Renfe is obliged to return money after 15 minutes of delay. Its president warns that this “would make tickets more expensive”

The president of Renfe, Álvaro Fernández Heredia, assures that the company will not apply from January 1 the new compensation approved by Congress. He argues that the measure is “unconstitutional and generates inequality against Iryo and Ouigo.” Conflict. In November, Congress approved a PP amendment to the Sustainable Mobility Law that forces Renfe to recover its old compensation for delays. These are 50% refund of the ticket from 15 minutes of delay and 100% from 30 minutes. Currently, after the change which the operator made in July 2024, only returns money after 60 minutes (50% of the amount) and 90 minutes (100%). The amendment, which had the support of Vox, Junts, ERC, PNV, Podemos and BNG, sets January 1, 2026 as the date of entry into force. Renfe’s position. Fernández Heredia, has declared in RNE that “in principle, no” there will be changes next Thursday in the travel conditions. According to the president of the operator, the State Attorney’s Office is studying legal formulas to avoid applying the provision. “We have a legal opinion that clearly says that it is unconstitutional,” he said. explained in El País, arguing that it violates principles such as equal treatment, freedom of enterprise and two European regulations on rail transport services. The economic cost according to the operator. The president of the institution estimates the impact of the measure at more than 125 million euros annually, well above the 43 million that Renfe paid in compensation during 2023. As Fernández Heredia clarifies, the increase is not only due to more incidents, but also because the amendment extends compensation to all long-distance commercial services, including Avlo, Alvia and Intercity, not just the AVE. “Whoever wrote this didn’t know what he was doing,” pointed out to the middle. The consequences for the traveler. The president of Renfe warns that applying the new compensation would cause a 10% increase in fares and would displace up to 5% of passengers towards the competition. In addition, it warns that “deficient services that Renfe maintains in areas where Iryo and Ouigo do not operate would be put at serious risk.” “If we want it to be cheaper, provide deficient services and stop where no one stops, what we don’t want is liberalization,” declared in RNE. Inequality. The core of Renfe’s argument is regulatory asymmetry. And while this operator would have to return part of the money from 15 minutes late, Ouigo begins to compensate from 30 minutes (with purchase vouchers) and Iryo from 30 minutes as well. Both competitors only refund 100% of the amount after 90 minutes of delay, just like Renfe does now. “I don’t think this is being done because we want to improve the conditions of travelers, but rather because of an attack on Renfe,” he said. affirmed Fernández Heredia in El País. Legal battle underway. Sources from the Ministry of Transport they qualified the amendment to the media 20 Minutes as “demagogic and populist.” Minister Óscar Puente announced after the approval of the law that they would look for formulas to prevent its application, something that Fernández Heredia has confirmed is being studied. The president of Renfe regrets that the company “is not entitled to appeal to the Constitutional Court, which creates insecurity when it comes to defending ourselves.” He inherits the mark of ppolitical opulism. The president of Renfe was very critical of the parliamentary groups that supported the measure. “It was a slap in the face of Renfe to the Government,” as collected The Country. “It is a populist measure because they do not say that this measure implies ‘raising prices’ and that it will benefit the ‘other two companies,’” added in the interview on ‘Las Mañanas de RNE’. The president of the operator has asked the PP, Podemos and BNG for explanations about why the obligation only affects Renfe. “If we want to provide a guarantee policy and better compensation, the logical thing is that it should be for all travelers.” In Xataka | Public transport faces 2026 with extended aid and the approved Single Pass: there is still one step ahead

Not collecting the shared shares of the Gordo de Navidad correctly can cost you a lot of money

El Gordo de Navidad is much more than a lottery draw. It is a cultural tradition that has taken root in Spain, causing many people to share tenths with family, friends or co-workers as a symbol of hope and good wishes sets. However, this gesture of good will, so common these days, can become a serious problem if the prize is not collected correctly. The Technicians of the Ministry of Finance (Gestha) they insist in which the way of collecting and distributing the prize is key to not ending up paying more taxes than necessary nor face subsequent tax penalties. Treasury is one more to distribute. In the Christmas Lottery, prizes over 40,000 euros are taxed at 20% on the part that exceeds that amount, so that a tenth awarded with the Gordo de Navidad (400,000 euros) becomes 328,000 euros net for the winner and 72,000 euros for the Treasury. Aitor Fernández, head of the tax area of TaxDownexplains that “the first 40,000 are always exempt. That leaves us with a total of 360,000 euros on which the 20% tax is applied,” and remembers that the bank already delivers the money with the withholding applied, so that the winning person directly receives the net amount. How to collect a shared tenth without fears. The Tax Agency recommends that, when a tenth is shared by several people, all participants identify themselves at the time of collection or designate a representative with notarial power to certify the identity and the percentage of prize that corresponds to each participant. Fernández details that the banking entity is in charge of taking the data of “how many are the winners, how it is distributed and is in charge of settling the tax before the Administration, giving each beneficiary their already net part.” If all the participants are identified, the financial institution distributes the exemption of the first 40,000 euros among all of them and applies to each one the corresponding withholding on the part of the prize that corresponds to them, in proportion to their percentage. Thus, they all appear as beneficiaries before the Treasury, which can verify that each one has supported 20% of what exceeds 40,000 euros without there being any double taxation or suspicion of donations covert The mistake that one collects and then distributes. The TaxDown expert warns that the greatest risk appears when a single participant collects the tenth in his name without leaving a record that this prize will be distributed later, and then distributes the money through transfers to the rest. “It is a mistake that can be made and should be avoided at all costs,” emphasizes Fernández. In that case, both the 40,000 euro exemption and the 20% withholding apply only to the person listed as the prize holder, while subsequent movements can be seen as cash gifts. As Fernández details, for the Tax Agency “subsequent transfers corresponding to a hypothetical distribution would be considered donations, which consequently implies that they are taxed.” This means that whoever receives the money could have to pay the Inheritance and Donation Tax, with the added problem that many autonomous communities only reduce this tax among first-degree relatives, while among friends, unmarried couples or other distant relatives the tax cost can skyrocket. A prize free of charge. Regarding the treatment of the prize in personal income tax, the TaxDown tax expert recalls that, once the withholding corresponding to the special tax Regarding lotteries, the amount obtained is not taxed again in the Income Tax return and does not affect access to scholarships or aid that depend on income, although it may influence the Wealth Tax of those who are obliged to present it. Fernández emphasizes that “what they pay us is what we can dispose of” and that there will only be new taxation if that money is invested and generates interest or capital gains, which, then yes, will have to be declared in the personal income tax as capital gains, but not for the money received from the lottery. For this reason, the expert remembers that it is best not to rush when investing that money and it is best to think about it calmly. At the end of the day, letting it “rest” is not going to entail an additional tax expense. In Xataka | Why do millionaires like Zuckerberg and Gates decide not to leave all their money to their children? Image | Flickr (Aiaraldea Gaur eta Hemen)

It is not clear how to make money when AI answers everything

These days there is a gesture that is repeated over and over again: open a chatbot or a generative search mode, write a question and wait for a direct, orderly and apparently definitive answer. There is no list of links and no need to compare ten pages to decide which one to trust. The promise of comfort is evident, but behind that everyday gesture a much deeper crack is opening up. For years, internet search has been one of the tech industry’s big money-making machines. If AI begins to answer everything for us, the question is no longer technical, but economic: who pays for that answer and who is left out. The first clear sign that something is moving came at a very specific time in the trading calendar. During the last Black Friday, the big language models started sending real traffic to top-tier online stores. According to Semrush data cited by The Wall Street Journaltwenty large retailers received an average of 183,000 daily visits from AI tools, a figure still small compared to Google, but almost eight times higher than the previous year. The volume is still marginal, but the trend no longer goes unnoticed by those who make a living by attracting and converting users. When the response replaces the click. Traditional search worked as a referral system: the better positioned a page was, the more traffic it received. The emergence of AI alters this scheme by offering closed answers that, in many cases, reduce or eliminate the intermediate step. This change does not guarantee greater quality or reliability; the models can make errors, mix sources or generate incorrect information. But it does transform the distribution of attention. If the user stops visiting thousands of sites and the interaction, in many cases, is concentrated on the platform that responds, the economic model that has sustained the web for years comes into tension. This shift in attention has triggered an immediate reaction on the business side. As AI-generated responses begin to influence which brands appear and which disappear from the user’s radar, a new concern arises: how to “be” within those responses. Hence the idea of ​​optimizing for search with AI, a still diffuse field in which traditional agencies, newly created startups coexist, such as Evertune either Profoundand platforms that attempt to offer metrics, tools, and promises of visibility into systems that, by definition, They work like black boxes. The emergence of AI search has not generated consensus, but rather a clash of interpretations. ORPart of the sector believes that the change is incremental and that good practices as always continue to be relevant, even if they are now expressed in another way. In front of them are those they openly talk about a change of era and they defend that visibility in generated responses requires a new discipline. Companies, brands and investors move between both extremes, with millions of dollars at stake. The signs that resist change. In a field that is not very standardized, many of the tactics that best fit generative search are not radically new. Authority, context and editorial clarity remain relevant factors, as does offering useful and verifiable information. Some companies, Semrush explainsthey are fine-tuning formats, summaries or structures to facilitate reading by models, but without breaking with their previous practices. When social context enters the equation. Compared to classic SEO, AI seems to rely more on signals external to the website. According to data analyzed by Profound, recency weighs especially heavily in this type of response. And, according to Semrush, user-generated content is also gaining relevance, from forums to comments on social platforms, which models use as raw material to understand products and brands. That introduces a variable that is difficult for brands to control: the real conversation. It is no longer just about optimizing pages, but about understanding that the collective story also influences what the AI ​​returns. For years an entire industry has been built around a very specific premise: appearing on Google to influence a purchasing decision. SEO specialists, digital marketing agencies, advertising tools and platforms have made a living by optimizing visibility, information and messages that took the user to a store. This system worked because the search acted as an intermediary and referred the potential buyer. If the AI ​​starts responding, recommending and prioritizing or suggesting which link to show to buy, the entire gear is reconfigured. The question is no longer just how to attract visitors, but how to make money when the intermediation changes hands. Images | Google | Austin Distel | 1981 Digital In Xataka | The risk that OpenAI goes bankrupt goes far beyond its future as a company: the entire sector depends on it

Wall Street has turned on the spigot of infinite money for AI. They have forgotten a small detail: the electrical network

In that equation that the world is trying to solve with AI, there is a half that not many people have noticed: debt. Behind every AI-generated chat and video is a gigantic network of data centers, and those data centers are being financed with a mountain of borrowed money. And therein lies the problem. In what is borrowed. Debt and more debt. According to recent datathe issuance of secured debt linked to data centers in the United States is estimated to be $25.4 billion by 2025. It is 112% more than the previous year. If we add up all the complex financial instruments (known as asset-backed securities (ABS) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBSS)), the snowball is already huge: there are almost $49 billion tied to these securities. Bonuses for everyone. Here there are not only startups asking for loans, no. The technology giants that are setting up these infrastructures – the so-called hyperscalers – are also taking advantage of this mechanism. Companies such as Microsoft, Google, Oracle or Meta have rediscovered the bond market as a source of financing. Better to spend what is not mine. They all have huge amounts of money, but instead of spending their own cash, They have raised 100,000 million dollars in debt issues so far this year. The goal: buy thousands of GPUs and build data centers before the competition. What are you doing, Oracle? If there is a company that embodies the vertigo of this excessive bet, it is Oracle. The company created by Larry Ellison has committed to meeting a Pharaonic $300 billion deal with OpenAI. That has forced it to become the largest issuer of corporate debt (outside the financial sector). The numbers are scary: your total debt has grown to 111.6 billion dollarswhile its cash has dropped by 10,000 million. Citi estimates they’ll need to borrow another $20 billion to $30 billion every year (every year!) for the next three years just to keep building. excessive ambition. There are also examples of startups that are exploiting this facet. One of the clearest is the one from CoreWeavea company famous for renting computing capacity for AI. The company has secured credit lines of $2.5 billion backed by leading investment banks such as JPMorgan. The market message seems clear: “if you’re going to build for AI, here’s the money.” How to get a 30-year mortgage. Analysts of all kinds have been keeping the fly behind their ears for some time, and one of the latest Moody’s reports is a good example. Concrete buildings are usually financed with terms of 20 or 30 years, but the technology inside (such as AI chips) changes radically every 3 or 4 years. Does it make sense to go into debt three decades from now for a technology that evolves so quickly? cheap money. Investors are also agreeing to charge minimal interest, just 1% above what the safe US public debt pays, when they assume that risk. It’s a worrying classic sign of euphoria. There is so much money wanting to enter the sector that those who lend it have lowered their guard and demand very little return for their risk. They firmly believe in the promises of AI while increasingly more analysts warnhorrified, that we are facing an “irrational exuberance.” Having money is no longer enough. All this is already scary, but the real bottleneck for expansion is not even capital or chips, but the electrical grid. As Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, pointed out, there is no power for so many chips. The situation is so worrying that a Deloitte study indicated in a study that there are a seven-year waiting line to connect some data center projects to the electrical grid. And if companies want to obtain financing, they need have guaranteed electricity supply for your data centers. If there is no plug, there is no loan. Big Tech looks for electrons. At OpenAI they already warned of the problem months ago when talking about the “electron gap” describing electrons (energy) as the new oil. Almost all the major companies in the industry are making a move. Google has signed an agreement with TotalEnergies to be delivered 1.5 TWh of electricity over the next 15 years, and Meta did something similar with Treaty Oak Clean Energy to get 385 MW of its solar plants in Louisiana. The bubble before the big question. All of this further increases the fear that the AI ​​bubble will end up bursting in a big way. Meanwhile, the big unknown is whether the demand for artificial intelligence will be capable of paying the immense electrical and financial bill that it is signing today in 5 or 10 years. The credit party continues. In Xataka | While Silicon Valley seeks electricity, China subsidizes it: this is how it wants to win the AI ​​war

‘Avatar 3’ is going to be a movie so disproportionately expensive that it runs the risk of destroying and losing money

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ is already, as has happened with all previous installments of the franchise, one of the most anticipated films of the year. Each new installment breaks box office records, and yet James Cameron’s statements are more pessimistic each year about the continuity of the series. Are you sure that ‘Avatar’ is as good a deal as it seems? We snooped into his finances. The paradox. ‘Avatar: Fire and Ashes’ arrives wrapped in an economic paradox: its production budget exceeds 400 million dollarsa figure that places it among the most expensive films ever filmed. And yet, its own director is not clear if the business is worth it. Cameron has been unusually frank about his franchise’s finances and he put the question bluntly: “Will we make money on Avatar 3? Surely some. But the real question is what kind of profit margin there will be, if any, and whether that will be enough of an incentive to continue in this universe.” The wild mathematics of break-even. The arithmetic of ‘Fire and Ashes’ defies standard Hollywood logic. With 400 million in production expenses and a marketing budget that analysts place between 100 and 175 million, it would need to exceed $1 billion at the box office simply to break even or break evenaccording to the more or less assumed industry rule that a film must gross 2.5 times its production budget to be profitable. The case of ‘The sense of water’. The previous installment of ‘Avatar’ gives us some previous lessons on the subject. The sequel cost more than $1 billion in total costs: $400 million in production, another $400 in global marketing, $300 million in shares for Cameron and producer Jon Landau, plus cast salaries, residuals and general expenses. Cameron was not exaggerating when declared that ‘Avatar 2’ was “the worst business case in the history of cinema” and that it needed to become “the third or fourth highest-grossing film of all time” simply to not lose money. The film fulfilled that apocalyptic objective: raised 2,320 million and finally generated 531.7 million net profit. But that deceptively solid figure hides a crucial detail: The studios do not receive all the money from the box office. Movie theaters take approximately 50% of US domestic revenue, 40% from international markets, and up to 75% in China. That is, of those 2.32 billion, Disney actually received just over 1 billion. The rest stayed at the box office. The crisis of inflated budgets. ‘Avatar’ is one of the most visible symptoms of a disease that affects all of Hollywood. The industry has a systemic problem of out-of-control budgets, which affects such well-known films as ‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker‘ ($490 million), ‘Jurassic World: Dominion’ (584 million) or ‘Mission: Impossible – Deadly Sentence: Part One’ (400 million). A analysis of the causes It leads us to multiple factors that explain this phenomenon: inflation has increased the value of the dollar by 15% since 2020, making all aspects of production more expensive. But in addition, streaming platforms altered the economy of stars, accustoming them to higher initial charges, demands that they later transfer to traditional productions. And there is also a visual effects arms race: franchises like superheroes try to surpass each other in spectacularity, and infect the rest of the blockbusters. For this reason they are films that “might not make money even with objectively decent box offices.” The unique case of ‘Avatar’. James Cameron invests in developing pioneering technology that then benefits the entire industry: the underwater motion capture that Cameron and Weta FX took a year and a half to perfect for ‘The Sense of Water’, now reduce costs for the sequels being already invented. But the budget escalation is relentless: ‘Avatar’ cost between 237-280 million, ‘Avatar 2’ between 350-460 million and ‘Avatar 3’ exceeds 400 million. The franchise is a guarantee of box office success, but the profit margins are worryingly narrow. In Xataka | Cameron’s ‘Titanic’ was going to be a flop. Until a trailer that broke several Hollywood rules changed the narrative

either you tell him how much money you earn or there is no pension

Social Security will apply from 2026 more rigorous control on non-contributory retirement and disability pensions, activating a mechanism already provided for in the regulations. The key is simple: those who do not submit the annual income statement during the first quarter of the year will stop receive your pension until they regularize the situation. In this way, the Administration ensures that all recipients of these aid really continue to meet the economic requirements to receive them. Differences between contributory and non-contributory pension. First of all, it is worth making an important qualification in this new measure. As and how do they clarify from La Moncloa, contributory pensions are granted to those who they have quoted enough throughout their entire working life. The legal age, the years of contributions and the contribution bases determine the final amount of that pension. Once that pension is recognized, the annual personal income they do not modify the law. Instead, the non-contributory pensions They work differently since the beneficiary has not provided prior contributions. They are precisely designed for people who have not had a sufficient working career to access a contributory benefit, or have not contributed directly. In this case, the decisive element is not the working life, but the lack of resources to survive. The system only guarantees this aid as long as the beneficiary can demonstrate that they continue to meet the financial requirements. Social Security improves the verification system. In 2026, no requirement is added that was not already contemplated in the existing regulations, but Social Security has reinforced the mechanism that is responsible for verifying the requirements of beneficiaries. If they cannot be verified due to lack of data, the benefit is no longer paid. He article 368 of the Social Security Law establishes that “the beneficiary must present, in the first quarter of each year, a declaration of the income of the respective economic unit of which he is a part, referring to the immediately preceding year.” That is, the beneficiary of the benefit has the obligation to demonstrate annually that his or her family income meets the requirements to receive it. This certificate must be sent to the Administration through a form available in the IMSERSO portalthe body that coordinates this type of benefits with the different autonomous communities. The regulations leave no room. The existence of the pension depends on the beneficiary periodically demonstrating that he or she is still in a situation of financial need. This is the reason why the system requires that the declaration be delivered during the first quarter of the year. That is, between January 1 and March 31. The failure to comply this procedure It has also been regulated for more than three decades and is included in the article 16.2 of Royal Decree 357/1991. “Failure by the beneficiary to comply with the obligation to submit the annual income declaration will result in the suspension of receipt of the pension.” In other words, if this income is not reported, Social Security will stop paying the benefit. Suspension does not eliminate the right. However, the suspension included in the regulations does not imply the loss of the right to receive it. It means that payments are stopped until the person presents documentation and proves that they meet the requirements. From that moment on, the Administration checks the declared income and, if the requirements are maintained, reactivates the payment of the pension. Reactivation may include payment of arrears, but with a limit: they can only be recovered up to three months prior to the date on which it is regularized. Starting in 2026, Social Security will apply without exception the suspension of payment when the income declaration is not submitted within the established period. It is an operational change, not a legal one. The regulations already existed, what changes is the level of control and monitoring. Hence, the annual declaration is not a formality, but rather a condition for receiving the non-contributory pension. In Xataka | The Government’s latest idea in labor matters: a “flexible” leave that allows you to work at the same time Image | Social Security, Unsplash (Jordy Muñoz)

OpenAI knows that it needs to continue generating memes and virals. That’s why she’s willing to pay Disney a lot of money for her content.

Disney and OpenAI have announced a three-year licensing agreement that will allow users to create short videos featuring more than 200 Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars characters through soraOpenAI’s AI video generation platform. The operation includes an investment of $1 billion by the Mickey Mouse company in the AI ​​startup. Change of sight. Disney has gone from sue AI platforms like Midjourney for unauthorized use of its characters to become OpenAI’s first major content licensing partner. The company also sent a cease and desist letter to Character.AI in September for the same reason. This change in strategy gives clues to Disney’s move, choosing to monetize and control the use of its intellectual property instead of trying to stop it completely. What users can do. Starting in early 2026, according to OpenAI, Sora users will be able to generate short videos for social networks with characters such as Mickey Mouse, Iron Man, Darth Vader, Elsa, Simba or Groot, as well as iconic costumes, accessories, vehicles and settings from these franchises. From ChatGPT, users will also be able to create static images of these same characters using text instructions. The agreement expressly excludes the faces and voices of real actors. The business model behind the agreement. OpenAI need viral content to maintain the attention of users, and in recent months it has made it clear to us that this route is its current main source of income to attract more users who want to go through the hoops of its subscription plans. Disney characters are precisely the type of content that fits this vision. That is why the company is willing to pay to license this intellectual property. Disney as a corporate client of OpenAI. Beyond the license, Disney will become a “major customer” of OpenAI, under the terms of the agreement. The company will deploy ChatGPT to its employees and use OpenAI APIs to build new tools, products and experiences, including functionality for Disney+. In fact, perhaps the most striking thing about the agreement is that a curated selection of videos generated by Sora It will be available to play from the streaming platform. Investment and purchase options. Disney will provide $1 billion in equity investment and will receive warrants to acquire additional stakes in OpenAI in the future. The transaction is still subject to negotiation of definitive agreements and approvals prior to closing. Commitments on responsible use. Both companies say in the joint statement that they will maintain “robust controls” to prevent the generation of illegal or harmful content, respect the rights of content creators and protect the use of people’s voice and image. OpenAI is further committed to implementing age-appropriate policies and other safety measures on the service. The vision of the CEOs. Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, assures that “the rapid advance of artificial intelligence marks an important moment for our industry” and defends that collaboration will allow “extending the reach of our narrative in a thoughtful and responsible way.” For his part, Sam Altman, head of OpenAI, affirms that the agreement “shows how AI companies and creative leaders can work together responsibly to advance innovation.” What’s coming now? It remains to be seen if this licensing model extends to other studios and large content owners. Everything indicates that it certainly will not be the only large company to take advantage of this type of agreement. The litmus test will be when all the content in Sora is released and if it gains enough traction on networks for OpenAI to consider it a small victory in its quest for make ChatGPT a profitable tool for your business. In Xataka | Quietly, a country is becoming a technological power thanks to data centers: India

That the US authorizes Nvidia’s H200 to reach China is not a concession, but a plan. They prefer money to competition

The chip war between China and the US has mutated from a blockade to a commercial transaction. Donald Trump has announced that he will allow Nvidia export its high-performance H200 chips to China. The authorization carries an unprecedented condition: the US government will receive a 25% commission about these sales. This “reverse tariff” transforms China containment into a source of income, breaking with the strategy of total suffocation and offering a lifeline to Nvidia in its most critical market. End of free blocking. The decision is a direct result of a meeting last week between Trump and Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia. The White House’s logic has changed: it argues that this measure is carried out under strict national security conditions, extending the model to competitors such as Intel and AMD. It is a movement that formalizes what was already intuited a few months ago, when Nvidia managed, after a first meeting with Trump, lift veto on bottom H20 chip. At that time, a precedent was already established of transferring 15% of income to the country, a figure that now scales to 25% for the most powerful hardware. Tap on the image to go to the original post A dose for China. That they chose this chip is no coincidence: the H200 is significantly more powerful than the H20—the trimmed model that China had started to boycott— but it is still behind the cutting-edge Blackwell architecturewhich is still banned. According to advisors such as David Sacks, the North American country seeks to keep China addicted to its technology: if they are denied all access, they are forced to look for alternatives of their own. In fact, Huawei has already admitted that it will take two years to match the performance of the H200, making this chip the perfect tool to slow down Chinese development while monetizing its need. Cracks and black market. The reality is that the total blockade was failing. Recent investigations showed how Chinese companies used shortcuts through Indonesia to access the power of banned chips. Furthermore, the second-hand market had become the main avenue for China get H100 and A100 GPUs off the radar. By allowing the sale of the H200, the US is trying to regain control over a flow that already existed, but in the shadows. At the same time, the Department of Justice announced “Operation Gatekeeper” to dismantle smuggling networks in countries like Hong Kong. China’s response. The great unknown is precisely this, the reception of the news in Beijing. Although Trump claims that Xi responded “positively,” the reality on the ground seems different. China has been for months banning your local businesses buy Nvidia chips to promote its domestic industry. The CAC (Cyberspace Administration of China) came to investigate the H20 looking for rear doorssomething that generated a climate of mistrust that not even the previous July agreement managed to completely dissipate. Jensen Huang, who warned about the danger of an “AI silk road” If the US continued to block sales, with this pact it gets a golden opportunity to not lose a market that represents 13% of its income, although its Chinese clients must now pay the price of American geopolitics. Cover image | Composition with images from Nvidia and RawPixel In Xataka | China has just redrawn the map of strategic minerals: its new rules on rare earths target the United States

be earning an indecent amount of money

The transformation from Rheinmetall from just another contractor in the European military ecosystem to an industrial superpower with margins greater than 20% reflects the new reality of a continent that has gone from defensive austerity to massive reactivation from its military base. And here a problem has arisen for the company: winning too much money. A driven giant. While Germany commits to rebuild the largest army conventional Europe, the company has multiplied its weight thanks to almost total vertical integration: it manufactures complete ammunition, from the case to the propellant, and can produce at a rate that leaves its competitors behind. This scale has allowed it to go from margins of 5% in the previous decade to figures close to 19%with the declared objective of reaching 30% in its ammunition business by 2030. The paradox is evident: the more it produces to reinforce European security, the closer it approaches profitability levels that they can be uncomfortable for governments that finance these purchases with public money. So profitable that it threatens to become unsustainable. The paradox explained this week Bloomberg. The risk for Rheinmetall is not an eventual peace in Ukraine, but earn too much. The plan to quintuple income up to 50,000 million of euros at the end of the decade, together with a potential operating profit of 10 billion annually, raises fundamental questions: how will taxpayers react when a private arms company obtains profits comparable to those of a technological giant? Rivals like BAE are expanding their factorieswhich could balance the market and put pressure on prices. And in parallel, economists and analysts remember that defense industries have an “acceptable threshold” of profit before proposals for extraordinary taxes or regulatory controls arise. Unlike other partly state-owned European players, Rheinmetall is entirely in private hands, meaning that the impressive revaluation 1,400% since 2022 it has barely benefited German citizens. The commitment to automation. He runaway growth is supported by a wave of investments: more than 8 billion for new ammunition and gunpowder factories in Eastern Europe, automated lines capable of producing 350,000 projectiles a year with just 120 workers and a strategic expansion into the naval field after acquiring Lürssen. Rheinmetall aims to become the main supplier of NATO weapons in Europe (up to 25% of allied spending) and seeks to replicate its industrial model in traditionally less profitable sectors, like the naval. However, this intensive robotization raises another political contradiction: the huge defense budget boom does not translate into the increase in employment that many governments had promised. Unpredictable future. The key question for analysts is how long Rheinmetall can sustain a growth and margins that far exceed those of any other Western weapons manufacturer without awakening a counterattack political, fiscal or competitive. If the company continues to rack up record profits as it climbs to dominance European industryStates could demand lower prices, impose new rules or force greater public participation in the sector. In the new European war economywhere safety and profitability coexist, Rheinmetall has become a symbol of a bigger dilemma: the increasingly fine line between the urgent need to rearm and the discomfort of financing extraordinary private benefits with state funds. Image | włodi In Xataka | The “rearmament” of Europe has begun at a Volkswagen factory in Germany: instead of cars they will produce tanks In Xataka | In Europe rearmament prices are rising and cars are falling. And a Basque components factory wants to take advantage of it

The afternoon began as something more or less spontaneous. Today there are already companies that are “franchising” it to make money.

The late afternoon has taken hold in Spain. And it has done so much that, in just a few years, it has gone from being a word that required clarification of language academics to become a kind of ‘franchise’, a brand that is incorporated into events and even business. After all, since the pandemic, Spain has shown that it is not only capable of enjoying nightlife… it also likes evening entertainment. And there are people willing to take advantage of that opportunity. What has happened? That lateness has permeated so much into our daily lives, it has become normalized to such an extent that there are those who are already dedicating themselves to ‘franchising’ it. It is not surprising if we take into account two factors. The first, that the concept took root a few years ago in Spanish society (it caught on especially during the pandemic). The second is that its link with leisure, hospitality and the entertainment industry makes it a juicy business. Especially in a country like Spain, where the population pyramid widens in the age group between 30 and 50, the public more given to advance the party hours, and lose weight among twenty-somethings, usually the most night owls. What is tardiness? In case there is still anyone with doubts in November 2025, here is a simple answer extracted from the web Fundéu official:tarardar is “spending the afternoon having drinks and tapas or with other recreational activities, so that leisure comes forward and does not extend until late at night.” That is essentially its main idea: nightlife is still leisure, but it is no longer nocturnal. Spain (country of bars) has a long tradition of evening entertainment, but the origins of the afternoon as a rising concept are not that old: they can go back a few years, to before the pandemicalthough it really gained appeal during the health crisis, when the hospitality industry (and the clients who demand its services) were forced to adjust to schedule restrictions and capacity. Was it that important? Yes. Like they explain At Bartalent Lab, it was then (during the pandemic) that the search for “alternative consumption moments during the day” took root as an alternative to traditional parties at night. The philosophy took shape to such an extent that today it is easy to find initiatives and business that put the emphasis on that concept (the “lateness”) or articles that speak of the importance it has gained among hoteliers in certain cities. In July for example The Voice of Galicia explained that, with nightlife losing steam, the evening offering was becoming a lifeline for the locals of Pontevedra. “We have been exploiting the afternoon long before it was called that,” confesses a local hotelier who organizes concerts to energize the environment, especially during autumn and spring weekends. In other cities, such as Valladolid either Saragossathere are also examples of establishments that have opted for afternoon teas. Why does it succeed? For a sum of factors. The key to being late is basically that it allows leisure to be brought forward several hours (since I said it in 2021 Fundéu), offering an offer more or less similar to the nightly one without having to pay a ‘toll’ the next day. That is, it guarantees customers an experience similar to what they have traditionally had in nightclubs at night, but without risking waking up the next morning exhausted and hungover. If you want to enjoy music, dancing and a few drinks, why have to wait until midnight? Why not bring those plans forward to six in the afternoon? The concept seems to have caught on among different generations, but there are those who point out that it has triumphed above all in the population segment of between 30 and 45 yearsa not inconsiderable market if one takes into account the drift of Spanish demographics. But that’s nothing new, right? Exact. What is novel and interesting is that this success has led to a sort of ‘franchising’ of the afternoon, with people taking advantage of the attractiveness of the concept to promote evening leisure offers or even establishments. What does that mean? What’s there premises, cultural proposals and events They are incorporating the name (and philosophy) of the Tartaro into their brands, just as if it were a business franchise. Perhaps the most obvious case is that of Afternoon Indie Cool,an initiative that emerged as an online project linked above all to an Instagram account and has grown to expand its offer throughout Spain. In fact, its first afternoon was organized in Barcelona two years ago and now similar events are held in cities such as Madrid, Malaga, Granada, Seville or Vigo, always with the afternoon as a flag. What does it consist of? The event is presented as an event that mainly combines indie music (also pop and rock), drinks and an atmosphere similar to that of festivals in well-known venues. All at a time when clubs are usually closed or warming up, between 6:00 p.m. and midnight. “They come to sing and share an atmosphere that cannot be found anywhere else,” claims David Coolfounder of Indie Cool, in an interview with The Vanguard. The formula caught on and in fact has ended up being exported beyond Barcelona. “Each city lives it in its own way, but the spirit is the same.” Its most common audience is between 30 and 45 years old, but Cool assures that the proposal has managed to attract people from different generations. “There are groups of people in their twenties, in their forties, even in their 50s. The beautiful thing is that they all share the same energy.” In their case, the Tardo philosophy is combined with a commitment to indie music, established groups and other emerging ones, a formula that works in Barcelona, ​​but also in other cities to those that have expanded. Images | Afternoon Cool (Instagram) and Jacob Bentzinger (Unsplash) In Xataka | Sex has entered a crisis in the West. If … Read more

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.