding the fungus Malasseziacausing more inflammation. In these cases, the hair oiling It should be strictly from medium to ends. A ritual with common sense. At the end of the day, olive oil is not going to rewrite your hair genetics or magically transform you into a Renaissance painting. What science tells us is much more pragmatic and, at the same time, liberating. The true value of this trend lies in understanding hair care as a ritual that respects our natural hair structure, and not as a compulsive accumulation of synthetic cosmetics. Olive oil is a powerful, accessible and dermatologically endorsed tool to defend our hair from pollution, the heat of straighteners and daily wear and tear. Applied with common sense, the liquid gold of our Mediterranean diet is also confirmed as the best cosmetic in our bathroom. Image | Photo by Curology on Unsplash Xataka | For years we blamed stress for baldness without understanding why. Science has just found the missing link

We Spaniards are changing fishmongers for fish on a platter. And it is costing us very expensive

by

When your grandparents wanted to buy fish, they might have found more or less variety, but they had it easy: they went to the market or the fishmonger, asked questions, chose, paid and returned home with the purchase. Today things are somewhat more complicated. Or not. with consumption in low hours and food spending increasingly concentrated In supermarkets (to the detriment of neighborhood stores), it is increasingly common that instead of buying salmon, sea bream or any other fish on a counter, we take it from a refrigerator, already scaled, filleted and served on trays. The question is… Does that make it more expensive for us? What has happened? that the OCU just responded to a question that you may have asked yourself more than once if you usually consume packaged fish from the supermarket: Are you paying a premium? Would that filleted fish be cheaper if you bought it in the fishmonger’s section instead of on a tray? It is an interesting question if we take into account that Mercadona, the chain with higher market share of the country and agglutinator of more than 30% of the food distribution business in some parts of Spain, has decided retire their fish counters and bet on the sale of this product already prepared, packaged and arranged on trays. What has the OCU found out? In general terms, it is (indeed) likely that you are spending more money by taking home already packaged merchandise instead of buying it at the supermarket fishmonger. After carrying out a study in a dozen chains throughout April, the OCU concluded that “fresh fish sold packaged is up to 30% more expensive than that purchased at the fishmonger if they are small varieties, already cleaned and filleted.” That last nuance is important because the organization’s technicians verified that the percentage goes up or down depending on the type of product we are talking about. In some cases the extra cost of packaged fish compared to that sold over the counter shoots up to 45%. In others it narrows so much that it is almost imperceptible. “The answer is not as simple as it seems: in some cases, especially for smaller or portioned fish, we do pay a lot more to buy clean fish on a tray, but in others, for larger ones, there is almost no difference,” details the OCU. Can it go further? Yes. To begin, it is useful to know how your study was carried out. As recognizes the OCU itselfthe analysis is not as simple as writing down the cost (euros per kilo) of each product and then comparing. There are chains that only sell certain varieties of fish through a single channel (counter or trays). As if that didn’t complicate things enough, there is another key handicap: trays of filleted and packaged fish usually offer 100% edible product; That is, without bones, heads or any other disposable part, something that can happen with whole pieces from the fish market. And how did they calculate it? How can we compare the prices of trays of already cleaned fish with those we see in fishmongers, which usually show the cost €/kg of whole pieces? To solve it, the OCU was based on estimates from the Spanish Nutrition Foundation that they conclude that the edible part of the fish usually represents more or less between 55 and 67%, depending on whether we are talking, for example, about sea bream or sea bass. As for the chains, the OCU set in Ahorramás, Alcampo, Aldi, BM, Carrefour, Dia, Hipercor, La Despensa, Lidl and Mercadona. If we talk about gender, the analysis focused on four species frequently consumed in homes: sea bream, sea bass, hake and salmon. For referencethroughout the year between October 2024 and November 2025, we Spaniards consume 0.56 kg of sea bream, 0.55 of sea bass, 1.44 of salmon and 1.54 of hake. Do those details matter? Yes. Because thanks to them we can better understand how the gap between the price of fish on the counter and on a tray widens or narrows depending on the product we are talking about. The clearest cases are represented sea ​​bream and sea bass. In the first case (gilthead) the OCU calculates that merchandise sold packaged is on average 27% more expensive. And at the counter we also pay for the amount of merchandise that is wasted after weighing the complete piece. In some supermarkets that percentage even shot up to 47%. The case of the sea bass is even more egregious. The surcharge detected in filleted products served on trays is 45%. Is it always like this? Things change considerably when we talk about hake and salome. If we want some slices or loins, there are no big differences depending on whether we ask the fishmonger at the counter or go to the supermarket refrigerator to buy them in trays. A hake cut and prepared on the counter came out in April for €17-25/kgwhile on a tray it was charged at €18-25/kg. The salmon slices or loins also cost practically the same (€20-23/kg) both in the fishmonger and in boats. What is the conclusion? “The conclusion is clear: in small fish, the greater the handling, the more expensive the fish on a tray becomes compared to selling on the counter. In preparations with less handling, the premium is much lower, if not residual,” ditch the organization. In short: there is a premium, although it is not always nor is it equally forceful in all cases. It depends on the type of fish and also the level of preparation we want. “In small and filleted fish, convenience does pay.” Better one or the other? The OCU admits that the trays have “pros and cons” for both consumers and supermarkets. Among the first, the most obvious is speed and comfort. One of its biggest drawbacks is the loss of the figure of the fishmonger, crucial for advising the client, and the generation of waste. The organization also warns … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.