longer

When Sora was released many assumed it was “the death of Hollywood.” Only two years, then Sora no longer exists

by

In February 2024, OpenAI published on X a string of AI-generated videos with his new model, Sora. Although today, after two years of progress, they even feel outdated, at the time the result was convincing enough for the media around the world to start headlines that Hollywood had a very serious problem. Two years later, Sora does not exist. Panic effect. The effect of this presentation with videos was immediate: MIT Technology Review, for example, described them as “impressive“, although warning that they had probably been chosen and were not representative of the output usual. That did not stop the narrative: for weeks, the dominant conversation in the specialized media was that film studios were facing an almost perfect replacement tool: synthetic actors, sets generated in seconds, automated post-production… The Hollywood unions, which they had signed agreements with the studios the previous year after a historic strike they put the issue back on the table. Two bombs. Sora’s story has two moments of media panic, separated by eighteen months. The first arrived in February 2024, with the presentation of the model described above. There was talk that Hollywood had a serious problem, that the almost perfect replacement tool already existed and that the studios were not prepared to face this threat. The second came with the launch of Sora 2 in September 2025with real faces inserted in videos generated by AI and with third-party intellectual property by default, unless the prompts expressly requested otherwise. All of this multiplied the volume and intensity of the alarm in Hollywood and the media. What was said In February 2024, coverage of Sora’s first model mixed amazement and alarm in similar proportions. Fortune commented that OpenAI had moved the generative AI battle directly to Hollywood. NBCNews asked filmmakers if this was the end of Hollywood, and some responded that it wasn’t yet. IndieWire He sensed that Sora could mean the apocalypse of cinema. The cycle of apocalyptic headlines with Sora 2 was much more intense. CNBC declared that the app was challenging Hollywood and causing panic in the film industry. deadline He said Hollywood was raw. LA Times He spoke of a battle that was worsening and a firestorm unleashed in the sector. slatewell, he talked about how AI was about to crush Hollywood as we had known it. What happened then. The panic increased in December 2025, when Disney, the most careful entertainment company in the world with its intellectual property, signed a three-year agreement with OpenAI: investment of 1 billion dollars and access to more than 200 characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar and ‘Star Wars’ so that Sora users could generate them in their videos. Disney+ would broadcast a curated selection of that content. It was the definitive legitimation, which has only lasted 90 days. OpenAI has closed Sora before a single dollar has changed hands. Property problems. Sora’s problems have not only been financial. The app has accumulated a long list of controversies: deepfakes of deceased public figuresmassive use of copyrighted characters without permission prior, and the appearance of external tools to remove watermarks that identified AI-generated content. In November 2025, CODA (Japanese association representing, among others, Studio Ghibli and Square Enix) sent a formal letter to OpenAI demanding that it stop using its intellectual property to train the model. The families of Robin Williams and George Carlin They publicly asked for it to be blocked generating videos with your images. Moderating generative video content at scale turned out to be much more complex than moderating text or image. The consequences of hype. Analyst Ed Zitron criticized this attitude of the media, stating that they did not cover the launch of Sora but rather they amplified their marketing. Saying that Sora was a real threat to Hollywood was, from the beginning, an extrapolation built on selected demos and clips of a few seconds. Thousands of audiovisual professionals spent months convinced that their industry was about to be replaced by a tool that, according to OpenAI’s own numbers, never found enough users willing to pay $200 a month for it. The hype cycle has real consequences: it inflates expectations that are not met, generates costly defensive decisions, and when the product closes, no one takes critical stock. Sora’s coverage is a textbook case of how uncritical amplification of tech demos can be confused with industry analysis, and the damage that attitude can do. Hollywood is still alive. The closure of Sora does not erase the generative video sector in one fell swoop: runwaywhich rejected an acquisition offer from Meta, currently leads the sector with its Gen-4.5 model, along with I see 3.1 from Google and Chinese models Kling and Seedance. These tools are absorbing the space that OpenAI abandons. Who no one absorbs is Hollywood. The film industry, with all your problems (reorganizations, box office decline, threat of streaming), remains a profitable business built on decades of well-established creation, distribution chains and franchises that no generative model can replicate with a prompt. The question is not whether AI will transform audiovisual production (it is already doing so, in post-production, pre-visualization and marketing content creation) but in what real time frames and under what viable economic models. For now, the market responds that generating photorealistic video on a massive scale is computationally very expensive and that consumer users are not willing to pay what it costs. Disney signing Sora wasn’t evidence that Hollywood was in danger. It was, rather, evidence that big studios want to be in the AI ​​conversation, not outside of it. In Xataka | Seedance’s strategy was to copy first, go viral later and back away later. Until Hollywood said “enough”

to open Hormuz the US is no longer going to bomb, but rather something more dangerous

by

In the Persian Gulf there is an enclave of just a few square kilometers that, despite its size, became bombed hundreds of times during the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s while continuing to function as one of the main crude oil outlets in the world. Their history shows that sometimes the smallest places are also the hardest to replace. The war is changing the verb. Over the weekend, the arrival of a second amphibious group US launch into the Gulf, with thousands of Marines on board, is not just another tactical move but rather a sign that the war is possibly coming to a head. a new phase: to open the Strait of Hormuz, Washington is no longer thinking only of bombing, but of doing something much more dangerous, taking the key territory. How have we been countingKharg, the small island off the Iranian coast, concentrated near the 90% of exports of the country’s oil and has become the true center of gravity of the conflict, not because it is large or defensible, but because whoever controls it control the flow economy that sustains the regime. After weeks of remote attacks, the accelerated dispatch of amphibious forces indicates that the United States is preparing the option that involves boots on the ground, a qualitative leap that transforms an air campaign into a potential occupation operation. The plan is not new, it is from 40 years ago. I remembered the financial times this morning that what today seems like an improvised escalation actually has much deeper roots, because the idea of ​​taking Kharg is not new, but is part of a script that Trump had already outlined in the eightieswhen he openly argued that the United States should directly hit Iranian oil assets to force concessions. So talked about “go and take the island” as a response to any challenge in the Gulf, and four decades later that same scheme (ultimatum, economic pressure and decisive use of force) reappears almost no changes. The difference is that now it is not campaign rhetoric, but a very real option on the table, turning an old strategic intuition into an operational plan with global implications. The economic switch of war. The logic behind this move seems quite obvious: Iran has managed resist bombing and, at the same time, maintain its crude oil exports while blocking those of its rivals, turning the closure of Hormuz into an economic weapon that puts pressure on the rest of the world. From that perspective, for the United States, taking Kharg would break that dynamic by cutting off Tehran’s main source of income and striking back in the same area, the economic one, where Iran is trying to win the war. In other words, it is not so much about destroying as to control and taketo use the island as a negotiating lever to force the reopening of the strait and, ultimately, force the regime to accept imposed conditions from outside. The impossible operation. On paper, the capture of the island could be relatively fastsupported by previous attacks and the deployment of amphibious units capable of assaulting key points such as the airport and port facilities. However, the difficulty is not in conquering Kharg, but rather in holding it: its proximity to the Iranian coast makes it an exposed target to missiles, drones and constant attacks, while American supply lines would be vulnerable in an environment saturated with asymmetric threats. That is to say, the scenario looks less like the traditional blitzkrieg campaigns of the Americans and more like a war of attritionwhere holding a small island can become a large-scale strategic problem. The risk of escalation without return. Most analysts agree on the same diagnosis: the real danger is not only military, but political and economic. Such an assault operation would imply a direct escalation against the economic heart of Iran, with unforeseeable consequences: from regional attacks to energy infrastructures (Iran, in fact, has already warned with this) to a prolonged rise in oil prices and increasing pressure on the United States to exit the conflict. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that there is no guarantee that taking the island will force Tehran to give in. In fact, it could, on the contrary, further harden its stance and widen the conflict. In this unstable balance, Kharg Island has ceased to be just a military objective and has become a strategic bet high risk for Washington: a move that could change the course of the war… or trap it in an even more dangerous phase. Image | USN In Xataka | We wonder if it is safe to fly now that there are more drones than Ryanair planes: the answer is an Ockham’s razor In Xataka | The weapon to liberate Hormuz has fled 6,000 km from the war. And that just means the US is preparing for what comes next.

The AI ​​race is no longer about who has the most powerful model. Who launches the easiest and safest OpenClaw

by

2026 began with an earthquake in the world of AI, and it did not come from any of the big technology companies, but from an unknown programmer and his open source project OpenClaw (formerly Clawdbot and Moltbot). Not even two months have passed and we can say that the boom of this AI agent is reconfiguring the AI ​​career, causing more and more companies to jump on the bandwagon. The last one was Perplexity. Personal Computer. a month ago, Perplexity announced Computerwhich was a cloud-based tool capable of orchestrating agents using various models. The next step is Personal Computeryour own OpenClaw. can be left running on a Mac Mini and control it from another device, such as a mobile phone, exactly the same as OpenClaw, but with a simpler interface that does not require technical knowledge. Further user-friendly. Another key aspect is that they focus on security, one of the delicate points of OpenClaw. Perplexity claims that with Personal Computer, “Every sensitive action requires your approval. Every action is logged. There’s an off switch.” At the moment Personal Computer is not available yet, but if you want to try it before anyone else you can sign up for the waiting list. NVIDIA NemoClaw. Which is the most valuable company in the world has taken good note of the success of OpenClaw and a couple of days ago they announced that they will launch their own open source platform for enterprise AI agents, they will call it NemoClaw. This announcement is also important because it places NVIDIA in a position of direct competition against companies like Anthropic, OpenAI or Perplexity. This changes its position from a hardware supplier to a software competitor. and OpenAI…The project had not even been three months old when OpenAI, not only bought it, but also hired its creator Peter Steinberger. It was not the only one who bid to achieve the viral success of the moment, Meta also tried, but OpenAI was the one that won the bid. Stenberger said the project would continue to remain “open and independent.” This case is a good example of two things: how far a person can go with a good AI idea and how difficult, if not impossible, it is to compete in an ecosystem in which the competition is some of the largest and most valuable companies in the world. David against Goliath. The agentic AI race. We spent a good part of 2025 watching AI agents take their first steps, many times with quite mediocre results. It was clear that agentic AI was getting a lot betterbut I don’t think anyone expected that the first viral hit would be carried out by an independent and open source project. OpenClaw not only succeeded, it has launched a new race in AI, one that seeks the ultimate custom AI agents. OpenClaw has two barriers to entry, on the one hand requiring certain technical knowledge and on the other security. It is a very powerful agent, but sometimes unpredictable. Hence, Perplexity is appealing precisely to improve these two aspects. We’ll see who will be next. In Xataka | Social networks were born for humans: Meta has just bought one designed for AI agents Image | Pexels

Leica is teaching Xiaomi everything it knows. When the student no longer needs the teacher, the agreement will have fulfilled its function

by

This week there have been two presentations of flagships which, seen together, say something interesting about where each manufacturer believes the industry is going: Samsung introduced the Galaxy S26 Ultra like an AI exhibition: three integrated assistants, the mobile phone as an external brain that anticipates what you are going to need before you ask for it. A few days later, Xiaomi presented the 17Ultra. And his big argument was not AI. It was the camera. And inside the camera, above all, it was Leica. It is advisable to take this collaboration seriously before reducing it to a marketing seal, because it is not. We had the opportunity to check it out in a session with TJ Waltonglobal product manager at Xiaomi, and Pablo Acevedoat the head of Leica’s mobile division. A round with around twenty journalists from Japan, Germany, France, China and other markets, in which Xataka It was the only Spanish medium. Left, TJ Walton. Right, Pablo Acevedo. Image: Xataka. I opened the question session with a very direct question: what does this co-creation model mean in reality, and at what point in the process does Leica come in? Acevedo’s response was also direct: “We are involved from the beginning, from the conception of the device, when we define the concept of what it should be.”. It is therefore not a certificate that is awarded at the end. It is shared engineering from the beginning: color tuning, contrast, physical adjustment of the lenses, testing of the final product… Walton summed it up: “Everything from the beginning to the end of the imaging experience on our smartphones is powered by Leica.” And still There is something in the details of the agreement that deserves attention, because Leica does not give the same thing to everyone. He Leitz Phonethe device that Leica markets as its own with Xiaomi hardware, includes ‘content credentials’, a certification of image authenticity that the Xiaomi 17 Ultra does not incorporate. When a Japanese journalist asked about this asymmetry, Acevedo was clear: “Authenticity is one of the important points for us. There are specific experiences aimed at professional photographers, those who really care about the smallest details of the photographic experience.” Said without euphemisms: Leica gives a lot to Xiaomi, but keeps for itself what it considers most defining of its identity. This ‘co-creation’ has limits. And those boundaries map out quite precisely where the partner ends and the customer begins. The presentation of the Xiaomi 17 in Barcelona just before the MWC. Image: Xataka. There was another moment in that same session that was like someone turned on the lights. When another journalist asked how the revenue from Leitz Phone is divided financially between the two companies, the response was: “I’m not sure if we can talk about that.” That is to say, The part of the agreement that would most reveal the true nature of the relationship is exactly the part that remains opaque.. Which is, in itself, an answer. Collaborations between equals do not usually have silence clauses on how the money is divided. OnePlus went with Hasselblad. I live with Zeiss. All different, all with the same underlying logic: a European name with decades of photographic history placed where the buyer sees it as soon as they take a Chinese phone out of the box. What they are buying is not only technology but the right to be given the benefit of the doubt in a segment where distrust of Chinese brands continues to be a real factoralthough decreasing. Each generation of product with Leica normalizes Xiaomi’s photographic excellence a little more. There will come a time when this standardization is complete, when the European buyer will not need anyone from the West to certify what he already knows. That day Xiaomi will not need to renew the agreement. And Leica will discover that she gave up part of her aura to someone who no longer needs it.while what Xiaomi gave in return (technology, scale, relevance in the smartphone market…) will have remained integrated into its products forever. And there is something there that is worth remembering. Leica has built its value on a very specific idea: scarcity. 8,000 euro cameras, limited production, a community of insiders who pay precisely because not everyone can… That’s the business. And now andHE same name appears on a device that sells tens of millions of units a year. Every Xiaomi 17 Ultra that comes out of a box does not destroy that aura, but it dilutes it a little. But there is something deeper than trade asymmetry. What happens, agreement by agreement, generation by generation, is a silent transfer of the center of gravity of technological prestige: For decades, European and American brands were the ones that certified the excellence of others. Now they are the ones who need someone to call them. Leica is not a victim in this process: it has made its decisions with its eyes open and has probably calculated its short and medium-term benefits well. But the long term has its own logic, and that logic says that when a historic brand becomes the endorsement that others need to grow, something in the balance of power has already changed. Although it is not yet noticeable in the price of their cameras. In Xataka | A week with the Xiaomi Mijia Smart Audio Glasses has shown me how great it is that your glasses are also your headphones Featured image | Xataka

will no longer pause dangerous models if the competition releases them first

by

Anthropic is in the middle of an important issue with the Pentagon in the United States that may end up shaping the future of the company. Founded with security as its reason for being, it has just rewritten the rules that defined it. And his “Responsible Scaling Policy“, the document that established when to stop the development of a model that is too dangerous, has evolved into a mere roadmap with flexible objectives. And this change is much more important than it seems. Not only for Anthropic, but for the rest of the industry. Let’s get to it. What exactly has changed. Until now, Anthropic policy stated that the company would pause training or delay the launch of a model if its capabilities exceeded the speed at which sufficient safeguards could be developed. That is to say: if the model was too powerful to be controlled safely, it was stopped. This is over. And it is that the new policy removes that automatic braking mechanism and replaces it with a series of public commitments, along with regular third-party audited risk reports. The change was confirmed by the company itself in an official statement. Why have they done it? The company gives two main reasons. The first is the competitive environment: OpenAI, Google and xAI advance without those types of restrictions. “We didn’t feel it made sense to make unilateral commitments if competitors are moving full speed ahead,” counted Jared Kaplan, chief scientific officer at Anthropic, told Time. The second, as it could not be otherwise, is political: Washington has turned its back on AI regulationand Anthropic acknowledges on its blog that the current anti-regulatory climate makes its own safeguards asymmetrical with respect to the rest of the sector. Paradox. From Anthropic’s point of view, it is not a renunciation of security, but a decision made based on it. Their reasoning: if the actors who are more responsible (they fall into this bag, logically) stop while the less careful ones move forward, the net result is “a less safe world.” The logic has a certain coherence, but it also means accepting that security depends on what the competition does. And that is a very dangerous game. Context. Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI executives, including Dario Amodei, who left that company precisely because they believed that it did not pay enough attention to the risks of AI. The new policy comes at a time when several security researchers have left the company. Just like shared Wall Street Journal, one of them, Mrinank Sharma, wrote a letter to his colleagues this month saying that “the world is in danger” because of AI, before announcing his departure. In fact, according to sources close to the media, his departure would be partly related to this decision. What’s happening with the Pentagon?. The announcement comes in full tension with the Pentagon. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic an ultimatum the same Tuesday that the policy change was made public: modifying its red lines on the use of Claude or risk losing a $200 million contract with the Department of Defense. Anthropic has made it clear that both issues are independent, but the temporal coincidence has not gone unnoticed. What remains of the security policy. It is not a total abandonment. Anthropic remains committed to delaying the development or deployment of “highly capable” models in specific circumstances, and is committed to publishing detailed, externally verified risk reports every three to six months. The company also now separates its own internal guidelines from its recommendations for the rest of the sector, implicitly acknowledging that the commitment to a “race to the top”, which other companies are adopting, has not worked as expected. Cover image | Wikimedia Commons and Anthropic In Xataka | The US has a message for AI companies: if necessary, that AI belongs to the State

Samsung no longer sells you a great processor. A good intermediary sells you

by

He Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 It is surely the most powerful processor that has ever come to an Android phone. Samsung has it in S26 Ultra. And in the launch communications of this mobile he has barely mentioned it, contrary to his modus operandi of yesteryear: the chip used to be one of the big arguments along with the camera and battery. What Samsung has developed with the S26with a lot of time and detail, has been AI. Specifically, the S26 will work with three: Gemini, Bixby and Perplexity. That you choose. That each one does different things. That the device is responsible for coordinating them between them. High-end hardware has reached a point where the differences are marginal for most users. Nobody buys an Ultra anymore because it has 20% more performance in the vapor chamber. But he can buy it because the phone asks him for the Uber only when he has an event on the calendar and calculates the times without him doing anything.to. Or because it filters the calls from spam (there will be trials for this), because it answers for you if you don’t want to pick up the phone, or because it suggests photos of the trip when a friend asks for them via chat. Samsung calls this ‘agentic upgrade’although what it describes is easier to understand: the mobile phone does things in the background without you asking it. There is the twist that the briefing already hinted. Samsung no longer sells itself as the maker of the best hardware. It is sold as the one that best connects you with the intelligence that others have built. It’s not Google, which has Gemini. It is not Perplexity, which has its search engine. It’s not even the chip, which is sometimes an Exynos but sometimes it’s from Qualcomm. Samsung is the layer that unites all thatthe operating system that decides how those agents talk to each other, the hardware that runs them. He is, in the most literal sense, an intermediary. And that’s where he’s focusing now. Perplexity in action, integrated into the S26. Image: Xataka. Galaxy AI. It is not its own AI but rather the integration of someone else’s. Image: Xataka. The bet makes sense as long as that role is difficult to replicate. One UI, Samsung DeXthe integration between native apps and Bixby, the brutal hardware privacy screen that only the Ultra has… All of these are things that you can’t have on another device even if you use the same AIs. For now, at least. The uncomfortable question is what happens when Gemini, Perplexity and Bixby are free on any Android. When what matters is not what AI you access, but how the manufacturer integrates it. Samsung is betting that this difference will be enough of a purchase argument. That’s why it doesn’t sell you the processor. You already assume it’s good. In Xataka | Samsung has a plan to become the greatest AI power in mobile phones. And that is why it has teamed up with Perplexity Featured image | Xataka

Aragón produces so much energy that it no longer knows what to do with it. And that’s great news for data centers

by

Aragon has always served as a great battery for the rest of the country, sending gigawatts to the industrial centers of Catalonia or the Basque Country, but now the script has changed. The community now has a “problem” that many would envy: it produces so much energy that it has attracted those who need it most. As if it were a magnet, the technological giants have landed in the Ebro valley to convert the region in what The Country already calls “Spanish Virginia”, in reference to the North American state with the highest concentration of data centers in the world. The x-ray of a bittersweet record. To understand the magnitude of the change, you have to look at the counter. According to the data collected by The Aragon Newspaperthe community once again broke its historical record for electricity production in 2025, reaching 22,365 gigawatt hours (GWh), 2.1% more than the previous year. However, this milestone hides an important small print: the record was not achieved thanks to the wind or the sun, since these fell by 4.8% due to the drought (which sank the hydraulics by 19.1%) and a less windy year. Here comes the bittersweet part, to compensate for the green decline and cover the gap left after the great blackout in April, the gas combined cycles increased their activity by 112.2%. But the data that really confirms the change of era is not how much is produced, but how much is spent. While electricity demand in Spain grew by a modest 2.7%, in Aragon internal consumption shot up by 7.1%, a figure that the provincial media describes as “true structural change” and that it attributes directly to the takeoff of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) complexes in Villanueva de Gállego, El Burgo and Huesca. The rain of millions (and megawatts) This energetic appetite is no coincidence; It is the fuel for an unprecedented investment. As we have explained in Xatakathe autonomous government has given the green light to the expansion of AWS, which contemplates an investment of 15.7 billion euros in a ten-year plan. It is not about building isolated ships, but about creating an “AWS Region” (Europe Spain), a system of eight campuses interconnected by fiber optics that function as a single operational unit protected against failures. But it’s not all servers and algorithms in the cloud. From the Herald have detailed that Amazon will not only save data, but will also build a server recycling factory in Aragon. With an additional investment of 200 million euros, this circular economy plant promises to create up to 1,100 direct jobs, a balloon of labor oxygen that goes beyond highly qualified technical profiles. Jam in the network and flight to Teruel. The Aragonese paradox is that, although there is plenty of energy, there are no “roads” to transport it. The electrical distribution network in the community is at its limit, with an occupancy of 94.3%well above the national average. There is electricity, but there are no free outlets for so much industry. This saturation in the Zaragoza logistics hub has caused an unexpected movement towards “emptied Spain.” As my colleague in XatakaGiven the impossibility of connecting in the capital, AWS has decided to take one of its new centers to La Puebla de Híjar, a town in Teruel with barely 900 inhabitants. The choice is strategic: the N-232 highway acts as the backbone and, there, the electrical grid has the capacity (100 MW guaranteed) to feed the beast. Side B: water and territory. Every revolution has a cost, and in this case it is measured in natural resources. Digital euphoria collides with the physical reality of a dry land. The alarms went off, as reported The Countrywhen Amazon requested to expand its water concession by 48% to cool its servers. The conflict is palpable on the ground, the Gaén irrigation community in Teruel keeps negotiations blockedrefusing to give up water from the Ebro if that compromises the agricultural future of the area. The most critical view brings it Ecologists in Action. Its renewable viewer warns that the deployment is not harmless: there are more than 12,000 hectares of authorized solar plants and thousands of wind turbines in the pipeline. The organization warns that, if all the data center projects in the portfolio are approved, their electrical consumption could reach five times the current demand of the entire community, turning the Aragonese landscape into a continuous industrial estate and drying up its water resources. The new balance. Aragón closed the year 2025 at a fascinating crossroads. How to conclude The Aragon Newspaperthe community continues to be surplus, but less and less. Electricity exports have fallen from 56% to 52% in just one year. The region has achieved what seemed impossible: from being a mere service station to becoming the engine of the digital economy. But the question that remains in the air, between million-dollar investment figures and environmental warnings, is whether the electricity grid and water resources will withstand the weight of being Europe’s hard drive. Image | freepik Xataka | Aragón is not afraid of AI: it has just approved three more new mega data centers in full commitment to renewables

deadlines no longer count the same

by

Driving a vehicle that is not your own is a much more common situation than it seems in Mexico and, in legal terms, does not represent any inconvenience as long as the requirements to circulate are met. The problem arose when the driver, without being the owner, received a fine: the big question was when the deadline to file an amparo began to run. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has finally resolved this issue with a ruling that for years generated different criteria between courts and that now seeks to give certainty to an everyday practice. The origin of the problem. The courts did not have a unified criterion on when the deadline to promote a protection trial against a traffic ticket imposed on a person other than the owner of the vehicle. While some considered notification to the driver sufficient to activate this legal calculation, others warned that this circumstance did not guarantee that the owner had real knowledge of the sanction. This disparity generated practical uncertainty and could leave without defense those who did not even know that an infringement existed, which led the highest court to establish a clear criterion. The rule that sets the start of the term. The SCJN’s decision is based on a simple idea, but with important effects in practice: no one can lose the opportunity to defend themselves for a notification they never received. For this reason, the Plenary established as a mandatory criterion that, when the fine is imposed on a person other than the owner of the vehicle, the period to promote indirect protection must be counted from the moment in which the owner has direct, exact and complete knowledge of the sanction, or appears to be aware of it. Here we must highlight a very important point: it is not enough to hand the ticket to the driver. The real benefit for whoever owns the vehicle. As we can see, in practice, the resolution does not eliminate fines or modify the responsibility of the person who commits the driving violation, but it guarantees that the owner has an effective possibility of defending himself. This is especially relevant in everyday situations, such as borrowed cars, family vehicles, or units used by employees, where the penalty can be imposed without the owner being present. The Court also stated that the joint liability between owner and driver in the face of traffic violations, that is, both can legally respond for the sanction, cannot nullify the right of the former to file an amparo lawsuit within the legal period. From formal notice to real knowledge. In some administrative procedures, the authority you can take the notification for granted without direct contact with the owner, which opens the risk that the deadline to challenge begins to run before he or she finds out about the existence of the fine. The amparo trial, as a way to question acts of authority that may violate rights, depends precisely on that temporal calculation in order to be exercised effectively. With its resolution, the Supreme Court shifts the center of gravity from the mere formality of the notice to the certainty that the person really knows about the violation. Key question. How the date on which the owner became aware of the fine is determined. In an amparo trial, that moment must be proven in the file. To do this, the notification records addressed to the owner and other verifiable resources are reviewed. In this context, everything indicates that the interested person himself can provide documentation that supports the moment in which he became aware of the fine, precisely to support the opportunity with which he promotes the protection. What doesn’t change. The fines remain in force, the administrative procedures are not altered and the driver’s responsibility remains the same. What the ruling provides is a clarification with concrete effects: the calculation of the period does not depend on a notification beyond the direct knowledge of the owner. Now it remains to be seen to what extent its practical application manages to reduce the usual conflicts around traffic fines. Images | Juan Luis Alejos In Xataka | “Chinese money is expensive”: Peru gave the keys to a giant door to China that the US now wants to blow up

China has just crossed a red line in Taiwan. They are no longer drones, they are their fighters shooting “attached” to the Taiwanese F-16s

by

China has been tightening the siege on Taiwan for years with pressure constant and calculated: increasingly frequent air raids, naval exercises large scalesymbolic crosses of the midline of the strait and military deployments designed to rememberwithout firing a single shot, that the island lives under permanent surveillance. This strategy of attrition, made of demonstrations of force and controlled ambiguity, has marked the relationship between Beijing and Taipei long before the current pulse reached disturbing levels. One (another) red line. If a few weeks ago we said that China had taken a qualitative step in its military pressure on Taiwan by crossing the island’s airspace with a military dronehas now redoubled its efforts, going from intimidating maneuvers to direct aerial encounters with manned fighters flying meters away and firing flares near Taiwanese planes, an escalation that multiplies the risk of accident and turns intimidation into something much closer to a deliberate clash. during exercises “Justice Mission”J-16 planes of the People’s Liberation Army not only came dangerously close to Taiwanese F-16s when they came to intercept them near the middle line of the strait, but they also arrived to launch flares at close range, a maneuver considered unsafe even by demanding military standards and that marks a before and after in the face of previous, more indirect provocations. From symbolic pressure to physical risk. In just 24 hours, dozens of Chinese aircraft crossed the midline of the strait and penetrated the airspace controlled by Taiwan, showing a pattern of behavior that no longer seems to seek only to saturate radars or send political messages, but rather to put enemy pilots in extreme situations. Unlike radar jamming or the presence of military drones, these encounters centimeters away introduce a human and physical factor. much more dangerouswhere a mistake, turbulence, or knee-jerk reaction can trigger an immediate crisis between China and Taiwan. One of the Chinese J-16 fighters photographed during Chinese People’s Liberation Army military exercises while being monitored by a Taiwanese F-16V aircraft Intimidating maneuvers. The actions were not limited to direct harassment: Chinese fighters used concealment tactics flying close to H-6K bombers to evade radars, revealing itself, according to local Taiwanese media, “ostentatiously” by displaying missiles at close range, in maneuvers compared by observers to historical tricks of military infiltration. They remembered in the Financial Times That this behavior, described by some sources as more typical of a “thug” than a professional pilot, reinforces the feeling that Beijing is testing new risk thresholds to measure the Taiwanese and allied response. A regional pattern. What happened around Taiwan is not an isolated event, but part of a incident sequence in which the Chinese air force has raised the tone towards neighbors like Japan and the Philippinesincluding blocking radar and firing flares against patrol aircraft. In fact, analysts warn that the next logical step in this escalation could be to operate regularly within the 12 nautical miles of Taiwanese territorial airspace, a scenario that would then exponentially increase the risk of collision or armed confrontation. Political pressure and risk of lack of control. If you like, this increase in boldness coincides with those publicized changes in the chain of command China and with political pressure from Xi Jinping for the armed forces to demonstrate their preparation for an eventual conflict, which could be pushing pilots and commanders to take risks that were previously avoided. Under that prism, Beijing would not only have crossed another red line against Taiwan, but would have entered a phase in which aerial intimidation ceases to be a calculated game and becomes a much more dangerous gamble, one with potentially explosive consequences for regional stability and security. appearance of “third parties” on the board. Image | 日本防衛省・統合幕僚監部, Ministry of National Defense In Xataka | China already has drones capable of shooting with surgical precision at 100 meters. Not good news for Taiwan In Xataka | The biggest geopolitical risk on the planet is not Greenland. It’s a smaller island with a disturbing neighbor: Taiwan

the plan to turn Asturias into the great energy shipyard that Europe no longer knows how to build

by

For decades, the West operated under a mirage: believing that making things was no longer relevant and that the future lay only in software. However, China has woken up Europe of that dream, showing him that national sovereignty depends, ultimately, on knowing how to melt metal. Now that “bath of reality” has just docked in Asturias. The Port of Gijón, El Musel, has ceased to be just a strategic enclave for local coal and steel to become the epicenter of a global ambition. The Asturian group Zima and the Chinese giant Dajin Offshore they have sealed an alliance to build a foundation plant for offshore wind. However, there is a problem and size does matter, a lot. The landing of a colossus. Dajin and Zima have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to develop a facility that will not only manufacture components, but will function as a port for marshalling —the logistics area where these pieces are collected and pre-assembled—. As detailed in The Economistthe objective is to supply the European market and alleviate bottlenecks in the sector. Dajin is not just any actor. As detailed in local media, It is the largest Chinese private manufacturer of offshore wind structures. This alliance will reinforce the strategic role of the region in the European energy transition. The Gordian knot: the crisis of space. Zima’s initial project occupied 153,753 square meters on the North Pier. However, the entry of Dajin changes everything: the multinational need more space. Making XXL “monopiles” is not like making cars. According to technical data provided by Energetica21Dajin has the capacity to manufacture structures up to 12 meters in diameter, 120 meters in length and 2,500 tons in weight. “Moving and storing these steel cylinders requires massive esplanades that are currently compromised,” warn industry sources. in LNE. El Musel finds himself facing a puzzle. The land requested by Zima borders Ionway’s future battery plant. As LNE explainsthe Port Authority is studying with “the best disposition” how to meet this demand, either by extending towards the sea or looking for non-contiguous plots. An “Electrostate” in the Cantabrian Sea. To understand this project you have to look at the global context. Today, China builds 74% of the planet’s renewable energy. By settling in Gijón, Dajin brings what the West has lost: heavy industrial capacity. As Miquel Zorita, director of Zima, points out, in The Economistthe desire is to integrate local suppliers. This is vital because European wind turbine manufacturers such as Siemens Gamesa or Vestas are going through a deep profitability crisis. Chinese technology in Asturias could be the necessary oxygen ball, even if it is under a foreign flag. The industrial clock against the bureaucratic clock. The success of this operation will not be measured only in the millions of euros of investment or in the jobs created, but in the size of the facilities it will depend exclusively on the space they obtain in the port. Asturias has before it the opportunity to stop being a “quarry” of resources and become a center of high added value. But, as Craig Tindale’s thesis warnsa civilization that sacrifices its material base ends up losing its independence. Gijón is redesigning its map; Now it remains to be seen if El Musel has enough soil to support so much weight. Image | Bafpg and ShellAsp Xataka | Inspecting an offshore wind turbine no longer requires stopping it: the drone that uses AI to ‘x-ray’ moving blades

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.