fine

more than 1,700 euros fine

by

What do you do when you see that your neighborhood, your street, is gradually becoming stripped of trees, where urban maintenance passes by? In Mataró, in the province of Barcelona, ​​on Cós street, Miquel, a resident of the area, decided take action. It carried years of documented frustration. His official complaints began in the distant 2019. He demanded that the environment be taken care of and, after waiting a thousand days for some movement on the part of his City Council, he decided to take direct action, putting in his money, his time and his sweat. For several days, he bought for 34.40 euros and planted five trees in empty tree pits. He sanded and painted two rotting wooden public benches. Replaced several burst tiles with new, safe pieces. He created a livable corner for his community. He did the dirty work with his own shovel and the tools he had around the house. The administrative machinery. The inspectors from Mataró arrived, drew up a report of the “disaster” and the verdict fell like a stone: a financial fine of 1,733.39 euros. The council justifies the sword by citing the local Public Roads Ordinance, the rule that protects the “public domain” from any unauthorized alteration through bureaucratic means. The Kafkaesque thing about the matter is what follows. Because the sanction not only punishes the alleged urban planning violation: the total amount includes the operational cost of the municipal brigades. That is, go to the place, uproot five healthy trees, return to leaving the pavement arrangements as they were and return the street to its condition. It sounds like an institutional dystopia, a kind of ‘Brazil’ distorted in the key of modern urbanism that enables degradation, but the citizen cannot touch. What science says. I’m going to try to explain it with a round of macro studies. The air temperature during the day is always lower under a tree canopy. The shade they cast is essential, but for the cooling to be drastic, a street must exceed a threshold of 40% tree cover. Streets with trees are, on average, 1°C colder in ambient airbut being in direct shade can mean a drop of 10ºC compared to asphalt exposed directly to the sun. In addition, urban trees filter tons of fine particles (PM2.5), drastically reducing the incidence of asthma and respiratory diseases. Oh, and a relationship has been demonstrated between the presence of trees in dense streets (as in the case of Mataró) with a immediate reduction of cortisol and an improvement in the mental health of neighbors. Greener, less stress. There are dozens of direct studies on European cities comparing the heat island mortality. A third of premature deaths would be avoided if 30% tree cover was achieved. It has been measured tree equitythere is dedicated portals to follow up with thermography of the dramas in some areas and the green infrastructure planted by neighbors is, on top of that, more efficient and cheaper to maintain in the long term than artificial cooling. Mataró’s preferences. Sitting on a bench under a leafy canopy means up to 12 degrees less temperature than the asphalt exposed to the sun. This difference saves lives during unbearable heat waves. The plants preserve the local fauna, shelter birds and pollinating insects. They drastically improve the neighborhood’s biome, filter toxic air from exhaust pipes and increase the livability of gray and sad streets. Apparently, another citizen of the neighborhood reported in August 2024 that Miquel was acting on public behalf. This was the beginning of the sanctioning file. In any case, Mataró’s neighbor, Miquel, has challenged the sanction through legal means and defended its civil work, alluding to the aesthetic and habitability improvements, and arguing that it has not caused any damage to public assets. It is not necessary to sign a bombastic global agenda to satisfy the needs of a neighborhood. green guerrilla. The case coincides with similar cases in the past. Claudio Trenta, in Barlassina (Italy), was a 72-year-old retiree who watched with horror as his neighbors fell to the ground – down a huge sinkhole in a zebra crossing. Since they ignored the request, the grandfather bought a bag of tar, covered the pothole in just half an hour of work, and the local police fined him 882 euros. They ordered him to reopen the hole with a pickaxe. In Viña del Mar, Chile, a neighbor lived on the edge of a ravine full of dry brush. Worried about an imminent forest fire, she first asked the municipality for help and, when they refused, she weeded the entire area and threw the organic remains into a nearby container. He fell another fine of 180,000 Chilean pesos for “illegal disposal of prunings and debris.” Even Rod Stewart—yes, the British rock legend—recorded a video filling potholes on his street because he was fed up with bursting his car tires and the local authorities They gave him a public reprimand. Something similar happened to him to Arnold Schwarzenegger. There is a movement, theguerrilla gardening“, focused on rehabilitating landfills and abandoned areas and turn them into parks or community farms. Then come the fines for growing vegetables without paying the corresponding commercial agricultural permits. If the people rule the people, regular fits in here. leave it as it was. The articles on heritage assets They are clear. can be typifiedFor example, handling waste – no longer overturning bins, but rather collecting their contents – altering, painting or affixing posters without permission to streetlights, benches, traffic signs or containers and similar situations. Faced with this situation, Miquel summarizes that “sometimes it seems safer to let a bench rot, a tree pit remain empty and a sidewalk continue to deteriorate than to try to fix it on your own initiative.” What is clear is that, in the midst of a heat wave, the asphalt burns but the bureaucracy burns more, if we look at the price charged by any citizen attempt to reformulate what is habitable. Images | Pexels … Read more

The EU has hit AliExpress with a record fine. And make it clear that the next one could be even bigger.

by

The European Commission has fined AliExpress with 550 million euros for allowing the sale of illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products on its platform. It is the highest penalty ever imposed under the Digital Services Act (DSA)the rule with which Brussels forces large online platforms to monitor what is sold and published on them. The investigation, opened in March 2024, concluded that AliExpress’s detection systems “were not working properly”: many illegal products passed through undetected and others remained on sale even weeks after being identified. Why is it important. It is not the first time that the Commission takes out the checkbook against a Chinese platform. In May he fined Temu 200 million for similar violations, and in December of last year sanctioned X with 120 million for their misleading payment verifications. AliExpress now takes, by far, the hardest hit of the three. Technology Commissioner Henna Virkkunen has been blunt: The sale of counterfeit clothing, dangerous toys and toxic cosmetics “is not an inevitable cost of shopping online”, but rather “a failure” of AliExpress itself when it comes to fulfilling its obligations. According to its own data, AliExpress has 193 million users in the European Union, ahead of Shein (156 million) and Temu (130 million). One in five Europeans shops at least once a month in one of the three. Between the lines. The Commission’s report does not describe a specific failure, but rather a poorly dimensioned system from its roots. AliExpress misjudged whether it had enough staff to review suspicious products, underestimated how poorly its own detection system was working, and failed to evaluate how its recommendation and advertising algorithms were helping to spread illegal items. The “brand authorization” mechanism, designed to curb counterfeits, has been very easy for sellers to circumvent. And when the platform did sanction a merchant, the penalty did not prevent them from continuing to sell the same thing shortly after. Yes, but. AliExpress assures that the fine is “disproportionate” and that it will appeal. It maintains that it has invested substantial resources in product safety and that the decision ignores the “proactive improvements” introduced after the first notice from the Commission, just over a year ago. That nuance matters because the sanction comes after AliExpress escaped a fine in 2024 by pledging to strengthen its controls on medicines and other potentially dangerous products. Brussels has now decided that those promises were not enough. The context. The DSA allows fines of up to 6% of a company’s worldwide turnover. With the 122,000 million euros that Alibaba invoiced last yearthe legal ceiling would be around 7.3 billion. The 550 million applied are far below, something that the Commission itself attributes, in part, to the fact that the standard is still relatively recent. And now what. AliExpress has until October 20 to present a plan to Brussels to correct the deficiencies detected. The Commission will review this proposal in December and, if it considers it insufficient, it may impose additional periodic sanctions, not just a single fine. The underlying message for the rest of the Chinese platforms operating in the European Union, with Shein under open investigationis that size no longer serves as a shield. “Scale is not an excuse,” Virkkunen summarized. In Xataka | EU tariffs have made it impossible to buy on Aliexpress and Shein: in a few months it will be even more complicated Featured image | Xataka

Instagram and Facebook are “addictive” by design. And Meta faces a fine of 12 billion dollars

by

The European Commission has concludedpreliminarily, that Meta violates the Digital Services Act (DSA) due to the “addictive” design of Instagram and Facebook. The organization and Meta have been arguing for years over a multitude of aspects related to the security and privacy of their social networks but, this time, the move could be very expensive for Mark Zuckerberg’s company, as it could be forced to redesign both applications and face a fine of up to $12 billion. por that. The conclusion of the European Commission comes after an investigation of more than two years which, if confirmed, would force Meta to change the internal functioning of two of the most used social networks on the planet. And it comes at a time when regulatory pressure on big technology companies for the protection of minors it doesn’t stop growingboth in Europe and in the United States. In detail. According to has explained The European Commission itself in an official statement, Meta “did not adequately assess the risks of its addictive design for the physical and mental well-being of users, including minors and vulnerable adults.” The European organization points directly to several specific functions: Personalized recommendations. Autoplay (automatic playback of content). The infinite scroll. Push notifications. Brussels maintains that these tools push the user to continue viewing content almost unconsciously, which the institution itself describes as going into “autopilot mode.” It also ensures that Meta ignored available data on the time that minors spend on Instagram and Facebook at night, as well as the role that formats such as reels or stories could play in excessive or compulsive use of the applications. Between the lines. What is striking is not only that Brussels points out the design of the apps, but also questions the tools that Meta already offers to limit their use. The Commission states that screen time controls, even those enabled by default for teenagers, “can be easily dismissed” and do not truly reduce use of the service. Regarding parental control, consider that it only works if parents have technical knowledge and dedicate time and effort to configure it, something that, according to the organization itself, limits its real effectiveness. Nor does he consider the mental health warnings that Meta offers in its “safety center” as sufficient. With these arguments, the Commission proposes that Meta should introduce specific design changes: deactivate functions such as autoplay and infinite scroll by default, incorporate effective screen pauses and adjust its recommendation system so that it depends less on keeping the user engaged, according to the institution’s own statement. How much money is at stake. If the conclusion is confirmed, Meta could be fined up to 6% of its annual worldwide turnover. Taking 2025 revenues as a reference, close to $201 billion, the penalty could be close to $12 billion. That can make goal. It should be noted that these are still preliminary conclusions and that there is still no firm sanction. Meta has the right to defend himself, review the documentation in the file and respond in writing before Brussels adopts a final decision. In parallel, the case will be consulted to the European Committee for Digital Services. The context does not play in favor of Meta. This research It has been open since May 2024and it has not been the only one. In parallel, the company faces another European investigation into its age verification systems for children under 13 years of age, whose preliminary conclusions were published in April, as detailed by the Commission itself. In addition, Brussels is preparing a report, scheduled for next Monday, on a possible ban on the use of social networks for minors under 16 years of age throughout the community bloc, according to they count from The Verge. Pressure also comes from the United States. In August, Meta will sit on trial over whether its applications are intentionally addictive, in a case in which several states are jointly demanding compensation that could reach $1.4 trillion. depending on the medium. And it would not be the first judicial defeat, since in March, a Los Angeles jury already declared Instagram and YouTube responsible for damaging the mental health of a 20-year-old girl, in a case that forced the companies to pay 6 million dollars jointly, according to share from Bloomberg. QEU says the Comywentn. “Protecting the physical and mental health of Europeans must be a priority for social media platforms,” ​​he said. declared Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy. Virkkunen added that the Digital Services Law “offers a clear framework to hold platforms accountable for the addictive design of their services and their effects”, and assured that Brussels is “fully committed” to enforcing European regulations. What Meta says. A spokesperson for the technology giant declared to the BBC that the company did not agree with the conclusions, “which do not properly take into account the important measures we have taken to protect teenagers.” “We share the European Commission’s commitment to providing adolescents with safe and positive online experiences, and we will continue to engage constructively with them,” it continued. And now what. The case enters a phase of allegations that may be prolonged. This is not the first time that the DSA has resulted in sanctions, since the norm itself has already been used to fine X 120 million eurosand with 200 million euros to the Chinese e-commerce giant Temu. We’ll see what happens with Meta. Cover image | Guillaume Perigois and Goal In Xataka | Anyone can tag you on Instagram to generate AI deepfakes with your photos. It’s Meta being Meta

which one is legal, which one costs you 6,000 euros and why the DGT can fine you

by

The radars They are, without a doubt, one of the great fears of drivers on the road. The DGT uses them to control the maximum speed at which cars move, which gives rise to numerous more or less true information around them. For years it has been rumored that there are many empty boxes in Spain, something that ended up confirm the director of the DGT himself, but there is also doubt about some possible Traffic tricks, such as the so-called cascade radars either anti-braking which, however, the DGT does repeatedly deny. What is certain is that Traffic monitors the speed with fixed kinemometerswith their Pegasus helicopters and with mobile radarssome of which are practically invisible. This has led some drivers to use various means to remain alert. Some of them, as we are going to see, are prohibited and entail serious sanctions but in other cases, Traffic does allow them or, at least, there is no sanction as such that can be applied to them. Warning, detector and inhibitor: their differences and possible fines To be aware of all the radars that we can find on a route, we can visit the DGT website itself but, without a doubt, the easiest thing is to keep news of them while we are driving. For these cases, do not confuse the following terms, since a significant fine will depend on it, as stated in the Traffic Law. radar warning They are the devices or mobile phone applications that alert us that we have a radar in front of us. In this case, the navigator notifies us because it is registered in its database that there is a fixed radar at a specific point or because, if necessary, we receive a notification published by another driver. That is to say, the device or application does not detect At no time does the presence of the radar only alert us to its location because the DGT notifies it or another driver has indicated it. Is it allowed?: Yes Fine?: No radar detector Here it goes one step further. The device can use its own databases but its true task is to find the radars that we find in our path. It is used because, through waves, it is capable of detect the presence of a radar of speed and, therefore, is used to “discover” mobile radars. We are not talking about a device or an application that stores information about speed cameras and then alerts the driver. It is a device that actively searches for radars and, therefore, they are prohibited. Is it allowed?: No, its mere presence is cause for sanction Fine? Yes, 500 euros and three driving license points radar jammer The most intrusive device in the operation of a radar. In this case, the device not only alerts of the presence of a radar. Besides, disables operation of this and, therefore, disables the possible sanctions that may be imposed if we exceed the maximum speed limits. That is to say, it not only acts by warning the driver, it also “protects” the vehicle from radar activity and, therefore, prevents it from being penalized. Therefore, it is prohibited. Is it allowed?: No, its mere presence is cause for sanction Fine? Yes, 6,000 euros and six points on your driving license A clarifying note Although here we have talked about warning devices, detectors and inhibitors, the news that has been accumulating in the last two years will stop us for a moment. Technically, as we have said, using an application that warns us of the presence of a radar is not grounds for sanctions, but the DGT understands that if we warn of a radar or a police checkpoint we will be committing a crime. In May 2024, The Civil Guard arrested a man that warned of speed cameras and traffic controls through WhatsApp groups that had up to 15,000 users in real time. It is what was called “the Galician method”. This information was used to avoid being caught committing any irregularity. The problem is that, technically, neither the Traffic Law nor the Traffic Regulations indicate this activity as illegal. Therefore, what was done was to point out that the accused was committing a crime against the safety of the agents, based on article 36.23 of the Citizen Security Law which prohibits the following: The unauthorized use of images or personal or professional data of authorities or members of the Security Forces and Corps that may endanger the personal or family safety of the agents, the protected facilities or jeopardize the success of an operation, with respect to the fundamental right to information. That is, the DGT wanted to make it clear that notifying police controls may be punishable. However, two years later it has still not managed to reformulate the text of the current regulations that punish warnings through applications such as Waze or Google Maps. something that has been talked about for a long time. With all this in mind, it is important to know that radar warning devices are not prohibited in any case but also that the DGT has used the Citizen Security Law to try to stop the publication of the activities of Civil Guard agents, both breathalyzer controls and mobile radars. With no news in this regard, at the moment we are still in a diffuse area between what is or is not allowed regarding the radar warning on social networks and applications connected to our mobile phone. Image | Isaac Mehegan In Xataka | Pamplona is going to launch four radars with AI: they detect if you are wearing a seat belt, if you are on your cell phone or if you make illegal turns A version of this article was published in March 2024

you register or you will pay the fine on the AP-68

by

Spain is immersed in a campaign to eliminate tolls from our roads. Even though Europe demands the opposite from usthe Government has been eliminating all payment obligations as concession contracts come to an end. so many that Spain will add 1,000 more kilometers to the road network that we maintain with our pockets coming directly from the shadow tolls with which some sections of the first generation highways are maintained. Last year, the Government has already assured that was not going to raise new tolls or raise existing onesdespite the rumors and pressures from Europe (and within Spain) They were going in that direction. The position has been to raise the barriers and that, this year, releases the AP-68 toll. A road on which it will not be necessary to pay… in some sections. And the fact is that payment for use on this road will be maintained in the Basque Country and Navarra. A new free flow toll As pointed out by some local media such as Álava Diarythe AP-68 highway that connects Bilbao with Zaragoza will be toll-free in the Basque section. Although the rates remain the same, they point out that the step should be more attractive because starting in November the rates will be reduced. At the moment, it is stated that the intention is to reduce the toll by 70% for passenger cars and 50% for heavy transport. That is, it would go from a payment of 22 cents/km to a payment of 6 cents/km. Regarding their passage through Navarra, no prices have been defined although it has been made clear that there is an intention for the vehicles to continue paying for use, according to the latest news. The price, however, is not yet defined. But the big news is that Álava will use a system of “free flow toll” which, at least initially, will be combined with the classic barriers. This system is already used on the Basque highway A-636 between Beasain and Bergara from 2022. With it, waiting times are reduced since there are no windows but, if you have only passed on time, you must be very careful not to get a fine. And, as we say, in this case there are no barriers or booths. Here, the driver registers on a website with a license plate number and with each step the current account becomes smaller. Simply, the gantries calculate the kilometers traveled and then add them up to pass the payment. It is similar to a Via-T but, as we say, there are no barriers to stopping. In the case of Álava, as we said, the system will be combined so that those who are regular users will be able to pass without stopping and at the end of the day they will be charged for the corresponding trip. But if you pass punctually, on vacation, for example, you will have to stop at the barrier or have registered in advance. If not, you will face a fine. It remains to be seen how much the penalty is if the driver fails to register and does not pass through the barriers. In the case of the A-636, it is 150 euros, according to the Consolidated Text of the Provincial Highways and Pathways Standard of Gipuzkoa. Of course, as we say, in the case of Alava (at least for now) there will be the possibility of paying the toll at the window. Photo | Vasyatka1 (1) and (2) In Xataka | Spanish roads have a serious maintenance problem and construction companies have a solution: make you pay for it

The Animal Welfare Law is clear about whether dogs can enter bars. And also about the fine for breaking the rule

by

To humans (we know since recently) we like to surround ourselves with pets since long before we we started cultivating the land or the invention of writing. However, they have never played such a relevant role in our homes. The first official statistics On the subject, he estimates that in Spain they live 15 million of pets, more than the entire population of the country under 30 years of age. Only the dogs add up to 7.5. With such a deployment it is normal that more and more people count on them when planning travel or go to a bar. The big question is… Can they pass? Are pets allowed? If you go to Google and type “pets”, “restaurants” and “access” you will find a good handful of publications that talk about whether or not pets can access bars, restaurants, hotels and (in general) private businesses. It stands to reason. First, because in Spain there are more and more pets and every time they are more incorporated in our daily lives. Second, because with the thermometer fooling around with the 30th In much of the country and with clear skies, people increasingly want to make plans outside, stay in a hotel on the beach or go for a drink at a bar. And what is the answer? Depends. As is usually the case when we talk about pets, the ‘bible’ we must turn to in search of answers is the Law 7/2023 on March 28. Said like this, it may not sound familiar to you, but its most popular name surely does: the Animal Welfare Law (LBA), which began to be applied a long time ago. three years. In this specific case we are interested in your article 29which regulates “access with pets to means of transportation, establishments and public spaces.” There the regulatory framework is established and a very simple idea is put forward: as a general rule, pets can enter bars, restaurants and other businesses where food is served, unless otherwise stated. Now, in each case what both the host and the owner of the animal do will greatly influence, so this guideline does not always have to be followed. What does it say about the hoteliers? That they have the right to decide whether or not pets enter their businesses, although if they decide to do the latter and close the doors to them, they must make it very clear from the beginning. And in writing. Basically, Law 07/2023 states that if the owner of a restaurant chooses to ban pets, he must record his decision, warning it on the door in a perfectly visible way. The objective: to avoid surprises for clients or that, once they are seated with their dog, they are asked to leave the premises. What exactly does the law say? The indication that interests us is in the second point of the article 29. And says: “Public and private establishments, hotel accommodations, restaurants, bars and in general any others in which drinks and food are consumed, may facilitate the entry of pets that do not constitute a risk to people, other animals and things, to areas not intended for the preparation, storage or handling of food, without prejudice to the provisions of public health regulations, or municipal ordinances or specific regulations.” “If the entry and stay of the animal is not admitted, they must show a badge indicating this, visible from the outside of the establishment”. Does only the hotelier influence? No. From the LBA comes off that the dog owner also has rights and obligations and that even the latter must comply with certain rules. For example, the previous paragraph emphasizes that the doors of the premises will be open to pets “that do not constitute a risk to people, other animals and things.” And later, in point 5, the same article of the LBA emphasizes that the owners also have responsibilities: “People responsible for pets who can access the transport and establishments and places indicated in the previous sections must take the animal in accordance with the hygienic-sanitary conditions and respecting the security measures determined by the establishment or means of transport itself, as well as specific sectoral legislation.”. What happens in other places? The LBA not only regulates access to restaurants, bars and accommodation. the same article (29) also clarifies that, in general, public and private transport services must “facilitate” the entry of pets as long as they do not represent a threat. However, the ‘photo’ is not the same in all services. Taxi drivers or platforms such as Uber or Cabify can decide “at their discretion” whether or not to accept pets, while the law states that railway, shipping and airline operators must “adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the transportation of animals (…) as long as they are carried out under the access conditions established by each operator, respecting the hygienic-sanitary and safety conditions required by law.” Does it say anything else? Yes. The LBA make it clear also that shelters, refuges, care centers and other places dedicated to caring for people in a vulnerable situation must “make it easier” for their users to access their pets, if they have them. If for whatever reason that is not possible, the same centers must “promote agreements with animal protection entities or shelter projects” so that the pet is not left unattended. It is a fundamental measure to prevent people (homeless people, sick people or victims of abuse, for example) from avoiding going to shelters or residences just so as not to leave their pets helpless. And public buildings? The law points out also that, “unless expressly prohibited,” which must be clearly signposted on the outside of buildings, “pets will be allowed access to public buildings and facilities.” Everything stated in the previous points, of course, does not apply in the case of assistance dogs (for example, those used by the blind) and those that are part of the Armed Forces or State Security Corps. In those cases … Read more

One fine day Richard Feynman left a restaurant. 50 years later we already know why better known bad than good unknown

by

In the late 1970s, the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman He went with his friend Ralph Leighton to eat at a Thai place named Indra in Glendale, California. Looking at the restaurant’s menu, Leighton couldn’t decide: should he order his usual favorite, ginger chicken, or try something new and perhaps better? Any other person would have responded in one way or another (“if you like it so much, you better insure” or something like “he who does not risk does not gain”). Richard Feynman, brilliant as he is, did something else: He started scribbling equations on a napkin. and he turned that into a mathematical problem that he not only detected, but solved. For some reason, the prodigious physicist never published that analysis, and his notes were left to Leighton. For years that story was forgotten, but 50 years later researchers from the universities of Oxford, New York and Princeton managed to rescue those notes and Feynman’s solution. And what that revealed was surprising. Rescuing Feynman’s restaurant problem The researchers explained in their study, published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) that although Feynman had focused on what happened to the different dishes in the same restaurant, they They preferred to expand the problem: what happens when we are in city X, for example, on vacation, and we want to choose a restaurant. Richard Feynman’s handwritten notes on a restaurant napkin turned out to be a fascinating problem. Source: PNAS. Feynman’s restaurant problem is actually a variant of what is known as the optimal stopping problemto which also belongs the famous variant of secretary problemwhich gave rise to the 37% rule: When choosing from 100 options, one should try the first 37 to maximize the chances of choosing the best one. Then you can “settle” for that one, because it is difficult for there to be a better one among the rest. But we are digressing. Feynman’s original mathematical formula established an optimal policy based on a uniform distribution of quality. According to the physicist’s formulation, our quality bar is not static nor falls by chance, but decreases exponentially as the days available in our vacation calendar are exhausted. Thus, it usually happens that when we are at the beginning of our vacation, We usually demand absolute perfection in the chosen restaurant because the remaining time allows the risk to be amortized. In the end, however, that threshold of demand collapses and we settle for a decent restaurant. We move from the exploration phase – taking risks with new places (or dishes) – to exploitation – repeating places (or dishes) that we liked. The researchers wanted to test this mathematical model with a sample of 2,520 participants, and in doing so they detected a striking anomaly. During the first nights in a new city, participants explored massively, much more than mathematical logic itself advised. The researchers discovered that this phenomenon responded to the so-called “early exploration bonus” that fell rapidly as the days went by: if we have an opportunity to “get it right,” our brain shows tremendous psychological resistance to tying itself to a restaurant at the first opportunity. We prefer to continue trying other restaurants because we trust that we will find a better one. The four “gastronomic worlds” of the study: the behavior of the participants varied according to each distribution. Source: PNAS. But as the experiment went on, something else was discovered. Humans are not blind robots, but we calibrate the bar according to the city we visit. The experiment placed participants in four different “food worlds” in which the ratio of excellent restaurants to mediocre (or decent) ones varied. The data showed that the human brain is capable of diagnosing the type of “food world” it finds itself in just by trying three or four restaurants. From there, set the bar. Feynman mathematically intuited that the bar would lower exponentially as the return date approached, but the experiment revealed something different. Human beings reduce our level of demand linearly with respect to the proportion of days we have left on vacation. We are becoming less and less demanding and more “nostalgic”. This guarantees something important: that at least on the last nights we enjoy the “better bad known than good not known”, because that “bad known” will not be so bad after all: we have already experienced it. Fascinating. Image | SAP (edited with Magnific) In Xataka | Studying by heart seems like a good idea until you forget it. The Feynman method appeals to your understanding, not your memory.

Self-employed people can collect two retirement pensions together. The fine print is that they must have paid for both

by

There is one thing that any worker who contributes to Social Security expects: to receive a retirement pension. when your working life ends. What not many people know is that you can collect up to two retirement pensions: one if you have listed as self-employed and another if you have done it in the general regime as an employee. The fine print, of course, is that it is not enough to have contributed a couple of years in each regime. The conditions for both benefits to be recognized They are quite demanding. But yes, you can retire with two retirement pensions. What exactly does Social Security say?. The Social Security website has an answer Directly for that doubt, you may have the right to collect a retirement pension from the General Regime and another from the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA) as long as the contribution requirements for each one are met separately. That is, having at least 15 years of contributions in each of the regimes. If at the time of retirement the requirements of any of them are not met, they are accumulated in the one that is. That is, they continue to count for the regime that does comply, although only one pension will be received, as established in article 205 of the General Law of Social Security. First requirement: meet the minimum contribution. The first requirement to receive two retirement pensions is the minimum required for any worker who wants to access a retirement benefit. That is, have the required age to retire and have contributed enough years to receive it. In 2026, that means have quoted at least 38 years and 3 months (to retire at age 65) or less time if you wait until age 66 years and 10 months, which is the ordinary age for this year. The second requirement: 15 years in each modality. The second requirement is a little less common, and that is why not many people can access this type of double pension: prove moonlighting simultaneous. In other words, to receive it, the worker must be registered in both the RETA and the General Regime. That is, be listed as an employee and an employee simultaneously, and prove a minimum of 15 years of contributions in each of the regimes. This contribution can be simultaneous (15 years registered in both) or overlapping (15 years as an employee and 15 more years as a self-employed worker). If the worker is not registered in the General Regime but is in the RETA at the time of retirement, he or she must prove that at least two of those years must have overlapped within the last 15 years prior to retirement. In other words, you may have been alternating periods of time as an employee and as a self-employed person throughout your working life until you add 15 years of each, but two of those years of change between one regime and another must occur during the last 15 years of your working life, as specified in the article 205.1b of the General Law of Social Security. There must be a coincidence of both in the years prior to retirement, it is not useful to have contributed 16 years as an employee at the beginning of your working career and then another 23 years only as a self-employed person. If not multiply, add. At this point, many of you will have had a question come to mind: if you don’t reach 15 years of contributions in one of the two, what happens to those contributions, are they lost? This is where the article 49 of the General Law of Social Security. If, for example, you have contributed for 10 years as a self-employed person, but you do not reach the minimum to collect a pension for the RETA, but you do for your work as an employee, the regulations contemplate that these contribution bases as a self-employed person can be accumulated to those you have generated as an employee (or vice versa), but only for calculate the regulatory base that determines How much will your pension be?not to add more years of contributions. This means that those years of self-employment do count, even if they do not generate a second pension. They raise the regulatory base and, with it, the amount of the pension that you do collect. Two pensions, but one pension capped. Collecting two pensions at the same time does not mean being able to add any amount. Although these are two benefits from different regimes, there is a maximum limit for pensions contributions that also apply in this case. In 2026, this ceiling is set at 3,359.60 euros per month, in 14 paymentswhich is equivalent to 47,034.40 euros per year. If the sum of the two pensions exceeds that figure, the cut will be applied up to that amount. This means that it only makes economic sense to collect two pensions if each of them, on its own, falls below the maximum. In most cases, people in this situation will have contributed fewer years for the RETA than for the General Regime, so their two pensions, added together, are usually well below the ceiling. In Xataka | In Spain, those over 65 years of age are working like never before. It’s not passion for work: it’s for retirement age Image | Unsplash (Matt Bennett)

Brussels has just fined Temu the largest fine in its history with the Digital Services Law: 200 million euros

by

This Thursday, the European Commission sanctioned the Chinese e-commerce platform with the largest fine imposed so far under the Digital Services Law. Brussels considers that Temu has not been able to detect or stop the sale of dangerous items reaching European consumers, from chargers to baby toys. What exactly happened. Brussels accuses Temu of “not having identified, analyzed or evaluated with due diligence the systemic risks” derived from offering illegal products on its website, ensuring that this practice entails “potential harm” to EU users. This violates the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European regulation that forces large platforms to monitor what circulates through their services. The 200 million exceed the 120 that prevailed over the social network last December, so far the highest penalty under this regulation. No filters. The Commission maintains that this is not a specific case of defective products, but rather a failure in the platform’s own security system. In the words of the Executive“the evidence collected indicates that European consumers are very likely to encounter illegal items in Temu.” The problem, therefore, would not be in a specific seller, but in the company’s inability to filter what it sells. In detail. The research has been supported by several sources. The main one was a “secret shopping” exercise commissioned from an independent contractor, who has carried out laboratory tests on items chosen at random. The results, according to Brusselswere worrying in three categories: Electric chargers: a very high percentage did not pass basic safety tests, with the risk of short circuits and burns. Toys and objects for babies: Many presented medium or high severity hazards, either because they contained chemicals above legal limits or because of the risk of suffocation due to detached parts. Jeweler’s: Irregularities were also detected. According to the statement, these data were compared with customs controls of the Member States and with the European market surveillance database (ICSMS). The three routes, according to the Commission, showed “high or very high” percentages of non-compliant products, although the organization has decided not to publish the exact figures. Product bombing. In addition to the products, Brussels focuses on the technology of the platform. The Commission criticizes that Temu did not evaluate how the design of its own service (recommendation systems and promotional campaigns run by affiliated influencers) could be amplifying the dissemination of these articles. Furthermore, according to the agency, the company based its 2024 risk assessment on generic information from the sector and not on evidence on its own website, ignoring external studies (such as reports from consumer associations in Denmark and Finland) that already warned of the problem. What Brussels says. “Temu’s risk assessment underestimates specific risks, lacks detail, is not based on solid evidence and is not comprehensive,” counted the vice president of the Commission responsible for Technological Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The Finnish commissioner insists that these analyzes “are not mere bureaucratic procedures”, but the backbone of the DSA. How much does the fine weigh? Although the figure is relatively large, represents only 0.38% of Temu’s estimated turnover for 2025 (calculated at around €53 billion), very far from the 6% limit allowed by regulations. The Commission justifies this moderation because the sanction is “proportionate” to other aspects that remain under investigation. The situation has been brewing since 2024based on complaints from the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) and 17 of its national associations. And now what. Temu has three months to pay and until August 28 of this year to submit a “corrective action plan.” That document will then be reviewed by the European Committee for Digital Services, which will have one month to issue a response. After that, the Commission will have another month to set the final decision and on what date the fine will be applied. If the company does not correct course, it is exposed to periodic fines (daily, weekly or monthly) until it complies. The company can appeal to the European courts, but Brussels has already warned that the fine is final and does not intend to lower it even if the company corrects its behavior. Cover image | François Genon and own assembly In Xataka | Europe is already cherishing what was always a dream: the industrial manufacturing of qubits for quantum machines

LaLiga wanted to fine VPNs that did not block IPs during matches. A court has been set up

by

LaLiga has been waging an all-out war against football piracy for months and, with the support of a court ruling obtained in 2025, LaLiga had the power to ask operators to block certain IP addresses. The result? Websites that stumbled on match days due to some locks which were a clear example of kill flies with cannon shots. In a process in which it seemed that no one could stop these actions, LaLiga They got it in February of this year what seemed like another victory: a court in Córdoba ordered NordVPN and ProtonVPN Block certain IPs. Not even the judges themselves They knew if that could be done. and VPN tools evidently responded. Now another court in Córdoba has put some sense into all this, dismissing LaLiga’s request to impose fines on VPN platforms for failing to comply with the indiscriminate blocking order. The twist in the story of LaLiga and VPN blocks Through a release On its website, one of the companies affected by the initial ruling (NordVPN) has commented on the result of the ruling of the Commercial Court of Córdoba in what they have described as the dismissal of the request to impose coercive fines on NordVPN. The statement they have shared is the following: On May 19, 2026, the Commercial Court of Córdoba rejected LaLiga’s request to impose coercive fines on NordVPN for alleged non-compliance with the precautionary blocking order issued in February 2026. NordVPN had already warned at the time that the order was not technically viable without harming thousands of legitimate websites in Spain and abroad. Now, the court has accepted the independent technical evidence presented by NordVPN and ruled that it cannot be concluded that the company violated the order deliberately and without justification. The order issued in February required NordVPN to block a list of IP addresses that allegedly hosted unauthorized La Liga broadcasts. NordVPN’s technical experts have shown that target IP addresses change constantly, often within hours, meaning that the lists supplied do not correspond to the actual addresses at the time the blocking can be implemented. It was also demonstrated that the massive blocking at the IP level would have left thousands of completely legitimate websites without access for users in Spain and outside of it. After considering the conflicting expert reports, the court found a genuine technical dispute and ruled that the fines were not justified. It goes on to detail that this is a procedural resolution in the preliminary phase, so it does not resolve the underlying issue: the entire procedure that is still ongoing. nordVPN points out that it will continue to collaborate with the Spanish courts and points out that cloudflareone of the most affected in all this, also follows its own path of collaboration with the courts. What CloudVPN points out is that they are committed to the legitimate protection of intellectual property and the application of measures, but those measures must be proportionate, technically sound and respectful of both users and services that depend on the shared Internet infrastructure, stating that this massive IP blocking imposed on VPN providers, precisely, lacks all of these aspects. And most importantly, NordVPN points out something that is obvious: these measures “do not stop violators, who adapt in a matter of minutes while imposing real costs on legitimate users, companies and services that have no relation to the dispute.” In Xataka | LaLiga’s massive IP blocks are making life impossible for users, companies and developers. So you can claim

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.