obsession

The obsession with Mars disappears and the priority is now a “self-sustaining city” on the Moon

by

For nearly two decades, SpaceX’s mantra has been unequivocal: colonize Mars. The red planet was not just a destination, it was the reason for being of the company and one of the clearest objectives in Elon Musk’s mind. But this has completely changed, since Musk himself has confirmed what had been rumored among investors: priorities have changed to focus on something simpler. A new city. SpaceX has put the handbrake on immediate Martian colonization to focus all its efforts on a closer and more pragmatic objective: building a “self-sustaining city” on the Moon in less than 10 years. And the reason is not just economic, it is a question of pure and simple orbital physics. The window problem. The change of focus, as explained by Elon Musk himselfresponds to the need for quick results. In the case of aerospace engineering, the speed of development depends on how many times you can test, fail, and test again. And this is where Mars is a real logistical nightmare. As detailed, to travel to Mars efficiently you have to wait for the orbital alignment of the planets to occur, which happens once every 26 months. Something to which we must add a trip of approximately six months, so it is not easy to have missions in a row, but rather they would have to be spaced almost three years apart. The windows of the Moon. While Mars needs a large amount of time to deliver results, the Moon is much easier, since Elon Musk himself recognizes that the launch window is constant. Specifically, every 10 days approximately A new mission can be launched that has a travel time of just a few days. Musk summarizes it with industrial logic: the Moon allows us to iterate much faster. If the goal is to secure the future of civilization with a colony outside Earth, the lunar path is the fast track. A lunar city. The goal is not to put a flag back on the lunar surface, but to establish a city that is capable of growing on its own autonomously. According to ABC Newsthe plan involves prioritizing lunar missions with a possible first unmanned lunar landing around 2027, with a view to having that permanent presence in less than a decade. This finally aligns Musk’s personal interests with government contracts. Let’s not forget that SpaceX has a multi-million dollar contract with NASA to the Artemis programwhere the Starship HLS will be the vehicle in charge of lowering the astronauts to the lunar surface. By making the Moon SpaceX’s “civilization” priority, Musk ensures that the development of its giant rocket serves both its customers (NASA) and its new private roadmap. Among investors. Like any good company of this type, behind it is a large number of people who must be accountable and, above all, offer immediate benefits. In this case, SpaceX formally notified its investors last Friday about this change of course: unmanned missions to Mars, initially planned for the end of 2026, are postponed indefinitely. For Wall Street and the big funds, this turnaround is music to their ears for two key reasons. The first of them is that the Moon offers a modelable revenue narrative and deadlines that depend on signed contracts, as is the case with Artemis and NASA. The second is that investors need security so that they continue investing money in the company. In this case, this change of course protects the company’s astronomical valuationwhich seeks to consolidate itself in the billion-dollar club after the boost of xAIeliminating the immediate risk of a failed mission to Mars. What about Mars? This decision does not mean goodbye to the original dream of the company and of Musk himself, but rather it is a reality check. For now, Musk maintains the goal of trying to build a city on Mars within 5 to 7 years, but the narrative has changed: Mars is no longer the first critical step, but the second. In this way, the Moon will serve as a testing ground, a spaceport and, above all, as the place where humanity will learn to live outside of Earth without having to wait two years for supplies if something goes wrong. Images | SpaceX In Xataka | SpaceX is known for its rockets. What is less known is its growing and striking fleet of aircraft

In their obsession with overprotecting them, parents are depriving their children of something very important: frustration.

by

We live in the era of hyperparentingsince never before had there been so much information about parenting, and paradoxically, never had so much guilt been felt. The fact that some parents are terrified of giving a bad answer, a separation or too much screen time will irreversibly ruin their children. But the truth is that we are overprotecting children. An expert. Faced with this anxiety, child psychologist Ana Aznarauthor of ‘Educating also means saying no’proposes a paradigm shift: realistic parenting. His thesis is that overprotection is creating a generation with low tolerance for frustration and that parents need to regain authority (not authoritarianism). And given this, science has a lot to say about the true weight that parental decisions have in children’s adult lives. The myth of determinism. One of the greatest sources of anxiety in these cases may be the idea that what happens in childhood is an immutable destiny. But this is not entirely the case. A classic study that followed thousands of people born in 1958 and 1970 pointed out that all childhood variables together, such as economic status, family traits or health, only explain between 2.8% and 6.8% of the variability in life satisfaction at age 30. This does not mean that childhood does not matter, of course it does. The evidence indicates that human development is cumulative and plastic, causing subsequent factors to take a greater step in the adult phase. With this we we refer to adolescencethe first social relationships or the work environment that have great weight. Paradox of overprotection. Although the pretext, which is basically to avoid the child’s suffering, the truth is that this style of education has important side effects. This is something that has been validated by sciencewhich found that parental overprotection is positively associated with internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression. The mechanism is perverse in this case, because by “clearing the path” of obstacles, we prevent the child from Build your frustration tolerance. Recent studies link intrusive parental overinvolvement with less autonomy and poorer emotional adjustment in adulthood. This means that making a child never get frustrated by being in a constant cloud makes the adult break down at the first “no” in real life like at work. The problem of screens. Currently one of the big questions is when to give the mobile phone to children for the first time. Science suggests that the important thing is to offer it but educate about its use from the first moment. A study on the Canadian population showed a clear relationship here: exceeding 2 hours a day of recreational time in front of screens is associated with a greater probability of anxiety and psychosocial difficulties. The real thing. However, the key nuance provided by organizations such as the American Pediatric Association is displacement. The problem is not always the pixels themselves, but what the child stop doing by looking at the screen: sleeping less, moving less and socializing less face to face. The strategy backed by science is not just to “remove your cell phone”, but to “fill your life” with alternatives such as sports, sleep or free play and monitor the quality of the content, rather than obsessing only with the stopwatch. The conflict. Something that can be deeply internalized in families is that witnessing a divorce within the family destroys a child. But the reality is that the most important thing is the climate of coexistence as a study that analyzed hundreds of families points out. This clearly showed that the quality of the relationship between parents, such as support or the absence of hostile conflict, is a much more reliable predictor of child well-being than whether or not they live with both biological parents. In this way, a home with two parents in constant war is, according to PMC data, a more toxic environment for the development of children than having a single-parent family where there is calm. Images | Christian Mai In Xataka | Those born between 1950 and 1970 have a psychological advantage over other generations: they are entering their “peak”

China’s new obsession is to prevent the US from confiscating its ships

by

When we think about boarding, it is inevitable that a scene from “Pirates of the Caribbean” comes to mind that takes us to past times and fiction, but nothing is further from reality. We have recently seen how American special forces carried out a raid on a cargo ship traveling from China to Iran at the end of last year in the Indian Ocean and another at the beginning of this year, this time in the Atlantic and with Marinera as a goalan oil tanker flying the Russian flag. It is not an action movie, it is the current maritime geopolitical reality. From the sanction to the boarding. That with Trump the United States’ policy towards the world had changed is no longer a surprise: his modus operandi at sea is another example of his proactive policy. At least seven ships have already been confiscated of the ghost fleet that transports Venezuelan oil, in addition to the Marinera oil tanker and the cargo ship in the Indian Ocean. In the latter case, the commandos confiscated “dual-use” components (military and civilian) before allowing the ship to continue on its course. The United States has clearly moved from paper sanctions to action. The boarding of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela bound for the Asian country was branded by China as a serious violation of international law, as declared its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The United States is putting its fist on the table. For China this is not a mere isolated event. According to analysts from Nanjing University quoted by the South China Morning Post The Trump Administration has one objective: to reaffirm American hegemony on the high seas, putting essential routes such as the Strait of Malacca in check. An open wound: Yinhe’s trauma. For China, this is a true déjà vu that takes them directly back to 1993, when the United States paralyzed the Chinese cargo ship Yinhe, causing it to deviate from its route for a search in search of chemical weapons that finally they did not exist. in China it was considered a deliberate provocation and put a reality on the table: they needed a powerful navy capable of escorting their ships beyond Malacca, otherwise the part of the economy that depends on the sea would be hostage to the decisions of the United States. M.Minderhoud – own work based on PD map, Public domain What is it about Malacca that is essential for China?. Just take a look at the map: the Strait of Malacca is the maritime gateway that links China to the world. Much of its energy and commerce passes through that enclave. If the United States normalizes the seizure of ships in the Indian Ocean before they reach the strait, it will be able to choke off China’s supply before cargo can access its safe waters without having to launch a single missile. Malacca is the weakest link. Because the Strait of Malacca is a maritime line of communication historical: this report from a 20o6 chinese report It says that more than 80% of Chinese oil exports transited through the Strait of Malacca. Today, this dependence remains a critical problem for which China still has no solution: 80% of China’s $390 billion in annual energy imports still passes through that 2.7-kilometer-wide strait at its narrowest part, according to data from the Observer Research Foundation report for September 2025. By DoD – Image:China Report 2006 China’s plan: escorts and an eye for an eye. Professor Li Lingqun of Nanjing University explains for SCMP a possible response, which involves “providing naval escorts for commercial vessels to deter such actions. (…)The rapid development of China’s naval capabilities today allows the rapid deployment of these means.” The United States is already aware that China is ready to deploy escorts beyond the Gulf of Adam. From Beijing, the brand new new Type 076 amphibious assault ship says hello EITHER the Sichuanthe largest amphibious assault ship in the world. China’s response to what the South China Morning Post qualifies as state piracy It would not be limited to diplomacy, but would also be military. As analysts detail, China has the legal precedent of the United States boarding to replicate this same action or intensive inspections at sea, including the Taiwan Strait. You already have your coast guard ready for do offshore inspections. This China of 2026 is not the one of 1993. And we have already seen it in the trade and tariff war: in the form of tariff counterattacks in response to Trump or as a pressure measure with its rare earth elementsa market where has total hegemony. On the other hand, it is worth remembering that in the roadmap China is modernizing its military capabilities with 2035 as the deadline. In Xataka | China has revealed a new naval military strategy: civilian ships that can become missile launchers In Xataka | Satellite images have revealed that China has gathered its most important aircraft carriers. And that can only mean one thing Cover | rhk111

Productivity had become an obsession. Until leisure has started to give better results at work

by

The constant pressure to perform to the maximum has marked work life for a long time, leaving rest almost forgotten. A recent study shows how reserving well-planned leisure time changes the perception of daily routines and contributes to improved performance at work. Experts have verified that organize free time actively through crafts or other forms of abstraction brings improvements to creativity and motivation in your work tasks. This finding questions the belief that only by working non-stop can we achieve good work results. Let the brain create things. A group of researchers from the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands investigated on the effects of creative craft-based entertainment during employees’ leisure time. The result of the experiment was not an improvement in the morale and motivation of the employees who participated in the study, but rather it contributed to these employees offering a more creative response in solving the problems that arose at work. Improvements in daily work life. The workers who participated in the study felt that, by exercising new manual skills, they better appreciated the processes of their crafts, making them gain value. The curious thing is that the change was bigger in the workplace than in his personal life, even though it was his leisure time. “We were surprised to see that crafts had a greater impact at work than in personal life. We expected similar benefits in both areas,” explains Professor George Michaelides, from UEA Norwich Business School. Curiously, the group that noticed this improvement the most was the one formed by the most senior employeesthose over 61 years of age. The explanation for this phenomenon is found in cognitive aptitude, a brain condition that is activated during learning processes. Gymnastics for the brain. Just as they collect the studies of Professors Gilkey and Kilts, of the schools of medicine and business at Emory University, carry out various creative activities that require a motor and cognitive combinationlike playing the guitar, juggling or learning a new language, helps expand the neural system and makes it more communicative. That is, the development of new skills through crafts was improving the “physical fitness” of the employees’ cognitive system, and the results were more visible in those more prone to cognitive decline and memory deterioration due to age. Keep “fit“Cognitive aptitude improves performance in decision making and problem solving, as well as in the generation of new ideas. The capacity for abstraction. One of the keys to the use of crafts or pleasurable leisure activities is that they act as a natural stress reducer and depressive symptoms. “Hobbies are already known to be good for well-being. But our study shows that hobbies not only make you happier, they can also help you feel more fulfilled and creative at work. This goes beyond simply relaxing or having fun (like watching Netflix non-stop) and turns hobbies into something that helps people grow,” says Dr. Paraskevas Petrou, the lead author of the study. Beyond the cognitive improvement derived from the development of the neural system, a study from Cardiff University found that the use of crafts or repetitive activities, how to knitinduces the brain into a state of full attention that increases abstract thinking activity by up to 25%, which contributes to the generation of new ideas and improves problem solving. In Xataka | Feeling overwhelmed at work is normal, but it is not ideal: six techniques to avoid it and be much more productive Image | Unsplash (Elena Mozhvilo)

OpenAI’s obsession was to train its models like crazy. Now it’s run them faster than anyone else

by

OpenAI has signed an agreement estimated to be worth more than $10 billion with Cerebras Systems, a startup that designs advanced AI chips dedicated to one thing: running AI models as fast as possible. It is a unique alliance not only because of that change of focus, but because there is a conflict of interests. what has happened. The firm led by Sam Altman has committed to purchasing 750 MW of computing capacity over the next three years from Cerebras. Sources cited in The Wall Street Journal indicate that this alliance has an estimated value of more than $10 billion. We are therefore facing an operation extraordinary in size, but peculiar in form and substance. What Cerebras does. The firm based in Sunnyvale, California, was founded in 2015 by former engineers from SeaMicro, purchased in 2012 by AMD. The startup designs artificial intelligence chips specifically aimed at the inference stage of AI models, that is, executing them. More tokens per second please. When we use ChatGPT or any AI model, what we are looking at is an AI model using inference. Some “write” faster than others, and that speed of displaying text in responses is measured in tokens per second. Typically NVIDIA chips are great for the training phase, but not so much for the inference phase. Chips from companies like Cerebras —or those of the well-known Groqwhich has just been “bought” by NVIDIA—are precisely designed to run those models at full speed and obtain very high token per second speeds. The AI ​​is already good. Now she wants to be fast. NVIDIA’s recent “purchase” of Groq makes it clear that Jensen Huang’s company wanted the ability to offer those ultra-fast inference chips, and now OpenAI seems to want something very similar with its deal with Cerebras. AI models have already achieved remarkable performance in many scenarios, and although they are not perfect, now companies want them to not only work well, but also work very very fast and their responses, even if they are long, appear almost instantly. OpenAI wants more computing power. This operation also helps Sam Altman’s company with another objective: to obtain (and reserve) as much computing capacity as possible in anticipation of the fact that demand for these AI models will grow non-stop in the coming months and years. According to WSJ OpenAI already has more than 900 million weekly users, and its managers have frequently commented that they continue to have computing capacity problems. Brains grow. This agreement reinforces Cerebras’ position in a market that clearly demands this type of solutions. The firm is negotiating a $1 billion investment round that would bring its market valuation to $22 billion, tripling the current valuation, which is around $8.1 billion. In the past it has raised $1.8 billion according to PitchBook. Conflict of interest. This agreement also draws attention for an important aspect: Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is also an investor in Cerebras (he is at the bottom of this Cerebras website) and indeed your company At one point he considered acquiring Cerebras although in the end that operation did not bear fruit. We are therefore faced with an operation that theoretically benefits Altman on both sides, which is worrying. How will OpenAI pay for this party? This new agreement once again triggers the debate about OpenAI’s ability to meet its credit and debt obligations. In 2025 it generated about 13,000 million dollars in income, but that enormous amount remains minuscule if we take into account that the contracts it signed with OracleMicrosoft or Amazon They amount to about 600,000 million dollars that will have to end up getting from somewhere. Where from? It’s a good question. We’ll see if they can end up answering it. In Xataka | The alliance between Oracle and OpenAI is not just about data centers: it is about overtaking Google, Apple and Microsoft on the right

Microsoft continues to confuse the world with its obsession with Copilot. Almost no one is very clear if Office is alive or not

by

“But then, does Office exist or not?” It is a question that seems trivial, but it is not so, and with good reason: the constant name and brand changes have meant that the Microsoft office suite is being the latest victim of his obsession with AI and with its avalanche of products with the Copilot surname. The usual Office is no longer what it was. The evolution of Office was relatively stable until 2020. The office suite, officially launched in 1990, made it possible to bring together all the office applications that Microsoft already had and that it would later expand. This is how we soon saw an Office that consisted of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, Outlook and even Access and other tools. Changes and more changes. Since then the suite has been undergoing paradigm shifts… and name changes: 2010: The Office 365 brand is introduced as a cloud version of the traditional office suite. The goal: compete with Google Docs 2013: After the launch of Office 2013, Microsoft begins to promote the Office 365 service as the main alternative to access office tools 2017: Microsoft presents a second evolution of these services, which this time were aimed at companies and which it named Microsoft 365. This platform combined Office 365 with volume licenses for Windows 10 Enterprise, as well as some additional solutions. 2020: Office 365 change your name to Microsoft 365 2022: Microsoft announces that the branding “Microsoft Office” would be abandoned in favor of the “Microsoft 365” brand. Even so, Microsoft continues to sell perpetual Microsoft Office licenses for local installations. The latest version Today it is Microsoft Office 2024. 2025:Microsoft rename the Microsoft 365 app to Microsoft 365 Copilot, referring to the “Office/Microsoft 365 Hub.” This application is actually like an aggregator of the different Microsoft office tools (Word, Excel, etc.). And Perplexity adds fuel to the fire. A few days ago those responsible for Perplexity published a tweet in which they seemed to indicate that Microsoft had changed the name from “Office” to “Microsoft 365 Copilot app.” In reality, what had been renamed, as they point out in Windows Latestis the “Office/Microsoft 365 Hub”, but this name change had already been announced a year ago, in January 2025, as we indicated. Perplexity also added that this decision had caused “400 million users to become “AI users” overnight.” Both the tweet and that statement were somewhat exaggerated, and did not help clarify a situation that is already confusing. Microsoft clarifies it. Microsoft officials have indicated in The Verge and other means that: “We have not made any recent changes to the names of our Office applications. Word, Excel and PowerPoint, the Office applications included in the Microsoft 365 productivity suite, remain unchanged In November 2022, we just renamed the Office hub app for web and mobile to the Microsoft 365 app. In January 2025, we updated it to the Microsoft 365 Copilot app to reflect its role in bringing the Copilot and Microsoft 365 productivity experiences together in one place.” More trouble with the Office.com website. Although Microsoft hasn’t just “killed” the Office brand, it doesn’t seem to want it to be used much either. In fact, if one goes to the office.com website What you see as soon as you load it is a message that says “We welcome you to the Microsoft 365 Copilot application”, or in other words, that “hub” or aggregator from which you can launch the different office tools in the Microsoft suite. It doesn’t seem like a lucky decision. like others in this line in recent times. How to destroy a recognizable and recognized brand. The truth is that Office was a brand recognized by users, but for years Microsoft has wanted to transform it into part of something bigger. The intention, we believe, was to try to make it clear that Microsoft 365 was more than traditional office tools, but the only thing that has been achieved With these changes it is adding more and more confusion. Office is still alive as a product and as a brand, but it has ended up being absorbed by these new brands and, of course, because of Microsoft’s obsession with AI and with Copilot. In Xataka | Thanks again, Microsoft, for letting us buy Office 2024 instead of putting up with another subscription

China has turned the Arctic into its own “Panama Canal.” And that explains the US obsession with Greenland

by

It seems like it was centuries ago, but until not too long ago the Arctic was seen as an inhospitable territory, more associated with school maps and scientific expeditions than with great power disputes. However, accelerated thaw and the changes in routes navigation have turned that apparently marginal region into one of the most sensitive spaces on the geopolitical board, one where decisions made today can define the economic and military balance of the coming decades. Stop being peripheral. Yes, for decades, the Arctic was a space remote, frozen and secondary in global geopolitics, a natural border that separated blocks rather than connecting them, but accelerated thaw has transformed that white void into a strategic corridor where trade, resources and military deterrence overlap. What was once a physical boundary is now an emerging highway that shortens thousands of kilometers between Asia, Europe and North America, and that simple climate change is reordering strategic priorities of the great powers at a speed that has caught many governments off guard. China and the Polar Route. China has identified before anyone else the potential of these new routes and has integrated them into its long-term vision as a “Polar Silk Road”conceived as a functional equivalent to the Panama Canal or the Suez Canalbut under much more flexible conditions because the rules are not yet set. Chinese research vessels, experimental freighters and icebreakers they are already browsing through the High North, collecting oceanographic data, mapping seabeds and testing routes that reduce by half travel times between Asia and Europe, while establishing a presence that, as happened in the South China Sea, begins as scientific and commercial and ends up having inevitable military implications. Submarines, data and war under the ice. The most disturbing element for Washington and its allies is not only trade, but the underground: The Arctic Ocean offers ideal conditions for underwater warfare, with layers of water, variable salinity, and natural noise making sonar detection difficult. The dives of Chinese research submarines under the ice, together with the deployment of “civilian” vessels that in practice function as covert military platforms, point to a clear objective: break the historic American submarine superiority and prepare the ground so that, in the future, Chinese nuclear submarines can operate near the North American continent with greater freedom and less risk. The Sino-Russian alliance. Chinese expansion in the Arctic is amplified by its understanding with Russiawhich provides experience, technology and access to already exploited routes along its northern coast, while receiving in return key industrial and technological support to sustain its war in Ukraine. This axis turns the Arctic into a space where two nuclear powers They coordinate in their own way air, naval and potentially submarine patrols, opening the door to a scenario that was unthinkable during the Cold War: Asian forces with the capacity to rapidly project themselves towards the Atlantic without passing through easily monitored bottlenecks. Greenland as a hinge. In this context, Greenland stops being a frozen and sparsely populated island and become the hinge that controls the eastern flank of the Northwest Passage, the gateway from Europe to that future Arctic highway. Whoever has decisive influence over Greenland can monitor, condition or even block maritime and submarine traffic in one of the most sensitive routes of the 21st century, in addition to housing radars, airports and key sensors for the defense of the American continent. The emergencies. Here comes the Trump’s renewed interest to take over Greenland, which does not respond to an eccentricity or a nineteenth-century imperial impulse, but rather to the recognition of an emerging strategic vulnerability. Washington watches how Beijing advances in the Arctic the same way he did in other settings: arriving early, coming to the table when the rules do not yet exist, and securing positions which then become almost impossible to reverse, which explains the pressure on Denmark, the enlargement of icebreaking capabilities and closer integration of the High North into NATO planning. No locks. In summary, and unlike the Panama Canal, the Arctic is not a closed infrastructure nor regulated by consolidated treaties, but rather a space under construction where the early presence defines future power. For the United States to allow China to consolidate a dominant position on these routes would be to accept that its geographic and naval advantage can be eroded without a single shot, simply by letting the ice melt and others write the rules. Greenland thus appears as the last piece of a bigger puzzle: one where it is not about buying or invading an island, but about deciding who controls trafficsecurity and the balance of power in the next great axis of global trade and war. Image | RawPixel In Xataka | A document clarifies “the Greenland thing” since 1951. Hitler’s Germany made an agreement possible for the US to do whatever it wants In Xataka | The gold of the 21st century is not in Venezuela: China and Russia know it and that is why the US wants Greenland no matter what

Offering the cheapest gasoline in Spain has become an obsession. And 2026 is going to be the year of the great battle

by

The cheapest gasoline in Spain today, January 7, is found at a Ballenoil service station in Coslada (Madrid) at a price of 1,239 euros/liter, according to dieselgasolina.coma portal that monitors the price of service stations throughout our country. The second position is also from a Ballenoil service station and is also in Coslada. And the third. And the fourth and the fifth. Oh. And also the seventh, the eighth and the tenth. And the company low cost has started a war to be the company that sells us fuel the cheapest in our country. It wants to continue expanding. And along the way it will face Plenergy, another of the queens of cheap gasoline. Both have undertaken strong expansion. The cheap gasoline war Ballenoil, which is part of Cepsa moeve since just over two yearsis the leg that its parent company has to continue attracting customers who prioritize the price of gasoline above any other incentive. The company goes through a transformation campaignmaking greater efforts for sustainable fuels and electricity. With Ballenoil, Moeve has some safety net. Its service stations require very little expense because, precisely, that is the secret of gasoline low cost. Minimum investments in the stations, forget about additives and any other additional service so that word of mouth is the true driver of service stations. Low prices but good performance at volume. The strategy is working. They point out in Five Days that Ballenoil sold 1.385 million liters of fuel in 2024 and that the target figure for 2026 is 1.8 billion liters. To do this, they seek to consolidate at the end of the year an offer of 500 gas stations spread throughout Spain. Last November they were the first low cost to reach 350 stations of service in Spain. The investment is by no means exceptional. Plenergy is another of the kings of low cost with a turnover of 1,550 million euros in sales in 2024. Right now, it has 352 gas stations on the Peninsula, of which 10 are in Portugal and the rest in Spain. The objective is the same as that of Ballenoil: 500 service stations by the end of 2026. He growth of this type of business It is so high that if the plans are fulfilled we will be seeing one opening of this type of company every four days. That is, every two weeks there should be three new service stations and another on the way. And to certify it, the objective of Plenergy, they point out in Five Days is to have a 10% market share in our country. That would place it as the third most used company, only behind Repsol and Moeve. To these two giants we must add the third in contention. Petroprix, which shares with Ballenoil the service stations with the cheapest fuel in Spain according to dieselgasolina.com, also plans an expansion. For now, talk about extend your influence abroad But it also does not turn its back on Spain and talks about having 400 service stations ready in our country by 2027. gasoline low cost proves to be a huge business in our country. As we counted on Xatakaits competitive advantage is zero investment in marketing or additives. The fuel arrives at these service stations as it is distributed by Exolum, former CHLin charge of distributing all gasoline throughout our country. In return, the business model proposes sales that are large enough to compensate for the narrow profit margin, without an alternative for additional services such as large gas stations such as Repsol or Moeve receive. Photo | Ballenoil and Plenergy In Xataka | Look at gasoline and diesel to improve the electric motor. This project is committed to an untested solution

There is an obsession with protein to gain more and more muscle. Science has more and more doubts that it works

by

Until not so long ago, protein was a technical term, linked to clinical nutrition and sports. Today it has become a cultural symbol. Under what some have called the era of Protein Chicprotein is no longer just a nutrient, but a promise: for health, body control and active aging. Eating well has come to mean, almost automatically, eating “with protein.” The market pushes. This change has consolidated an idea that is as simple as it is deceptive: that if protein is good, the more it is, the better. However, while the market push this logic Without nuances, the human body continues to function with very specific limits. And there arises the question that rarely accompanies packaging and slogans: how much protein do we really need to age well, and at what point does it stop adding up? What does science really say? This is where the noise of marketing collides with the evidence. In an extensive report published by The Washington PostProfessor Stuart Phillips, leading researcher in protein metabolism, muscle health and aging at McMaster University (Canada), issues a clear warning: “Consuming more and more protein is not necessarily better. There are no infinite benefits associated with higher intake.” Phillips is not a marginal voice in this debate. He has been studying for decades how nutrition and exercise interact to slow age-related loss of muscle mass —sarcopenia—and he is one of the scientists most cited in this field. His message dismantles much of the dominant narrative. So, let’s get to the data. The classic recommendation of 0.8 grams of protein per kilo of body weight —the well-known recommended daily intake (RDA)— is usually interpreted as an objective to achieve. In reality, it is designed as a minimum to avoid malnutrition. According to Stuart Phillipswhen the focus is on aging healthily and preserving muscle mass, the evidence points to somewhat higher ranges, always combined with strength training. This approach fits with what was published by harvard and Mayo Clinicpoint out that exceeding intakes close to 2 grams per kilo of body weight rarely provides clear advantages to the general population. Instead, they insist on the need to adapt the amount of protein to age, physical activity and health status. Protein: necessary, but not miraculous. It is worth remembering something basic that is often lost in public conversation: the body does not store protein. Once the needs are met, the excess is used as energy or transformed into fat. Eating more protein, by itself, does not build muscle. As they remember from Mayo Clinic: “Muscle is built by strength training, not by shaking.” From 40 or 50 years old, the equation changes slightly. The progressive loss of muscle mass begins and here protein takes on a strategic role, but always in combination with resistance exercise. Spreading the protein throughout the day (between 15 and 30 grams per meal) and not concentrating it only at dinner seems more effective in stimulating muscle synthesis, a point that also underlines the McMaster University researcher. The word of the year: protein. At least in the nutritional field, because – for those who want to know – the word of the year has been “tariff”, and no wonder. But getting back to the topic at hand, protein has sneaked in on social networks, in cafes and in viral morning routines. And going further, the new ritual of well-being involves coffees protein, clear protein, functional supplements and smoothies that promise sculpted bodies. This obsession coexists with other contemporary phenomena: the fear of aging, the cult of the “perfect” body and the popularization of weight loss drugs like Ozempic. In this context, protein is sold almost as a talisman: it satisfies, slims, tones and protects against aging. Nutritionists, however, are more cautious. Many agree that we are paying a premium for ultra-processed products that do not provide more benefits than the real food that we already have at home: eggs, legumes, fish or natural yogurt. The origin of the protein. Another important turn in this debate. We come to a meta-analysis that shows that following patterns like the Planetary Health Dietrich in plant proteins, is associated with both lower mortality and a lower climate footprint. It is not about eliminating animal protein, but about moving it from the center of the plate and prioritizing legumes, nuts and whole grains. The experts introduce a key concept here, widely cited by Harvard: he protein package. It’s not just the protein that matters, but what comes with it. It is not the same to obtain it from an ultra-processed “high in protein” food than from a dish of lentils with fiber, minerals and antioxidants. The nutritional context matters as much as the isolated macronutrient. So who really needs more protein? Protein deficiencies are not common in the general population. They appear especially in older people, patients with illnesses, very restrictive diets or chewing problems. In these cases, supplements can be a useful tool, never a universal shortcut. Alma Palau, dietician-nutritionist and manager of the General Council of Official Colleges of Dietitians-Nutritionists, warned in an interview in CuídatePlus that excess protein is not harmless. “Proteins that the body does not need are metabolized and eliminated, but this process involves making organs such as the kidney or liver work unnecessarily,” he explained. Palau insists that consuming more protein than necessary does not translate into more muscle or more health if it is not accompanied by sufficient carbohydrates, a varied diet and physical activity. In other words: without context, the protein loses its meaning. Along the same lines, Carlos Andrés Zapata, nutritionist interviewed by La Vanguardiawarns that protein has been overstated in current discourse and remembers that it is not more important than other macronutrients such as carbohydrates or fats, nor does it replace a balanced diet or strength training. Less obsession, more balance. Protein matters, a lot. It is essential to maintain muscle, autonomy and quality of life with age. But science does not support the idea that it is infinite or magical. … Read more

Elon Musk has been refusing to take SpaceX public for 20 years. His new obsession has changed his mind

by

If there is something that Elon Musk has been repeating since before Starship was called Starship, it is that SpaceX would not go public until the gigantic Martian rocket was flying regularly. The excuse was that Wall Street likes short-term profitability plans more than multi-generational plans to colonize Mars. But the script has changed: SpaceX is preparing its jump onto the stock market, and not to pay for the trip to the red planet. He does this because he needs a lot of capital for “something more” than Starship and Starlink. The largest IPO in the United States. As revealed BloombergSpaceX plans to launch a Public Offering in late 2026 or early 2027. The company is seeking a valuation of $1.5 trillion (trillion, on an American scale) and more than $30 billion in cash, dizzying figures that would be the largest IPO in the history of the United States, close to the global record set by Saudi Aramco in 2019. Musk has been leaving breadcrumbs in X for days about this change in strategy. When the first rumors leaked about a financing round that valued the company at 800,000 million, the tycoon denied itclarifying that “the valuation increases are based on the progress of Starship, Starlink… and one more thing, which is possibly the most significant by far.” What is that thing that makes another round of investment insufficient? Orbital computing. What is clear from Musk’s latest tweets is that SpaceX wants to raise a lot of cash with its IPO for more than just Starship and Starlink: to develop space data centers. The logic, that Musk himself considers validis the same one that other companies like Google are following, but with the advantage of being the largest rocket launcher in the world. On Earth, AI data centers have two major bottlenecks: power and cooling. In space, satellites can receive sunlight 24 hours a day without atmospheric interference and with the possibility of dissipating heat on the dark side of the satellite, eliminating complex water systems and air conditioning of the Earth. Beyond Starlink. SpaceX already has a constellation of 9,000 satellites in orbit, many of them interconnected by laser links. The plan would be to take advantage of all the knowledge and technology that the company has to create a new constellation of localized AI: in Musk’s words, the cheapest way to generate AI bitstreams in less than three years. Their roadmap is hard science fiction: scale up to adding 100 GW of capacity per year using high-bandwidth lasers connected to the Starlink constellation itselfwhich is already highly profitable. And from there we move on to factories on the Moon and the use of electromagnetic rails to launch these AI satellites without the need for rockets. The umpteenth gold rush. Figures like Sam Altman, Eric Schmidt either Jeff Bezos They are already moving to have their piece of the pie in the orbital data center business. Google created the Suncatcher project and Nvidia collaborates with Starcloudwhile smaller startups like Aetherflux have announced projects like “Galactic Brain” planned for 2027. The difference is that SpaceX has the launch experience and is building the largest rocket in the world, with the peculiarity that it aspires to be completely reusable. It’s just the beginning. If 1.5 trillion is already a historic valuation, a recent report by ARK Invest projects that by 2030, SpaceX’s enterprise value could be around $2.5 trillion in a base case scenario, driven almost entirely by recurring revenue from Starlink and declining launch costs thanks to Starship reusability. Going public in 2026 would not just be a financial operation: it would give SpaceX the capital it needs to become the backbone of AI computing infrastructure, turning an internet service like Starlink into something that Musk himself considers “much more significant.” Images | SpaceX In Xataka | Building data centers in space was the new hot business. Elon Musk just broke it with a tweet

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.