government

A Chinese company has been building AI for years to predict who is going to criticize the government before they do so

by

In ‘Minority Report‘, Tom Cruise was the head of the pre-crime police, a department capable of arresting criminals before they could commit the crime in question, all thanks to the powers of mutants or precogs. Well, according to the New York Timesthere is a Chinese company that is trying to build a similar system, but their target will be future political dissidents and instead of mutants with powers they will use AI. what’s happening. The leak reported in the New York Times contains internal documents from the Chinese company Geedge Networks and has been published by a group of researchers at Vanderbilt University. In it they detail how the company is building an AI system capable of predicting which citizens will become political dissidents in the future. Geedge is investigating how to use LLM to synthesize large packets of data (including browsing histories, locations, online activity and contacts) and then infer citizens’ behavior, detecting whether they will present a “political risk” in the future. Like the police precrime, but for political dissidents. What is Geedge?. In September 2025 we learned that a Chinese company was exporting the surveillance system known as “Great Firewall of China” to other countries. It was Geedge Networks. The company, which has one of the creators of the Chinese firewall as a key investor, has already sold its solution to countries such as Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Myanmar. What this great firewall does is analyze the traffic of entire countries, even capturing personal data such as passwords and emails. Why is it important. According to the leak, the system is in the research phase, but it is still a disturbing approach. It is no longer just about using AI to monitor what people do, the next thing is to anticipate what they could do and even think. We see every day that AI models have biases and make many errors, using them as predictors to repress dissent poses a terrifying scenario. Tech authoritarianism as a service. As we said, Geedge is already exporting its solutions to other countries so it is selling technological authoritarianism as a service. The worst thing is that we do not find this only in China, but it is a global trend: the United States too you are delegating critical security functions to private and disreputable corporations like Palantir, and The United Kingdom also wants to follow in their footsteps. The bottleneck. There is good news (if you can call it that) and that is that Geedge has encountered a problem in developing this system: they do not have the power to manage such a volume of data. According to the New York Times, since they cannot access the most powerful chips due to the US blockade, since 2024 they have been forced to use AI models and less powerful chips. In order for the system to be able to manage the enormous amount of data they already collect, they need computing capacity that they currently do not have, always according to US sources. Image | Xataka with Gemini In Xataka | We have been hearing for years that China scans the faces of millions of citizens every day. It’s already happening in Europe

Türkiye seemed immune to the drop in birth rates. Now his Government is desperate because it does not know how to stop it

by

In Türkiye 2025 was the “Year of the Family” and the decade ahead of us (2026-2035) will be that of “Family and Population”. It’s not a coincidence. Just like many other countries from Europe, Asia or America, the Turkish Government increasingly looks with greater concern its declining birth rates. Specifically there is two data that worry Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s team: the number of births has been falling since 2014, which has dragged the fertility rate to its lowest level so far this century, far from what is necessary to keep the population stable. The problem is that neither the “Year of the Family” nor the rest of the measures deployed by Erdoğan seem to be running too much. What has happened? That Türkiye has not managed to avoid the demographic winter that hits other countries in the world, such as Japan, South Korea either much of Europe. It is not just that the birth rate is falling or that the country’s demographic engine is showing clear signs of having caught the flu. The most revealing are the ‘pro-birth’ initiatives and above all the statements of Erdoğan encouraging his fellow citizens to have more offspring, which shows that the issue is generating more and more suspicion in Turkish institutions. In March, the Turkish Minister of Family and Social Services, Mahinur Ozdemir Goktas, expressed it clearly (and dramatically) during an interview: for the Executive, demography has become “a question of survival.” “Our strongest strength is the family,” the leader stressed after recalling that in a matter of 27 years Turkey has experienced the same decline in birth rates that has taken nine decades in other nations. Number of births and total fertility rate, 2001-2025. What does the data say? The last ones, published This same week by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) they draw a very unflattering scenario. In 2025, 895,374 babies were born in Türkiye, a bad figure no matter how you look at it. To begin with, because it represents a drop of 4.78% compared to 2024 and the lowest figure in the entire historical series disclosed by TUIK, which dates back to 2001. As if that were not enough, it aggravates the decline in what is known as the ‘total fertility rate’, which has been moving away from the levels necessary for years to keep the population stable. Why are they important? Of all the TUIK indicators, the ‘total fertility rate’ is probably the one that worries Ankara the most. And it is logical. It basically shows the number of children that, on average, a woman is expected to have throughout her reproductive life (between 15 and 49 years old). In 2001 this indicator stood at 2.38 births. It was good data because it far exceeded the necessary rate (2.1) to keep the population stable without having to take into account other factors, such as immigration. The problem is that since 2014 that indicator has been receding steadily until it remained at 1.77 in 2020, 1.49 in 2024 and 1.42 last year. In fact, 2025 has been the ninth consecutive year in which Turkey falls below the ‘replacement rate’, which means that if Turkey does not want to lose population in the future it will probably need the arrival of foreigners. The crude birth rate has also plummeted in the last five years. Total fertility rate by province, 2025. Can it go further? Yes. He latest report of TUIK suggests that the trend is far from stopping. If in 2017 the organization registered 57 provinces with a fertility rate insufficient to keep the population stable, last year that list had already skyrocketed to 76 territories. What’s more, what has grown the most is the number of provinces with the worst birth rates. If in 2017 there were only four with a fertility rate of less than 1.5, last year 59 provinces were in that situation. What’s more, in all of Türkiye there were only five regions where the replacement rate reached (or exceeded) 2.1. In general, Turkish women not only have fewer children, they also have them later. The average age of mothers in the country at the time of giving birth has skyrocketed in recent years, going from 26.7 in 2001 to 29.4 in 2025. There are a dozen provinces in which, on average, women do not have their first child until they are almost 30 years old. In Artvin or Istanbul, in fact, the average age for new mothers is 29 years old. What does the Government think? Türkiye’s fertility rate may have been declining for years, but still stays above of the EU average (1.34) and of course in countries like Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Spain or Mala, where this indicator does not even reach 1.2. Despite this, Erdoğan has elevated demography almost to a state issue. In fact, he has not hesitated to cross out “disaster” the country’s low birth rates and “betrayal” of fertility control. “Why not have at least four children, or five?”, recently reflected the Turkish leader, leader of the conservative AK Parti, who on other occasions has already warned that the nation is seeing its average age increase (around 34 years old) and the weight of the elderly population. What have they done about it? Beyond political discourse, its Executive has promoted different pro-natal measures. In April Parliament supported extending maternity leave eight to 16 weeks and last year Erdoğan himself advertisement that the Executive would increase its financial aid to families that have children, with the payment of 5,000 liras after the birth of the first-born. “We are also implementing financial aid per child of 1,500 liras per month for the second child and 5,000 liras per month for the third and subsequent children,” advanced. The big question is whether these measures will have an effect and will encourage Turkish births. What do people think? That’s what he tried to find out a few days ago The New York Timesthat interviewed to several Turks to find out if they would … Read more

In 2020, the Government quarantined millions of people. The question is whether he will be able to do it with the 14 Spaniards of the MV Hondius

by

If Spain learned anything during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that when it comes to dealing with crises related to diseases, the borders between health, politics and law become blurred. With the hantavirus outbreak detected aboard the MV Hondius something similar happens. As the ship moves towards the Canary Islands, what began as a health alert turns into something more: reason for political dispute and a legal debate on how to treat the 14 Spaniards (asymptomatic) who travel on the ship. In the background there is a key question: What to do if the time comes, one of them refuses to undergo a quarantine? One word: hantavirus. Until a few days ago, the vast majority of Spaniards (Europeans, in general) did not know what hantavirus. And it’s normal. As remember According to the Ministry of Health, infections due to this virus are usually generated by contact with excrement or saliva of sick rodents and are “relatively uncommon worldwide.” In 2025 in America ‘only’ 229 cases in eight countries. The number of deaths rose to 59 due to the so-called “hantavirus pulmonary syndrome” (HPS). A bumpy ride. Things changed a few days ago, when the outbreak of a serious respiratory illness was reported on board the MV Hondius, a passenger ship that sailed on April 1 from Ushuaia (Argentina) to make a voyage through the South Atlantic with stops at points such as Nightingale Island, Santa Elena or Ascension Island, heading to Cape Verde. Just a few days after starting the voyage, one of the passengers, a Dutch septuagenarian, began to feel fever, diarrhea and headache. His health worsened alarmingly until he died after five days. The body remained on board the ship until April 24, when it disembarked in Saint Helena for repatriation. His wife, also Dutch and 69 years old, did it with him, who after showing similar symptoms ended up dying in a hospital in South Africa. A PCR confirmed the cause: hantavirus infection. Since then other passengers have shown similar discomfort. At the moment the outbreak has left, as far as is known, three deceased and at least another half dozen infected. On Sunday the ship arrived in Cape Verde, which “public safety”refused to moor in the capital. Next stop: Canary Islands. Now the ship continues its voyage towards where it was your final destination: Canary Islands. the ship sailed yesterday of Cape Verde after two key news events occurred. The first came around noon, when Tedros Ahdhanom, director general of the WHO, confirmed via X that the authorities had evacuated the three patients from the ship suspected of suffering from the disease. Their destination is Holland, where they will receive medical assistance. The second arrived from La Moncloawhich has confirmed Spain’s willingness to “meet the WHO’s request” to host the liner in the Canary Islands “once the evacuation of all symptomatic people is completed.” The Dutch shipping company Oceanwide Expeditions, responsible for the MV Hondius, assures that keeps monitored the situation on board the ship and in its last part, published this morning, it guarantees that “there are no people with symptoms on board.” And the controversy broke out. The announcement that the ship is sailing towards the Canary Islands, where it will probably arrive on sundaygenerated considerable debate. Moncloa’s initial plans called for the ship to arrive at the port of Granadilla de Abona, in Tenerife, where the workers soon arrived. threaten a blockade of the terminal. The reason? The staff denounced the lack of information and clear protocols on how they should act in the face of the viral outbreak. In the archipelago he also jumped the debate on whether the region has legal (or at least political) margin to reject the scale. With that backdrop, Health has confirmed today to the Canarian president, Fernando Clavijo, that the MV Hondius will not dock, “it will only anchor” so that passengers can evacuate with the help of boats. The idea is that they will be transferred to the airport, from where they will be repatriated to their respective countries. When the ship left Patagonia it had some 147 travelers of 23 nationalities. Who travels on board? That’s the key. The idea is that, once in the Canary Islands, the passengers are repatriated to their countries; but there are 14 who will not need that operation. The reason? They are Spanish. Specifically, there are 13 passengers and a crew member of Spanish nationality on board the MV Hondius who have opened another debate just as interesting. Once on land the plan goes through transport them on a plane military to the Torrejón de Ardoz air base and, from there, to the Gómez Ulla Defense Hospital. The idea is that they spend a quarantine period in individual rooms. How much exactly? Today it is difficult to know. It is known that the incubation period of the virus is around 45 days, but the question remains as to what day it should start counting. The outbreak probably arose between the 6th and the 28th. “They will remain cared for and will remain in quarantine for as long as the clinical protocols require,” guaranteed on Wednesday the Minister of Health, Mónica García. His department insists that, even if some of the Spanish passengers presented symptoms or had to attend to other patients, the risk for the population “it is considered very low”. The big question. The question that flies over In recent days the ministries of Health and Defense have been… What would happen if any of those 14 Spaniards are reluctant to undergo quarantine? Could they refuse? And in that case, would the State have tools to demand that period of controlled isolation from them, something reminiscent of what happened during the State of alarm of COVID-19? It is not a whimsical question if one takes into account that the Government already has recognized that the will of the patients will be key. In fact Mónica García has appealed directly to “common sense and responsibility” of Spanish … Read more

Moving ‘Guernica’ requires a complex and dangerous operation for the painting. Now the Basque Government wants to do it

by

‘Guernica’ is an unusual painting in many aspects. Its history is. It is he tour that took him to several continents during his first decades. And so is its size, much (very) larger than the vast majority of paintings that hang in museums. This sum of factors explains why it is now at the center of a bitter controversy. The Basque Country wants to temporarily take it from Madrid to Bilbao to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the bombing which inspired Picasso, but its current custodian, the Reina Sofía, believes it is a bad idea. The debate is served. What has happened? That the Basque Government wants ‘Guernica’, probably Pablo Picasso’s most famous work, finally exposed in Euskadi. A few days ago, during a meeting with the Minister of Culture, the vice lehendakari Ibone Bengoetxea requested the Government to temporarily transfer the painting to the Guggenheim in Bilbao. She wasn’t the only one. The same request Lehendakari Imanol Pradales has transferred it to the President of the Government. The idea is that ‘Guernica’ ends up in Basque lands nine monthsfrom October 2026 to June 2027. After that period, he would return to what has been his home since the beginning of the 1990s, the Reino Sofía Museum in Madrid, where he acts as the main attraction, capturing tens of thousands of visitors. Click on the image to go to the tweet. Why is it important? Because of its symbolic load. ‘Guernica’ is not just any painting. Picasso painted it between May and June 1937 in his workshop on Rue des Grands-Augustins, Paris, commissioned by the Government of the Republic. The work is also inspired by one of the most disastrous episodes of the Civil War: the bombing of the town of Guernica (Vizcaya) at the end of April 1937 by the Condor Legion and the Italian Legionary Aviation. Although during its first decades it was the protagonist of an intense journey that took it through a good part of Europe, North America and South America, the work did not land in Spain until September 1981. Some historians like The Barroquistahave interpreted his arrival as “the symbolic return of the last exile.” And why is it news? That Euskadi wants it to be exhibited in Bilbao right now, between October 2026 and June 2027, is no coincidence. It would coincide with the 90th anniversary of the constitution of the first regional Executive and the bombing of Guernica. Hence Bengoetxea has insisted in the “deep historical, symbolic and emotional meaning” that the transfer would have for the Basque people. Will it be possible? Of course it won’t be easy. Just one day after the meeting between Bengoetxea and the Minister of Culture, the Reina Sofía Museum published a report of 16 pages in which he “strongly advises against” the transfer of the painting from Madrid to the Basque Country. The reason: the process could damage it. “The work is kept in stable conditions thanks to rigorous control of the environmental conditions. However, in view of a possible transfer, its format, nature of the elements that compose it and state of conservation, together with the numerous damages suffered over time, make it especially sensitive to all types of vibrations that are inevitable in transporting works of art.” Does it say anything else? Yes. In case there are any doubts, underlines: “Such vibrations could generate new cracks, lifting and loss of the pictorial layer, as well as tears in the support.” The opinion of the Reina Sofía of course has not pleased the Basque Government, dissatisfied with both the substance and the form. “It would be serious for a formal request from a government to be responded to without a serious and in-depth analysis. The order must be an analysis of the needs so that the painting can be in Euskadi temporarily,” claims Bengoetxea. The regional Executive emphasizes that this is not a simple technical issue. In the background, they insist, there are much deeper readings that affect “memory” and “repair.” The vice lehendakari first complaint and that at the moment it has not received “any official response” from Moncloa. Is it that surprising? Yes. And no. Everything that revolves around ‘Guernica’ arouses expectation, something understandable if one takes into account that the artistic value of the work is added to its historical and symbolic relevance. However, Reina Sofía herself has been responsible for highlighting that his position is not new. In fact, it has been closing the door to organizations that request a loan for the work for several decades. In 1997 he already said ‘no’ to a request for the painting to be included in the inauguration from the Guggenheim in Bilbao, and that it arrived backed by a report in which “the technical conditions” of the transfer were detailed. Click on the image to go to the tweet. Have there been more cases? In 2000 ddenied a request of MoMA, in 2006 he did the same with the Royal Ontario Museum and in 2007 he rejected another request from the Basque Government. Two years later he again said ‘no’ to the Fuji Group, interested in including the piece in the “50th Anniversary Fuji TV” exhibition, held in Tokyo, and in 2012 he also rejected the request presented by a Korean museum. The painting’s last trips date back a few decades: in 1981 it was packed up at the MoMA for transfer to Spain, where it was first exhibited at the Casón del Buen Retiro and later (from 1992) at the Reina Sofía. There alone the exhibition “Piety and Terror in Picasso”, organized during the 80th anniversary of the work, attracted more than 625,000 visitors. And that in less than half a year. Is it so problematic to move it? The report published by the Reina Sofía Museum not only advises against the transfer of ‘Guernica’. Before reaching that conclusion, he offers a detailed analysis of the current state of the painting, in which he notes “alterations such as cracks, cracks … Read more

Shakira wants to put 300,000 people in a place that does not convince the Government at all

by

Live Nation and Shakira have now officially presented Macondo Park, a 40-hectare temporary venue at the Iberdrola Music in Villaverde designed for close the tour ‘Women no longer cry’ with a nine-concert residency in Madrid in September. The problem: the Government delegate in Madrid has been warning for years that the space does not meet security conditions for massive events and has formally asked the City Council not to authorize them. Stadiums make money. What Shakira and Live Nation have presented is not exactly a concert: it is a temporary infrastructure designed ad hoc by the international study BIGknown for projects such as the Danish pavilion at the Shanghai Expo or the expansion of the National Museum of Qatar. According to data from the organization, the so-called Shakira Stadium will occupy four hectares within the Iberdrola Music space, with capacity for 50,000 people per night: 26,688 seats in the stands, 25,000 standing and around 3,000 in the VIP area. Macondism. Macondo Park will be deployed around the stadium, which takes its name from the fictional town created by Gabriel García Márquez in ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude’: 40 hectares active for twelve hours each concert day. The cultural program, baptized ‘Es latina’, includes gastronomy, workshops, exhibitions and sales of Latin American crafts, all selected by Shakira herself. There will also be a specific area for children called Macondito, designed (according to the organization) with the participation of the artist’s children, Milan and Sasha. The goal, according to Live Nation, is to “demonstrate what it means to be Latino” and project that cultural imaginary in Europe. Minitour without moving. Some pertinent figures: nine performances in Madrid, scheduled for September 18, 19, 20, 25, 26 and 27, to which have been added October 2, 3 and 4 due to the very high demand and how quickly the pre-sale sold out. The entire project expects more than 300,000 attendees throughout the residency. Ticket prices range between 73.50 and 181.50 euros, with VIP packages exceeding 1,000. And it will take 69 days to build the complete structure of this spectacular theme park around the artist. Problems in Villaverde. This great plan collides with a somewhat complicated background. Iberdrola Music is the same space that has hosted the Mad Cool festival for years. It was also the scene of the Harry Styles concert in 2023, where organizational failures led to monumental traffic jams and part of the audience ended up walking along the M-45. In the letter he wrote to the City CouncilGovernment delegate Francisco Martín recalls that he already warned about the venue in July 2023 on the occasion of the Reggaeton Beach Festival. According to Martín, in an institutional meeting held in 2024 it was found that there continued to be “relevant deficiencies in terms of accessibility, mobility and organization of entry and exit flows, incompatible with the celebration of large events in safe conditions.” The administrator of the Mad Cool festival even faced a request for a two-year prison sentence from the Prosecutor’s Office for violations related to noise pollution. It’s not a festival. Martín also differentiates between the festival model, where the public enters and leaves in stages for hours, and the “fan phenomenon”: a massive concert where 50,000 people try to leave the venue in a very narrow time frame. It is this second scenario that, in his opinion, Iberdrola Music is not prepared to absorb. Crossing of accusations. As it could not be otherwise, this open letter was followed by an exchange of accusations with little or nothing to do with music. Borja Carabante, Urban Planning delegate of the City Council, accused Martin of “trying to boycott, harm and harm the city.” Mayor José Luis Almeida pointed in the same direction: he described it as “extraordinary” that Shakira chose Madrid as the culmination of her tour and even hinted that up to ten dates could be held. Mariano de Paco, Minister of Culture of the Community of Madrid, defined it as “great news.” The preceding Adele. Promoter Pino Sagliocco, president of Live Nation, avoided entering the political fray. He defended that the mobility plan “is already done” and endorsed by engineers, and insisted that Iberdrola Music is “an experienced and well-conditioned space.” He compared Shakira’s plan to Adele’s precedentwho established his residence in a park in Munich, comparable in size to this Macondo. The center of the debate. There is slaps for pre-sale ticketsbut municipal authorization has not been granted, and the Government Delegation has made it clear that it will go “as far as necessary” to ensure that the venue offers guarantees. For now, there is silence from both sides of the Administration. The conclusion of all this is that the debate is not led by Shakira, but by Madrid’s real capacity to manage massive events outside the urban center, with access infrastructure that several reports consider insufficient. After 17 countries, Shakira’s tour culminates in the only place on the planet where organizing a live show means invoking a perfect storm. In Xataka | We Spaniards have stopped watching TV, going to the cinema and reading books: the only thing that interests us is going to concerts

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

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.