million

Ryanair will cut 1.2 million seats in Spain but there is one region that will suffer more than the rest: Galicia

by

Ryanair will reduce seats, cancel routes and raise ticket prices. That is the strategy that the company envisions for Spain during next summer. And Eddie Wilson has confirmed a strategy that has been talked about since last October when the CEO of Ryanair already threatened to take more flights from Spain if the situation did not change with Aena’s rates. And one autonomous community is feeling it more than the rest. 1.2 million seats. That will be the cut that Ryanair has prepared for our country next summer. It is something that was already reported in October and was confirmed last Monday. Counterscheduling the distribution of Aena dividends among its partners, Eddie Wilson has taken the opportunity to point out that its activity will be reduced in Spain in just a few months. They do so because the Government takes advantage of “(Aena’s) monopoly position in Spain’s main airports, obtaining excessive margins of 60% at the expense of local economies, which depend on affordable air travel for tourism and employment.” Without a change in airport taxesRyanair confirms that it is withdrawing flights in our country and that it will replace seats in larger airports. The reason is the repeated one in the last months of this Government-Ryanair battle: They consider that Aena’s rates at regional airports are too high. Once again, regional airports. According to the company, Aena’s airport taxes in regional spaces are uncompetitive and a burden on tourism and the economy of these cities. This has caused, according to the company, its departure from the airports of Asturias, Valladolid, Jerez, Tenerife North and Vigo and its activity to be reduced by 79% in Santiago compared to the summer 2024 figures. Not only that, in addition to this cut in seats, Wilson has not hesitated to warn that if the price of jet fuel becomes scarce, the first victims will be the regional airports, prioritizing the large seats. What about Galicia? Although Ryanair claims that its departure is fatally damaging the less frequented Spanish airports, the truth is that not all of them are suffering the same fate. A good example is Zaragoza. Compared to 2024, it will have 45% fewer seats, three routes canceled and two others cut. Despite this, Aena data They say that in 2025 the number of passengers grew by 1.9% (especially on domestic routes) and that in 2026 it is growing by 2.6%. Photography is very different in Galicia. So far this year, A Coruña airport is the only one that has grown. Without Ryanair, Vigo is falling 3.4% this year but the most worrying thing is in Santiago. At this airport, Ryanair has cut its activity by almost 80% compared to the summer of two years ago. In 2025 it has already fallen by 14.3% and this year it is falling by 29.6%. The lower activity at this airport has caused flights in the region to fall by 6.9% last year and so far this year this has worsened to 15.5%. There is only one worse fact. From all regions, Galicia is the one with the worst figures. And so far this year, only Castilla y León has lost more travelers, with a drop of 18.6%. However, its volume of travelers is much lower than that of Galicia. In the first three months of 2025, 40,051 people moved by plane in the region, while this year 32,613 passengers did so. That’s a drop of less than 8,000 seats filled. In Galicia, however, so far this year 987,812 passengers have taken a plane, while in 2025 a total of 1,168,745 people had taken a plane. That is, in the first quarter of the year, 180,933 passengers have been lost in the first quarter of 2026. And more than 200,000 passengers compared to 2024 when more than 1,194,032 people moved by plane in the first three months of the year. Not only the rates. When Ryanair announces that it is leaving an airport, it usually points to airport taxes, but the reality is more complex. The truth is that the company has maintained some commercial routes with low demand because it had advertising contracts that supported its routes. Contracts that he has not hesitated to break, as in Vigowhen you have found more juicy economic incentives like those that have arrived from Morocco. It must be taken into account thatthe launch of the AVE to Galicia It has also been a hard blow for airline companies that have seen how part of their customers move to the train since it offers more affordable rates and travel times that, adding the waits at airports, are similar to those of the plane. In fact, companies like Iberia have also reduced their supply because demand did not compensate for the effort. Photo | Left Victorian and Simone Muzzi In Xataka | The new EU border system is leaving people without flights. Ryanair has a solution: close check-in early

the 170 million plan to revive Lemóniz

by

Seagulls and wild vegetation have been the only tenants of the immense iron and concrete skeleton built in the Biscayan cove of Basordas for decades. As detailed in a report the BBCit is a gloomy image composed of eight million cubic meters of cement and a thousand tons of iron; a giant that cannot be demolished that, more than forty years after its abandonment, finally has a destiny. But the monster designed for atomic fission will not produce megawatts, but fish. The historical turn. The Basque Government and the Atitlan business group will transform the old nuclear power plant in a macro fish farm. The Lehendakari himself, Imanol Pradales, presented the project, defining the ruins as “an uncomfortable and very complex inheritance” and “the scar of dark times”, as collected RTVE. Now, this industrial ghost is called to give birth, in the words of the Basque president, the first soles made in Euskadi. The magnitude of the project. The project has been named ‘Aquacría Basordas’. As detailed Deiawill require a public-private investment of 170 million euros over the next decade. The future aquaculture park will occupy an area of ​​46,600 square meters, will generate around 200 highly qualified direct jobs and, at full capacity, will reach a production capacity of 3,000 tons of fish per year. Forecasts indicate that the main works will start in 2027 and that the first soles will reach the market around 2030 or 2031. But why choose such an atypical environment? Already existing infrastructure and direct access to deep sea water have been key to identifying the failed plant as an “optimal” location for industrial aquaculture. However, Pradales warned that this will be “much more than a simple fish farm,” just as pointed out The Mail. The facility will have the scientific muscle of the Azti technology center, integrating artificial intelligence and advanced water recirculation systems (RAS) that will allow up to 97% of water resources to be reused. The business octopus. To understand the real dimension of the project, you have to look at both the offices of today and the trenches of yesterday. The one who will put the fish in Lemóniz is Sea Eight, the aquaculture subsidiary of the Valencian investment group Atitlan. How to uncover The Jumpthe president of Atitlan is Roberto Centeno, son-in-law of the owner of Mercadona, Juan Roig. In fact, Sea Eight is already a prominent supplier of sole for the supermarket chain. The advance of this business giant has been made, according to media reports such as The Economistignoring the local councils of Mungialdea and Uribe Kosta, which demanded a participatory process to decide the future of this very symbolic enclave. The million dollar question: isn’t it dangerous? The first reaction when combining the concepts “nuclear” and “power” is usually one of alarm, but we must be clear: there is no risk of radiation. As remembers the BBCLemóniz never received uranium or came into operation. However, the environmental controversy is served by other fronts. The NGO Greenpeace has demanded immediate withdrawal of the project. They argue that industrial aquaculture aggravates the pressure on the Cantabrian coast due to pollution by organic matter, use of antibiotics and eutrophication of the sea. In addition, they point out a biological paradox: the sole is a carnivorous species, which requires fishing for other wild fish to make its feed, pushing the oceans “towards collapse.” On the other hand, The Jump raises a worrying warning from FACUA Euskadi, which warned that the waters in the area have heavy metals “above the recommended thresholds”, coming from the sediment of the Urbieta reservoir and an old nearby landfill. Added to this is another complaint of Greenpeace: When the Basque Government assumed ownership of the land in 2018, it exempted Iberdrola (formerly Iberduero) from its legal obligation to return the cove to its original state, “saving” the electricity company about 17 million euros. The neighbors also have something to say. The concrete skeleton remains a thorny issue. As pointed out by BBC Through the testimony of locals like Valentín Elórtegui, the plant is “a taboo, something that no one wants to look at.” At street level, the scars of the families that were expropriated coexist with the irreverence of the young surfers who today catch waves in front of the atomic ghost at a point they call, precisely, “La Central.” And the weight of that taboo is measured in blood. Lemóniz’s abandonment was not an accident, but the result of an unprecedented social shock. As he relates RTVEthe works begun in the midst of Franco’s regime (1972) collided with incipient environmentalism and massive protests. ETA took advantage of the conflict and unleashed a campaign of terror, murdering five workers, including chief engineers José María Ryan and Ángel Pascual. The brutal tension in the streets—which also claimed the life of activist Gladys del Estal at the hands of the Civil Guard—forced the workers to flee, paralyzing the works until the government of Felipe González issued the definitive nuclear moratorium in 1984. The true mutation of Basordas. Pop culture has taught us to view the waters near atomic plants with suspicion. It is inevitable to remember Winksthe iconic three-eyed orange fish that Mr. Burns couldn’t eat in The Simpsons and that he tried to sell to the citizens of Springfield as an evolutionary miracle of his nuclear plant. However, in the rough waters of the Cantabrian Sea there will be no radiation or three-eyed fish; The Lemóniz sole will have the usual two. The true mutation in Basordas Creek is not genetic, but macroeconomic and historical. It is the transformation of a failed atomic megaproject promoted by a dictatorship, paralyzed by the blood of terrorism and environmental fury, which now ends up being resurrected as a lucrative and aseptic link in the immense supply chain of the supermarkets of our century. Image | Dummy Xataka | The most fascinating map you will see today: the entire electrical infrastructure of the planet, in an interactive infographic

The debate about whether the biggest pop star can be canceled is settled with a box office of 217 million in one weekend

by

97 million dollars in its first weekend in the United States. 217 million worldwide. ‘Michael’, the biopic of Michael Jackson that has taken years to reach theaters between lawsuits, reshoots millionaires and a third act rewritten from scratch, has just broken all records for musical biographical cinema. Critics destroy it with 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the public fills the theaters. Which, alone, says more about the state of popular culture than any analysis. Unexpected record. The initial projections The domestic opening grosses for ‘Michael’ were around $50-60 million, which would have already been a record in the profitable genre of biopics of pop artists. The final result (97 million in the United States and 217 globally) has far surpassed it. The previous record belonged to ‘Straight Outta Compton’, the biopic of rappers NWA, which opened with 60.2 million in its first week in the US. ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ premiered with 51 million, although it reached 900 globally. Criticism no. Something that had greatly dampened these expectations was the low critical ratingbut the CinemaScore score (the actual audience satisfaction index in the theater) was A-, very notable. The difference between critical opinion and commercial results reflects a reality we have already talked about and that has had another very recent example-type, ‘Super Mario Galaxy’. And like that one, this ‘Michael’ has a very clear type of audience in mind: the fans. A long way. ‘Michael’ has had one of the most complicated productions in recent Hollywood. With a budget of $200 million, making it one of the most expensive biopics in history, the film had a third act depicting Jackson’s 2005 sexual abuse trial and subsequent acquittal. Lawyers for Jackson’s estate discovered a clause in the 1993 agreement with Jordan Chandler, one of the children whose father sued the singer, that expressly prohibited his on-screen representation in any form. Production was halted and went through an additional 22 days of filming, which added $15 million to the budget. This is what causes the film to end abruptly on the 1988 ‘Bad’ tour, suggesting that the singer’s story will continue in a subsequent film. The question is how the producers will manage to tell the most problematic part of Jackson’s life. Who watches over the watchers. It is not the first time that Jackson’s heirs (who are not his living relatives, but a trust administered by executors that is currently considered one of the estates most profitable in history, above Elvis or Prince, and which functions for practical purposes as a company that exploits the “Michael Jackson” brand) is fighting a legal battle to control the story. The most revealing case is that of ‘Leaving Neverland’the documentary released on HBO in 2019 that collected the detailed testimony of those who claimed to have suffered sexual abuse by the singer when they were children. He estate sued HBO, alleging that the documentary violated a non-defamation clause included in a contract signed by the platform in 1992 for the broadcast of a Jackson concert in Bucharest. The litigation dragged on for years, until in October 2024 both parties they reached an agreement which included the removal of the documentary from all media platforms. streaming officials in the United States. As of today, ‘Leaving Neverland’ is not legally available on any streaming service. streaming North American (in Spain it can be seen on Movistar Plus+). The image of the star. Anyone might think that the fame that Jackson projects with all these legal conflicts is not the most appropriate for a biopic that also wants to safeguard a non-conflictive image. But fans should not be underestimated when they move en bloc: in 2019, when ‘Leaving Neverland’ aired, there were reactions that then seemed signs of a turning point in Jackson’s fame: stations around the world stopped broadcasting his music, Pepsi canceled licensing agreements, sales and streaming of his catalog fell 4%. However, seven years later, all is forgiven or, at the very least, forgotten: his catalog is worth $1.5 billion (Sony Music paid 750 million dollars for half of it in 2024). And at the time of his death in 2009 his heirs, the aforementioned estatereceived 500 million dollars in debts. Now the exploitation and image rights of the singer are valued at 2,000 million. History repeats itself. It’s a pattern we already know with other biopics: ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ avoided the most controversial aspects of Freddie Mercury’s life, including his hedonistic way of dealing with his sexuality. Elton John’s ‘Rocketman’ was a bit tougher and didn’t do as well at the box office, but it was still a considerable success, especially among critics. ‘Elvis’ avoided the many chiaroscuros in Presley’s life and triumphed in awards and the box office. The formula of the heir- or family-approved musical biopic, focused on music and celebratory versions of the artists’ lives, has proven to be more profitable than more cumbersome alternatives. Moral: there are cancellations… and cancellations. The figures of streaming of Jackson’s catalog fell for months after ‘Leaving Neverland’, but made a full recovery in 2020 and has been on an upward trajectory for years. ‘MJ the Musical’ has been on Broadway since 2021 earning more than a million dollars weeklywith imminent adaptations around the world. The Las Vegas show signed by Cirque du Soleil about Jackson has just extend your contract until 2030. The truth is that for an artist of this scale, cancellation operates in a different dimension. The cultural debate exists (and will continue to exist, with real accusers whose trial starts in November) but runs in parallel, without interfering with the economy of the phenomenon. It’s not that fans have forgotten about the controversy: it’s that there is a chasm between it and the market. In Xataka | The archive of disturbing paintings that Michael Jackson commissioned of himself

orders to undo the purchase of Manus for 2,000 million in the middle of the race for AI

by

The purchase of Manus seemed like a move already resolved for Meta. The American company had closed an operation valued at more than 2 billion dollars by an artificial intelligence startup founded by Chinese engineers focused on one of the most disputed fields of the moment: AI agents. Now, China has ordered the operation to be undone. The decision turns an acquisition that seemed on track into a much broader notice, with a central mystery: how to cancel a purchase that has already been completed and with part of the team already working from Meta offices in Singapore. Here is one of the keys to the case: Manus was not a typical Chinese startup when Meta bought it. The company had closed its offices in China in July 2025 and had moved its operations to Singapore, a more favorable place to access foreign capital and Western models. But Reuters gives us a very important clueAccording to their sources, this transfer was made without Chinese regulatory approval. Beijing’s decision may have many readings, but possibly the Asian giant is seeking to prevent American companies from acquire talentintellectual property and key AI capabilities linked to its technological ecosystem. It is a movement that fits into a broader context: as Washington tries to limit Chinese technology companies’ access to advanced chipsBeijing would be seeking to protect its own strategic assets. A week ago we found out that the operation passed into the hands of several Chinese agencies, including the NDRC, the Ministry of Commerce and the antitrust regulator, with tools ranging from foreign investment to export controls. Finally, the NDRC has taken the most forceful step: prohibiting foreign investment in Manus and requiring the parties to withdraw the transaction, although the official statement did not name Meta. To understand why Meta was willing to close a deal worth more than $2 billion for Manus, you have to leave the regulatory field and look at the product. Meta spends around 70,000 million of dollars annually in AI infrastructure without having managed to achieve Meta AI’s success as a consumer product. The problem was not so much having more powerful models as turning them into something useful and salable. Manus fit right in there: he didn’t train his own modelsbut it had developed a layer capable of orchestrating them, executing complex tasks and delivering results. Behind all this is a warning that goes beyond Meta and Manus. The relocation of Chinese technology companies to Singapore had become a way to operate with more flexibility in an increasingly tense environment. However, Reuters reports that Beijing is toughening its approach and no longer limits its analysis to where the company is registered. Factors such as the origin of the equipment, the location of the research or data flows become determining factors. And that changes the rules for anyone trying to go down that path. Now, Beijing’s decision leaves more questions than immediate answers. At the moment It is not clear how the annulment will be carried out of an operation that had already materialized and that involves a company structured outside of China. What does seem defined is the framework: artificial intelligence has become a strategic terrain where the control of talent and technology weighs as much as the business. And on that board, movements like Meta’s may be exposed to much broader regulatory reviews than companies had calculated. Images | Manus, Xataka with Mockuuups Studio | Mariia Shalabaieva | aboodi vesakaran In Xataka | China has banned another AI startup from exporting talent and research: little by little, it is “nationalizing” AI

There are people reselling tickets to the World Cup final for 2.3 million dollars. Great news for FIFA

by

It is still too early to know if the 2026 World Cup will be a success, a failure or will be added without pain or glory to the extensive chronicle of FIFA. What we can say at this point is that enjoying the tournament in situ it won’t come cheap. Especially if you aspire to see the final, which will be played on July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. The cost of your tickets it takes months embroiled in controversy, but the debate has soured after some positions have come to light resale market for the price of a 200 m2 apartment in the center of Madrid. All with the veiled pleasure of FIFA. What has happened? That although there is still more than a month until the opening match, the World Cup in North America (to be played between Mexico, Canada and the USA) is already earning the dubious honor of being the most expensive of history. The fans screamed in the sky last decemberwhen the first tickets were launched, but the rates that were offered then seem like a ‘bargain’ when compared to those that are now being achieved in the purchase and sale market. In this secondary trade, channeled through FIFA, there are passes that are offered for the same What does a 200 m2 apartment in Madrid cost? Does it sell so expensive? Yes. The news has advanced it the Associated Press (AP) agency, but it comes with taking a look at the buying and selling platform of tickets hosted on the FIFA website to verify it. If we look for available passes for the final on July 19, we will see that there are people reselling them for more than two million dollars. To be precise, there are at least four seats on sale in the lower stand (behind the goal) for a whopping $2,299,998.85. Not all tickets cost the same, but resale prices are generally not affordable for everyone. The cheapest seats, 3rd category, are offered for $10,900. If you want a position with better views and more comfort, you can add a few thousand more to that figure and purchase higher category passes for $16,100, $33,800, $43,200 or even $207,000. The prize goes to the entries of 2.3 million and 991,500, which is what a seller asks for seats located in the front area. On Wednesday FIFA itself put up for sale a new block of tickets on its direct sales platform, where it was possible to find seats for the final by $10,990. Who controls these rates? Direct sale tickets are launched by FIFA itself, but things change when we talk about the secondary market. There, in the so-called “Resale/Exchange Market” the federation does not control prices, although it does take a considerable part of the business. For each transaction you pocket a commission which is divided into two parts. One, 15%, is applied to whoever purchases the ticket. Another, of the same value, is borne by whoever detaches from the entry for resale. As they explain in Guardianthat means that if one of the tickets that cost 2.3 million is finally sold, FIFA would deposit $690,000 into its account. But… How is that possible? In other editions of the World Cup, the resale price of tickets was limited at face value, but this time FIFA has changed the approach. The reason? First, adapt to the market of the host countries, especially the United States, which is the one will host more games of the tournament. Secondly, FIFA hopes that by channeling the buying and selling itself, the use of portals such as StubHub will be discouraged. “FIFA has established a ticketing and secondary market model that reflects standard ticket market practices for major sporting and entertainment events in host countries,” alleges in a statement cited by the Associated Press. “Resale facilitation fees are aligned with industry standards in the North American sports and entertainment sectors.” Is it an isolated controversy? The controversy has now arisen due to the prices that are being reached in resale, but the truth is that the cost of the tickets has been a matter of discussion since the first phase of sale, activated in December 2025. The focus has been on both the prices themselves and the system applied by FIFA in the sale, the ‘variable pricing’similar to dynamic rates. Consumer organizations like the OCU have already raised their voices for that same reason. For reference, in December tickets for the final were already being sold for prices ranging from 4,185 and 8,680 dollars. And this despite the initial promise to offer them for 60 dollars in the group stage. “They only exist as ridiculous green splotches on the edge of seating maps, little more than mirages of inclusion,” ironizes Bryan Armen, from Guardian. Does it only happen with tickets? No. The tickets are so expensive because, FIFA allegesare one of their main sources of income. However, passes to matches are not the only thing that is valued at a gold price. In recent days, another controversy has arisen around the celebration of the World Cup in the US that revolves around something that has little to do with sport: public transportation. The New Jersey rail operator has decided that those who want to buy round-trip tickets to travel from Manhattan to MetLife and watch the July 19 final there will have to pay 150 dollars. It is almost 11 times more than what the same service costs on a normal day, when it is around $12.9. Images | FIFA and Wikipedia In Xataka | Mexico City is already noticing the economic effect of the World Cup: it is losing homes and gaining Airbnb apartments

We have found the real kraken. It measured 19 meters and reigned in the seas 100 million years ago

by

The kraken has been in the ideology of myths for decades and was imagined as a gigantic sea monster capable of dragging ships to the depths with one of its tentacles. But the truth is that it was something completely mythological until now science suggests that in reality they did exist at some point in the history of our planet. When? If we wanted to see them, we would have to take a time machine and travel to about 100 million years ago, where colossal octopuses dominated the depths of the oceans, competing head-to-head with the large marine reptiles of the time of the dinosaurs. And just like points out the published study in Science This finding not only confirms the existence of these giantsbut forces paleontologists to rewrite what we knew about the food chain of the Cretaceous seas. How do we know? One of the biggest problems paleontologists face when studying cephalopods is that their bodies are soft. And, lacking an internal skeleton, it is extremely rare to find complete fossils of octopuses or squids and so the question here is obligatory: how do we know that this giant existed? The answer is in their jaws. Here the team of researchers did not find fossilized bodies, but rather 27 mandibles known colloquially as beaks and similar to those that parrots have. These were found in sites in Japan and Canada and through advanced digital prospecting techniques and analysis of the wear of these pieces, scientists were able to digitally reconstruct the owners of these lethal hunting tools. The species. The taphonomic analysis of these remains has allowed the identification of two main species: Nanaimoteuthis jeletzkyi and Nanaimoteuthis haggarti. But it is the latter that takes all the attention of science. The point here is that by extrapolating the size of the fossilized jaws and comparing them with the proportions of current cephalopods, experts estimate that N. haggarti It was able to reach a length of between 7 and 19 meters, which would far exceed the giant octopuses that are currently in the Pacific, which rarely exceed five meters. The food chain. Until now, the classic view of Cretaceous marine ecosystems placed large reptiles (such as mosasaurs or plesiosaurs) at the undisputed top of the food pyramid, relegating cephalopods to the role of simply being abundant prey. However, this published study changes the rules of the game. It is now known that these octopuses were not just food, but were great predators. Here the level of wear on their jaws has been key to seeing that they had an aggressive diet and that, therefore, they occupied a place at the top of the oceanic food web. The evolution. If we look back, in the Cambrian period we find the humble Nectocaris pteryxwhich was nothing more than a primitive cephalopod which barely measured a couple of centimeters and which serves as a baseline to understand where these animals come from. From here on, millions of years later, evolution had given these animals a large size and tools to become the “krakens” of the Cretaceous. Images | freepik In Xataka | We have stuffed the Gibraltar monkeys with Doritos. His solution has been to eat dirt as if it were omeprazole

In London someone has paid 310 million for the most expensive house in history. It is proof that the luxury market has no ceiling

by

In the world there are expensive houses (increasingly), very expensive houses and then houses within reach only of the greatest fortunes on the planet, like the one that has just been sold in London for a whopping 270 million poundsabout 310 million euros at the exchange rate. The figure is shocking in itself (it is the same that has been paid in other parts of Europe to build a stadium), but it becomes even more interesting when another detail is known: everything indicates that it is the most expensive home sold to date in an operation of that type, focused on a single residence. To get the keys, its new owner, an influential British businessman, had to beat three royal families from the Middle East. What has happened? that the real estate market premium has just reached one of those milestones that sound almost like science fiction, at least among ordinary mortals. The British press has revealed that a wealthy businessman in the country has closed the purchase of the most expensive home sold to date. And “more expensive” can be understood in a literal sense. Although it is not easy to talk about world records in a sector in which properties do not always go on the market nor are operations advertised, the Bloomberg agency slide which is probably the largest sale in history centered on a property of its type: a single single-family home. It is not crazy if you take into account that the transaction was signed for 270 million pounds, about 310 million euros. Some sources raise the figure to more than 315 million. What is the housing like? The property is called Providence House (formerly Gordon House) and is a huge 19th century mansion located in the Chelsea neighborhood of west London. The plot once housed the residence of the British Prime Minister Robert Walpolebut for years it has belonged to Nick Candya London businessman linked to the brick sector and the Reform UK party. Beyond its privileged location, in the heart of one of the most expensive cities on the planet, the house surprises with its figures: the house stands on a plot of two acres (just over 8,000 m2) with a lake and swimming pool and Georgian style decoration. Media like Financial Times they need which has a private cinema with IMAX screen, greenhouse and the second largest garden from the center of London. It is only surpassed by the one surrounding Buckingham Palace. Who bought it? The buyer is Sunel Setiya, co-founder of Quadrature Capitala trading firm that according to Bloomberg data obtained a profit of 411 million pounds in the financial year ending January 2025. Although with Providence House he has broken all the molds, this is not the first time that Setiya has made headlines for his taste for luxury homes… and his enormous generosity in paying for them. In his day he already paid 110 million pounds for a penthouse in One Hyde Park. And that the property, of around 1,300 m2lacked interior divisions and required works. The Times details which on this occasion has had to pay more than 31 million pounds for property tax alone. The operation certainly marks a before and after in the British real estate market. The most expensive house sold in the United Kingdom before Setiya took out his checkbook was the mansion known as 2-8A Rutland Gate, awarded in 2020 for £210 million to Hui Kan Yan, founder of the Chinese developer Evergrande Group. Click on the image to go to the tweet. And who sold it? Nick Candy, another British tycoon who shares Setiya’s taste for exclusive homes. In fact, he has a penthouse in the same complex that is also for sale for around £175 million. Nick and his brother Christian are known in the sector for the development of the complex One Hyde Parkmade up of 86 apartments and duplexes in the heart of Knightsbridge. Beyond their taste for luxury homes, Setiya and Candy are at opposite poles on an ideological level. The first (Setiya) is a important donor of the Labor Party and dedicates large sums of money through his company to fighting climate change. Nick Candy however is a prominent figure of Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s far-right party. Have there been more interested parties? Ideological differences do not seem to have been an obstacle to closing the operation. In fact, to become the new owner of Providence House Setiya had to prevail over three Middle Eastern royal families also interested in the luxurious London mansion. Given its characteristics (and amounts), the operation was carried out outside the market. The operation represents a lifeline for the luxury residential market in London, which, as remember Five Daysis not going through its best moment. According to LonRes, 2025 was the second time since 2011 that no sales of more than £50 million were closed and in February transactions worth five million (or more) suffered a year-on-year drop of 55%. The puncture coincides with a tax change that directly affects properties. Image | Jaanus Jagomagi (Unsplash) In Xataka | If the question is whether house prices will rise forever, London has the answer. And it is a warning for Madrid

Prepared food already represents a business of 3,000 million for Mercadona. And that is a problem for McDonald’s and Burger King

by

The proverb says that a picture is worth a thousand words. The success of the so-called ‘merchants’ Supermarkets that are hybridizing to become places where you can buy and consume already cooked dishes are not only measured in images and words. It can also be followed with something much more forceful: figures. One of the most resounding he just left her Mercadona. Throughout 2025, the Valencian chain had a turnover of around 700 million euros in Spain through its section ‘Ready to eat’. If we expand the focus to include its pre-cooked offering (refrigerated, trays…) the joint business volume in Spain and Portugal amounts to 3,000 million euros. What has happened? We have just obtained data that helps us better understand how the ‘Ready to Eat’ section is working for Mercadona. According to the information advanced by Food RetailIn 2025, the Valencian chain invoiced 700 million euros in Spain through this channel. Perhaps it seems like a discreet figure when compared to its global sales, which were close to 39.8 billion in Spain, but it is interesting for two big reasons. First, because the ‘Ready to Eat’ section is young. It was not launched until 2018. Since then Mercadona has been expanding it throughout its network (in 2025 it reached 210 new supermarkets) until it was present, at the end of last year, in 1,469 points of sale from Spain and Portugal. The second reason is that in reality ‘Ready to eat’ is only one of the multiple channels that allow Mercadona to capitalize on the growing demand for already cooked food. If the entire business and its turnover in Spain and Portugal are taken into account, the level of income is much higher. How much do you earn then? In total, if we count both the business generated by the ‘Ready to eat’ section and the sale of pre-cooked food (creams, packaged chicken or refrigerated pizza, for example), Mercadona entered around 3 billion of euros in Spain and Portugal. Not only does it represent just over 7% of the company’s global turnover, it also shows a growth of 20%, which confirms the potential of that line of business. The figure helps to understand Mercadona’s commercial strategy, which has been betting on the ‘Ready to eat’ section for years (in 2025 it implemented it in 250 new super) and in recent months it has redoubled its bet, adding to its offer of dishes and desserts a new service of freshly ground coffee. The cooked food sections also play a decisive role in the so-called ‘Store 9’the new establishment format that the company wants to implement in its network. Does the data matter that much? It is certainly striking. FRS contributes another brushstroke which helps to understand to what extent the sale of pre-cooked or ready-to-eat food has grown in Mercadona. The 3,000 million euros registered in Spain and Portugal in 2025 far exceed McDonald’s annual sales in Spain (around 2 billion euros) or Burger King (others 1.5 billion). In fact, it almost equals the sum of both subsidiaries. It’s not surprising at all. Mercadona has conquered 20% of the entire food and beverage business (in value share) and ships a large part of the hamburgers with buns sold in Spain. According to the Numerator signatureis behind approximately 10.2% of consumption occasions. They are just nine points lower than the national market leader McDonald’s (19.5%). Does it only happen with Mercadona? At all. The chain stands out for its considerable market share, but it is not the only one seeking to benefit from the growing demand for already cooked food. In February, the consulting firm NielsenIQ estimated that “prepared and ready-to-eat food solutions” are growing at a rate of more than 10% in supermarkets and hypermarkets, which is in turn shaping a billion-dollar business. “Right now this segment represents a total of about 3.7 billion,” explains Nacho Biedmatechnician of the consulting firm, in an interview with elDiario. There are analysts who calculate that the distribution sector (which includes supermarkets) already monopolizes 23% of what we spend on food outside the home. Why this change? Because consumer habits are not immutable. We do not eat the same, nor in the same way nor in the same places as our grandparents. And our grandchildren probably have different habits too. I predicted it last year Juan Roig, predicting that in the middle of this century Spanish homes will no longer have kitchens, so supermarkets will become more than just the place where we buy food to fill our refrigerators: they will be our great reference in food. Beyond these changes at the domestic level, sections like ‘Ready to Eat’ play a great role. They offer customers variety, agility and, above all, rates that traditional bars can hardly match. Prepared meals from supermarkets are in a way the successors of a ‘menu of the day’ that has been in crisis for yearssuffocated by rising prices. More and more people stop going to the corner restaurant to spend 14 euros in a menu of first, second and dessert that will take you 45 minutes to consume. He goes to an Alcampo, Carrefour or Mercadona, buys a couple of dishes for 10 euros and devours them in less than half an hour in the dining room located in the supermarket itself. Many people even take cooked food to devour at home. Images | Mercadona Via | FRS In Xataka | Very few national supermarkets are resisting Mercadona: regional chains like Froiz are

John Deere had been preventing farmers from repairing their tractors for years. Now he will have to pay them 99 million dollars

by

A modern tractor is a computer on wheels: GPS, sensors, telemetry and proprietary software. Buying it costs a lot more money than a normal car, but until now not even that made the farmer its real owner. John Deere has agreed to pay $99 million to close a class action lawsuit in the United States which accused him of monopolizing the repairs of his machinery, forcing thousands of farmers to depend on authorized workshops with inflated prices and waiting times that could ruin an entire harvest. Why is it important. This agreement is not just about tractors. It is the most visible case of a battle that affects phones, cars, appliances and consoles: that of right to repair what you have bought. If a manufacturer can software block access to the guts of a product you already own, ownership becomes a mere pantomime. What John Deere has done with its tractors, Apple has long done with its iPhones and Tesla with its cars. What has happened. The lawsuit was filed in 2022. Farmers Alleged Deere Purposely Restricted Access to Its Diagnostic Softwareforcing them to go to dealerships that charged artificially high prices. Deere has not admitted wrongdoing, but has accepted the following: Create a $99 million fund to compensate those affected who have paid reparations since 2018. Open to farmers and independent workshops the diagnostic tools that until now only their dealers had. Allow diagnostics and reprogramming in offline mode before the end of 2026. Between the lines. The figure of 99 million is not coincidental. Deere has chosen to stay a million short of nine figures, a classic psychological trick to make it sound less serious in the headlines. But the estimated real damages are much higher: the overpricing in repairs has cost farmers between 190 and 387 million, and total losses could reach 4.2 billion. The fund will be distributed among around 200,000 farmers. Each one will receive a symbolic amount. They cost less than $500 each. Yes, but. John Deere has committed to opening up its repair tools, but only for ten years. After that period, nothing prevents you from turning off the tap again. The company already promised to improve access to repairs in 2023 and, according to the plaintiffs, it failed to keep its word. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission, the US regulator, keeps another lawsuit open against Deere by the same pattern of behavior. So this soap opera will have more chapters. The big question. The case of tractors is the tip of the iceberg of something that affects us all. A modern tractor, an electric car or a smart thermostat share the same logic: the software inside can turn the owner into a user with permission from the manufacturer. What has been decided in a US court about agricultural machinery will end up defining the limits of ownership in the digital age. Also in Europe. In Xataka | Every summer fires devastate Spain. There is a common culprit that goes unnoticed: old tractors Featured image | Randy Fath

shoot down missiles for less than a million dollars

by

A single advanced interceptor missile can cost more than dozens of drones of combined attack, and in Ukraine and Iran several have been launched to neutralize a single threat. This imbalance has led to situations where protecting a target becomes too much more expensive than attacking it. Therefore, in modern warfare, the key is no longer just who has the best weapons, but who can sustain their use without going bankrupt. The paradigm shift. For decades, intercepting a ballistic missile has been one of the most expensive operations in modern warfare, with systems like the patriot forcing the firing of two or three interceptors worth several million dollars each to ensure a kill. This model has worked in limited conflicts, but recent wars have shown its limits when the volume of threats grows massively. So much in Ukraine as in the Middle Eastair defense has become a cost battle where the attacker launches cheaply and the defender responds expensively. In that context, the idea of ​​shooting down missiles for less than a million dollars is not an incremental improvement, but a radical change in the rules of the game. Ukraine and logic. Since the 2022 invasion, Ukraine has developed a military industry based on economic efficiency, producing drones and missiles at a fraction of the cost of traditional Western systems. Companies like Fire Point They have transferred that philosophy to air defense, proposing a system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles at a much lower cost than the current one. The objective is quite clear: break the bottleneck of extremely expensive operators and systems, and allow a scalable defense in volume. This logic, moreover, comes directly from the battlefield, where survival depends on both effectiveness and cost per unit. The goal: below one million. The goal of intercepting a missile below the million dollar threshold It means attacking the core of the current strategic problem, where each defense costs more than the attack it tries to neutralize. Yes Ukraine achieve this milestone in 2027as indicated this week, would change the economic equation of air warfare, making it viable to respond to massive attacks without quickly depleting resources. Not only that. Even with somewhat lower success rates than systems like the Patriot, simply being able to launch more interceptors at a lower cost could make up that difference. In practice, it would mean that defense would cease to be a scarce resource and become something replicable on a large scale. The context: saturation and scarcity. Let us think that the war in Ukraine and the Iranian attacks in the Gulf have shown a common problem: the shortage of advanced systems and the impossibility of maintaining the rate of consumption. Patriot missiles They are limited, expensive and slow to produce, while threats (whether drones, missiles or swarms) can be manufactured and launched in large quantities. This imbalance has put powers with enormous military budgets in check, forcing them to prioritize objectives and accept vulnerabilities. In that scenario, a cheaper solution is not only desirable, but necessary to sustain any prolonged defense. The global implications. Here may be the real one crux of that announced advance. If Ukraine manages to develop this system, the impact would go far beyond the current front, generating a global demand between countries that cannot afford multi-billion dollar defense systems. This, a priori, would democratize access to air defense, allowing more actors to protect their space without depending exclusively on the United States or limited systems such as the European SAMP/T. Furthermore, it would alter the strategic balance, since it would reduce the effectiveness of attacks based on saturation and volume. In other words, it would make it much harder to win a war simply by launching more missiles. The new balance. Therefore, the real change is not only in the price, but in reversing the economic logic of the conflict, which indicates that defending is no longer more expensive than attacking. If that point is reach next yearmany current strategies would lose meaning, from the massive use of drones to saturation bombings. From that perspective, Ukraine would be on the verge of achieving something truly unprecedented in modern military history, redefining the relationship between cost and power in the war. And that, more than any specific weapon, aims to mark the future of conflicts. Image | Fire Point In Xataka | Ukraine is close to achieving a milestone that no one has achieved: building the largest drone industry without China’s help In Xataka | Thousands of cigarette butts are crossing into Russia without Ukraine being able to do anything. Their goal: to become missiles

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.