fear

Sam Altman attacked Anthropic for using fear tactics with their new AI. He then did exactly the same thing.

by

The big AI companies have set themselves a goal: practically every week They must present a new model or start warming up the atmosphere by commenting on what is to come. Delays are not tolerated because the speed at which everything happens is overwhelming, but those who continue to dominate the conversation in terms of the power of their models are OpenAI and Anthropic. And what had to happen has happened: if Anthropic has a new “dangerous” model, now OpenAI says they also have one. And it is a example very clear of “where I said I say, I say Diego.” GPT-5.5 Cyber. A few days ago, OpenAI released GPT-5.5 Cyber. This is a variant of GPT-5.5 focused and specialized in advanced cybersecurity capabilities. It is a model focused on tasks such as the exploitation of vulnerabilities, penetration tests, malware reverse engineering and other types of actions highly focused on that sector of computer security. In a reality in which, thanks to AI tools, there are systems that are more vulnerable than ever (and all this when we are on the threshold of the era of post-quantum cryptography), such specialized models seem like a very sweet tool for companies. But, of course, also for someone with other intentions. Access control. Due to concerns over potential dual use, OpenAI has made the decision to restrict access to GPT-5.5 Cyber ​​to “critical cyber defenders.” Who are these? Those that protect essential infrastructure such as electrical or financial networks. OpenAI has a certified access program with robust safeguards and rejection of malicious requests so that not everyone has access to this tool. In addition, they have a monitoring system to detect suspicious activity carried out by the model. With cannon shots. It is, in essence, the discourse of fear. Once again, an artificial intelligence company saying that they have a product so powerful that it cannot fall into the hands of just anyone. It’s not the first time that OpenAI uses this speech, but the times have been very curious. A few days ago, Anthropic presented Mythos. It is a tool very similar to that of OpenAI, one that is already giving some results in companies, with examples like Mozilla pointing out that, thanks to Mythos, the latest version of Firefox has a lot of security patches because AI has greatly streamlined the processes for finding vulnerabilities. It is one more example of the two titans of the AI ​​industry captaining ships with enormous firepower and “shooting” their best product with that speech of fear. Precisely, that’s where the problem lies. The hypocrisy. After the presentation of Cyber, Sam Altman commented at X that they were working with the Government to establish trusted access control to their tool. They have not shared the identities of those who will have initial access or, really, many details of the model. It has simply been a “oops, oops, this is very powerful and we can’t release it to the general public.” And, as we say, the problem is that Sam Altman himself harshly criticized Anthropic’s strategy when Mythos was presented. The CEO spoke about the strategy of fear and compared the maneuver of Anthropic and its declared enemy, Dario Amodei, with that of someone who manufactures an atomic bomb and, at the same time, sells you the bunker to protect you from it. This has not been overlooked by the media because he harshly criticized that strategy just before copying it word for word. At par. Despite everything, neither one nor the other is wrong. When AI companies present a model, curiously it is always better than the competition in almost everything. On this occasion, a assessment The UK AI Security Institute reflects that both Mythos and GPT-5.5 Cyber ​​are two of the most powerful models they have analyzed in their cybersecurity tests and that they are, basically, on par. Compared to previous or non-specific models, the difference is palpable. In expert-level tasks, GPT-5.5 achieved an average success rate of 71.4% compared to 52.4% for GPT-5.4. Mythos Preview, for its part, stayed at 68.6% compared to 48.6% for Opus 4.7. The Institute concludes by pointing out that this is evidence that the potential in cybersecurity is a trend among frontier models, one in which they can begin to achieve the desired benefits in order to become listed companies. Another reading is that countries that want to stop depending on cutting-edge American technology must start getting their act together as soon as possible. And that is, precisely, the message from the CEO of Mistral, the French AI company that recently pointed out that Europe had to stop being a technological vassal of the United States to become a power. In Xataka | Someone has had a simple idea so that data centers do not collapse in Spain: “unplug them” 18 days a year

Letterboxd was one of the last “clean” and community-focused platforms. Now the fear is that it will end

by

Letterboxd has been the exception that proves the rule in the wild landscape of social networks for years: it is one that grows without sacrificing your communitywithout optimizing screen time by trampling on the quality of its users’ experience, without searching for viral content at all costs. Now, the Canadian company that controls 60% of the platform is looking for a buyer, and a question arises that has very short legs, because we already fear the little things that are coming. Where does it come from? Letterboxd was born in 2011 in Auckland, New Zealand, by Matthew Buchanan and Karl von Randow. It functioned as a digital diary where movie fans could record what they saw, rate it, and share it with whoever they wanted. Without feeds algorithmic (there is not much doomscroll on Letterboxd), no viral content from strangers, no (too much) intrusive advertising. Just movies, opinions and the formation of a community relieved to be able to leave the suffocating world of trendsthe hashtags and the influencers. The growth. For almost a decade it was a niche tool, but with the pandemic, Letterboxd grew from 1.8 million users in 2020 to 17 million in 2024. Nearly 100 million reviews were written that year. In 2026 it has reached 26 million members. All of that growth has occurred without the main feed ceasing to be chronological, more akin to a classic 2006 incarnation of Facebook than any current social network. She soon became known in the industry. A24 explicitly cited Letterboxd when talking about the strong theatrical debut ‘The brutalist‘ and directors like Michael Mann, Rian Johnson or Francis Ford Coppola they ended up using the platform as a genuine space to talk about your film-loving tastes. Tiny arrives. In September 2023, the Canadian Tiny (investor that owns very different brands, such as the AeroPress coffee machine manufacturer) acquired 60% of Letterboxd for between 50 and 60 million dollars. The founders retained a minority stake and continued at the helm, and users were promised independence and respect for what had made the platform grow, something that was broadly fulfilled. Some more advertising appeared, a movie rental service that was difficult to access and little else. Tiny leaves. Now, Tiny wants to go out. The company has contacted with possible buyers: Versant, parent company of CNBC and MS NOW, and The Ankler, a specialized media with which it already attempted an operation in 2025 that did not prosper. The reason is that Tiny’s shares have fallen since the acquisition of Letterboxd. Additionally, the platform was purchased through its venture capital fund. sign that Tiny always planned for a quick change of hands. The Goodreads precedent. It’s a similar case in terms of community, function, and size: Goodreads is the literary equivalent of Letterboxd, and ended up being acquired by Amazon in 2013, while also promising not to botch the platform’s user experience. Today we know that Amazon uses it to collect user data and it is true that it has barely touched it. But that has its negative impact: the design is practically unusable today, moderation does not exist and users are beginning to migrate to alternatives like The StoryGraph. The fear of shit. At this point we already know perfectly well what the term refers to, which has an almost academic status: the enshittificationcoined by Cory Doctorow, happens when platforms start by offering a good user experience to attract users, then they exploit them to attract clients with money to invest in the business and finally they also exploit those clients to maximize short-term profits. Letterboxd has lived outside that cycle longer than its rivals have. But each threat of a new owner sets off alarm bells again. Inframonetization. Letterboxd is clearly undermonetized compared to its competitors. Your generous level Free allows you to use the platform with almost the same features as the paid option and advertising remains surprisingly limited, without invading everyday use, as happens on X or Instagram. And they try things: interviews with actors and directors about their favorite films, rental service for little-known films, in-person events… all on a very small scale, almost more as a way of spreading the brand in small spaces than as an open form of monetization. That is, there is growth potential, and that is what might interest a buyer. That is precisely what generates concern among its community: activating these options too aggressively can destroy the value of genuine cinephilia that resides behind them. Letterboxd users are very active and sensitive, and we must not forget cases like Mubi, whose user base canceled subscriptions en masse after learning of the links of one of its investors with the Gaza war. Right to veto. There is a safety button that can prevent a company with interests other than its subscribers from coming to buy Letterboxd: Buchanan retains veto rights over any potential buyer, a condition that exists openly to preserve the original spirit of the platform. Its effective scope, of course, will depend on how much the original owner is willing to exercise it and what price that veto has in the final negotiation. In Xataka | “Caution: non-vegetarian content”: when disclaimers warn about absolutely everything

‘Idiocracy’ was supposed to be a satire of a stupider future. The fear is that it is becoming real

by

This week, Flamenca Stone shared a video on Bluesky with the comment “this is literally an ‘Idiocracy’ plot.” It is not the first time it has happened nor will it be the last. The 2006 film that went unnoticed in its day (more than sought after, to avoid lawsuits from the many brands that were satirized) has been generating that same recognizable chill for years, like a kind of perverse version of The Simpsons: You watch a satire and you don’t know if you are watching a documentary ahead of its time. 20 years of predictions. It took Mike Judge three years to get ‘Idiocracy’ released. When it did, it grossed just $495,000 in its first weekend. Fox did not organize press screenings, and did not even invest in trailers for television: it was too acidic and uncomfortable. The director of ‘Beavis and Butt-Head’ and ‘Silicon Valley’ had constructed a satire about an America in the year 2505 where idiots had reproduced so much among themselves that the population was essentially composed of brainless people. A perfectly normal young man from the present wakes up at that time (yes, it’s the plot of ‘Futurama’, then recently canceled) and is celebrated as practically a genius. Idiocracy Today. Time has put it in its place and despite going unnoticed at its premiere, its edition in domestic formats first and its passage through streaming later (now you have it on Movistar Plus+) has given it a certain cult status. Let’s review some of the questions that were raised as part of an absolutely exaggerated satire (as shown by the fact that Judge decided to set it in no less than the 26th century) but that seem chillingly close in the current context. EITHER as the director himself said“I am no prophet. I was wrong for 490 years.” The spark of life. Let’s start, without going any further, with the use of soft drinks as irrigation water. In the future, the sports drink Brawndo has replaced water, which has caused crops to not grow for decades. “Brawndo has what plants need. It has electrolytes.” They tell the protagonist when he is surprised by the absence of water. Of course, no one knows what the hell an electrolyte is. Meanwhile, the reality: Trump thinks soda cures cancer because they kill the grass and therefore, possibly also kill the cancer cells. If you ask me, much crazier than ‘Idiocracy’, although the truth is that it is documented that more and more people They opt for sports or energy drinks when before they drank water. All brands. In the movie, the Costco chain has its law school. The country’s only telecommunications operator is called AOL-TimeWarner-Taco Bell-US Government, and the stripes on the flag are logos. Is especially significant (by visionary in pre-streaming times) the scene of the television screen: the program occupies a box in the center of the screen, surrounded by advertising everywhere. YouTube or any video streaming website looks similar. As for the presence of brands in public institutions or sponsorships of public spaces, it stopped being a dystopian issue a long time ago, eh, Madrid residents? Recognizable president. Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, former wrestler and president of the United States in 2505, enters Congress on a motorcycle, with an electric guitar, shooting into the air. His management capacity is zero and his charisma is overwhelming for a country of idiots. Actor Terry Crews He admitted feeling a chill when he started watching Trump rallies in 2016. Co-writer Etan Cohen he wrote on Twitter that same year who couldn’t believe the film had been turned into a documentary. In 2024, Hulk Hogan appeared at the Republican National Convention with a speech straight out of a wrestling promo. The similarities continue to this day, but we are left with Espinof’s reflection about the film: the logic of entertainment has completely colonized the political debate. Stop thinking by convention. The deterioration of language in ‘Idiocracy’ is part of society: words are replaced by pictograms and reasoning processes are diluted. Nobody remembers how to reason without a screen in front of you. In 2025, an MIT study warned that artificial intelligence tools can accelerate cognitive decline by mechanizing routine tasks and leaving only exception handling to the user. McGill University Research they point in the same direction with GPS and spatial memory: the more you use it, the less you remember how to navigate without it. Intelligence dies. In his analysis of an increasingly anti-intellectual society, Jot Down described how this increasingly established current no longer presents itself as ignorance but as overinformation: the illusion that accessing infinite data for short periods of twenty seconds is equivalent to learning. We live it continually: the algorithm rewards short formats, the echo chamber of social networks amplifies what you already believe with slogans. That “No to critical thinking” is the backbone of all of ‘Idiocracy’ and is the true subtext of the film. Nobody is perfect. ‘Idiocracy’ was wrong, of course, in its initial approach: the disaster began when the rich stopped having children and then the lower classes without basic education began to reproduce. An idea with dangerously eugenic overtones that fortunately the rest of the film does not affect and that has been completely overwhelmed by a non-negotiable reality: if the current world has shown us anything, it is that the billionaires around us are not, precisely, the sharpest pencils in the case. In Xataka | If the question is whether AI is already as good as human intelligence, the answer is: solve this puzzle

Not only has the US just lost the “eye” that Hormuz watched, its nuclear aircraft carrier is in Africa for fear of being shot down

by

Year 2019, an American surveillance drone more than 200 million of dollars disappears from the radar over the Gulf of Oman and, a few hours later, Iran shows its remains to the world on television. It was not the first time something like this had happened, but it was one of the most uncomfortable: a machine designed to see everything had been seen before it could react. Since then, in that part of the map, each silence in the systems begins to weigh more than it seems. Losing the “eye” that watched Hormuz. Confirmation of the fall of MQ-4C Triton a few hours ago is not a simple technical incident, but the loss of one of the most advanced pieces of the US surveillance system in the Persian Gulf. This drone, capable of operating at high altitude for hours and equipped with cutting-edge sensors, was key to monitor naval movementsdetect threats and maintain situational control around the strait. His disappearance, under circumstances still unclearleaves a most uncomfortable void at a time when every piece of information matters, especially in an environment where mines, drones and speedboats turn any mistake into a real threat. The “scared” aircraft carrier. Plus: the diversion of USS George H.W. Bush Going around Africa instead of crossing the Suez Canal is not just any logistical decision, but a symptom of that operational vulnerability What Washington is suffering from. The reason? Avoid passing through Bab el-Mandeb It means recognizing that even a nuclear aircraft carrier battle group, one of the most powerful assets in the world, cannot guarantee their security in a strait where actors such as the Houthis have demonstrated the ability to attack ships with drones and missiles. This detour not only lengthens times and complicates deployments, but also shows that military superiority does not always translate into freedom of movement. The uncomfortable precedent. Not only that. They counted the Forbes analysts that the decision of avoid Bab el-Mandeb It raises a disturbing question for the immediate future, because if this step is already considered too dangerous, what happens to Hormuz, much narrower, guarded and saturated with Iranian defensive systems? The logic is a huge question. Iran not only has more advanced technology than its regional allies, but also decades of specific preparation for that scenario. That makes any attempt to operate there a very high risk betand where even a single relevant impact could completely alter the strategic balance of the area. The strategic paradox. If you also want, what emerges from these movements is not that image of overflowing force that is presupposed, but rather of calculation and extreme fear. While American political discourse speaks of pressure, blockade and control, tactical decisions are revealing prudence, we would even say caution. The simple fact that the route of a nuclear aircraft carrier is redesigned to avoid a hot spot shows that the margin of error it’s tiny. And in an environment where a successful attack on a high-value ship could trigger disproportionate military and political consequences, the priority is no longer projecting strength and power, but avoiding losses at all costs. When losing a little is too much. In summary, the combination of drone crash Triton and the rnuclear aircraft carrier odeo paints a crystal clear picture: right now, the United States is not operating from a position of comfort, but rather in an extremely delicate balance. In that scenario, it doesn’t take a devastating blow to change the rules of the game, just with a symbolic one. Because a lost surveillance drone may be acceptable, even if it has the characteristics of the MQ-4C, but a damaged warship or a compromised nuclear aircraft carrier would be a very different story. Image | USN In Xataka | The US already has the first response to its blockade of Hormuz: a boomerang of unpredictable consequences called China In Xataka | The US has closed all exits from the Strait of Hormuz. And now Iran can put into practice what it has been preparing for 25 years

Faced with the fear of a barrel of oil at $200, the US has made an unprecedented decision: remove sanctions on Russia

by

After almost two weeks, the Iran war already has a great (and unexpected) beneficiary: the Kremlin. days after giving carte blanche to India to buy million barrels of Russian crude without fear of sanctions, yesterday Washington was one step further by lifting (partially) the sanctions imposed on the Russian oil industry after the invasion of Ukraine. With this, he hopes to alleviate the effects of the Iran war on the energy market and prevent Tehran’s threat from becoming a reality: that the barrel of Brent shoots to $200an all-time high. The question is… What will it mean for the war in Ukraine? What has happened? That the US has decided to pause the sanctions that penalize the purchase of Russian oil, a measure adopted four years ago and which seeks asphyxiate the Kremlin’s ability to finance its troops in Ukraine. The White House just published an order in which it gives the green light to the purchase of crude oil and oil products from Russia. Of course, with small print. The suspension of sanctions is temporary. It will only affect merchandise previously loaded on ships and (a priori) will be limited to one month: from March 12 to April 11. Click on the image to go to the tweet. Why do you do it? The task of announcing the measure has been the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bressent, who a few hours ago insisted in the White House’s efforts to “promote stability” in the global energy market and above all “keep prices low” while the Iran war lasts. “To expand global supply reach, Treasury grants temporary authorization for countries to purchase Russian oil stranded at sea,” explains the high office. “This measure, which is limited in scope and short-term, applies only to oil that is already in transit.” In the same messageBressent insists that the rise in crude oil prices this week, coinciding with the escalation of tension in the Persian Gulf, is “temporary” and claims that “in the long term it will greatly benefit” the US economy. In recent days, Trump himself has tried to downplay the fluctuations in the Brent barrel. Recently he even stated that, being “the largest oil producer”, the US makes “a lot of money” when crude oil rises. Does context matter? A lot. In fact, the decision of the Treasury Department cannot be understood without taking into account several factors. The first, the escalation in the value of oil to which Bressent himself refers. The stock charts show that the cost of a barrel of Brent has skyrocketed in recent days: from marking just under 70 dollars in mid-February, it has gone above 90, with peaks that exceeded the barrier of the 100. Those fluctuations already affect to those who need to fill the car tank and threaten to go beyond transportation, infecting the shopping basket. What will happen now? The problem is not just how much oil has risen over the last two weeks. There is (very much) concern that the barrel of Brent will continue to become more expensive and, if so, by how much. The Iranian regime already has shown its ability to condition oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime passage that channels 20% of international oil, and Tehran seems willing to use ‘black gold’ as a weapon of war. On Wednesday the regime of the ayatollahs threatened to the US (and the West) with a scenario in which the Brent barrel doubles its value and shoots up to $200, shattering the all-time high of 2008, when it reached $174.5. How will it affect Russia? That’s the other big question. The order just published by the US Treasury will allow Russia to market oil for a month without its customers risking sanctions, generating a flow of cash for the Kremlin. Bressent questions in any case the scope of that injection of funds. “It will not bring significant financial benefits to the Russian government, which derives most of its energy revenue from taxes levied at the point of extraction,” defend the secretary. Is it an exceptional measure? The truth is that it is not the first ‘balloon of oxygen’ that Trump has granted to the Russian oil industry since he began his military operation in Iran. It’s been a week now temporarily relaxed its sanctions policy so that India can buy Russian oil. The measure was approved with conditions very similar to those that Washington now extends to the rest of the countries: a 30-day suspension limited to crude oil already loaded on ships. It is not the only card that the White House has tried to reduce market tension. Another, adopted hand in hand of the International Energy Agency, has been to release millions of barrels of reserves. How much will it benefit Moscow? The great unknown. The measure approved by the US is temporary and has a limited scope, but it will probably allow the Kremlin to sell its oil without having to apply significant discounts to offset the possible sanctions that its buyers faced. Recently Financial Times I calculated that Russia is already winning up to 150 million of dollars in extra income every day through the sale of oil, a plus directly related to the conflict in Iran, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the turbulence in the Gulf and the growing interest of India and China. But will it help the Kremlin? The situation of the Russian coffers is not particularly buoyant. Its public deficit accumulated during the first two months of the year almost reaches the objective set for the entire year and there are those who question that the extra injection it will receive over the next month thanks to oil will increase its room for maneuver in Ukraine. The reason: hydrocarbons represent only a part of the income (relevant, but not decisive) on which the Kremlin depends, which after four years of war has seen how the country’s military industry is conditioning its economy. Images | … Read more

If the question is why the US has not yet attacked Kharg Island, the answer is simple: fear of the second later

by

With the US and Israel attacking thousands of targets Iranians, including shipsdefense systems and oil facilities and supply, Kharg island It is a paradox in itself. Most analysts agree that it is the great Achilles heel of the Islamic Republic, a point at which Washington could cause considerable damage to the ayatollah regime. However, despite this strategic value and the intense US and Israeli offensive, after more than a week There is no record of Kharg being damaged during the war. The question is obvious: Why? On a distant island… Iran may be in a privileged position to control the Strait of Hormuzplace of passage almost 20% of the planet’s crude oil and gas; But on a geographic level, Tehran also has some disadvantages. The main one, its coast. It is not the best for maritime traffic. It is too silty and lacks the draft necessary for docking oil tankers. More than six decades ago, this handicap led Iran, with the help of the American company Amoco, to create a huge oil terminal on the neighboring island of Kharg. Although it is a tiny island, just over 20 km2its waters are deep enough to accommodate large ships. Since registering its first major shipment, in 1960Kharg has been gaining weight in the Iranian oil industry until it has become its nerve center. The island of black gold. The “nerve center” in this case is more than justified. Despite its small size, Kharg has been equipped with an enormous infrastructure, with loading docks, oil pipelines and warehouses, which allow it to channel about 90% of Iran’s oil exports. It is estimated that they pass through the island every day between 1.3 and 1.6 million of barrels of crude oil, although it has capacity for much more. JP Morgan estimates that in February, when war drums were already sounding, Tehran increased the flow to three million barrels a day. There are those who say that if he put his mind to it he could reach seven million. Added to them are its reserves, estimated at another 18 million. A perfect target. With such numbers, Kharg has become two things. A central piece in Iran’s oil network. And a perfect target for the US and Israel. A certain blow would come to cause considerable damage to the island and, consequently, to the finances of the Islamic Republic, contributing to its destabilization. Its strategic value is so clear that Israeli politician Yair Lapid recently insisted in the advantages that a direct offensive would have. To be more precise, Lapid has advocated for “destroying all of Iran’s oil fields and energy industry on Kharg Island.” “That is what would cripple the Iranian economy and topple the regime,” he reasoned. In the last days Tel Aviv has hit the country’s oil infrastructure, damaging deposits and crude transfer centers in Tehran and Alborz. However Kharg remains intact. And that on Saturday Axios wakefulness that Israel and the US have discussed the possibility of controlling the island as part of a greater deployment in Iran. Why don’t they attack her? That is the question that several analysts have asked themselves over the last few days, including Dan SabbaghDefense and Security editor of Guardian. The advantages of attacking Kharg are evident for the US and Israel (it would hit the heart of Iranian industry, destabilizing their regime), so… Why does the island seem immutable, at least today? To understand it you have to handle several keys. Some geopolitics. Other economic ones. About the latter was pronounced on Monday JP Morgan, which reminds that an offensive on Kharg would cause an earthquake in the oil market. Not only for hitting the Iranian industry. It could also trigger a violent response from Tehran that extends to the Strait of Hormuz and the oil infrastructure of other neighboring Gulf countries. It’s not crazy. Iran has already punished them. “A direct attack would instantly halt most of Iran’s crude oil exports, likely triggering severe retaliation in Hormuz or against regional energy infrastructure,” the bank warns. Beyond oil. “We could see the $120 per barrel price that we saw on Monday rise to $150 if Kharg were attacked,” warns Neil Quilliam, from the Chatham House think tank. “It is crucial for global energy markets.” It may sound exaggerated, but it is worth remembering several facts. Iran is not just any country. It occupies one of the top positions in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and pumps 4.5% of supply world. Much of its production goes to China, but if its supply were knocked out, the shock wave would spread to the entire market, influencing prices. Especially at a time of deep instability in Hormuz. We’re not just talking about oil. As remember In France24 Sonia Martínez-Girón, ITSS analyst, its market is closely connected to other very sensitive economic sectors, such as transport or food. And then… what? That is the other question that analysts ask. If Kharg is hit, the Iranian regime is hit, but… What comes next? What would be the next step? Richard Nephew, of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, recognize that attacking the island would represent an escalation in the war, especially since it could require a ground deployment. “The US and Israel are aware that, if they attack it, they run the risk of Iran attacking the oil infrastructure of the Gulf countries,” warns. Not only that. Rebuilding Kharg would take time, so the coup would affect any hypothetical new Iranian regime, complicating the country’s stability. “Kharg Island is so important to the Iranian economy that destroying its facilities would mean abandoning any pretense of waging war to create a better future for Iran,” points out in Guardian Lynette Nusbacher, former British Army intelligence officer. Added to this handicap is the cost it could have within the US, where Trump’s interventionist is already causing a fracture of the MAGA movement in the middle of an election year. Images | POT, Natalya Letunova (Unsplash) and … Read more

the fear of living in 1973 again because of the war in Iran

by

Just enter the tracking platform Marine Traffic to understand the magnitude of the paralysis. Dozens of red dots, representing colossal merchant ships, crowd motionless off the coasts of Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The steel giants do not dare to cross a strip of water that, at its narrowest point, barely measures 33 kilometers. The Strait of Hormuz It is the main energy artery of the planet. A fifth of the world’s oil – some 20.9 million barrels per day – and a vital percentage of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) sail through its waters daily. Today, that step is de facto blocked. Half a century later, an atavistic terror has awakened in Western capitals: the fear of reliving the energy collapse and rampant inflation of 1973. The spark that set the markets on fire jumped after a war escalation unprecedented in the Middle East, triggered by the attacks by the United States and Israel that culminated in the assassination of the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Tehran’s response has not been long in coming: a rain of drones and missiles on American allies and trade routes that has caused a blockade de facto of the Strait of Hormuz. The crisis broke out after an unprecedented escalation of war in the Middle East. The offensive by the United States and Israel (named “Operation Epic Fury”), which culminated in the assassination of the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sparked a quick response from Tehran: a rain of drones and missiles on American allies and strategic infrastructure in the Gulf. The physical consequences have been immediate. An Iranian drone attack forced to paralyze the Ras Laffan facilities in Qatar, the largest LNG export plant in the world, and forced Saudi Arabia to temporarily close units of its gigantic Ras Tanura refinery. The violence has directly reached the water: the British agency UKMTO reported the attack on an oil tanker near Oman, leaving several injured, and the energy expert Javier Blas warned of the explosion of another ship anchored off the coast of Kuwait, causing an oil spill into the sea. Given this panorama, transport giants such as Maersk or MSC They have ordered their fleets seek refuge. The panic has rewritten logistics rates: the cost of leasing a supertanker (VLCC) has shot up by 600%, hovering around $200,000 a day, while insurers have increased war risk premiums by up to 50%, as Alex Longley warns in Bloomberg. The echoes of the past are terrifying. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, warns in Fortune that a prolonged closure of Hormuz could have an impact “three times the scale of the energy crisis we saw in the 1970s.” What could happen if the tanks overflow The problem with ships not sailing is not only that the oil does not reach its destination, it is that it accumulates at the point of origin. The industry is facing a logistical collapse due to lack of physical storage. Iraq has been the first major victim of this logistical collapse. As you have detailed OilPricethe country has had to begin to turn off the tap on gigantic fields such as Rumaila (the largest in the world), withdrawing about 1.5 million barrels a day from the market, a figure that could double if the crisis persists. According to sources from the commercial sector in Financial TimesIf the blockade continues, Kuwait will be the next to give up in a matter of days, followed by the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, thanks to its immense storage capacity, could last between two and four weeks before being forced to cut its extraction. Financial markets reflect absolute short-term stress. As analyst John Kemp’s charts illustrateBrent crude oil futures have entered a backwardation extreme, with a difference of almost 11 dollars per barrel between short- and long-term contracts, placing it in the 98th-99th percentile in history. This signals an acute and immediate shortage of barrels, especially for refiners in Asia, which have already begun to cut back on operations. If this funnel continues for three months, the unwritten rule of firms like Goldman Sachs suggests that crude oil could become more expensive by an additional $40, turning the barrier of $100 per barrel in the new normal. The differences with 1973 Despite the drama and the fact that a barrel quickly exceeded $80, the macroeconomic scenario is not a carbon copy of the Arab embargo. Global resilience has changed: The new oil sheriff: Today, the US economy depends much less on crude oil to generate wealth (barely 0.4% of GDP compared to 1.5% in 1979). Furthermore, the American country is now the world’s largest producer of oil, which protects it from supply shocks, as pointed out Fortune. The “Myopia of Hormuz”: Mukesh Sahdev, Chief Analyst at XAnalysts, points in Fortune that the market is overreacting. The main objective of the US (neutralizing the Iranian leadership) has already been met, and Donald Trump himself has suggested that the military campaign could be short, which would limit the long-term impact. Alternative routes to rescue: Saudi Arabia has a colossal lifeline. Your pipeline East-Westwhich connects the eastern fields with the Red Sea, has the capacity to pump about 7 million barrels per day, bypassing Hormuz. There are already signs that Riyadh is redirecting flows this way, as Blas explains. For its part, Iraq has managed to resume a modest flow of 50,000 barrels per day to Türkiye after a brief pause, as the analyst collects Bachar El-Halabi. Safety mattresses: Global onshore reserves reach 2 billion barrels, enough to weather the initial storm. For its part, the Trump Administration has tried to calm the markets by promising Navy naval escorts and state insurance of up to $1 billion per ship through the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). However, this is not a magic solution. As they warn in the sectorcaptains are the ones who decide to set sail, and sailing surrounded by US military destroyers often makes them more attractive … Read more

The economy’s big fear was a simultaneous global drought. Science has found our lifesaver

by

We have been observing for years how climatic extremes They hit different parts of the globe, with the experience in Spain still very marked. But with him increase in temperatures To the extreme, one of the biggest fears of climatologists and economists is the synchrony of global droughts. That is, a scenario in which the main food-producing regions dry out at the same time. The good news is that science indicates that the Earth (at the moment) is not drying out. A problem. Logically, if the main countries in the world where wheat, rice, corn or soybeans are produced had a drought simultaneously, we would have a huge problem of product supplywhich for many is a real nightmare. But here the researchers have reached a conclusion: synchronized global droughts are severely limited and barely affect between 1.8% and 6.5% of the global land surface at the same time. Without a doubt, a great respite for economists who saw the end of the world as we know it and who has been published in Nature. But the most impressive thing is that all this is thanks to the oceans. What we knew. Until now, we knew that major climate events such as The Child wave North Atlantic Oscillationcould alter rainfall patterns thousands of miles away through what scientists call “teleconnections.” And it is something that the research team itself pointed out in the past: there are interconnected drought nodes at different latitudes, most in North America, South America, Africa and Australia. That is, when there is drought in one place, it can move to another. But, if these nodes are connected… Why doesn’t the entire planet dry out at once when there is an anomaly like El Niño? The answer is in the oceanic variability. An ally. In this case, the oceans act as an immense regulatory mechanism and that is why the authors literally speak of a phenomenon called ‘geographic trapping’. In this way, the dynamics of the oceans force the scale of these hydrological extremes to remain confined to certain areas, preventing drought from spreading across all continents simultaneously between the different nodes. It matters more that it doesn’t rain. Another of the findings that may be surprising derives from a common myth about extreme droughts. In this case we usually automatically associate the worst droughts with the suffocating heat wavesbut, nevertheless, the data from the last 120 years are clear in pointing out that the lack of precipitation dominates over high temperatures when determining the severity of a drought. That is to say, it is important that it does not rain or that it is extremely hot. Specifically, the lack of rain is responsible for two-thirds of the impact of the severity of these events, relegating temperature to a secondary role, although not negligible in a world that is moving towards warming of up to three degrees Celsius. It’s good news. That the planet has mechanisms to avoid a total global drought is excellent news for global food security and international markets, by ensuring supply for supermarkets. But scientists point out that we should not let our guard down. It must be kept in mind that, although 6.5% of land affected simultaneously, the maximum possibility that we have mentioned before, seems small on a planetary scale, if that percentage coincides exactly with the great “breadbaskets of the world”, the economic and humanitarian disaster can be equally devastating. In this way, the regions identified as “hubs” host a large part of global agricultural production, and the study warns of a growing systemic vulnerability in these areas. Images | edcharlie In Xataka | The drought is turning water into a very scarce and valuable commodity in Spain. And there are already organized groups of thieves

More and more Spaniards use AI in their daily work. They also fear losing their jobs because of it.

by

Artificial intelligence has ceased to be a technological promise and has become something that more and more Spanish workers already have installed in their daily routine. Not long ago, talking about AI at work sounded like science fiction and, on many occasions, it was even seen like a trap at work. Today, the data tells a very different story and adoption not only growsbut it does so at a speed that surprises even the analysts themselves. A report from the InfoJobs platform highlights that in the last year not only has the percentage of employees who use AI in their work grown, but increasingly understands them better. It is increasingly used at work. According to the IV InfoJobs Artificial Intelligence Report63% of professionals in Spain regularly use AI tools in 2026. This figure represents an increase compared to the 52% recorded in the 2025 report and 50% in 2024. Within this increase in the presence of AI in the workplace, the report highlights that the spontaneous use of AI stands at 51%, 17 points more than in 2025. The data indicates that the difference between the total use of AI and that declared has been reduced from 18 to 12 points. That is, workers not only use AI more, but they also better identify what technology they have in their hands and what they can do with it. They have an AI and they know how to use it. In 2025, 48% of professionals said they did not know or did not know how to use AI tools. In 2026, that percentage has fallen to 28%, a reduction of 20 points in just one year. In this sense, the generation gap becomes more visible. Among those under 35 years of age, the declared use of AI reaches 63%, compared to 47% among those over that age. Mónica Pérez, Director of Communication and Studies at InfoJobs, summarizes it like this: “Artificial intelligence has gone from being an emerging technology to being progressively integrated into normal work processes. Beyond the increase in its use, the data reflects greater identification and awareness of the use of this tool by professionals, which points to an increasingly consolidated adoption in the work environment and a paradigm shift.” ChatGPT leads, machine translation goes down. Among the most used AI tools in Spanish companies, ChatGPT-type chatbots stand out, which have gone from 37% in 2024 to 52% in 2026 and already top the ranking of the most used. The integration of AI in design tools and as a programming assistant does not go unnoticed, with a significant increase in use in the workplace, standing at 17% and 16% respectively. For its part, automatic translation, one of the main uses of AI at work in 2025, it drops from 58% to 51%. The percentage of users who claim not to use any specific tool in their work has been reduced from 7% to 4%. All this fits with what is happening globally that, by eliminating friction at work, employees tend to take on more tasks, generating more fatigue and workload if it is not managed well. Fear of dismissal grows. Having a greater understanding of the potential of AI tools and knowing what they are capable of also increases the uncertainty about your future job. 39% of those interviewed for the InfoJobs report believe that AI will cause some specific layoffsalthough without replacing specialized work, a percentage higher than 30% in 2025. 23% predict more widespread substitution, while the same percentage considers that the workforce is not easily replaceable with AI alone. This perspective varies depending on presentation of your position to AI. Among those who already use AI regularly in their workplace, 46% see the scenario of specific layoffs as likely, compared to 26% of those who do not use it. The AI ​​gap between companies. According to the study ‘Digitization of the Spanish company‘ Prepared by the UGT union with data from the INE, 21.1% of companies with more than 10 workers used AI in 2025, which represents a considerable increase compared to the previous year in which 9.55% was registered. Among large companies with more than 250 employees, the percentage rises to 58.2%, an increase of 13 points year-on-year. The data from the report indicates that Spain exceeds the OECD and EU average in AI integration, with 20.3% of companies regularly using AI. However, Spain is still very far from the implementation of this technology in Denmark (42%), Finland (38%) or Sweden (35%). Despite the general increase in the use of AI, there is data that indicates that this progress is not being transferred to internal talent since the percentage of ICT specialists in companies it has been reduced from 16.44% to 15.67%, a figure that UGT describes as “unexpected and disturbing.” In Xataka | The biggest fear was that AI would take our jobs. The reality is that it is replacing those who are learning to work Image | Unsplash (Anastassia Anufrieva)

The United Kingdom has always been a country of pets, but fear has triggered a dangerous demand: dogs ready to attack

by

The proverb says that the dog is man’s best friend. In United Kingdom more and more people He believes he can be something more: his best protector. At least that is the feeling conveyed by dog ​​training companies, which have found a curious increase in demand thanks to the visibility that networks and networks are giving them. celebrities. They are not cheap, they carry many more responsibilities than a ‘conventional’ pet and they operate within a complex legal framework, but that does not prevent the fact that on the other side of the English Channel it is increasingly easier to come across dogs ready to jump at the command of their owners. There are those who prediction even that personal defense dogs are a billion-dollar market that is rapidly expanding in the United Kingdom. What has happened? That the training of defense dogs is becoming an increasingly profitable business in the United Kingdom. We know it thanks to Guardianwhich a few days ago published an extensive report in which he explains that this type of pets, ready to obey the orders of their owners and defend them with hooves and teeth (in the most literal sense of the expression) if necessary, is experiencing considerable growth. There are not many statistics or official data that corroborate the trend (Guardian does not provide them at least), but of course the message from the sector is clear. “Demand has increased, without a doubt,” confirms Alaster Bly, founder of K9 Guarda company specializing in “highly trained security guard dogs.” There are even trainers who offer special courses to train pets that people already have in their homes. Has demand increased that much? A quick search Google shows a good number of British companies and blogs dedicated to the same thing: selling or informing about defense dogs. And that’s not the only clue. There are even market reports that assure that it is a business in full expansion. A recent study published by AdAstra Solution estimated the size of the British protection dog market at 1.2 billion dollars in 2024. Its forecast is that in just a decade it will rise to 2.5 billion, with a growth rate CAGR of 9.2%. The key is not only that these pets arouse more interest, but that they are expanding their demand base. What does that mean? That dogs trained to serve as bodyguards seem to be ‘becoming popular’ in the United Kingdom. They are far from being a mass phenomenon, but something has changed: they are no longer a ‘whim’ of the wealthiest families or professionals in the security field. According to confirm Guardian After interviewing professionals in the sector, the panorama is changing little by little, as demand increases. Bly acknowledges that the majority of his clients are still wealthy people, but he has also seen growing interest from families who are not wealthy and simply want to “invest in security.” The reasons for this change? There are two that seem key. The first is concern about crime. Although official statistics can be contradictoryStatista tables reflect that the number of violent crimes against people recorded by the police in England and Wales have increased in recent decades. And clearly. In fact, although they have decreased in recent years, they continue to remain well above the snow levels of the beginning of the 21st century. Are there more reasons? Yes. The networks. British reporter Elle Hunt remember that the increase in demand has gone hand in hand with greater media exposure of this type of dogs through various means. One is celebrities. In recent years, personalities such as Rochelle and Marvin Humes, Molly-Mae Hague, Katie Price, J.Terry…actors, singers, footballers and television personalities with well-identifiable faces in the United Kingdom. In the sector, there are those who remember that the increase in demand coincides with greater visibility through Instagram or TikTok of defense dog exhibitions and competitions. Schuzthunda canine agility sport. And how much do they cost? Much more than a ‘conventional’ dog. A trained dog requires considerable work that, sometimes, begins even before the dog is born. Bly works, for example, with hybrids of German and Belgian shepherds, a “very specific genetic mix” that allows it to adapt to its function. Hence they are not cheap. They cost (at least) £32,000. However, price is only one of the factors that the owner must take into account. ¿Is there anything else? Yes. Another factor, even more important, is the care and responsibility that comes with having a dog specially trained for defense. Guardian remember that these personal protection dogs have a complex legal framework, since they are not under the Guard Dogs Law, which does regulate animals in charge of protecting premises or professionals. “They receive the same treatment as any other dog,” explains a criminal lawyer. The problem is that standard home insurance policies can leave them out of your coverage. An important factor in a country that has seen how in recent years attacks increased of dogs recorded by the police. Images | Bignsmall Paws317 (Unsplash) and Wikipedia Via | Guardian In Xataka | Asturias has been fighting for years to have a decent train connection. And now he is also fighting to include his dogs

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.