government

Data centers have made the electricity bill more expensive in the US. And the Government has said enough

by

Every time you ask a generative AI to solve a problem for you, a server on the other side of the world needs power to process it and cooling to keep from melting down. The problem is that this electricity meter that spins at full speed is not just that of the large technology companies: it is that of the entire community. The AI ​​revolution has a real physical and economic cost that has already begun to hit the pockets of families, unleashing a crisis that has forced the United States Government itself to hit the table. The US government has said enough. According to federal dataresidential electricity prices will increase a national average of 6% in 2025. Citizens, stifled by the cost of living, have begun to connect the dots and point to the huge data centers that are proliferating in their neighborhoods. As detailed Politicalthere are currently some 680 data centers planned in the country, gigantic infrastructures that will require energy equivalent to that of 186 large nuclear power plants. This brutal demand has provoked strong citizen opposition, how to explain Guardiannumerous communities have begun to reject and block these projects for fear that their bills will skyrocket. The pressure has been so strong that the rebellion has penetrated traditionally conservative fiefdoms. According to Financial TimesRepublican legislators in states such as Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma have suggested halting the construction of data centers, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has pushed laws to regulate them and protect families from price increases. Faced with this scenario, Donald Trump’s administration has been forced to intervene. Washington’s “historical pact.” As reported The New York Timesexecutives from Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI made the pilgrimage to Washington to meet with President Trump and sign the so-called “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” (Ratepayer Protection Pledge). The objective of the agreement is to shield consumers from rising electricity costs. Technology companies have committed to “build, provide or buy” the new electricity generation resources they need, assuming 100% of the costs of infrastructure and improvements to the transmission network. During the meeting, Trump left a phrase that perfectly summarizes the sector’s reputation crisis: “They need help with public relations, because people think that if a data center is installed, the price of electricity will go up.” The president assured that, thanks to the pact, that “will no longer happen.” For their part, managers such as Ruth Porat (Google) or Dina Powell McCormick (Meta) confirmed their commitment to pay for the infrastructure “whether or not they end up using that energy.” according to statements published by the New York media. We cannot understand this move by Washington without looking at the electoral calendar. Politically, as they point out Financial TimesRepublican strategists alerted the White House that energy inflation was an imminent risk ahead of the midterm congressional elections (midterms). The Democrats, like Senator Mark Kellywere already using citizen anger as a political weapon, calling Trump’s pact a simple “handshake agreement” that was insufficient. And the clash with reality: a network to the limit. On paper, the promise sounds perfect. As the specialized media ironically says Engadget“big tech agrees not to ruin your electricity bill.” However, journalism and energy sector experts agree that there is a gigantic distance from words to actions. As he warns Political, The agreement is, in essence, a voluntary “handshake”, without binding legal force. Rob Gramlich, former economic advisor cited by CNBCremember that the White House has no direct jurisdiction over this matter: the rules of the electric grid are decentralized and depend on the public service commissions of the 50 states. It is they, and not the federal government, who approve how costs are distributed. The damage in some areas has already been done. Argus Media reports that on the PJM network —the largest in the US, covering 13 states and including the world’s largest data center cluster in Virginia—capacity costs have skyrocketed by $23 billion, record rates that are locked in until 2028, making it “virtually impossible” to lower prices for consumers in the short term. An independent watchdog came to describe this situation as a “massive transfer of wealth” from citizens to corporations. Competition for resources is fierce. Abe Silverman, researcher at Johns Hopkins University cited by Politicalcompares the situation to “a bidding war for a ticket to a Taylor Swift concert.” There is a five-year waiting list for gas turbines, and their prices have doubled. This technological urgency not only makes the network more expensive, but is stopping the green transition in its tracks. As they explain Argus Mediathe immense demand for servers cannot be covered quickly enough with renewable sources. This is forcing power companies to delay the closure of polluting coal plants and invest heavily in natural gas generation, perpetuating dependence on fossil fuels. The greatest risk, Silverman warnsis what happens if Silicon Valley is wrong in its growth calculations: “You spend 3 billion to improve the network, and then the data center does not materialize (…) Who is left with the problem? Grandma.” Should Europe demand the same? If we cross the pond, the situation is no less worrying, and the regulatory approach is drastically different. According to data from the European Commissiondata centers currently consume 415 Terawatt-hours (TWh) globally (1.5% of the world total), a figure that, driven by AI, will double to 945 TWh in 2030. In the European Union, consumption was around 70 TWh in 2024 and will jump to 115 TWh by the end of the decade. Europe has launched a mandatory monitoring system under the Energy Efficiency Directive to demand transparency about this consumption and its water and carbon footprint. But in Spain, the problem is already a physical jam in the networks. As we have described in Xataka, The Spanish electrical grid is like a saturated highway to which, suddenly, “a convoy of trucks of industrial tonnage” has arrived. The technical regulations of the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC) caused a “cascade effect” that blocked connection permits. The … Read more

Sam Altman says he’s terrified of a world where AI companies believe themselves to be more powerful than the government. It’s just what you’re building

by

Sam Altman sat down over the weekend before his audience at X to answer questions about the agreement that OpenAI has just signed with the United States War Department. What came out of that session was a beautiful involuntary x-ray of the biggest contradiction in the sector at the moment. Why is it important. The CEO of OpenAI said he is terrified of “a world where AI companies act as if they have more power than the government.” The phrase sounds good, it is marketinian and seeks to elevate OpenAI’s position as a powerful but very responsible and honest group. The problem is the context in which he pronounces it: hours before OpenAI signed that agreement, The US government labeled Anthropic, its direct rival, a “supply chain risk” for refusing to sign under those same conditions. Altman went to put out the fire just as someone accused him of setting it. Between the lines. Altman’s speech rests on a premise that must be monitored: that a democratically elected government must always prevail over unelected private companies. It is a philosophically reasonable position, but he applies it selectively. Altman acknowledged that the deal “was rushed and the picture is not good,” and that OpenAI moved quickly to “de-escalate” tension between the Pentagon and industry. In other words, your company made a unilateral strategic decision about how the entire AI industry should relate to the military establishment. That doesn’t exactly sound like institutional deference. The contrast. Anthropic opted for something different: requiring explicit safeguards against the use of its AI for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. But the government penalized her. OpenAI accepted a more ambiguous formula (“for all legal uses”) and won the contract. Various OpenAI employees signed a letter supporting Anthropic’s position. Claude became the most downloaded free application in the App Store that weekend from Apple, precisely surpassing ChatGPT. The market also has opinions. Yes, but. It’s fair to admit that Altman’s position has some internal logic: If AI is going to be integrated into military systems anyway, it may be preferable that it do so under negotiated conditions rather than under coercion. And he’s right about one thing: The labeling of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, a tool intended for hostile foreign suppliers, applied to an American AI security company is, in his own words, “an extremely frightening precedent.” The big question. Who really decides how AI is used in military contexts? The companies that build it, the governments that hire it, or the engineers who design it and who are increasingly organized to influence those decisions? Altman says he believes in the democratic process. But OpenAI negotiated privately, signed privately, and made only a fraction of the contract public. Democratic transparency starts there. In Xataka | Anthropic has become the Apple of our era and OpenAI our Microsoft: a story of love and hate Featured image | Xataka

The Government of Spain has insisted that we do not exceed the speed limits. And it has a threat: jail

by

At the moment it is a Bill presented in the Congress of Deputies but it is much more than that. It is confirmation that the Government will debate when a driver should go to jail in case of speeding. The PSOE’s proposal is to reduce this margin, which now requires driving through the city at more than the permitted speed of 60 km/h. 10km/h. It’s not much but it would be a substantial difference. Until now, a driver who exceeds the maximum speed allowed within the city by 60 km/h or more faces a prison sentence. Outside the city, the speed must exceed 80 km/h above the maximum permitted limit. With the change in regulations What the Government wants to carry outthe idea is that these limits are lowered by 10 km/h. That is, a driver has to face jail if he exceeds 50 km/h in the city and 70 km/h on roads outside of town. “Excessive permissiveness or laxity”. It’s like the Bill presented in the Congress of Deputies qualifies the current thresholds to determine what is a crime and what is not when we break the speed limits. Currently, the limits are as follows. City: Streets at 20 km/h: prison from 80 km/h Streets at 30 km/h: prison from 90 km/h Streets at 50 km/h: prison from 110 km/h Road outside the town: Road at 90 km/h: jail from 170 km/h Road at 100 km/h: jail from 180 km/h Road at 120 km/h: jail from 200 km/h The arguments. To promote this regulatory change, the Government indicates that the European Union is promoting changes to reduce road accidents. This is how it is understood more restrictive speed limits in much of Europe, although Germany continues to enjoy roads that lack them (up for debate today) and countries that They want to increase them to 150 km/h. But, in addition, the PSOE hides behind the fact that a 1% increase in speed has a 4% impact on its consequences. Therefore, the impact caused by an accident due to excess speed, which according to DGT accounts is present in 22% of accidents, is growing exponentially. Furthermore, the new wording emphasizes the consequences in the city, where excessive speed has more serious consequences on the health of vulnerable people such as pedestrians, cyclists, users of personal mobility vehicles and motorcyclists. Are there reasons? The truth is that excess speed is, behind distractions, the leading cause of accidents in our country. And its consequences are especially serious in the city. According to the DGT5% of pedestrians hit at 30 km/h die. At 50 km/h, the risk increases to 50% and at 80 km/h death is almost certain. And on the road, an impact at 120 km/h is considered to translate into a fall of a fourteenth floor. At 180 km/h the impact is equivalent to falling from a 36 story. What would happen to the drivers? At the moment, speeding Driving at more than 60 km/h in the city and more than 80 km/h outside of it are considered crimes, like those positive for alcohol and drugs. This means that the driver, in addition to the financial penalty, faces a prison sentence of three to six months that does not have to be served on the first occasion. Of course, although the sentence does not exceed two years, a judge has the power to decide whether to send the driver to prison. And also if it imposes a financial fine, which is calculated based on the damage caused or the risk to which it has subjected other drivers and traffic agents if no accident had occurred, from six to twelve months or work for the benefit of the community from thirty-one to 90 days. In addition, he would be deprived of his driving license for one to four years. Will it move forward? That is something that the Congress of Deputies now has to debate. Both the DGT and the Government have recently been promoting more restrictive measures against excessive driving. Under the direction of Pedro Sánchez, the penalties for mobile phone use have worsened and the obligation to have insurance and registration if you have a scooter. In the same way, there has been an attempt to promote a change in alcohol limits that would prevent a person from driving as soon as they had had a beer or a glass of wine. However, this reform is still up in the air. Photo | Max Angelo In Xataka | A town in France has managed to reduce the speed of its cars. Without radars or traffic lights or speed bumps

The US Government stopped using Claude because it was a “woke AI”. Right after he bombed Iran using Claude, according to WSJ

by

This February 28, Israel and the United States They bombed Iran. It is something that occurs in parallel to a ‘war’ that is taking place on American soil: that of what AI should the country’s military arm use. Because yes, AI has become an essential tool for Intelligence operations, to the point that there are reports that suggest that Claude was key in the massive bombings on Saturday. But there is a problem. Hours before the attack, Trump ordered that Claude and any Anthropic artificial intelligence tools not be used in military operations. And the fact that the Pentagon has disobeyed only responds to one thing: Claude is too deep inside the United States military systems. The Anthropic Mess. This topic is complex, so let’s go with some context before getting into it. When the United States was looking for an AI to support its defense systems and will integrate with PalantirAnthropic offered theirs for the modest price of one dollar. That it was worth it a 200 million contract and both Anthropic and the Pentagon got to work integrating the company’s models into all kinds of systems. Claude’s support is so important to the Pentagon in massive scale data analysis that it is estimated that he was used for the capture of Nicolás Maduro a few months ago. The “problem” is that Anthropic programmed its AI not to violate two red lines: It will not be used to massively spy on American citizens. It will not be used for the development or control of autonomous weapons and attack systems. “The Woke AI”. The War Department and Donald Trump They didn’t agree with this. and last week they released a ultimatum: Either Anthropic gave up its ‘unleashed’ AI, or there would be consequences. What consequences? Play the card Defense Production Act of 1950 to take over the force of Anthropic’s creation. The company had until 5:01 p.m. last Friday to respond, and boy did it do so. In a long statement signed by Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, it was stated that the company was on the side of the country’s defense interests, but not at any price. Their moral standard was very clear and they were not going to give in to the blackmail of a United States that hours before threatened to “make them a Huawei” by putting Anthropic on a blacklist. Amodei’s response infuriated Trump and Pete Hegseth. The Secretary of Defense called Claude an “AI Woke,” a line that Trump himself followed. On his social network Truth Social, Trump pointed out that Anthropic is a “radical left-wing AI company run by people who have no idea how the real world goes.” Striking, to say the least, and with another response: the United States ended its collaboration with Anthropic and prohibited the use of its AI. The problem is that it’s… fake. “I am ordering ALL US federal agencies to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and we will not do business with them again! – Donald Trump Claude to attack Iran. As soon reported The Wall Street Journalthe air attack against Iran was carried out with the help of those same radical left tools. The media noted that commands around the world, including the United States Central Command in the Middle East, used Claude’s tools to assess the situation, identify targets and simulate battle scenarios. Dependence. And this just paints a scenario, one in which the Pentagon is going to have a very difficult time removing those Anthropic tools from its system. It happened in Venezuela and it seems that it has happened again in Iran. Claude is too deep inside the Pentagon’s systems, maintaining an almost symbiotic relationship with the Palantir software, and breaking that from one day to the next seems complicated. HE esteem that it will take six months to eliminate Claude’s trace from the Pentagon software, but despite the prohibition of use and his inclusion on the blacklist by Hegseth, another decision seems to prevail: if we already have this, we will use it until we find a successor. OpenAI goes out for the crumbs (millionaires). And it didn’t take them even half a second to find that new AI provider. OpenAI -ChatGPT- issued a release in which he noted that “the United States needs AI models to support its mission, especially in the face of growing threats from potential adversaries that are increasingly integrating artificial intelligence technologies into their systems.” Interestingly, they have the same red lines that Anthropic imposed (no use for mass domestic surveillance, no direct autonomous weapons systems, no AI making high-risk decisions automatically). But there is a difference: if Anthropic refused to give full powers to the Pentagon, OpenAI points out that, despite maintaining the same moral principles, the use of its AI is tied to the legal use that the Department of Defense wants to make. This is ambiguous because if a certain use is considered legal, it does not conflict with that “morality.” We will see if it is a mere exchange of chips resulting from anger because someone opposed a government order or if the change from Anthropic to OpenAI translates into what the US needs for its security. In Xataka | The war between Anthropic and the Pentagon points to something terrifying: a new “Oppenheimer Moment”

The Government wants new buildings to include spaces for bicycles. There are those who warn that it will make housing even more expensive.

by

Europe wants its buildings to be increasingly ‘green’, an endeavor that Spain seems willing to take a step further. The Government has reviewed the Technical Building Code (CTE) to apply certain changes that prioritize precisely that: sustainability. If it goes ahead, the new CTE will pay even more attention to the energy efficiency of buildings, their polluting footprint and even proposes using buildings as a lever to promote sustainable mobility. With this last objective, a demand that has generated some controversy: that the properties must include a minimum of places for bikes. From the sector they already warn that the new requirements costs will skyrocket of construction at the worst time, with the price of housing shot. What has happened? That the Government has launched the institutional machinery to modify the CTEthe framework standard that details the basic requirements that buildings must meet. It is not a capricious change. In reality, it is an update that seeks to adapt the code to the guidelines set by Brussels, such as the Directive 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and Council. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Agenda is already advancing that it will be one of the “most ambitious” modifications since the CTE was implemented. What is the objective? The change seeks to give more weight to certain objectives set from Brussels, such as the “energy efficiency of buildings”“environmental sustainability” or control of the polluting footprint during the life cycle of buildings. One of the novelties in fact is the regulation of what European regulations call “global warming potential of buildings”, a way of quantifying the emissions of a property. With the current CTE, the Government also wants to review the anti-fire regulations (the change comes after the tragic fire of Valencia in 2024, which left several deceased) and use real estate as a lever for “sustainable mobility”. After all, buildings also usually include parking spaces. Housing has proposed that these spaces be planned from the beginning to make it easier for those who travel with electric cars, scooters or bikes. And how will he do it? Including a series of guidelines in the CTE. At the moment we have your draftbut it is clear: “Buildings with parking spaces for cars will have a minimum infrastructure that enables the charging of electric vehicles and will have a minimum provision of parking for bicycles.” The text does not stop there and specifies issues such as the minimum number or even the size of the spaces reserved for bikes. What does it say exactly? “Parking spaces for bicycles will have a minimum dimension of 2.00 x 0.4 m. From 20 spaces, 5% of the spaces will have a dimension of 2.5 x 0.9 m for bicycles with dimensions larger than standard, such as long bikes or for people with disabilities. In uses other than private residential, parking spaces will be marked in accordance with the highway code,” collect the text. The draft clarifies that these parking spaces must “preferably” be in the parking lot or the access floor and that, at a minimum, residential properties must incorporate two bicycle spaces for each home. The CTE clarifies in any case that town councils can regulate to reduce this general requirement. Things are somewhat different in properties that are not intended for housing. In them, bicycle parking spaces must cover “5% of the building’s total user capacity.” At what point is the change? What we have at the moment is the draft royal decree that modifies the CTE, a document that was kept on public display until December so that citizens, builders or any other group that wished could raise their “observations.” Once this mandatory requirement has been dispatched, the CTE must now continue with its processing, including, if the Government so deems it, the proposed corrections. If we talk about the guidelines on bicycle spaces (and in general the “sustainable mobility” chapter of the project) it is important to take into account a nuance: the changes are proposed for newly built buildings. The project It also contemplates that the guidelines be applied to existing properties, but only when they have undergone substantial renovations, extensions or changes of use. Has it generated controversy? It has certainly generated debate. And the reason is simple: there are those who already warn that, in general, the different changes applied to the CTE will make construction more expensive at the worst moment, in the midst of the housing crisis and with prices (especially rents) skyrocketing. Recently the College of Surveyors of Madrid did the math and estimated that in general the new CTE requirements (not only those related to bicycle spaces) will translate into thousands of euros of extra cost. How many? In a first phase, the new houses will become 12,000 euros more expensive. And that will only be at the beginning. When they are fully implemented, the extra cost will be even greater and will reach 18,000, making it even more complicated. the “cost of entry” to the homes. Images | Alexander Van Steenberge (Unsplash) and Liona Toussaint (Unsplash) In Xataka | Communities and neighbors have been wondering all their lives whether bikes can be parked in the hallways. The law leaves little doubt

The Government of Mexico says that the measles crisis is a “global problem.” The data says it is a self-inflicted crisis

by

Mexico is going through a very critical moment as far as measles is concerned, since infections they don’t stop increasing in different parts of the country and even with several dozen dead for the infection. And here the question we can ask ourselves is quite obvious: How is it possible that this has happened with a disease that was practically under control? The statements. In the offices of the Ministry of Health of Mexico they have found a rhetorical umbrella for the storm that is falling on them, pointing to the “global context”. According to the official narrative, the rebound in measles that the country is experiencing is simply the local echo of a trend that also you are living in other countriesso it may serve as political consolation not to be the only country to go through this crisis. The problem with this defense is that, when one stops looking at the world map and zooms in on the national data for each country, the excuse falls apart. All this because Mexico is not suffering from measles “like everyone else” but is suffering it with an intensity and lethality that shows structural cracks in its own public health system. Measles is here. To understand the defense of the Mexican Government, we must first grant them the part they are right. Measles, a disease from which many they had forgotten due to their high controlhas had a revival unpleasant in recent years. To give us an idea, the WHO itself registered more than 552,000 cases suspected in 179 countries during 2025, which was accompanied by vaccination coverage that was declining globally while the world looked almost exclusively at COVID-19. In this way, it is a fact that the virus is circulating and, in American countries, the Pan American Health Organization has already warned of a large increase in measles cases between 2024 and 2025 in different regions. The Mexican exception. However, hiding behind the global trend to explain what is happening on Mexican soil is cheating the solitary. The key in this case is in the figures for the month of February, which paint a quite disproportionate scenario compared to its neighbors. To give us an idea, Mexico accumulates more than 9,400 cases confirmed from the end of 2025 to mid-2026. And to put it in context, in all of 2025 America added 14,891 cases, so Mexico is not just another statistic, but is the epicenter of the problem in the hemisphere, concentrating a large part of the infections in North America. His mortality. While in other countries the different outbreaks are being contained, in Mexico the number of deaths is counted in the dozens. Right now in Mexico there are 29 deaths in seven states, and the most worrying data comes from Chihuahua, which accumulates 21 of these deaths, followed by a worrying situation in Mexico City with two deaths and Jalisco, which accounts for 60% of the cases in 2026. The extra problem is that they are not isolated outbreaks, but rather there is active transmission in 32 states and 335 municipalities, so the virus moves with a freedom that suggests that the epidemiological firewalls have failed. The reasons. If the virus is the same for everyone, why does Mexico take the brunt of it? The answer is not abroad, but in the internal management of recent years. The local press here points to a dismantling of the surveillance systems and also to a collapse in the routine vaccination system that has affected children from 1 to 4 years old. Right now the health authorities boast of having administered millions of doses of vaccine against measles, rubella or mumps, but the reality on the street is different. In this case, coverage in rural areas has fallen well below the 95% necessary for herd immunity and high population mobility, anti-vaccine misinformation and a late response that prioritized the political narrative over health containment also play a role. Images | Jezael Melgoza In Xataka | The myth of 37º: it is increasingly clear to us that there is no “normal” body temperature

The Government already has a plan to return to physical buttons

by

Many of us miss the presence of physical buttons inside the vehicles that land on the market today, that is a fact. However, from various points of the globe there is already a certain movement in reversing and require a certain balance. In this sense, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China (MIIT) has proposed a new regulation which will force manufacturers to install physical buttons and controls for essential vehicle functions. The ‘all screen’ has dominated the automobile industry in China in recent years, but everything indicates that there is now an intention to stop this trend for safety reasons. The underlying problem. The obsession with minimalist interiors with huge touch screens has led many Chinese manufacturers to eliminate virtually all physical buttons from the cabin. A trend largely started by Tesla and that brands like BYD, Xiaomi or Geely have adopted it massively. As if navigating our phone’s interface wasn’t enough, now we also have to spend some time on the central screen of our car, and in several vehicles we have to go through this screen for functions as basic as the turn signals or emergency lights. Which functions will have mandatory physical controls. The regulations specify a clear list of items which must have physical buttons or controls with a minimum size of 10×10 millimeters: turn signals, emergency lights, horn, gear selection (P/R/N/D), windshield wipers, defroster, electric windows, switch to activate driving assistance systems and emergency lights. Technical requirements. Under the proposal, physical controls would need to be in fixed positions, allow use without looking, and provide tactile or auditory feedback. Additionally, basic functions must remain available even when the vehicle system fails or loses power. In this way, the regulatory body intends for the driver to be able to operate these controls without taking their eyes off the road or depending on the screen to respond correctly. It is not an isolated case. China has begun a regulatory crusade for security in recent months. A few days ago we were talking about the ban on hidden handles retractable after several fatal accidents in the country. There is also an intention to eliminate yoke-type (U-shaped) steering wheels, arguing that their design is not suitable for the 10-specific point impact tests on the steering wheel required by new safety regulations, which will come into force in January 2027. Stricter regulation for autonomous driving. The new rules also tighten the requirements for autonomous driving systems levels 3 and 4. Manufacturers will have to demonstrate that their systems can drive as well as “a competent and attentive human driver”, presenting case studies to support this. According to the regulations, if the system fails or the driver does not respond, the vehicle must reach what regulators call a “minimum risk condition” – that is, stop safely on its own. Implementation schedule. The draft is open to public consultation until April 13. According to ChinaEVHomethe regulations on physical controls would come into force on July 1, 2027, with a transition period of approximately six months. New models seeking approval must comply with all of this immediately, while existing models will have 13 months to adapt, according to they count from CarScoops. In Xataka | Two centuries ago the tires on cars and motorcycles were white. It had nothing to do with the design.

The Government remains committed to ending telephone SPAM and is now targeting electricity companies. It’s still a shot in the air

by

The Spanish Government’s crusade against SPAM calls continues. At the beginning of the week, the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge approved the new General Regulations supply, marketing and aggregation of electrical energy. The main purpose of this is, according to the Government, to protect consumers through new measures. And one of them collides head-on with a recurring practice of marketers: SPAM calls. The measure. After the entry into force of the new regulation, telephone calls to advertise or contract services are prohibited, as long as “they have not been expressly requested by the consumer in advance or they are the one who calls the company.” It will not have immediate effect, companies will have four months to adapt to the regulations, under penalty of fines of between 600,000 and 6,000,000 euros if they fail to comply, according to the Law 24/2013, of the Electrical Sector. There is more. In addition to the prohibition of calls without express consent, the Royal Decree establishes the obligation to provide a completely free customer service number, as well as a maximum period of 15 days to respond to user claims and complaints. It is also prohibited to cut power to electro-dependent consumers on holidays and eves. Very nice, but. Although the Government has been trying to tackle the SPAM problem for more than a year, the reality is very different. According to the OCU, 99% of Spaniards (me among them, this week) continue to receive unwanted calls. Some companies continue to take advantage prior consent to send advertising communications, and others are providing their call centers with telephone numbers outside the traditional prefixes to continue with their practice, despite the fact that the law penalizes it. An endless war. The war against SPAM does not only affect Image | Xataka In Xataka | If you are tired of receiving spam calls every day, good news: MasOrange is tired too

The Nazis produced 1,200 films. 44 of them remain prohibited and guarded by the German Government to this day.

by

In the Faculty of Information Sciences of the Complutense University of Madrid An optional subject is taught called History of informative and documentary cinema. A few years ago, the teacher who taught that class had the habit of giving his students fragments of ‘The triumph of the will‘, the documentary that Leni Riefenstahl directed about the Nazi party congress in Nuremberg, in 1934. She always added that she only showed those fragments because, if she put it in its entirety, she feared that we would want to join the party. ‘Triumph of the Will’ is one of the more than 1,200 films that the Ministry of Propaganda German, under the command of Joseph Goebbels, produced to spread Nazi ideals, anti-Semitism and to justify the Second World War. When the war ended, the Allies banned about 300 of them, and 44 are still on that list in charge of the German government. Why are these movies banned? Those forty-four were the subject of a documentary a few years ago, ‘Forbidden Films’which not only explained what kind of tapes they were and what they were about, but also asked whether they should no longer be banned and what legacy they might have left, 70 years after the end of the war. Your director, Felix Moellerproduced it in the face of disinterest of German youth about the history of the Nazis and the rise of the extreme right in Europe, and the documentary shows the reactions of different people when watching some of these films. Because the German government does allow their exhibition, but for educational purposes and with an expert in the room to explain and contextualize them. In the trailer you can already see some of these opinions, from those who are surprised because these films have good technical quality and are entertaining, to those who think that some of them should remain prohibited because they were, at the time, Nazi symbols, such as ‘The Jew Süss‘, which was probably the most successful of all the productions promoted by Goebbels. ‘The Jew Süss’ was the second film adaptation of the life of Joseph Süss Oppenheimer, financial advisor to the Duke of Württemberg during the 18th century and who was accused of fraud, bribery, treason and even illicit relations with several ladies of the court, and executed for these crimes. His story had been treated in books and even in plays that generally focused on it as a great human tragedy. But Goebbels saw that he could present Süss as a arrogant jew who infiltrated the Germans to take away what was theirs. He already had the most important piece in his cinematic anti-Semitic propaganda. ‘The Jew Süss’ was a great popular success. It was screened at the 1940 Venice Film Festival, receiving good reviews for its technical workmanship, reviews that did not seem to be aware of the ultimate objective of the film. Goebbels himself wrote in his diary about the film that it was “an anti-Semitic film of the kind we could only wish for. I’m very happy about it.” Good but dangerous movies In 1994, the film critic Roger Ebert wrote about one of those 44 banned Nazi films, ‘Triumph of the Will’, that “we would all have reflected on the received opinion that the film is good but evil, and that writing about it raises the question of whether quality art can be in the service of evil.” Ebert asked himself the same question with ‘The Birth of a Nation’, RW Griffith’s film that is considered one of the founding works of cinema and, at the same time, deeply racist. Those films, at the time, were not considered that way. Luis Buñuel himself stated in his memories that, in 1935, no one in Hollywood thought that ‘Triumph of the Will’ was dangerous because there were too many regional dances and too many songs for its propaganda message to be taken seriously. The Second World War drastically changed that perception, but until then, the productions of the Ministry of Propaganda Germans used entertaining stories to convey their ideals. They portrayed the British as cruel inventors of concentration camps or justified the invasion of Poland by showing the Poles persecuting the German minority living there. They could be full of stereotypes, historical manipulations and blatant attempts to “brainwash” their viewers, but they were well produced and shot and were very successful at the time. For all these reasons, they remain prohibited. But should they continue to be? In ‘Forbidden films’ there are scholars who claim that these films clearly show what should not be repeated in the future and that, therefore, their access to them should not be restricted, while former members of neo-Nazi parties point out another reason for them to be removed from the “black list”: “When something is prohibited, it becomes interesting. Prohibiting things makes them fascinating and taboo because if it is prohibited, it must be true to a certain extent.” Other Banned Non-Nazi Films Nazi ideological propaganda is the reason why these 44 films remain banned in Germany, which also has a great controversy over the passage to public domain of ‘Mein Kampf’but throughout the history of cinema there have been films that have also been included in “blacklists” for reasons that can range from accusations of obscenity to, directly, blasphemy. Or it could have happened to them like ‘The great dictator‘, the satire that Charles Chaplin made of Hitler and Mussolini, in 1940, and which was banned in Argentina precisely for that parody, since Germany had been an ally of Juan Domingo Perón. It was even on the verge of not being shown in the United Kingdom because, when filming was announced, the country was trying to appease Hitler in his expansionist desires for Europe. When it was released, however, the British were already at war with the Germans and there was no reason for its censorship. You don’t have to go to China or countries with fundamentalist regimes to find the most … Read more

The Government applauded Repsol’s discounts in the midst of the gasoline crisis. Competition the fine now with 20.5 million for them

by

February 2022. Spain is still suffering the economic consequences of the coronavirus crisis. After two years with workers suffering ERTES, Russia invades Ukraine and a war breaks out that we continue to suffer four years later. Immediately, the economy of the entire continent is reeling. Basic products skyrocket in price and, among them, fuel enters a runaway inflationary race. One that, in turn, once again raises the prices of basic products. February 3, 2022 we counted on Xataka that gasoline was more expensive than ever. We paid 1,538 euros per liter. 24% more than the previous year. In summer we were close to two euros per liter. By then the Government had launched its action plan. After a transport strike and with France applying state aid to the purchase of gasoline, the State began to subsidize with 20 cents/liter the purchase of fuel for all drivers. The measure only proved to be a plug through which water leaked. In summer the most pessimistic voices already pointed to a price of up to three euros per liter in gasoline. The pump price, fortunately, did not reach that point. In fact, that same summer another war began. This time at the service stations. And although the price of gasoline continued to rise to the point that at the till We were paying 1.80 euros for each liter again, The big oil companies brought out all their weapons: points cards, temporary discounts, loyalty plans… Movements that hid something that the CNMC already warned about that same summer: the big oil companies were getting rich. Now, it is the same CNMC that has made a decision: to fine Repsol 20.5 million euros. Abuse of power against competitors The CNMC has confirmed a sanction of 20.5 million euros to several Repsol Group companies and punishes them with disqualification from participating in public contracts for six months on the understanding that they abused their position of power to narrow profit margins with the intention of driving competitors out of the market. Competition defends that the discounts applied during the year 2022, which at the time were applauded by the Governmentthey narrowed the profit margins in the sale of fuel to the point of preventing companies selling low-cost fuel from competing on equal terms. The CNMC alleges that “competition law requires that companies in dominance position are especially responsible for not restricting competition. They assure that after various complaints they went to the Repsol Group service stations at the end of 2022 and that at the end of 2023 They initiated the disciplinary proceedings with the information collected. In the investigation. The behavior of Moeve, then Cepsa, and BP was also analyzed. However, only Repsol has been sanctioned. From the company, they point out in Five Daysassure that they will appeal the fine while arguing that “it is the first time in the history of national and community competition law that the CNMC sanctions a company for applying discounts.” Those days of 2022 were marked by the role of the oil companies. In April, when the State began to apply the discount of 20 cents per liter of fuel, low-cost operators They threatened to strike because they understood that the money they had to put out of their own pocket (of the 20 cents/liter, five were borne by the operator) destroyed their profit margins. Later, the CNMC confirmed that the companies in charge of supplying fuel were obtaining a juicy profit with the increase in fuel prices, to the point that their profit margins had widened despite having to put money in to subsidize fuel, with record gross margins. Now, the entity in charge of ensuring competition points out that Repsol also took the opportunity to try to sweep away the competition. It will have to be Repsol that manages to demonstrate that it did not act in this way and as the CNMC defends. Photo | Repsol In Xataka | For the first time, electrified cars are outselling gasoline cars. It is the beginning of the inevitable

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.